Actually your socialist buddy,...didn't answer the question,...did he,...you two meet in the same basement with the hammer and sickle on the wall,...???
FAST
Harper Regime getting desperate
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
FAST
12-30-2012, 06:39 PM #1
nottyboi
Registered User
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 12,590
Canadian Dollar with oil at $50? How low with the dollar go if oil hits $50? I am basing my planning on this happening by about 2015. With out manufacturing wiped out by Harpers policies,. will we be able to even sustain the $0.62 cent rate the last time commodities got wiped out? Surely it will happen again, if only because it is good for the US.
Nottyboi sir, excellent call, got anymore 36 month predictions?
nottyboi
Registered User
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 12,590
Canadian Dollar with oil at $50? How low with the dollar go if oil hits $50? I am basing my planning on this happening by about 2015. With out manufacturing wiped out by Harpers policies,. will we be able to even sustain the $0.62 cent rate the last time commodities got wiped out? Surely it will happen again, if only because it is good for the US.
Nottyboi sir, excellent call, got anymore 36 month predictions?
I love how they make the rich out to be the evil doers. How dare they make more money then me!! Those bastards!!
Let's say you tax them as the man with the famous name suggests. You wouldn't get as much as you may think. Taxing the few and giving the 99%-ers a tax break won't equate to huge sums of money.
And there's a fine line as to how much you can tax the 1%-ers before they send their money offshore. Renouncing their Canadian citizenship. And more then likely they could take their businesses out of Canada.
And what's the big deal with the rich getting Child aid benefit's? They pay more taxes then the 99%-ers so why the hell aren't they entitle to the same rights and benefits as say someone on welfare? Oh, that's right. They're rich! They should pay for everything themselves. Fuck those evil do-ers and their bags of money.
Let's say you tax them as the man with the famous name suggests. You wouldn't get as much as you may think. Taxing the few and giving the 99%-ers a tax break won't equate to huge sums of money.
And there's a fine line as to how much you can tax the 1%-ers before they send their money offshore. Renouncing their Canadian citizenship. And more then likely they could take their businesses out of Canada.
And what's the big deal with the rich getting Child aid benefit's? They pay more taxes then the 99%-ers so why the hell aren't they entitle to the same rights and benefits as say someone on welfare? Oh, that's right. They're rich! They should pay for everything themselves. Fuck those evil do-ers and their bags of money.
I think the rich are also entitled to free health care (because it's illegal to pay for health care in Canada) except most of them go to the U.S. where they get faster and better service.
I think the rich are also allow to send their kids to free public schools except most of them send their kids to private schools where they get a better education.
Agree. That is why the Blue Jays' payroll should be split equally among all the players.
This whole high tax hype as usual is exaggerated by Harper and his Conservatives. You just buy that nonsense that is spewed by the most non transparent PM in recent times. Pure Capitalism has no concerns for the very poor, and do not care for stuff like National Healthcare, Free Primary Education, infrastructure, and the environment. It is all about Money, Shareholders, Ponzi schemes etc etc. That is why Canadians will always want a Mixed Economy, as they will be quick to complain about their garbage not being picked up, and the slow traffic on their highways etc. etc.
Reality
Just one of your telling points,... Free Primary Education,...
And just were the hell did I mention anything about taxes in my post that you quoted,...do you take reading lessons from footer,...???
FAST
You should educate yourself on how wealth is created,...that is then used to pay for "stuff like Healthcare",...before you post about things you know NOTHING about,...you will sound much more intelligent.
Just one of your telling points,... Free Primary Education,...
And just were the hell did I mention anything about taxes in my post that you quoted,...do you take reading lessons from footer,...???
FAST
You are sounding more stupid by the minute. Did you not see my take on Mixed Economy that includes Private businesses and Public Organisations. Duh!! Strict Capitalism is having you pay for all your services, health, education etc. So who will build the roads, that are not toll highways? Which country runs a pure capitalistic approach that have all their citizens paying for everything privately?????
As defined by you?
Lots is wrong
When someone starts a business they take on risks , including the loss of their capital and life savings in some cases.
They need to be compensated for taking that risk.
That is equitable
Your view of the world is if they are successful beyond the average person, they should be taxed until they are the average person (stupid commie thinking)
Your view also means corporations would be taxed higher
But guess what ?(and this is part you will never understand)
If the reward is taxed away they do not take the risk & that is the end of corporate innovation, new products, advances in medicine, small business start ups, new job creation etc
You just do not get & you never will
When someone takes on a business in Canada the risk that take is mitigated by a giant safety net the rest is US pay for, from the generous bankruptcy laws that let them off the hook, to the welfare system if they really fall that far. The presence of a safety net that means the worst that can happen isn't so bad encourages rush taking. It is only natural that the successful risk takers should then pay the most for the safety net.
That is the ideological correct answer.
