How the rich keep geting richer,look over there!

[Argus]

Another reason they might want to keep it is that there is a hue and cry to confiscate it. This video is only an example.

What else do you think it suggests other than tax the rich?

How about taxing the corporations? Harper's last corporate tax cut cost the treasury $11.5 billion dollars, which is about half the deficit. How did this benefit society?

And by the way, I do agree that certain public servants make too much money. Teachers, health care workers, bus drivers and police among them. These inflated wages make it much, much more expensive to provide public services to people than it did in the fifties and sixties.

Back then, cops and bus drivers worried about making their old car last another year. Now they spend their time worrying about their investment portfolios. The military makes too much, too, as do firefighters. We have romanticized these positions to an absurd degree, and do not think clearly in terms of skills supplied vs wages paid.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Argus

[CPCFTW]

What a ridiculous video. It's sad that lefties believe this drivel.

[eyeball]

Of course, the whole thread of the short is about money and how he thinks it is being unfairly hoarded by the rich.

No it isn't. It's about how the government tilts the playing field towards the rich so most of the money flows towards to them. It's about power and it's abuse.

As it's been pointed out already, it's really simple.

[eyeball]

What else do you think it suggests other than tax the rich?

Hold governments more accountable.

Far far far more accountable.

[eyeball]

There is a "we" - and you need to ask everyone their feelings about this. If it feels like abuse to you, and it feels great to me then where are we really ?

We're probably in a crime scene.

[eyeball]

What a ridiculous video. It's sad that lefties believe this drivel.

What drivel? Is drivel an economic term that big-shot know-it-all economists use?

BTW are you still researching what natural capital is? I don't need a report, just your sense of what it is. Oh and don't forget I also asked you what the cost of corruption is to the economy. You said you know more about economics than everyone in this forum put together so I trust I'm asking the right person.

[WWWTT]

As a member of a society, there is nothing wrong with advocating that the "maintenance fee" and the scope of the services paid for by said fee is reduced (or increased) if one believes that is the best course of action. Furthermore, if there were some option for people to "opt out" of being a member of said society, perhaps some people would do so, but that option is not available, unless one first goes and becomes a member of some other society (aka immigrates to another country), which is a time-consuming and difficult process, and still does not free one from the obligations to a society, but merely replaces one society with another. There are not really any habitable places on Earth where a person wishing to live free of the rules and requirements of society can do so, so you're suggestion about "pissing off out of it" is not practical.

Sorry but you are wrong.

Anyone can opt out at any time.

You can move out to the country and live a simple life.

Grow a garden and raise some chickens,rabbits and goats for meat.

But if you want to live in our society and enjoy the benefit,you pay.

If you own a company that makes money from the community,you should pay more.

This insures the community stays strong.

When people start cheating and avoiding paying their fair share,those same people are still making money from the community and only the community suffers.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Yes, they are confiscating it and they want more. Think of government as a corporation or an individual, would you as an

individual or corporation be able to take a portion of others earnings for your own benefit?

Income taxes or taxes that take, overriding the choice of the individual, is confiscation... or a better word is

extortion.

Well then somebody better sit down with any large corporation in Canada such as a bank or oil company and have this talk with them.

WWWTT

[Bonam]

Sorry but you are wrong.

Anyone can opt out at any time.

You can move out to the country and live a simple life.

Grow a garden and raise some chickens,rabbits and goats for meat.

Nope, that's not an option. There is nowhere in the country where you can just "move out to" freely. All land is owned or administered by either its current private owners or the government. There is no unclaimed land to go out and live a simple life on. If you want to go start a garden on crown land, you have to get permission to do so from the government, and they will charge you various fees and property taxes. If you refuse to or fail to pay, you will eventually be evicted from your simple life. If you purchase land from a private owner, you still have to pay property taxes on it. And in either case, what you do on that land is strictly regulated by government rules. Furthermore, since the land is ultimately within the territory of the nation, it could ultimately be confiscated, expropriated, etc, for the purpose of building new infrastructure, extracting resources, etc.

So no, people do not have the option to opt out. You might be able to fly under the radar for a few years if you set up shop in some remote part of Canada's north, but you'll still be detected sooner or later, and then comes the tax man. And living in stealth hiding from the authorities is not really a simple life now is it?

[kimmy]

Money is important, fiat currencies and such tokens not so much, and they are in a little dangerous territory now. I think you will find banks and corporations converting their "money" into some other asset. The confusion is that people, and I do it myself, make the mistake of calling it money.

The rich will always have the means to avoid poverty. Who will really be pinched are people who stoically remain confident in government backed currencies, the people who have pensions in the mutual funds market will suffer. Public pensions in Spain were invested 95% in Spanish bonds. How confident do you think they feel?

I believe that 2008 is about to be revisited.

Demand for gold as a hard asset has never been stronger as people dump their paper gold assets for cash to buy the hard asset.

Gold standard, Ron Paul, blah blah blah, ok.

The possibility of a currency collapse is just that, a possibility. Governments may be able to save them if they can purloin some of the "wealth" (if an electronic entry on a bank's ledger can be called wealth) in the bank accounts of the rich. But before they do that the very privileged will move their money...er.. currencies into hard assets.

...

The video is at least six months old already and I think there was a thread on it here before.

As I said it is about, centralization of power, inciting class warfare to justify further confiscation of "money" from those that hold it.

The worst scenario is that 1933 is revisited and the ownership of gold is made illegal.

Gold may not become "money" again but it will certainly be held as a hedge against the possibility of a currency collapse. But who can predict how far governments, starved for revenues, will go.

How far? What if they went as far as making the extremely wealthy pay the same share that they used to, even up until just a couple of decades ago? What if they closed some of the tax loop-holes that let extraordinarily wealthy individuals and extremely profitable corporations pay extremely low tax rates? Wow, how radical could things get?

How radical are things already when even suggesting this kind of stuff is called "class warfare"?

Another reason they might want to keep it is that there is a hue and cry to confiscate it. This video is only an example.

But you've been arguing that "currency" is worthless. Why should the wealthy fear the confiscation of something that is worthless?

What else do you think it suggests other than tax the rich?

Sure, tax the rich. Why not?

Sorry to keep picking on Mitt Romney, but he's one of the few extremely wealthy individuals whose tax returns we've had the chance to look at to any degree at all. What did Willard pay? 14%. He actually only had to pay 9%, but since he'd already shot off his mouth about how he pays 14% every year, he left millions of dollars of tax breaks on the table to increase his 9% rate to 14%. Willard paid 14%... in years that we know about. What do you pay, Pliny? Unless you're a hobo, I'm betting it's more than 14%.

What's wrong with talking about class warfare? Class warfare is already underway, waged by the wealthy and their puppets against the rest of society; people certainly ought to be talking about it.

-k

Edited April 21, 2013 by kimmy

[CPCFTW]

What drivel? Is drivel an economic term that big-shot know-it-all economists use?

BTW are you still researching what natural capital is? I don't need a report, just your sense of what it is. Oh and don't forget I also asked you what the cost of corruption is to the economy. You said you know more about economics than everyone in this forum put together so I trust I'm asking the right person.

I said no such thing. I said I know more about economics than most people on this forum and certainly more than a fisherman who gets his economics lessons from david suzuki.

The drivel is the video that was linked in the op. If you don't see how it's drivel then you're more ignorant than I thought.

Edited April 21, 2013 by CPCFTW

[kimmy]

As a member of a society, there is nothing wrong with advocating that the "maintenance fee" and the scope of the services paid for by said fee is reduced (or increased) if one believes that is the best course of action. Furthermore, if there were some option for people to "opt out" of being a member of said society, perhaps some people would do so, but that option is not available, unless one first goes and becomes a member of some other society (aka immigrates to another country), which is a time-consuming and difficult process, and still does not free one from the obligations to a society, but merely replaces one society with another. There are not really any habitable places on Earth where a person wishing to live free of the rules and requirements of society can do so, so you're suggestion about "pissing off out of it" is not practical.

I bumped into a guy who is exercising an "opt out" option earlier today. He pays no taxes, and receives no benefits from society. I suppose in a sense he's using public infrastructure, as he was sleeping under a bridge. If you or Pliny wish to "opt out", there is room under the bridge for a few more.

-k

[kimmy]

I said no such thing. I said I know more about economics than most people on this forum and certainly more than a fisherman who gets his economics lessons from david suzuki.

The drivel is the video that was linked in the op. If you don't see how it's drivel then you're more ignorant than I thought.

In your opinion anybody who doesn't repeat the "job creators" mantra is economically ignorant, isn't that right?

-k

[CPCFTW]

In your opinion anybody who doesn't repeat the "job creators" mantra is economically ignorant, isn't that right?

-k

No anyone who watches that video and believes in the alternate reality of evil 1%ers hoarding all the wealth and destroying society is ignorant.

[Bonam]

I bumped into a guy who is exercising an "opt out" option earlier today. He pays no taxes, and receives no benefits from society. I suppose in a sense he's using public infrastructure, as he was sleeping under a bridge. If you or Pliny wish to "opt out", there is room under the bridge for a few more.

-k

Humorous as always kimmy, but not really a valid point. We are talking about opting out, not giving up. Becoming unproductive so the system can't tax you harms yourself far more than anything else.

[kimmy]

Humorous as always kimmy, but not really a valid point. We are talking about opting out, not giving up. Becoming unproductive so the system can't tax you harms yourself far more than anything else.

So what you're really hoping for is a way to participate in "the system" without paying the membership fees? Doesn't sound like you actually want an "opt out" option at all.

-k

[Bonam]

So what you're really hoping for is a way to participate in "the system" without paying the membership fees? Doesn't sound like you actually want an "opt out" option at all.

-k

No, I personally recognize the benefits of society and, given the option in present conditions, would choose to remain a member of it. However, others really would want to make the choice to opt out. Consider WWWTT's example of someone that just wants to move out to the countryside, start a little farm, maybe together with a few other like-minded people, and live there totally unconnected to the rest of society. That option does not exist. Let alone an option to opt out while doing something other than living the "simple life". I believe that option should exist, even though I would not likely choose to exercise it myself.

