How the rich keep geting richer,look over there!

[cybercoma]

If I save my money and start a business I will still pay taxes on the profits, well, if it's a small business. But if I put my money in the stock market instead then I pay 15% maximum. What a saving! I personally pay well over 40%, but if all my money came from dividends and capital gains my taxes would drop by almost two thirds! What a neat trick!

A fantastic point was made in the comment section to a supposed business owner. He said he would pay his employees more if his taxes were cut, but he can't afford to because the taxes are too high. Another poster called him out on his greed and said he's a liar. Taxes are an expense, just like wages are an expense. When one expense falls, businesses don't increase another expense. They rake in the profit. If taxes fall, they will continue driving down wages because all expenses must be pushed to zero.

Back then, cops and bus drivers worried about making their old car last another year.

Let's not argue that this is a good thing. You can't on one hand criticize the top income earners for driving their expenses to zero to make more money, while advocating that the government drive public-service employees wages to zero. Sure they could hire more teachers, cops, and bus drivers, but who would want to be one at that rate?

One of the biggest myths in Canadian employment discussions is that we're stuck in a situation of "people without jobs and jobs without people." Businesses claim that we don't have people with the necessary skills for the jobs they're offering. There isn't a skills shortage in Canada however. RBC didn't offload jobs to foreign workers because of a skills shortage. The mine in BC didn't bring in foreign workers because there were no Canadians with the necessary skills to work there. The problem is that the companies refuse to pay the wage that the market demands for those jobs. Therefore, you have people ready and willing to work, but employers that are not ready and willing to pay them. Businesses cry that they have no workers despite the unemployment rate being up.

And it all comes down to that simple fact above. All costs must be driven to zero. The corporate sector has forgotten the Fordist compromise and as a result they are sowing the seeds of their own demise.

Edited April 21, 2013 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Let's not argue that this is a good thing. You can't on one hand criticize the top income earners for driving their expenses to zero to make more money, while advocating that the government drive public-service employees wages to zero. Sure they could hire more teachers, cops, and bus drivers, but who would want to be one at that rate?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating removing benefits or rights, or expecting people to work for little or nothing. But as the Ottawa Citizen pointed out recently, we're soon going to be paying beat cops $100,000. The government has a habit of overpaying for low-skill positions, and cops, firefighters, soldiers, bus drivers etc. are among the worst examples of this. And the pay rates of health care professionals have been escalating to a dangerous degree. I'm not suggesting immense rollbacks, but we definitely need to do something to ensure these are in realistic proportion to the value and scarcity of the work offered by these employees.

[WWWTT]

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.

And why is it not valid?

Keep in mind,that it is very difficult to live in our society and not receive any kind of it's benefit.

I know that there are indigineous peoples in Brazil were some groups claim that these peoples should be left completely alone in isolation so that they can be protected.

You can't opt out without still claim some kind of benefit.

Once your born and raised into the system,your pretty much going nowhere but staying in.

WWWTT

[Pliny]

I always find it patently absurd when people make these foolish arguments advocating that there be no taxes whatsoever (granted you said there should be consumption tax). I'm sorry, but this is a completely indefensible position that looks entirely asinine when you consider the benefits that even the rich and corporations get from government programs and services.

Those that make these obnoxious libertarian arguments are the first to loudly trumpet the principal of responsibility, whilst completely denying the fact that they have a responsibility to the society that fostered their success. I find it incredibly selfish and a moot point anyway, since the end result of such myopic thinking is a society that wouldn't be the least bit conducive to their success going forward.

I am not against society. The entire society's co-operation and harmonious interaction is what society is all about. Everyone gains from interacting. They generally gain to the degree they contribute to society. One has to produce in order to consume. You are talking about a responsibility toward government which upon reaching a certain size is wasteful,

inefficient and once it has centralized a particular level of power becomes authoritarian and tyrannical.

Yes, society fosters just about everyone's success - because everyone is part of society, not government. There has to be rules to the structure of society and it is simply the job of government to ensure co-operation and harmony remains intact, removing the criminal element, smoothing disharmony.

You express quite well and assail the privilege that government bestows upon the rich and corporate world but fail to

see it has any injustice to it or that it is simply an inequality of treatment. The rich and the corporate world are a

part of society and generally bring us the products and services that improve all our lives. They are rewarded for their contribution and suffer losses when they serve society wrongly.

I suppose you are of the opinion that government services are more important than society itself and that government has not usurped the responsiblity for the provision of those services or that no one in a co-operative and harmonious society could provide them. I simply do not believe that to be true in a responsible society.

[CPCFTW]

A fantastic point was made in the comment section to a supposed business owner. He said he would pay his employees more if his taxes were cut, but he can't afford to because the taxes are too high. Another poster called him out on his greed and said he's a liar. Taxes are an expense, just like wages are an expense. When one expense falls, businesses don't increase another expense. They rake in the profit. If taxes fall, they will continue driving down wages because all expenses must be pushed to zero.

