TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

Are you volunteering to be judge, jury and executioner for "who are claiming mental illness as an excuse not to work"? 

Not to mention that your idea of how much people on social assistance get is a joke.

I do maintenance work in Halifax apartment buildings with many residents who are the real people from whom you draw your mythology.

Not to mention that you obviously have no idea what a dinky fraction of the Community Services budget, let alone of all tax dollars, go to social assistance of people who are able bodied. 

Not to mention I've employed a number of them, and the term 'able bodied' has to be used pretty loosely. Yes they have two good hands and two good legs and two good eyes and they can carry on a conversation and are often pretty bright. But they all have issues that have a great deal to do with why people do not keep them in employ.

kropotkin1951

The BC Liberals are your party.  They have been attacking poor people in this province and have now the distinction of the highest poverty rates in the country and we HAVE oil. 

They made every single person on disability benefits reapply.  I know people who contemplated suicide because they could not handle the stress of potentially answering wrong and losing the pittance of a monthly stipend.

Devine was real good too.I think he spent millions to find hundreds of thousands in welfare fraud.  Al-Q might know the numbers better but I remember they made great fanfare out of chasing welfare bums and then spent oodles of money and found very little fraud.

IMO People on social assistance cheat on their welfare entitlements in the same proportion as the general population cheats on their taxes. 

NSMark

KenS wrote:

Are you volunteering to be judge, jury and executioner for "who are claiming mental illness as an excuse not to work"? 

Not to mention that your idea of how much people on social assistance get is a joke.

I do maintenance work in Halifax apartment buildings with many residents who are the real people from whom you draw your mythology.

Not to mention that you obviously have no idea what a dinky fraction of the Community Services budget, let alone of all tax dollars, go to social assistance of people who are able bodied. 

Not to mention I've employed a number of them, and the term 'able bodied' has to be used pretty loosely. Yes they have two good hands and two good legs and two good eyes and they can carry on a conversation and are often pretty bright. But they all have issues that have a great deal to do with why people do not keep them in employ.

Thanks for outlining your experiences, KenS.  I would definitely like to look at the raw numbers (and I should), but you know what they say, perception goes a long way, and I just go by what I've seen and been told by many others.  I defintiely won't pretend to be an expert though on this issue because I'm not.

I just wanted to point out though that many people who are on assistance (again I don't have the numbers) have substance abuse issues.  I commend the ones who are undergoing treatment (both in and outpatient), but I think that most people would agree that those who refuse treatment should be cut off from any and all assistance.

kropotkin1951

NSMark wrote:

I just wanted to point out though that many people who are on assistance (again I don't have the numbers) have substance abuse issues.  I commend the ones who are undergoing treatment (both in and outpatient), but I think that most people would agree that those who refuse treatment should be cut off any and all assistance.

Why is this moralistic person allowed to post such poor bashing on this site.

Go back under your bridge.  Why not post about this substance abuser instead of poor people?

Quote:

B.C. Liberal caucus chair Ron Cantelon said it wasn't necessary for Thornthwaite to give up her MLA duties, which include serving on committees responsible for children, youth and education.

"It's a personal mistake," said Cantelon. "Certainly she needs to — and has — taken full responsibility for her actions."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/23/bc-thornthwaite-madd.html#ixzz0h2tuz31a

 

 

KenS

NSMark wrote:

many people who are on assistance (again I don't have the numbers) have substance abuse issues.  I commend the ones who are undergoing treatment (both in and outpatient), but I think that most people would agree that those who refuse treatment should be cut off from any and all assistance.

As you said, you need to educate yourself. Add substance abuse and associated issues to your list.

People refuse all sorts of kinds of treatment. TB patients who don't follow through with their tratment are common- and they don't just cost money, they are a public health hazard. Shoot them?

What about my brother in law- like many diabetics who refuse to save themselves- and in doing so cost us all of us more than it costs to support 10 substance abusing single males on welfare.

NSMark

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The BC Liberals are your party.  They have been attacking poor people in this province and have now the distinction of the highest poverty rates in the country and we HAVE oil. 

They made every single person on disability benefits reapply.  I know people who contemplated suicide because they could not handle the stress of potentially answering wrong and losing the pittance of a monthly stipend.

Devine was real good too.I think he spent millions to find hundreds of thousands in welfare fraud.  Al-Q might know the numbers better but I remember they made great fanfare out of chasing welfare bums and then spent oodles of money and found very little fraud.

IMO People on social assistance cheat on their welfare entitlements in the same proportion as the general population cheats on their taxes. 

Your last statement could very well be true, and believe me, I'm no fan of tax cheats either.  As for what you outlined in B.C., making every single person reapply is excessive and a waste of money as is obviously spending way more money investigating welfare fraud than the amount that's going on.  I believe that investigations should be on a case-by-case basis.

KenS

That said...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why is this moralistic person allowed to post such poor bashing on this site.

While it is understandable, you could take some of your own advice about moralism and compassion. Give people some room.

Maybe people who buy into stereotypes just can't help themselves.

[there should be emoticons for irony. Wink just doesnt cut it.]

 

 

 

NSMark

kropotkin1951 wrote:

NSMark wrote:

I just wanted to point out though that many people who are on assistance (again I don't have the numbers) have substance abuse issues.  I commend the ones who are undergoing treatment (both in and outpatient), but I think that most people would agree that those who refuse treatment should be cut off any and all assistance.

Why is this moralistic person allowed to post such poor bashing on this site.

Go back under your bridge.  Why not post about this substance abuser instead of poor people?

Quote:

 

B.C. Liberal caucus chair Ron Cantelon said it wasn't necessary for Thornthwaite to give up her MLA duties, which include serving on committees responsible for children, youth and education.

"It's a personal mistake," said Cantelon. "Certainly she needs to — and has — taken full responsibility for her actions."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/23/bc-thornthwaite-madd.html#ixzz0h2tuz31a

 

 

I'm used to forums where open and honest debate is encouraged.  If this isn't the case here, I will gladly pack up and leave.  Perhaps the members here like this as a place where only common held beliefs are tolerated.  If this is the case, I will respect that.  I stumbled upon the site based on a link to taxes in Nova Scotia, and wanted to contribute to the conversation.  It's obviously deviated quite a bit now from the original topic. 

I'm not sure how I'm being 'moralistic' or bashing the poor though.  I'm talking about personal responsbility issues here.  As for the link you sent me, I believe that the MLA in question should resign IF she is convicted.

NSMark

KenS wrote:

NSMark wrote:

many people who are on assistance (again I don't have the numbers) have substance abuse issues.  I commend the ones who are undergoing treatment (both in and outpatient), but I think that most people would agree that those who refuse treatment should be cut off from any and all assistance.

As you said, you need to educate yourself. Add substance abuse and associated issues to your list.

People refuse all sorts of kinds of treatment. TB patients who don't follow through with their tratment are common- and they don't just cost money, they are a public health hazard. Shoot them?

What about my brother in law- like many diabetics who refuse to save themselves- and in doing so cost us all of us more than it costs to support 10 substance abusing single males on welfare.

Yes, but diabetes doesn't cause people to rob corner stores and assault people on the streets: substance abuse does.

KenS

Do you know any forums where there aren't at least some people who are 'extra pointy'?

Harshness of points doesnt mean there isn't open and honest debate. Seems to me looking beyond the sharpness to the substance is a prerequiste to even the more civil on-line discussions.

NSMark

KenS wrote:

Do you know any forums where there aren't at least some people who are 'extra pointy'?

Harshness of points doesnt mean there isn't open and honest debate. Seems to me looking beyond the sharpness to the substance is a prerequiste to even the more civil on-line discussions.

True, I was just under the impression that somebody was asking me to be banned here, that's all.

No worries.  :)

KenS

NSMark wrote:

Yes, but diabetes doesn't cause people to rob corner stores and assault people on the streets: substance abuse does.

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.

Lord Palmerston

Le T wrote:
There should be no sales tax on anything. Income taxes should be progressive. I think that the CCPA published a paper a while ago showing that poor Canadians pay more tax than rich Canadians as expressed as a percentage of income.

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.

oldgoat

NSMark we do indeed encourage open and honest debate, but as our policy statement clearly indicates, we do have standards, and you are contravening them. Your connection of persons on social assistance with substance abuse, and further suggestion that they should be cut off is indeed classist poor bashing. If you continue posting along these lines you will be suspended. I suggest you re-read the policy statement, and ponder on what is meant by progressive in that document. This particular board starts from certain first principles, and is not an ideological free-for-all as some boards are.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

No, if I want a calculator answer, I'll punch the numbers myself, thanks.

The question was, who are you going to cut off?

The injured?

The mentally incapacitated?

The too-old-for-retraining, too-young-to-die?

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.

Fidel

NSMark wrote:
Your last statement could very well be true, and believe me, I'm no fan of tax cheats either.

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.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

oldgoat wrote:
NSMark we do indeed encourage open and honest debate, but as our policy statement clearly indicates, we do have standards, and you are contravening them. Your connection of persons on social assistance with substance abuse, and further suggestion that they should be cut off is indeed classist poor bashing. If you continue posting along these lines you will be suspended. I suggest you re-read the policy statement, and ponder on what is meant by progressive in that document. This particular board starts from certain first principles, and is not an ideological free-for-all as some boards are.

 

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.

oldgoat

From the policy statement:

Quote:
In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist and pro-labour stance. Discussion which develops and expands progressive thought is encouraged and welcome.

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought.

