Tax cut mantra music to the wealthy

Sounds good to me. But I'd make the inheritance tax kick in for anything over a million dollars, which would be adjusted each year for inflation.

Anyone who is inheriting more than a million bucks can afford to pay inheritance tax.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bohajal:
[b]
When is the next hockey game anyway ?[/b]

---

I think there's a Leafs-Devils game Tuesday night on pay channel. For only a few bucks we can lose ourselves in the game, take our minds off being cheated and robbed by the corporatocracy and their hirelings in Ottawa and Toronto. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Why would you wish to punish those that have parents that have been successful?

---

We sympathize completely with your plight - and that is why we want to relieve you of that terrible burden you must carry. It must have been terribly oppressive for you as a child, surrounded by privilege and opulence. Surely the weight of all those riches press down on your soul to this very day.

Right, so let's ditch the two old line parties in Ottawa for the first time in Canadian history and let working class slobs live off nature's capital for a change.

quote:

---

The way we ought to think about taxes is not that they are a burden on people. They are clearly no more of a burden than prices are. And not that they restrict people's freedom, because services that we buy with the taxes we pay enormously increase our freedom--freedom from crippling health bills, from illiteracy, all those things. And furthermore, taxes enormously increase the personal choices we have. One of the more vicious propaganda slogans that the Ontario Conservative government has used in justifying tax cuts is that they want to increase people's choices over the goods and services that they buy. It reflects an utterly impoverished view of human nature: that people want to make choices only about the private goods and services they purchase--this Nintendo game or that Nintendo game, this fashion accessory or that fashion accessory.

In fact, people also have preferences and want to make choices about the kind of society that they live in, and these are the most important choices they make, and the only way that we can express those choices is through collective action and by paying taxes. The way we ought to think about taxes is that they serve human purposes, and those purposes in many cases reflect our best aspirations and our most valued goods and services that we provide for one another collectively through government.

[url=http://gvanv.com/compass/arch/v1405/brksint.html]Life and Taxes: Neil Brooks Interviewed[/url]

---

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002162]I knew he didn't belong here all along.[/url]

I apologize if I have insulted anyone's belief for even higher taxes.

I just happen to believe that Canadians are ovely taxed. Excessive taxation hurts all people regardless of their economic status.

If my beliefs have insulted you, please accept my sincerest apologies.

quote:

---

If my beliefs have insulted you, please accept my sincerest apologies.

---

Don't think twice about insulting me; I have pretty thick skin.

Worry instead about insulting intelligence, and logic. You've been quite abusive to each, and it doesn't look good on you.

quote:

---

One does not need government to achieve success. One only needs the will and the gumption to be the best.

---

One only needs all the goods and services government provides, especially those that allow me, the gumptioned, to keep all the wealth I've accumulated (through tax breaks, grants, low interest business loans, police protection, favorable regulations that preempts competition, and ripping off my employees) without the burden of me paying for it. My taxes should be only what I willingly give to political parties to ensure that when "elected" they do implement policies favorable to my endeavor and harmful to my enemy's. That is the proper role of "taxes", and the proper role of government. The quicker people learn that, the quicker they will no longer be a slave to government programs of entitlement, and instead joyfully accept and endure their role as slaves to corporate hegemony.

quote:

---

through tax breaks, grants, low interest business loans, police protection, favorable regulations that preempts competition, and ripping off my employees)

---

1. do not believe in grants
2. do not belive in low interest business loans
3. believe there should be competition in all markets, including the delviery of services that governments provide the people
4. my company and the companies I have worked for and the companies my peers and friends have worked for have not ripped off their employees. Doesn't mean it does not happen.

5. Government should only subsidize one activity within businesses .... research and development. Success there can lead to more employment and better practices to aid the people and the environment

6. My corporation paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes over the years. Many corporations do pay millions and millions of taxes every year. No free ride.

quote:

---

Ya but our two old line parties just wanna turn Canada into a conservative nanny state for the stuperrich like the U.S.

---

Did you read that budget? There is nothing remotely conservative in that 10 billion plus spend.

I hate to see the reaction if there was a true fiscally conservative budget ever introduced and implemented in Canada.

There are no conservative parties in Canada. They are all shades of red and all left of centre of the political spectrum.

Targetted tax credits are social welfare programs. True tax relief for; all expecially the lower wage earners (no tax on earnings up to $36,000) would have helped more people.

Taxes are a punishment for success. Taxes should be proportionate to the necessary services for the people.

[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by civicduty:
[b]

Taxes are a punishment for success. Taxes should be proportionate to the necessary services for the people.

[/b]

---

1) Taxes aren't a punishment - they're the cost of living in civilized society.

2) I agree. Unfortunately taxes are currently too low to pay for the necessary services for the people.

Well, yes. There is that. However, josh, it's not even that simple, because the one who earned it usually did so on the backs of other people. Some will admit their advantages and others won't.

