babble-intro-img
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.

The 185,795 thieves who would rule the world

82 replies [Last post]

Comments

NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

What the Lucky Owe the Rest

Are we a society that cares for one another? Taxes are a key measure

 

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/05/28/What_The_Lucky_Know/


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Rafe did well until he reverted to being a Cold War warrior. Rafe speaks in support of allowing the 185,795 to remain in control but just tax them more. I can't for the life of me figure what his shot at Chavez had to do with the rest of the article.  Those comments could have been written by any right wing asshole. But then Rafe was a sycophant for the 1% for most of his career in broadcasting and all his political career.  Maybe it is as simple as old habits die hard.

The people of Venezuela are in the process of undergoing a fundamental change in the way politics is done and it is more democratic than anything we can hope for in Canada. I tried getting a discussion going about this feminist revolution going on in Venezuela but no one was interested.  Here is a link to an article on the system Rafe disparagingly dismisses as communism with the rough edges sanded off. 

The answer to destroying the power of the 185,795 is not in taxing them more. The answer lies in countries with democratic governments setting up international financial institutions designed to meet the needs of the people not the Ultra Rich. The democracy part has to become a community based participatory model. The people need to be engaged and listened to not given a ballot every four years to elect a different set of dictators.

Quote:

If the the international press [and Rafe] is to be believed, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela is a dictator, a menace to the region and is driving his country to the ground.  If that is so, why do his people vote for him in landslide numbers?  Why does he have an enormous following of the women of his country? Are they all deluded?  Are they all paid or coerced to vote?  It would seem so to the casual reader of headlines because the achievements of the Chávez government are treated like a top secret: Venezuela’s new participatory democracy should not be advertised.  A new form of economic and social development that does not pay homage to global capital should be shunned.  Nevertheless, a new world is being formed in a Latin America that has refused to be any power’s “back yard”.  These developments are not ignored in Latin America where the Venezuela revolution has had a deep impact. The women of Venezuela have especially embraced the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela, not because they are “followers” but because actually, they have become protagonists of a social, economic and, cultural revolution that has transformed Venezuela and the region.


http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/24/why-do-venezuelan-women-vote-for-...


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

It would take some time but if Canada had adopted just a 10% inheritance tax as Layton proposed a while back, it would have done wonders about reducing our financial inequalities.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

The world's problems are not solvable by tinkering at the edges and certainly not by leaving the same crooks in charge of the global finance system. An inheritance tax does little to combat the financiers.  The system described in 1913 by my namesake is remarkably similar to our present situation.

That's not to say that an inheritance tax is a bad idea but only that it as a measure to deal with the Ultra Rich it is really just Canadian society demanding that some of the money that our wealthy imperialists extract from not only Canadian workers but from foreign peoples be taxed back. in my opinion getting "our" cut of the spoils is not progress towards a society where social justice can be achieved.

Quote:

In short, there is in the lending States a complete organisation, in which rulers, bankers, company promoters, concocters of business schemes, and other interlopers, whom Zola has so well described in “L’Argent,” joined hands in order to exploit whole States. Thus, where simple folk believe they have discovered deep political reasons, there are only plots hatched by the filibusters of finance, who exploit everything: political and economical rivalry, national enmities, diplomatic traditions, and religious conflicts.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-wars-and-capitalism


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

NorthReport wrote:
It would take some time but if Canada had adopted just a 10% inheritance tax as Layton proposed a while back, it would have done wonders about reducing our financial inequalities.

no it wouldn't. imv it would do sfa. if Jack was wanting to go down that avenue than i've lost some deal of respect for him.

someone inherits 50 million and has to give 5 million in taxes doesn't do a damn thing to make  equality happen. they still have 45 million. the  rest of us  will never make that in our life times making the rich even richer. then what? we wait another 50 years for them to die to get more "equality"? Kevin O' Leary and pals ain't dy'in for awhile.  and i ain't buyin into some future trickle down pyramid scheme.

and inherit what? land? land  probably up for FN's claim? land or restitution that should be turned over to People who actually own it when the current landholder ceases to be. ora maybe  children working for just above min wage inheriting it who have no money to pay 10% taxes on the inflated worth of house or land?

i don't know. never considered myself too "socialist" or land claimish but reading the 10% inheritance tax and thinkin 'bout it  has made me real angry. yep sellin a 10% inheritance tax as a social justice and equality move makes me angry. i ain't buying it.  and the sellin of it needs to stop IMV.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

Except the reason that the NDP backed off from an inheritance tax was beczuse it was viewed as too bold and extreme.  At the time they couldn't defend even a 10% inheritance tax.

