Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[jacee]

(And those commonly held resources belong to each of us in equal measure regardless of income/wealth.)

Nice fantasy.

Despite distortions and devious deviations, always keep your eye on the truth. Edited September 19, 2011 by jacee

[eyeball]

Sure, but are you saying , for example, Syncrude is not allowed to conduct it’s day to day operations on the land that it holds? What about Walmart?

Not without complying with environmental regulations or local by-laws including the collections of taxes and royalties, as determined by the public.

They have lots of nifty Tvs in there, so by your reasoning, we should be entitled to anything within the store…..since it’s our (collective) land...

This is not my reasoning, it's your strawman.

[Sir Bandelot]

Emminent Domain also dictates that the government can decide if they want to take your land for their own purposes. You cannot refuse.

[Guest Derek L]

Not without complying with environmental regulations or local by-laws including the collections of taxes and royalties, as determined by the public.

And they do, hence their ability to conduct their operations……..How does this prove that any regular Joe can go and set-up on their land?

This is not my reasoning, it's your strawman.

No, it’s a valid counterpoint to your argument that “we’re” entitled to the proceeds of another’s labour

Edited September 19, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Emminent Domain also dictates that the government can decide if they want to take your land for their own purposes. You cannot refuse.

In Canada, It’s termed expropriation and the previous owner is entitled to compensation

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-21/page-10.html#h-5

[eyeball]

Emminent Domain also dictates that the government can decide if they want to take your land for their own purposes. You cannot refuse.

It could probably even take your TV if it wanted to...and that's the point at which I would diverge with concept and reach of eminent domain.

Which brings up the pointlessness of this thread because the gap between rich and poor is merely a symptom of a far more relevant gap - the one between the rulers and the ruled.

I still maintain the only solution to that is near total public awareness of the government's activities at all levels at all times. Like the land it's on the public's domain is after all the public's.

Don't be surprised when the sorts of people who would defend the rich to the death are just as shocked at the temerity of the thought that the little people should have anymore claim on the power of the powerful.

[Sir Bandelot]

In Canada, Its termed expropriation and the previous owner is entitled to compensation

They're entitled to compensation and they're entitled to go to court if they don't like the compensation, or to a government appointed arbitrator. But they're not entitled to say no.

We own nothing

Edited September 19, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Guest Derek L]

It could probably even take your TV if it wanted to...and that's the point at which I would diverge with concept and reach of eminent domain.

Which brings up the pointlessness of this thread because the gap between rich and poor is merely a symptom of a far more relevant gap - the one between the rulers and the ruled.

I still maintain the only solution to that is near total public awareness of the government's activities at all levels at all times. Like the land it's on the public's domain is after all the public's.

Don't be surprised when the sorts of people who would defend the rich to the death are just as shocked at the temerity of the thought that the little people should have anymore claim on the power of the powerful.

The “little people” have the ability to vote just as much as the “powerful”…….in essence, with the voter turnout as low as the last few federal elections have shown, the “little people” can’t be bothered.

Is that really a reflection of the “powerful” neglecting their civic duty? I don’t know the percent nationally, but from my own ,non-scientific, count of people in my income bracket, we ’all turn out on election day…..There’s a lot less people in Canada with a household income in the six and seven figures then there are in the five or four figure range………..And my vote counts as much as the guy on welfare.

[eyeball]

And they do, hence their ability to conduct their operations……..How does this prove that any regular Joe can go and set-up on their land?

I have no idea, I certainly didn't suggest they do.

No, it’s a valid counterpoint to your argument that “we’re” entitled to the proceeds of another’s labour

But I thought we were past that point and talking about who should determine what those proceeds should be. Isn't that what you asked, who should determine that?

Edited September 19, 2011 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

They're entitled to compensation and they're entitled to go to court if they don't like the compensation, or to a government appointed arbitrator. But they're not entitled to say no.

We own nothing

How often does the Provincial and Federal government excise this right? Locally, on a large scale, I’d say the last time was during the construction of the Canada line Skytrain here in Vancouver.

[Guest Derek L]

But I thought we were past that point and talking about who should determine what those proceeds should be. Isn't that what you asked, who should determine that?

In a (relatively) free market society, the costs are set by the seller and the purchaser in that the seller won’t set it so high as the purchaser goes else where.

[eyeball]

In a (relatively) free market society, the costs are set by the seller and the purchaser in that the seller won’t set it so high as the purchaser goes else where.

Yes well there's the rub right there. The rich and the poor not the mention the rulers and the ruled clearly have wildly different ideas on what constitutes a (relatively) free market society. Whatever that is, I'd say the gaps growing between everyone everywhere suggest that it's coming apart at the seams.

Central bankers everywhere should be monitoring the rate at which wealth gaps spread even more closely than they do the rate of inflation. The wealth gap is after all far more dangerous to society.

Edited September 19, 2011 by eyeball

[jacee]

Does the “public” hold the titles/deeds/leases and mineral rights to the land that these resources are being extracted on?

