How the rich keep geting richer,look over there!

[kimmy]

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.

He is a rugged individualist making his own way without a helping hand from society.

Of course I bumped into him. Urban campers like this fellow are often found in the area I live in.

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

Why is this maudlin crap about "grow the state" your response to everything? Closing loopholes and ending corporate welfare needn't be mutually exclusive with cutting unnecessary spending.

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.

Simplistic drivel.

Guys like you want to golf but they don't want to pay the guy who looks after the greens.

-k

Edited April 21, 2013 by kimmy

[cybercoma]

Guys like you want to golf but they don't want to pay the guy who looks after the greens.

-k

That's because "anybody can look after the greens" and it's not Pliny's fault "if the greens keeper has no employable skills." /sarcasm

[Argus]

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).

Ten million dollars will buy you 100 cops making $100,000 or 142 cops making $70,000. Personally, I think $70k adequate for that position.

[CPCFTW]

Ten million dollars will buy you 100 cops making $100,000 or 142 cops making $70,000. Personally, I think $70k adequate for that position.

Alternatively (and these are ballpark numbers), if 20% of the labour force is employed by the public sector, then reducing pay by 20% across the board would allow us to employ 5% more of the labour force (reducing unemployment and the associated social costs from 7.2 to 2.2%).

Freeing up the expenses of supporting that 5% unemployed could be used to offer raises to the public sector in the future, or to spend on crumbling infrastructure.

[CPCFTW]

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!

Dividends from investing in stocks are residual income paid after the company you are invested in has already paid corporate taxes directly, personal income taxes indirectly through employees, sales taxes on purchases of materials/supplies used in production, and payroll taxes. Plus investments support the entire investment management service industry which is the largest component of the Canadian economy.

People who invest indirectly pay far more taxes than people who don't.

Fyi, in lower tax brackets Canadian investors can pay an effective negative tax rate on dividends.

Nothing wrong with encouraging people to save.

[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.

Ya that's what the threads about.

Corporations and wealthy people who take take take and don't want to return.

WWWTT

[Argus]

Dividends from investing in stocks are residual income paid after the company you are invested in has already paid corporate taxes directly,

Oh I understand the theory. Where the theory fails is where the corporations pay little or no taxes themselves through various loopholes. Google, for example, is not an American company. Did you know that? For tax purposes they're located in a postal box in the south Atlantic.

personal income taxes indirectly through employees, sales taxes on purchases of materials/supplies used in production, and payroll taxes.

The corporations aren't paying personal incomes taxes, their employees are. As for sales taxes and purchase. I pay those too, as well as gas taxes, municipal taxes, and various other government fees. That does not exempt me from a high income tax rate.

Plus investments support the entire investment management service industry which is the largest component of the Canadian economy.

The problem with that thought is that the 'investment management services industry' does not actually make anything nor supply any service of particular value. I recognize they're very profitable, much like pimping and loan sharking is, but unless they're paying taxes they are not all that valuable to Canada.

Fyi, in lower tax brackets Canadian investors can pay an effective negative tax rate on dividends.

Nothing wrong with encouraging people to save.

Sure. I'm in favour of saving. I think the 15% rate should remain in place for dividend/capital gains income of $50k or less. If your income is between $50-$100k it should be raised to 25%. Above that it should be the same as regular income tax. That would mean that Mitt Romney, as one example used, would have to pay the full tax rate on his multimillion dollar investment income.

And I am in favour of raising the corporate tax rate back to where it was a couple of years ago. I do not see where lowering it brought anything of value to Canada.

[Argus]

Alternatively (and these are ballpark numbers), if 20% of the labour force is employed by the public sector, then reducing pay by 20% across the board would allow us to employ 5% more of the labour force (reducing unemployment and the associated social costs from 7.2 to 2.2%).

Freeing up the expenses of supporting that 5% unemployed could be used to offer raises to the public sector in the future, or to spend on crumbling infrastructure.

The point I'm making is that overpaying for jobs which are low skill and do not require a high salary in order to attract lots of applicants costs us in terms of services. We could have had 142 cops instead of 100. Now if we only need 100 then you could put the money on increasing the number of nurses or in cutting taxes, whichever. I don't want to screw over cops or firefighters, but I think $100k for jobs which require a high school diploma and a few months of training is absurd. I think librarians are overpaid too, as are university professors. I'm not simply picking on the 'blue collar' workers.

But I don't believe in across the board wage cuts. I believe the government should pay a decent wage to its employees (small wonder as I'm one of them), but based on the importance/responsibilities/skill of the job, and to some degree, the scarcity of the people who would fill it.

[Pliny]

He is a rugged individualist making his own way without a helping hand from society.

Did he report his annual income? The point is you don't "drop out" try it and your classified a criminal.

Why is this maudlin crap about "grow the state" your response to everything?

You have no idea why?

Closing loopholes and ending corporate welfare needn't be mutually exclusive with cutting unnecessary spending.Simplistic drivel.

Closing loopholes and ending corporate welfare would be a good start.

Guys like you want to golf but they don't want to pay the guy who looks after the greens.

