The Ill feeling between left and right on immigration

[Argus]

24 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

What a freaking hysterical statement. 

Apparently the definition of the word 'hysterical' escapes you. I would suggest examining a dictionary. You can then return and apologize.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Argus

[jacee]

On 25/04/2017 at 3:57 PM, Argus said:

No, we prefer to spend it on our own. That doesn't mean we don't recognize a sense of international responsibility.

Generally, conservatives are all for being generous to those they legitimately believe  have no options. It's just that many of those on welfare clearly do have options. We all know this. I've known people who simply preferred welfare and the odd job on the side to working so they could party a lot. Conservatives believe in a sense of personal responsibility and think people need to raise themselves out of poverty - though we're willing to help. I'm all for skills and education training for those who lack either. I think we should spend more on that and less on warehousing people into a life of poverty. Fraud is NOT low. There are lots of people on welfare who could be doing something else, but they choose not to. Conservatives find it ludicrous that we have to pay for people to be on welfare and pogey while importing people from other countries to do low-skilled work here.

Let me put it more bluntly. If there's a shitty job available you could be doing, whether it's working at Tim Hortons or skinning fish, you do it or starve as far as I'm concerned.

Evidence? I'm all for ending corporate welfare. Most every conservative I know is too.

That is not what Haidt said. He said conservatives believe in capitalism and personal responsibility, even if some people don't fare very well under that. We know that too much redistribution of income causes more people to hold their hands out and discourages innovation and investment.

Can you provide citations for that?

I've heard that speculation, but I've never seen any evidence. 

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, jacee said:

Can you provide citations for that?

I've heard that speculation, but I've never seen any evidence. 

Citations for what? The law of supply and demand? I would have thought that was incontestable by now. In fact, every government law and regulation, every tax break is designed to motivate people into doing what government wants them to do, and demotivate them from doing what government does NOT want them to do. Do you disagree on this?

If you give people money to do nothing that motivates them to do nothing.  It doesn't mean all people will do nothing, of course, but the more you pay them to do nothing the higher the motivation and the more people will accept it and do nothing. Likewise, the lower the reward for taking chances as an entrepreneur, say, or in working long hard hours to make a business succeed, or putting in years of study to become a professional, well... they're not doing these things for fun, for the most part. They're doing it for the economic reward. Lower the rewards and you lower the motivation.

This is a reasonably fair discussion of the problems of either too high or too low taxes. I am not, btw, in favor of tax cuts when we have a deficit. I am also not in favour of cutting necessary services. I may even be in favour of tax increases IF NECESSARY, depending on circumstances.

Primarily through the supply side. High marginal tax rates can discourage work, saving, investment, and innovation, while specific tax preferences can affect the allocation of economic resources. But tax cuts can also slow long-run economic growth by increasing deficits. The long-run effects of tax policies thus depend not only on their incentive effects but also their deficit effects.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-taxes-affect-economy-long-run

Edited August 6, 2017 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

Apparently the definition of the word 'hysterical' escapes you. I would suggest examining a dictionary. You can then return and apologize.

Apologise for your hyperbolic, shrill, hysteria that you try to use to inflame everyone. I don't think so. I'm on to your agenda. Some folks are just too gullible to see it. 

Edited August 6, 2017 by WestCoastRunner

[Argus]

Just now, WestCoastRunner said:

Apologise for your hyperbolic, shrill, hysteria that you use to inflame everyone. I don't think so. 

Well then continue in your ignorance. That is your custom, after all, as is insulting other posters, and then running crying to the moderators when they insult you back.

[WestCoastRunner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Well then continue in your ignorance. That is your custom, after all, as is insulting other posters, and then running crying to the moderators when they insult you back.

I don't cry to anyone. And I've addressed your post for what it is. I haven't insulted anyone. 

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

I don't cry to anyone. And I've addressed your post for what it is. I haven't insulted anyone. 

I made a statement of fact, and rather than challenge it you chose to attack me. That, as I said, is your custom, as is constantly sniveling in the moderation thread that you're just a little girl and the big bad men are being mean to you. Waaah! Waaaah!

Edited August 6, 2017 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

Just now, Argus said:

I made a statement of fact, and rather than challenge it you chose to attack me. That, as I said, is your custom, as is constantly sniveling in the moderation thread that you're just a little girl and the big bad men are being mean to you. Waaah! Waaaah!

Think what you will. You have that right. 

[jacee]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

If you give people money to do nothing that motivates them to do nothing.  It doesn't mean all people will do nothing, of course, but the more you pay them to do nothing the higher the motivation and the more people will accept it and do nothing. 

What I have read indicates that with a Guaranteed Annual Income, the disincentive to work is much smaller than expected. Of course, that's different than welfare which does disincentivise working because benefits are lost. GAI is not lost (until a relatively high ceiling), so people can work to improve their income. 

GAI also reduces criminal and social problems, and consequent policing and health costs.

As for taxes, I've heard that argument before too, but never seen any evidence of those effects either.

'Common sense' often isn't. 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I made a statement of fact, and rather than challenge it you chose to attack me. That, as I said, is your custom, as is constantly sniveling in the moderation thread that you're just a little girl and the big bad men are being mean to you. Waaah! Waaaah!

You do often state what you deem to be "facts" that are actually only wild assumptions that you hope people will buy so as to believe your position. When they call you out, you get insulting, like clockwork.

[Argus]

Just now, jacee said:

What I have read indicates that with a Guaranteed Annual Income, the disincentive to work is much smaller than expected. Of course, that's different than welfare which does disincentivise working because benefits are lost. GAI is not lost (until a relatively high ceiling), so people can work to improve their income. 

GAI also reduces criminal and social problems, and consequent policing and health costs.

