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

[Shady]

Suck it up.

It's a new day.

Get with the program.

Great bumper sticker slogans.

And the wealthy predators should at least respect that the OCCUPY movement that galvanize the entire population do it peacefully.

Most wealthy people aren't predators. Regardless, how are we suppose to respect the unrespectable?

That's how they're winning the hearts and minds of Canadians, as the poll shows.

Actually, they're losing Canadians, and have been for several months. People have grown tired of all the crap.

[Newfoundlander]

It doesn't matter how good a polling firm is if they allow the company that hires them to decide the phrasing of the questions being asked and what order they are being asked in. I've done courses on public opinion and the phrasing of questions and when they are asked have a huge impact on the outcome.

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't matter how good a polling firm is if they allow the company that hires them to decide the phrasing of the questions being asked and what order they are being asked in. I've done courses on public opinion and the phrasing of questions and when they are asked have a huge impact on the outcome.

They can also phrase questions several ways to ensure that a true opinion is what comes out.

Notably, none of this was outlined in the poll here.

[jacee]

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/10/taxes-equality-and-what-were-prepared-to-do/

Macleans provides a link to the pdf report, for those who want more details, and also to a related poll by another polling company.

On p8 of the pdf from the Broadbent Institute/Environics, it indicates that they defined 'wealthy' as those earning $100,000 or more.

Not sure if there's more detail, because I can't yet find the original report posted at Environics ... looking ... because this is a good question.

However, it's quite interesting that 58% of those who identify as Conservatives also identify income inequality as a significant concern. Quite surprising.

Is Harper listening to his voters ... or only to his financial backers? Time will tell ...

[Shady]

However, it's quite interesting that 58% of those who identify as Conservatives also identify income inequality as a significant concern. Quite surprising.

There is no such thing as income inquality because there is no such thing as income equality. People earn different levels of income for a variety 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, etc.

[jacee]

Most wealthy people aren't predators.

Absolutely right ... and that's why I qualify it by saying "predatory" wealthy. They're a small subset, but they hold most of the power and look out only for their own interests whatever the cost to others. They are the sociopaths that we often hear tend to exist at high levels of wealth, power and influence.

And other non-predatory wealthy people know that too and are now distancing themselves from them, as you are.

And the Occupy movement has been a powerful catalyst to motivate decent wealthy people to have the courage to publicly separate themselves from the predators, as you just have.

Carry on!

Actually, they're losing Canadians, and have been for several months. People have grown tired of all the crap.

Actually, I doubt you can provide any evidence to support that.

In fact, you've just provided excellent evidence (above) of the continuing power and success of the movement.

We truly are all in this together, against a small cadre of predators who effectively 'own' our supposedly democratic governments, and who operate only for themselves with no commitment to the wellbeing of ordinary people nor to democracy itself.

And since you have already seen the light, I'll cut you some slack about the "crap" comment.

[Shady]

Absolutely right ... and that's why I qualify it by saying "predatory" wealthy. They're a small subset, but they hold most of the power and look out only for their own interests whatever the cost to others. They are the sociopaths that we often hear tend to exist at high levels of wealth, power and influence.

Complete nonsense.

Actually, I doubt you can provide any evidence to support that.

Right. Kinda like the way you provided no evidence to support your assetion.

We truly are all in this together

Like I've said before. You don't speak for me. Occupy doesn't speak for me. You never have, and never will.

[fellowtraveller]

So you're saying that the Conservatives too can hire a polling company to get the answers they want?

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

yes, of course, to both questions. Duh.

Do you think the Broadbent Institute would waste money on asking questions randomly and hope the result worked in their favour? It would like a lawyer asking a question in court to which he did not already know the answer. Not gonna happen.

But back to the OP... Public pensions are mentioned as social programs. When did the CPP become a s social programs, I get back more or less what I put into CPP. If I put in nothing , I get nothing.

