Walkom: "These high-income docs want the rich to pay"

[cybercoma]

That's a valid argument but not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. How much do rich people need all of the above in order to thrive? Rich people thrived a hundred years ago, when there was little in the way of public welfare, public education, hospitals, etc. They made their money and they kept it. And it didn't matter that most of society was poor and downtrodden and had lousy housing and lousy or non-existent education and health care. Today, rich people still thrive in chaotic parts of the world, or places with gross inequality.

Yeah, but look at the social welfare system that has built up since then. Rich people without a safety net have absolutely no security. Disease, crime, poor education, when these things run through the population, the "rich" are certainly affected. Moreover, a growing income gap creates distrust among the public and you begin having more clashes between labour and business. A hundred years ago, as you say, was a time when some of the most violent clashes occurred between businesses and the labour force. The social safety net takes the heat off industry, by encouraging people to look to their government to fix the problem, rather than blame the problems on those that hold the wealth. Believe me when I say this, the social safety net is as much, if not more, to the benefit of the upperclass, as it gives them a healthy and educated labour force, while putting a buffer (the government) between them and the "unwashed masses" when the economy begins tanking. This costs money. They may as well look at it as a "security fee."

Although I take your point that some rich are still doing well now even in poor countries, but they're the ones working in industries that don't create anything. They're the Gordon Gekkos of society, who make their money by speculating. They just move money around to make money. This is just another level in the hierarchy. They can pull their money out before the business tanks and the business operators get screwed in the end. Those are the "rich" that I believe most of the Occupy-types, whether they know it or not, want to target.

Edited March 25, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Not quite true. If you think of our population in terms of a pyramid, you have a small number of rich at the very top. Then at the bottom, a very large number of poorer people. You would probably get considerably more money by taxing those poorer people a little bit than by taxing the few rich people a lot. Nearly half the population of this country doesn't pay income tax. Are they really poor people? I don't think so. When you exempt half the population from income taxes its not surprising the rest have to pay more than their share.

The problem is that the number of people with the wealth may be a pyramid shape, as you propose, but the amount of wealth that they hold is not that shape.

[bleeding heart]

Yeah, but look at the social welfare system that has built up since then. Rich people without a safety net have absolutely no security. Disease, crime, poor education, when these things run through the population, the "rich" are certainly affected. Moreover, a growing income gap creates distrust among the public and you begin having more clashes between labour and business. A hundred years ago, as you say, was a time when some of the most violent clashes occurred between businesses and the labour force. The social safety net takes the heat off industry, by encouraging people to look to their government to fix the problem, rather than blame the problems on those that hold the wealth. Believe me when I say this, the social safety net is as much, if not more, to the benefit of the upperclass, as it gives them a healthy and educated labour force, while putting a buffer (the government) between them and the "unwashed masses" when the economy begins tanking. This costs money. They may as well look at it as a "security fee."

And to illustrate your points, it can be argued that the large increases in number of wealthy people and the amount of the wealth they have correlates with the advent of the social safety net.

[cybercoma]

Exactly. It keeps people from being totally decimated, which ripples through generations. It helps people stay on their feet when the economic cycle tanks, which it inevitably does each generation. And when people have nothing, they get desperate and begin looking at those that have.

Edited March 25, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

Exactly. It keeps people from being totally decimated, which ripples through generations. It helps people stay on their feet when the economic cycle tanks, which it inevitably does each generation. And when people have nothing, they get desperate and begin looking at those that have.

Are you suggesting the if the “rich” aren’t taxed greater, there will be a bloody “workers revolution”?

This didn’t occur in North America during the 30s, 80s or during this current/passed economic downturn…..

[cybercoma]

Are you suggesting the if the “rich” aren’t taxed greater, there will be a bloody “workers revolution”?

This didn’t occur in North America during the 30s, 80s or during this current/passed economic downturn…..

As a matter of fact there were violent clashes with industry in the 30s. There wasn't in the 80s because the safety net was built up in the 50s-60s.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that there's going to be a "workers revolution" at all. Since I'm not a Marxist, I don't believe there will be a revolution.

What will happen, however, is that the income disparity will continue to grow and along with it a number of social dysfunctions that will make it more difficult for industry to thrive in our country. I'm not suggesting a drastic change in the taxes that the rich pay. However, the trend of their taxes being reduced over the last 30 years certainly needs to be turned back.

Edited March 25, 2012 by cybercoma

[punked]

Are you suggesting the if the “rich” aren’t taxed greater, there will be a bloody “workers revolution”?

This didn’t occur in North America during the 30s, 80s or during this current/passed economic downturn…..

From the 20s-40s there were lots and lots of bloody fights between workers and the government protecting business. The Winnipeg general, Billy Davis and the coal strike, Vancouver general, the list goes on all of which had deaths caused by the government enforcing business will on workers mind you.

[Guest Derek L]

And to illustrate your points, it can be argued that the large increases in number of wealthy people and the amount of the wealth they have correlates with the advent of the social safety net.

This is true, since said social safety net require those with capital to fund it....What would happen to said social safety net if there wasn’t a economic base to fund it? To add, if said economic base left, and with it the doctors, engineers and other professionals, whose going to run society? Those with the History and Women’s studies degrees?

[Guest Derek L]

As a matter of fact there were violent clashes with industry in the 30s. There wasn't in the 80s because the safety net was built up in the 50s-60s.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that there's going to be a "workers revolution" at all. Since I'm not a Marxist, I don't believe there will be a revolution.