Going from a 0% inheritance tax to a 10% inheritance tax is definitely progress and it would generate revenue.  If I were to vote between setting the inheritance tax at 0% or 10% it would be 10% every time.

I can understand that people are objecting to the idea that a 10% inheritance tax would've done ownders to reduce our financial inequaility.

But if the idea of a 10% inheritance tax makes you mad, I don't know what to say.  You are likely going to mad for a very long time.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

The strong rise for the NDP in the polls has something to do with inequality. But we have to find ways which are going to be acceptable to the majority of the population. Starting with an inheritance tax of 10% is a good beginning, the percentage can be increased later on. A financial transaction tax is another good step that most Canadians would probably accept. And of course getting rid of all the income tax loopholes, and taxing the corporations and the wealthy their fair share. 


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Great another NDP thread.  How many do we need?

All hail the social democrats they will save the world and any other discussion need not take place. 

Tinker, tinker, tinker that's the extent of your vision.

North Report if you read the dozen or more MSM articles that you post everyday then I suggest that you need to take some of that time and invest it in thoughtful progressive analysis not just the Ultra Rich's propaganda.

Moderators could you please rename this thread, "The Ghost of Jack Layton Wins" 


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

wage zombie wrote:
Except the reason that the NDP backed off from an inheritance tax was beczuse it was viewed as too bold and extreme.  At the time they couldn't defend even a 10% inheritance tax.

Going from a 0% inheritance tax to a 10% inheritance tax is definitely progress and it would generate revenue.  If I were to vote between setting the inheritance tax at 0% or 10% it would be 10% every time.

I can understand that people are objecting to the idea that a 10% inheritance tax would've done ownders to reduce our financial inequaility.

But if the idea of a 10% inheritance tax makes you mad, I don't know what to say.  You are likely going to mad for a very long time.

i was just reading up on inheritances in Canada. found out Pierre Trudeau took away Canadian inheritance taxes in 1972 according to wiki or 87 at another site.  other developed countries pay around 30% except Japan which is 70%.   Canada if i'm reading it right the Estate pays capital gains tax on capital assets ' cause it's considered sold to the beneficiaries unless its a spouse and then taxes are deferred until spouse dies or sellls capital assets. it's anywhere from 20-50%. cash inheritances have no tax.

 if the Estate has to pay 20-50% taxes on current market value then a 10% Inheritance tax is lower than what's current. unless there are 2 taxes applied and that's not what was proposed. so.... nope still not up for a 10% inheritance tax. 


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

A 10% inheritance would be a separate tax beyond the capital gains tax.

Plus if the first tax is a capital gains tax then I suspect it is not a tax on the current market value of the estate, it would be a tax on only a small portion of the estate.

Capital gains tax and an inheritance tax are two totally different things.

That 2nd link you quoted is certainly inaccurate about this at least:

Quote:

Canada has no inheritance taxes since 1987 when they were repealed by the government of Pierre Trudeau.

Because Brian Mulroney was PM in 1987.

I think you are getting your info about capital gains from here:

Quote:

When a person passes away, no tax is payable for cash held in the bank. However, many people own capital assets (e.g. real estate and stocks) which are deemed sold at fair market value before their owner had passed away. The final return should contain all resulting capital losses or gains.

What this means is that if those assets now have a higher value since purchased, then the extra value gets taxed as a capital gain.

So if someone originally purchased a house for $250,000, and the market value is now $400,000, and they are passing it on to a non-spouse, then $150,000 would be taxed as a capital gain.

However if someone has some assets that increased in value up to their death, and they have other assets that decreased in value up to their death, then they can use the value lost on the bad assets to write off the increase on the good assets, and therefor they would pay no capital gains tax.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Inheritance taxes in Canada are going to stop the Ultra Rich from running the world. I know I should have faith that Saint Jack had the policy to cure anything even an issue in the international forum dealing with the global kleptocracy.

