Taxing the rich more is a popular idea with the rich too

[CPCFTW]

You clearly have absolutely no familiarity with the issues. I suppose the GINI index is meaningless to you, eh?

Of course the gini index is meaningless to anyone who doesn't think that income equality should be a policy goal or is desirable.

[Shady]

the rich have ways to avoid paying high taxes. and another thing. they will just move their business elsewhere.

They do because of idiotic tax breaks and subsidies littered throughout the tax code. I'm all for eliminating those. However, I'm not for raising tax rates while those are still in place. Regardless, it's very expensive, inefficient, and inconvenient for somebody to have to move their business. For the most part, they'd rather not.

[cybercoma]

No, I think you have absolutely no familiarity with the issues. There is no such thing as income equality for a number of reasons. Education level, work ethic, type of talents or skills, type of industry they choose to work it, type of job within that industry they choose to work in, wthether an individual wants to pursue a family vs somebody that doesn't, etc, etc, etc. Those are facts. They can be stubborn things sometimes. And they often get in the way of marxist propaganda.

Nobody is talking about absolute equality. That seems to be whizzing right over your head.

But back to my original point, is the GINI meaningless?

Edited April 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Marxists are sneaky that way.

Still looking for 'communists' under the bed?

Man, you must be even older than me!

[jacee]

So it's the predatory wealthy people against the non predatory wealthy people and everyone else? What defines a predatory wealthy person from a non-predatory one? This sounds like garbage to me. The whole 99 percent against the 1 percent argument is flawed in concept, as it's this 1 percent that you loathe so much that pay the lion's share of the taxes.

No they don't.

But they should.

Just because you have yourself convinced that everyone shares your delusion and is against this mythical opponent, doesn't make it true. Contrary to what you may have yourself believing, everyone does not share your enthusiasm for defining a segment of population as evil and waging a baseless fight against them. Don't forget, without these evil corporations and their shareholders, our employment rates would rely solely on small businesses, and government civil service jobs.

The majority of Canadians agree. (See OP)

The topic is individual taxes.

Corporate taxes is another issue.

[dre]

Your quick analysis of the importance of corporations to the economy is hypothetical and off point. This discussion and the larger movement is not about corporate mega-mergers (which I personally don't think does anything to promote the health of an economy). I don't think there is doubt that a large company or corporation that employs people is contributing jobs to the economy. Just because they are publicly traded or function through shareholder investment does not make them evil in my opinion. I'm sure the Occupy crowd would have a different opinion. Of course, these people aren't really worried about jobs... if they were, they would go find one.

Its not off point at all... I was replying to this statement.

Don't forget, without these evil corporations and their shareholders, our employment rates would rely solely on small businesses, and government civil service jobs.

You seem to think employement would be lower in an economy made up of smaller business entities as opposed to one made up of larger ones.

I dont think there is doubt that a large company or corporation that employs people is contributing jobs to the economy.

It really depends on your view about how the economy works and whether or not you believe in supply and demand theory or not.

If Im a landscaper and I hire a guy, I can claim I have "contributed to the economy". But unless aggregate demand for landscaping has increased, then Im not really resulting in any more employment then there would be if I didnt set up shop. Basically there will be enough employment to produce the total ammount of goods and services in the marketplace.

[TimG]

You're saying all polling/research companies are 'guns for hire'?

When they do sponsored polls. What else could they be? Their job is to keep their customer happy by giving them the results they want to see.

Or just the ones who get results you don't like?

I have the same opinion all polls. I assume they are biased until I see a complete list of questions asked which usually confirms my assumption. Edited April 11, 2012 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

If you want to claim that people want to raise taxes on other people then that is not a surprise - many people are greedy SOBs who think other people should pay for the services they demand.

Who are the "greedy SOB's"? The people who hoard a vastly disproportionate % of the wealth, or the ones that want a cut of it and wish to take it from them?

greedy (grd)

adj.

1. Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves.

2. Wanting to eat or drink more than one can reasonably consume; gluttonous.

3. Excessively desirous of food or wealth, esp in large amounts; voracious

[TimG]

Who are the "greedy SOB's"? The people who hoard a vastly disproportionate % of the wealth, or the ones that want a cut of it and wish to take it from them?

The people who want to take from others are obviously the greedy SOBs.

You may be surprised to know that I am not necessarily against across the board tax increases. What I dislike are greedy people who think that the burden of paying for services should fall entirely on a whatever devil they dream up.

Edited April 11, 2012 by TimG

[TwoDucks]

When they do sponsored polls. What else could they be? Their job is to keep their customer happy by giving them the results they want to see.

I have the same opinion all polls. I assume they are biased until I see a complete list of questions asked which usually confirms my assumption.

I'll post two of the questions from the study again:

The federal government must take action to close the gap between rich and poor in Canada. Strongly agree 40% Somewhat agree 29% Neither agree nor disagree 13% Somewhat disagree 8% Strongly disagree 8%

We need to raise taxes on the rich and big business to ensure they pay their fair share. Strongly agree 42% Somewhat agree 24% Neither agree nor disagree 12% Somewhat agree 9% Strongly disagree 11%

- Macleans

So given the questions already provided, do you feel they're biased, and if so, why?

[jacee]

This is false.

