Half of Canada contributes nothing to its tax base.

[Dougie93]

And remember, when the Government of Canada finally goes insolvent, though that will incite a market crash, it will be brief, so you can short Canada near,  making money on the way down, then when it hits bottom basement prices to your liking you can start buying again, and then you ride the wave making more money on the way back, when the market stops panicking and realizes that the Government of Canada is not important and the potential earnings in the Canada's is still there after the Government of Canada goes broke, because the Government of Canada doesn't own Canada, Queen Elizabeth II owns Canada, and she  like you also carries on regardless without the Government of Canada too.

Thus, don't think of market forces incited national insolvency as a disaster, because really it would just be a once in a generation buying opportunity after an also very profitable big short.

[Dougie93]

31 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I mean sure, Canada could cut off it's nose to spite it's face with even more heavy handed regulation and taxation, but the market will simply flow around that overly burdensome business environment to locations that are more hospitable, like America for instance. The governments lack of control over the market is rather laughable, Canada should make like Bruce Lee, be like water.

Confederation does have one use though, helping to cling to international hockey superpower status, the Soviets know.

Literally the hockey team is the only thing worth upholding, but if there can be a United Athletes of Russia Team should actually be able to retain Team Canada, solely as an ice hockey team, without the rest of the baggage, even if for all other purposes the Canada's carry on in a new military and economic alliance, just not one in the shotgun marriage of 1867 which has corrupted the nation to the point of being a Post National State, otherwise known as the Orwellian Contradiction masquerading as a government propped up by the Americans on their northern frontier.

Mind you, even if not, methinks Team Upper Canada would be a heck of a team too.  We got Marner,  yo.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

I mean, when I hurled that Kathleen Wynnederp bomb at Ottawa, Gerry Butts and his sockpuppet blast penetration device, I thought it would be a hilarious farce, but even I wasn't expecting it to be this farcical.

Post National State; thank you HM Queen's Executive for freeing me of any further obligation to your failed state Confederation, other than paying taxes as the landed gentry, and the hockey team. /salutes

[Michael Hardner]

On 1/11/2019 at 7:20 AM, Dougie93 said:

Provably false. Observe;

Per capita GDP income in Canada in 1950 was roughly $2000.00, inflation adjusted that would be a per capita GDP income of roughly $20,000 in 2019

The actual GDP income in Canada in 2019 is roughly $50,000

Ergo, Canadians are being paid two and half times more now than they were in the 1950's in real terms, real terms being adjusted for inflation.

 

Provably false what ?  I asked a question.  And you gave a very substantive answer which compels me, but I have to ask for a cite also.

[Michael Hardner]

On 1/11/2019 at 7:20 AM, Dougie93 said:

Provably false. Observe;

Per capita GDP income in Canada in 1950 was roughly $2000.00, inflation adjusted that would be a per capita GDP income of roughly $20,000 in 2019

The actual GDP income in Canada in 2019 is roughly $50,000

Ergo, Canadians are being paid two and half times more now than they were in the 1950's in real terms, real terms being adjusted for inflation.

 

Also - we are not saying what the taxation rates were for these levels then and now.

[Michael Hardner]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

1. But Canada's progressive tax rate and redistributive taxation system IS a moral code and not based on economics at all. It's based on the morality that says we don't want people to be too poor, that we want them to be able to afford certain things, and so we will take money away from those who have money and give it to others. Trying to divorce this from morality is silly.

2. It's also unsustainable given that it creates the demand for more and more services and more and more redistribution. The more people who are removed from the tax rolls and become net recipients of government funds, the more people will be voting for parties which provide more of the same.

3. PS. There are elements of the 50s/60s I would appreciate, like a sense of self-reliance and responsibility among people, the feeling that it's not up to government to solve all your problems, and a  fundamental belief in the stern application of law and order, but I do not long for an era of stifling morality imposed on everyone.

1. Arguable.  If it were purely moral then it wouldn't matter if it worked economically or even politically, which it does.  'Moral' would be something like refusing to deal arms to Saudi Arabia, which we still don't do.

