The contribution of the poor

[xul]

The poor are always condemned to make less contribution to their country because they usually pay less tax to government than these wealthy do. Is this fair to them? Does a person's real contribution to a society always proportion to the tax he paid? About the issue, I have two stories here to interpret my view:

1.

After Lincoln expressed the will of deserting the slavery in America, some slaveholders argued against him violencely.

One slaveholder wrote a letter to Lincoln:"You told me that all countries in the world except us have given up the slavery, that's right. But you must understand that these black slaves in our country is different from those white citizens in Europe. These citizens pay tax to their government but those black guys, we supply them food, let them share our house, our farm, our road......but they have never paid any tax. These salverys have no contribution to our country, why shall I give up my slaveholding? "

Several days later, he recevied a litter from Lincoln:"If you really believed that the slaves have no contribution to you and our country, why would you fear to give up the slavery in our country? "

2.

In a Pacific island, the government traditionally used to tax employer but not tax employees.

There was a employer, who hired 100 workers with the salary each of them $8/year, and according the tax policy his enterprise must pay the government tax $10,000 a year.

The employer felt this unfair. So he visited PM, the bigest taxpayer supporter in his country, and complained why the policy made him doing all contribution of the country and the workers doing nothing.

PM considered his complaint seriously and told him government wouldl change the policy to tax each workers $200 a year instead of tax employer 10,000 a year.

The employer came back home gratefully. But when he went to his office the following day, he met big trouble. The 100 workers wait him here and told him that because government tax each of them $200/year, so he must pay each of them a salary of $208/year, or they had to resignate.

Awaring he would spend extra $10,000 a year, the employer hurried to the PM's office and asked him to change the policy back its original. A secretary met him at the gate of the office and told him indifferently:"PM will no longer meet you. You know, he is only the big supporter of taxpayer, the contributor of our country. "

Edited July 28, 2007 by xul

[B. Max]

Hey what about less tax = less poor people.

[NovaScotian]

Hey what about less tax = less poor people.

Up to a point...

[Posit]

Hey what about less tax = less poor people.

It never works since the only people to really benefit from a tax break are the rich and upper middle class. For the middle, lower and poverty class people they have to replace the services that get cut along with the taxes and can barely afford choosing between essential services and having food to eat or a place to sleep.

[B. Max]

It never works since the only people to really benefit from a tax break are the rich and upper middle class. For the middle, lower and poverty class people they have to replace the services that get cut along with the taxes and can barely afford choosing between essential services and having food to eat or a place to sleep.

That's simply not true. Taxes are probably the biggest road block to the creation of wealth that there is. What you descibe is exactly what is happening now under the oppressive tax burden that we already have.

[ScottSA]

It never works since the only people to really benefit from a tax break are the rich and upper middle class. For the middle, lower and poverty class people they have to replace the services that get cut along with the taxes and can barely afford choosing between essential services and having food to eat or a place to sleep.

That's simply not true. Taxes are probably the biggest road block to the creation of wealth that there is. What you descibe is exactly what is happening now under the oppressive tax burden that we already have.

Well, it's true in Posit's framework. He views wealth as something unattainable, horded by misers in high towers who occasionally toss scraps down to the great mass of peasants and proletariat, who cringe in doorways waiting for someone to deliver the next meal to them, because they are completely at the mercy of {{{{{The Rich}}}}}, and were it not for government taking money from {{{{{The Rich}}}}} to give to {{{{{{{the poor}}}}}}, everyone but {{{{{The Rich}}}}} would simply starve.

[marcinmoka]

I thought this could of been a good topic, but it seems to be shaping up to be a usual shit flinging fest between daydreaming socialists and libertarian idealists.

But I shall try...

Do taxes stifle economic growth and prosperity? Of course. One would be a fool to argue that.

Should they be lower? But of course, seeing as we should eliminate pork spending and be far more intelligent and discriminating in how our services are being delivered. The fact of the matter is, a small but significant portion of people do take advantage of our systems and institutions, it's just that you (a.k.a the white suburban champagne socialist who is fuming right now and planning a harsh rebuttal) have not been taught that in college, because he or she too is a white suburban champagne socialist who has never actually seen a housing project in real life.

Should we eliminate taxes? Well if any of our anarchistic/libertarian friends had their way, Calgary would resemble Kandahar. And despite my urging of these people to move to the outskirts of Bogota and Kandahar so they can enjoy the fruits of their labour, I am not aware of any who have taken up my suggestion.

