Liberals want to double down on class warfare

[Argus]

Income inequality is a lefty buzz phrase which has arisen in the last few years, primarily in the US. Of course, the Left in Canada has never had the ability to formulate a new idea and so, of course, has seized on it, as they do everything trendy they hear about from Europe or the US. It was behind Trudeau's class warfare campaign that helped get him elected. And it appears that despite the minor setback of being exposed as hypocrites, they're ready to continue on. Evidently they figure most Liberal voters are ignorant anyway, so why not?

Bear in mind that according to the parliamentary budget office income inequality rose steadily for some time in Canada, then halted and began to reverse in 2006 - when Harper took over. It has been declining steadily ever since, in large measure due to tax changes the Harper government made - quietly and without trying to pit Canadians against each other and without taking selfies and pretending to be the great saviour of the middle class.

Also bear in mind that you have the wealthy -  Trudeau and Morneau -- who benefit from all kinds of special tax breaks, pointing the finger at the well-off, like dentists and farmers, and saying the law is unfair in how little they pay - despite Trudeau and Morneau paying less. Nor can you expect the tax breaks they and their families and friends use to be challenged. Instead they'll probably raise taxes on 'the rich' again, while quietly walling off most of their own income in protective shelters largely available only to the wealthy.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/01/05/liberals-hatch-plan-to-stop-trumpism-fix-income-inequality.html

[Michael Hardner]

Two points:

You need to cite your economic numbers on equality.

Also, your own post provides the reason why you should stop calling Liberals the 'left'.  Unless you want to help them in spreading 'ignorance'

[?Impact]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

 income inequality rose steadily for some time in Canada, then halted and began to reverse in 2006

I guess that is why the average CEO has already earned three times what their average employee will earn in the entire year.

[Argus]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Two points:

You need to cite your economic numbers on equality.

Also, your own post provides the reason why you should stop calling Liberals the 'left'.  Unless you want to help them in spreading 'ignorance'

Regardless of what measure of income you use (market, total or after-tax) or which threshold you use (top 10 per cent, five per cent, one per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.01 per cent) you get the same answer: top-end income shares peaked in 2006 and have been declining ever since

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/stephen-gordon-despite-what-the-attack-ads-say-incomes-at-the-very-top-have-fallen-since-harper-took-power

Mr. Stanford and Mr. Brennan rank the Harper government second-last on income inequality, based on the average share of income held by the top 1 per cent of Canadians between 2006 and 2012. But Statistics Canada reported that the top 1 per cent’s share peaked at 12.1 per cent in 2006, the year Mr. Harper took office, and declined thereafter to reach 10.3 per cent in 2012. What's more, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted last year, the tax changes introduced under the Tories since 2006 "have been progressive overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners." 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/judge-harpers-economic-record-by-the-hand-he-was-dealt/article25867267/

Edited January 7, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

21 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I guess that is why the average CEO has already earned three times what their average employee will earn in the entire year.

They make more than you because they have more skills than you. So do professional sports figures and actors. Andrew Wiggens makes $30 million a year. Are you angry about that? Dwayne Johnson made $65 million last year. That's life. As long as there is Capitalism there will be unequal incomes. Remove capitalism and you'll still have unequal incomes. Most will be dirt poor, and all the money will flow to the elites in charge as we saw in the Soviet Union.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Regardless of what measure of income you use (market, total or after-tax) or which threshold you use (top 10 per cent, five per cent, one per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.01 per cent) you get the same answer: top-end income shares peaked in 2006 and have been declining ever since

Thanks for the cite.  It's such a rarity to get one when asked these days I feel I owe you a thanks.

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Mr. Stanford and Mr. Brennan rank the Harper government second-last on income inequality, based on the average share of income held by the top 1 per cent of Canadians between 2006 and 2012. But Statistics Canada reported that the top 1 per cent’s share peaked at 12.1 per cent in 2006, the year Mr. Harper took office, and declined thereafter to reach 10.3 per cent in 2012. What's more, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted last year, the tax changes introduced under the Tories since 2006 "have been progressive overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners." 

Thanks for the cite.  It's such a rarity to get one when asked these days I feel I owe you a thanks.

