Bright Spark
Posts: 460 
Location: Vanderhoof, BC
Location: Vanderhoof, BC
October 24th, 2007, 01:45 PM
A verse form a song that I performed on Canada Day..
"Northern People trying to live in Justice,
A Hand to ease the sufferring of a neighbour's health
Seeing the fruits of our labours
In the strength of our Commonwealth....
Quoting Karlin
"Trickle-up economics - The rich are getting richer — and we're all helping" http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=508
K - Tax cuts might sound good, but actually they are putting the poorer Canadians further behind: The richest Canadians taxes dropped by 11%, but for the rest of us taxes dropped by only 1%, while government health and other program spending was slashed.
------article [from link above]:
by Hugh Mackenzie
On September 25, Statistics Canada released a new study looking at how the distribution of income in Canada has changed over the past 20 years and found the lion's share of income growth has been going to the richest of the rich — not to the rest of us.
Two days later, the Minister of Finance revealed the federal government surplus for 2006-07 was substantially higher than originally projected, and hinted broadly that his number one priority for the extra money was tax cuts.
What do these two things have to do with each other?
The Stats Can study confirmed what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found last spring: there is a large and growing income gap between the rich and the rest of us.
But by zeroing in on those at the top of the income scale, Statistics Canada also provided some eye-popping new detail.
It turns out that the growth in the share of income among the richest of Canadians is actually concentrated right at the top — among Canada's richest.
The share of personal income for the richest 5 percent of Canadians was stable from 1982 to 1992 — they took about 21 percent of Canada's total income pie.
But between 1992 and 2004, their share grew to 25.3 percent of the income pie.
That doesn't sound like much, but that's a 4.3 percentage point increase in the share of all income earned in Canada, in a statistic that usually doesn't change much.
And it turns out the higher the income scale you go, the more money the richest of Canadians made: More than 90 percent of the gain in income share among the richest 5 percent went to the richest 1 percent of Canadians. Half of that gain went to the richest 0.1 percent. And remarkably, 20 percent of the gain went to the richest of the rich, the millionaires sitting in the top 0.01 percent of Canada's income scale.
Now here's where the dots line up. The Statistics Canada study also looked at the effective tax rates paid by individual Canadians in each income group.
It found that the average effective tax rate declined by about one percentage point for 95 percent of Canadians between 1992 and 2004.
The average effective tax rate for the top 5 percent declined by about two percentage points.
But the effective tax rate for the richest of the rich dropped dramatically.
The top 0.01 percent, the millionaires sitting at the top of the heap, enjoyed an average effective tax rate drop of 11 percentage points.
What the Statistics Canada study tells us is that between 1992 and 2004, Canada's income tax system ceased to be progressive for the richest 5 percent of tax filers.
And what about the rest of us? For almost a decade, our provincial and federal governments have been talking tax cuts, but those cuts went into the pockets of the richest of the rich. And that tax break only bolstered the unprecedented growth in the share of income going to Canada's richest.
Canadians have paid dearly for the tax cut agenda of the past decade — with cuts in services like health care and education; with persistent poverty and homelessness despite economic prosperity; with deteriorating environmental quality; with cash-starved cities; with crumbling public infrastructure.
For what? For only the select few — the richest of the rich — to enjoy the winning combination of rising personal income and falling taxes while our public services suffer?
Soon, our federal government will return to Parliament with a Throne Speech expected to trumpet the benefits of tax cuts — 'putting more money in your pockets'. The problem with that statement is the evidence proves quite the opposite is at play.
The evidence should make all Canadians wonder whether it's truly in our best interests to vote for tax cuts at the expense of investments that could benefit everyone.
Tax cuts come at the expense of affordable university tuition, housing and childcare — three things Canadians tell Environics Research they'd like their governments to invest in.
The good news is that we have options. We can demand our governments invest our surplus in the things that benefit the majority of Canadians, rather than rewarding the few at the top. Because the rich are getting richer — and we're all helping.
Hugh Mackenzie is a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
K - Tax cuts might sound good, but actually they are putting the poorer Canadians further behind: The richest Canadians taxes dropped by 11%, but for the rest of us taxes dropped by only 1%, while government health and other program spending was slashed.
------article [from link above]:
by Hugh Mackenzie
On September 25, Statistics Canada released a new study looking at how the distribution of income in Canada has changed over the past 20 years and found the lion's share of income growth has been going to the richest of the rich — not to the rest of us.