.

So that'd be the pro-human rights part as well as 'progressive' in principle. Like British Common Law, we have established certain readings and interpretations over the years, and poor bashing has just been verboten since long before I was a mod. The examples of pro-labour, feminism and anti racism are precicely that, examples, and are not exclusive catagories. This is a living document, and if further clarification is needed we can always make it more explicit.

Having said all that, anyone who wants to cut people off social benifits because of addictions issues, not to mention making the connection in the first place has no place on a board which starts with progressive principles.

Actually, I'm glad you asked because it gives me a chance to say this. Most discussion forum policy statements are pretty much boiler plate about playing nice and don't get us sued. I'm sure a lot of people sign up here without even reading it. We put a lot of thought into ours. If people want to debate from a social conservative or neo-con point of view, we at rabble support their right to start their own chat forum and do so. This however, is our living room and we have standards.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

We are getting off topic here.

Is there a discussion thread on the policy statement?

NSMark

KenS wrote:

NSMark wrote:

Yes, but diabetes doesn't cause people to rob corner stores and assault people on the streets: substance abuse does.

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.

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.

Blars

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?

 

NSMark

oldgoat wrote:
From the policy statement:
Quote:
In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist and pro-labour stance. Discussion which develops and expands progressive thought is encouraged and welcome. babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought.
. So that'd be the pro-human rights part as well as 'progressive' in principle. Like British Common Law, we have established certain readings and interpretations over the years, and poor bashing has just been verboten since long before I was a mod. The examples of pro-labour, feminism and anti racism are precicely that, examples, and are not exclusive catagories. This is a living document, and if further clarification is needed we can always make it more explicit. Having said all that, anyone who wants to cut people off social benifits because of addictions issues, not to mention making the connection in the first place has no place on a board which starts with progressive principles. Actually, I'm glad you asked because it gives me a chance to say this. Most discussion forum policy statements are pretty much boiler plate about playing nice and don't get us sued. I'm sure a lot of people sign up here without even reading it. We put a lot of thought into ours. If people want to debate from a social conservative or neo-con point of view, we at rabble support their right to start their own chat forum and do so. This however, is our living room and we have standards.

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

Slumberjack

Bakunin's statement should be updated to encompass other substances. 

Quote:
There are but three ways for the populace to escape its wretched lot. The first two are by the routes of the wine-shop or the church; the third is by that of the social revolution.

Fidel

NSMark wrote:
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 be...

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.

kropotkin1951

So Blars I agree with some of what you say.

Quote:

I believe if people are able to keep more of their earned work they will be more motivated to make more. 

I really do believe that social justice includes people earning as much as they can and keeping money that they earn.

I want better services and higher wages for our workers and I think all on this forum would want that as well.

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?

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Blars I agree with some of what you say.

Quote:

I believe if people are able to keep more of their earned work they will be more motivated to make more. 

I really do believe that social justice includes people earning as much as they can and keeping money that they earn.

I want better services and higher wages for our workers and I think all on this forum would want that as well.

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?

 

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.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

[img]http://i39.tinypic.com/1417el0.gif[/img]

 

I'm at a loss for words.

Hoodeet

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I'm at a loss for words.

Hoodeet (JW)

 

So am I.  I am not sure I understand why an anti-tax thread like this was permitted.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

Not anti-tax, just opposed to additional taxes.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

umm ...  How can you pay wages if there are no profits? Where does the money come from?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

The fact that you believe the profits would be shared with the workers has me bafflegabbed.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

You honour me.

Well if the business cannot cover its costs before wages how will wages be paid?

kropotkin1951

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.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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.

kropotkin1951

RevolutionPlease wrote:

[img]http://i39.tinypic.com/1417el0.gif[/img]

 

I'm at a loss for words.

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.

Blars

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Blars I agree with some of what you say.

Quote:

I believe if people are able to keep more of their earned work they will be more motivated to make more. 

I really do believe that social justice includes people earning as much as they can and keeping money that they earn.

I want better services and higher wages for our workers and I think all on this forum would want that as well.

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?

Hi Kropotkin, 

Not sure if a higher minimum wage is the answer.  I believe, it is always better to have a lower entry point for students and young people looking for experience - I know I gained experience in high school pumping gas.  With a higher minimum that job may not have been open for me. 

Not to say Alberta has all the answers but you would be hard pressed to find anyone working close to minimum wage.  The market allows people to earn $15 in a burger joint.   I think people are the biggest asset in any company and companies that treat their people well tend to succeed long-term. 

Do you think companies can have the best interest of their employees? 

kropotkin1951

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?

Blars

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. 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

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.

 

 

Unionist

theatlanticaparty wrote:

umm ...  How can you pay wages if there are no profits? Where does the money come from?

I'll bite.