Now what I really do want to opt out of is social security. What a scam for someone currently in their 20s.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Bonam

[kimmy]

No, I personally recognize the benefits of society and, given the option in present conditions, would choose to remain a member of it. However, others really would want to make the choice to opt out. Consider WWWTT's example of someone that just wants to move out to the countryside, start a little farm, maybe together with a few other like-minded people, and live there totally unconnected to the rest of society. That option does not exist. Let alone an option to opt out while doing something other than living the "simple life". I believe that option should exist, even though I would not likely choose to exercise it myself.

Well, that's refreshingly different. Usually when people talk about "opting out" they don't want to pay taxes to society anymore but they still want to maintain their life of comforts.

I want to live in the country myself someday, and can relate to that.

Now what I really do want to opt out of is social security. What a scam for someone currently in their 20s.

I am with you there. Paying into Canada Pension Plan really sucks. The benefits age is just going to keep going up and the actual benefits are going to keep going down; I'm not paying to assure my own future well-being, I'm paying to maintain the present-day well-being of the people who screwed up the system in the first place. Boomers suck.

-k

[BC_chick]

No, I personally recognize the benefits of society and, given the option in present conditions, would choose to remain a member of it. However, others really would want to make the choice to opt out. Consider WWWTT's example of someone that just wants to move out to the countryside, start a little farm, maybe together with a few other like-minded people, and live there totally unconnected to the rest of society. That option does not exist. Let alone an option to opt out while doing something other than living the "simple life". I believe that option should exist, even though I would not likely choose to exercise it myself.

Now what I really do want to opt out of is social security. What a scam for someone currently in their 20s.

That option already exists.

[Guest Derek L]

Humorous as always kimmy, but not really a valid point. We are talking about opting out, not giving up. Becoming unproductive so the system can't tax you harms yourself far more than anything else.

It is a very valid option though, fore eventually your “working professionals”, paying already a large portion of their income to the government, when faced with further hikes, will shrug and say F**K It…If I can‘t have it, neither can they, and I‘ll just retire early …Such an option allows one to enjoy the finer things, like golf, recreational shooting and yammering about politics on the internet……….It all boils down to what you define as "harm".

I forget if it was Matthew or Steven Tyler who said:

Give not that which is Holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[Argus]

What a ridiculous video. It's sad that lefties believe this drivel.

I'm not a Leftie and I believe it.

[Argus]

I said no such thing. I said I know more about economics than most people on this forum and certainly more than a fisherman who gets his economics lessons from david suzuki.

The drivel is the video that was linked in the op. If you don't see how it's drivel then you're more ignorant than I thought.

Maybe you could explain it to him. Fishermen need all the help they can get, you know.

[Argus]

No, I personally recognize the benefits of society and, given the option in present conditions, would choose to remain a member of it. However, others really would want to make the choice to opt out. Consider WWWTT's example of someone that just wants to move out to the countryside, start a little farm, maybe together with a few other like-minded people, and live there totally unconnected to the rest of society. That option does not exist. Let alone an option to opt out while doing something other than living the "simple life". I believe that option should exist, even though I would not likely choose to exercise it myself.

I don't think the Amish pay an awful lot of taxes. But if you want to sell your goods to the public you have to realize that the greater society around you has in place food inspection system and requirements to assure the food/dairy products is/are healthy. But otherwise, if you live in a cabin somewhere with a small farm and only grow for yourself, well, you won't be paying income taxes anyway. If you don't want anything from society you won't be paying sales taxes. And if you're fairly rural your municipal taxes will be pretty small.

[eyeball]

I said I know more about economics than most people on this forum and certainly more than a fisherman who gets his economics lessons from david suzuki.

David Suzuki isn't an economist either but he does know about fish so naturally he also knows more about the real world than you.

In the meantime can you tell me what the cost of corruption or the value of natural capital is or not.

[Canuckistani]

I don't think the Amish pay an awful lot of taxes. But if you want to sell your goods to the public you have to realize that the greater society around you has in place food inspection system and requirements to assure the food/dairy products is/are healthy. But otherwise, if you live in a cabin somewhere with a small farm and only grow for yourself, well, you won't be paying income taxes anyway. If you don't want anything from society you won't be paying sales taxes. And if you're fairly rural your municipal taxes will be pretty small.

And that's just a dream anyway. I recall a commune in the 70's that tried to live without money - they still could not get it down to less than a few dollars a month. You'd basically have to live a stone age existence to not use anything that society has produced. Living totally off the land is just a dream. How will you replace steel or other manufactured goods you'd need. What will you wear - hides and wool? It would be a very brutal existence. You can simplelfy, but you can't really get out of society anymore.

Although I've always thought, we have lots of open land. If some First Nations really want to go back to the old ways, we could make that their reservation. You start off with a knife, but no guns and after that, you're totally on your own. And no in and out privileges. You can come out but then you have to stay out. Any romantic white boys that want to join them are welcome to. I think there would be few takers, or let's say few that would stick it out.