About those tax breaks for the 'rich'

[Jariax]

On 11/21/2017 at 8:30 PM, Argus said:

There are a variety of reasons why some people are poor and others are not. Not everyone is created equal in terms of intellect or ability. Not everyone has the same luck. Not everyone has the same perseverance and temperament. The 'poor' in Canada have it better than at any point in history, better than most of the world's population, in fact. There are a number of ways they're kept poor. First, we don't teach our kids much about finance. People, even intelligent, university educated people are preyed on by financial institutions who know they aren't going to read, much less understand those long contracts. They get screwed over by payday loan companies, credit card companies and banks,  insurance companies and car dealers, all engaged in siphoning just a little extra cash each off the unknowing. "Hey, psst, kid, want to try out this seven year car loan? It'll get you high!" Then again, the fact is a lot of people just kind of settle. They have a fatalistic viewpoint, and they keep going to their shitty job every day and complaining about it, but do they take any courses to upgrade their skills and maybe get something better? Mostly, no.

I am the only person I know who is directly involved in the stock market. The bravest of my friends has some generic ETFs in their RRSP that were suggested by their bank (and even then only because I pointed out how much their overpaying on mutual funds). Nobody else owns stock. Why? Because it's a great mystery to them and they're afraid of it. If I say something like "Apple's only 14 times earnings" they'll look at me like I'm speaking Italian. But the rich get richer on the stock market while the poor and middle class shrink away in fear.

There's plenty of reasons why some people are rich and others are poor. It's a combination of luck, talent, hardwork and inheritance. 
But the question is how much should the wealthy share with the poor?

Canada's poor certainly don't have it as bad as the poor of Africa, Asia or Latin America, and I'd prefer to give my money to the really poor, rather than the Canadian poor, who aren't as badly off, as they would like to make us believe. But there is that sense of nationalism that suggests that every Canadian should be given a certain standard of life - that includes health, food, shelter and a little bit more, regardless of what they contribute to society. And from my experience, the people that are reluctant to give to Canada's poor are just as reluctant for Canada to increase foreign aid. 

 

[PIK]

What is poor, just because someone does not have what we have ,does not mean their poor, probably more happy if anything.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

What is poor, just because someone does not have what we have ,does not mean their poor, probably more happy if anything.

Well yeah, they're happy because they don't have your big tax bill.

[cannuck]

On 11/23/2017 at 5:10 PM, Jariax said:

There's plenty of reasons why some people are rich and others are poor. It's a combination of luck, talent, hardwork and inheritance. 
But the question is how much should the wealthy share with the poor?

Canada's poor certainly don't have it as bad as the poor of Africa, Asia or Latin America, and I'd prefer to give my money to the really poor, rather than the Canadian poor, who aren't as badly off, as they would like to make us believe. But there is that sense of nationalism that suggests that every Canadian should be given a certain standard of life - that includes health, food, shelter and a little bit more, regardless of what they contribute to society. And from my experience, the people that are reluctant to give to Canada's poor are just as reluctant for Canada to increase foreign aid. 

 

IMHO: what should be shared should be a direct function of how the money was obtained.   If it was from a speculative gain, 99% on day one, 98%% on end of first month, tapering down 1% a month until capital gain is at the nominal tax rate.   If the money was earned from creating wealth instead of just re-distributing it, taxed at corporate tax rate when earned and the dividend should NEVER incurr any further tax liability when it is distributed to investors/shareholders.

Canadians ARE entitled to a certain standard of living, as the assets of the country belong to its citizens.

As to foreign aid:  You really need to see what happens to aid dollars in most countries where there is a need.  It usually ends up in the hands of someone NOT intended, and will only get distrubuted (if at all) at a very high personal cost to the recipient.   What most foreign aid does is simply reward a country for overpopulating and missmanaging its own resources.  In most cases, it is the cause of people's problems, not the solution.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

IMHO: what should be shared should be a direct function of how the money was obtained.   If it was from a speculative gain, 99% on day one, 98%% on end of first month, tapering down 1% a month until capital gain is at the nominal tax rate.   If the money was earned from creating wealth instead of just re-distributing it, taxed at corporate tax rate when earned and the dividend should NEVER incurr any further tax liability when it is distributed to investors/shareholders.

