Time to get rid of the NDP

Hicksey · February 9, 2006

Support for the NDP can be best explained by one term.

Feel-goodism.

....

2) Too many people believe that by redistributing wealth in a Robin-Hood-esque 'take from the rich and give to the poor' manner will solve all society's ills.

.....

Quick reply cause I have a class in a few mins but, why do thousands of people die everyday of malnourishment if the top 450 richest people in the world own 53% of the capital ? We can produce more than enough food for the whole population of this planet and have some left over. Just because you're born in a "developed" country doesn't entitle you to not care ! You've been made to think that whats best for transnational corporations is also whats best for you. Pick up a book from Leslie Sklair. You'll thank me when you're done.

I'll reply to your other insightful comments later.

If you read above, I do donate to worldwide charities like the Savation Army.

If you want to help people around the world, don't give them a fish, teach them how to fish for themselves.

lost&outofcontrol · February 9, 2006

If you read above, I do donate to worldwide charities like the Savation Army.
If you want to help people around the world, don't give them a fish, teach them how to fish for themselves.

Great idea, now how about telling government and international organizations this. We keep dumping grain/food products on countries in need so as to force their farmers to become more efficient and competitive on the world stage. Open up your markets we say.... all in the name of free globalized markets....

I'm not questioning your willingness to donate your money. I'm questioning why do a very small minority control the interest of billions of people including you and me. (which is basically what Marx asked)

*edit* sorry, I went off topic there.

sage · February 9, 2006

Thousands of people die everyday because they live in a climate where they cannot produce enough food.

You don't think if there were 10 million people living in the arctic they'd be starving?

I'm not saying there's other things at play here, but simple geographics do play a role as well.

fellowtraveller · February 9, 2006

There is actually no need to 'do' anything about the NDP.

The attraction to their policies is biological, caused by a recessive gene.

Darwin was right, it will take care of itself.

Damn. Succinct. Concise.

But damn cold.

Support for the NDP can be best explained by one term.

Feel-goodism.

1) Too many people have been programmed that when they have something they should be guilty that there are those that don't. They're taught that we live in a zero-sum economy wherein you have to take from others to do better for yourself.

2) Too many people believe that by redistributing wealth in a Robin-Hood-esque 'take from the rich and give to the poor' manner will solve all society's ills.

3) Too many people have been fooled into believing that the government can provide for us better than we can do for ourselves.

Jeez, I was just kidding.... sort of.

Really though, the NDP represent the ideology of quite a few Canadians.

So be it.

And it isn't 'feel-goodism' IMO.

It's based on that old canard that we are created equal, and if we are not, we can be legislated equal. Neither is true.

Michael Hardner · February 9, 2006

It's based on that old canard that we are created equal, and if we are not, we can be legislated equal. Neither is true.

Obviously that's a simplification. Today's three parties are much closer in philosophy than you suspect. The NDP is no more interested in legislating equality than the Conservatives are in abolishing all taxes.

Hicksey · February 9, 2006

It's based on that old canard that we are created equal, and if we are not, we can be legislated equal. Neither is true.

Obviously that's a simplification. Today's three parties are much closer in philosophy than you suspect. The NDP is no more interested in legislating equality than the Conservatives are in abolishing all taxes.

I think we need a consumption tax on all new goods. Everyone pays equally when they buy. If you can't afford the tax, you buy used. Of course certin necessities would have to be exempted, but I think overall it could work.

You are the master of how much taxes you paym, but the more you buy the more you pay.

Michael Hardner · February 9, 2006

I think we need a consumption tax on all new goods. Everyone pays equally when they buy. If you can't afford the tax, you buy used. Of course certin necessities would have to be exempted, but I think overall it could work.
You are the master of how much taxes you paym, but the more you buy the more you pay.

You mean to replace income tax ? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, as in the more you make the less you pay as a percentage. In order for a consumption tax to replace income tax, the lower/middle income people would probably pay more.

Besides, consumer spending is generally something that governments want to encourage.

Riverwind · February 9, 2006

You mean to replace income tax ? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, as in the more you make the less you pay as a percentage.

Richer people spend more money on taxable items than poor people. Poor people also get a tax rebate. Consumption taxes are not as regressive as some people want to believe.

Besides, consumer spending is generally something that governments want to encourage.

Gov't also need to encourage saving. High consumption taxes/low income taxes encourage saving.

Hicksey · February 9, 2006

I think we need a consumption tax on all new goods. Everyone pays equally when they buy. If you can't afford the tax, you buy used. Of course certin necessities would have to be exempted, but I think overall it could work.
You are the master of how much taxes you paym, but the more you buy the more you pay.