Two days later, the Minister of Finance revealed the federal government surplus for 2006-07 was substantially higher than originally projected, and hinted broadly that his number one priority for the extra money was tax cuts.
What do these two things have to do with each other?
The Stats Can study confirmed what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found last spring: there is a large and growing income gap between the rich and the rest of us.
But by zeroing in on those at the top of the income scale, Statistics Canada also provided some eye-popping new detail.
It turns out that the growth in the share of income among the richest of Canadians is actually concentrated right at the top — among Canada's richest.
The share of personal income for the richest 5 percent of Canadians was stable from 1982 to 1992 — they took about 21 percent of Canada's total income pie.
But between 1992 and 2004, their share grew to 25.3 percent of the income pie.
That doesn't sound like much, but that's a 4.3 percentage point increase in the share of all income earned in Canada, in a statistic that usually doesn't change much.
And it turns out the higher the income scale you go, the more money the richest of Canadians made: More than 90 percent of the gain in income share among the richest 5 percent went to the richest 1 percent of Canadians. Half of that gain went to the richest 0.1 percent. And remarkably, 20 percent of the gain went to the richest of the rich, the millionaires sitting in the top 0.01 percent of Canada's income scale.
Now here's where the dots line up. The Statistics Canada study also looked at the effective tax rates paid by individual Canadians in each income group.
It found that the average effective tax rate declined by about one percentage point for 95 percent of Canadians between 1992 and 2004.
The average effective tax rate for the top 5 percent declined by about two percentage points.
But the effective tax rate for the richest of the rich dropped dramatically.
The top 0.01 percent, the millionaires sitting at the top of the heap, enjoyed an average effective tax rate drop of 11 percentage points.
What the Statistics Canada study tells us is that between 1992 and 2004, Canada's income tax system ceased to be progressive for the richest 5 percent of tax filers.
And what about the rest of us? For almost a decade, our provincial and federal governments have been talking tax cuts, but those cuts went into the pockets of the richest of the rich. And that tax break only bolstered the unprecedented growth in the share of income going to Canada's richest.
Canadians have paid dearly for the tax cut agenda of the past decade — with cuts in services like health care and education; with persistent poverty and homelessness despite economic prosperity; with deteriorating environmental quality; with cash-starved cities; with crumbling public infrastructure.
For what? For only the select few — the richest of the rich — to enjoy the winning combination of rising personal income and falling taxes while our public services suffer?
Soon, our federal government will return to Parliament with a Throne Speech expected to trumpet the benefits of tax cuts — 'putting more money in your pockets'. The problem with that statement is the evidence proves quite the opposite is at play.
The evidence should make all Canadians wonder whether it's truly in our best interests to vote for tax cuts at the expense of investments that could benefit everyone.
Tax cuts come at the expense of affordable university tuition, housing and childcare — three things Canadians tell Environics Research they'd like their governments to invest in.
The good news is that we have options. We can demand our governments invest our surplus in the things that benefit the majority of Canadians, rather than rewarding the few at the top. Because the rich are getting richer — and we're all helping.
Hugh Mackenzie is a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
A verse form a song that I performed on Canada Day..
"Northern People trying to live in Justice,
A Hand to ease the sufferring of a neighbour's health
Seeing the fruits of our labours
In the strength of our Commonwealth....
jimmoyer
Posts: 5,006 
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
October 29th, 2007, 08:03 AM
What a great thread.
As usual, Toro, our resident economist, retains his title.
Especially noteworthy is his view of the right's failing.
Usually the Left has it all wrong about the Right.
But Toro's observation of it is probably the most telling and informed criticism of the right anywhere
you'll see.
Example 1:
A legitimate criticism, however, is that the incomes of the rich have been growing faster than the incomes of the poor for the past 30-35 years. In other words, inequality has been rising, and the poor are getting a smaller share of the (ever expanding) pie.
Example 2:
The problem with "The Right" is that they often believe that all you need to do is cut taxes, de-regulate, lower trade barriers, etc. and BANG! you have growth for all. That is not always the case. Development and growth and far more complicated, and require many other factors having nothing to do with economic policy, i.e. stable institutions, rule of law, cultural issues, levels of education, etc.
----------------end of quotes----------
Like I say, the Left would become more powerful if it didn't get a lot of things wrong about the Right. They should learn what the conservatives' criticisms are of conservative policies.
What a great thread.
As usual, Toro, our resident economist, retains his title.
Especially noteworthy is his view of the right's failing.