Money mouth

That is why I have no faith that social democrats will effect any significant change. Like Canada's union movement a federal NDP government will only drag its heels, not dig them in, to slow down the descent into tyranny that is being put in place globally by the minions of the 185,795.  Of course we will still be going backwards but slower. Of course that is better, right?

 

 


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

The only way things will really change is if a collapse caused by external factors forces it.  Until then I'll take as much incremental change as we can get.

A 10% inheritance tax gets us closer to where we want to be than a 0% inheritance tax.  Is it arguably negligible?  Sure.  But it's going to be decades of struggle to get where we want to be.

I think we'd need a 2nd consecutive NDP majority govt before we'd really start getting anywhere.

ETA:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Inheritance taxes in Canada are going to stop the Ultra Rich from running the world.

You're responding to a caricature.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

double post


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Wage Zombie this is not the Canadian politics (i.e NDP countless thread forum] it is the International forum.  We know that incremental is your answer and thanks for reminding us that nothing can change much. I'll try to stop daring to dream.

All hail Saint Jack and his historic legacy of saving the world with incrementalism.  Instead of electing mice the NDP now advocates electing cats who promise to restrict the mouse intake of the largest predators by 10%.  I can't argue that saving 10% of the mice is not a good idea.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

You're having a discussion with yourself.

I'll leave you to your solutions.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

I am glad that the inheritance taxes in other countries have reigned in their Ultra Rich.  LOL

Yup in four or five decades we might be back to where we were in the late 1980's.  Whoopee shit.

Since they won't even engage in a discussion about it I gather the Dipper's posting have no use for the style of participatory democracy that is sweeping South America. Also they appear to be at ease with the current international system and see no need to overcome the power of the IMF and World Bank. Unlike the real change agents in the Union of South American Nations they are proposing tinkering at the edges of the Masters estate. 

Please sir, may I have more? Don't forget to have your cap in hand when you go begging.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

I think we are all on the same side here, but just have different suggested solutions for the rich against the poor inequality issues. 


Manic Wombat
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2011

That is most likely the case, NR. 

 

kropotkin has hit the nail on the head; however. Raising any sort of taxes will do nothing to solve any problem. It is too simple a solution and proper solutions are never simple. Who decides how that new inheritance tax revenue is used? It's possible that it could go towards an oil subsidy or beefing up law enforcement budgets. 

 

What krop says about the banking system, the IMF and the World Bank is right on track. Changing the financial system is the ONLY way to truly stop what's happening. The average Canadian doesn't even know that the Bank of Canada is a private bank... they don't understand that we have worse fractional-reserve practices than the U.S. They don't know that our banks were bailed out. Because the banks finance government and business ... they dictate monetary policy. AKA, they decide who has a job and how much they make (ultimately), they decide how much money is available for public services, and on and on. 

 

The media, business and the government itself have a stake in keeping information FROM the populace. If they understood the financial system they would flip their shit. 

 

This is why it is unlikely an NDP government would be much different federally. Unless they're keeping their banking reform ideas until after winning the election. Learning finance and spreading the knowledge is key to changing things... educate people on what a scam it all is. And how it's been this way forever... money changers ruling the population. 

 

A tax raise would simply go towards paying down the debt. The debt which wouldn't even exist if the government printed money as opposed to a private bank printing it (Bank of Canada doesn't even print our money anymore... it's a German conglomerate) and loaning it to the government at interest. 


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Here is good look at the 275,000 people in Canada's 1%.

Quote:

Here are some more of the findings from the study, titled "Canadian Inequality: Recent Development and Policy Options":

The top one per cent of earners amount to 275,000 individuals.

Fifty-two percent of people in the top one per cent work at least 50 hours a week, compared to less than 20 per cent for the overall population.

One needs an annual income of at least $230,000 to be part of the top one per cent. The average income in this group is $450,000, compared to only $36,000 for the whole Canadian population.

One could safely call this a brotherhood -- 83 per cent of those in the top one per cent are men. "So despite the significant gains realized by women over the last few decades, they remain dramatically underrepresented at the very top of the income distribution."