[?Impact]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

They make more than you because they have more skills than you.

I am not complaining about income inequality, I am complaining about the gross income inequality. Yes, there are others in that category besides corporate CEOs. No corporate CEO has 200 times the skills of the average employee, and worse they can destroy the company and still get rewarded.

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Argus said:

Income inequality is a lefty buzz phrase which has arisen in the last few years

 

11 hours ago, Argus said:

 Remove capitalism and you'll still have unequal incomes. Most will be dirt poor, and all the money will flow to the elites in charge as we saw in the Soviet Union.

Argus never noticed this lefty has been saying for years now that its power that needs to be redistributed not wealth, of course he has me on ignore so how the fuck could he possibly have a clue what's going on?  

[GostHacked]

13 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I am not complaining about income inequality, I am complaining about the gross income inequality. Yes, there are others in that category besides corporate CEOs. No corporate CEO has 200 times the skills of the average employee, and worse they can destroy the company and still get rewarded.

I would say a good deal of the CEO's have no idea how to do the basic operations of the business.

[GostHacked]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

Argus never noticed this lefty has been saying for years now that its power that needs to be redistributed not wealth, of course he has me on ignore so how the fuck could he possibly have a clue what's going on?  

Wow, you were actually right all this time?  Who saw that coming! 

[Argus]

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I am not complaining about income inequality, I am complaining about the gross income inequality. Yes, there are others in that category besides corporate CEOs. No corporate CEO has 200 times the skills of the average employee, and worse they can destroy the company and still get rewarded.

What value are 200 workers for, say McDonalds or Loblaws or Magna compared to the CEO? Those companies could lose those 200 workers and not notice it. Loblaws has 122,000 employees, and it can easily replace most of them. Such employees are easy to find and contribute little to the company's bottom line. A decision by an adept CEO can earn millions or even billions for a corporation. Yes, they can also lose millions or billions. Which is why corporations fight over the ones they think are the best performers and are willing to reward them.

[Gingerteeth]

On 2018-01-07 at 8:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Two points:

You need to cite your economic numbers on equality.

Also, your own post provides the reason why you should stop calling Liberals the 'left'.  Unless you want to help them in spreading 'ignorance'

Protraying this issue as a left class warfare is quite the strawman.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Gingerteeth said:

Protraying this issue as a left class warfare is quite the strawman.

How so? Are you saying the Left does not engage in class warfare? That the Left does not mouth continuing outrage at how much the 'rich' make as opposed to others? You think the Liberals' efforts are done for some other reason than impressing the Left?

[Gingerteeth]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

How so? Are you saying the Left does not engage in class warfare? That the Left does not mouth continuing outrage at how much the 'rich' make as opposed to others? You think the Liberals' efforts are done for some other reason than impressing the Left?

Liberals are not targeting rich people or punishing them for being rich. Increasing and decreasing taxes isn't an attack against a class and neither is closing a tax loop hole. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Gingerteeth said:

Protraying this issue as a left class warfare is quite the strawman.

Virtually every other issue around here is portrayed the same way, has been for years and there's no end of it in sight no matter what direction you look.

[eyeball]

44 minutes ago, Argus said:

How so? Are you saying the Left does not engage in class warfare? That the Left does not mouth continuing outrage at how much the 'rich' make as opposed to others? You think the Liberals' efforts are done for some other reason than impressing the Left?

Again I say, Argus needs to pay attention to the fact that the disparity in power is increasingly emerging as the real struggle facing our society and virtually every other one around the globe as well.

The awareness of this disparity is really getting a significant boost in the revelations stemming from sexual abuse these days.

Unequal wealth distribution is clearly just a symptom not a cause.

[AngusThermopyle]

On 1/8/2018 at 1:32 PM, Gingerteeth said:

Protraying this issue as a left class warfare is quite the strawman.

No it's not. It's simply illustrating the oldest ploy in the political arsenal of weapons. The good old divide and conquer. It's been around forever, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[Gingerteeth]

10 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

No it's not. It's simply illustrating the oldest ploy in the political arsenal of weapons. The good old divide and conquer. It's been around forever, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

That scenario is entirely in your head. Come back to reality.