I dare you to find a lawyer that would argue that case…..

Yes the public holds the land and resource rights, administered on our behalf by our governments, until such time as they are leased/sold on our behalf, and under the conditions of those sales/leases which will include paying taxes back to the public based on amounts extracted, and perhaps also in relation to damage caused - one would hope.

I think you're a bit off the rails here, Derek.

If Walmart purchases or leases land and the right to build a store, they can't build a factory instead. Land rights are not absolute and unfettered:

We-the-people, via the governments we elect to administer the land for us, retain some control and interest in that land.

[Note to self: Insert special clause clarifying the fact that we live on Indigenous Peoples' land by treaties, and our governments are supposed to administer the land according to those treaties, but haven't, so we-the-people have some unfunded liability there.]

Edited September 19, 2011 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

Yes well there's the rub right there. The rich and the poor not the mention the rulers and the ruled clearly have wildly different ideas on what constitutes a (relatively) free market society. Whatever that is, I'd say the gaps growing between everyone everywhere suggest that it's coming apart at the seams.

Central bankers everywhere should be monitoring the rate at which wealth gaps spread even more closely than they do the rate of inflation. The wealth gap is after all far more dangerous to society.

Well I don’t see it as such……until the public starts voting near 100% in elections, there won’t be any change (be it good or bad) brought forth to our current system……..Business and usual till then.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Yes the public holds the land and resource rights, administered on our behalf by our governments, until such time as they are leased/sold on our behalf, and under the conditions of those sales/leases which will include paying taxes back to the public based on amounts extracted, and perhaps also in relation to damage caused - one would hope.

I think you're a bit off the rails here, Derek.

If Walmart purchases or leases land and the right to build a store, they can't build a factory instead. Land rights are not absolute and unfettered:

We-the-people, via the governments we elect to administer the land for us, retain some control and interest in that land.

[Note to self: Insert special clause clarifying the fact that we live on Indigenous Peoples' land by treaties, and our governments are supposed to administer the land according to those treaties, but haven't, so we-the-people have some unfunded liability there.]

Have you seen any strong evidence that “we the people” are growing tired of the Walmarts and the Oil Sands?

Why would Government change until then? For the sake of it?

The Green Party, Communists etc are an option for people…….Maybe, the majority of people aren’t buying what their selling?

[jacee]

Have you seen any strong evidence that “we the people” are growing tired of the Walmarts and the Oil Sands?

Why would Government change until then? For the sake of it?

The Green Party, Communists etc are an option for people…….Maybe, the majority of people aren’t buying what their selling?

Our right to vote (or not, as we choose) is not our only democratic right. Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly ... ring a bell?

And yes I do see evidence that lots of people are concerned about the Walmarts(urban sprawl, loss of agricultural lands), oil sands(air, water, soil contamination) along with government corruption, corporate and banking standards and ethics (ie, apparent lack thereof) and many other issues.

One piece of such evidence is the existence (since 1985) and success of the Council of Canadians: It has more members than all political parties put together.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Council_of_Canadians

... the Council is recognized for its role in blocking the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which would have allowed corporations to challenge national laws, even those related to environmental and labour regulations, if the laws hurt profits.

As I said above, it is not all about what party is in power as they all try to maintain the status quo and improve their own position within it. Libs and Cons do their well-worn dance with each other, the NDP is as yet untried nationally ... none of them are going to make any substantive changes as they are all led around by the nose by the banks and corporations, domestic and 'foreign'.

Read that quote again ... would have allowed (domestic and foreign) corporations to challenge Canada's federal laws if our laws hurt their profits.

And without public outcry and lobbying, our little puppet government would have signed away our birthright ... control over the land.

Our responsibilities don't begin and end at the ballot box. We are all responsible for the land and its continuing ability to support life.

In Indigenous beliefs, each responsible to the preceding 7 generations and for the 7 generations to come.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

Edited September 19, 2011 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

Our right to vote (or not, as we choose) is not our only democratic right. Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly ... ring a bell?

And yes I do see evidence that lots of people are concerned about the Walmarts(urban sprawl, loss of agricultural lands), oil sands(air, water, soil contamination) along with government corruption, corporate and banking standards and ethics (ie, apparent lack thereof) and many other issues.

As I said above, it is not all about what party is in power as they all try to maintain the status quo and improve their own position within it.

However our responsibilities don't begin and end at the ballot box. We are all responsible for the land and its continuing ability to support life.

In Indigenous beliefs, each responsible to the preceding 7 generations and for the 7 generations to come.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

Well, what is important, is to define what “a lot” means……..10 people? 1000? 100000? 10000000?

When this number is defined, and it’s weight is focused on any given issue, it will be easier to determine if in fact it is a real issue of concern for many (defined as enough to elect a government and change said policies) Canadians…..Until such a time, right or wrong, it will be defined as a fringe issue……….

If a majority of Canadians didn’t want Wal-Mart, Oil Sands etc, we wouldn’t have them…..