OAS is welfare for seniors, a social program, but CPP is not

Edited April 11, 2012 by fellowtraveller

[Spiderfish]

We truly are all in this together

Like I've said before. You don't speak for me. Occupy doesn't speak for me. You never have, and never will.

She's trying to recruit you, Shady...resist!

[Spiderfish]

Absolutely right ... and that's why I qualify it by saying "predatory" wealthy. They're a small subset, but they hold most of the power and look out only for their own interests whatever the cost to others. They are the sociopaths that we often hear tend to exist at high levels of wealth, power and influence.

And other non-predatory wealthy people know that too and are now distancing themselves from them, as you are.

And the Occupy movement has been a powerful catalyst to motivate decent wealthy people to have the courage to publicly separate themselves from the predators, as you just have.

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.

We truly are all in this together, against a small cadre of predators who effectively 'own' our supposedly democratic governments, and who operate only for themselves with no commitment to the wellbeing of ordinary people nor to democracy itself.

And since you have already seen the light, I'll cut you some slack about the "crap" comment.

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.

[dre]

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

Theres no reason why that would hurt employment rates. I had a quick look at a few major western nations, and I cant find any correlation at all between the era of business consolidation and mergers that began in the 70's and employment rates. The emergence of mega corporations doesnt seem to have had any impact on employment rates at all. And that makes pretty good sense the ammount of workers in an economy at any given time is roughly the ammount required to produce all the goods and services in the marketplace, and the ammount of goods and services in the market place is based on aggregate demand.

Theres no reason you cant have low unemployment rates in an economy made up of small businesses.

[Shady]

She's trying to recruit you, Shady...resist!

Marxists are sneaky that way.

[dre]

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

Well that depends on how you define that group. If you define it as some arbitrary level of wealth or as "large corporations", then I dont imagine too many people would buy into that.

However... if you define that group as the "financial sector" both within the private and public sector, then that starts to resonate with people.

Definately a corporation that gets rich by creating real goods and services that people want is a huge positive. Apple, Google, Ford, etc etc. But a bank that makes millions lending out money they dont have, or an investment bank that makes billions of dollars bundling assets into complexed securities designed to fool investors is a different story.

That is the predatory economy. Commercial and investment banks, the governments financial arm, the central banks... all the folks that brought us the 07 global economic meltdown. The people that take billions out of the economy by doing nothing more than shuffling paper around.

[TwoDucks]

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%

The phrasing of the questions seems fairly non-partisan to me, but I suppose I'm a dirty lefty.

Edited April 11, 2012 by TwoDucks

[Jack Weber]

Banks make Billions in Quarterly Profits. They are a protected Industry. There is nothing wrong with protecting out banks. It does give them Oligopoly power and create excessive markup without an overall net benefit. Infact..if given to their vices... the Marketers of the Banking Industry would overthrow the Conservative Banking side and "invest" our monies as successfully as Madof..or CIBCs investment in Enron and coverup....

These very same people earn far in excess of 500,000 and its often shown that a person making $300,000 can pay less in taxes % wise..then a person making $40 to $60 thousand.

Add in that the incomes of the middleclass are going down... the money has to come from somewhere ...

Its either going to be flat rate HST taxes & User Fees or those who are in a comfortable position can pay their fair share.

Regardless.. some people who make good money are willing to pay more in taxes if they can see the benefits of doing so...

The rest of us see the waste... but people need many of the services ...

I find it strange that our Country is protected by our military... it is an expensive undertaking.... and yet those who benefit the most from being in Canada..like those in Financial and Banking Markets.. even Insurance... don't want to foot the bill.

So the irony is... from many Conservative supporters..and previous to this Liberal Supporters is the concept...

We need XYZ program (like the F35s) it cost $25Billion

And then those same supporters..knowing full well the expense, the needs and the cost overruns.. will say they want to pay less taxes...

Revenue in

Revenue Out

Someone has to pay.

What people really want is... Good Government..

Two thumbs waaaaayyyy up for that one!

[Jack Weber]

The phrasing of the questions seems fairly non-partisan to me, but I suppose I'm a dirty lefty.

