Will Trudeau Jnr make Morneau resign?

[Argus]

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

Argus, you seem obsessed about unfairness among people in rich countries such as Canada: the "rich" and the "very rich".

I am more concerned about why so many people, in this world of some 7 billion, are still illiterate. 

Maybe you should be talking on a different thread, then. Because if you can read(?) this one is about Trudeau and Morneau and his taxes.

[PIK]

On 11/10/2017 at 12:24 AM, August1991 said:

Argus, you seem obsessed about unfairness among people in rich countries such as Canada: the "rich" and the "very rich".

I am more concerned about why so many people, in this world of some 7 billion, are still illiterate. 

Those people and thier countries should use canada as a model, on how to build a great country, not just hop on a plane and come here.

[PIK]

Where is the media?? Imagine if harper and flaherty were both under investigation by the ethics commish, it would be in every news paper and news cast every day, just like duffy, who was on the front page for 2 yrs. It is so sad to have this in our media. Is left so scared they can't win in thier own merits??

[August1991]

On 11/10/2017 at 12:35 PM, Argus said:

Yes, I know this. I've said it repeatedly. What I don't know is what your point is. Either we have a progressive taxation system or we don't. I see no reason why Morneau should pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than I do.

....

Why fixate on percentage? Is it "fair" that everyone pay 10% of their income to the government?

Argus, even you now declare that "fair" means that rich people should pay a higher percentage, while poor people pay a lower percentage.

You declare this tax system "progressive".

=====

By world standards, even poor Canadians are very rich. If the world applied "progressive" taxation policies, even poor Canadians/Norwegians would pay very high tax rates.

And make no mistake.  We may well all (Norwegian, Canadian) soon live in a "global system". And in such a global society, people like you Argus will be considered rich and will be taxed progressively.

Leaving my question: for what good.

 

[August1991]

To me, the fact that Justin Trudeau has not asked for Morneau's resignation is:

1) Evidence of the utter political incompetence of Justin Trudeau: He either believes that his "rock star" status will earn his votes; or he believes that he's a "good guy" or finally, he believes that he "can leave them in the dust".

(If Justin Trudeau believes any of this, despite his victories in Papineau, he has no idea about what is about to hit him.) 

2) The federal Liberal Party has really bad advisors and are clueless about ordinary voters in central English Canada, and French Canada.

=====

IMHO, despite what polls say now, the federal Liberal Party is unelectable in 2019 with Morneau as federal finance minister.

Scheer knows well that Morneau is Kryptonite to Trudeau's supposed Superman.

Edited November 21, 2017 by August1991

[PIK]

The worst cabinet we have ever had, most need to resign and one needs to be deported.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, August1991 said:

Why fixate on percentage? Is it "fair" that everyone pay 10% of their income to the government?

Argus, even you now declare that "fair" means that rich people should pay a higher percentage, while poor people pay a lower percentage.

You declare this tax system "progressive".

To a certain extent a progressive tax system makes sense. At least as long as we're going to waste so much money on government. I still think poorer people should be paying SOMETHING, though. Everyone should have some skin in the game.

And as long as we have a progressive system I fail to see how it hits a high point around my level and then drops like a rock for those much richer. Especially when these are people arguing about how the rich (meaning me) are cheating everyone by not paying more.

20 hours ago, August1991 said:

By world standards, even poor Canadians are very rich. If the world applied "progressive" taxation policies, even poor Canadians/Norwegians would pay very high tax rates.And make no mistake.  We may well all (Norwegian, Canadian) soon live in a "global system". And in such a global society, people like you Argus will be considered rich and will be taxed progressively.

Not without a hell of a war we won't.

 

[August1991]

On 11/21/2017 at 8:36 PM, Argus said:

Not without a hell of a war we won't.

Argus, imagine a world (7 billion people) with Canadian progressive tax rates. (You and I and all Canadians - some 35 million - would be in the top 50% tax bracket.) 

If we applied progressive tax rates at the world level,  would that make the world a better place?

So then, why do we apply "progressive" tax rates at the local level?

=====

Fergawdsakes, I need a new thread. I fear that I am defending Morneau/Trudeau because they (like me) happen to have a Canadian passport.

