Yep. and now we pay the consequence.
When something looks too good to be true. it usually is.
Why Are Single Women So Attracted to the Party of Victimhood?
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Yep. and now we pay the consequence.
When something looks too good to be true. it usually is.
I'm not asking for a free lunch. I am asking for the govt to spend the taxes collected on what we the citizens determine are essential and important services, not reduce those services to fund illegal wars and corporate welfare.
Actually there is a free lunch believe it or not. Those with the wealth are eating one
everyday. They cry about having to pay their share and the governments who are
now beholden to them give them huge tax breaks and give ordinary citizens the bill.
That is a free lunch. Oh and who cries the loudest that they are victims? Corporate
Lobbyists who want a trickle down system. Trickle down means the rich pay almost
nothing and the poor get what falls off the table and that equals a free lunch.
Who caters to the trickle down system the ultra conservatives. No not all conservatives
most conservatives realize everyone has to pay something to keep the system running.
Ultra conservatives like the Tea Party Right believe in rich and poor and nothing in
between, if they truly believed in the middle class with their views they themselves would
not exist. Tea Party ultra right conservatives do exist and their views are themselves
out to lunch.
Everyone needs to pay something and I mean everyone. Personally I think even those on
assistance should pay say $10.00 out of an assistance check that way everyone is paying
something and that way you would have no victims period. I don't mind contributing to the
well being of my country either I just wish everyone paid their share that is all.
I believe in a modern society we could do a lot more to advance our civilization.
Pensions, Seniors pensions, medicare, treating education and and post secondary as an
investment rather than an expense would also be a good start. We have all kinds of natural
resources in the ground and they are said to belong to Canadians, well the money goes to
dividends for a few instead of paying dividends for the society.
If you want to end the idea that some are victims we have to ensure the most vulnerable in
society are not victims. Remember the measure of quality in a society is reflected in the way
we treat the most vulnerable in the society.
everyday. They cry about having to pay their share and the governments who are
now beholden to them give them huge tax breaks and give ordinary citizens the bill.
That is a free lunch. Oh and who cries the loudest that they are victims? Corporate
Lobbyists who want a trickle down system. Trickle down means the rich pay almost
nothing and the poor get what falls off the table and that equals a free lunch.
Who caters to the trickle down system the ultra conservatives. No not all conservatives
most conservatives realize everyone has to pay something to keep the system running.
Ultra conservatives like the Tea Party Right believe in rich and poor and nothing in
between, if they truly believed in the middle class with their views they themselves would
not exist. Tea Party ultra right conservatives do exist and their views are themselves
out to lunch.
Everyone needs to pay something and I mean everyone. Personally I think even those on
assistance should pay say $10.00 out of an assistance check that way everyone is paying
something and that way you would have no victims period. I don't mind contributing to the
well being of my country either I just wish everyone paid their share that is all.
I believe in a modern society we could do a lot more to advance our civilization.
Pensions, Seniors pensions, medicare, treating education and and post secondary as an
investment rather than an expense would also be a good start. We have all kinds of natural
resources in the ground and they are said to belong to Canadians, well the money goes to
dividends for a few instead of paying dividends for the society.
If you want to end the idea that some are victims we have to ensure the most vulnerable in
society are not victims. Remember the measure of quality in a society is reflected in the way
we treat the most vulnerable in the society.
You either have a military or not and in today's world, 'what ought to be' (read: global harmony and peace) is a pipe-dream. In my view, electing to not be able to protect yourself qualifies you as a willing victim.
As for corporate welfare - we've been through this on our tax discussions and the macro economic views. You are welcome to ask Haliburton, Nike, Apple, Ford, GM, any CC company and damn near any mfgr why they have moved (or are thinking about it)?
The answer will include near the top of the list: Taxes.
Fewer corp tax payers assume a larger part of the burden and by in large, gvt response is to tax them harder in order to provide 'free healthcare'.
You do the math and apply the logic; what do you think the corp response will be in an environment like that?
The privilege of being allowed the exclusive benefit to pay the highest percentages in income tax... That's some free lunch alright
By 'fair share', you wouldn't be talking about 'equal' would you?... Afterall, that would be 'fair'.
No, what you're talking about is selecting, and penalizing, those that have succeeded by demanding that they underwrite your self-imposed entitlements.