Canadians ARE entitled to a certain standard of living, as the assets of the country belong to its citizens

My assets belong to ME. By which I mean the money I earn which is left over after I pay my taxes. I can take my disposable income and take a vacation in Florida or Botswana and nobody thinks anything of it. All that money leaves Canada and is spent elsewhere and accrues nothing more to the state.

But if instead I take a chance and invest it in something like Shopify, a very risky stock that can shoot up or down, somehow you feel any profit I make belongs to everyone else.

Why?

Edited November 25, 2017 by Argus

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

IMHO: what should be shared should be a direct function of how the money was obtained.

Absolutely, and to be truly accurate this would also mean a deep and full cost accounting and evaluation of the natural and social capital that was spent or borrowed while creating wealth. This should especially focus on the use of sink resources which are simply the environment's capacity to absorb and recycle our wastes back into usable natural capital. 

[cannuck]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

My assets belong to ME. By which I mean the money I earn which is left over after I pay my taxes. I can take my disposable income and take a vacation in Florida or Botswana and nobody thinks anything of it. All that money leaves Canada and is spent elsewhere and accrues nothing more to the state.

But if instead I take a chance and invest it in something like Shopify, a very risky stock that can shoot up or down, somehow you feel any profit I make belongs to everyone else.

Why?

Because you are not likely INVESTING at all.  The only investment per se was made on the IPO or subsequent PO.  THOSE are real investments.  When you buy an existing equity, the company gets not one red cent.  You are not investing, you are simply gambling on how "the market" will value the stock at any given point in time.  You are creating NO WEALTH whatsoever, and if you do sell it for a speculative gain, the resulting inflation bill is passed on to every taxpayer in Canada, so you profit directly at their expsense, while investing nothing in the real economy.  Why should they pay your bill for your trip to the casino?

IF you were an actual investor, and put your money into an equity IPO, PO or private placement, as I clearly stated, your dividend should be tax free.

[cannuck]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Absolutely, and to be truly accurate this would also mean a deep and full cost accounting and evaluation of the natural and social capital that was spent or borrowed while creating wealth. This should especially focus on the use of sink resources which are simply the environment's capacity to absorb and recycle our wastes back into usable natural capital. 

I have to say I agree in pricnipal, the problem is who and how values would be determined.   We are so far away from understanding the full life cycle costs of what we do that there just is no body of work to fall back on to figure out the costs and who and how that factor would be distributed.   Government, sadly, is so inept at just about ANYTHING outside of cashing their own paycheques, I would be hard pressed to hand trillions of dollars of authority to redistribute capital to them.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

I have to say I agree in pricnipal, the problem is who and how values would be determined.   We are so far away from understanding the full life cycle costs of what we do that there just is no body of work to fall back on to figure out the costs and who and how that factor would be distributed.   Government, sadly, is so inept at just about ANYTHING outside of cashing their own paycheques, I would be hard pressed to hand trillions of dollars of authority to redistribute capital to them.

I wouldn't be hard pressed at all. I'd determine these democratically by local people according to principles of bioregionalism.

Power is what we need to redistribute, not capital.

Edited November 25, 2017 by eyeball

[Argus]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Because you are not likely INVESTING at all.  The only investment per se was made on the IPO or subsequent PO.  THOSE are real investments.  When you buy an existing equity, the company gets not one red cent.  You are not investing, you are simply gambling on how "the market" will value the stock at any given point in time.  You are creating NO WEALTH whatsoever,

I'm creating more wealth than if I spend it on a vacation in Europe.

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

You are creating NO WEALTH whatsoever, and if you do sell it for a speculative gain, the resulting inflation bill is passed on to every taxpayer in Canada,

Yeah I'm creating wealth for me. The resulting inflation bill? Give me a break. The stock market has been booming for ten years and we've seen no inflation to speak of.

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

so you profit directly at their expsense, while investing nothing in the real economy.  Why should they pay your bill for your trip to the casino?