-k

One pays his greens fee or he doesn't golf - no exceptions. The only other chance of playing is to get someone to pay for me. Maybe we can engage someone to force someone else to pay for me. If everyone chips in it would only be a matter of pennies. We'll call them the Golferment. I could take up residence under the bridge on the tenth hole. Edited April 22, 2013 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Corporations and wealthy people who take take take and don't want to return.

WWWTT

Firstly, that is a simplistic generality. Secondly, they don't take take take and give nothing in return or they wouldn't exist for any length of time - unless they were the government.

[kimmy]

Did he report his annual income? The point is you don't "drop out" try it and your classified a criminal.

I doubt the government considers him a criminal, because his income probably falls well below the $10,000 personal exemption.

The point wasn't that becoming a hobo is a viable "opt out" option. The point was that people like this hobo are examples of what people who have "opted out" really look like. You, me, CPCFTW, Paul Ryan, and whatever other Free Market Superheroes you guys are listening to these days, we are all benefiting from a long list of things that are mutually beneficial and mutually paid for.

You have no idea why?

I'm assuming it's because you haven't got a real response, but if you want to explain it, go right ahead.

Closing loopholes and ending corporate welfare would be a good start.One pays his greens fee or he doesn't golf - no exceptions. The only other chance of playing is to get someone to pay for me. Maybe we can engage someone to force someone else to pay for me. If everyone chips in it would only be a matter of pennies. We'll call them the Golferment. I could take up residence under the bridge on the tenth hole.

Boo hoo, some people pay less green fees than you do. You're on the course, so pay up and quit whining.

-k

[Pliny]

I doubt the government considers him a criminal, because his income probably falls well below the $10,000 personal exemption.

Failure to file an income statement is a crime. He needs to prove his income is below the $10,000 personal exemption.

The point wasn't that becoming a hobo is a viable "opt out" option. The point was that people like this hobo are examples of what people who have "opted out" really look like. You, me, CPCFTW, Paul Ryan, and whatever other Free Market Superheroes you guys are listening to these days, we are all benefiting from a long list of things that are mutually beneficial and mutually paid for.I'm assuming it's because you haven't got a real response, but if you want to explain it, go right ahead.Boo hoo, some people pay less green fees than you do. You're on the course, so pay up and quit whining.

-k

I believe the argument was that it wasn't possible to opt out. Some here are claiming that the rich and the corporations are what the opted out look like.

And what on that long list of mutual benefits could not be better delivered by someone other than government? The hobo

under the bridge will tell you he has had enough of those "benefits". He has been "helped" to death with benefits.

So the government can criminally impose itself upon you and that is fine with you? Like most, you are a nice little citizen. Well heeled. What other benefits would you like?

[Pliny]

The point I'm making is that overpaying for jobs which are low skill and do not require a high salary in order to attract lots of applicants costs us in terms of services. We could have had 142 cops instead of 100. Now if we only need 100 then you could put the money on increasing the number of nurses or in cutting taxes, whichever. I don't want to screw over cops or firefighters, but I think $100k for jobs which require a high school diploma and a few months of training is absurd. I think librarians are overpaid too, as are university professors. I'm not simply picking on the 'blue collar' workers.

But I don't believe in across the board wage cuts. I believe the government should pay a decent wage to its employees (small wonder as I'm one of them), but based on the importance/responsibilities/skill of the job, and to some degree, the scarcity of the people who would fill it.

The point is that all things do not remain constant. Purchasing power of the dollar fluctuates. The supply of goods fluctuates. The supply of labour fluctuates, usually with government oversupplying or restricting skilled labour or the

professional. The market attempts to adjust itself according to supply and demand in all these ways but government

intervenes in these areas and things get distorted.

[jacee]

Ten million dollars will buy you 100 cops making $100,000 or 142 cops making $70,000. Personally, I think $70k adequate for that position.

For what rank, or on average?

TORONTO

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/uni_benefits.php

Cadet in Training $54,398.66

4 th Class Constable $60,455.95

3 rd Class Constable $69,098.18

2 nd Class Constable $77,736.24

1 st Class Constable $86,365.94

You're about right, on average.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canada-cops-tops-salaries-pay-hikes-193437113.html

RCMP

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/recruiting-recrutement/rm-mr/rates-taux-eng.htm

The police aren't "the rich".

Once again, a thread about "the rich" having too much money becomes a thread about how the poor and middle class should make less money ... so the rich can take more!

What's up with that?!

Edited April 22, 2013 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

The market attempts to adjust itself according to supply and demand in all these ways but government

intervenes in these areas and things get distorted.

I challenge the use of the word 'distorted' which means, from an online dictionary:

dis·tort (d-stôrt)

tr.v. dis·tort·ed, dis·tort·ing, dis·torts

1. To twist out of a proper or natural relation of parts; misshape.

2. To give a false or misleading account of; misrepresent.

3. To cause to work in a twisted or disorderly manner; pervert

The term is used to describe a deviation from a "natural relation", a "misrepresentation", and lastly "disorderly" or "perverted".