Spare me the rhetoric on 'fair share'... It's a bad joke
Even if we wipe out the tax for corp. They wont be coming back anyway's.
And new bizz don't even have a chance to start as long as china devalues their currency 6/1
Running an injection molding machine? Seems to me, those are some of the coveted auto industry spin-off jobs, aren't they?
Not anytime soon, but not impossible.
This is one of the big reasons that gvts have to keep a muzzle on the most stupid within their ranks. The new leader in Que announced the wealth confiscation program that she wants to impose.. Make no mistake, there are companies (right now) that are looking into what the potential costs might be, and if it is too extreme, they will pull up stakes and move elsewhere.
In time they may move back, but if a mfg company builds a plant somewhere else, it will be a very long time (read: when it's time to replace the plant) before they move back.
In that time, lots of damage can be felt by the people that remain (and depended on those jobs).
Until Kids/young adults/adults have the potential from home to decide one day to get up, build/sell something and have a high rate of success this economy is going nowhere.
Its as simple as that.
I am never surprised but always appalled at the mentality towards taxation of businesses these days. Do you realize and understand that prior to the 'temporary' implementation of personal income tax almost a century ago 95% of govt was funded by business taxes, excise taxes and trade tariffs.
I can guarantee you that the citizens have never lobbied for continued and increased personal income taxes and reduced corporate taxes whereas corporations and their millionaire owners have. Just as they lobbied for free-trade agreements to do away with the excise taxes.
I can guarantee you that the citizens have never lobbied for continued and increased personal income taxes and reduced corporate taxes whereas corporations and their millionaire owners have. Just as they lobbied for free-trade agreements to do away with the excise taxes.
I think what Angstrom says makes some internal sense if you also implement tarifs, tarifs and more tarifs on imports. Make Nike products sold in the USA so expensive that a locally produced shoe will compete. Of course the shoe will be $200 (but some Nike's are that already even with Chinese toddlers making them). The result of this will be a self contained economic system. All profits would need to be made inside the USA since certainly the export market will suck.
Whether or not it will be self sustaining is a matter of opinion. I think the view is too simplistic. A nice utopean idea but not really workable. I think it would tend to stagnate. It would also be initially quite painful and I don't see any politician or anybody going for it. I also think it would swing back to big union fat culture which isn't very productive.
What tends to happen is that the more powerful manufacturing groups will get more/better protection for their own products, while they try to ensure that tariffs are dropped on any of the imports they need to produce, even if those imports are things also produced domestically.
So, the car companies would want access to duty free cheap foreign steel, but the steel makers would want access to cheap ore and coal, and everyone would want their own products protected.
So, the car companies would want access to duty free cheap foreign steel, but the steel makers would want access to cheap ore and coal, and everyone would want their own products protected.
It's gets more complex when you factor-in that this demographic will be paying-off the debts of the previous generations.
What was the scope of the gvt services offered in the early 1900's? Understanding the evolution of the growth in that area will likely shed some light on the parallel rise in the taxes required to fund everything
Not true. The electorate lobby directly in terms who they've voted for and what kind of freebies have been promised.
To reuse this old cliche: There ain't no free lunch
I guess we have to agree to disagree on some aspects of your post. I'm not sure EVERYONE should pay taxes, I think the poverty stricken should be encouraged to look after themselves and their families before dumping money in the troughs in Victoria and Ottawa. At the other end I think there should be a maximum cut off point, like perhaps $100,000 a year in taxes as I don't think it's right to take advantage of a guy because he's rich, also that might discourage these offshore accounts. Don't you think that the ones who risk their money should receive the dividends?
Ooooooooooooh, Karrie! Isn't the gov't. the sum of the people? In B.C. the motorist pays a big chunk toward infrastructure through a 3 cent a litre surcharge on gas tax.
And that covers some of the costs. And I'm not simply talking roads. We're talking the system as a whole. The power that runs the factories that are run by the workers who are kept well by the medical care.... to make it big you're relying on the health of that entire system (yes cm, I'm sure you can pull out some fat cat who made it rich without relying on the rest of society in some way). That system is expensive, and you're benefiting most from it, why should there be a dollar cap on what you have to pay into it? The current percentage cap sure hasnt' deterred a single businessman I know.