As for taxes, I've heard that argument before too, but never seen any evidence of those effects either.

'Common sense' often isn't. 

Having spent a lot of years poor and working crappy jobs and having spent a lot of time around people who were poor and either on welfare or working crappy jobs, I can personally attest that a GAI would influence many to stop working those crummy jobs. It would also require businesses which employ low skilled, low paid labour to shut down, automate, or raise wages quite a bit which in turn would hurt the poor by raising prices. And if everyone gets a GAI, even when working low paid jobs, the costs would be prohibitive. Taxes for the remainder of the population would have to increase tremendously. We're already in a situation where one half the population pays 96% of income tax and the other half pays 4%. A GAI the way you envisage would shift that number even further, to the point where perhaps 30-40% of the population is paying all the taxes, and the rest would be free riders - who nonetheless can continue to vote for more benefits for themselves, paid for by what would be a shrinking minority.

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

In fact, most countries won't even give you citizenship if you were born there unless you were born to a citizen. The reason there are third world women coming to Canada to bear children and then returning home is it is one of the very, very few remaining countries that gives its citizenship away so easily.

I think the correct term is "anchor babies".

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

I think the correct term is "anchor babies".

 

I don't think anyone at all would be against having the procedure banned completely.

[Argus]

Just now, Hal 9000 said:

I think the correct term is "anchor babies".

Yes, because those born here, even to foreigners, even to foreigners with no connection to Canada whatsoever, automatically become Canadian citizens. That is not the case for most of the rest of the world. It certainly isn't the case in Europe. I was actually born in Germany as my father was in the RCAF and posted there at the time, but I have no claim on German citizenship. A German air force officer posted here with his wife having a baby here, on the other hand, would entitle the baby to Canadian citizenship, and all the rights attached to it.

[Argus]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I don't think anyone at all would be against having the procedure banned completely.

Want to bet my entire life's savings?

[Guest]

Just now, Argus said:

Want to bet my entire life's savings?

No, I just wanna see who would.

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think anyone at all would be against having the procedure banned completely.

It's pretty popular with the Chinese population.  

I gotta think that after all the Khadr stuff and what Trudeau spouts etc etc., there would be heavy resistance to removing that loophole

[jacee]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Having spent a lot of years poor and working crappy jobs and having spent a lot of time around people who were poor and either on welfare or working crappy jobs, I can personally attest that a GAI would influence many to stop working those crummy jobs. It would also require businesses which employ low skilled, low paid labour to shut down, automate, or raise wages quite a bit which in turn would hurt the poor by raising prices. And if everyone gets a GAI, even when working low paid jobs, the costs would be prohibitive. Taxes for the remainder of the population would have to increase tremendously. We're already in a situation where one half the population pays 96% of income tax and the other half pays 4%. A GAI the way you envisage would shift that number even further, to the point where perhaps 30-40% of the population is paying all the taxes, and the rest would be free riders - who nonetheless can continue to vote for more benefits for themselves, paid for by what would be a shrinking minority.

That's all speculation, mostly debunked from what I've read about GAI. People might quit crummy jobs, but they can then afford the education/training they need to do the job they want, or the time and money to start the business they want, a parent can afford to be home with kids, reducing child care subsidies and other costs. It actually improves the economy.

You don't seem to consider the many other economic benefits. No, costs don't increase because there are savings in many other social costs, and people are now able to progress to better incomes (and pay more taxes), instead of being stuck in "crummy jobs". And those providing 'the crummy jobs' may have to sharpen up and make it worth people's time ... or automate.

 

 

[eyeball]

I think it's fair to say the feeling between the right and left is not just ill, it's outright dead.

If there's anything the right and left agree on I'd be interested in knowing what it is.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think it's fair to say the feeling between the right and left is not just ill, it's outright dead.

If there's anything the right and left agree on I'd be interested in knowing what it is.

You and I disagree on many things, but I bet we agree on gay rights, abortion rights, assissted suicide, freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, Trump, Brexit.  Probably more.

I bet neither of us can find a single poster on here that we don't agree with on something.

One thing we all agree on.  We all like arguing...

Edited August 6, 2017 by bcsapper

[jacee]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think it's fair to say the feeling between the right and left is not just ill, it's outright dead.

If there's anything the right and left agree on I'd be interested in knowing what it is.

Maybe ... maple syrup?

[jacee]

I was trying to think how to say this, and found this:

[Omni]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Maybe ... maple syrup?

Hey me and a buddy used to make maple syrup when I was a kid back in Ontario. What we didn't eat we sold in his mom and dads general store. It was a hit in the community and we made a few bucks. But of course we only tapped native maples. None of those foreign born saps in our syrup.

 Acer /ˈeɪsər/ is a genus of trees or shrubs commonly known as maple. The genus is placed in the Sapindaceae family.^[1]There are approximately 128 species, most of which are native to Asia,^[2] with a number also appearing in Europe, northern Africa, and North America. Only one species, Acer laurinum, extends to the Southern Hemisphere.^[3] The type species of the genus is the sycamore maple, Acer pseudoplatanus, the most common maple species in Europe

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

You and I disagree on many things, but I bet we agree on gay rights, abortion rights, assissted suicide, freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, Trump, Brexit.  Probably more.

I bet neither of us can find a single poster on here that we don't agree with on something.

One thing we all agree on.  We all like arguing...

Ultimately, most of the Canadian Left and Right agree on what we want. The disagreement is over how to get it.

The Right believes more in individual responsibility than the Left. The Left believes in more government assistance to the poor than the Right. We both want the poor to not BE poor, but disagree on how to accomplish this. So rather than black and white things are really innumerable shades of gray.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

So rather than black and white things are really innumerable shades of gray.

Unless of course the topic is immigration.