[OnTheIce]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yep, did miss they dropped their salaries though I'm sure they kept their stock options. As for the company doing everything right - judging by how well they're doing, I'd say they have yet to do everything right. We can revisit this one year from now and see which was the case.

Fuck off already, hypocrite.

Don't be obtuse, I mean doing everything right in terms of a shake up of their corporate structure.

And BTW, questioning your intelligence (my point was proven based on your lack of knowledge above) is a far cry from name calling.

You're the guy debating on a topic and didn't care to notice that the changes you're basically calling for started taking place 2-3 weeks ago.

We'll revisit this in a year and see what happens. Hopefully, at that time, you'll come more prepared.

[fifeboy]

RUEZ RUEZ:

If American companies are going to continually buy up Canadian companies and move production, perhaps the governmnet should be reviewing all corporate takeovers. This also happened to Western Star in Kelowna. Frieghtliner bought them and within two years the factory was shuttered and move to Oregon with all it's high paying jobs.

I agree.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Save your arrogant blather.

Save it? Personally, I invest.

Here,and I always thought the joke went: Jesus saves, Moses invests. Go figure.

[fifeboy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

RUEZ RUEZ:

If American companies are going to continually buy up Canadian companies and move production, perhaps the governmnet should be reviewing all corporate takeovers. This also happened to Western Star in Kelowna. Frieghtliner bought them and within two years the factory was shuttered and move to Oregon with all it's high paying jobs.

They do, but most get rubber stamped by the government (no matter if its Liberal or Conservative) .

Actually, Steve has given some indication that he is willing to step in. BHP Billington wanted to buy out PCS and after Brad Wall got a bunch of support from other Provinces he stopped the take over. However, BHP wasn't about to move the mine to Mexico. In fact they are building a new mine at Fenton on HWY 16. So, even Steve, the POS that he is, can make a few moves if the right people act (and a new election is in the wind--remember Danny Williams )

[Gunnair]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yep, did miss they dropped their salaries though I'm sure they kept their stock options. As for the company doing everything right - judging by how well they're doing, I'd say they have yet to do everything right. We can revisit this one year from now and see which was the case.

Fuck off already, hypocrite.

Don't be obtuse, I mean doing everything right in terms of a shake up of their corporate structure.

And BTW, questioning your intelligence (my point was proven based on your lack of knowledge above) is a far cry from name calling.

You're the guy debating on a topic and didn't care to notice that the changes you're basically calling for started taking place 2-3 weeks ago.

We'll revisit this in a year and see what happens. Hopefully, at that time, you'll come more prepared.

Missing a piece of information is hardly a lack of intelligence. You thinking that that is the case suggests you are a fucking idiot though.

True I missed that they had dropped down to a one dollar salary, my quick search today missed that, and I appreciate it being pointed out when I miss something.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

No. It's the Andy who's putting you on the spot about what you're saying, when your only response to a discussion about income inequality is people should save for what they want.

So what are your thoughts about growing income inequality, leaving aside the topic of saving for what you want? Are you concerned about it? If yes, any thoughts about what to do? If not, then we're back to glee, aren't we?

Ah ok, now we're back to andy-logic. If I'm not concerned about it that means I'm gleeful about it.
Outside of the criminals that have utterly corrupted the economic system, I fail to see why you think punishing those that honestly earned their wealth is so important.

And this, I gather is PA logic. What punishing? You sound like Psudo - "haven't the rich suffered enough?"

Anyway, finally got a straight answer. At what point would you be concerned about growing income inequality?

$1:

Concentration of income in America has varied throughout its history. Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman and others point to what Krugman calls a "great economic arc from high inequality" in the post-civil war era ("the Gilded Age") "to relative equality and back again."[18] In 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. Today, the top 1% account for 24% of all income.[19]...