That's not true. Taxes come from the bottom line. If other expenses are "being reduced to zero" then tax revenue will have to increase. Greater profits means greater tax revenue.

The other consideration is that if expenses were 0 then competitors would enter the market freely and offer better wages or lower prices. If you could start a convenience store and pay 0% of your revenue to taxes and 1% to labour, and other convenience stores were generating 50% margins, would you? Of course you would.

Note: I'm not arguing for reducing wages to 0.. Just illustrating how reduced small business expenses provides incentive to others to risk their capital on a small business venture.

Let's not argue that this is a good thing. You can't on one hand criticize the top income earners for driving their expenses to zero to make more money, while advocating that the government drive public-service employees wages to zero. Sure they could hire more teachers, cops, and bus drivers, but who would want to be one at that rate?

One of the biggest myths in Canadian employment discussions is that we're stuck in a situation of "people without jobs and jobs without people." Businesses claim that we don't have people with the necessary skills for the jobs they're offering. There isn't a skills shortage in Canada however. RBC didn't offload jobs to foreign workers because of a skills shortage. The mine in BC didn't bring in foreign workers because there were no Canadians with the necessary skills to work there. The problem is that the companies refuse to pay the wage that the market demands for those jobs. Therefore, you have people ready and willing to work, but employers that are not ready and willing to pay them. Businesses cry that they have no workers despite the unemployment rate being up.

It's definitely a good thing if you want a society that rewards entrepreneurship and hard work. If you want a society that rewards complacency then it's certainly preferable to create a society where unionized bus drivers, librarians, and teachers comprise the upper middle class.

[Pliny]

Well, it is about redistributing wealth, that's true. Except for the last generation the redistribution has been working in the wrong direction. What do you call it, Pliny, when the wealth is being taken from the poor and middle class and given to the rich? Is that not about class warfare too?

Don't believe me. How about looking at a few easy to understand charts from those left wing radicals at Business Insider magazine?

http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-and-income-inequality-in-america-2013-4?op=1

Once again the focus is on "money". It is government that prints or creates "money". they are printing it and it invariably goes to the rich or the privileged first. You see a wide gap but it is only a wide gap in the bank balances. The rich no longer have to produce much to get paid more. What does that tell yo about "money"? Over time, it is losing value.

When that "money" starts arriving on main street it will begin a rise in the general price level.

The rich will always have the resources to look after themselves this printing of money/creation of credit is the

product of government not the rich. The increasing gap is the inequality that government produces not that the corporate or rich earn for increased production.

[Pliny]

And as the little cartoon points out, one of the major reasons that's happening is the rich are paying less and less in taxes, while shipping their money overseas and buying off politicians to make it all legal.

If I save my money and start a business I will still pay taxes on the profits, well, if it's a small business. But if I put my money in the stock market instead then I pay 15% maximum. What a saving! I personally pay well over 40%, but if all my money came from dividends and capital gains my taxes would drop by almost two thirds! What a neat trick!

Government privilege. Is it government that makes the rules or corporations? If you believe government does then you are

probably right wing if you believe corporations do then you are probably left wing. In reality, they scratch each others backs but who is ultimately responsible to the people and therefore where the buck stops - government.

[eyeball]

It's definitely a good thing if you want a society that rewards entrepreneurship and hard work. If you want a society that rewards complacency then it's certainly preferable to create a society where unionized bus drivers, librarians, and teachers comprise the upper middle class.

How about a society in which kids inherit fishing quotas that the state awarded to their grandfathers? Apparently their grandfathers invented fishing or something.

Would you say that's complacency or a good thing? Would it help your decision to know these kid make millions leasing quota to the public and spend their time lobbying DFO for more, when they're not busy lobbying them to exclude anyone else from participating that is.

[Pliny]

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.

I entirely agree. Most of those you refer to are public employees. But you are suggesting that the middle class become

poorer. What has been lost is the sense of value and thus the cost or price of what is being produced. Are students graduating with a higher understanding than they did in previous times or a lesser understanding? The product is the

student. Are criminals being removed form society and rehabilitated to a greater degree than previously? We should see an increase in efficiency not a greater demand for policemen if that were the case.

We all like to think of ourselves as important to society. Police, teachers, firemen, are all essential of course and as long as society can support them they will. The problem is that there is no recognizable way to determine the level of support has been surpassed or is beyond the ability of society to economically support the structure.

[Pliny]

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.

It's about money. Didn't you see those bags of money?

It's about pointing out to government that redistribution of money is necessary.

[Pliny]

We're probably in a crime scene.

Good one! LOL!

[Michael Hardner]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. I agree with your last sentence.

I'm saying that you need both aspects to the argument - but that you need to cite numbers too.

[eyeball]

It's about money. Didn't you see those bags of money?

It's about pointing out to government that redistribution of money is necessary.

Money is to power as time is to space, they're virtually indistinguishable.

