Okay, I guess I'll keep this politically correct because that's the way the right wants it...
"That is fair" is what my PC response would have been.
Study: Reduce the welfare state, not immigration
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Okay, I guess I'll keep this politically correct because that's the way the right wants it...
"That is fair" is what my PC response would have been.
Mentalfloss, spare me the crying in your beer routine.
that response of yours was sensationalist rhetoric at best... But if you are so concerned about the plight of the low income demographic, you can liquidate all of your assets and distribute the proceeds accordingly.
that response of yours was sensationalist rhetoric at best... But if you are so concerned about the plight of the low income demographic, you can liquidate all of your assets and distribute the proceeds accordingly.
And what portion of their income goes toward paying for shelter, food and utilities on their primary dwelling? That's where the real story is.
That would be pointless. As you've already shown, it would be more effective to liquidate the assets of a few wealthy people.
But not you, eh?.. The issue just isn't that important for you to do anything about it, but important enough for you to off-load all responsibility from yourself onto others.
Nice
That would put about eleven bucks in the pockets of communist free-loaders like you.
So did all the millionaires and billionaires that you would be overjoyed to turn into paupers for no other reason than being politically correct.
Please indicate to the world (or at least to the participants of this forum) the date when you are dispensing and distributing all your earnings.
For equality and justice, of course!
Yeah actually not so many of them have. So let's start the poorest of the poor out with a 2 million dollar trust fund and when they go bankrupt, we can bail them out and make ceo a part of a corporation where hopefully they will know enough to leave things alone until it makes them enough money and they can find a really good idea to steal off someone else.
Lord knows we should all model our actions after them! :roll:
I know what we can do... Let's model society after the former Soviet Union model, then we can all be equally poor and we won't have to suffer through the misery of knowing that there are those with more things that the poorest of the poor... We'll all be the poorest.
Now there reasonable....
There is a big difference between folk who have honestly earned their fortunes and spoiled rotten trust fund kids....
There is a big difference between folk who have honestly earned their fortunes and spoiled rotten trust fund kids....
Yes, the Fraser Institute does appear to be a right-leaning organization. However, some of its research is contracted out to reputable third parties. I've relied on studies conducted by the Fraser Institute as I have on less political ones such as the Grin Report, or information from Robert Phillipson's works. Robert Phillipson is clearly at least somewhat influenced by Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist political theorist (so hardly right-leaning). I don't agree with all he says, but do agree with much of it. He's also worked with Grin before, so though I don't know anything of Grin's political leanings, he clearly has no issue working with one who's at least been influenced by a communist political theorist.
Now as for the study referred to in the OP, I really don't know much about it so won't comment on it. However, I have come across valuable studies from it in the past, so I wouldn't write them off without considering the study in question. Sure some of its studies might be off the deep end, but always worth considering none the less before being brushed aside without even considering them.
Now as for the study referred to in the OP, I really don't know much about it so won't comment on it. However, I have come across valuable studies from it in the past, so I wouldn't write them off without considering the study in question. Sure some of its studies might be off the deep end, but always worth considering none the less before being brushed aside without even considering them.
Well c'mon LW.. How does one respond to such a retarded comment.
In the end, it really doesn't matter how someone got their money (earned or inherited), at some point, someone took some real risks and worked their asses off to achieve what they have.
The comments on this thread are nothing more than childish jealousies; I mean, you'll notice that the uber theatrical responses are never followed by a proposed action that involves the person posting the comment, it always requires the action of someone else.
Oh, so they are just poor folks with million dollar homes that are expensive to keep and have to eat filet everyday. Poor Babies. Give me a break. My sister and her hubby are one of those top earning families and they paid less $ in income tax last year than I did thanks to good financial advice and investments.
Trust me this is not a pick on the rich idea, it is a fair and equitable idea, everybody pays 35-38% tax on every dollar they earn and we get rid of all the other fees and taxes across the board. Nobody gets deductions for anything and if you earn a dollar in Canada you pay tax on a dollar in Canada, none of this BS offshore investment. I would only add an exemtion that no tax will take an income below around 24-26K.
Under this kind of scheme MY taxes would go up too so it is not a selfish idea.
Or you could try and address the point. We don't need to become a communist country in order to hold a minimum standard of living. People who have something to live for are more productive than those who have nothing to lose.
As well the more people working the broader the tax base and in the long run, lower taxes.
Most people living above the 200k income line don't give a damn about those less fortunate than themselves. They care far more for a tax write off than doing good for someone.
It's the government that should supply the social safety net, not the middle class.
Why can't we bridle capitalism to do both, provide incentive to get rich and provide a bottom line that no one is allowed to sink below?
It's not like that is impossible or will stop everyone from working. Punishing the poor and crazy and disabled hasn't seemed to work.
17% means a lot more to someone making 30,000 than it does to someone making 2,000,000. Understand?
Which aren't income...When it comes time to sell off those investments and reap thhe rewards of ROI you get nailed at full tax rate. The thing with assets is the minute you try tot turn them into cash you get nailed.
But if they are done right you get taxed at a much lower rate. If you cash out under capital gains you only pay tax on 50%.
Anyway, I support a system where you pay your taxes first and do what you want with the rest. Then when you cash out that investment you are only liable for taxes on the growth, not the whole thing. The point being that there are far too many loopholes and exemtions available only to those that can afford them to provide a 'fair & equitable' tax structure.
I'd like to see a system where I chose where my taxes were spent. If I feel R&D in Canada needs more money than being alotted I'd rather invest in that than funding for stadiums.
We'd see a different country that might actually work instead of jerking off the dog to feed the cat.
We'd see a different country that might actually work instead of jerking off the dog to feed the cat.