White Privilege and Systemic Racism in Ontario: 2021

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1) low taxes on the wealthy

the rich get rich by providing products and services to those less well off

they help the poor far more than they hurt them

2) the idea that the only or main way to be successful is to exploit the unsuccessful and keep them down is a myth

3) free market capitalism exploits the fact that best way to get rich is by helping others and rewarding them for doing so

 

1) Well, you can take that pretty far, to the point where they should pay no taxes and in fact be paid by the government for what they do.

2) Ok, debatable but that's politics.  I sure don't agree with it.

3) There is no "best way to get rich" under free market capitalism.  You can get wealthy any way you like.

 

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Well, you can take that pretty far, to the point where they should pay no taxes and in fact be paid by the government for what they do.

2) Ok, debatable but that's politics.  I sure don't agree with it.

3) There is no "best way to get rich" under free market capitalism.  You can get wealthy any way you like.

1) you can take it too far, but you shouldn't

everything in moderation, including moderation

you want the goldilocks zone, not too much of a good thing

3) it just so happens most of the richest people got rich by providing goods and services to the widest swath of consumers

many of whom include the disadvantaged you claim to be so worried about while condemning those helping them because they got rich doing it

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1)  many of whom include the disadvantaged you claim to be so worried about while condemning those helping them because they got rich doing it

1) I feel like you're putting words in my mouth.  I am in favour of an open economic system.  But incremental taxation produces better societies IMO.  What is "fair" taxation can be determined in via open dialogue.

[Yzermandius19]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) What is "fair" taxation can be determined in via open dialogue.

do you think rich pay their fair share in taxes or not?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Interesting take.  I think I agree.

2. Maybe, but 'deserve' is a low bar right ?  You deserve... water... food... a shelter bed... and basic medical.  I doubt anybody with a minimal amount of ability would feel their self-actualization would be diminished knowing that that existed if they needed it.

3. And yet, here we are.  Government policy is all about giving a boost to some group or another.   Suggest something better, and we can look at it.

4. For sure, but policy improves - or even is removed - through good-faith dialogue.  Let's replace it if it's no good.

In your second point I think most people would agree that there are some services which it is beneficial for government to provide because they’re for everyone and shouldn’t be sold at a profit.  Also, the economy of scale sometimes allows government to procure more cheaply for a massive population than would competing companies.  I think that certainly applies to utilities.  That’s different from favouring certain groups.  When does the favouritism end?  How much support is justified, etc.?   I think we agree that everyone can become disabled, unemployed, or get a catastrophic illness.  Everyone gets old.  There should be a social safety net.  The idea of ethnic or race-based economic policy is dangerous and retrograde, especially when there’s no clear and significant disadvantage for the favoured group.  Introducing discrimination as a means to end systemic racism is oxymoronic.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

do you think rich pay their fair share in taxes or not?

Today ?  I think they could pay more.  That's even echoed by a lot of institutions, and some of the wealthy themselves.  I don't think that we are in an egregious situation that demands overthrow either.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. When does the favouritism end?  How much support is justified, etc.?  
2.The idea of ethnic or race-based economic policy is dangerous and retrograde, especially when there’s no clear and significant disadvantage for the favoured group. 

1. How long is a piece of string ?  At some point, these things are wound down if they're not supported/needed. 
2. I don't agree.  What about religious ?  Gender ? LGBT ?  Treating everybody the same ignores problems that certain groups face IMO.

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Today ?  I think they could pay more.  That's even echoed by a lot of institutions, and some of the wealthy themselves.  I don't think that we are in an egregious situation that demands overthrow either.

what percentage should they pay?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Zeitgeist]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How long is a piece of string ?  At some point, these things are wound down if they're not supported/needed. 
2. I don't agree.  What about religious ?  Gender ? LGBT ?  Treating everybody the same ignores problems that certain groups face IMO.

