bleeding heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Is it your contention that the rich produced their wealth all on their own, not by taking a cut of the labor of others? Maybe the odd inventor did that and then just sold their idea, but that's not the norm for how people get rich. Even then, that inventor benefited from the structure of our society: his education, the fact that a system exists and is maintained that makes his invention valuable, etc etc. We don't exist in isolation, but in an interdependent society. Jeez. In a rational world, you wouldn't need to spell this out. Some of the very rich understand and appreciate this: Warren Buffet has made the point many times; Stephen King has been railing about it for years..... But the self-appointed ideological Knight-Defenders of the Very Victimized Rich? They remain peculiarly unable to comprehend. I suppose while Kings may self-criticize, their courtiers cannot commit to this taboo. The rich and successful owe the most to society. That's not "class warfare"; it's certainly not a disparagement. It's the way it is. Edited June 22, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Jack Weber Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 Keep in mind if you make ten dollars an hour, you need a 30 cent raise each year for your pay just to stay the same. These days you're lucky to get 2% over a 3 year contract...And no COLA... If one is essentially working for minimum wage (approx. $10 an hour),you're probably not in a unionized environment and are therefore in a situation that has been illustrated by others like Wal-Mart... Ya' know,where any raise increases are essentially rigged by management before they are given out under the guise of "generosity" and "fairness"... It's called wage stagnation and erosion... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
dre Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) These days you're lucky to get 2% over a 3 year contract...And no COLA... If one is essentially working for minimum wage (approx. $10 an hour),you're probably not in a unionized environment and are therefore in a situation that has been illustrated by others like Wal-Mart... Ya' know,where any raise increases are essentially rigged by management before they are given out under the guise of "generosity" and "fairness"... It's called wage stagnation and erosion... Thats democracy at work though. For whatever reason a large part of the public and many of the workers themselves have joined the war against workers. The sheer contempt for the people that actually carry the water in our society is really something to behold. The business world legalized slavery through trade policy and now everyone hates the workers because we cant cimpete with people that make 10 cents an hour. I think this is how things look before a great civilization dies. And to be honest its really hard to feel sorry for us. Canadians are the most apathetic little pussies on the whole planet. In most of the industrialized world if you tried to pull this shit on people government buildings would be on fire the next day. It turns out that stupid things happen to stupid people! Who woulda thunk it. Ya just gotta start planning your exit. Id rather live in New Zealand or Scandinavia anyways, problem is its hard to immigrate there. Edited June 22, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Moonlight Graham Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 So if 75% of the people in Ontario contribute only 12% of income taxes, while the top 10% pay 75%, shouldn't that mean the top ten percent should get titles and special privileges or something? According to the article, your numbers are wrong. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Argus Posted June 23, 2012 Author Report Posted June 23, 2012 Is it your contention that the rich produced their wealth all on their own, not by taking a cut of the labor of others? I certainly did that. Not that I'm rich, but every dime I have and which is coming in is the result of my work and my work alone. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 23, 2012 Author Report Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) The rich and successful owe the most to society. That's not "class warfare"; it's certainly not a disparagement. It's the way it is. I'm not rich but I am successful. Why do I owe the most to society? Let's compare me, just for laughs, to someone whose food, clothing and shelter, plus their health care and their kids' education (and food and shelter and clothing) are all being paid for by society, and who pays no taxes. Edited June 23, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 I'm not rich but I am successful. Why do I owe the most to society? Because that works. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted June 23, 2012 Author Report Posted June 23, 2012 Because that works. You're ducking the question. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Canuckistani Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I'm not rich but I am successful. Why do I owe the most to society? Let's compare me, just for laughs, to someone whose food, clothing and shelter, plus their health care and their kids' education (and food and shelter and clothing) are all being paid for by society, and who pays no taxes. You want to get blood from a stone? The family you describe, what taxes do you want to take from them, since all their money comes from other's taxes in the first place. Give them more tax money so they can pay some of it back as taxes? If you're not rich, then you're not paying all that much in taxes are you? You seem to have the idea that people should get some sort of special privilege according to their tax bill. Since you're not rich, you also would not be accorded that privilege. I guess we could have an ID card that showed our total tax contribution every year, and the person that paid the most would get the most privilege? Not sure what sort of benefits we would accord them? Forelock tugging? Stepping off the sidewalk to let them pass? Droit du signeur? What? Edited June 23, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote
bjre Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Make poor pay is not the answer. If you make poor unable to make living, that would be back to old time described in novels by some 19 century Russian writers. That is the same with to kill the hen for take the egg. That would lead to revolution, wars. Peace will leave us away. The better way is make poor have more money, make them rich, then ask for more tax. Don't use laws let the greed banks and insurance company to rob too much money from them, don't expand government payed work too much, don't make too much laws that feed too much greed lawyers, cops, judges, and CAS workers workers. So that people can leave some of their heard-work income to themselves and have more possibility to increase opportunities to become rich. So if 75% of the people in Ontario contribute only 12% of income taxes, while the top 10% pay 75%, shouldn't that mean the top ten percent should get titles and special privileges or something? Should the rest bow to them when they see them in the street? Should the top 10% get extra votes come election time? I mean, it's their money that's being spent, right? Shouldn't they have more say in it than you pukes in the 75% who contribute so little? Post Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Argus Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Posted June 25, 2012 You want to get blood from a stone? The family you describe, what taxes do you want to take from them, since all their money comes from other's taxes in the first place. Give them more tax money so they can pay some of it back as taxes? No, but he could shovel my driveway in winter, and cut my grass in summer, and she could clean my house! Why should I have to pay them to sit around doing nothing? If I'm paying them they should do the manual labour hard working types like me don't have time for. It's not like they've got anything ELSE to do! And I'd like some bowing and scraping while they do it! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Canuckistani Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 No, but he could shovel my driveway in winter, and cut my grass in summer, and she could clean my house! Why should I have to pay them to sit around doing nothing? If I'm paying them they should do the manual labour hard working types like me don't have time for. It's not like they've got anything ELSE to do! And I'd like some bowing and scraping while they do it! So you're talking about the few poor people who are able to work but draw welfare? Not much driveway shoveling/house cleaning to be had there. Book now for one shoveling next in 2015. Most poor are working poor, or people unable to work - you want to force them to be your domestics too? Plus the people who currently do that work for you would get mighty upset if the government forced people to do that work at no charge for you and put them out of business. Quote
August1991 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 This opinion piece is germaine to Argus' point. Jimmy Carr is a popular British comedian, who appeared on the front page of Tuesday's Times of London below a headline that read: "The Tax Avoiders." The newspaper has discovered that Mr. Carr uses a legal tax-avoidance scheme run through a firm based in Jersey. By doing so he allegedly reduced his tax liability last year to about 1% of his £3.3 million income. WSJ Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 Exactly how is it germane? Argus's point seems to be that 25% of people, the rich, pay 75% of taxes. This comedian is certainly rich, but I doubt he's included among the 25% paying high taxes. Far too much of this goes on, and it should be the first order of business for any government to put a stop to it. Rather than going after the low income earners, as Argus seems to be suggesting. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) I'm not rich but I am successful. Why do I owe the most to society? Let's compare me, just for laughs, to someone whose food, clothing and shelter, plus their health care and their kids' education (and food and shelter and clothing) are all being paid for by society, and who pays no taxes. What exactly is the point of your remarks here, and those advocating a priveleged position in society thanks to your success, and enlisitng the poor as your domestic help, and so on? It's clearly something of a joke; and yet you're not plainly satirizing the views, either. Good old-fashioned trolling? Edited June 27, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Argus Posted June 27, 2012 Author Report Posted June 27, 2012 What exactly is the point of your remarks here, and those advocating a priveleged position in society thanks to your success, and enlisitng the poor as your domestic help, and so on? It's clearly something of a joke; and yet you're not plainly satirizing the views, either. Good old-fashioned trolling? I've always had the belief that society should require something from everyone. I don't care if you're poor, you should still be contributing something. Oh clearly less than the rich. That's not in question. The problem I have is that a huge number of Canadians are contributing virtually nothing. As far as I'm concerned if you contribute nothing that's exactly how much influence you should have on government policy. No, I don't want the rich to have all the influence and power. But at the same time, we take a lot of money from those who aren't rich, but merely well-off, and we even take a lot from the middle class. Then we take nothing from so many. 8.2 million Canadian adults paid $2 or less in income tax last year. How many of these people have cell phones, cable TV, computers with high speed internet, cars, etc.? Yes, I used to be working poor. I spent a lot of time around the working poor (and the non-working) so I can tell you that most of them aren't really all that poor. They just spend their money on crap they don't need. All of which is just something of a rant, but really, my feelings are if you contribute nothing then that's what power and influence you should have over government policy. You're life is being supported by smarter, more talented people and you should recognize it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Canuckistani Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 I've always had the belief that society should require something