Economists Jared Bernstein and Paul Krugman have attacked the concentration of income as variously "unsustainable"[135] and "incompatible"[136] with real democracy. Political Scientist Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson writing on the "Great Divergence" of income in America, quote a warning by Greek/Roman historian Plutarch: `An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.`[134]
In the words of journalist George Packer,
Inequality hardens society into a class system ... Inequality divides us from one another in schools, in neighborhoods, at work, on airplanes, in hospitals, in what we eat, in the condition of our bodies, in what we think, in our children's futures, in how we die. Inequality makes it harder to imagine the lives of others.[123]

$1:

High inequality raises two questions. First, what is the impact on the economic well-being of a country? The answer is that high inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions. Second, high inequality raises a moral question about fairness and social justice.

Canada reduced inequality in the 1980s, with the Gini index reaching a low of 0.281 in 1989.1 Income inequality rose in the 1990s, but has remained around 0.32 in the 2000s.

In Canada, only the fifth quintile—the group of richest Canadians—has increased its share of national income. All other quintile groups have lost share. This was particularly evident in the 1990s, when the income share for this top group jumped from 36.5 per cent in 1990 to 39.1 per cent in 2000.

Most gains have gone to a very small group of “super-rich.” To understand this, we have to look in more detail at the top quintile group—the top 20 per cent of Canadians. For this we need a different data set, one that provides more information on this group of super-rich. In a study for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, researcher Armine Yalnizyan uses tax file data to track the richest 1 per cent of Canadians; that is, those whose income was higher than 99 per cent of Canadian tax filers.3 She found that this group—the 246,000 people whose average income was $405,000—took home almost a third of all growth in incomes from 1998 to 2007, a decade that saw the fastest economic growth in this generation. She notes that: “The last time the economy grew so fast was in the 1950 and ’60s, when the richest 1 per cent of Canadian took only 8 per cent of all income growth.”4
The phenomenal growth in incomes of the super-rich is not due to the assets they own. Yalnizyan points out that, while it is true that historically the super-rich relied mostly on unearned income from assets, “the income of the richest 1 per cent is due mostly to the lavish sums they are paid for the work they do.”5

Not all researchers agree that skill-biased technical change (SBTC) and globalization are at the root of all or even most of the rising inequality. In a paper published in the Journal of Labor Economics, David Card and John DiNardo argue that “contrary to the impression conveyed by most of the recent literature, the SBTC hypothesis falls short as a unicausal explanation.”9
An alternative explanation, put forward by Krugman and others, is that the increase in inequality can be attributed to institutional forces, like declines in unionization rates, stagnating minimum wage rates, deregulation, and national policies that favour the wealthy. In Canada, Yalnizyan notes that falling top marginal tax rates are part of the explanation for the rise of the richest 1 per cent of the population.10

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

No. It's the Andy who's putting you on the spot about what you're saying, when your only response to a discussion about income inequality is people should save for what they want.

So what are your thoughts about growing income inequality, leaving aside the topic of saving for what you want? Are you concerned about it? If yes, any thoughts about what to do? If not, then we're back to glee, aren't we?

Ah ok, now we're back to andy-logic. If I'm not concerned about it that means I'm gleeful about it.
Outside of the criminals that have utterly corrupted the economic system, I fail to see why you think punishing those that honestly earned their wealth is so important.

And this, I gather is PA logic. What punishing? You sound like Psudo - "haven't the rich suffered enough?"

What punishing??? Bitch, are you for real? You are basically demanding that those who have busted their asses to make a major financial success of themselves, hand over some of that to you simply because you don't have the capacity to achieve what they did. You want to punish them financially for their financial success. I don't know what else you'd call it.

Well I guess we can look at this another way. In a previous thread you "admonished" me by telling me that humans are essentially greedy anyway.
So quite frankly, it sounds like nothing but greed when I hear people like you complain how rich people that earned their money fairly should be giving it to you. So, it comes down to a case of it's either punishing the successful for their success, or envy combined with naked greed on "your" part.
Either way, it's still bullshit

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

What punishing??? Bitch, are you for real? You are basically demanding that those who have busted their asses to make a major financial success of themselves, hand over some of that to you simply because you don't have the capacity to achieve what they did. You want to punish them financially for their financial success. I don't know what else you'd call it.

Well I guess we can look at this another way. In a previous thread you "admonished" me by telling me that humans are essentially greedy anyway.
So quite frankly, it sounds like nothing but greed when I hear people like you complain how rich people that earned their money fairly should be giving it to you. So, it comes down to a case of it's either punishing the successful for their success, or envy combined with naked greed on "your" part.
Either way, it's still bullshit

So now you are against the rich paying any taxes? (to use your words: hand over some of that to you) And I don't get that to you part - I'm not the govt, I pay taxes, don't collect them.

You're off in some nutso thought bubble here. What we're talking about here are somewhat higher taxes on high incomes. Hell, we probably need somewhat higher taxes even on medium incomes to pay down our debt and finance the state. And in the US (maybe here too, who knows) we need tighter regulations to prevent the rich from privatizing profit and socializing losses. Are you really against that?

Maybe it's more fun for you to make up strawmen to argue against?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

What punishing??? Bitch, are you for real? You are basically demanding that those who have busted their asses to make a major financial success of themselves, hand over some of that to you simply because you don't have the capacity to achieve what they did. You want to punish them financially for their financial success. I don't know what else you'd call it.

Well I guess we can look at this another way. In a previous thread you "admonished" me by telling me that humans are essentially greedy anyway.
So quite frankly, it sounds like nothing but greed when I hear people like you complain how rich people that earned their money fairly should be giving it to you. So, it comes down to a case of it's either punishing the successful for their success, or envy combined with naked greed on "your" part.
Either way, it's still bullshit

So now you are against the rich paying any taxes? (to use your words: hand over some of that to you) And I don't get that to you part - I'm not the govt, I pay taxes, don't collect them.

You're off in some nutso thought bubble here. What we're talking about here are somewhat higher taxes on high incomes. Hell, we probably need somewhat higher taxes even on medium incomes to pay down our debt and finance the state. And in the US (maybe here too, who knows) we need tighter regulations to prevent the rich from privatizing profit and socializing losses. Are you really against that?

Maybe it's more fun for you to make up strawmen to argue against?

Strawmen? Yeah, claiming I must be against the rich paying taxes isn't a strawman though. Methinks yer suffering from tansferrance issues.

To address you second thought(pardon the exaggeration), your solution of taxing the rich even more will result in more rich people hiding their money off-shore.
Take a wild guess how much taxes that'll bring in.

I say crank up the basic personal amount to at least $20,000**. Don't withhold any taxes on people who make less than $20,001** per year(EI and CPP premiums would of course continue to be deducted) and crank up the GST to 10%**.
The only thing I don't like about that is, people on soemthing like provincial disability won't see any benefit in an increase in basic personal amount nor having taxes not deducted at source. But they will be detrimentally affected by an increase in the GST.
The only thing I can think of to alleviate that problem would be to give cards to people on disability that would exempt them from the sales taxes on stuff like food and clothing.

**The numbers used are just that, numbers. I have not done the math or researched them in any way, they were used purely as examples.

[andyt]

You're the one foaming about how I want to take away the rich's hard earned money.

Yadda yadda - the rich will hide their money. You mean they won't at 29% but would at say 35%?

By your example, you would have to crank up the tax rates to make up for the shortfall. So really, after all this gnashing of teeth, you actually agree there's a problem (since you want to change the tax rate for the poor) and want to take from the rich, same as me. Imagine that.

The way to solve your problem about the disabled, seniors, etc is to raise their income too. As for the GST, have a rebate for low income people. I would phase out the rebate between 20k and 30k. We already have that, just maybe set too low. Or just go with refundable tax credits for everybody - that's been proposed to deal with low minimum wages too - a form of mincome. the US already has something like that.

See, once you stop foaming you're not such a gleeful grinch after all. You actually have something to contribute other than "people should save for what they want."