Usually the Left has it all wrong about the Right.
But Toro's observation of it is probably the most telling and informed criticism of the right anywhere
you'll see.
Example 1:
A legitimate criticism, however, is that the incomes of the rich have been growing faster than the incomes of the poor for the past 30-35 years. In other words, inequality has been rising, and the poor are getting a smaller share of the (ever expanding) pie.
Example 2:
The problem with "The Right" is that they often believe that all you need to do is cut taxes, de-regulate, lower trade barriers, etc. and BANG! you have growth for all. That is not always the case. Development and growth and far more complicated, and require many other factors having nothing to do with economic policy, i.e. stable institutions, rule of law, cultural issues, levels of education, etc.
----------------end of quotes----------
Like I say, the Left would become more powerful if it didn't get a lot of things wrong about the Right. They should learn what the conservatives' criticisms are of conservative policies.
Bright Spark
Posts: 460
Location: Vanderhoof, BC
Location: Vanderhoof, BC
October 29th, 2007, 09:27 AM
To the right is "use" on steroids
To the left is "Love" on steroids
What we need to adjust our views to is an expression of "purpose"....
Quoting jimmoyer
To me the farther right/ left of centre an economy runs it becomes corrupted...
What a great thread.
As usual, Toro, our resident economist, retains his title.
Especially noteworthy is his view of the right's failing.
Usually the Left has it all wrong about the Right.
But Toro's observation of it is probably the most telling and informed criticism of the right anywhere
you'll see.
Example 1:
A legitimate criticism, however, is that the incomes of the rich have been growing faster than the incomes of the poor for the past 30-35 years. In other words, inequality has been rising, and the poor are getting a smaller share of the (ever expanding) pie.
Example 2:
The problem with "The Right" is that they often believe that all you need to do is cut taxes, de-regulate, lower trade barriers, etc. and BANG! you have growth for all. That is not always the case. Development and growth and far more complicated, and require many other factors having nothing to do with economic policy, i.e. stable institutions, rule of law, cultural issues, levels of education, etc.
----------------end of quotes----------
Like I say, the Left would become more powerful if it didn't get a lot of things wrong about the Right. They should learn what the conservatives' criticisms are of conservative policies.
As usual, Toro, our resident economist, retains his title.
Especially noteworthy is his view of the right's failing.
Usually the Left has it all wrong about the Right.
But Toro's observation of it is probably the most telling and informed criticism of the right anywhere
you'll see.
Example 1:
A legitimate criticism, however, is that the incomes of the rich have been growing faster than the incomes of the poor for the past 30-35 years. In other words, inequality has been rising, and the poor are getting a smaller share of the (ever expanding) pie.
Example 2:
The problem with "The Right" is that they often believe that all you need to do is cut taxes, de-regulate, lower trade barriers, etc. and BANG! you have growth for all. That is not always the case. Development and growth and far more complicated, and require many other factors having nothing to do with economic policy, i.e. stable institutions, rule of law, cultural issues, levels of education, etc.
----------------end of quotes----------
Like I say, the Left would become more powerful if it didn't get a lot of things wrong about the Right. They should learn what the conservatives' criticisms are of conservative policies.
To the right is "use" on steroids
To the left is "Love" on steroids
What we need to adjust our views to is an expression of "purpose"....
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
October 29th, 2007, 10:32 AM
What one does need is strong definitions on observables and variables, and economics does not have this(in my opinion). This has come up before in our discussions although we rarely discuss it. It is always hard to have some economic policy indicator to properly compare to economic outcome indicators.
To do some real analysis (har har) I need some variable X(nation) which measures some policy practice of a nation and an indicator of wealth like GDP, mean savings or modal income, call it Y(nation). Then the assumption of true economic science would be that there are constants M1 and M2 such that:
M1|Y(nation_1) - Y(nation_2)| <= |X(nation_1) - X(nation_2)| <= M2|Y(nation_1) - Y(nation_2)|
for all possible nations (even hypothetical). The idea of free market economies then is that one attempts to approach the perfect competition model which can be shown to be pareto optimal and so one argues that
|X("Free market") - X(Perfect market)| << 1.
Most of my arguments revolve around the fact that I don't believe the above inequality and policy therefore creates price inefficiency which widens the real gap between rich and poor. In particular there is nothing about regulation or taxation a priori that affects the perfect market conditions.