IF you were an actual investor, and put your money into an equity IPO, PO or private placement, as I clearly stated, your dividend should be tax free.

You have a very Marxist view of wealth. And the results of marxist policy is always universal poverty. Well, not poverty for the party men, of course, but for everyone else. Because I invest my money in a company somehow anything I earn is at the expense of people who have nothing to do with it? That's even bizarre for a Marxist. And you leave out the fact that presumably I will eventually be spending my profits, if I have some. I bought my house, in part, because of profits, for example, as well as my car. So that money does find its way into the economy. And where the companies I invest in are foreign companies, it's money coming into Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

.

But if instead I take a chance and invest it in something like Shopify, a very risky stock that can shoot up or down, somehow you feel any profit I make belongs to everyone else.

Why?

Because of morality of course.  But that's just vanity.

[cannuck]

12 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm creating more wealth than if I spend it on a vacation in Europe.

Yeah I'm creating wealth for me. The resulting inflation bill? Give me a break. The stock market has been booming for ten years and we've seen no inflation to speak of.

You have a very Marxist view of wealth. And the results of marxist policy is always universal poverty. Well, not poverty for the party men, of course, but for everyone else. Because I invest my money in a company somehow anything I earn is at the expense of people who have nothing to do with it? That's even bizarre for a Marxist. And you leave out the fact that presumably I will eventually be spending my profits, if I have some. I bought my house, in part, because of profits, for example, as well as my car. So that money does find its way into the economy. And where the companies I invest in are foreign companies, it's money coming into Canada.

You are REDISTRIBUTING wealth, no more, no less when you (or anyone else) cashes in on a speculative gain.  Sadly, since you don't seem to have the ability to be productive, why should the rest of the world carry you?

I don't think you have a clue about Marxism.  There is one hell of a difference between the state owning the means of production vs. it being owned privately.  I am a capitalist, but emphatically NOT a caino capitalist.   I believe in earning money and creating wealth, not taking advantage of privilege to redistribute wealth.   What you worship is no different from the socialist notion that they can simply redistribute wealth without adding any value and things will be just fine.

As far as inflation goes, the only reason we are not in the Weimar republic of the 21st century (yet) is that our economy is tied to the US economy, and the US economy belongs lock stock and barrel to the member banks of the Fed.   When they increase the money supply to cover the expansion of money required to cover the inflated (should be the word that explains something to you) values from market rise, the resulting inflationary pressure on the greenback forces every other central bank to jump in and buy to prop it up, as much of their own worth is tied up in instruments denominated in USD.  One big  correction came in 1929, and the next SHOULD have come in 2008/9, but the banksters owned enough of the administrations of two succesive governments to simply drown the real issues in another $10 Trillion in US debt.   THAT is massively large inflationary pressure, and it will remain on the greenback until the day the correction comes.

BTW: you keep using the term "I invest money in a company".  Unless you are buying an IPO or PO, or making a private placement, you are investing in nothing.  Not one red cent of what you for a stock that is trading goes to the company.  You put a bet on the value of the stock, you are not in any way investing in anything.  You seem to understand capital markets and equites about as well as Marxism.

Edited November 26, 2017 by cannuck

[Argus]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

You are REDISTRIBUTING wealth, no more, no less when you (or anyone else) cashes in on a speculative gain.  Sadly, since you don't seem to have the ability to be productive, why should the rest of the world carry you?

I'm willing to bet I pay more in income tax every year than you will ever earn. And most of that comes from my productivity, not my investments.

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

I don't think you have a clue about Marxism.  There is one hell of a difference between the state owning the means of production vs. it being owned privately.  I am a capitalist, but emphatically NOT a caino capitalist. 

You are a Marxist without the courage to admit you're a Marxist. You want to take the money away from successful people and give it to those who are unsuccesful, without care or concern about the clear affect this has on society. You even give the same bullshit spiel about how the money I earn belongs to the people and that I didn't rightfully earn it, unless, I suppose, I did so with a hammer and nails.

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

 I believe in earning money and creating wealth, not taking advantage of privilege to redistribute wealth.

You believe in redistributing wealth. You've already said so. You want to tax people's income by 99% unless it's income you morally approve of.