2. I'm still waiting to understand how the tax system compares to breakdowns of the past.  It's a tricky question but to say people are 'removed' from the tax rolls is inaccurate until we establish that at least.

3. Of course... slavery of women, dominance of white males, I get it I KID I KID !

[Dougie93]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also - we are not saying what the taxation rates were for these levels then and now.

Seems like a canard;

"People don't make as much as they used to."

Yeas they do, look simple math; two and half times more inflation adjusted

"But, but taxes"

What about them?

 

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Seems like a canard;

"People don't make as much as they used to."

Yeas they do, look simple math; two and half times more inflation adjusted

"But, but taxes"

What about them?

 

A canard powered by confirmation bias, a lot of people seem to want to cling to the belief that people aren't making as much as they used to, no matter how much data is thrown in their face. That way any misgivings they have about their economic performance can be blamed on the economy being worse today than it was in a mythical golden age, Nostalgia For A Canada That Never Was.

[Dougie93]

  Which is the Millenials.   People who actually lived it remember all the bad parts from the collapse of family farms to constant labour strife to the inflation crisis.  Millenials pining for something which wasn't as they think, when things are actually so much cushier now.  

Edited January 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Anyways, it all keeps coming back to the epoch, the Information Age overthrowing the Industrial age.  GM lays off 2500 Industrial workers in Oshawa while they hire 1000 Information  workers in Mississauga.  Yes, Oshawa is an Industrial rust out, but Mississauga is an Information Age powerhouse.

It's not that "people" are doing worse, overall people are doing better, my lifestyle is much better than my father's, my father's house was a rickety falling down sort of thing, while I live in a comparative palace.

The issue is simply the Industrial entrenched interests.  Industrial unions, they are going down in the face of the Information, and they are trying to get governments to save them.  Which is folly because the governments are not only corrupt incompetent and as a result dysfunctional, but also governments are tiny little things in the face of the epoch inciting wave, so there's nothing government could do to stop it even if they were functional.

[Dougie93]

And this is where we get to work is bullshit jobs are jails.  Because what governments and corporations are doing is trying to manufacture fake work, it's fake work because it is not due to market forces but rather government forces, so its not growth and it can't stand on its own without Corporate Welfare.

The Corporate Welfare regime is an open air prison, the political and corporate classes are afraid that the Industrial Age workers are going to rise up and overthrow them because they can't stop the Information Age waves from buffeting them, so just give them fake jobs and keep them working all the time, keeping them working all the time so they wont rise up, is the definition of a Gulag.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Seems like a canard;

"People don't make as much as they used to."

Yeas they do, look simple math; two and half times more inflation adjusted

"But, but taxes"

What about them?

 

Well, the question was about whether 1/2 the population paying taxes for the other is the normal state of affairs, wasn't it?

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, the question was about whether 1/2 the population paying taxes for the other is the normal state of affairs, wasn't it?

Not really, because the wealthy don't pay income tax, the wealthy incorporate and then pay themselves as a low wage employee from their own company, and then they invest those incorporated profits and pay capital gains tax instead, which in Canada, capital gains ain't a bad tax actually, and it's better than the American capital gains tax.

[Dougie93]

As Yzermandias just said, that's another nostalgia for something that never was, the high marginal income tax rates of the immediate post war "the rich paid 90% tax!"

No they didn't, you can't possibly think that the ruling elites of the global hegemon would really accept confiscatory tax rates if the politicians didn't add loopholes, if there were no loopholes to avoid a 90% marginal tax rate, said politicians would simply be conveniently assassinated on the spot, because 90% tax is communism.

I mean, there's more than one way to have a revolution to bring a democracy down, and that can be in favour of a better democracy also.  So the socialist nanny welfare gulag has a hard ceiling as to how far they can go in terms of confiscation.

See; the War of Independence, which was not a grass roots revolution from the masses, it was a tax revolt by a super wealthy land owning aristocracy, to protect their God given rights, the most important one being their property rights.

A bunch of little kings overthrew their King so they could be a Nation of Kings, every man a sovereign; America in a nutshell.

The only caveat being that those Kings of Virginia were overthrown at Gettysburg, and as a result the rights of a sovereign were extended to all,  through the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and then America basically went from there to the Moon like it was shot out of a cannon.