Quoting Toro
Statistical sciences do not need control groups, they make the analysis much cleaner and the errors much smaller but are not necessary. Astronomy is an example of a science with no control groups and yet has made profound impacts in our understanding of nature and technology. This is the basic difference between observational science and experimental science which make use of bayesian statistics and frequentist statistics respectively.
The problem with economics as a "science" is that there is no control group. You can't, after all, create the conditions to collapse one economy while holding another economy constant to see what happens.
Plus, the models that usually - but not always - work are based on observations that usually - but not always - hold with assumptions that are usually - but not always - relevant. The problems with the models are that at times of stress, they often do not apply as the tails of the distribution become "fat."
Plus, the models that usually - but not always - work are based on observations that usually - but not always - hold with assumptions that are usually - but not always - relevant. The problems with the models are that at times of stress, they often do not apply as the tails of the distribution become "fat."
What one does need is strong definitions on observables and variables, and economics does not have this(in my opinion). This has come up before in our discussions although we rarely discuss it. It is always hard to have some economic policy indicator to properly compare to economic outcome indicators.
To do some real analysis (har har) I need some variable X(nation) which measures some policy practice of a nation and an indicator of wealth like GDP, mean savings or modal income, call it Y(nation). Then the assumption of true economic science would be that there are constants M1 and M2 such that:
M1|Y(nation_1) - Y(nation_2)| <= |X(nation_1) - X(nation_2)| <= M2|Y(nation_1) - Y(nation_2)|
for all possible nations (even hypothetical). The idea of free market economies then is that one attempts to approach the perfect competition model which can be shown to be pareto optimal and so one argues that
|X("Free market") - X(Perfect market)| << 1.
Most of my arguments revolve around the fact that I don't believe the above inequality and policy therefore creates price inefficiency which widens the real gap between rich and poor. In particular there is nothing about regulation or taxation a priori that affects the perfect market conditions.
Newbie
Posts: 47
November 2nd, 2007, 01:36 PM
What I do know is that when government has a surplus, it means they have collected too much from Canadians in taxes. I for one want back, my share of that tax overpayment. I want to be the one to decide where that money is to be spent, not some left-wing nut that wants a socialist lifestyle, where government becomes the be all and end all for all members of society. You hear both the Liberals and the NDP crying how that additional taxes could be spent on various socialist programs such a National Daycare Program, and they continually tout the success of the program being run by Quebec as a successful example. I recently read an article on the Canada Free Press site where it indicates that the experience in Quebec has been anything but a success, in fact it has become a total failure. The article indicates that in Quebec the people who universal daycare was meant to help (the poor) has become a help for people with political connections, like man and wife professionals who each drive SUV's, and live in expensive homes in posh housing developments, and end up paying $7.00/ day costs of subsidized daycare, while the poor cannot access those spaces so they can go out and earn a minimum wage income in order to survive.
I for one want that money in my pocket so I can decide where I want to spend it, and on what I want to spend it on, thus paying sales taxes to keep the economy and government going. Money left in the hands of a government bureaucracy will in all likelihood wind up being spend to build more bureaucracy, and create programs that will only require more and more taxes to support. At some point we need to say to the socialists that we need to start doing for ourselves, instead of relying on government to be all things to all people.
What I do know is that when government has a surplus, it means they have collected too much from Canadians in taxes. I for one want back, my share of that tax overpayment. I want to be the one to decide where that money is to be spent, not some left-wing nut that wants a socialist lifestyle, where government becomes the be all and end all for all members of society. You hear both the Liberals and the NDP crying how that additional taxes could be spent on various socialist programs such a National Daycare Program, and they continually tout the success of the program being run by Quebec as a successful example. I recently read an article on the Canada Free Press site where it indicates that the experience in Quebec has been anything but a success, in fact it has become a total failure. The article indicates that in Quebec the people who universal daycare was meant to help (the poor) has become a help for people with political connections, like man and wife professionals who each drive SUV's, and live in expensive homes in posh housing developments, and end up paying $7.00/ day costs of subsidized daycare, while the poor cannot access those spaces so they can go out and earn a minimum wage income in order to survive.
I for one want that money in my pocket so I can decide where I want to spend it, and on what I want to spend it on, thus paying sales taxes to keep the economy and government going. Money left in the hands of a government bureaucracy will in all likelihood wind up being spend to build more bureaucracy, and create programs that will only require more and more taxes to support. At some point we need to say to the socialists that we need to start doing for ourselves, instead of relying on government to be all things to all people.