If your kids earn a million dollars when they grow up, it'll be because of their initiative. But it'll also be because they didn't go to school hungry, and they have parents who can afford to send them to university.

People who earn a million dollars aren't necessarily the enemy. They're only the enemy if they refuse to acknowledge their privilege, and try to increase the barriers to other people joining them in their abundance.

quote:

---

Well, yes. There is that. However, josh, it's not even that simple, because the one who earned it usually did so on the backs of other people.

---

Well, that has always been the case. The farmer tend his fields, harvested the crop and took it to market. Some was edible immediately others had to be further refined. Either way, the consumers of the farmer's products took advantage of that man's labour.

Union leaders receive annual salaries directly paqid from the workers on the line or in the field. They are getting paid on the backs of other people.

The rock stars or movie stars or painters and other artists receive money for their product from people who have had to work. The artists are profiting off the backs of others.

quote:

---

Some will admit their advantages and others won't. If your kids earn a million dollars when they grow up, it'll be because of their initiative. But it'll also be because they didn't go to school hungry, and they have parents who can afford to send them to university.

---

I went to university and my parents could not pay. The cost of university back then is relative to the amount of today.

I did not party in high school. I worked and got top marks to get scholarships. When that money was still not enough I sought out organizations that awarded bursaries. I then had to work part time. I did not party in university, I worked the required hours ... 2 hours for every hour of lecture and lab time. I graduated top of the class. I then put in my hours at low wages for students of accounts and worked to gain my professional designation. I then risked my home and liquidated my savings to start a business and made millions after 15 years of hard work and selling the business.

I had no more advantage than any other Canadian. It is called hard work and keeping your eye on the goal. Any one and everyone can succeed if they so desire.

It is not what your parents have in assets. It is what you have inside yourself that determines if you wish to succeed.

quote:

---

People who earn a million dollars aren't necessarily the enemy. They're only the enemy if they refuse to acknowledge their privilege, and try to increase the barriers to other people joining them in their abundance.

---

I have no additional priveleges than any other Canadian. I provided unionized wages to my staff without the need of a union to tax their wages. I provided monies to children of my staff to go to school. I provided a work environment for those that wished to work hard while enjoying their families.

And I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax be it income tax, employer tax, property tax, health taxes, worker safety premiums. Did I whine about it. No, I paid it while suggesting over taxation of the people harms the lower earners more than the highest earners.

Not slumming it at all.

I do not consider progressive working people to be slum dwellers or lesser people. They are the backbone of the country.

I am shocked you would class yourself and other contributors on this forum as such.

Maybe if you viewed yourself with a higher self esteem, then there would be less calss envy.

The rich only have money. They are no different than anyone else. They commit the same acts as eveyone else in the morning.

I was not always rich and most of my friends also come from ordinary working families. I still live in my bungalow and still help the seniors on my street. Heck, I even employed some of their grand kids when they approached for and asked for that help.

Success is not something out of the reach of any Canadian. Have a goal and accompany that with a hard work ethic and you shall succeed. Only you and you alone can dictate your level of success.

I just thought someone with your moxy would prefer the Peninsula Club to the virtual lecture circuit. Or did they run out of port wine and pickled walnuts this afternoon ?.

Fidel;

Not trying to lecture anyone.

I just never understood the concept of taxing success.

As someone that has come from poverty to being relatively well off, I would just hope my story would help others see that success is possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by civicduty:
[b]Fidel;

Not trying to lecture anyone.

I just never understood the concept of taxing success.

As someone that has come from poverty to being relatively well off, I would just hope my story would help others see that success is possible.[/b]

---

Your story is that you sold out. You had employees who worked hard to help you build a successful business, and in the end, you received all the benefits, and they were left at the mercy of someone who didn't know their contributions.

As a society, we've decided to protect people left in such situations. Thus EI, and labour relations boards, and investment review agencies - and thus the need for taxes to pay for them.

Reagan was in office for the period 1981-1989. His time as President began January 1981 and within 108 days passed a budget that contained his famous supply-side tax cuts. A budget passed in 1981 would be enacted in 1982, and the tax cuts were to be phased in over three years, 10 percent a year. Additionally. Reagan imposed a moratorium on all new federal regulation enforcement the moment he took office. In fact, the Reagan administration began slashing and burning existing federal regulation; it cut the Federal Register nearly in half by 1986.

I agree that 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with -2.2 percent growth. Furthermore, by 1982 there had already been enormous cuts in the capital gains tax. Between 1978 and 1982, the top rate on capital gains was cut from 39 to 20 percent. And the top rate on unearned income fell from 70 to 50 percent (mirroring a similar rate cut in earned income).

Prior to Reagan, Jimmy Carter the Democrat was President. If history was taught properaly deregulation actually began under Carter, not Reagan. Carter deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use.

The supply-sider's dream was largely realized by 1982 -- and yet that year turned out to be the worst year since the Great Depression. So what really happened:?