You mean to replace income tax ? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, as in the more you make the less you pay as a percentage. In order for a consumption tax to replace income tax, the lower/middle income people would probably pay more.

Besides, consumer spending is generally something that governments want to encourage.

I'm saying that no matter how much you buy you pay the same taxes. That's not regressive.

There are many people talking up hybrids of this system that are so geared, but I think we should replace all taxation with the system I propose.

Michael Hardner · February 10, 2006

Sparhawk:

Richer people spend more money on taxable items than poor people. Poor people also get a tax rebate. Consumption taxes are not as regressive as some people want to believe.

If you make $20K, chances are you're spending a greater proportion on taxable items than somebody who makes $2M. Hence, it's regressive.

Gov't also need to encourage saving. High consumption taxes/low income taxes encourage saving.

I think such an idea is too drastic, if that's the only goal. You could tax savings at a lower rate, for example.

Michael Hardner · February 10, 2006

Hicksey:

I'm saying that no matter how much you buy you pay the same taxes. That's not regressive.
There are many people talking up hybrids of this system that are so geared, but I think we should replace all taxation with the system I propose.

That sounds more like a flat tax. Do you mean the same percentage, or the same amount ?

Either way, the rich would pay less. That means you need to increase taxes for low/middle income earners to keep revenues the same.

lost&outofcontrol · February 10, 2006

Thousands of people die everyday because they live in a climate where they cannot produce enough food.
You don't think if there were 10 million people living in the arctic they'd be starving?

I'm not saying there's other things at play here, but simple geographics do play a role as well.

They can produce enough food, look at Kenya which was self sufficient until the 80s.

Taken from here

Kenya, which had been self-sufficient until the 1980s, now imports 80 percent of its food, while 80 percent of its exports are accounted for by agriculture. In 1992, European Union (EU) wheat was sold in Kenya for 39 percent cheaper than the price paid to European farmers by the EU. In 1993, it was 50 percent cheaper. Consequently, imports of EU grain rose and, in 1995, Kenyan wheat prices collapsed through oversupply, undermining local production and creating poverty.

Not only is much U.S. food exported unnecessary, but it results in great harm to the very people they profess to be helping. The United States exported over sixty million tons of grain in 1974. Only 3.3 million tons were for aid, and most of that did not reach the starving. For example, during the mid-1980s, 84 percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Latin America were given to the local governments to sell to the people. This undersold local producers, destroyed their markets, and reduced their production.

The victims of free market dogma can be found all over the developing world. An estimated 43 per- cent of the rural population of Thailand now lives below the poverty line, even though agricultural exports grew an astounding 65 percent between 1985 and 1995.

Basically what this means is that once you dump large amounts of food on countries for a almost nothing, these countries become depend on these food "dumps". To pay back the exporting country, they have to sell off their own production. The IMF/WB has being doing the exact same thing with loans for the past 30 years. It isn't complicated really, it's a matter of control. A massive pyramyd scheme we're all part of.

I strongly recommend people read a few pages from that website.

Obviously that's a simplification. Today's three parties are much closer in philosophy than you suspect. The NDP is no more interested in legislating equality than the Conservatives are in abolishing all taxes.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.

fellowtraveller · February 10, 2006

The NDP is no more interested in legislating equality

Of course they are, it is a basic plank of social democracy. You can learn more about it here

Michael Hardner · February 10, 2006

Sorry but I didn't see it.

When I searched for 'equality' I got this:

It is the most practical response Canada can offer to reduce global economic inequality.

Note that it says 'reduce inequality' not 'legislate equality'. There's a big difference. Sometimes I wonder if the NDP is a bigger threat than they appear to be, when their opponents exaggerate their goals.

fellowtraveller · February 10, 2006

Tell me, if the NDP were elected as government, would they wish their programs into existence, or legislate them?

Michael Hardner · February 10, 2006

Tell me, if the NDP were elected as government, would they wish their programs into existence, or legislate them?

Why are you asking such a silly question ?

geoffrey · February 10, 2006

I think we need a consumption tax on all new goods. Everyone pays equally when they buy. If you can't afford the tax, you buy used. Of course certin necessities would have to be exempted, but I think overall it could work.
You are the master of how much taxes you paym, but the more you buy the more you pay.

You mean to replace income tax ? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, as in the more you make the less you pay as a percentage. In order for a consumption tax to replace income tax, the lower/middle income people would probably pay more.

Besides, consumer spending is generally something that governments want to encourage.

I'm saying that no matter how much you buy you pay the same taxes. That's not regressive.

There are many people talking up hybrids of this system that are so geared, but I think we should replace all taxation with the system I propose.

Hicksey, you don't need to encourage savings through taxation in Canada, thats what RRSP's are for, you don't pay tax on savings.

And more consumption taxes hurt very important social measures, such as home ownership. Adding 7% to the price of a $290,000 home (average Calgary price anyways) is in the order of an additional $20,000!

Consumption taxes are not a good measure for the economy, and yes, they do tend to be regressive always.

Kincora · February 10, 2006

Tell me, if the NDP were elected as government, would they wish their programs into existence, or legislate them?

You make absolutely no sense...is this a habit for you?

Riverwind · February 10, 2006

Hicksey, you don't need to encourage savings through taxation in Canada, thats what RRSP's are for, you don't pay tax on savings.

RRSPs are NOT tax free savings - they are tax deferred savings. In many cases, people will pay less tax in the long run if they save money in non-RRSP investments. The best way to encourage savings is to tax income less.

geoffrey · February 10, 2006

Hicksey, you don't need to encourage savings through taxation in Canada, thats what RRSP's are for, you don't pay tax on savings.
RRSPs are NOT tax free savings - they are tax deferred savings. In many cases, people will pay less tax in the long run if they save money in non-RRSP investments. The best way to encourage savings is to tax income less.

Right, so your policy would work how?

Save money and then you can use it tax free forever? Kind of silly and full of loopholes. I hope you become Finance Minister one day, I'll never have to pay taxes. <_<

Riverwind · February 10, 2006

Save money and then you can use it tax free forever? Kind of silly and full of loopholes. I hope you become Finance Minister one day, I'll never have to pay taxes.

Hardly. You pay tax whenever you spend your savings through consumption taxes.

geoffrey · February 10, 2006

Save money and then you can use it tax free forever? Kind of silly and full of loopholes. I hope you become Finance Minister one day, I'll never have to pay taxes.
Hardly. You pay tax whenever you spend your savings through consumption taxes.

So whats the difference? I only take money out of the RRSP to spend it, not to fill my bathtub. :blink:

Riverwind · February 10, 2006

So whats the difference? I only take money out of the RRSP to spend it, not to fill my bathtub.

Take money out of your RRSP out you have to pay up to 50% tax on it and you then have to pay 15% sales tax. If you have a non-RRSP savings you pay no tax when you take it out but still pay the sales tax.

geoffrey · February 10, 2006

So whats the difference? I only take money out of the RRSP to spend it, not to fill my bathtub.
Take your RRSP out you have to pay up to 50% tax on it and you then have to pay 15% sales tax. If you have a non-RRSP savings you pay no tax when you take it out but still pay the sales tax.

That would be nice Sparhawk, but we'd have to drastically raise the consumption tax in order to maintain our social programs. I haven't looked at how much you'd have to raise the GST in order to make up for the difference in losing income tax, but I'm sure its alot. I'm breaking out the research databases right now to see if anyone's done this study before, if not, I'll take a brief look at it and come up with a number. I'm guessing in the range of 30-35% GST, but we'll soon find out.

Something you can't take into account in a process like that is how much less some people will buy. This will cost jobs.

Also remember, there is a large portion of Canadian's that don't pay income taxes because they are so poor. Imposing a 30% tax increase on them will be the death of the working poor in this country.

geoffrey · February 10, 2006

Ok, hopefully no one posted anything refuting previous claims before I start writting this because it will probably take awhile.

My 2 minute search for academic work on the topic didn't reveal any numbers so I took it upon myself to deal with this. This work is based on a complete elimination of income tax to move towards a purely consumption based tax system. These are 2005 numbers rounded to the nearest billion from Stats Can.

I've created an example based on Ontario:

I'll deal with the Federal tax system first.

INCOME TAX REVENUE: $132b

CONSUMPTION TAX REVENUE: $47b

So if we are dealing with straight numbers (and I argue the increase would have to be higher to account for reduced consumer spending, but we'll say people still buy the same amount), the GST would have to be increased to 26.66% to provide the same funding.

Next, Ontario:

INCOME TAX REVENUE: $29b

CONSUMP TAX REVENUE: $23b

Ontario is a little better off in this regard, but remember they start at 8% on top. To cover the difference by removal of income tax, Ontario would have to increase its PST to 18.09%

That leaves, in Ontario, a combined consumption tax of 44.75%

I'll let you guys decide if thats better than paying income taxes. And remember, less spending makes less jobs, and less spending means that number would have to be higher.

Sparhawk, what say you?