The implication is that Natural = Ordered, which I disagree with. I think that humans decide how to order things to their best benefit. A completely unfettered economy - ie laissez-faire - is more natural, but also unordered.

[GostHacked]

I don't like it when people say "the rich keep getting richer" as if this is a problem. This certainly isn't a problem. It's a great thing and I hope it continues to happen. The problem is when the poor continue to get poorer and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. That's an issue, as there's plenty of credible research that shows there's a significant association between social problems and poor health with wealth disparity in advanced industrial nations. Don't mistake this as advocacy for everyone having the exact same thing because that can be just as bad. There's a proper balanced amount of stratification that is optimal, while large disparities and absolute equality are detrimental to nearly every metric of societal health.

That's part of the reason the rich are getting richer, because their money is made off the backs of the middle and poor classes. Less benefits, contracting work, part time work, low wages... plus many other factors.

[jacee]

And what on that long list of mutual benefits could not be better delivered by someone other than government? The hobo

under the bridge will tell you he has had enough of those "benefits". He has been "helped" to death with benefits.

BS. I don't buy that.

Tell me Pliny, how well would your business run without publicly funded services? Want to build your own roads and other taxpayer funded infrastructure?

The rich hate paying taxes ... but they aren't willing to pay the REAL costs of doing business without public infrastructure either, in my experience.

[GostHacked]

BS. I don't buy that.

Tell me Pliny, how well would your business run without publicly funded services? Want to build your own roads and other taxpayer funded infrastructure?

The rich hate paying taxes ... but they aren't willing to pay the REAL costs of doing business without public infrastructure either, in my experience.

I'd say if they use more of the infrastructure then their taxes should be higher. Someone has to pay for the wear and tear on it.

[jacee]

That's part of the reason the rich are getting richer, because their money is made off the backs of the middle and poor classes. Less benefits, contracting work, part time work, low wages... plus many other factors.

Ya, lousy working conditions, burnout, sickness, injuries, all of which get added to public costs ... while the rich predators get richer and whine louder about paying their fair share of taxes.

[jacee]

I'd say if they use more of the infrastructure then their taxes should be higher. Someone has to pay for the wear and tear on it.

Makes sense ... until you consider the public cost of the bureaucracy required to make those judgements, court costs for challenges and appeals ... etc.

So the system we have is more efficient I think: You make more, you pay more.

The more you benefit from the opportunities afforded by our society, the more you pay.

Except the rich don't because of tax loopholes.

[Canuckistani]

Makes sense ... until you consider the public cost of the bureaucracy required to make those judgements, court costs for challenges and appeals ... etc.

So the system we have is more efficient I think: You make more, you pay more.

The more you benefit from the opportunities afforded by our society, the more you pay.

Except the rich don't because of tax loopholes.

Except that figures show the better off pay the bulk of taxes. But there's a simple fix for that - pay the lower income people more, and they'll contribute more tax revenue back to the government, as well as needing less spending from the government to support them.

[CPCFTW]

BS. I don't buy that.

Tell me Pliny, how well would your business run without publicly funded services? Want to build your own roads and other taxpayer funded infrastructure?

The rich hate paying taxes ... but they aren't willing to pay the REAL costs of doing business without public infrastructure either, in my experience.

The biggest costs of government are health care, education, and social assistance.

What does health care do for business? Most employees are retired by the time they start excessively using the health care system.

What does education do for business? Children can't be hired until they're 15 anyway, so businesses have no opportunity to educate the workforce. Does a high school degree make someone flip burgers better than someone without a high school degree?

If the taxes businesses paid were used mostly for infrastructure, we'd probably have subways with 10 minute commute times (instead of 50mins), electric car recharge stations all over the country, railguns to launch cargo to the moon, etc.

[jacee]

The biggest costs of government are health care, education, and social assistance.

Show me.

Spending for 201112.

Canada Health Transfer (10 cents) Canada Revenue Agency (3 cents) Canada Social Transfer (4 cents) Children's benefits (5 cents) Crown corporations (3 cents) Defence (8 cents) Employment Insurance benefits (6 cents) Other major transfers to other levels of government (7 cents) Other operations (12 cents) Other transfer payments (13 cents) Public debt charges (11 cents) Public Safety (4 cents) Support to elderly (14 cents)

What does health care do for business?

What does education do for business?

Ok. Employers can pay for the education and training and health care of their employees and their families.

And transportation and power and water infrastructure.

Eta

And add policing, firefighting, EMS, mail ...

Employers don't get much for their tax money?

Seriously?

Edited April 22, 2013 by jacee

[Argus]

Failure to file an income statement is a crime. He needs to prove his income is below the $10,000 personal exemption

You are mistaken on both counts.

[Argus]

For what rank, or

Once again, a thread about "the rich" having too much money becomes a thread about how the poor and middle class should make less money ... so the rich can take more!

What's up with that?!

Because there is some truth in the claim that some public sector jobs are being overpaid. I'm willing to admit it. It's obvious. However, the majority of the problem lies in the lack of taxation of the wealthy and of corporations.