While taxes might be a drain on your material prosperity (it is true), they have one redeeming factor, in that they provide a certain level of services which more or less ensure us from social instability. Remember, we live in a democracy. While some of the "losers" in a capitalist system may start violence (which is detrimental) they are much more likely to just vote for some quick fix ultra populist a la Chavez who promises everything to everyone (which is even more detrimental, albeit on an even longer term, as Venezuela shall certainly find out).

In other words, it is safer to throw the dog a bone and avoid more serious confrontations down the road. It is just that maybe we think over more diligently which bone to throw and to whom seeing as we have plenty of room for improvement.

Edited July 29, 2007 by marcinmoka

[B. Max]

I thought this could of been a good topic, but it seems to be shaping up to be a usual shit flinging fest between daydreaming socialists and libertarian idealists.

But I shall try...

Do taxes stiffle economic growth and prosperity? Of course. One would be a fool to argue that.

Then I don't think you need to go any further. To suggest that a case should be made for stifling economic growth and prosperity is a fools mission, because there is no justification for it. As Regan said, government is not the solution, it is the problem. Tax burden is directly related to the size of government and government is far to big. The bigger it gets the more it consumes. Limited government is the way to go, with its powers measured by a restrictive constitution which limits its size.

[jefferiah]

One thing I can never understand is why people who dislike the general idea of "the establishment" and "the system" and "the man", always seem to support those who think the solution lies in creating an even bigger "establishment". They are rebelling in favour of a system that would destroy every kind of rebel, no matter how feeble the so-called rebellion.

[Moxie]

B. Max wrote: Then I don't think you need to go any further. To suggest that a case should be made for stifling economic growth and prosperity is a fools mission, because there is no justification for it. As Regan said, government is not the solution, it is the problem. Tax burden is directly related to the size of government and government is far to big. The bigger it gets the more it consumes. Limited government is the way to go, with its powers measured by a restrictive constitution which limits its size.

I concur, we need less government and one that is accountable to the people of Canada.

I think the poor make a considerable contribution, the working poor are hard working decent folk who do jobs those of us with an education didn't want to do for a life time and not all of the working poor are uneducated that's a misnomer. I admire those who work their way up through the ranks at MacDonalds, Tim Hortons, Farm labours, fishermen, Sears, etc the list of the working poor is endless. Without them those of us who make a good income would not have such comfortable lives would we. I don't mind paying higher taxes if it means we have improved and efficient social programs but frankly the mis-management of Mental Health Workers, Workers Comp, Disability, UI (look at the billions in surplus) Federal Pension Plans for federal workers, the people who need the programs are being denied denied. I can site case after case of individuals who are qualified being denied access to programs for five plus years. We pay into Canada Pension and if you are injured and unable to work you get the princely sum of less than 800 (Fed and Prov combined) to live off of. For heavens sake how can a single disabled male/female live on that? Far to much of the funds alloted to social programs gets used for more and more "STAFF", we need real progressive change so the mentally ill, disabled and others who need it don't have to fight for years whilst their suffering continues.

[jefferiah]

There is a huge difference between "the poor" and the people who claim to represent them. It is usually some sort of intellectual idealist who decides he is on the side of the poor and knows what is best for them who claims to represent them. Whereas the poor themselves are being used for political ends. If anything I would say it is the average joe working guy who values his freedom. Lenin did not ask the poor in Russia for permission to represent them. I don't think the peasants were communists. But Lenin didnt care. He represents the poor whether they like it or not, I guess.

[xul]

Hey what about less tax = less poor people.

Some times it is truth though it does not works as the way likes the words sound.

In 1949, communists ruled China and they practiced their communism as the way of depriving the property of the wealthy and distributing it to the poor. So most wealthy Chinese fled to Taiwan, Hongkong, America and perhaps Canada.

In 1979, Chinese economy became very worse. Most of youth could not get a job for the reason that if there was not a employer, there would not have any employees. And the deficit made government nearly bankruptcy because there are more output for welfare and less input from tax. So the reformed communists declared a adventurously new policy. They exempt most taxes of foreign investors and merely required they offer jobs to those unemployed people.

First comers were those wealthy Chinese from Taiwan, Hongkong, the former enemy of communists. Then more and more white guys such as Wal-Mart came.

In 1999, Chinese economy were realy boomed again. Communists had not only dispeled poverty in most area, but also had balanced their buget again by getting tax from 1.2 billion people.

See, this is a way that "less tax = less poor people" works

But my post's purpose is to interpret that a person's contribution to a society is not directly proportion with the tax he paid to government. Contribution to the society is not equal to the contribution to the government. Just as it showed in my second story. When government changed their policy from taxing employer to taxing employee, it seems employee became the contributor of society and employer did nothing. It is not truth. The truth is both of them have the contribution to the society unless they lived only lying down on the welfare without work. Of couse I'did not mean that each of them were the same. But calculating how many $ contribution each of them did is out of my ability. Perhaps a economist or a smart accountant with a super computer can calculate it.