1.  Very hard to wind down favouritism.  It’s why the majority of Indigenous want to keep the Indian Act.  The entitlements attached to status are simply too great to give up.  Who wants to pay taxes?  What’s more, the continued existence of the Indian Act can be blamed on the government.  When the money gets lean or taxpayers start to question the special status that brings these benefits, elevate the rhetoric about colonialism and systemic racism, create a media event about a discovered graveyard with which local people were already familiar.  Advocacy is an industry.

2. Again, special privileges and racist tokenism are two sides of the same coin.   The moment you set up the display case, you create the zoo-prison. “Let’s go to the safari. Let’s go to the plantation.  Let’s go to the reserve.  Let’s check out the Pride Parade.”  It’s all slumming it tokenism.  Strong, confident people don’t need special days or months when their group gets the spotlight, unless all groups get special days/months.  The same goes for handouts.  Either we all get the same benefits or no one should get them.

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.  Very hard to wind down favouritism.  

2.   Either we all get the same benefits or no one should get them.

 

1. If the problem isn't there anymore, there will be less political will to support any programs. We've seen that happen in the past also.

2. Theoretically that's a good idea, but in practice it ignores problems. I think we talked about that already.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

what percentage should they pay?

I have no idea.

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have no idea.

then how can you say they should pay more

when you have no idea what constitutes a fair share?

if they should pay more, how much more?

shit or get off the pot

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

then how can you say they should pay more

when you have no idea what constitutes a fair share?

if they should pay more, how much more?

shit or get off the pot

13.4%?

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

13.4%?

13.4% more than the percentage already pay

or 13.4% of the taxes, which would be a significant reduction?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

13.4% more than the percentage already pay

or 13.4% of the taxes?

Beats me.  I was asking you the question.

It seemed that you needed an actual figure.

[Yzermandius19]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Beats me.  I was asking you the question.

It seemed that you needed an actual figure.

I'll take either figure from the crowd who thinks they need to pay more to make it fair

I just want y'all to set the goalposts so you can't move it after

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

I'll take either figure from the crowd who thinks they need to pay more to make it fair

I just want y'all to set the goalpost so you can't move it after

It was meant to be an illustration that the notion one cannot favour a tax increase for those who can well afford it without actually having a number in mind is risible.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

then how can you say they should pay more

 

Yeah, I don't know everything.  You gone from asking me what I think to ask me for precise numbers sorry I just don't know.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

It was meant to be an illustration that the notion one cannot favour a tax increase for those who can well afford it without actually having a number in mind is risible.

too scared to set the goalposts eh?

typical

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, I don't know everything.  You gone from asking me what I think to ask me for precise numbers sorry I just don't know.

I suggest you back off your claim that they should pay more or aren't paying their fair share then

since you clearly don't know what you're talking about on this one and are simply stating an uninformed gut feeling opinion

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

too scared to set the goalposts eh?

typical

That's a strange statement.  I just said your notion is risible. 

Obviously there is no need for goalposts.  Your contention that there is probably indicates you have no actual argument against those who can afford it paying more.

I'd be happy to.

Edited July 2, 2021 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1.I suggest you back off your claim that they should pay more or aren't paying their fair share then

. since you clearly don't know what you're talking about on this one and are simply stating an uninformed gut feeling opinion

1. No.

2. No.

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.

2. No.

you know nothing, Michael Hardner

whether you refuse to admit it or not

your lack of knowledge on the matter has been exposed

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. you know nothing Michael Gardner

2. whether you refuse to admit it or not

3.your lack of knowledge on the matter has been exposed

1. I don't know everything.

2. I admitted that above.

3. By me.

The WTO, G7, and a few American billionaires have indicated that the system favors them too much. I don't know, but I think I'll take their word for it since they're institutions of capitalism and so on.  You do you though.

 

 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't know everything.

2. I admitted that above.

3. By me.

The WTO, g7, few American billionaires have indicated that the system favors them too much. I don't know, but I think I'll take their word for it since they're institutions of capitalism and so on.  You do you though.

taking their word for it makes no sense

since you have no good reason to take their word for it

if you had a good reason, that would be a different story

clearly you don't care about making sense though

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19