58 replies to this topic

[Topaz]

I just read a article here that maybe the millionaires and billionaires in Canada should pay more, then the article says its not a good idea because if the government does that then the young rich will leave the country. I was told once, that to become rich in Canada, right after WW2, was the best time up until the mid 80's, because the economy was good and money was being make, now its a little harder, and investor have to be smarter. I think the rich will sometime in the future have to pay more because the middle-class is disappearing and the lower-income doesn't pay, so that only leaves the mega-rich to pay. Of course, the government can start cutting services, which may be the way Harper is going. I'm sure there are some of the mega-rich that do give, but the ones that don't. the Food Banks could use your help and would they miss a few thousand? It is write-off. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ires-taxes.html

[TimG]

Of course you are all hot and bothered by the differential between the 'mega rich' and the average Canadian but you seem to forget that the average Canadian is 'mega rich' by the definition of someone if china, India or Africa yet I don't see you arguing that the average Canadian be taxed so their standard of living is more in line with that of the average African.

Your hypocrisy on this point illustrates how you are driven by greed and jealousy - not by any sense of social justice.

In any case: the article is correct to state that the mega rich can and will relocate (or at least move their wealth) because the mega rich often do not depend on Canada for their wealth. This was not true in the past when global trade was not such a dominant feature of the economy.

Edited by TimG, 21 December 2011 - 09:34 AM.

[dre]

In any case: the article is correct to state that the mega rich can and will relocate (or at least move their wealth) because the mega rich often do not depend on Canada for their wealth. This was not true in the past when global trade was not such a dominant feature of the economy.

That cuts both ways. They will flee the country if you drastically cut services, allow infrastructure to crumble, and fail to keep the nation modern as well.

This is one of the best places in the world to be/get rich, and one of the easiest places for a rich person to get richer, in large part because theres MASSIVE public investment in infrastructure, services, and because of all the things we do to help businesses. I dont see a lot of wealthy people fleeing to Somalia... even though they would pay no taxes at all if they did.

[TimG]

That cuts both ways. They will flee the country if you drastically cut services, allow infrastructure to crumble, and fail to keep the nation modern as well.

Obviously there has to be a balance. The only trouble I have is with people who think that all of the finacial problems would go away if we only taxed those filty rich people more. This is nothing but scape goating designed to avoid having a discussion about whether the current set of services that we expect are sustainable.

[dre]

Obviously there has to be a balance. The only trouble I have is with people who think that all of the finacial problems would go away if we only taxed those filty rich people more. This is nothing but scape goating designed to avoid having a discussion about whether the current set of services that we expect are sustainable.

I dont think its scapegoating. Government has to draw its revenue by harnessing a portion of the gross domestic product, so they have to tax that money where it is. If we run defecits clearly SOMEONE is not paying enough taxes.

Im just pointing out that making cuts to services instead of raising revenues is not necesssarily going to keep businesses or wealthy people here.

Tax rates are WAY less important than people think in terms of business and the economy, unless things get extreme in either direction.

[Bonam]

I dont think its scapegoating. Government has to draw its revenue by harnessing a portion of the gross domestic product, so they have to tax that money where it is.

What happened to your plan of the government creating the money it needs, bypassing the banking system, to pay for its expenditures, rather than using taxation?

If we run defecits clearly SOMEONE is not paying enough taxes.

I disagree. Let's say the budget is balanced one year. Everything is fine and dandy, everyone paying their "fair share", etc. Next year, none of the tax rates or spending rates change, but the economy goes into recession due to external factors. Does that suddenly mean someone isn't paying their fair share? Or maybe it's just the government rightfully borrowing during economic downturn to keep things going? Or just excessive spending?

[dre]

What happened to your plan of the government creating the money it needs, bypassing the banking system, to pay for its expenditures, rather than using taxation?



I disagree. Let's say the budget is balanced one year. Everything is fine and dandy, everyone paying their "fair share", etc. Next year, none of the tax rates or spending rates change, but the economy goes into recession due to external factors. Does that suddenly mean someone isn't paying their fair share? Or maybe it's just the government rightfully borrowing during economic downturn to keep things going? Or just excessive spending?

What happened to your plan of the government creating the money it needs, bypassing the banking system, to pay for its expenditures, rather than using taxation?

Eventually we are going to need a new monetary system, and thats one idea out there. But if you think the government should keep giving banks money for almost nothing, and then borrow it back at interest, then I guess we can keep doing that too... for a while.

I disagree. Let's say the budget is balanced one year. Everything is fine and dandy, everyone paying their "fair share", etc. Next year, none of the tax rates or spending rates change, but the economy goes into recession due to external factors. Does that suddenly mean someone isn't paying their fair share? Or maybe it's just the government rightfully borrowing during economic downturn to keep things going? Or just excessive spending?