What is a "Canadian"?

In the Morneau/Ignatieff view, it's about taxes, residency - where your home/chalet is.

In the Pierre Trudeau view, it's about a Charter of Rights - are you a resident/visitor/citizen?

Edited November 23, 2017 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

On 11/20/2017 at 11:49 PM, August1991 said:

Why fixate on percentage? Is it "fair" that everyone pay 10% of their income to the government? 

"Fair" is a social construct.  Progressive tax is somewhat seen as 'fair', but it's more notable as being successful in helping build rich economies and ensuring success of a middle class, and fostering social mobility.   That means "it works".

"Fair" works.  If you can convince people that something isn't fair, you can upset the social order.  

Some things that may convince them that things aren't fair may include seeing the social and economic status of their families and their communities decline over time.  The Liberals and Conservatives have bet on the system that causes these effects, and Morneau personally benefits from it.

[Michael Hardner]

 

5 hours ago, August1991 said:

1) If we applied progressive tax rates at the world level,  would that make the world a better place?

2) So then, why do we apply "progressive" tax rates at the local level?

 

1) A better place ?  It would certainly benefit the millions of poor malnourished and impoverished people in the world.  If you love keeping your rich guy stuff at the expense of human misery then the world would be worse.  If your heart bursts in helping strangers it would be better.  

2) We do not have a local progressive tax.  We have a federal and provincial tax.  You need to be more precise in your language.  We were able to convince our national publics to follow the progressive tax proposals that came with economic social change in the 2nd quarter of the 20th century.  Prosperity after WW2 seemed to confirm the validity of the approach when the middle class prospered.  

[PIK]

So if you work hard to get ahead and have stuff you want, is bad ,but working hard just so someone else can live off your hard work, is good?

[Jariax]

On 11/21/2017 at 12:05 AM, August1991 said:

To me, the fact that Justin Trudeau has not asked for Morneau's resignation is:

1) Evidence of the utter political incompetence of Justin Trudeau: He either believes that his "rock star" status will earn his votes; or he believes that he's a "good guy" or finally, he believes that he "can leave them in the dust".

(If Justin Trudeau believes any of this, despite his victories in Papineau, he has no idea about what is about to hit him.) 

2) The federal Liberal Party has really bad advisors and are clueless about ordinary voters in central English Canada, and French Canada.

=====

IMHO, despite what polls say now, the federal Liberal Party is unelectable in 2019 with Morneau as federal finance minister.

Scheer knows well that Morneau is Kryptonite to Trudeau's supposed Superman.

Wish that was true, but I think you severely overestimate the average Canadian voter. 
I'll wager that less than 20% of eligible voters know who Bill Morneau, is, and of that 5% only 40% know about the scandal, and of that 40%, only 10% are upset about it. 
And of that 10%, 90% vote for the same party every time anyways. 

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

1) A better place ?  It would certainly benefit the millions of poor malnourished and impoverished people in the world.  If you love keeping your rich guy stuff at the expense of human misery then the world would be worse.  If your heart bursts in helping strangers it would be better.  

Among the 'rich guy stuff' we would have to give up under such a system would be welfare and unemployment insurance, along with most public pensions. We simply would not be able to afford them any more. We would not be able to pay public servants more than, say, 20% of what they now receive, so they'd have to cope with that. We mostly wouldn't be able to afford new cars, so most of the auto companies would have to close down production.

But I'm sure your heart would burst with joy at helping strangers.

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Among the 'rich guy stuff' we would have to give up under such a system would be welfare and unemployment insurance, along with most public pensions. We simply would not be able to afford them any more. We would not be able to pay public servants more than, say, 20% of what they now receive, so they'd have to cope with that. We mostly wouldn't be able to afford new cars, so most of the auto companies would have to close down production.

But I'm sure your heart would burst with joy at helping strangers.

 

Your numbers are oddly specific given that the question itself was rather broad.  Would progressive taxation be good for poor people ?  Undoubtedly.  Is it a good idea ?  That's a personal question.  Would it work given our international frameworks ?  No.