Edited July 29, 2007 by xul

[xul]

It never works since the only people to really benefit from a tax break are the rich and upper middle class.

That's the truth. The biggest taxpayer is always the biggest beneficiary of the tax cut.

[marcinmoka]

To suggest that a case should be made for stifling economic growth and prosperity is a fools mission, because there is no justification for it.

But you are suggesting everybody wants to play in the game. While that would be ideal, it is far from the case. In said scenario, many more would benefit, but it would equally be a fools mission to argue that everyone would. There will always be a small segment of the population, for a myriad of reasons, who will loose out. And we all know that it is those who are most discontent are those who are the most vocal, and unfortunately, the most willing to be a bigger threat to the status quo.

Prosperity and economic freedom are amongst the biggest reasons for which we came to this country. However, the social stability and security afforded by our nation are often overlooked, if not ignored, especially by those who were lucky to have been born here and have never experienced anything else. In other words, it is all too often taken for granted.

And while I do see your suggestion (and correct me if I am wrong) : That increased prosperity will in itself induce a strong sense of social stability since everyone would theoretically be concerned with bettering their own situation as rational beings, that is simply not the case. Take a walk down to your local skid row, the homeless shelter, the Methadone clinic, or even better, ask any Police Officer.

Would the knife wielding junkie be a completely different person, a productive member of society had his income tax rate fallen while he was still working at Taco Bell? I doubt it. Would he be less of a threat to my family or yours if he is at least temporarily pacified by Methadone. Yep. And it is less of a burden on the tax payer than the alternative, which is keeping him in jail.

In the end, all I am trying to say that is wealth and prosperity depend on stability and security. And stability and security also depend on wealth and prosperity. It is a careful balance of both. Remove one, and watch the other free fall as well.

While Rubin/J.F.K said "A rising tide lifts all boats", they had a point. Unfortunately, not all boats are seaworthy.

Edited July 29, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Posit]

He views wealth as something unattainable, horded by misers in high towers who occasionally toss scraps down to the great mass of peasants and proletariat, who cringe.....blah blah blah blah....

Wrong again dude. I'm independently wealthy. I just don't subscribe to usury and instead believe that people should earn what they get, not milk some corporation for it.....

[B. Max]

name='marcinmoka' date='Jul 29 2007, 12:56 AM' post='240590']

Would the knife wielding junkie be a completely different person, a productive member of society had his income tax rate fallen while he was still working at Taco Bell? I doubt it. Would he be less of a threat to my family or yours if he is at least temporarily pacified by Methadone. Yep. And it is less of a burden on the tax payer than the alternative, which is keeping him in jail.

I don't agree with paying blackmail to thugs, let alone having the government doing their stealing for them.

In the end, all I am trying to say that is wealth and prosperity depend on stability and security. And stability and security also depend on wealth and prosperity. It is a careful balance of both. Remove one, and watch the other free fall as well.

Assuming the government hasn't stolen my money, I could make a one time purchase of a .44mag and buy plenty of security, and over time with a little inflation turn the investment for a little profit. So I won't ague the point, only suggest a different solution. One that doesn't involve government.

[NovaScotian]

I don't agree with paying blackmail to thugs, let alone having the government doing their stealing for them.

You may not agree with it, but it is reality.

In the end, all I am trying to say that is wealth and prosperity depend on stability and security. And stability and security also depend on wealth and prosperity. It is a careful balance of both. Remove one, and watch the other free fall as well.

Assuming the government hasn't stolen my money, I could make a one time purchase of a .44mag and buy plenty of security, and over time with a little inflation turn the investment for a little profit. So I won't ague the point, only suggest a different solution. One that doesn't involve government.

So killing is an option for you personally. I see....but hey it doesn't involve the governmental buggy man. . . . .

[sharkman]

Some things came to mind as I read this thread. Considering taxes only when looking at the poor is missing most of the picture. In Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, being poor is many times the result of some vice (drugs) or mental problem, not taxes. Being poor is also often a state of mind that is completely defeatist and dependant on the government welfare cheque. A person needs to work at that Taco Bell, they must start somewhere, find a type of work that interests them, get some education, and off they go. The minimum wage job is an entry level job, not one that is to exist on. Lowering the tax rate on 8/hr won't give them the money to buy a mortgage.

I know of a true story of a single mother here in B.C. She raised her two boys in the sixties and seventies, when single moms were looked down upon. Scraping by, somehow the boys were able to go to school, and now 30 years later one is a leading economist and the other is the premier of B.C. The human spirit has much to say on whether a person attains much.