Yeah thats fair enough. Its fine have short term imbalances in either direction.

[TimG]

I dont think its scapegoating. Government has to draw its revenue by harnessing a portion of the gross domestic product

The government currently spends about 40% of GDP. Do you really think that is too little? How much would be an appropriate percentage? 50%? 100%?

In my opinion 40% of GDP is too high. Spending needs to come down. It certainly should not go up.

Im just pointing out that making cuts to services instead of raising revenues is not necesssarily going to keep businesses or wealthy people here.

It depends on what services. Government funded healthcare is a huge benefit. So are public roads and police. Billions spent on green energy scams? That does no good to anyone other than a few corporate cronies who profit.

Edited by TimG, 22 December 2011 - 12:00 AM.

[Topaz]

The government currently spends about 40% of GDP. Do you really think that is too little? How much would be an appropriate percentage? 50%? 100%?

In my opinion 40% of GDP is too high. Spending needs to come down. It certainly should not go up.

It depends on what services. Government funded healthcare is a huge benefit. So are public roads and police. Billions spent on green energy scams? That does no good to anyone other than a few corporate cronies who profit.

How do you know for sure its 40%?? Because that's the what finance minister says? This is a government that keeps secrets and this is a finance minister that was educated as a lawyer and I bet its more like 80%GDP and that's why they are cutting so deeply. In the futre, whatever the minister says, double it.

[Topaz]

Of course you are all hot and bothered by the differential between the 'mega rich' and the average Canadian but you seem to forget that the average Canadian is 'mega rich' by the definition of someone if china, India or Africa yet I don't see you arguing that the average Canadian be taxed so their standard of living is more in line with that of the average African.

Your hypocrisy on this point illustrates how you are driven by greed and jealousy - not by any sense of social justice.

In any case: the article is correct to state that the mega rich can and will relocate (or at least move their wealth) because the mega rich often do not depend on Canada for their wealth. This was not true in the past when global trade was not such a dominant feature of the economy.

It s not greed or jealousy...please! Its common sense that says if the lower income don't pay income tax and the middle income is drying up then WHO is going to bring in the revenue for the government? It not the corporates and the expenses are going to be higher with more people unemployed, and retired. So YOU tell me how do they get the tax revenues if they don't turn to the mega-rich????

[TimG]

How do you know for sure its 40%??

The numbers are collected and published by a number of sources. http://en.wikipedia....rnment_spending

It s not greed or jealousy...please! Its common sense that says if the lower income don't pay income tax and the middle income is drying up then WHO is going to bring in the revenue for the government?

There are not enough "mega-rich" people to make much of a difference to government revenues. If taxes go up they must go up on the middle class in order to generate enough revenue. Singling out "mega-rich" people as the only people who need to pay more is pure greed/jelously driven scape goating.

[cybercoma]

Obviously there has to be a balance.

Obviously, but you keep ignoring the fact that the income gap is rapidly growing. It's not the fact that there is a gap, there needs to be one, but that it's growing and growing fast. That's not balance.

Edited by cybercoma, 22 December 2011 - 10:08 AM.

[cybercoma]

the lower income don't pay income tax

Income taxes are not the only tax.

[TimG]

Obviously, but you keep ignoring the fact that the income gap is rapidly growing. It's not the fact that there is a gap, there needs to be one, but that it's growing and growing fast. That's not balance.

And you have yet to provide any argument that shows the gap between rich and poor is a statistic we should care about (correlations don't mean anything without some evidence of causality). What matters is the absolute wealth of the middle. Poorer societies are worse off than richer societies even if the have smaller 'gaps'. This obsession with the "gap" is nothing but more scapegoating driven by greed and jealousy.

Edited by TimG, 22 December 2011 - 11:11 AM.

[dre]

And you have yet to provide any argument that shows the gap between rich and poor is a statistic we should care about (correlations don't mean anything without some evidence of causality). What matters is the absolute wealth of the middle. Poorer societies are worse off than richer societies even if the have smaller 'gaps'. This obsession with the "gap" is nothing but more scapegoating driven by greed and jealousy.

Its pretty well documented why its dangerous for wealth to concenrate too much in a society. Its inherently undemocratic, and will eventually lead to political and social instability or worse. It can also lead to the erosion of private property rights, and kinds of extreme measures designed to redistribute wealth. Thats one of the major reasons why the west has been successful... we put systems in place to avoid extreme concentration (graduated taxation, estate taxation, property taxation, social programs, etc).