[Bonam]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your numbers are oddly specific given that the question itself was rather broad.  Would progressive taxation be good for poor people ?  Undoubtedly.  Is it a good idea ?  That's a personal question.  Would it work given our international frameworks ?  No.

What would progressive taxation on a world level even mean? There is no central government which could take this money and use it. Is the idea that rich nations would have to pay large portions of their GDP to poor nations in a sort of world wide implementation of Canada's "equalization" system between provinces? If so, then I don't see how that would be good for "poor" people. I mean, it might be good for a few years, but soon rich world economies would be crippled by this huge burden (if the idea was to bring all nations up/down to a nearly equal standard of living), and the institutions that enable technological innovation, international trade, evidence-based medicine and the like would collapse. Shortly thereafter, the world's poor countries would lose access to "rich world" technologies like vaccines, the internet, electricity, antibiotics, etc. And everyone would be far worse off than they started. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

What would progressive taxation on a world level even mean?  There is no central government which could take this money and use it.

 

That's just a technicality...what matters to progressives and income equalizers confiscators is the concept of global redistribution to satisfy a collectivist ideology.

The income and wealth of the "rich" belongs to the entire world....in life and in death.

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, Bonam said:

1. What would progressive taxation on a world level even mean?

2. There is no central government which could take this money and use it. Is the idea that rich nations would have to pay large portions of their GDP to poor nations in a sort of world wide implementation of Canada's "equalization" system between provinces? 

1. It's impossible in our current context, and I don't mean to imply that we should move to such a model either.

2. A certain degree of equalization makes sense, otherwise all of the benefits of work accumulate and sit underutilized.  At too high a level, you move away from a meritocracy.  Managing a balance is always tricky.  That's all I have to say.

[Argus]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. A certain degree of equalization makes sense, otherwise all of the benefits of work accumulate and sit underutilized.  At too high a level, you move away from a meritocracy.  Managing a balance is always tricky.  That's all I have to say.

Jeff Bezos made $2.5 billion yesterday. He didn't have to do any work. His shares in Amazon increased so he's now worth over $100 billion. 

Amazon has run tens of thousands of brick and mortar stores out of business, and runs its distribution centers like sweatshops. So you have this guy sitting up top making $2.5 billion in a day while tens of thousands of low-paid workers scurry through the miles of shelves at his warehouses trying to meet a machine-imposed deadline for grabbing that pair of socks and putting it into their basket.

And what is the US congress busily trying to do? Cut taxes for Amazon and for Jeff Bezos. I'd be increasing both.

Why? I'm a conservative. But what Amazon is doing is not necessarily good for the state or society. And the well-being of the state and society are or should always be the foremost concern. Kudos to him for increasing efficiency, but by replacing hundreds of thousands of workers with tens of thousands of more poorly paid workers Bezos and Amazon are putting a burden on the state and depriving it of income/taxes. In fact, this continuing quest for more and more automation is going to sap the government of more and more revenue since under a progressive tax system poorly paid people don't pay taxes. The government has to make up for that somehow, and the most obvious way is targeting people like Bezos and organizations like Amazon who are profiting from that automation. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Argus

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Why? I'm a conservative. But what Amazon is doing is not necessarily good for the state or society.

If you've ever ordered something off Amazon and had it arrive the next day at your doorstep instead of wasting your precious time driving to a store, wandering through the aisles trying to find that same object, waiting in line to pay for it, loading it into your vehicle, then driving it back to your house, you would realize that what Amazon does is most certainly good for society. And Jeff Bezos deserves every penny he's gotten for making this a reality. 

It's true that Amazon's business model is strong and you could likely raise taxes on it to pay for government programs without crashing the company. But that said, I trust that companies like Amazon will spend their money to do things that are beneficial for me far more than I trust the government to do so. Therefore I'd rather Amazon keep their money and spend it on new research and new initiatives rather than see it go to the federal government (which will just waste it on corruption) or the local government here in Seattle (which will just waste it on legally defending obviously unconstitutional laws). 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Bonam

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Bonam said:

If you've ever ordered something off Amazon and had it arrive the next day at your doorstep instead of wasting your precious time driving to a store, wandering through the aisles trying to find that same object, waiting in line to pay for it, loading it into your vehicle, then driving it back to your house, you would realize that what Amazon does is most certainly good for society. And Jeff Bezos deserves every penny he's gotten for making this a reality.