It's about redistributing them to the rich.

[Pliny]

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

You have a skewed concept of what a community is. It is the harmonious interaction of individuals for mutual benefit. When people start asking for their benefit and government gives it to them they are upsetting a balance. One must produce in order to consume. If he doesn't then he is not contributing to the community and must subsist upon the charity of the community. Generally, as I have stated previously and in other words, one reaps what he sows. Government tends to

create a dependent class that produces nothing and generally, in their idleness, , creates mayhem., The fostering of the concept of entitlement without any contributive harmonious community interaction also contributes to social unrest.

[Pliny]

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

I doubt you bumped into this guy. You probably heard about him.

He is a criminal in that he has not reported his income and is hiding under the bridge.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is that there is no recognizable way to determine the level of support has been surpassed or is beyond the ability of society to economically support the structure.

Why isn't there ? Service levels, staffing levels and costs should be easily produced and this information consumed by citizens. But the numbers are kept almost secret because they can be used to evaluate performance of government service providers as well as their political masters.

Arguments can't solely be made on numbers, but they should include numbers.

[Pliny]

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

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

Any solutions to civilizations problems, other than grow the State?

[Pliny]

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

Now taxes are equated with "membership fees"? The system is society and everyone contributes for mutual benefit. Want to

be a member - produce a good or service for others to improve their lives.

[cybercoma]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating removing benefits or rights, or expecting people to work for little or nothing. But as the Ottawa Citizen pointed out recently, we're soon going to be paying beat cops $100,000. The government has a habit of overpaying for low-skill positions, and cops, firefighters, soldiers, bus drivers etc. are among the worst examples of this. And the pay rates of health care professionals have been escalating to a dangerous degree. I'm not suggesting immense rollbacks, but we definitely need to do something to ensure these are in realistic proportion to the value and scarcity of the work offered by these employees.

Thanks for the reasonable qualification on your point, which I certainly accept. The difference between public and private sector is that the savings from one expense do in fact go into other expenses. Modestly keeping a check on public service employees wages and benefits can in fact free up much needed revenues for more people providing those services (teachers, cops, etc).

[Pliny]

And it all comes down to that simple fact above. All costs must be driven to zero. The corporate sector has forgotten the Fordist compromise and as a result they are sowing the seeds of their own demise.

A very poor view of humanity in general. Are there any rich that are humane - like Bill Gates or George Soros or how about Jane Fonda and Barbra Streisand? Ted Turner? Jeff Immelt? I know Mitt Romney isn't. Warren Buffet maybe - he wants to pay more taxes.

[cybercoma]

I am not against society. The entire society's co-operation and harmonious interaction is what society is all about. Everyone gains from interacting. They generally gain to the degree they contribute to society. One has to produce in order to consume. You are talking about a responsibility toward government which upon reaching a certain size is wasteful,

inefficient and once it has centralized a particular level of power becomes authoritarian and tyrannical.

Yes, society fosters just about everyone's success - because everyone is part of society, not government. There has to be rules to the structure of society and it is simply the job of government to ensure co-operation and harmony remains intact, removing the criminal element, smoothing disharmony.

You express quite well and assail the privilege that government bestows upon the rich and corporate world but fail to

see it has any injustice to it or that it is simply an inequality of treatment. The rich and the corporate world are a

part of society and generally bring us the products and services that improve all our lives. They are rewarded for their contribution and suffer losses when they serve society wrongly.

I suppose you are of the opinion that government services are more important than society itself and that government has not usurped the responsiblity for the provision of those services or that no one in a co-operative and harmonious society could provide them. I simply do not believe that to be true in a responsible society.

At the moment I don't have a whole lot of time to reply, I'm slacking and when I should be working on something else. However, I will respond with three words: The Social Contract. Always remember that when you reify "the government."

[Pliny]

How about a society in which kids inherit fishing quotas that the state awarded to their grandfathers? Apparently their grandfathers invented fishing or something.

Would you say that's complacency or a good thing? Would it help your decision to know these kid make millions leasing quota to the public and spend their time lobbying DFO for more, when they're not busy lobbying them to exclude anyone else from participating that is.

Totally unfair. What's fair?

[cybercoma]

A very poor view of humanity in general. Are there any rich that are humane - like Bill Gates or George Soros or how about Jane Fonda and Barbra Streisand? Ted Turner? Jeff Immelt? I know Mitt Romney isn't. Warren Buffet maybe - he wants to pay more taxes.

The economics of running a business are not about being humane or inhumane. They are completely amoral.

[Michael Hardner]

Modestly keeping a check on public service employees wages and benefits can in fact free up much needed revenues for more people providing those services (teachers, cops, etc).

Let's not forget staff reductions (due to things like automation, and eliminated need for services), contracting out and less hiring.

The labour side can be brought into these discussions, to make a dialogue about moving forward. Why don't we do this ?

[eyeball]

Totally unfair. What's fair?

Whatever it takes I guess.