Now the left in America wants to have a revolution to overthrow the Nation of Kings and turn it into a nanny socialist welfare gulag like a Giant Canada.

Which would be very bad for Canada, because the only reason Canada can afford its nanny socialist welfare gulag is that the Americans are churning out wealth exponentially and it is raining down upon us.  

If the Americans go to a nanny socialist welfare gulag, all that will cool off significantly and then Americans won't be able to prop Canada up anymore.  America will rein everything in and then Canada will be out in the cold. 

Canada is run by American corporate socialism, and it's a Cold War legacy project, because with backs against the wall in the face of World War Three, the Americans did not want civil disorder on their northern frontier, so they've propped the little basket case up all this time, just to keep it within Fortress North America.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Arguable.  If it were purely moral then it wouldn't matter if it worked economically or even politically, which it does.  'Moral' would be something like refusing to deal arms to Saudi Arabia, which we still don't do.

It doesn't work economically. It discourages greater entrepreneurship and encourages those with highly rewarded skillsets to go elsewhere while rewarding those with poor skillsets and discouraging self-improvement. Income redistribution is done for moral, not economic reasons. Up until a seventy or eight years ago people were on their own as individuals - save for private charities. Income redistribution is forced charity.

Quote

2. I'm still waiting to understand how the tax system compares to breakdowns of the past.  It's a tricky question but to say people are 'removed' from the tax rolls is inaccurate until we establish that at least.

It's hard to find Canadian information, but I doubt the UK is any different from us in this respect.

The study showed that there was a fall in the share of the adult population who pay income tax (from 65.7% to 56.2%) between 2007-08 and 2015-16 – a period when the government consistently raised the tax-free personal allowance. During the same period, there was an increase in the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% (from 24.4% to 27.5%) caused by a lowering of the higher-rate threshold, a higher top rate of tax and less generous pension tax relief.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/26/barely-more-than-half-of-adults-pay-income-tax-says-report

 

 

[Dougie93]

The UK is significantly different from Canada because the UK was an Industrial power and Canada is a commodities power, so Canadians are richer than most of the British, Britain just has more rich people.

The socialists in Britain are also not held in check to the same degree by the proximity of the freedom loving Americans, so as a result the UK is now and has long been even more Bolshie than Canada is.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

As Yzermandias just said, that's another nostalgia for something that never was, the high marginal income tax rates of the immediate post war "the rich paid 90% tax!"

No they didn't, you can't possibly think that the ruling elites of the global hegemon would really accept confiscatory tax rates if the politicians didn't add loopholes, if there were no loopholes to avoid a 90% marginal tax rate, said politicians would simply be conveniently assassinated on the spot, because 90% tax is communism.

I mean, there's more than one way to have a revolution to bring a democracy down, and that can be in favour of a better democracy also.  So the socialist nanny welfare gulag has a hard ceiling as to how far they can go in terms of confiscation.

See; the War of Independence, which was not a grass roots revolution from the masses, it was a tax revolt by a super wealthy land owning aristocracy, to protect their God given rights, the most important one being their property rights.

A bunch of little kings overthrew their King so they could be a Nation of Kings, every man a sovereign; America in a nutshell.

The only caveat being that those Kings of Virginia were overthrown at Gettysburg, and as a result the rights of a sovereign were extended to all,  through the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and then America basically went from there to the Moon like it was shot out of a cannon.

Now the left in America wants to have a revolution to overthrow the Nation of Kings and turn it into a nanny socialist welfare gulag like a Giant Canada.

Which would be very bad for Canada, because the only reason Canada can afford its nanny socialist welfare gulag is that the Americans are churning out wealth exponentially and it is raining down upon us.  

If the Americans go to a nanny socialist welfare gulag, all that will cool off significantly and then Americans won't be able to prop Canada up anymore.  America will rein everything in and then Canada will be out in the cold. 

Canada is run by American corporate socialism, and it's a Cold War legacy project, because with backs against the wall in the face of World War Three, the Americans did not want civil disorder on their northern frontier, so they've propped the little basket case up all this time, just to keep it within Fortress North America.