I just don't know about that.  There was a horror film a few years back about a robot that was abandoned on planet Earth to clean the place up after inhabitants left.  It was incredibly prescient, as well as being terrifying.  It showed all these fat bastards with useless limbs floating around on trolleys because everything was being done for them.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

It's true that Amazon's business model is strong and you could likely raise taxes on it to pay for government programs without crashing the company. But that said, I trust that companies like Amazon will spend their money to do things that are beneficial for me far more than I trust the government to do so. Therefore I'd rather Amazon keep their money and spend it on new research and new initiatives rather than see it go to the federal government (which will just waste it on corruption) or the local government here in Seattle (which will just waste it on legally defending obviously unconstitutional laws). 

The bigger you are, the less tax you pay. Amazon's tax rate for the last five years has been approximately 13%. And I would wager Bezos' probably pays a similar rate. We can't keep letting big corporations expand and pay very little taxes even as their major shareholders also enjoy preferred tax rates. We're not capturing this business for the tax man nearly as much as we would with thousands and thousands of smaller entities. And yet the move is to lower taxes for corporations and, at least in the US, for rich people.

There were lots of rich people a century ago. They not only built massive houses with hundreds of rooms they gave huge sums to charity. Yet they also paid higher taxes than corporations and the wealthy do now. Bezos' can get by just fine on $20 or $30 billion. He doesn't need $100 billion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Corporations don't pay taxes...they collect taxes.

[Michael Hardner]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

Jeff Bezos made $2.5 billion yesterday. He didn't have to do any work. His shares in Amazon increased so he's now worth over $100 billion. 

Amazon has run tens of thousands of brick and mortar stores out of business, and runs its distribution centers like sweatshops. So you have this guy sitting up top making $2.5 billion in a day while tens of thousands of low-paid workers scurry through the miles of shelves at his warehouses trying to meet a machine-imposed deadline for grabbing that pair of socks and putting it into their basket.

I am going to play the contrarian here, and point out that he is reducing costs by promotion of economies of scale, and finding lower cost approaches.  The socks could be grabbed by robots and probably will do soon.  I don't want to start a side argument, though, and all of this is drifting the thread too.

 

21 hours ago, Argus said:

And what is the US congress busily trying to do? Cut taxes for Amazon and for Jeff Bezos. I'd be increasing both.

They need to reduce the taxes for the people who contribute to their campaigns.

 

21 hours ago, Argus said:

Why? I'm a conservative. But what Amazon is doing is not necessarily good for the state or society. And the well-being of the state and society are or should always be the foremost concern. Kudos to him for increasing efficiency, but by replacing hundreds of thousands of workers with tens of thousands of more poorly paid workers Bezos and Amazon are putting a burden on the state and depriving it of income/taxes. In fact, this continuing quest for more and more automation is going to sap the government of more and more revenue since under a progressive tax system poorly paid people don't pay taxes. The government has to make up for that somehow, and the most obvious way is targeting people like Bezos and organizations like Amazon who are profiting from that automation. 

As a conservative, you are starting to see why wealth distribution is important but interestingly you are still taking the moral angle.  The economy works on two basic human ideas: what is morally right and what works ie. is practical.  Without faith in those two things, an economic idea won't fly.   

In your example, it works and it works well.  Bezos should be, and is, rewarded for improving the system.  The state, however, needs to balance meritocracy, which works and is practical (ie. hard work gets you rewards, laziness gets you very little) against morality (the people who work hard can have their livlihoods eliminated and be ruined by technological advances).  The leverage for that balance is the economic gain that has been won.  If it is not managed to any degree, then capitalism becomes the 1930s cartoon of the evil man in a bowler hat pulling the levers on the machine.

---   ---

Also, all of these are old lessons.  Even solving this problem and redistributing wealth through a win-win-win (Capitalist wins, worker wins, consumer/taxpaying public wins) would leave us with big problems of the system that have been identified but not solved.

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

As a conservative, you are starting to see why wealth distribution is important but interestingly you are still taking the moral angle. 