But then there is the hard reality answer too: most of those "risk takers" were in fact born into rich families and translated family money, family influence, and family connections into successful businesses. That is not really risk taking. That is the formation of a Canadian oligopoly.
Higher taxes actually create a level playing field by providing some of the same advantages to everyone through better schools and so on.
That means that the rich kids are forced to compete on more equal terms with everybody else, just a little, and tidy helps build a merit based society rather then a dynastic society.
That is the ideological correct answer.
But then there is the hard reality answer too: most of those "risk takers" were in fact born into rich families and translated family money, family influence, and family connections into successful businesses. That is not really risk taking. That is the formation of a Canadian oligopoly.
Higher taxes actually create a level playing field by providing some of the same advantages to everyone through better schools and so on.
That means that the rich kids are forced to compete on more equal terms with everybody else, just a little, and tidy helps build a merit based society rather then a dynastic society.
This is the part that you will never understand.
When international corporations are allowed to set the terms of trade deals, like the TPP, force governments into concessions in order to gain 'jobs', collude amongst each other to set prices and similar actions it ceases being an open market. It turns into a plutocracy, where the rich and big corporations can control the media and messages, buy government access and generally use their wealth to unfair advantage so that the small businessman that you purport to support can't compete.
I'm sure you'd be fine with playing baseball with a team rich enough to buy the refs, but not me.
Ideological ??
I do not think so, that is your
a) messed up justification for your desire to reallocate wealth
b) lack of understanding of what drives capital allocation decisions
Not even close to reality
Do you think the availability of $400 / week of EI benefits is a deciding factor in a small construction firms decision to invest in new equipment & hire new employees to expand the service offerings of the company?
In fact the owner of such a company would not be eligible for this Social Safety net should it all go wrong.
You need to think in real world terms more often.
You are not the great high level thinker you portray yourself as
You are more of a high level fool
You are making a value judgment on where the capital for a risky business opportunity comes from.
If you attended business school & paid attention you would know it is not the source of funds , but rather the use of funds which determines the go, no go decisions on investment opportunities.
Taxes are applied on income , not assets and thus completely blind to how wealthy a person / corporation is
The taxes Justin proposes penalize anyone who is successful including those who started with nothing, worked hard & took risks
adding this burden will only encourage some of those new want-to-be millionaires to avoid the risks / hard work and settle for a high paying / excessive benefit / low stress government jobs
And that is to the determent of our society
Level the playing field ??
By placing a burden on those that aspire to achieve success it levels the playing field alright, as there will less net people taking risks.
Canada needs more risk takers especially if we want to diversify our economy away from the extraction of natural resources.
Are you going to double mortgage your home to start up a new software company, knowing Justin will steal more on all income over $200,000 ?
No and it comes down to this
the risk reward relationship will be altered and there is less incentive to take risks for any venture
For those who really want to see their idea come alive, the USA is not that far away
We need to be competitive & we are not with socialist millstones hanging from our necks
There should be a mandatory entrepreneur for all socialists to ensure they understand reality & take their heads out of their ass
Ah so you do not approve of capitalism
Sorry comrade they tried your approach in Russia for 75 years & it did not turn out so well
We know the value of what you post
You do not understand the importance of trade, see the bogyman an around every corner & think the government should control all
Sorry comrade, you have no right to impose your nightmare on others
You were unable to answer the point, this is just hot air. In reality the operators of failed businesses can rely on Canada's safety net. Our bankruptcy laws give them a soft landing, our free education keeps their kids in school, our free healthcare keeps their family well, and in the very worst case there is welfare.
Do I think that knowing the absolute worst case isn't s catastrophe is a factor in risk taking?
Yes. And you had no meaningful reply. Point carried.
You missed the point completely.
I'm pointing out that when you are set up for success by birth into a rich, powerful, and influential family your subsequent success isn't really the result of risk taking. Your family money and influence made it possible for you to fail repeatedly and still wind on top.
Taxation puts pressure on dynastic success, eventually grinding down daddy and grand daddy's edifice if the offspring don't grow it as quickly.
And you utterly failed to grasp that a system that puts the descendants of the Eaton or Seagram or Massey family fortunes into real competition with the bright children of the poor by making university education a reality for anyone smart enough actually creates MORE competition than when university was the playground of the rich and upper middle class.
Taxation built that. Taking your earned money and benefiting somebody else's kid with it built that. It is harder for you to build a moat around your family fortune when your kids face real competition.
We've been through this before.
Lets just use the best example of a total free market in the world.
I'll suggest Somalia.
No government, no taxes, nothing to get in the way of business.
If you like, I'll start up a gofundme campaign to buy you a one way ticket to the true land of the free market.
But if you prefer to stay in Canada to make use of our police, roads, health care, etc, then you must admit that you support socialism, as you define it.
Your choice.
Do you really support the free market, or are you just another person who really is out to complain that he has to pay for services he uses?
Modern day Venezuela is probably more instructive - they are pretty comfortable with theft and abduction...