Businesses can run with zero profits - just exactly covering their costs of production (including capital expansion), with not a penny in profit left over. Ever hear of not-for-profit enterprises?

But the minute a business doesn't pay wages, it has no employees left. Not one. Good luck producing goods and services and making profits with nothing but shareholders...

Conclusion: The only part of this picture that is completely unnecessary to the running of a business is - profit (over and above costs of production and growth). It's the only part that gets taken out of the business and goes to some owners or shareholders, who do nothing.

Blars

Well I do feel excluded - I guess the majority rules here. 

One of the the very things your site claims to champion is minorities...I am certainly a minority on your forums.  Then you tell me my "right wing" opinion is not welcome.  Whether my opinion is right wing, left wing or chicken wing it should not be excluded. 

There could be an area we may agree...... I do not agree with government subsidies for companies.  

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

You are no minority in the real world, there's plenty of forums you'll feel much more comfortable in.  And they don't champion minorities, look at the policy, they champion equality and human rights.  Too bad you can't see the difference. 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Blars champions that 2% minority of the super-rich that pay a smaller percentage of tax on their income in Canada than the poorest quintile does. And Blars has won equality (and more) for them - they're no longer discriminated against by a progressive tax system.

There's a word for those who side with the powerful against the weak, Blar.

You don't belong here - and people have been far too polite and tolerant of you and your ilk to this point.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

Unionist wrote:

theatlanticaparty wrote:

umm ...  How can you pay wages if there are no profits? Where does the money come from?

I'll bite.

Businesses can run with zero profits - just exactly covering their costs of production (including capital expansion), with not a penny in profit left over. Ever hear of not-for-profit enterprises?

But the minute a business doesn't pay wages, it has no employees left. Not one. Good luck producing goods and services and making profits with nothing but shareholders...

Conclusion: The only part of this picture that is completely unnecessary to the running of a business is - profit (over and above costs of production and growth). It's the only part that gets taken out of the business and goes to some owners or shareholders, who do nothing.

 

Nothing wrong with NFPs but they still behave like market firms, with the exception of being by a currency-based profit. The non-profit firm exists only if there are enough people out there who believe in its mandate and are willing to support it by volunteering, donating money, etc. Thats very much a free-market system.

What about risk?

Without profit how is the entreprenur who founded the firm rewarded for the risks they have taken? Owners and shareholders too bear risk. If you have ever owned a share you know what I mean.

 

Unionist

theatlanticaparty wrote:

The non-profit firm exists only if there are enough people out there who believe in its mandate and are willing to support it by volunteering, donating money, etc.

No, I think you're talking about something like a charity. I'm not. I'm talking about businesses which are run with the aim of providing goods and services, rather than for making a profit for their owners.

Example: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_Canada]NAV Canada[/url]:

Quote:

Nav Canada is a privately run, not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates Canada's civil air navigation system (ANS).

The company employs approximately 2,000 air traffic controllers (ATCs), 800 flight service specialists (FSSs) and 700 technologists. It has been responsible for the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic in Canadian airspace since November 1, 1996 when the government transferred the ANS from Transport Canada to Nav Canada. As part of the transfer, or privatization, Nav Canada paid the government CA$1.5 billion.

Nav Canada operates independently of any government funding and is headquartered in Ottawa, Ontario.

You can also think of co-ops and credit unions - many of them are non-profit (as well as not-for-profit) in the sense I outlined.

There is no reason why all business could not be run in this fashion, if society so decided.

Quote:
Thats very much a free-market system.

Yes - who said it wasn't? I'm not talking about a change in the market system. I was merely responding to the rather fatuous notion that a business could survive without paying wages, but not without making profits. NAV Canada has been running, quite successfully it appears, for more than 13 years without making a penny in profit. If it stopped (or even just unilaterally reduced) wages, you could forget about that Caribbean vacation next week - or rent a sailboat.

Quote:
Without profit how is the entreprenur who founded the firm rewarded for the risks they have taken?

The "founders"? They're dead, you can reward them by honouring their memory. You mean the current owners and shareholders? If they work for the firm (say as managers at various levels), they will get salaries, bonuses, etc. If they supply the firm, or rent it property or equipment, etc., they will receive the appropriate compensation based on whatever contracts they can negotiate. All this is compensation which provides value for value. If they lend it money for rainy days, or for expansion, they will receive it back with interest. All these are costs of the operation.

But profit - over and above all these necessary value-adding costs? Absolute folly and waste. It adds nothing to efficiency, quality, or growth. Surely that must be obvious.

Quote:
Owners and shareholders too bear risk. If you have ever owned a share you know what I mean.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean - the roller-coaster thrill of making and losing money based on the luck of the draw, the fortunes of some process which you can't control or influence. Like a roulette wheel. I do believe such forms of gambling on other people's activities can be eliminated without undue harm to the economy.