Wow, did you ever take me the wrong way. First of all, my pulse never came off the floor. Second, I'm not that young at all, but I've worked from sweeping floors to a position of large responsibility, so don't assume too much about me. I'm middle class, and my ambition to be upper middle class isn't limited by my age. I never asked for pure capitalism, but for your tale of 80's American politics we could also look at any other number of examples where incentive based economics benefit everyone. How is Norway or Alberta's rising tied working out for them? How did 1980's economic policy work in the USSR and whose people are better off today? I consider myself more pragmatic than idealistic, in fact I think that those that think we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya and then everyone goes out and makes the same money and works hard for the greater good is far more idealistic than an incentive based model.Little Tim wrote: ↑First of all, relax - take a deep breath - exhaaaaaaaaaaale... Now, doesn't that feel better?
Secondly, the world has never seen a capitalist country. Neither has there ever been such a thing as a socialist (or communist for that matter) country on this planet. These are theoretical constructs that have never actually been realized. The type of societal/economic system we have in North America is deeply regulated with very little in the form of true free markets. There's taxes, there's consumer protection, there's competition bureaus, there's environmental legislation, there's labour laws, there's protection of intellectual property etc. If anything I would argue that the US and Canada are tilting more towards socialism than capitalism if those are seen as two extremes on a spectrum. What is usually referred to as socialist/communist countries are really nothing more than straight dictatorships and have nothing to do with the actual theory of socialism or communism.
In addition to getting your terminology straight I would urge you to actually read posts before you respond to them. You can for example do that while you're taking that deep breath! I never said that tax rate would NOT factor into the decision by a corporation or individual to settle somewhere. What I said is that tax rate or the overall financial package (tax credits for example) is just one of many factors. My point still stands and that is that I have yet to see evidence that tax rate on its own is enough to cause a mass exodus in or out of any economic area - at least for any sustained economic benefit to that area. Ireland used to be the golden child of all right-wingers when they used low tax rates to lure corporations to the fair island, but many of the jobs that were created were low paying, call centre type jobs and as we all know, the entire house of cards soon collapsed spectacularly.
As for some slightly more socialist leaning countries, just look towards Scandinavia and your argument will again take a huge hit. Those are high-tax countries with high social benefits (free university education for example), but you don't see the high tax bracket people leaving those countries in droves.
I hate to bring this up, but would you say that Thorsten Heins gave more to society and produced more? I know it's not an original example, but many more can be given. I agree that someone who started out with their two bare hands and worked their way up to create a successful corporation definitely deserve rewards for their incredible drive and hard work. Problem is, those are extremely rare cases. High income earners often come from the financial industry, which has arguably been the cause of most of our current financial problems (without government regulation - nevermind intervention - it would have been much, much worse - so much for the free market...). Also, you will find many high paid corporate officials who never created much themselves, but rather got cushy high-paying jobs due to family relations and influence. Read this book for example.
I am very much in favour of creating a friendly economic environment for start-ups and small businesses, because I think that is where you will truly find hard working people. Some of them will make it into that high-earning club that you speak of. However, most of the ones already there are not self-made, but rather stand on the shoulders of money already made.
Btw, by the statement that you are arguing a point that doesn't affect you today, I assume that you are very young. I used to be young and idealistic as well. I was very much a libertarian, believing in the free market and the good in human nature. As I've read more and experienced more, those views have changed. I have no political affiliations and I lean in no direction, but I like to stay pragmatic and focus on evidence and what works.
That is Reaganomics in a nutshell and it has never worked. The only time in history that we had conditions that were close to pure capitalism were during and right after the industrial revolution. Very little government regulation and the results were massive labour exploitation with starving wages and inhuman working conditions. Huge environmental damage as well, but also huge profits. That's your evidence right there. I don't believe for a second that it would be any different today if another experiment with pure capitalism was attempted.
The origin of the discussion was that in an attempt to buy low and middle income voters, the Wynne government attacked the middle class, AGAIN. There, that's the first time I've raised my voice. I felt that they've gone way too far -taking an extra 5.8% of a tax payer's remaining earnings is extreme in my opinion. I think it started with the payroll health tax that started at about $30K of income and peaked at about $70k of income was Dalton's first attack on the middle class and we've had 10 years of more of the same. Factor in massive corruption and waste, and I think we'd all be better off spending the money ourselves rather than trusting them with another dime.
As for the tilt of North American economies, I agree with you, but while we become a softer society, there's also a noticeable abdication of responsibility among regular people as we seek cradle to grave security.