babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
True, I was just under the impression that somebody was asking me to be banned here, that's all.
No worries. :)
The Nordic social democracies have the most extensive social welfare programs, and they are paid for by consumption taxes with few (not more) exemptions. It is the transfers from these consumption taxes that do most of the heavy lifting in terms of reducing inequality. So be careful what you wish for.
Income taxes should be more progressive, but to oppose sales taxes entirely on the grounds that they're "regressive" is in my view, misguided.
The CCPA did indeed publish a paper saying how the wealthy pay far too little in taxes. But they've certainly never called for the elimination of sales taxes.
That isn't the point. I brought up the legions of other types of people besides substance abusers who "refuse" to help themselves, because many of them cost us a lot more than people on welfare. This is a discussion on costs to taxpayer, and you did say people should be cut off if they refuse treatment.
No-one is saying that anyone has to be cut off. Social benefits are paid by Community Services here in Nova Scotia and it accounts for less than 1/7th of spending! Its growth has been in general in line with revenue growth, it is not the line item that is causing the deficit. If government were made more efficient & non-essential services pruned you could probably balance the budget, not raise taxes and actually increase Community Services. It is the rampant spending in other areas which is actually placing Community Services in peril.
We have to resist the casting of this debate into tax cuts and efficient government mean starving widows and orphans.
Neither am I. If the feds were ever to crackdown on deferred and unpaid corporate income taxes owed by profitable corporations and businesses, we wouldn't be in a national debt hole like Canada is today. Our fiscal Frankensteins in Ottawa have demonstrated over the last 30 years that they shouldn't be trusted to run a lemonade stand.
Hi old goat,
I just read the policy statement. Its babbble policy at the top right? What section or sections is NSMark in contravention of?
Just curious, its your board.
We are getting off topic here.
Is there a discussion thread on the policy statement?
OK, well I don't think anybody should be forced to have to take any medication etc. they don't want to. However, I think a tough love approach is needed on some addicts, that's all.
A lively discussion. I can see the different points.
I am a fiscal conservative because I fundamentally believe people can spend their money better than government can for them. I believe if people are able to keep more of their earned work they will be more motivated to make more. This I believe will lead to more production, more people, more innovation and more of a tax base to spend on programs.
I really do believe that social justice includes people earning as much as they can and keeping money that they earn. Our people should have opportunity here to make good money. Part of that includes when an individual works hard and saves up enough cash to treat themselves to a new car. The government now wants an additional $400-$800 top of the current taxes. Does the motivation drop for this person? Or if the person holds off on treating themselves - how does that affect the employees at that car dealership or the ones at the factory?
Eventually they will move somewhere where they can earn a higher wage and keep more of that wage and also keep more when they earn enough to spend it.
China is an example of a country that "takes care" of its people. As a communist society this is what it is supposed to do. Do they? The economy is built on low wages, very very little free speech, and little opportunity for most. That is growing but still fundamentally many freedoms are missing there.
Social justice to me includes looking out for our elderly, our kids, our health, and many other programs. I just think there is a better way to have better services for all - lower taxes with higher tax base. If people keep moving we will be left with below par services and high taxes.
I want better services and higher wages for our workers and I think all on this forum would want that as well. I just see a different way than several on this board of getting there.
I have some experience working with charities on the streets of East Vancouver and also suburb Surrey. I spent four years helping at a soup kitchen and getting to know the people there.
I always look at it like anyone can be a few steps away from being there. When you hear some stories there are situations that one wrong turn or incident led to lack of hope. Also I ran into a lot of mental illness. I met a lot of friends, I did not classify them into a category of my less fortunate friends. They were just friends who I wanted to help in their time of need.
A good portion of the government program was free needle exchange which is a short term bandage but not a long term solution.
I think the government could do a better job in BC to tackle mental illness and most people on the streets should have been receiving professional help in an institution.
What did I try to do? Help out and try to encourage people, feed people. I can tell you the people I worked with their were totally selfless and doing this on a volunteer basis and making a difference. Recently I have said enough is enough with higher and higher taxes and got together with Jonathan and Mark and we do not believe higher taxes are the answer to a brighter future.
Having said all this, I believe in social justice and I do believe in the goodness of people.
Comments?