from everyone. I don't care if you're poor, you should still be contributing something. Oh clearly less than the rich. That's not in question. The problem I have is that a huge number of Canadians are contributing virtually nothing. As far as I'm concerned if you contribute nothing that's exactly how much influence you should have on government policy. No, I don't want the rich to have all the influence and power. But at the same time, we take a lot of money from those who aren't rich, but merely well-off, and we even take a lot from the middle class. Then we take nothing from so many. 8.2 million Canadian adults paid $2 or less in income tax last year. How many of these people have cell phones, cable TV, computers with high speed internet, cars, etc.? Yes, I used to be working poor. I spent a lot of time around the working poor (and the non-working) so I can tell you that most of them aren't really all that poor. They just spend their money on crap they don't need. All of which is just something of a rant, but really, my feelings are if you contribute nothing then that's what power and influence you should have over government policy. You're life is being supported by smarter, more talented people and you should recognize it. I find that 8.2 million number very hard to believe. That is a quarter of all working age Canadians. Certainly any single person working full time at a minimum wage is going to pay more federal taxes than that. So they either had enough dependents to reduce their tax to 0, or just weren't able to get sufficient work. Should people who can't find work still pay taxes? On what exactly? But, be that as it may, those that worked did pay EI and CPP. As well as GST and provincial sales tax. As well as property taxes (their landlord ain't gonna pay it for them), various transportation levies and all sorts of user fees. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 As far as I'm concerned if you contribute nothing that's exactly how much influence you should have on government policy. But citizenship, by definition, demands a say in the political process, and at least a possibility of being a part of a larger sphere of people that help determine events. It's not all about income, nor even close. In fact, your scenario only makes sense if there's an actual hierarchy of control and influence; so as I've risen in economic stature, from "working poor" to "middle class," my political influence should obejctively increase as a direct result? Nonsense. I disagree with this, but in fact your premise demands something much more offensive; not only would I exert greater political control thanks to a rise in my income over the years...but someone making substantially more than me would exert greater influence. And a truly wealthy person, more still; and the wildly rich? The greatest of all. At what point do the rich become the de facto rulers...based solely on their ability to acquire money? That's grotesque. No, I don't want the rich to have all the influence and power. Just a disproportionate share of it. All of which is just something of a rant, but really, my feelings are if you contribute nothing then that's what power and influence you should have over government policy. You're life is being supported by smarter, more talented people and you should recognize it. Leaving aside the fact that income taxes aren't the only type paid...no. We don't need to increase class barriers, and embrace an elitist society. Fortunately, most elites themselves would agree that they owe something to society at large, and also believe that the poorer among us deserve a say...by virtue of being a member of society, of being a citizen. We can decide that citizenship means somehting...or that it's irrelevant, and that money is the measure of "worth." And I see little evidence that the wealthier members of society are "smarter," though no doubt some self-indulgent, bloated egos embrace the idea. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 ...At what point do the rich become the de facto rulers...based solely on their ability to acquire money? Surely not as fast as the point where the poor can garnish all their acquired money based on the ability to vote. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bleeding heart Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Surely not as fast as the point where the poor can garnish all their acquired money based on the ability to vote. Yeah, democracy's a bitch for the proper, would-be rulers. At any rate, I propose a popular and mostly uncontroversial idea: the rich can keep getting "soaked," as they whine about (well...actually, as the ideological little sycophants, the courtiers and ideologues whine about...the rich a lot less so); and the world keeps turning! Edited June 28, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 At any rate, I propose a popular and mostly uncontroversial idea: the rich can keep getting "soaked," as they whine about (well...actually, as the ideological little sycophants, the courtiers and ideologues whine about...the rich a lot less so); and the world keeps turning! Sounds good to me....to be called "poor", one should actually be poor without designs on the rich. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I find that 8.2 million number very hard to believe.I think Argus is about right.Here's a link. About 1/3 of all Canadian filers pay no federal income tax. Edited June 28, 2012 by August1991 Quote
GostHacked Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 Another fan of the Austrian School here. Peter Schiff for President. Doubt he wants the job, though. Schiff is pretty good. I've learned quite a few things about the financial world listening to many of his interviews and his show. Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 I think Argus is about right. Here's a link. About 1/3 of all Canadian filers pay no federal income tax. The link mentioned a number of high income earners who paid no tax. I wonder how many of the 1/3 of filers who paid no federal tax (and so presumably no provincial tax) are not actually poor. Also many filers have little or no income but file to get the various govt disbursements like GST credit, child credits etc. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.