You don't become rich by dumping your money in a savings account (and even if people did, the bank would lend out 5x the deposit to their clients). The lent funds would then be used to stimulate the economy.

However, the wealthy will generally invest their funds in stocks and bonds which companies use to create jobs, invest in research, growth, and productivity, and expand the economy.

All increasing taxes on the wealthy does is give the money to an inefficient allocator of resources (the government), rather than the most efficient allocator (the market). It also discourages people from seeking wealth and may encourage the most talented Canadians to move elsewhere (eg. Brain drain of doctors).

We've heard it all before ...

It's a myth that "the market" is "efficient" at distributing wealth.

If it was true, the income gap wouldn't be too big and increasing too fast.

These worn out arguments don't fool anyone anymore (except those who choose to fool themselves, of course).

The point of the thread OP is that the majority of Canadians aren't fooled anymore.

And the only ones who'll leave Canada in a snit will be ones we won't miss: We could do with a few less sociopathic predators and fools.

BTW ... What a classic rich predator bully argument: "Let me beat you or I'll take my ball and go away."

Is that the best you've got?

[fellowtraveller]

Tax the rich? Let's eat the rich. Their flesh is nicely marbled.....and I have room in the freezer.

There's two separate entities here, large corporations and wealthy people, and I think the Occupy crowd may be lumping them all into one.

Wealthy people don't work for large corporations, with the exception of a few execs at the helm of a few corporations.

Wealthy people in my experience are most often business owners, small to medium business owners. They work all the time. They employ people. They get rich by taking risks with their money.

You don't get rich working for a salary, working for a company.

[jacee]

Targeting wealthy people and labeling them as predatory, is subjective and baseless without proof.

'Targeting the predators among the wealthy' is more accurate.

Sometimes you gotta rattle them a bit before they'll start talking ... and it's working.

Of course, these people aren't really worried about jobs... if they were, they would go find one.

If there were enough decent jobs for our educated youth, there likely wouldn't have been an Occupy movement.

Other avid supporters of the movement are retired people who've been there and know the youth speak the truth.

And we can speak the truth now without living in fear of losing our jobs.

And we are the fastest growing demographic, so don't look for us to shut up anytime soon!

Edited April 11, 2012 by jacee

[Mr.Canada]

This is a tired and lazy tract of thinking by the left. It has been part of their platform for decades. Is there any original thinking at all on the left these days?

We don't need more taxes, we pay enough taxes. We need smarter people running the books, who have the capacity for only spending what we have.

[jacee]

This is a tired and lazy tract of thinking by the left. It has been part of their platform for decades. Is there any original thinking at all on the left these days?

The point of the OP is that the majority of all Canadians, left and right,

rich and not, feel that the rich should be taxed more than they currently are.

We don't need more taxes, we pay enough taxes. We need smarter people running the books, who have the capacity for only spending what we have.

More taxes ... for those who currently don't pay a fair share.

[Newfoundlander]

More taxes ... for those who currently don't pay a fair share.

Who would "those" be?

[Rocky Road]

the system is not sustainable, how much time is left before the whole thing crumbles is the real question.

[huh]

So i guess im wealthy, i dont feel wealthy. I feel like a guy who works for a living, as does his wife, both unionized, different jobs, just average working people. Why is the left attacking me? Why am i a bad person for having succeeded? Why is their ideology so broken? I literally started with nothing, believe it or not, i am not the evil rich guy, i pay my taxes, why punish me? Ill tell you what, if the left will admit that i got what i have by being more intelligent and more hard working than most i will accept an increase. But no, its only luck or outright thievery that makes some people wealthy while others are not, that is what you really believe isnt it?

Edited April 12, 2012 by huh

[huh]

Who would "those" be?

Its me i guess, instead of saving for my kids education i will give that money to the government and expect the wealthier people to pay for it, thats how its done it seems.

[Michael Hardner]

the system is not sustainable, how much time is left before the whole thing crumbles is the real question.

There was a guest on Coast to Coast the other night who challenged anyone to name a fiat money system that lasted longer than 300 years.

300 years.

?

.

[The_Squid]

So i guess im wealthy, i dont feel wealthy. I feel like a guy who works for a living, as does his wife, both unionized, different jobs, just average working people. Why is the left attacking me? Why am i a bad person for having succeeded? Why is their ideology so broken? I literally started with nothing, believe it or not, i am not the evil rich guy, i pay my taxes, why punish me? Ill tell you what, if the left will admit that i got what i have by being more intelligent and more hard working than most i will accept an increase. But no, its only luck or outright thievery that makes some people wealthy while others are not, that is what you really believe isnt it?

That would depend on how much money that you make.

On another note..... You're unionized and a right -winger?? You do know that there would be no unions and good wages if the right had their way, don't you?

[Newfoundlander]

That would depend on how much money that you make.

On another note..... You're unionized and a right -winger?? You do know that there would be no unions and good wages if the right had their way, don't you?

All right-wingers are anti-union are they?

[The_Squid]

All right-wingers are anti-union are they?

Certainly the ones in government are.

[Newfoundlander]

Certainly the ones in government are.

Strange they haven't gotten rid of them yet then.

[The_Squid]

Strange they haven't gotten rid of them yet then.

Not strange at all. Even they are not so stupid as to be so obvious about it. They'll just pass some back to work legislation to take away their "rights".