That’s utter bullshit.  Canada without the US beside it would be like Australia or England.  The US and Canada are each other’s biggest export markets out of convenience.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  Why do you want Canada to adopt more policies like the US’s?  It’s a less safe, peaceful and harmonious society.  We haven’t had a revolution or a civil war, and that’s probably a good thing.  Less volatile and violent. Don’t get me wrong.  I like the warm winter weather in the South. We don’t have that.  The larger market creates more options in some ways, but if you end up with a serious illness are are born with a disability or in a bad area, it’s harder down there.  There are advantages and disadvantages to both countries.  I think we have become more tolerant and freer in Canada, but by March I want to go out without a jacket, which probably won’t happen up here. 

Edited January 12, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

Well, first of all "That's utter bullshit" is a circular logic fallacy, so there's no need to address that, I let others come to their own conclusions. 

I merely submit a view of it, and let the market decide, but since the market is not one yip yammering fallacious Eastern Elite Academic Liberal Party of Canada Troll, there's no need to convince such a dingbat of anything, they are immune to evidence anyways, because they will say anything to prop up their socialist welfare gulag Confederation. 

Because they have internalized it as being indistinguishable from themselves as free thinking individuals.

And moreover, without it, they'd all have to come out with the rest of us and get a real job or business in the private sector, and they don't want to be reduced to that,  as they are treated as a kind of royalty now by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

1. It doesn't work economically. It discourages greater entrepreneurship and encourages those with highly rewarded skillsets to go elsewhere while rewarding those with poor skillsets and discouraging self-improvement. Income redistribution is done for moral, not economic reasons. Up until a seventy or eight years ago people were on their own as individuals - save for private charities. Income redistribution is forced charity.

2. The study showed that there was a fall in the share of the adult population who pay income tax (from 65.7% to 56.2%) between 2007-08 and 2015-16 – a period when the government consistently raised the tax-free personal allowance. During the same period, there was an increase in the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% (from 24.4% to 27.5%) caused by a lowering of the higher-rate threshold, a higher top rate of tax and less generous pension tax relief.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/26/barely-more-than-half-of-adults-pay-income-tax-says-report

 

 

1. I'm glad you pointed out that policies have been in place 70 or 80 years, as I was going to do that.  I would also call it forced charity.  70 or 80 years, though, is actually a very long time for a policy to live.  So it's not a failure.  You would need to replace it with an updated version that addresses shortcomings.

2.  We had one interesting component of the discussion given to us on this thread: real wage gains.  What are the other components?

 

[Zeitgeist]

What's ridiculous too is that everyone, rich and poor, pays the same level of taxation on the same brackets.  For example, if you make $100,000 and that puts you in the fourth bracket, you will still get the basic personal exemption of over $10000, then you will pay the lowest bracket level of taxes on the portion of your income covered by that bracket, and so forth.  The rich are only taxed at the highest rate for the amount they make in excess of the lower brackets.

[Dougie93]

As if the rich pay income tax. 

Capital gains, wise up.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

As if the rich pay income tax. 

Capital gains, wise up.

Well they do pay taxes on the income they declare.  Yes capital gains are taxed at a lower rate.  Basically the rich aren't overtaxed is the bottom line, which was the argument that started this thread.  There will always be some redistribution of wealth from the wealthier too the poorer through taxation because the public refuses to let people die in the streets or go without the basic necessities.  I consider that progress.  Don't worry, you can still get rich, very rich, under a progressive tax system.

[Dougie93]

I'm already quite comfortable enough, I don't consider myself to be rich, but you probably would.

[Dougie93]

I have enough capital that I don't even care about money, now that I have the money, I want freedom. 

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

I have enough capital that I don't even care about money, now that I have the money, I want freedom. 

After you reach a certain threshold of meeting your needs and having some extra comforts, more money doesn't add any further to happiness.  At that point time is the hottest commodity, because our time here is finite.  Yes freedom is also very important.  I'm not too worried about that, as long as our institutions hold up and there are no major catastrophes verging on extinction level events, because freedom is tied to stability and rule of law.  Can't have one without the other.  A society where people can do whatever they want would essentially be Mad Max or The Purge.