The inflation rates for those years were:

1979 11.3%
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2
1983 3.2

Actually, the above chart leads to the real reason for the 1982 recession. Chairman Paul Volcker sought to defeat rising inflation by tightening the money supply -- that is, he put the U.S. economy through an intentional recession. There was a brief and unintentional recovery in 1981, so, with inflation still high, he tightened the money supply yet again, resulting in the unusually severe 1982 recession. By the end of that year, inflation looked beaten, so Volcker flooded the economy with money and fueled the subsequent recovery.

Due to the actions of Carter, Reagan and Volcker, the road to recovery was set. At the beginning of the Reagan presidency, inflation hovered at 12 percent, interest rates had soared as high as 21 percent, and unemployment exceeded 7 percent. In January 1989, inflation had dropped to 4.4 percent, the prime rate to 9.3 percent and unemployment to 5.4 percent. Over the course of the Reagan years, the nation's gross national product had doubled and per-capita income rose. Nearly 18 million new jobs were created.

Yet, he did not control government spends during this time of growth.

Bush Junior inherited a economic downtown from Clinton and then the economy was further shaken due to 9/11. In a relatively short period of time, the American economy has rebounded due to once again, tax cuts for everyone.

I agree that there is current concern that the US economy is overheated and may suffer a downturn. That downturn will be hastened and made worse when the Democrats raise taxes.

[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

Dear Lard:

Those are the inflation rates. That is the reality of history under each President.

Nothing to do with nobility. I just like to treat people in the way that I like to be treated.

There has been no recovery for most of us. The rights of people to inherit have nothing to do with personal "success" and since conservatives and liberals throughout the world have demanded we cut away the lifeboats for the victims of these man-made recessioons they shouldn't expect any sympathy from others. Taxation only takes a percentage of income anyhow, and can be put to good use that "markets" generally don't provide, while the destruction of fulltime secured jobs meant the loss of All of ones income, often without any property to fall back on when attempting to find other comparible work in a tightened job market before losing it ALL. It's really very simple.

He wasn't counting the massive deficits Reagan incurred no, not when he desperately reopened the spending spiggots for the idling rich and military contractors, deficits which we Know who paid for. And now the idle rich and miltary contractors want to be rewarded for our pain too, decades on. It's really just criminal fraud made respectable.

[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

You were as heavily subsidized as has ever been in this country.

---

And are very heavily subsidised just by being in this country. You mention that people pay more in taxes than food, clothes and shelter. This is demonstrably untrue for me. I assume it is true for you and the others in your income range, but even so there's a very good reason for this. Education, health care, policing, military, roads, sewage, etc, etc, [b]etc[/b] are all much more expensive, in absolute terms, than people's food, clothes, and shelter.

I make a little over 30 grand a year. This is the average Candian income for one wage-earner. I assure you I am getting a deal, a total sweetheart deal with bells and whistles, when it comes to services for taxes, and if you think otherwise you have been in your ivory tower of wealth far too long. I'd like to get more of a deal. After all, it seems to work so well, why not see how far you can go? That's why I advocate more taxes for more services.

My health care, for instance, is a total steal compared to any country that uses private providers (not that there are many left in the industrialised world). Why can't I get the same good value for dental work? My water infrastructure is maintained for a song compared to what I'd be paying if the government didn't take care of the whole thing with tax money. Why can't the phone lines be as cheap?

More taxes for more services equals more value. This is not some untested theory but just the record of experience staring us in the face. Presumably there is some upper limit to this equation but looking at the examplesofother successful countries it is clear we haven't reached it. All the most competitive countries in the world have higher social spending and higher tax rates than Canada does. You can't have one without the other, and you need both to build the kind of prosperous modern nation that allowed you to create the wealth you did through your hard work. I mean, why do you think your step-father came to Canada? If it doesn't matter what the government provides then he could have stayed where he was or gone somewhere with lower taxes. He came here because it was a modern, prosperous nation, and it was a modern, prosperous nation because of the social spending of the new deal, which required high tax rates to create. These are the simple facts you are in denial of.

appearently the only thing these right wingers believe in is using other people to gain their wealth...

As if woking hard got you anything other then a heart attack.

Here is an equation that I made up....

LV - LC = P

LV= Labour Value

LC = Labour Cost

P= Profit...

Labour Value is just that , the value created by labour.

Labour Cost is all the costs of paying for that labour... ie overhead costs and wages.

Profit is what the hard working capitalist gets.

So basicly the only way these hard working capitalist gain wealth is through the explotaion of others..

Here is an example ...

cost of labour $15 for one hour of work. value of item made in that hour $19.97 because it was bought at WalMart and they don't have .99 in thier stores.

So lets put thatinto the equation.

LV-LC = P

19.97 - 15 =

I need a calculator for this one because under the new conservative school caricula I didn't learn math very well..

Ok done.... so thats P = $4.97