What will happen, however, is that the income disparity will continue to grow and along with it a number of social dysfunctions that will make it more difficult for industry to thrive in our country. I'm not suggesting a drastic change in the taxes that the rich pay. However, the trend of their taxes being reduced over the last 30 years certainly needs to be turned back.

Turned back or stopped is the question....

[bush_cheney2004]

Let 'em riot all they want, as it is unclear how this will transfer wealth to the poor oppressed working class that wants bigger HDTVs. Meanwhile, Canada builds more prisons for them:

OTTAWA - OTTAWA - The federal government is spending $155 million building nearly 600 new prison cells at six penitentiaries in Kingston and Montreal.

Wednesday's announcement is part of the government's tough-on-crime agenda that will see $2 billion spent over the next five years to add capacity to the country's jails.

[Guest Derek L]

From the 20s-40s there were lots and lots of bloody fights between workers and the government protecting business. The Winnipeg general, Billy Davis and the coal strike, Vancouver general, the list goes on all of which had deaths caused by the government enforcing business will on workers mind you.

And yet, we're still here.

[bleeding heart]

This is true, since said social safety net require those with capital to fund it....What would happen to said social safety net if there wasn’t a economic base to fund it? To add, if said economic base left, and with it the doctors, engineers and other professionals, whose going to run society? Those with the History and Women’s studies degrees?

Why would they leave, when (as you are implicitly conceding) the social safety net has made their lives--and the acquisition of wealth, in fact--easier?

[punked]

This is true, since said social safety net require those with capital to fund it....What would happen to said social safety net if there wasn’t a economic base to fund it? To add, if said economic base left, and with it the doctors, engineers and other professionals, whose going to run society? Those with the History and Women’s studies degrees?

As they say in Business, No one is irreplaceable. All those with high paying jobs can move to Somali and Canada will still be rich with its oil, gold, Diamonds, etc. We will find new people to take their jobs and become rich and all those who left will be forced to starve in their "new utopia". Canada has a wealth of talent, in the end though our economy runs on taking things out of the ground, and you can leave Canada but when you do so you leave your riches in the ground.

[Guest Derek L]

Let 'em riot all they want, as it is unclear how this will transfer wealth to the poor oppressed working class that wants bigger HDTVs. Meanwhile, Canada builds more prisons for them:

OTTAWA - OTTAWA - The federal government is spending $155 million building nearly 600 new prison cells at six penitentiaries in Kingston and Montreal.

Wednesday's announcement is part of the government's tough-on-crime agenda that will see $2 billion spent over the next five years to add capacity to the country's jails.

Don't get'em started

Perhaps I’m wrong though, isn’t a prison the ultimate in social engineering? I mean, everyone is fed, wears the same clothes, has equal accommodation and free healthcare and you don’t have to work.

[punked]

And yet, we're still here.

That wasn't your point so don't pretend it is now.

[Guest Derek L]

Why would they leave, when (as you are implicitly conceding) the social safety net has made their lives--and the acquisition of wealth, in fact--easier?

See South Africa......Race wasn’t the only cause of the exodus....

[punked]

Don't get'em started

Perhaps I’m wrong though, isn’t a prison the ultimate in social engineering? I mean, everyone is fed, wears the same clothes, has equal accommodation and free healthcare and you don’t have to work.

Except you do have to work. That is how prisons become money makers, have you looked to the states? Lock people up, have the government pay for room and board but get them to do cheep labour and make huge profits. That might be why there are more people locked in the states right now then all of China, or at time in Russia when they put you in prison for speaking out against the government.

Edited March 25, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

That wasn't your point so don't pretend it is now.

Tell me, what was my point? Did these workers struggles you mentioned change North American society? Was wealth redistributed at an equal level?

[cybercoma]

This is true, since said social safety net require those with capital to fund it....What would happen to said social safety net if there wasn’t a economic base to fund it? To add, if said economic base left, and with it the doctors, engineers and other professionals, whose going to run society? Those with the History and Women’s studies degrees?

It's not going to happen. This is just a line of blackmail used by a certain segment of the wealthy. As the title of the thread indicates, there are a number of doctors that do very well for themselves that don't mind paying higher taxes for the betterment of the nation.

[punked]

Tell me, what was my point? Did these workers struggles you mentioned change North American society? Was wealth redistributed at an equal level?

We got Medicare, SS, the 40 hour work week, labour laws, EI and more from them so yes they did.

[Guest Derek L]

Accept you do have to work. That is how prisons become money makers, have you looked to the states? Lock people up, have the government pay for room and board but get them to do cheep labour and make huge profits. That might be why there are more people locked in the states right now then all of China, or at time in Russia when they put you in prison for speaking out against the government.

Clearly we're talking about Canada no?

But are you really suggesting the prison system is a money maker?

[punked]

Clearly we're talking about Canada no?

But are you really suggesting the prison system is a money maker?

It is in the States which is the model we are looking at right now isn't it?

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps I’m wrong though, isn’t a prison the ultimate in social engineering? I mean, everyone is fed, wears the same clothes, has equal accommodation and free healthcare and you don’t have to work.

'Zactly! Just cut to the chase and go with the ultimate in social safety nets...federal or provincial incarceration.

[Guest Derek L]

It's not going to happen. This is just a line of blackmail used by a certain segment of the wealthy. As the title of the thread indicates, there are a number of doctors that do very well for themselves that don't mind paying higher taxes for the betterment of the nation.

Then why are they waiting for Government? They can donate more of their income if they so choose…

[bush_cheney2004]

It is in the States which is the model we are looking at right now isn't it?

Nope...this is about Canada, not the USA. Nice try....