No, I'm not talking about wealth distribution. I'm talking about paying the bills. We need those who can to contribute enough to keep the lights on, and too many of those with the most resources to pay are avoiding doing so.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The economy works on two basic human ideas: what is morally right and what works ie. is practical.  Without faith in those two things, an economic idea won't fly.   

In your example, it works and it works well.  Bezos should be, and is, rewarded for improving the system. 

Absolutely. But he should also not be exempted from contributing to the maintenance of society through taxes. He should not, in other words, be able to pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than I do.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The state, however, needs to balance meritocracy, which works and is practical (ie. hard work gets you rewards, laziness gets you very little) against morality (the people who work hard can have their livlihoods eliminated and be ruined by technological advances). 

I don't think we can hold Bezos responsible for their livelihoods being eliminated. That's technological progress and we shouldn't stand in its way. But we do need to recognize that the state has to be funded, and the more people pushed down the economic ladder the less funding it has. Which inevitably means we have to do something to make up for it. Plus there's an element of fairness here. As Warren Buffet said, he shouldn't have a lower tax rate than his secretary - but he does.

 

[WestCoastRunner]

On 11/25/2017 at 7:46 AM, Argus said:

Amazon has run tens of thousands of brick and mortar stores out of business, and runs its distribution centers like sweatshops. So you have this guy sitting up top making $2.5 billion in a day while tens of thousands of low-paid workers scurry through the miles of shelves at his warehouses trying to meet a machine-imposed deadline for grabbing that pair of socks and putting it into their basket.

Why? I'm a conservative. But what Amazon is doing is not necessarily good for the state or society. And the well-being of the state and society are or should always be the foremost concern. Kudos to him for increasing efficiency, but by replacing hundreds of thousands of workers with tens of thousands of more poorly paid workers Bezos and Amazon are putting a burden on the state and depriving it of income/taxes. In fact, this continuing quest for more and more automation is going to sap the government of more and more revenue since under a progressive tax system poorly paid people don't pay taxes. The government has to make up for that somehow, and the most obvious way is targeting people like Bezos and organizations like Amazon who are profiting from that automation. 

Do you really think Amazon is not good for society.  It seems their wages and benefits are better than you make them out to be.  

https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2017/08/08/amazon-benefits-recruiting-warehouse-jobs/

Quote

The wages at Amazon’s fulfillment centers significantly exceed federal and state minimum wages. At least as important: The jobs come with benefits. Employees who work more than 20 hours per week receive life and disability insurance, dental and vision insurance with premiums paid in full by Amazon, partial funding of medical insurance, a 401(k) plan, paid time off and an employee discount.

In addition, full-time and part-time hourly employees are eligible for a program called Career Choice, which prepays 95% of tuition for courses “related to in-demand fields,” even if the skills are not relevant to a future career at Amazon. More than 10,000 employees have participated in Career Choice, Amazon says. 

Full-time fulfillment center associate in Romeoville, Ill., are listed at $13 to $14 per hour, which is up to about 60.7% above the Illinois minimum wage of $8.25 per hour.

Full-time warehouse associate in Hebron, Ky., at $12.25 per hour. That’s 69.0% above the state’s minimum wage, which matches the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Full-time fulfillment associate in Fall River, Mass., is listed as paying $12.75 to $13.25 per hour. The high end of that range is 20.5% above the state’s $11 minimum wage.

Full-time fulfillment associate in Baltimore, Md., is listed at $13 to $14 per hour. The high end of that range is 51.4% above Maryland’s $9.25 per hour minimum wage.

Benefits give Amazon an edge

“I would consider them good entry-level positions,” Nicole Smith, chief economist at the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, says of the new Amazon jobs.

The benefits, Smith says, are unusual for jobs that require only a high-school diploma, and that should give Amazon an edge in its recruiting. In particular, Smith is impressed with Amazon’s education-related benefits, which could help the company’s entry-level workers move to better careers in the future.

“For high-school jobs, the bottom has fallen out of that market,” Smith says. In the future, prospects for workers with only a high-school diploma will only get worse, she says, so if an employer offers educational assistance, workers should take advantage of that.