Should the Canadian rich pay more?

[cybercoma]

Ok - I can probably agree with you then. I was treating the terms as one in the same. Concentration of the wealth of society in the hands of the few is generally not a recipe for stability but I think a large or growing gap between the rich and poor is not a concern if the median income is rising.

It is if the gap is growing. If the gap is growing that means the money is being concentrated at the top.

[TimG]

Then it's not a bell curve. Bell curves are symmetrical.

More pendantic nonsense. Try learning some stats. Bell curves can be skewed.

The example of Sweden and Japan serve as different examples of greater income equality being achieved and those countries both faring much better than societies with greater income inequalities within them. So you're wrong. Completely wrong, in fact, and have done nothing to prove otherwise.

Again - your examples say nothing about causality. i.e. the lower income gap could easily be caused by cultural attributes that also improve social mobility. What your are failing to provide is any plausible explaination for why the "gap" rather than the absolute wealth would be causally linked to the benefits you cite.

[cybercoma]

I gave you an explanation in the thread that's in the federal politics forum. It's explained in the lecture that Wilkinson gave and it's in the original studies, if you were so inclined to go look them up. Your incessant claim that correlation is not causality is moot because you offer no better explanation. Cause cannot be determined absolutely in a complex system. So there's no way of attributing cause to these "cultural factors" you mention. Moreover, there are a plethora of studies showing that culture doesn't matter as much as income inequality. The specific example I gave you already is the ghetto in Chicago that has always had lower income relative to the rest of the city, but has gone through change of its culutral makeup (Polish to Black Americans to Hispanic). Those cultural changes did not change the fact that the city faced the same kind of increased social and health ills that we're talking about.

Your partisan bias is the worst out of any poster in this forum. Regardless the topic, people have to keep revisiting the same studies because you absolutely refuse to adapt your position when confronted with new information. You ignore studies and make up wild claims with no support, claiming they have equal validity. I don't know why I keep responding to you because there is no point. You have pre-determined conclusions and no amount of research, evidence, or logic will change your mind. You accept faulty conclusions if they meet your ideology and you reject sound conclusions when they don't meet your ideology. There is no discussing things with people like that. You just want a soapbox to stand on.

[Scotty]

I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, the concentration of wealth = the concentration of power. And that's not good for a country. On the other hand, paying taxes should be a requirement of every citizen. Nevertheless, about 40% or more pay zero taxes. I understand the reasoning behind that, in that we are trying to raise their income, but even so: If you pay nothing into the kitty what right do you have to even vote?

I am far from rich, but I had a VERY good year, my best ever. I will pay over $100k in income tax alone this year. I am thus contributing more, economically than 40% of the population. I'm also contributing more than a dozen or two people who actually pay taxes, but not a whole ton of them. Yet what more do I get back from being a citizen than they do? Nothing. I have no better services, no more rights than them, no more respect than them. That seems unjust on some level I can't quite place.

[Bob]

Obviously, but you keep ignoring the fact that the income gap is rapidly growing. It's not the fact that there is a gap, there needs to be one, but that it's growing and growing fast. That's not balance.

North Korea has pretty balanced income distribution. So does Cuba. Those countries have successfully addressed the phantom menace known as "income disparity" that leftists like you like to chase as if "income disparity" is some sort of social problem that requires correction through public policy.

Nevermind that people whose incomes are in the bottom, say, 5% have a higher quality of life than their counterparts dide fifteen, twenty-five, and fifty years ago given the drops in costs for all sort of "essentials". No, that type of context is irrelevant because leftists want income equality ("social justice"?) NOW!

[Bob]

I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, the concentration of wealth = the concentration of power.

Money is power? They don't appear to be synonyms in my thesaurus. I must be missing something. Money, or the concentration of it, certainly does NOT translate to "power". That's just communistic rhetoric.

I am far from rich, but I had a VERY good year, my best ever. I will pay over $100k in income tax alone this year. I am thus contributing more, economically than 40% of the population. I'm also contributing more than a dozen or two people who actually pay taxes, but not a whole ton of them. Yet what more do I get back from being a citizen than they do? Nothing. I have no better services, no more rights than them, no more respect than them. That seems unjust on some level I can't quite place.

If your opening statement equating money to power is true (and it isn't), then do you have twice as much "power" as a person earning half your income?

Edited December 26, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Your hypocrisy on this point illustrates how you are driven by greed and jealousy - not by any sense of social justice.

Well said. Completely true. Just another covetous leftist who resents success and achievement.

[Bob]

Its pretty well documented why its dangerous for wealth to concenrate too much in a society. Its inherently undemocratic, and will eventually lead to political and social instability or worse. It can also lead to the erosion of private property rights, and kinds of extreme measures designed to redistribute wealth. Thats one of the major reasons why the west has been successful... we put systems in place to avoid extreme concentration (graduated taxation, estate taxation, property taxation, social programs, etc).

Reading straight from the Communist Manifesto, I see.

First of all, the economy isn't meant to be democratic, it's meant to be a meritocracy. Politics, on the other hand, are meant to be democratic. Unfortunately, our political establishment has great control over the economy and is constantly seeking to increase the scope of its control. It's at the point where people think they can take whatever they want from whomever they want as long as they can get enough votes. That's not the kind of society I want to live in, unfortunately, leftists have done a good job of perpetuating these social/political/historical narratives that preach hatred and resentment against "the rich", asserting that they need to be cut down to size in order to usher in "social justice", always coming from an envious point of departure.

As far as what can claim the most responsibility for the success of the West with respect to equal access to opportunity to succeed and become wealthy, it is certainly not socialistic policies as you're asserting. What built the West and continues to be its saving grace is it free market sphere. Free individuals associating freely, without being overencumbered by the heavy hand of the government. If your argument held any water (and it doesn't), then Cuba and North Korea would be bastions of success considering their increased equality of the distribution of wealth. You know, there's a flipside to the principle of freedom, and that's the dirty word leftists like you hate - responsibility. God forbid someone should fail as a consequence of the choices they make in life.

[jacee]

Really? Where? I stand by my claim that the median (which is not skewed by mega rich) is the most important metric. If the disparity is so large that the median income is stagnant or dropping then that is a problem. If the median income is rising then then there is no problem. In either case the "gap" is irrelevant.

The gap is very relevant because precipitous increases such as we are experiencing now, often precede and give rise to revolutions, ousting political/economic oligarchs and involuntary redistribution of wealth.

Ignore it at your own peril.

[jacee]

More pendantic nonsense. Try learning some stats. Bell curves can be skewed.

"Bell curve" is a colloquial term for a normal distribution which is a symmetric distribution. If a distribution, such as the distribution of wealth, is 'skewed' by a few extremely high values, then it is no longer a 'normal' distribution and thus not a 'bell curve'.

Cybercoma is right, and you need to review some elementary statistics Tim.

The 'income gap' doesn't refer just to the gap between the "rich and the poor", but to the gap between the richEST few and all of the rest of us. In fact, it is the gap between the richest few and the middle class that is most problematic (for the richest). That is the situation we have today, where the large and educated middle class is very aware that the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands is combined with the distortion of political democracy (The will of the people) by corruption of politicians who cater only to the desires of the richest as, for example, the Harper government caters to the 'oil lobby'.

The middle class, not "the poor", are at the forefront of the current civil unrest and disobedience, and will continue to pressure politicians and the financial community to clean up the corruption and concentration of wealth and power.

And it is concentration of wealth (not just income) that defines the rich and powerful few, since it is wealth that influences governments.

Edited December 26, 2011 by jacee

[Scotty]

Money is power? They don't appear to be synonyms in my thesaurus. I must be missing something. Money, or the concentration of it, certainly does NOT translate to "power". That's just communistic rhetoric.

Don't be silly. It has to do with reality.

If your opening statement equating money to power is true (and it isn't), then do you have twice as much "power" as a person earning half your income?

I'm not rich. I'm aware, however, of my growing options and abilities to affect my life as my income grows. Those with very large amounts of wealth have far, far greater abilities in that they can use it to influence society and politicians.

[Bob]

The gap is very relevant because precipitous increases such as we are experiencing now, often precede and give rise to revolutions, ousting political/economic oligarchs and involuntary redistribution of wealth.

Ignore it at your own peril.