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

As far as inflation goes, the only reason we are not in the Weimar republic of the 21st century (yet) is that our economy is tied to the US economy,

There is little sign of inflation in Europe either,  so that's a lame excuse.

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

BTW: you keep using the term "I invest money in a company".  Unless you are buying an IPO or PO, or making a private placement, you are investing in nothing.  Not one red cent of what you for a stock that is trading goes to the company.  You put a bet on the value of the stock, you are not in any way investing in anything.  You seem to understand capital markets and equites about as well as Marxism.

I'm pretty sure that your vast understanding comes from never having invested a cent in the stock market. The people who buy stocks are the defacto owners of the company involved. Their fortunes wax and wane with that of the company. And most companies, particularly those who want to grow and expand, use the value of their stock for a variety of purposes, not the least of which is making new issues in order to raise money. Without people bidding up that stock based upon the company's performance that would be extremely difficult. 

In any event, your pious denunciations of the stock markets notwithstanding, you still want to take my money away if I don't make it in an approved manner. This despite it being earned off the disposable income I have left AFTER already paying a very high tax rate. If anyone with your mentality ever got into power the stock markets would collapse, and with it the best means companies have of raising money, and ordinary people have of earning enough for their retirement. 

[cannuck]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm willing to bet I pay more in income tax every year than you will ever earn. And most of that comes from my productivity, not my investments.

You are a Marxist without the courage to admit you're a Marxist. You want to take the money away from successful people and give it to those who are unsuccesful, without care or concern about the clear affect this has on society. You even give the same bullshit spiel about how the money I earn belongs to the people and that I didn't rightfully earn it, unless, I suppose, I did so with a hammer and nails.

You believe in redistributing wealth. You've already said so. You want to tax people's income by 99% unless it's income you morally approve of.

There is little sign of inflation in Europe either,  so that's a lame excuse.

I'm pretty sure that your vast understanding comes from never having invested a cent in the stock market. The people who buy stocks are the defacto owners of the company involved. Their fortunes wax and wane with that of the company. And most companies, particularly those who want to grow and expand, use the value of their stock for a variety of purposes, not the least of which is making new issues in order to raise money. Without people bidding up that stock based upon the company's performance that would be extremely difficult. 

In any event, your pious denunciations of the stock markets notwithstanding, you still want to take my money away if I don't make it in an approved manner. This despite it being earned off the disposable income I have left AFTER already paying a very high tax rate. If anyone with your mentality ever got into power the stock markets would collapse, and with it the best means companies have of raising money, and ordinary people have of earning enough for their retirement. 

Having funded and managed or owned many startups, including publicly traded companies, I think I have a pretty good idea of what this stuff is about.

Marxism is NOT about taking money from what you very loosely think are "successful" people, it is about the state owning the means of production.  In that case, there are no successful people to take money from, as it belongs to the state.  You can actually just read Marx's stuff and find that out.

Some day when you grow a pair and are prepared to genuinely put money and effort at risk by actually BEING in business, come talk to me about it.  Meanwhile, you can just sit there in your corner and continue to be greedy and hedonistic.  You see, what real success is is realizing you are not the only person in the world.

Edited November 26, 2017 by cannuck

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Having funded and managed or owned many startups, including publicly traded companies, I think I have a pretty good idea of what this stuff is about.

Some day when you grow a pair and are prepared to genuinely put money and effort at risk by actually BEING in business, come talk to me about it.

Yeah, everyone is a superstar over the internet. The only reliable indication of truth is in the motivation for desired reform. Those who have little are always the most eager to take it from those who have it. Those who have it are generally most opposed to surrendering it. Thus my motivation is clear. Yours is not. Rich guys calling for 99% tax rates on short term investments are about as common as socialists with good economic ideas.

[cannuck]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Yeah, everyone is a superstar over the internet. The only reliable indication of truth is in the motivation for desired reform. Those who have little are always the most eager to take it from those who have it. Those who have it are generally most opposed to surrendering it. Thus my motivation is clear. Yours is not. Rich guys calling for 99% tax rates on short term investments are about as common as socialists with good economic ideas.