Yes...

You're probably part of the confiscatory cabal of Marxist's trying to take the hard earned money of corporations and their risk taking shareholders...To fulfill your pinko wealth redistribution excercise...

Stalinist pig!!!!

[TwoDucks]

Yes...

You're probably part of the confiscatory cabal of Marxist's trying to take the hard earned money of corporations and their risk taking shareholders...To fulfill your pinko wealth redistribution excercise...

Stalinist pig!!!!

What can I say? I dream of the day I can drag everyone down to the dirt, just like our glorious leaders intended.

[Jack Weber]

What can I say? I dream of the day I can drag everyone down to the dirt, just like our glorious leaders intended.

"Workers of the world unite!!!"

"Shake off the shackles of the bourgoisie!!!"

[cybercoma]

There is no such thing as income inquality because there is no such thing as income equality. People earn different levels of income for a variety 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, etc.

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

[Jack Weber]

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

He probably thinks you mean something from "I Dream of Genie"....

[Spiderfish]

Theres no reason why that would hurt employment rates. I had a quick look at a few major western nations, and I cant find any correlation at all between the era of business consolidation and mergers that began in the 70's and employment rates. The emergence of mega corporations doesnt seem to have had any impact on employment rates at all. And that makes pretty good sense the ammount of workers in an economy at any given time is roughly the ammount required to produce all the goods and services in the marketplace, and the ammount of goods and services in the market place is based on aggregate demand.

Theres no reason you cant have low unemployment rates in an economy made up of small businesses.

There's two separate entities here, large corporations and wealthy people, and I think the Occupy crowd may be lumping them all into one. The whole movement seems to be driven by jealousy and resentment against people who have earned a quality of life they feel should be automatically granted to them. It's hard to tell exactly what their target is since their attack is so generalized, non-defined and broad. Targeting wealthy people and labeling them as predatory, is subjective and baseless without proof. And if there is proof of predatory actions, that's what the courts are for.

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.

[TwoDucks]

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

Oh no you di'int! *wags finger*

Why not either let the tired meme of "Dur, all Occupy protesters have no jobs!" die the disrespectful death it deserves? If I were to start tossing out that all conservatives are dumb, I'd be rightly lambasted, even if I've got proof backing me up.

[CPCFTW]

Yes. Since their "disposable" income is not spent. It's hoarded in bank accounts.

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).

[Rocky Road]

Firstly,

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

Secondly,

the Occupy movement is about many things, and it is about to get going again in May.

http://www.may12.net/

Thirdly,

"Last week, occupiers in New York City chained open subway entrances and posted official looking notices inviting the public to ride for free. Their innovative action caused an immediate sensation in the Occupy movement suggesting that similar jams will be carried out worldwide in May.

Jammers explained that the fare strike was done to show the connection between the de-funding of public transportation and the financial takeover of democracy: "Instead of using our tax money to properly fund transit, Albany and City Hall have intentionally starved transit of public funds for over twenty years; the MTA must resort to bonds (loans from Wall Street) to pay for projects and costs ... more than $2 billion a year goes to debt service ... by 2018 more than one out of every five dollars of MTA revenue will head to a banker’s pockets." Union leadership agreed.

Authorities in New York City were swift to condemn, even going so far as to release surveillance footage of the occupiers calmly pulling off this audacious jam. It is no surprise that they are worried. This is perhaps the first time that the fare strike tactic has been successfully deployed in America and it is a sign that the I Don’t Pay movement which has been flourishing in Europe is finally leaping to North America. In Greece, jammers routinely occupy toll booths and public transportation entrances allowing everyone to pass for free.

As Occupy matures, it is beginning to learn a few new tricks. If Occupy adopts the I Don’t Pay movement’s fare strike tactic, we just might see May’s uprising snowball into a wildcat consumer revolt–a mass refusal to pay–the likes of which the world has never seen."

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/specter-wildcat-consumer-strike.html

[Shady]

You clearly have absolutely no familiarity with the issues.

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.