Off Topic

Ontario is going to find out if guaranteed minimum income will ease poverty.

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 22nd, 2017 9:01 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
13679 posts
3417 upvotes
Toronto
mtlboy wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 9:10 pm
I totally agree. Rich people should be taxed at 98%, and be left with 2% of their wages. That is more than enough for them to support their families, after all, they aren't really humans they are just sources of money for the poor. We should also clone them, so we could have more of them to support lower income earners. Doctors, and people who have gone to school for many years, should definitely be penalized for earning more money. We should offer no incentive to specialized jobs, maybe just scrap them, I mean, who really needs lawyers and all those rich people anyways (once of course we have them cloned). I don't mean to make fun of you, but you bring it upon yourself. Stop following Bernie Sanders on facebook, he's obviously inhibiting your thought process.
You are trying to sound ridiculous but you may be shocked to learn 90% tax rates on the rich are not at all unprecedented and did not cause massive depressions. I am not even suggesting such a tax level, but i am saying that regressive taxes and subsides and corporate welfare and allowing the rich to pay lower tax rates then the rest of us does not improve the economy, otherwise we would already be on fire compared to the 20th century which had may boom periods at much higher rich tax rates.
You may be shocked to learn this but jobs are created to sell products and services. If customers can't afford goods and services then no jobs will be created to fill that nonexistent demand, corporations are mandated to produce profits, not redundant jobs that suck away their money for no return
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Newbie
Sep 12, 2008
26 posts
6 upvotes
Canada
Hey Larry, that's great. So I don't suppose you don't need food safety inspection (ever read what's going on in the "food" industry these days?)
You don't need local law enforcement, public safety standards, vehicle licensing (and inspection), labour standards (remember, we used to have
child labour), environmental standards and enforcement, oversight bodies for financial and consumer institutions and government bodies.

Now which one of us is living a dreamworld/utopian ideal?

LeisureSuitL wrote:
Mar 17th, 2017 3:49 pm
+1

I'd like massive reductions in government spending in almost everything. The only things I believe are must haves are healthcare, roads, the military and public school. Everything else can be wiped away and I wouldn't really fuss too much. Take note, this is regarding things that are based off of tax revenue, not programs like CPP and EI, which we fund ourselves and are separate from taxes.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4707 posts
1627 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 8:08 pm
I speak of the right wing ideology your subscribing to. Notice how often i say right wing.
And if you claim your not a right wing supporter then why spout their nonsense and refuse to accept trickle down economics is not the answer, especially with its repeated failures, several of which i have already pointed out?
And the plan is quite simple, raise taxes on the rich and stop giving them billions and billions and billions of dollars that ends up as dead money. Oh and go after tax evasion, instead of the CRA excuse that it costs too much to go after wealthy tax cheats (but they can go after a non rich person with no difficulty).
Your the one embarrassing yourself, but of course if you refuse to believe it its not happening :facepalm:
You're clearly not capable of carrying on this conversation and obviously not going to provide your feasible economic plan for replacing billions upon billions of dollars of government tax revenues for having run off the top 1% who support you. Raise taxes on the rich that already pay more than half the taxes in the country? Brilliant plan. :facepalm:

When will you socialists learn that it's a failed ideology? The sooner you get off your ass and look out for yourself, the better off you'll be. You're wasting an awful lot of time, effort, and energy trying to get other people's money. Get some of your own.

BTW, it's "you're" (a contraction of 'you are'), not "your". You're welcome. (See what I did there?) :eek:
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
13679 posts
3417 upvotes
Toronto
Conquistador wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 2:25 am
You're clearly not capable of carrying on this conversation and obviously not going to provide your feasible economic plan for replacing billions upon billions of dollars of government tax revenues for having run off the top 1% who support you. Raise taxes on the rich that already pay more than half the taxes in the country? Brilliant plan. :facepalm:

When will you socialists learn that it's a failed ideology? The sooner you get off your ass and look out for yourself, the better off you'll be. You're wasting an awful lot of time, effort, and energy trying to get other people's money. Get some of your own.

BTW, it's "you're" (a contraction of 'you are'), not "your". You're welcome. (See what I did there?) :eek:
I don't believe in trickle down alternative facts. When will you learn that taking from the poor and giving to the rich is a failing strategy and expanding failure does not equal success. Of course if you accepted reality this discussion would not be happening.
As i said Donald Trump may be the best thing to happen to America, suffer the consequences of ideological stupidity and lies. Though i suspect when the **** hits the fan instead of accepting the failure of right wing lies there will just be a new scapegoat. I'd be happy to take bets on what it will be, any guesses?
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3453 posts
195 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 2:39 am
I don't believe in trickle down alternative facts. When will you learn that taking from the poor and giving to the rich is a failing strategy and expanding failure does not equal success. Of course if you accepted reality this discussion would not be happening.
As i said Donald Trump may be the best thing to happen to America, suffer the consequences of ideological stupidity and lies. Though i suspect when the **** hits the fan instead of accepting the failure of right wing lies there will just be a new scapegoat. I'd be happy to take bets on what it will be, any guesses?
Donald Trump is certainly the best thing that happened to you. Whenever you are backed into a corner in a debate like this, you start bashing away at him, and accusing your opponents of being Trump supporters.
Sr. Member
Jul 30, 2010
991 posts
109 upvotes
shplad wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 10:47 pm
Hey Larry, that's great. So I don't suppose you don't need food safety inspection (ever read what's going on in the "food" industry these days?)
You don't need local law enforcement, public safety standards, vehicle licensing (and inspection), labour standards (remember, we used to have
child labour), environmental standards and enforcement, oversight bodies for financial and consumer institutions and government bodies.

Now which one of us is living a dreamworld/utopian ideal?
I never said anything about eliminating the useful regulation that we currently have; I was talking about spending programs. And obviously, I'm not going to list every single department that is good for the country, but you should get the gist of my list. The only additional expenditure you mentioned was law enforcement, which is in the same boat as the military (public enforcement, if you want to call it something more generic as to not split hairs). Currently in Alberta, we have private companies here handle all vehicle licencing duties, the rest could be discussed more thoroughly with regards to their size and usefulness.

My intention was to state that I would like the least government spending absolutely possible; not eliminate it completely. Talk about straw man.
Penalty Box
Apr 15, 2011
2496 posts
312 upvotes
Scarborough
Conquistador wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 7:56 pm
You started off OK and then went off your nut with all the rambling and ranting about lying. What did I lie about?

That you don't understand the conversation hardly makes one a liar. Stop embarrassing yourself. :facepalm:

I'm still waiting for your economic plan that replaces 23% of all government tax revenues. You, too, blaznazn. This should be good....:lol:
Love how you're living in your own bubble. The fact that you think the rich are irreplaceable, while the masses are replaceable is the biggest joke. There are 8 billion people in this world, and no shortage of people to do any job you can think of. Of course, very technical jobs that require a high degree of intelligence like cutting edge research in science, physics, math, or high end specialist doctors/neurosurgeons/aerospace etc is another issue because yes those jobs require a certain kind of person. But most jobs, including the jobs that most rich people have are easily replaceable with enough training. The world doesn't end when a rich person dies, just keeps on ticking like usual.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4707 posts
1627 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 12:01 pm
Love how you're living in your own bubble. The fact that you think the rich are irreplaceable, while the masses are replaceable is the biggest joke. There are 8 billion people in this world, and no shortage of people to do any job you can think of. Of course, very technical jobs that require a high degree of intelligence like cutting edge research in science, physics, math, or high end specialist doctors/neurosurgeons/aerospace etc is another issue because yes those jobs require a certain kind of person. But most jobs, including the jobs that most rich people have are easily replaceable with enough training. The world doesn't end when a rich person dies, just keeps on ticking like usual.
blaznazn translation: "I was wrong to suggest that it would be easy to replace 23% of total government tax revenues by running off the 1% of the population that pays the tab. I don't know what I was thinking nor that I WAS thinking. Instead I will spin, spin, spin and continue to deflect hoping that nobody notices what a ridiculous idea it was in the first place." :rolleyes: :eek:
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4892 posts
374 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 12:01 pm
Love how you're living in your own bubble. The fact that you think the rich are irreplaceable, while the masses are replaceable is the biggest joke. There are 8 billion people in this world, and no shortage of people to do any job you can think of. Of course, very technical jobs that require a high degree of intelligence like cutting edge research in science, physics, math, or high end specialist doctors/neurosurgeons/aerospace etc is another issue because yes those jobs require a certain kind of person. But most jobs, including the jobs that most rich people have are easily replaceable with enough training. The world doesn't end when a rich person dies, just keeps on ticking like usual.
That's actually not true. It's actually really hard to replace a good manager or salesman or leader. You can train all you want and see whether any big corporation would offer you that position. My guess is no.

The world would not end, but plenty of companies went down for lacking a critical leader. Take Apple for example, it almost went belly up by forcing Steve Jobs out. Since he died, the company hasn't been the same.

In reality, all jobs require a certain kind of people. Steve Jobs may not have been a good construction worker. The labour market, like any other market, is driven by supply and demand. Companies don't pay people tons of money out of kindness, they do so because they can't find anybody else for less.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3453 posts
195 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 12:01 pm
Love how you're living in your own bubble. The fact that you think the rich are irreplaceable, while the masses are replaceable is the biggest joke. There are 8 billion people in this world, and no shortage of people to do any job you can think of. Of course, very technical jobs that require a high degree of intelligence like cutting edge research in science, physics, math, or high end specialist doctors/neurosurgeons/aerospace etc is another issue because yes those jobs require a certain kind of person. But most jobs, including the jobs that most rich people have are easily replaceable with enough training. The world doesn't end when a rich person dies, just keeps on ticking like usual.
If person A is richer than person B, in most cases it is because person A is more productive, assuming we are talking about a capitalist society.

http://business.financialpost.com/perso ... poll-shows

So if person A dies, then of course person B can replace them, but they will not be as productive.

Following this reasoning, replace person A with the 1% top earners. If you chase them out of the country through extremely high taxes, they will be replaced, but society will suffer as a whole because this 1% deliver far more the 1% of the overall productivity of society.

Are you starting to get the point?

Oh, and if you think that "most rich people have are easily replaceable with enough training", I guess you must be rich ......... What? You are not rich? Why not? Is it because you don't want to be rich? Or you couldn't be bothered to get enough training to be rich? :rolleyes:
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2831 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 2:39 am
I don't believe in trickle down alternative facts. When will you learn that taking from the poor and giving to the rich is a failing strategy and expanding failure does not equal success.
These kinds of ridiculous statements reflects the fundamental lack of rationality on the left. Raising taxes on the rich to give money to the poor is stealing from the rich to give to the poor. The reverse of that - stealing from the poor to give to the rich - would involve raising taxes on the poor to give money to the rich. No one is advocating for that. We are calling for lower taxes all around...that is not stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

You cannot steal something from someone who does not possess it.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 7, 2009
13409 posts
1225 upvotes
silky28 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 9:57 pm
These kinds of ridiculous statements reflects the fundamental lack of rationality on the left. Raising taxes on the rich to give money to the poor is stealing from the rich to give to the poor. The reverse of that - stealing from the poor to give to the rich - would involve raising taxes on the poor to give money to the rich. No one is advocating for that. We are calling for lower taxes all around...that is not stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

You cannot steal something from someone who does not possess it.
The problem is that all things being equal, given the same work ethic, intelligence and overall merit, life is literally more expensive for poor people. It's going to be tough to convince that poor person that they have to work harder than people who are handed a head start. And because wealth has a snowball effect with a relatively high threshold, that poor person won't just experience more hardship prior to striking out on their own, but exponentially for their entire lives.

You can't tell someone that this is fair, and tell them that redistribution of some of the wealth is immoral.
In a perfect system, corporations would fear the government and the government would fear the people. - David Wong

Check out caRpetbomBer's picks in this thread.

Top