Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

myata

Members
  • Posts

    4,462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,903 profile views

myata's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare

Recent Badges

132

Reputation

  1. I have no problem whatsoever with people making money, any amount of them from their own resources, ideas, time and efforts, and within law. The problem is then some of us begin to cut shares and entitlements for themselves out of someone else's pocket, our public pocket, and without free consent. Just so, we're entitled and here's the bill. There's no way I would agree to pay all these outrageous compensations if I had any choice not to - it's just nothing I'm interested in thank you, and no, not even next time. Taxation is fine as long as it's reasonable and pays for common good. This is not how the story reads here though, and has not been for a while already. Maybe we should go back to voluntary contributions for representatives, without quotes? One works well, represents citizens maybe they'll notice. These are just employees though, of some obscure corporations that are working mostly for themselves perpetuating their prosperity not mine, so why should I have anything to do with it, or be paying for it?
  2. Either citizens have democracy that's working for them; or the bureaucracy runs quasi democracy that benefits itself via smarty fancy rules, like for our salaries "annual inflation" is two percent but for your pension it would be only 0.1%, honestly. It's unsurpassed in the skill of making those rules here's the 1000 page manual and try to figure how it should make sense for you. Temporarily it can be something in-between but eventually settles to one or the other. Don't expect surprises. I'm afraid that we may be past the point where it could control its appetites or reform itself. If nothing is done now we could sail happily right to the point where the absurdity arrives in the mail.
  3. Is there anything else there though, with party nomenclature calling all shots that "representatives" have no way of questioning or Heaven forbid, disobeying? If it can't be seen does it meant that it exists still? Or it means that these are very expensive (to us, the payers) typewriters and handshakers with $200K annually indexed salaries, grotesque pensions and unlimited allowances, by some irony or long forgotten tradition still labeled as "representatives"?
  4. Right, that's how it works with a bureaucracy left to its own instruments, to control and manage itself. Sure it'll take care of things, in its own way that always comes to maximum spending on itself with minimum result for everybody else. Nothing personal, just the math. Only it's not the people we elect, but that we couldn't care to own our own democracy, and that means watch it, clean it and fix it as and when needed, regularly and constantly.
  5. No, no only a common misconception! The process of approving the annual 2% raise for "representatives" is a fingersnap, 2+2, done and next item. It's only when applied to the affairs of common citizens (down below, can you see them, moving) it becomes long and complicated longread, with multiple difficult to understand layers of "inflation". Why complication though, and where? If esteemed minister is good for an automatic inflation raise, why not Jack and Jill's pension, and at the same exact rate? Where's the difference who can point it?
  6. If we couldn't or would not do this, what we still can as "the citizens"? Push a button (connected to nowhere) once every so many years? Nothing will happen. The thing cannot and won't control itself, proven in zoopsychology. Effective oversight and controls do not exist. May very well be the last chance for a change.
  7. So why: a license plate sticker; a transit ticket; university tuition; and minister salary can go up, like a clock, year on year at a 2% "inflation". But your pension, benefit, tax bracket has quite different number. Why is it, what would be the underlying reason and cause? Aren't we all equal, and equitable? Curious minds want to know. How about "Real Equitability Act": no public service cost or tax; no compensation paid to a public figure or employee (unless set in collective bargaining, for a member) can increase more than indexation of pensions and benefits of the citizens. Either of the two is true: this is not an equitable society; all citizens are equal in their rights so there cannot be different, tweaked and adjusted as needed "inflations". So which one? And which party will take it to the reality representing in truth the interests of the citizens? Any one?
  8. Think how cool it would be though, can set yourself any salary, entitlements and pension (out of bottomless magic wishing well) and nobody cares, no questions asked no one around at all. Wouldn't it be worth working for?
  9. Imagine if every (actually) working Canadian would move to: USA; Europe; Caribbean including Haiti and so on, one wouldn't even need to explain how they "restructured" and "indexed" their salaries and pensions so that they near doubled in as many decades? Wouldn't it be so great, let's do it!
  10. Inflation is a serious problem in the country. Only thanks to ... sorry, because of it MP salary had to be near-doubled in two decades only inflation and nothing to with enrichment, really! So, at what rate should Canadians pensions and other public payments be indexed? One can examine the longread. Why though? We have a very good method that proved so well for our esteemed leaders (85% automatic raise in two decades) and so why not for a regular Canadian? That's right, the same formula used for annual raises of MPs, ministers and judges applied to our age pensions; veterans pensions, benefits; tax brackets and so on. Imagine in two decades pension near doubled and through no fault of ours, just inflation. Non taxable amount went up 85% (from around 15K to 27). Not bad, eh? Great idea, right? And why, why haven't we thought about it before? We are all together and all Canadians after all, so obvious, and let's get down to it no time wasted. So which party wants to take the lead in this very worthy, highly equitable and in great Canadian spirit of togetherness undertaking? Did we hear anyone? Hello? Anybody there?
  11. Except for those of us, in great togetherness, whose entitlements are automatically tied to the inflation. What, your salary and / or pension isn't, that's just too bad but not to worry take joy in the number that says it's rising (somewhere... for someone).
  12. That would be a near-impossible feat of resisting temptation: imagine, close to 200K salary plus committee, ministerial etc other juicy jobs handed out by party administrations with very nice, or should we say see the defections, impossible to resist entitlement packages? My personal opinion is that the system is way past the point of no return, that is, connection to the reality of the country. But good luck, maybe better than nothing. Cutting the line to the bottomless cash well could be more effective but it would have to be approved by the same ones feeding from it, so good luck to us citizens. The price of a good centennial sleep under the lullaby muzak of "best country" and "rising prosperity".
  13. No, it has very little to do with increase in prosperity for a regular citizen, can't benefit from it while at the same time the costs are rising. But it's great for companies converting small rental units with affordable rent to apartments at double and tripe the price. It was possible to find a studio or one-bedroom for 5-6 hundred, more than doubled since. Not only this is no longer an equitable society; but the level of inequality continues to increase at an accelerating rate. What would the country look like in 2090, do we even care?
  14. Maybe what was meant is the caste whose compensation and entitlements are automatically tied to "inflation" however they choose to define and calculate it. Hard to see many problems with prosperity in this case, if one manages to make it there. P.S. while the party lasts, of course.
  15. Sure "restructuring" just explained everything, and if not add just "inflation". Seriously, if it all coming out of bottomless well somewhere far, far away why not "inflation"? Wait, if inflation is 5% does it mean that public budget automatically increased by the same amount? Maybe it does - in Venezuela and Argentina. And wait, even if it did increase, does it mean that it has to be spent automatically on salaries and entitlements of ministers and "representatives" and not for example, healthcare and education in permanent deficit mode? And wait again, if something increased somewhere, does it mean that as an owner you have to pay more to everyone, automatically and regardless of what you want and can? Is that how it works with your car mechanic, home renovator, Internet provider (if not one of big three whose CEO play golf with "representatives" only for you benefit of triple, quadruple and so on rates elsewhere)? This is not about numbers and statistics. "Travel from Wuhan", "restructuring" and "inflation" there you go now get lost asap and here's the bill. This is about citizens, what they own and control in their country. To citizens and owners there's nothing automatic and all is explained and proven. To peasants, handed down bills with automatic annual raises with "Not to worries" and "there's always next time". To each their own and little new in this old, old story. There's a way to settle this question though, practical and factual. Let's come back to it by 2090, seventy years not that long for a thriving democracy. We will record, then: - the annual amount of UBI - average salary in the country, minus 1% outliers - the salary of MP and ministers, in UBI - the average university tuition, per year - the standard of public healthcare, compared to world best. If it still exists, the standard. That should settle it.
×
×
  • Create New...