So basically, as a typical leftist, you're trying to threaten the system with violence if you don't get to steal what you want from others through "democracy". And with a cute smiley-face, as well. In other words, if we don't get what we (meaning you and your brand of avaricious leftists) want from those that we covet and resent, we will steal it through violence and coercion - like OWS rioters and G8/G20 "protesting" hooligans.

[Bob]

Don't be silly. It has to do with reality.

In other words, you are unable to substantiate your leftist rhetoric of "money equaling power". "It has to do with reality" doesn't qualify as a legitimate explanation or argument.

I'm not rich. I'm aware, however, of my growing options and abilities to affect my life as my income grows. Those with very large amounts of wealth have far, far greater abilities in that they can use it to influence society and politicians.

So being able to "affect your life" to a greater extent than those with lower incomes than you translates to you being more "powerful" than them? I asked you a simple question, are you twice as powerful as a person with half your income/wealth? If not, what is the threshold of money/wealth where "power" begins to get ramped up? Without even realizing it, you're parroting bullshit from the communist playbook.

[TimG]

"Bell curve" is a colloquial term for a normal distribution which is a symmetric distribution.

A bell curve can be skewed. You are being a pedantic fool.

The 'income gap' doesn't refer just to the gap between the "rich and the poor", but to the gap between the richEST few and all of the rest of us.

Says who? Jacee's book of stuff she just made up? Cybercoma referenced many studies that measure inequality. I saw none of that made a distinction between the 'richest few' and the rest.

This discussion is about the rich vs. poor and the premise that jelously and resentment among the relatively poor leads to worse health outcomes for them. It is a premise that is irrational since what matters is absolute wealth - i.e. a more equal society that is poorer will be worse off than a less equal society that is richer.

The latter point is what the class warriors seem to ignore: it is not a choice between a society with the same wealth redistributed. It is a choice between a society with less wealth but distributed more vs. a society with more wealth.

Edited December 26, 2011 by TimG

[Scotty]

In other words, you are unable to substantiate your leftist rhetoric of "money equaling power". "It has to do with reality" doesn't qualify as a legitimate explanation or argument.

I consider it so blatantly obvious the statement needs little defense.

Certainly it needs none against what you've manage to come up with, which is nothing but disagreement and a silly reference to Communism.

So being able to "affect your life" to a greater extent than those with lower incomes than you translates to you being more "powerful" than them? I asked you a simple question, are you twice as powerful as a person with half your income/wealth? If not, what is the threshold of money/wealth where "power" begins to get ramped up? Without even realizing it, you're parroting bullshit from the communist playbook.

If I desired to I could certainly have more power, yes. I haven't made such an effort. I could attend some of the local community meetings, get to know our councillor, MP and MPP better, donate money, etc. But certainly, given my neighbhorhood, it's well known that the government pays more attention when we call in to complain than when those in poorer neighborhoods do. In any event, your question is too broad and vague. Even someone with half my income is doing awfully well. Do I have more power than someone working for minimum wage? Indisputably.

But again, I've had no reason to work at obtaining political power, as those with real wealth do.

As to the threshold. Let's just say when you call your local MP, or a cabinet minister, and they take the call immediately, well, that's power. Most people just get the secretary, if they're lucky, or an answering machine.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

The latter point is what the class warriors seem to ignore: it is not a choice between a society with the same wealth redistributed. It is a choice between a society with less wealth but distributed more vs. a society with more wealth.

The United States has "more" wealth than the Scandinavian countries. However, I do not see how the life of an average American is improved by this. In fact, by most measures, Scandinavians lead better lives than most Americans.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Scotty

[eyeball]

Don't be silly. It has to do with reality.

I'm not rich. I'm aware, however, of my growing options and abilities to affect my life as my income grows. Those with very large amounts of wealth have far, far greater abilities in that they can use it to influence society and politicians.

In other words, you are unable to substantiate your leftist rhetoric of "money equaling power". "It has to do with reality" doesn't qualify as a legitimate explanation or argument.

Isn't that cute? Bob thinks Scotty is a lefty.

Not to worry Scotty you'll catch up one day. Don't forget, the right wing isn't a place it's a direction.