Thanks for the clarification, old goat, and I will freely admit that I did not read the policy statmement. Like I said before, I have no problem with leaving which I will do. But you are absolutely kidding yourself if you don't think there is a connection between being poor and substance abuse issues. Go to any homeless shelter and tell the volunteers there that there is absolutely no correlation between poverty and substance abuse. The sad irony here is you are arguing against a central theme that most 'progressives' believe in. If anybody is being anti-progressive on this issue it's you and not me.
Cheers.
Mark
You should read Gary Webb or Alfred McCoy who've written about the phony war on drugs, which is tied to the even phonier war on global terrorism. The American CIA are the biggest dope delivery service in the world, and now the stooge's brother in Kabul is partnered with the CIA for running drugs for their Afghan warlord pals and Albanian-Kosovar mafia friends, and even moreso when Pakistani heroin labs can't handle the overflow. If you think the dope-dealing CIA and their drug lord pals want people to stop buying illicit drugs at premium street prices, you're sadly mistaken my friend. Illicit drugs and the street prices charged for them are just another tax on the poor - another massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Bakunin's statement should be updated to encompass other substances.
So Blars I agree with some of what you say.
However most progressive people understand that publicly funded services are not replaceable by private charity no matter how nice the "better offs" are when they come down to the poor neighbourhoods to help out.
So given the above you must think we need a higher minimum wage or is that to be left to the beneficence of the individual capitalist?
As kropotkin referenced upthread, substance abuse is by no means uniquely the plight of the poor. Only socially unacceptable substance abuse of tabooed drugs (heroin, cocaine, crack, etc.). Abuse of anti-depressants, dietary drugs, steroids, and, indeed, the same recreational drugs which blight the poor receive nowhere near the amount of scrutiny, moralizing or censure.
Remember that profit has to come before wages. No profit, no wages. So protect the golden goose. Higher wages is quid pro quo, as a worker if you become more efficient and can add to the bottom line then the business owner will give you a bonus, a raise, stock options etc anything to keep you since you are worth it. For larger organizations as productivity rises over time there is more room for for wage hikes and perks. I'll forstall the question right now, if a firm sees rising productivity and rising profits yet does not share that with its employees, then they will have a retention issue, it simply is not in their best interests to withhold rewarding employees. However this assumes a properly working, vibrant free marketeconomy. This process is not perfect and can be chaotic at times but in the whole is the best performer.
And unless you are willing to follow a model that somehow rewards efficiency (even in a very chaotic way) then do not look for economic progress.
I'm at a loss for words.
So am I. I am not sure I understand why an anti-tax thread like this was permitted.
Not anti-tax, just opposed to additional taxes.
umm ... How can you pay wages if there are no profits? Where does the money come from?
The fact that you believe the profits would be shared with the workers has me bafflegabbed.
You honour me.
Well if the business cannot cover its costs before wages how will wages be paid?
As if wages are just superfluous and not the first cost that should be paid.
We have been reducing taxes in this country for almost 30 years now. We have food banks, rampant homelessness from one end of the country to the other but hey what we need is too pay less taxes and let the businesses trickle down on their lucky workers who can do the work while they go out and donate to charity to reduce their tax bill even further.
Canadians are under taxed if we expect to have a just somewhat equitable society. you may prefer the dog eat dog race to the bottom and that is your prerogative. You will find no new converts too your evil neocon religion that gorges the rich while people starve in our streets. Lots of places on the net with people who agree with you go talk to them. please.
I think you are confusing profit with revenue, AP--profit is the difference between operational costs, of which wages are part, and total revenue. Based on your ideology, however, I'm not surprised you made that error.
Yes the MSM world view has invaded and it is insisting that progressives not be allowed to debate unless it is from an Ayn Rand perspective.
Okay you are the real deal a dyed in the wool unapologetic free market advocate. What brings you to babble? I come here to discuss issues from a progressive view point with other like minded individuals. i find it is one of the few places on the net to have that kind of discourse and not have my voice drowned out by people with mainstream neo-con views. I'm alright Jack and I don't want to give at the office is not my idea of a progressive view point.
So again what brings you to babble?
Krop,
Just came to discuss the issues.
I really do not mind that you do not agree with me - I do not expect people to agree but just be respectful.
Other "like minded individuals" is a slippery slope of some sort of elitist discussion where ideas cannot be debated or at least someone would have to decide what is "like minded". That does not sound too progressive to me.
I am out and it was not intention to intrude.
Blars,
Like minded is a pretty broad tent that basically only excludes right wing talking points like yours. The only thing elitist are those strawmen you introduced.