[xul]

Some things came to mind as I read this thread. Considering taxes only when looking at the poor is missing most of the picture. In Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, being poor is many times the result of some vice (drugs) or mental problem, not taxes. Being poor is also often a state of mind that is completely defeatist and dependant on the government welfare cheque. A person needs to work at that Taco Bell, they must start somewhere, find a type of work that interests them, get some education, and off they go. The minimum wage job is an entry level job, not one that is to exist on. Lowering the tax rate on 8/hr won't give them the money to buy a mortgage.

I know of a true story of a single mother here in B.C. She raised her two boys in the sixties and seventies, when single moms were looked down upon. Scraping by, somehow the boys were able to go to school, and now 30 years later one is a leading economist and the other is the premier of B.C. The human spirit has much to say on whether a person attains much.

I agree the main view that you said and I don't think there are a lot of people who does not work lived on the welfare is a good thing. But what I wanted to say is that if all Canadian were sedulous like the sons of that single mother and achieved as lawyers, doctors, politicians,ceos... would Canadian really no longer eat any Taco Bell?

"when single moms were looked down upon", interesting. If she was raising her two boys now, would she deserve to be looked down upon yet?

Or I may assume another circumstance. If there is a person who gets $100,000/year(I guess he will not be

considered as a poor even in Canadian criterian), but he was looked down upon by a person who get $1,000,000/year because he pay less tax than that guy, would he feel this reasonable?

Sometimes How much money a person gain depend on what kind of job he does. I guess a Canadian army officer battled for his country in Afghanistan gain less and tax less than a film star battled in a TV screen for himself. Should we believe the army officer contribute to Canada less than the film star?

Edited July 29, 2007 by xul

[marcinmoka]

I don't agree with paying blackmail to thugs,

I agree. Either do I but one cannot ignore reality. Furthermore, it is better than the other options (i.e Kandahar or Bogota). Granted, taxes will be but an afterthought and you can buy all the "protection" you want.

let alone having the government doing their stealing for them

I concur. You should all hide. The government is out to get you !!!! Look outside your window and you can see Harper dressed in full tactical gear, spying on you throughout the night, plotting and scheming on how he can squeeze every last penny out of you so that he can build his own temple of gold.

For some reason, after reading on this forum, I keep kicking myself for not having invested in Alcan much earlier. Had I known the demand for tin foil hats to be so strong, I would of made a fortune.

So I won't ague the point, only suggest a different solution.

So would I, and that is to call the police on those subversives who are willing to make a mockery of our laws and threaten to be the judge, jury and executioner.

[B. Max]

So killing is an option for you personally. I see....but hey it doesn't involve the governmental buggy

man. . . . .

Self defense is natural right and government is no substitute for individual rights and freedoms. Government has no rights, except those that are given to it and they need to be well defined and limited by a proper constitution. Something this country does not have, which is why the government tramples on individual rights and freedoms.

[marcinmoka]

Self defense is natural right

Natural? How do you know the other parties intention?

Does a man stealing your car have a right to be shot?

Would you condone the murders of the 4 R.C.M.P officers who were shot in Alberta a few years back?

Edited July 29, 2007 by marcinmoka

[NovaScotian]

So killing is an option for you personally. I see....but hey it doesn't involve the governmental buggy

man. . . . .

Self defense is natural right and government is no substitute for individual rights and freedoms. Government has no rights, except those that are given to it and they need to be well defined and limited by a proper constitution. Something this country does not have, which is why the government tramples on individual rights and freedoms.

O, I think I might of thought you were willing to start killing drug addicts. Sorry

[B. Max]

name='marcinmoka' date='Jul 29 2007, 03:32 PM' post='240663']

Natural? How do you know the other parties intention?

What does that have to with the right.

Does a man stealing your car have a right to be shot?

He doesn't have the right to steal my car.

Would you condone the murders of the 4 R.C.M.P officers who were shot in Alberta a few years back?

Can you stick to the subject.

Edited July 29, 2007 by B. Max

[marcinmoka]

Can you stick to the subject.

I clearly am. Organs of the state "infringing" on private property. You advocate your right to defend your own property by any means, so therefore I am asking your thoughts on a real event. Furthermore, you seem to believe the government is out to get. So?

What does that have to with the right.

Because in the civilized world, there are no rights without obligations.

He doesn't have the right to steal my car.

Thanks for clearing that up. Unfortunately, it was not the question. Does his un-rightful act deserve the punishment of death with you acting as judge, jury and executioner and completely ignoring the very fabric of our society, that being the legal structure?

Edited July 29, 2007 by marcinmoka