How the rich keep geting richer,look over there!

[CPCFTW]

So what? That's where the money is, so that's who has to pay the taxes. The 20% have benefitted from the labor of others and the social and physical infrastructure that allowed them to make and keep that money. They should be sending in thank you notes with their tax remittances for the opportunity afforded them.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[jacee]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Well we can allow businesses to assume the full costs of the infrastructure that supports them. It'll cost you a lot more than the taxes you currently pay.

[CPCFTW]

Well we can allow businesses to assume the full costs of the infrastructure that supports them. It'll cost you a lot more than the taxes you currently pay.

Businesses and 20% of taxpayers did pay for them already. And they chipped in for the 80%'s share too.

[jacee]

Businesses and 20% of taxpayers did pay for them already. And they chipped in for the 80%'s share too.

Show me.

[CPCFTW]

Show me.

In a report just released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and also reported on by Rob Portman, the U.S. Senator ® for Ohio, the top 20% of tax payers in the United States are now paying 94% of the total tax collected, up from 86% in 2007 and 81% in 2001.

http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2012/07/12/the-top-20-of-taxpayers-pay-94-of-all-taxes-when-is-enough-enough-by-fred-brownbill/

According to OECD statistics, the United States spends 3.3 percent of its GDP (2006-2011) on infrastructure investment

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/04/01/infrastructure-gap-look-at-the-facts-we-spend-more-than-europe/

During FY2012, the federal government collected approximately $2.45 trillion in tax revenue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

US GDP = 15 trillion.

3.3% x 15 trillion = 0.5 trillion/2.5 trillion tax revenue = 20% of revenue spent on infrastructure. Top 20% contribute 94% of total taxes collected.

Top 20% pay for everything but interest:

Edited April 24, 2013 by CPCFTW

[Michael Hardner]

% of tax paid... how about % of income ?

Here's another article on infrastructure:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_067.pdf

[CPCFTW]

% of tax paid... how about % of income ?

what does that have to do with anything?

Here's another article on infrastructure:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_067.pdf

At first glance it looks like it is saying that the private sector invests much more into infrastructure than government?

Edited April 25, 2013 by CPCFTW

[jacee]

In a report just released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and also reported on by Rob Portman, the U.S. Senator ® for Ohio, the top 20% of tax payers in the United States are now paying 94% of the total tax collected, up from 86% in 2007 and 81% in 2001.

http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2012/07/12/the-top-20-of-taxpayers-pay-94-of-all-taxes-when-is-enough-enough-by-fred-brownbill/

According to OECD statistics, the United States spends 3.3 percent of its GDP (2006-2011) on infrastructure investment

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/04/01/infrastructure-gap-look-at-the-facts-we-spend-more-than-europe/

During FY2012, the federal government collected approximately $2.45 trillion in tax revenue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

US GDP = 15 trillion.

3.3% x 15 trillion = 0.5 trillion/2.5 trillion tax revenue = 20% of revenue spent on infrastructure. Top 20% contribute 94% of total taxes collected.

Top 20% pay for everything but interest:

Sorry, US data is irrelevant to us.

Try again.

[CPCFTW]

Sorry, US data is irrelevant to us.

Try again.

Is it your belief that Canadian taxation is less progressive than US? Or are you just being purposely obtuse?

Edited April 25, 2013 by CPCFTW

[jacee]

Is it your belief that Canadian taxation is less progressive than US? Or are you just being obtuse?

Taxation is different. Corporate subsidies for infrastructure are different.

Better to look at our own data than guess at the differences.

[CPCFTW]

Taxation is different. Corporate subsidies for infrastructure are different.

Better to look at our own data than guess at the differences.

US data is better than anything you've provided. I'm not your research assistant. You can continue to ignore the facts if you want, you seem to be good at that.

[jacee]

US data is better than anything you've provided. I'm not your research assistant. You can continue to ignore the facts if you want, you seem to be good at that.

Personal attack noted.

You're making the claim. Show me something relevant.

[CPCFTW]

Personal attack noted.

You're making the claim. Show me something relevant.

US data is relevant whether you like it or not.

[jacee]

US data is relevant whether you like it or not.

Not if you're trying to say anything about Canada.

[Pliny]

You are mistaken on both counts.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/myths/#m1

Under the law, individuals who fail to file a return as required, or who fail to comply with a court order to file, are liable to a fine of $1,000 to $25,000 and up to 12 months imprisonment, as well as having to pay their unpaid taxes with interest.

But It is true that some who are under the minimum income need not file. If you want benefits, such as child tax credits, you need to file.

So what do you think? Is a person who doesn't file ever going to be chased down?

[Pliny]

Is that what your faith has taught you? Better round up the heretic wealthy people and string them up! I thought witch hunts were a thing of the past, but I guess history is doomed to repeat itself.

Obviously they would see some validity to your points if they were at all objective. They will not change their mind because they can't change their mind - even given the facts. So indeed history will repeat itself and civilization, as we know it, will collapse.

In arguing from the viewpoint of history we do not see any long term successes in socialist experimentation. The Peters you are arguing with have indeed benefited from the system and argue about the merits of it's benefits, be it health care, education a good public pension. The Corporate world also gets benefits, in the form of subsidies, privilege and bailouts. None of them wishes to change the system but to increase those benefits or make them all-inclusive for social justice and equality.

If you understand the economic aspects of this then you understand it is unsustainable to continue in this creeping socialist "progressive" manner.

If you don't then you will continue to expand the mandate and activities of government. It appears to have already gone too far.

[kimmy]

Finally, its cardinal sin is that the clip has a zero-sum view of life (often a mistake of the left). The clip implicitly assumes that the world is a fixed pie and assumes that if there are rich people with more, it's because poor people must have less. (Even Belinda Stronach understood how wrong this concept is, and used a different metaphor.)

Yes, yes. Bigger pie. More pie. Everybody loves pie.

You are correct, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Everybody could be doing better if the pie just got bigger.

But as things stand, even though the pie keeps growing, most people don't have more pie. Income, in real dollar terms, hasn't grown except for those in the highest income groups. Costs of housing and education have grown far faster than income. The numbers say that the pie is definitely much bigger than in decades past, yet this big pie has not "trickled down" as your heroes would tell us it should.

Presidential candidate Willard and Vice Presidential candidate Jughead Jones, who staked their political fortunes on the promise of bigger pies, were rebuffed by an electorate that has realized that bigger pie means more pie for Willard and his donors, not more pie for the rest.

When Prime Minister Harper next takes to the campaign trail with tales of how successful Canadian businesses have been during his tenure, I expect that he too will be hard pressed to explain why the successes of Canadian businesses during the past several years have not translated into increased prosperity for the average Canadian.

-k

[kimmy]

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

I suppose I should have been more clear.

I say the word "benefits" and like Pavlov's dog you immediately think of that obnoxious woman with her "Obama Phone" or some welfare recipient with 7 kids and no job.

But I was not referring to handouts. I was referring to benefits of living, working, and doing business in a modern well-managed society.

For starters, we have:

-law enforcement and a respectable justice system

-low levels of crime

-reliable and comprehensive infrastructure

-a well-educated workforce

-a legal framework to manage contracts and transactions

-a stable currency and one of the more stable financial systems in the world

Yes, all of those things cost money. No, private industry is not able to provide any of those things in a competent manner.

Consider the stable, secure environment Canada provides for businesses and workers to operate in. Then consider what it would be like trying to do business in an environment that doesn't provide any of those things. Somalia, lets say.

In fact, why are you still here, Pliny? Why haven't you bought your plane ticket to go off to the Small Government Libertarian Paradise of Somalia? To me, it sounds like Mogadishu is the place that most suits your philosophical temperment.

-k

[Bonam]

Yes, yes. Bigger pie. More pie. Everybody loves pie.

You are correct, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Everybody could be doing better if the pie just got bigger.

But as things stand, even though the pie keeps growing, most people don't have more pie. Income, in real dollar terms, hasn't grown except for those in the highest income groups.

Except that the data shows otherwise. Here's income curves in Canada for the bottom two quintiles. Clearly, their income has been rising.

[kimmy]

I expect that if you look into it you'll find that those increase in 2005-2006 are the result of tax cuts, not an increased share of "a bigger pie", so the point remains. Further, I expect that this extra cash was not nearly enough to keep pace with the massive increase in housing prices that was going on concurrently. Furtherly, those tax cuts just boosted the deficit, so that extra cash is going to be repaid through the nose when the Austerity crowd gets its way. It's Fool's Gold.

-k

[Bonam]

I expect that if you look into it you'll find that those increase in 2005-2006 are the result of tax cuts, not an increased share of "a bigger pie", so the point remains. Further, I expect that this extra cash was not nearly enough to keep pace with the massive increase in housing prices that was going on concurrently. Furtherly, those tax cuts just boosted the deficit, so that extra cash is going to be repaid through the nose when the Austerity crowd gets its way. It's Fool's Gold.

-k

It's a rising trend from 1997 to 2008, not just 2005-2006. Furthermore, Canada's federal budget was posting surpluses for that entire period (1998-2007). So there goes that theory...

As for housing prices... yes those have inflated in an absurd bubble in some areas. Bubble's gonna pop sooner or later.

[Michael Hardner]

Except that the data shows otherwise. Here's income curves in Canada for the bottom two quintiles. Clearly, their income has been rising.

I applaud you for providing numbers - BUT (and it's a big BUT)

You have to source your numbers. I looked up your graph and it only appears on somebody's personal blog.

- Where did he (Doug ?) get his numbers ?

- Is inflation baked in to these results ?

- Are these Canadian or US figures ?

etc.

[Michael Hardner]

I expect that if you look into it you'll find that those increase in 2005-2006 are the result of tax cuts, not an increased share of "a bigger pie", so the point remains. Further, I expect that this extra cash was not nearly enough to keep pace with the massive increase in housing prices that was going on concurrently. Furtherly, those tax cuts just boosted the deficit, so that extra cash is going to be repaid through the nose when the Austerity crowd gets its way. It's Fool's Gold.

-k

You didn't ask for the source of the data. Know better.

[cybercoma]

In arguing from the viewpoint of history we do not see any long term successes in socialist experimentation.

It's quite the opposite actually. The reason we have an advanced capitalist society (read: capitalist-socialist mixed economy) is that the sweatshops and child labour of the late 19th century early 20th century was antithetical to the stability required for capitalism to be productive. So if you're going to argue from the point of history, don't forget the saboteurs and labour strife of history that made doing business practically impossible. Don't forget that education and healthcare are required by industry, so they don't have a sick, illiterate, and disobedient workforce. Your idea of history is looking at a bunch of despots and tyrants, then claiming they're the definition of socialism and that's why it didn't work. You completely fail to recognize that we are and have been living in a partially socialist society for a couple generations now, so has Britain (for even longer) and Germany (for longer still). And you know who brought in social welfare first? Bismarck in Germany. In case you're not aware of your history, he's not a socialist, but a conservative.

[Michael Hardner]

And the reason why we succeeded was that the communist model wasn't open and couldn't improve itself.