[eyeball]

If a majority of Canadians didn’t want Wal-Mart, Oil Sands etc, we wouldn’t have them…..

So if a majority of Canadians want the rich to pay more taxes...

...and how about if they also want power more fairly distributed?

[Guest Derek L]

So if a majority of Canadians want the rich to pay more taxes...

...and how about if they also want power more fairly distributed?

It obvious no? I’d be in the minority and looking at property in the Caribbean…..maybe Fiji….Or Florida/Arizona……..

But, there is no real evidence to suggest that I am…….Most Canadians, evident by the results of the last election and voter turnout, are either supportive of the current trend or indifferent.

[jacee]

So if a majority of Canadians want the rich to pay more taxes...

...and how about if they also want power more fairly distributed?

I think we need to have a referendum on that .. or maybe just a walkabout on Parliament hill would do it. Ah why bother. It's a piece o' cake ... we'll just email in our majority vote to Harper.

Obama suggested individuals with income over $1m I think - the top .3% of earners - should pay more, and something about wealth too.

Edited September 20, 2011 by jacee

[dre]

The “little people” have the ability to vote just as much as the “powerful”…….in essence, with the voter turnout as low as the last few federal elections have shown, the “little people” can’t be bothered.

Is that really a reflection of the “powerful” neglecting their civic duty?

No the poor people are apathetic because we have just enough social programs to keep them out of abject misery. Thats basically the social contract our civilization was built on. The poor get table scraps in exchange for staying out of the way.

That can change though... if you allow the underclass to become desperate and impoverished they WILL start to vote. Venezuela is a good case study for that.

[Guest Derek L]

No the poor people are apathetic because we have just enough social programs to keep them out of abject misery. Thats basically the social contract our civilization was built on. The poor get table scraps in exchange for staying out of the way.

That can change though... if you allow the underclass to become desperate and impoverished they WILL start to vote. Venezuela is a good case study for that.

That sounds all well and…..dramatic……..But no one is keeping those that choose not to vote from it…….It doesn’t cost money……..doesn’t require a certain level of income……or education etc…….When roughly 70% of Canadians are home owners, I find it very hard to compare the “poor” in Canada’s plight with that of Venezuelans………Perhaps, and this is just my opinion, you and a few other posters here are overstating “how bad “ Canadians as a whole have it?

Would you rather be poor here, or in Venezuela? How many people from around the world seek to immigrate here (and the United States) versus how many Canadians (and Americans) are seeking to leave? To me, actions always speak louder than words…..

And the words of people such as yourself (amongst others here) are just simply not translating into action.

I don’t want to sound like too much of an asshole, but have you ever considered that, for the most part, Canadians are happy or the very least, content? And that what you’re “selling”, the majority just isn’t interested in “buying“?

[Guest Derek L]

I think we need to have a referendum on that .. or maybe just a walkabout on Parliament hill would do it. Ah why bother. It's a piece o' cake ... we'll just email in our majority vote to Harper.

Obama suggested individuals with income over $1m I think - the top .3% of earners - should pay more, and something about wealth too.

And Obama likely won't be reelected next year......I read a storey today that a prominent Democratic journalist is calling for Hillary to run next year and Obama to step aside……Is this a start of a trend? I guess we’ll have to see over the coming year.

[dre]

That sounds all well and…..dramatic……..But no one is keeping those that choose not to vote from it…….It doesn’t cost money……..doesn’t require a certain level of income……or education etc…….When roughly 70% of Canadians are home owners, I find it very hard to compare the “poor” in Canada’s plight with that of Venezuelans………Perhaps, and this is just my opinion, you and a few other posters here are overstating “how bad “ Canadians as a whole have it?

Would you rather be poor here, or in Venezuela? How many people from around the world seek to immigrate here (and the United States) versus how many Canadians (and Americans) are seeking to leave? To me, actions always speak louder than words…..

And the words of people such as yourself (amongst others here) are just simply not translating into action.

I don’t want to sound like too much of an asshole, but have you ever considered that, for the most part, Canadians are happy or the very least, content? And that what you’re “selling”, the majority just isn’t interested in “buying“?

I dunno what the fuck youre even on about. I explained why the poor vote in low numbers. I didnt say its "bad to be poor here".

I don’t want to sound like too much of an asshole, but have you ever considered that, for the most part, Canadians are happy or the very least, content? And that what you’re “selling”, the majority just isn’t interested in “buying“?

Im not selling anything. Again I dunno what youre talking about but you definately didnt read my post before replying.

Would you rather be poor here, or in Venezuela?

:lol:

Edited September 20, 2011 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

I dunno what the fuck youre even on about. I explained why the poor vote in low numbers. I didnt say its "bad to be poor here".

Im not selling anything. Again I dunno what youre talking about but you definately didnt read my post before replying.

:lol:

Yes, you stated that “they” don’t vote (or revolt) because “we” give them just enough tasty table scraps…………Seems clear-cut enough for me………….I stand waiting for a reference to Oliver Twist and/or a Clash song….