[dre]

Money is power? They don't appear to be synonyms in my thesaurus. I must be missing something. Money, or the concentration of it, certainly does NOT translate to "power". That's just communistic rhetoric.

:lol:

[jacee]

So basically, as a typical leftist, you're trying to threaten the system with violence if you don't get to steal what you want from others through "democracy". And with a cute smiley-face, as well. In other words, if we don't get what we (meaning you and your brand of avaricious leftists) want from those that we covet and resent, we will steal it through violence and coercion - like OWS rioters and G8/G20 "protesting" hooligans.

The only "rioters" at OWS and the Toronto G20 were the police.

Why do you feel 'threatened' by legal public protest?

Do you have something to feel guilty about?

Public protest is a right and indeed a civic responsibility when democratic governments are corrupted by corporate and financial influences.

[jacee]

A bell curve can be skewed. You are being a pedantic fool.

Incorrect. If it's skewed, it isn't bell-shaped. Look it up.

Says who? Jacee's book of stuff she just made up? Cybercoma referenced many studies that measure inequality. I saw none of that made a distinction between the 'richest few' and the rest.

This discussion is about the rich vs. poor and the premise that jelously and resentment among the relatively poor leads to worse health outcomes for them. It is a premise that is irrational since what matters is absolute wealth - i.e. a more equal society that is poorer will be worse off than a less equal society that is richer.

The latter point is what the class warriors seem to ignore: it is not a choice between a society with the same wealth redistributed. It is a choice between a society with less wealth but distributed more vs. a society with more wealth.

The Occupy movement is a creation of the middle class, and focuses on the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the richest 1%, to the detriment of all of the rest of us. In reality, since the poor have no 'wealth' to lose, it is the middle and upper groups that are losing wealth to the wealthiest 1%.

(See graph 1 here, US data)

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-charts-about-inequality-2011-11?op=1

The overall wealth of a country can improve conditions for all citizens, but only if it is adequately distributed.

(See graph 15 at above link for comparison of wealth redistribution via taxes and transfers in various countries, including Canada.)

For comparison, a household can have a large income overall, but if the income earner husband hoards the money and doesn't provide money for food and other personal needs, the high income doesn't help his family, does it?

Edited December 27, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

40% or more pay zero taxes.

Cite?

[cybercoma]

North Korea has pretty balanced income distribution. So does Cuba. Those countries have successfully addressed the phantom menace known as "income disparity" that leftists like you like to chase as if "income disparity" is some sort of social problem that requires correction through public policy.

Nevermind that people whose incomes are in the bottom, say, 5% have a higher quality of life than their counterparts dide fifteen, twenty-five, and fifty years ago given the drops in costs for all sort of "essentials". No, that type of context is irrelevant because leftists want income equality ("social justice"?) NOW!

Sweden and Japan also have lower income gaps (the former through taxation and programs, the latter by having a more equitable income disparity to begin with but less programs) too, but their quality of life in those countries is much greater. They have less social problems and rank higher on health metrics.

Of course you wouldn't compare industrialized nations to each other though. It doesn't fit your nonsensical rhetoric.

[Scotty]

Cite?

Why? Do you have some doubts? It's an oft-repeated statement.

In the US I usually see it referred to as "federal income tax", and about 46% of Americans pay none or get money back.

The corresponding figure in Canada is lower - about 1/3rd.

CS Monitor

[cybercoma]

Why? Do you have some doubts? It's an oft-repeated statement.

In the US I usually see it referred to as "federal income tax", and about 46% of Americans pay none or get money back.

The corresponding figure in Canada is lower - about 1/3rd.

CS Monitor

Make sense. Of course, if they earned more they would pay more. Unless you want to eliminate the low-income deductions. I think it says a lot more that nearly half of Americans that file income taxes make so little that they don't pay taxes. Also, a portion of that is Social Security for seniors.

[Scotty]

Make sense. Of course, if they earned more they would pay more. Unless you want to eliminate the low-income deductions. I think it says a lot more that nearly half of Americans that file income taxes make so little that they don't pay taxes. Also, a portion of that is Social Security for seniors.

But the point remains. If you pay nothing, why should your vote be the equal of those who pay far, far more? They are contributing much more than you are.