No, only greedy assholes who seem to think they need more of everything to somehow justify their existance think in that way.

People who have actually succeeded and want to contribute something to their fellow man realize that making money is easy.  Being productive and useful is really difficult.  Having the balls to admit that some things are wrong is even more difficult.

I have the privilege of sharing one board appointment with people who were in their working years entrusted with the task of advising heads of state on how economies, finance and monetary policy fit together, and how those things relate to the social policy goals and needs of their countries apply.  You look at the world through the very narrow viewpoint of Argus' bank account.  I have leaned to look at it as a member of the human race.  Still have a lot to learn, still have a lot to accomplish, but will never stop working in that direction.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

No, only greedy assholes who seem to think they need more of everything to somehow justify their existance think in that way.

Our entire society and culture is built on wanting more and better. This is what the far left never seems to get. Without an ability to improve ones life nobody bothers to get an education or develop their skill set, or risk anything on anything. Why should they? Just sit on your ass and get your government money. Why take risks when the government will just take it away anyway? Why try to improve a design on something when you get no reward? Why work harder when the government just takes the results?

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

People who have actually succeeded and want to contribute something to their fellow man realize that making money is easy.  Being productive and useful is really difficult.  Having the balls to admit that some things are wrong is even more difficult.

I have the privilege of sharing one board appointment with people who were in their working years entrusted with the task of advising heads of state on how economies, finance and monetary policy fit together, and how those things relate to the social policy goals and needs of their countries apply.  You look at the world through the very narrow viewpoint of Argus' bank account.  I have leaned to look at it as a member of the human race.  Still have a lot to learn, still have a lot to accomplish, but will never stop working in that direction.

You're perfectly free to give away all your money (presuming you ever had any) and feel noble about having (temporarily) helped some people. You're free to presume that Marxism is a workable economic tool and that if we just take away all the money from productive people and give it to unproductive people that will result in nirvana. You aren't alone in that. And like other Marxists you quickly grow enraged whenever anyone disagrees with your beliefs. You can sit on your little charity boards and congratulate yourself on what a great guy you are, but if you try to take my money away I'll simply go elsewhere with it. Then my tax money will be contributed to another nation and not this one.

[cannuck]

you really need to read up on what the frick Marxism is.

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

Our entire society and culture is built on wanting more and better. This is what the far left never seems to get.

No, its built on the backs of people who sweat for those that want everything for themselves.  What the left gets is that the right-wing is with them. 

[PIK]

Conservatives tell people what they think.

Liberals tell people how to think.

[Argus]

On 11/26/2017 at 5:48 PM, cannuck said:

you really need to read up on what the frick Marxism is.

Gee, a guy who says making money in certain legal ways is immoral and that such profits belong to the people and should be taken away from the people who make them. Sounds real Capitalist to me!

[cannuck]

I could care less about the "morality", I am far more concerned with sustainability.

I speak for Main Street - people who actually produce things or provide services that are supportive of production.  It is the ONLY way that any wealth is created.  You speak for Wall Street, which, except for the stated exceptions, is only there to redistribute wealth, and in doing so put massive inflationary pressure on currency.  I have stated exactly how.   The real issue is that the people only stay ingorant for so long, and eventually they wise up and the bubble bursts.   BUT: in the meantime, when you could pay a 5% dividend from real business, you could increase you derivative portfolio by thousands of times - so where do you think the money is going to go?   Sure as hell not invested in Main Street - thus the current demise of much of North American small and medium size business.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 11/26/2017 at 2:30 PM, Argus said:

Yeah, everyone is a superstar over the internet. The only reliable indication of truth is in the motivation for desired reform. Those who have little are always the most eager to take it from those who have it. Those who have it are generally most opposed to surrendering it. Thus my motivation is clear. Yours is not. Rich guys calling for 99% tax rates on short term investments are about as common as socialists with good economic ideas.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Marxist.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Marxist.

Oh yes they are.

[SpankyMcFarland]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Oh yes they are.

Says it all about this site. Where do I hand in my mea culpa? 

Edited November 28, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland