Why Are Single Women So Attracted to the Party of Victimhood?

[captain morgan]

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.

Alright, let's dispense with the wealthy individual(s) entirely - we'll get back to that at your discretion.

Using your logic, one might argue that it's the individual workers that rely on the med system, electrical, roads, etc that support the factory settings that employ all those people.

IF one were to make that argument, would it be then reasonable to assess the middle class working population with a heavier tax burden?

The logic can get twisted in many different ways to support a preference that will have deep ramifications for the demographic that is being targeted

 

[petros]

Running an injection molding machine? Seems to me, those are some of the coveted auto industry spin-off jobs, aren't they?

And that's why cars cost the most to build in canada.

 

[karrie]

The logic can get twisted in many different ways to support a preference that will have deep ramifications for the demographic that is being targeted

What deep ramifications do our upper class high earners 'suffer'? Keep in mind that I AM in the highest tax bracker, and know many people who are as well. People who own businesses, run companies, and winter on their yachts or head to their second homes in Kelowna. I see no suffering.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Alright, let's dispense with the wealthy individual(s) entirely - we'll get back to that at your discretion.

Using your logic, one might argue that it's the individual workers that rely on the med system, electrical, roads, etc that support the factory settings that employ all those people.

IF one were to make that argument, would it be then reasonable to assess the middle class working population with a heavier tax burden?

The logic can get twisted in many different ways to support a preference that will have deep ramifications for the demographic that is being targeted

That is why I support a flat tax system with NO deductions for anything. I would also make sure every dollar earned in Canada gets taxed in Canada. None of this BS about being headquartered in Jersey or Barbados or any of the other tax havens. Same for investments, if you are in Canada and the broker is in Canada then the transaction takes place in Canada and is taxed in Canada whether your bank account is in Luxembourg or not.

 

[captain morgan]

What deep ramifications do our upper class high earners 'suffer'? Keep in mind that I AM in the highest tax bracker, and know many people who are as well. People who own businesses, run companies, and winter on their yachts or head to their second homes in Kelowna. I see no suffering.

Do you think that anyone puts up their investment capital for just sh*ts and giggles? There is a reason that I used the word ramification as opposed to 'suffering'

Oh well, if you see no ramifications, I suppose that there never was, or will be any, and of course, there will be no downstream consequence either.. Just happiness and harmony for all

LOL

 

[karrie]

Do you think that anyone puts up their investment capital for just sh*ts and giggles? There is a reason that I used the word ramification as opposed to 'suffering'

Oh well, if you see no ramifications, I suppose that there never was, or will be any, and of course, there will be no downstream consequence either.. Just happiness and harmony for all

LOL

Have you held back from investing based on the fact that you might have to pay taxes on earnings? If you have, that's bizarre. I don't know a single entrepeneur who let income tax stand between them and an income.

 

[L Gilbert]

http://prospect.org/article/are-women-better-we-were-four-years-ago

http://ivn.us/2012/09/17/are-we-better-off-now-than-we-were-four-years-ago-2/

 

[captain morgan]

Have you held back from investing based on the fact that you might have to pay taxes on earnings? If you have, that's bizarre. I don't know a single entrepeneur who let income tax stand between them and an income.

Quite the opposite.

I completely understand that I have to use after-tax dollars for the investment and IF it generates a profit, I pay capital gains and IF I transfer that 'profit' from an outside entity to myself for personal use, I then pay income taxes on that money.

All of the entrepreneurs that I know carefully consider all of the costs, especially the tax consequences of any and all endeavors that they pursue. In fact, it plays a vital role in determining where they will set up shop based on the relative State or Provincial taxes that are applicable.

 

[PoliticalNick]

All of the entrepreneurs that I know carefully consider all of the costs, especially the tax consequences of any and all endeavors that they pursue. In fact, it plays a vital role in determining where they will set up shop based on the relative State or Provincial taxes that are applicable.

I just don't see someone not starting up a company that will generate $2million just because they will pay $1million in taxes. Sure, just toss away $1million because you don't want to pay tax.

Similar for the corporations you say will leave in droves if we increase their tax rate. As long as they can make money they will whether it is $1billion/yr or $500million/year. Nobody walks away from making millions.

 

[karrie]

Why Obama Now - YouTube

Came across this and found the timing appropriate

 

[Goober]

I just don't see someone not starting up a company that will generate $2million just because they will pay $1million in taxes. Sure, just toss away $1million because you don't want to pay tax.

Similar for the corporations you say will leave in droves if we increase their tax rate. As long as they can make money they will whether it is $1billion/yr or $500million/year. Nobody walks away from making millions.

Look at Apple for their tax strategy - Much thru Ireland for tax purposes - then you have corps parking money overseas - not taxed till it is returned to say the US.

Where a company sets up business they look at everything - from tax to infrastructure- Now that 1 Billion- if they can make that in Vietnam- ship it and still make more money than setting up in a high tax country- guess where they go.

Many have not noticed but manufacturing jobs are leaving China- due to higher wages- demographics for one - another is a population dissatisfied with their income levels- China will be grey before they are rich.

Then the new manufacturing- 3D - The US- Canada - Mexico will have a natural advantage due to low energy costs- infrastructure- educated workforce - and the rule of law.

 

[captain morgan]

I just don't see someone not starting up a company that will generate $2million just because they will pay $1million in taxes. Sure, just toss away $1million because you don't want to pay tax.

Similar for the corporations you say will leave in droves if we increase their tax rate. As long as they can make money they will whether it is $1billion/yr or $500million/year. Nobody walks away from making millions.

You haven't considered the front end considerations... What is the cost of capital to get the venture started, the risk profile, etc.

As far as an operating entity that has been in business for a while is concerned, consider this schematic. I am posting this as it shows the circumstance in the USA and might go some way to explaining why a company might move their offices somewhere else.

... So, if you were in control of a company that made 1 billion in profits AND it was possible to relocate your HQ from the USA to Alberta (and still service your customers without interruption), would you consider it?

By virtue of moving your HQ from California (for example) to AB, your bottom-line is increased by 12.7% - that's $127 million dollars each year for simply moving your HQ a 4 hour plane ride North... Now take this example and extrapolate it to a move from California to China... According to wiki, China's corp tax rate is 25% and the cost of doing business is lower (labor, living, materials, etc)... The money that you don't pay in taxes will easily offset the transport costs and ancillary expenses.

Anyways - you asked if a company would walk away from a million (or millions) for no good reason... Of course they won't, but what they will do is to look for any and all opportunities to mitigate risks and maximize the bottom line.

 

[L Gilbert]

Why Obama Now - YouTube

Came across this and found the timing appropriate

Yeah, I can't think of one single instance where trickle down has benefited the rest of a country anywhere nearly as much as it benefits the rich. And that's simply because the rich use the benefits to get richer. Trickle down is fracking idiocy in my books.

 

[captain morgan]

Yeah, I can't think of one single instance where trickle down has benefited the rest of a country anywhere nearly as much as it benefits the rich. And that's simply because the rich use the benefits to get richer. Trickle down is fracking idiocy in my books.

Here's an example...

United States Economy- The Tax System Explained in Beer

 

[Goober]

Yeah, I can't think of one single instance where trickle down has benefited the rest of a country anywhere nearly as much as it benefits the rich. And that's simply because the rich use the benefits to get richer. Trickle down is fracking idiocy in my books.

Please sir, I want some more - YouTube

and a laugh as well

Best Jeff Dunham joke with walter - YouTube

 

[PoliticalNick]

You haven't considered the front end considerations... What is the cost of capital to get the venture started, the risk profile, etc.

As far as an operating entity that has been in business for a while is concerned, consider this schematic. I am posting this as it shows the circumstance in the USA and might go some way to explaining why a company might move their offices somewhere else.

... So, if you were in control of a company that made 1 billion in profits AND it was possible to relocate your HQ from the USA to Alberta (and still service your customers without interruption), would you consider it?

By virtue of moving your HQ from California (for example) to AB, your bottom-line is increased by 12.7% - that's $127 million dollars each year for simply moving your HQ a 4 hour plane ride North... Now take this example and extrapolate it to a move from California to China... According to wiki, China's corp tax rate is 25% and the cost of doing business is lower (labor, living, materials, etc)... The money that you don't pay in taxes will easily offset the transport costs and ancillary expenses.

Anyways - you asked if a company would walk away from a million (or millions) for no good reason... Of course they won't, but what they will do is to look for any and all opportunities to mitigate risks and maximize the bottom line.

That my friend is why we need to shut down that great big f*cking loophole. If a company provides a product or service in Canada the revenue it generates gets taxed here in Canada. None of this bullsh*t of having an HQ elsewhere and being exempt from Canadian tax (or american tax as the case may be). I have looked at studies that claim anywhere from $16-75 billion/yr in lost tax revenue (RBC brag about in their annual report to the tune of $2billion) through 'legal tax avoidance' in Canada through use of overseas HQs and tax havens. These laws and tax agreements we have allowing someone to sell a $10 widget in this country and pay nothing on the profit because their HQ is in Barbados are not beneficial to the citizens no matter how much kool-aid you drink.

 

[L Gilbert]

Here's an example...

United States Economy- The Tax System Explained in Beer

Really? You use a hypothetical describing a tax system as evidence where trickle down has worked. lol Funny, dude.

 

[Angstrom]

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.

I'm suggesting that we support production and distribution of at least one Canadian made product in all the major category's & promote, Culturally, buying "Made in Canada" as what will help us stimulate our economy in schools on TV News etc....

If only the Rich and well off started buying Made in Canada as much as possible, I think that could make a huge impact over all, Today.

Its sad that no such option even exist most of the time. Trying to find a Made in Canada tag is like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. And that's a huge problem by itself

Tariff's on imports makes no sense to me.

 

[captain morgan]

That my friend is why we need to shut down that great big f*cking loophole. If a company provides a product or service in Canada the revenue it generates gets taxed here in Canada. None of this bullsh*t of having an HQ elsewhere and being exempt from Canadian tax (or american tax as the case may be). I have looked at studies that claim anywhere from $16-75 billion/yr in lost tax revenue (RBC brag about in their annual report to the tune of $2billion) through 'legal tax avoidance' in Canada through use of overseas HQs and tax havens. These laws and tax agreements we have allowing someone to sell a $10 widget in this country and pay nothing on the profit because their HQ is in Barbados are not beneficial to the citizens no matter how much kool-aid you drink.

Great.. You have 2 options:

1. Adopt an isolationist policy that deters all foreign trade.
2. tax all foreign controlled entities into the grave and hope that they will still service this market.

Really? You use a hypothetical describing a tax system as evidence where trickle down has worked. lol Funny, dude.

Suit yourself. I've posted the federal tax rules instead. You can sift through those and make your determination from there.

Lots of reading, but in the end, I believe that you'll likely agree that the hypothetical is far more efficient in detailing the effects.

Income Tax Act

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I'm suggesting that we support production and distribution of at least one Canadian made product in all the major category's & promote, Culturally, buying "Made in Canada" as what will help us stimulate our economy in schools on TV News etc....

If only the Rich and well off started buying Made in Canada as much as possible, I think that could make a huge impact over all, Today.

Its sad that no such option even exist most of the time. Trying to find a Made in Canada tag is like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. And that's a huge problem by itself

Tariff's on imports makes no sense to me.

But that would mean the government would have to subsidize one product per category to make it competitive with unrestricted imports from Toddler Factories in China. How about call centres? Right now Indian workers probably man those for $5/day. They suck at it but what does the company care? Who will you complain to? Their compeditiors are also doing it. If you legislate that all back to Canada for one product, that means the amount of subsidy is even greater. How will you fund this subsidy? With an open market, business will not stand for more taxation. They will just move to someplace that will give them a tax break and export their goods to you cheap (against your subsidized product no doubt) meaning the govt has to pay out more. If you tax individuals, they would vote you out of office and also stop spending meaning your subsidized businesses will need even more of a subsidy.

Protectionism is the concept you are selling and if you are selling it, you need to sell all of it. The model does not work without inport tariffs. It has some benefits but I just don't see it working in the long term.