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Rights-Justice/2012/06/12/TopOnePercent/


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005

If you look at the incomes of all of the people in the world, you're in the top 50% if you earn more than $2,138 per year.  And you, dear reader, are rich (i.e., in the top 90% of world incomes) if you make at least $61,000 per year.

If "rich" and "poor" are relative terms, then there are a lot more rich people in Canada and the United States than you might first guess.

Oh, and if you are just at the poverty line in the United States for an individual ($10,830), then you are in the top 14% of all income earners globally (the "near rich," I suppose you could say).

On the other hand, if you make $500,000 and you compare your income to the top 185,795 people of the world, then, by God, you're dirt poor!

Frankly, in world terms, most of us are either rich or "well to do" already.

 

ETA:

Now take a look at America (from the NYT):

Quote:

Notice how the entire line for the United States resides in the top portion of the graph? That’s because the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.

Now check out the line for India. India’s poorest ventile corresponds with the 4th poorest percentile worldwide. And its richest? The 68th percentile. Yes, that’s right: America’s poorest are, as a group, about as rich as India’s richest.

That quote is discussing the very interesting graph shown in that NYT's piece.


Jacob Two-Two
Offline
Joined: Jan 16 2002

Yeah, I often wonder how many of those in the first world who agitate for economic justice really get that fixing these problems on a global scale will end up reducing, not increasing, their consumption of resources. However, consumption of resources is not really a worthwhile goal anyway. Equality will improve quality of life dramatically even if we are using less in absolute terms.


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Yeah, I often wonder how many of those in the first world who agitate for economic justice really get that fixing these problems on a global scale will end up reducing, not increasing, their consumption of resources.

And not only consumption. Most people reading this would see their current standard of living dramatically reduced, not enhanced. 

For example, the concept of "free" college education for the vast middle class in wealthy countries would disappear entirely if principles of equity were applied on a global scale because there would be such a massive redistribution of wealth and income from countries like the US and Canada that there would be no money for it. 

We live in such a bubble here in North America.  Too many people myopically focus on what their neighbor has if they don't have it -- but they don't see that they are rich (or at least exceedingly well-to-do) if they were to look at the issue holistically (i.e., globally).  As it is, when a Canadian (for virtually all Canadians) compares his income only to other wealthier Canadians, that is akin to someone who makes $1 million per year comparing herself with the richest 185,795 and then concluding, and lamenting, that she is "poor".


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Sven wrote:
For example, the concept of "free" college education for the vast middle class in wealthy countries would disappear entirely if principles of equity were applied on a global scale because there would be such a massive redistribution of wealth and income from countries like the US and Canada that there would be no money for it.

If they actually practiced free labour markets and allowed free movement of labour, post-secondary education costs would go down not up. Same for health care. According to macroeconomist Dean Baker, co-founder of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, if college professors and physicians were forced to compete with the world, wages for those professions would come way down. The savings to U.S. health care, for example, would exceed anything realized by CUSFTA-NAFTA.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Thx Sven for your daily contribution of right wing talking points.  There is no class, there is no social disparity only envy from those too stupid to have been born rich. I don't think there is anything too controversial with the theory that someone who makes $230,000 is rich.  Not the richest but rich.

The concept of free university for citizens is so evil it requires bombing universities in Iraq and Libya to ensure the practice gets eradicated.  Privatizing Chile's universities was one of the great reforms of the Chicago Boys.  That has sure turned out well hasn't it.

Cuba exports doctors and other health care professionals. Of course those new graduates don't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a degree in medicine so going to Haiti to work for a low monthly salary is an option for them.  Those graduates have transferred their knowledge and hard work into a health care system in Venezuela and Cuba gets oil in return.

In Canada on the other hand we have no doctors in our isolated communities and a glut of specialists in our cities.  The second largest category of people in the 1% health care professionals ie doctors, dentists and veterinarians.

Quote:

Top earners hail from a variety of sectors. Just 10 per cent of people in the top one per cent work in the finance and insurance industry (despite garnering most of the public's wrath). Senior managers and CEOs are over-represented in the top group, but still only account for 14 per cent of top earners. The only other large group of top income earners? Physicians, dentists and veterinarians who comprise almost 10 per cent of top earners, despite representing less than one per cent of the workforce.


