TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians

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 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

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.

kropotkin1951]</p> <p>[quote=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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.
[/QUOTE]

.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I'm at a loss for words.

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.  

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 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 [b][i]profit[/i][/b] - 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]

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.

I'm guessing that just maybe...going out on a limb here...that you are in the wrong place buddy.

theatlanticaparty wrote:

Unionist wrote:

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

Good. Lets just say we both agree regarding NFPs.

My point, however, is where do new businesses come from without the profit incentive? NAV Canada was not an entrepreural start up, government created it then spun it off as a NFP.

I know a husband and wife team with two kids who had an idea for a new type of omega three product, they eventualy quite their regular jobs and took a second mortgage on their house (big risk) and are making a go of manufacturing (hiring people) this product locally. The company may or may not suceed (more than half of all startups fail after four years leaving the founders out of pocket - risk again). Do you think they should profit from their venture or just collect a salary similar to other jobs?

I know I did some quick research yesterday and he is posting in this thread.  Nice story but why are you here?  You see I don't believe that greed should drive our economy.  To me your profit motive is a fancy term for greed.  I know lots of people with good ideas and most of them aren't as privileged as your friends and their ideas languish while they work three jobs for $14 an hour.  

http://www.novascotialife.com/yourstories/steep-hill-journey

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=85841

I would suggest that both you and Blair are far more suited to the Blogging Tories web site.

PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS