More vote-buying

Smallc · August 5, 2015

It's exactly not the purpose of it though, unless you consider a budget shortfall a natural disaster.

I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. The cushion exists to shield the overall budget from shock. It's not to be carried over. Once that budget is done, so is the cushion, and so it become part of the final figures.

Bryan · August 5, 2015

Right, but you've then defeated the purpose of having it.

No, that is precisely what the purpose of it is.

On Guard for Thee · August 6, 2015

I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. The cushion exists to shield the overall budget from shock. It's not to be carried over. Once that budget is done, so is the cushion, and so it become part of the final figures.

It's a low balling of spending estimates is what makes it exist so it's a bit of phony bookkeeping fro the get go. How to use it is a point of contention within the party. If Harper was actually able to balance a budget, he wouldn't need use it.

Smallc · August 6, 2015

It's a low balling of spending estimates is what makes it exist so it's a bit of phony bookkeeping fro the get go. How to use it is a point of contention within the party. If Harper was actually able to balance a budget, he wouldn't need use it.

What?

WIP · August 6, 2015

I really wish you people would give some numbers as to what you believe "rich" or "wealthy" is.

Okay, well how about the top 1% nationally and especially globally! And if we're talking about the people who truly run the political, legal and economic systems we have today, we're talking about the .01% of income levels, since most of that 1% includes highly paid professionals as well as the righthand men of the controllers of vast amounts of capital, like their lawyers, economists, political advisers and lobbyists etc.

cybercoma · August 6, 2015

Okay, well how about the top 1% nationally and especially globally! And if we're talking about the people who truly run the political, legal and economic systems we have today, we're talking about the .01% of income levels, since most of that 1% includes highly paid professionals as well as the righthand men of the controllers of vast amounts of capital, like their lawyers, economists, political advisers and lobbyists etc.

But the Top 1% is proportional and HAL wants absolute dollars. :rolleyes:

WIP · August 6, 2015

But the Top 1% is proportional and HAL wants absolute dollars.

I know and it's ridiculous because people in hierarchical systems judge their success or lack of success by where they are in the hierarchy/ not by earnings or net worth. And this is the main reason why the research done by the Equality Trust from data gathered all over the world a few years back, shows that quality of life is better in the more equal countries...even if the average GDP numbers are less than some richer..but more unequal nations. Once a certain threshold of income is achieved to cover basic necessities of life, then it's all about where we are compared to those just above and under us in the social pecking order.

And it should be noted this is one of the key tools used by rightwingers to maintain their control! While a populist left movement has to try to unite a large group of disparate individuals together to focus on the increasing kicking up of money to the top, the right just has to use race, ethnicity, and fear of being surpassed by those lower on the scale, to keep the majority fighting among themselves and not fighting against them!

cybercoma · August 6, 2015

Preaching to the choir.

Bryan · August 6, 2015

Okay, well how about the top 1% nationally and especially globally!

Anyone who makes more than $34,000 a year is in the 1% globally.

Hal 9000 · August 6, 2015

But the Top 1% is proportional and HAL wants absolute dollars.

No, i was talking about the top 10% and he dragged out the tired old cliche of rich getting richer - I want to know if he considers me rich...and greedy, abusive...whatever.

Here's some facts; the top 10% ($80,000) pay 55% of all income tax, the top 5% ($100,000) pay 40% and the top 1% ($250,000+) contribute 23% of all federal income taxes`. Those numbers are at an all time high. The bottom 50% of money earners contribute about 4% to the entire federal tax system - the lowest rate ever. This whole rich (above 10%) mistreating the poor is pure horse sheet.

P.s - I have a cite from 2005, can't find the most recent cite right this minute.

hitops · August 7, 2015

Without a doubt this handout is a terrible idea. Unfortunately the other parties would prefer even more expensive handouts.

cybercoma · August 7, 2015

No, i was talking about the top 10% and he dragged out the tired old cliche of rich getting richer - I want to know if he considers me rich...and greedy, abusive...whatever.

Here's some facts; the top 10% ($80,000) pay 55% of all income tax, the top 5% ($100,000) pay 40% and the top 1% ($250,000+) contribute 23% of all federal income taxes`. Those numbers are at an all time high. The bottom 50% of money earners contribute about 4% to the entire federal tax system - the lowest rate ever. This whole rich (above 10%) mistreating the poor is pure horse sheet.

P.s - I have a cite from 2005, can't find the most recent cite right this minute.

You know growing inequality is going to make those numbers even higher, right? That's what happens when you concentrate wealth at the top. The top ends up paying more proportionally to everyone else because the gap is wider.

hitops · August 7, 2015

You know growing inequality is going to make those numbers even higher, right? That's what happens when you concentrate wealth at the top. The top ends up paying more proportionally to everyone else because the gap is wider.

Inequality is a red herring. Standard of living for every class is improving by almost any measure compared to previous generations. The gap between rich and poor is irrelevant to that. This is true in the west, and resoundingly true in most other parts of the world.

The primary reason the rich get richer is because of globalization. What you do does not gain value unless it can be exported and scaled to more people as they develop. If you are an average Canadian, your job does not do that. But Lebron James will make far more money (in adjusted dollars) than Michael Jordon because in Lebron's time, he can provide value to billions more people than Jordan could (all the people who can watch him in the internet age/so many more middle class people with TV's in the last 20 years vs before). The entertainment value he brings, can be market to probably 3-4x more people than Jordan.

Same with companies. The exec today of an electronics firm has product that can now be marketed to chunks of people in China double to triple the size of the same chunk in that market in the US. Obviously that guy can benefit much more than the same guy a generation earlier. Zuckerberg is the perfect example - nearly everyone on earth can access and benefit from his product. Not true of internet/tech kings a generation earlier, who basically sold to NA, Europe and Japan.

Edited August 7, 2015 by hitops

WIP · August 8, 2015

Anyone who makes more than $34,000 a year is in the 1% globally.

Which makes it an apples and oranges comparison; because the cost of living varies so greatly around the world.

Bryan · August 8, 2015

Which makes it an apples and oranges comparison; because the cost of living varies so greatly around the world.

As it does coast to coast, and neighbourhood to neighbourhood.

Hal 9000 · August 8, 2015

If somebody making 40k per year increases their income by 50% and someone who makes 80K sees their income increase by 26%, you can still argue that the pay gap is widening. It's all about cherry picking stats.

WIP · August 8, 2015

If somebody making 40k per year increases their income by 50% and someone who makes 80K sees their income increase by 26%, you can still argue that the pay gap is widening. It's all about cherry picking stats.

I make about 80k per year, and I know for damn sure I can live easier than someone making 40k per year. The higher an income, the more money is available for savings and discretionary spending. People below the poverty line don't have options for either. Right now, I don't think even a household income of 80k would be enough to buy a house in most cities in Canada.

Point of fact, since we bought all the globalization laissez-faire bullshit 30 years ago, it's been the incomes over 130k that have been making the biggest increases.

Edited August 8, 2015 by WIP

Hal 9000 · August 8, 2015

I make about 80k per year, and I know for damn sure I can live easier than someone making 40k per year. The higher an income, the more money is available for savings and discretionary spending. People below the poverty line don't have options for either. Right now, I don't think even a household income of 80k would be enough to buy a house in most cities in Canada.

Point of fact, since we bought all the globalization laissez-faire bullshit 30 years ago, it's been the incomes over 130k that have been making the biggest increases.

First off, welcome to the elite 10%.

Of course, you can live easier on 80K than 40K, but that's not really the issue. The issue is about the widening gap between classes. My point is that percentage wise, you can give much more to the lower income people and still have a widening income gap. A doctor who gets a minor increase of 10-15% might see a wider gap between him and someone making 40K with a 100% increase in income.

The NDP can always play the "widening gap" card - and they do.

Big Guy · August 8, 2015

Perhaps this will help the discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume

WIP · August 9, 2015

First off, welcome to the elite 10%.

Of course, you can live easier on 80K than 40K, but that's not really the issue. The issue is about the widening gap between classes. My point is that percentage wise, you can give much more to the lower income people and still have a widening income gap. A doctor who gets a minor increase of 10-15% might see a wider gap between him and someone making 40K with a 100% increase in income.

Maybe I shouldn't be taking it as a given that you are quoting real numbers at me! This Globe & Mail piece from a couple of years ago says average household income is $76,000 and the top 1% "

requires a total income of $191,100, or nearly seven times the median income

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/who-are-the-1-per-cent-a-snapshot-of-what-canadians-earn/article14269972/?page=all.

As for median average Full Time income:

The previous census, released in 2006, painted a picture of 25 years of stagnant income growth for the middle class. It showed median earnings of full-time workers were $41,401 in 2005 – a change of just $53 when adjusted for inflation over a quarter of a century.

So, I was already well aware that I am ahead of median income...that is especially crucial in this day and age of part time/casual/contract and other factors that have driven down wages and earnings for younger people.

*a recent employment survey of southern Ontario revealed that 60% of the workforce in Hamilton are in that parttime and casual category. No wonder so many people seem so stressed out these days!

The reason why I am not celebrating, nor an acolyte of the Great Man theory of capitalism, is because I know damn well that as a skilled tradesman, the only reason why my earnings haven't been chopped...though they are not increasing much...is because I work for a company that decided since it would be too much effort to force out the union, they would just create a new collective agreement for all the new hires 15 years ago, and just wait out us oldtimers who are rapidly dwindling down and on our way out the door.

Facts are that at one time, if you couldn't or didn't want to go to university and get some sort of degree and work as a professional of some sort, you could still make a good living with your hands if you had those kinds of skills, and that is no longer the case in our brave new world of globalization.

Though from what I am reading lately, I'm expecting a lot of those libertarian-thinking professionals will be waking up in the next 10 years, as automation and outsourcing are about to give them a slap upside the head....like the computer and IT pros after 2000 got their wakeup call when their employers discovered armies of low cost math geniuses in India.

I'm looking beyond my own situation, and even my own kids who are not going to live as well as I do as easily. I'm looking at what life is going to be like for the majority of young people here and around the world, especially as the effects of declining resources and climate degradation impact on how people are able to live...in ways that we are only beginning to make sense of now. It's a dismal future at best for the coming generations, and much if not most of the blame should land on creating a way of life that is more greedy and avaricious the worse things get.

In terms of income and taxes, I would gladly pay higher income taxes if they are being used to rebuild infrastructure and social programs to help balance out the negative aspects of the type of capitalism we are mired in today....even though, as an 80k per year employee, I would take a hit that an 80k a year business owner who limbo under with all the tax breaks and incentives available to the business vip club that runs the political system at all levels of government.

Edited August 9, 2015 by WIP

bush_cheney2004 · August 9, 2015

....Though from what I am reading lately, I'm expecting a lot of those libertarian-thinking professionals will be waking up in the next 10 years, as automation and outsourcing are about to give them a slap upside the head....like the computer and IT pros after 2000 got their wakeup call when their employers discovered armies of low cost math geniuses in India.

That was only more opportunity calling....as technology transfer and collaboration with those cheap math geniuses in India (Canada, Philippines, Ireland, Ukraine, etc.) paid a helluva lot more than $80K...in U.S. dollars, not Canadian pesos.

cybercoma · August 9, 2015

So, I was already well aware that I am ahead of median income...that is especially crucial in this day and age of part time/casual/contract and other factors that have driven down wages and earnings for younger people.

Wages haven't been driven down for younger people. They've been drive out of jobs. Have you looked around at the cashiers and fast food workers lately? They're all grey-haired or have trouble speaking english. Where are the kids and youth? Living with their parents into their late 20s now because they can't finance their own independence anymore.

But don't take my word for it. Take a look around you.

Edited August 9, 2015 by cybercoma

Hal 9000 · August 9, 2015

Wages haven't been driven down for younger people. They've been drive out of jobs. Have you looked around at the cashiers and fast food workers lately? They're all grey-haired or have trouble speaking english. Where are the kids and youth? Living with their parents into their late 20s now because they can't finance their own independence anymore.

But don't take my word for it. Take a look around you.

Bull, living in the low income bracket is easier today than ever before. I grew up in the 80's, when minimum wage was 4.00$. If people are living with their parents, it's because that's what they want to do. Youth today are weak, soft and entitled. And, people like you are enablers for buying into it.

cybercoma · August 10, 2015

Bull, living in the low income bracket is easier today than ever before. I grew up in the 80's, when minimum wage was 4.00$. If people are living with their parents, it's because that's what they want to do. Youth today are weak, soft and entitled. And, people like you are enablers for buying into it.

Look at how much better they have it!

figure1_national_average_minimum_wage1.j

The only reason it's better is because has gone up in the last couple of years, despite your protestations about it. And even then, it's still far below the way things were in the 70s.

Edited August 10, 2015 by cybercoma

The_Squid · August 10, 2015

Bull, living in the low income bracket is easier today than ever before. I grew up in the 80's, when minimum wage was 4.00$. If people are living with their parents, it's because that's what they want to do. Youth today are weak, soft and entitled. And, people like you are enablers for buying into it.

You're wrong of course... the minimum wage hasn't budged in 40 years. So clearly it is NOT any easier today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/real-minimum-wages-in-canada-havent-budged-in-almost-four-decades/article19630636/