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

Sven wrote:

And not only consumption. Most people reading this would see their current standard of living dramatically reduced, not enhanced. 

For example, the concept of "free" college education for the vast middle class in wealthy countries would disappear entirely if principles of equity were applied on a global scale because there would be such a massive redistribution of wealth and income from countries like the US and Canada that there would be no money for it. 

 

Your example is absolutely false, and you have provided no evidence to back it up.


Jacob Two-Two
Offline
Joined: Jan 16 2002

What you seem to be saying, Sven, is that we can't afford to have schools unless we steal the wealth of the rest of the planet to finance them, but this makes no sense. What are we lacking that we would need? Teachers? Building materials? What does education require that we can't find right here in Canada?

A managed economy simply makes priorities and allocates labour and resources to meet them (and education should be among the top of the list). Part of the problem with our current ecnomy is the huge amounts of waste that are built right in. Waste is how capitalists make money: by you buying shit you don't need and then throwing it away when your house gets too cluttered. As I said, it is consumption of resources that will be reduced, but all that means is that we will learn to do much more with much less. We will have far less plastic doo-dads and garbage, but not necessarily any less (and possibly much more) of the things we really require, especially education, which is a fairly intangible "product". In the future, it's likely that most education will be online, reducing the need for books and buildings and campus space.


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005

Sven wrote:

ETA:

Now take a look at America (from the NYT):

Quote:

Notice how the entire line for the United States resides in the top portion of the graph? That’s because the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.

Now check out the line for India. India’s poorest ventile corresponds with the 4th poorest percentile worldwide. And its richest? The 68th percentile. Yes, that’s right: America’s poorest are, as a group, about as rich as India’s richest.

That quote is discussing the very interesting graph shown in that NYT's piece.

Well over half of all Americans have incomes in the top 10% of the world's income distribution. I would imagine that the numbers are very similar for Canada.  And, as the graph in the New York Times article shows, the bottom ventile in America has an average income that exceeds the income of 70% of the world's population.

Why aren't these eye-opening facts to a significant percentage of Americans and Canadians who think they are economically oppressed?  Why do so many people insist on myopically comparing their incomes to their neighbors' incomes rather than to the incomes of humans generally?

This isn't to say that there are is a small percentage of Americans and Canadians who are truly poor (and literally have nothing).  But, for the vast majority of us, Canadians and Americans are all pretty much "rich" relative to the world at large.


Mr.Tea
Offline
Joined: Jul 9 2011

Sven wrote:

Why do so many people insist on myopically comparing their incomes to their neighbors' incomes rather than to the incomes of humans generally?

Because we're competing with our neighbours, not with humans generally. If I'm looking to buy a house in Toronto, I'm not going to get in a bidding war with an impoverished subsistence farmer from Bangladesh, but with other Torontonians. 

So, yes, compared to most of the world, virtually everybody in North America is incredibly wealthy. And, yes, we should feel lucky and grateful that we are so comparatively better off. But that reality has little effect on teh day-today realities of people in North America. Yes, the guy who making minimum wage in Toronto won't starve to death like someone in Ethopia will. But he's still gonna have a damn hard time putting a roof over his head and food on his table.

Wealth is quite relative and largely based on your circumstances versus othes in your immediate vicinity. For example, my income in a small town would go a lot further than it does in Toronto. My income in Toronto, however, goes much further than it would in San Francisco.


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005

Mr. Tea, why do so many people fixate on inequality within rich countries rather than inequality generally?  My sense is that if we looked at it generally, then a lot of people complaining about inequality (within North America) would have to look in the mirror and say, "I'm rich," and that probably wouldn't be very fun.

Complaining about the burden of competing to buy a $250,000 house in Toronto would be the kind of problem 99% of the world would love to have.


Mr.Tea
Offline
Joined: Jul 9 2011

I agree. It fits into that meme of "First World Problems" but, well, we live in the first world. The guy making $30K per year in Toronto may be "rich" compared to someone in Somalia (and safer, healthier and generally better off) but unless he moves to Somalia, he's still poor in Toronto.

 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments