Thursday, April 17th6.0°C
20923
20654

NDP spending

Moderators: Jo, ferri, Merry, Triple 6

Re: NDP spending

Postby Urbane » Nov 9th, 2012, 3:49 pm

    sooperphreek wrote:i dont think anyone cares how the economy has worked in the past. they want things corrected for the future so that things dont get any worse than it has become. if you have been educated at school the staus quo and think that it is the way things should be then that is a part of the overall problem. change is hard and inevitable. Galileo told people that the earth wasnt the centre of the universe and the people in control didnt want to admit it was true. and yet today we know it as fact. our systems will be in the books of a bygone era someday and people will discus how we did things wrong as a cautionary tale. its how life works.
You've got one foot in Group #1 since you don't understand how the economy works and your other foot in Group #2 because you say you don't think anyone cares about how the economy worked in the past. Of course there have changes over the years such as increased globalization and the whole technological revolution but the economic fundamentals are still there to be taken seriously.
"If you don't have integrity, you have nothing. You can't buy it. You can have all the money in the world, but if you are not a moral and ethical person, you really have nothing."
-Henry Kravis
User avatar
Urbane
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 13251
Likes: 425 posts
Liked in: 481 posts
Joined: Jul 8th, 2007, 7:41 pm
Location: West Kelowna

Re: NDP spending

Postby SurplusElect » Nov 9th, 2012, 3:52 pm

Captain Awesome wrote:
Yeah, right.

People are just lucky when they become wealthy through hard work. They just get lucky when they start companies that employ hundreds of people, start new industry from scratch, and change the world forever with their vision.

It's like a lottery - you don't know it, but boom - and you're rich, famous, and successful.


How many small businesses last the first year?

How many are alive after 2 years. 5 years? 10 years? All that fail, failed because of laziness?

Aside from "hard work" what factors play into the economy that a individual cannot control or possibly forsee that directly relate to turning a profit? (Examples such as gas prices, real estate booms/busts, major layoffs in the town you service, personal health, federal dollar value, new laws, weather, new technology *Blockbuster Video* ect)
SurplusElect
Übergod
 
Posts: 1618
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: May 29th, 2012, 1:45 pm

Re: NDP spending

Postby Veovis » Nov 9th, 2012, 4:21 pm

And some business idea are terrible and fail no matter how much hard work goes in, just watch an episode or 2 of dragon den. People endlessly try to start really dumb businesses.

There are many factors that cause a business to fail though but to say that it's all some other uncontrollable lottery is silly.

I really don't understand your argument either, since a large portion of businesses do fail, why for the ones that manage to actually succeed do you feel the people that invested decades into getting it to be that success should then be scolded and punished for it.

To disregard business and the economy is just another way people sit back and say, "I wish I had a better lot in life, but I'm not going to do anything about it" and then blame someone else's success.
Veovis
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2319
Likes: 58 posts
Liked in: 217 posts
Joined: Apr 19th, 2007, 3:11 pm

Re: NDP spending

Postby sooperphreek » Nov 9th, 2012, 4:34 pm

You've got one foot in Group #1 since you don't understand how the economy works and your other foot in Group #2 because you say you don't think anyone cares about how the economy worked in the past. Of course there have changes over the years such as increased globalization and the whole technological revolution but the economic fundamentals are still there to be taken seriously.


i dont care how the trumps and the pattisons of the world are manipulating the flawed system. it desperately needs to change. and our government has to stop propping up things when there are problems because "they know how the system works". there should never be a bank or business that is "too big to fail".
sooperphreek
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3041
Likes: 119 posts
Liked in: 71 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 10:39 am

Re: NDP spending

Postby sooperphreek » Nov 9th, 2012, 4:38 pm

i dont blame pattison for playing the game like a flute. i blame the status quo system we have that has enough holes to pervert "free market" and the economic system. if our market was truly free there would never be behemoth companies out there because they swallow up smaller ones squashing competition. and there would still be mom and pop restaurants and corner stores out there.
sooperphreek
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3041
Likes: 119 posts
Liked in: 71 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 10:39 am

Re: NDP spending

Postby SurplusElect » Nov 9th, 2012, 5:01 pm

Veovis wrote:I really don't understand your argument either, since a large portion of businesses do fail, why for the ones that manage to actually succeed do you feel the people that invested decades into getting it to be that success should then be scolded and punished for it.



Punishment and scolding? It's more of a post-Regan re-calibration.

If someone has succeeded - they owe society. Yes they worked hard but without social services, regulation, laws and infrastructure they would have nothing. What I am saying that since a very lucky few have done so well because of what society has provided - they owe society (just as much as the ditchdigger - if not more) - and we don't owe them "even more" riches by giving them welfare.

Right now society is going without. Hospitals, schools, infrastructure, services. Yet the people who have gotten lucky through a tide of unknowns are flush and have more than they can consume in 100 lifetimes - and paying less into the society that enabled them to get where they are in the first place.

I don't worship and respect "luck". I respect hard work - but that is no guarantee of success/wealth. How many world-altering "inventors" died broke and alone - only for their inventions to be profit mountains years later.
SurplusElect
Übergod
 
Posts: 1618
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: May 29th, 2012, 1:45 pm

Re: NDP spending

Postby Veovis » Nov 9th, 2012, 5:22 pm

(with the understanding that some corporate reform is agreeably needed....)

Why are people "owed" wealth now? What a silly concept.

If I pay 10,000 in taxes and Bill pay's 10,000 in taxes towards schools why does Bill "owe" more for doing better. He used the same roads, schools, etc as I did.

Currently all the Bill's DO pay more, and a lot of the "suffering from under-funding" can be tracked directly to people simply "wanting" more money. So how much more should they give for other peoples dreams and desires?

40%, 50% of all profits? More?

And to make that work they then lay off and fire 25,000 employees.

Where is the benefit then? Their extra you took from them is now gone to the people they had to lay off used it as welfare. Now you still have 25,000 more people without work and the money is gone.

Who do you take from now and lay off their people?

No one is "OWED" anything other than a reasonable chance to have a good living in Canada. Sadly people are badly mistaken that that means they are entitled to every gadget, toy, computer, vehicle, vacation and hobby they want and then complain they are in debt and the richer people owe them.

Especially when it's very clear that the "have's" in this case is anyone with just a little more than their neighbor. You have more than some, why do you not "owe" 50% more of all your things to them? Because you earned it and it's yours not theirs. I don't care if someone used their time and money to get a degree in interpretive dance. I got education that was useful and if I make more money than that guy, good, I deserve it for not being a self entitled twit. Arts are great, but my arse I "owe" someone else a damned thing for their choices.
Veovis
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2319
Likes: 58 posts
Liked in: 217 posts
Joined: Apr 19th, 2007, 3:11 pm

Re: NDP spending

Postby Artofthedeal » Nov 9th, 2012, 5:55 pm

SurplusElect wrote:
If someone has succeeded - they owe society. .


Right. And this "success" is defined as either "profit" in the case of a corporation, or "income" in the case of an individual, and this success is taxed, thus society is paid what they are owed via this means. The only issue is that socialists either don't understand how this concept works, or are constantly demanding that this amount that is taken from the success increase, with no thought or care as to where the current share of the success is being spent. It is a lot easier, hence why socialists go down this road, to demand an ever increasing share of a shrinking pie, then to make better use or decrease the original amount needed to be taken from the success pie, either through innovation or a reduction in needless entitlements. Socialism = laziness - and a giant helping of naivete.
Artofthedeal
Fledgling
 
Posts: 259
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 11th, 2012, 8:23 pm

Re: NDP spending

Postby sooperphreek » Nov 9th, 2012, 6:05 pm

Veovis wrote:(with the understanding that some corporate reform is agreeably needed....)

Why are people "owed" wealth now? What a silly concept.

If I pay 10,000 in taxes and Bill pay's 10,000 in taxes towards schools why does Bill "owe" more for doing better. He used the same roads, schools, etc as I did.

Currently all the Bill's DO pay more, and a lot of the "suffering from under-funding" can be tracked directly to people simply "wanting" more money. So how much more should they give for other peoples dreams and desires?

40%, 50% of all profits? More?

And to make that work they then lay off and fire 25,000 employees.

Where is the benefit then? Their extra you took from them is now gone to the people they had to lay off used it as welfare. Now you still have 25,000 more people without work and the money is gone.

Who do you take from now and lay off their people?

No one is "OWED" anything other than a reasonable chance to have a good living in Canada. Sadly people are badly mistaken that that means they are entitled to every gadget, toy, computer, vehicle, vacation and hobby they want and then complain they are in debt and the richer people owe them.

Especially when it's very clear that the "have's" in this case is anyone with just a little more than their neighbor. You have more than some, why do you not "owe" 50% more of all your things to them? Because you earned it and it's yours not theirs. I don't care if someone used their time and money to get a degree in interpretive dance. I got education that was useful and if I make more money than that guy, good, I deserve it for not being a self entitled twit. Arts are great, but my arse I "owe" someone else a damned thing for their choices.


the person who is enormously successful does indeed use the same roads and infrastructure that the common man does. but he utilizes so much more and thats why they should pay more. when our government creates a delegation and has a trade showcase in say china. the enormously successful get to go on the trip on the countries dime. and they make contacts that the common man cant (which is an irony in a free market society). should these sorts of opportunities be taken for granted? should they be expected? should they be for free? if anyone answers yes then that is the crux of the bigger problem. just because the government facilitated an opportunity to create more jobs does not mean that the said business should pay less in taxes. great opportunity and success should be shown appreciation for. they have the liberty and freedom to conduct business in a stable country where they are free to take advantage of wonderful opportunities. and as a result they must pay their just deserts. this isnt about class warfare. its about opportunities that these businesses and corporations take for granted and think they are entitled to. as kevin oleary always states. he is more loyal to money than anything else. if the taxes are too high the rich will just move to their havens. despite all the protections allegiance to our country and province affords they dont care. kind of like paul martin. he had a shipping company that didnt even fly the flag of canada which provided his wealth. it was a foreign country that had less taxes. which was sad.
sooperphreek
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3041
Likes: 119 posts
Liked in: 71 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 10:39 am

Re: NDP spending

Postby SurplusElect » Nov 9th, 2012, 7:44 pm

Artofthedeal wrote:
Right. And this "success" is defined as either "profit" in the case of a corporation, or "income" in the case of an individual, and this success is taxed, thus society is paid what they are owed via this means.


... and the greater the success, the lower the taxation levels are paid to society, or none at all (welfare for the luxurious)

Flash forward to present today where "society" has become run down, short changed and is asked to "scale back/do without" while the people who enjoy the fruits of societies labors pay less into it. The share being paid into the system by those who most benefit has been cut in half over the last 25 years - it is still the most paid into by volume (some will point out) - but nonetheless it is severely reduced.

Artofthedeal wrote:...thus society is paid what they are owed via this means


BC has a unforgivable/highest child poverty rate (let alone me re-listing all the reduction of services, benefits, infrastructure), yet the lowest taxes.

Society is owed, but they are not paid their due. You read about the results of the shortchanging everyday on the front page of the newspaper.

Artofthedeal wrote:...to demand an ever increasing share of a shrinking pie


Shrinking? You are mistaken. There is more wealth than ever in human history (mostly because of national resources all of society should profit from), but now it belongs to less people - a fraction of society. How was that pie even obtained?

Infrastructure, education, and social services.

Artofthedeal wrote:...then to make better use or decrease the original amount needed to be taken from the success pie, either through innovation or a reduction in needless entitlements


One man can only consume so much. "Make better use" (park it offshore or amass at a lower taxation rate). Indeed.

"Reduction of needless entitlements" - there goes the pie.
SurplusElect
Übergod
 
Posts: 1618
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: May 29th, 2012, 1:45 pm

Re: NDP spending

Postby Captain Awesome » Nov 9th, 2012, 9:05 pm

SurplusElect wrote:How many are alive after 2 years. 5 years? 10 years? All that fail, failed because of laziness?


Nope.

Bad economy
Awful product
Poor procedures
Poor management
No access to capital
Smart competition
etc.

None of them have anything to do with luck.
Sarcasm is like a good game of chess. Most people don't know how to play chess.
User avatar
Captain Awesome
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22120
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 987 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2008, 5:06 pm
Location: The United Colonies of The Lizard People

Re: NDP spending

Postby Artofthedeal » Nov 10th, 2012, 8:28 am

SurplusElect wrote:... and the greater the success, the lower the taxation levels are paid to society, or none at all (welfare for the luxurious).


This just plain isn't true. Tax rates in Canada are graduated - if you earn over $100K (roughly) in Canada you pay 43.7% tax on that income over $100,000. By contrast if you earn $37,000, you pay only 20% tax. Your comment is completely and utterly incorrect, and is just a product of your hatred and jealousy of those who are smarter than you, who have also done better than you.

SurplusElect wrote:Flash forward to present today where "society" has become run down, short changed and is asked to "scale back/do without" .


This is pure nonsense. The society we are in present today has it better than any society and has a better standard of living than any society in the history of the world prior to now. People today who people like you cry and whine about because they "live in grinding poverty" live better than people who were happy middle-classers only 40 years ago. A person today "living in grinding poverty" per your definition still has a car, a place to live, and free health care - including the ability to get a new organ like a new kidney, heart, lungs or liver, all at tax payers expense. 40 years ago, people had none of this stuff, and yet were somehow "happy", now they are supposed to be angry whiners who should blame "the rich" for their predicament because they only have one car etc, rather than just being happy with how much better off they are than people only a generation before them, and that's just plain wrong. This constant complaining and whining from people like you, who are merely just jealous and have a mental problem with being to process that there are those who will always have more than others, and that somehow in the "present time" things are so bad compared to the past, are simply that - mentally ill.


SurplusElect wrote:BC has a unforgivable/highest child poverty rate (let alone me re-listing all the reduction of services, benefits, infrastructure), yet the lowest taxes. .


Child "poverty" is an invented statistic. Professional "advocates" who actually get paid to cry and whine about these things, invent the statistic of child poverty for political purposes, and so that they can professionally cry and whine, by taking a measure known as the "low-income cut-off" and usurp this measurement, calling it the "poverty" line. This just isn't what the LICO is for, and never was, and by definition, even if everyone in Canada had 5 TV's and made over $400,000 a year, there still would be people in "poverty". This is a nonsensical number derived purely to manipulate those who are too lazy to look up the lie behind the lie. But that's not the real issue here. You are still clinging to the silly and lazy socialist mantra that somehow, even if tomorrow everyone in Canada went crazy and believed your foolishness, that we could solve this invented problem you quote by just spending more money. That's not going to make this invented problem go away. Neither is guilt. What is going to make it go away are people being able to help themselves. Rivers of government money never solve any problem, real or, or in every "problem" you speak about, completely imagined.


SurplusElect wrote:Society is owed, but they are not paid their due. You read about the results of the shortchanging everyday on the front page of the newspaper..


And here we go with the entitlement nonsense again so prevalent in today's left-wing crazy crowd. Previous generations would have been embarrassed to so brazenly promote such a lazy and dead-end philosophy, that somehow you should demand to be paid and get all kinds of social services, for doing absolutely nothing, because you deserve it somehow. This is an embarrassing attitude to have, and nothing but shame should be the product of anyone who thinks as you do. It's this crappy attitude that leads kids to sit in a park illegally and think that this is going to make everyone give them everything for nothing. It's this crappy attitude that leads kids in Quebec to demand even lower tuition despite the fact they pay the lowest tuition in the country. And no newspaper I read talks about shortchanging anybody - mostly they talk about what spoiled entitled losers our current generation of kids is turning into, and how disappointing and sad that reality is.
Artofthedeal
Fledgling
 
Posts: 259
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 11th, 2012, 8:23 pm

Re: NDP spending

Postby steven lloyd » Nov 10th, 2012, 10:37 am

Rwede wrote:One can remain an infant indefinitely in the protected public service union.

:137: Is "indefinitely" even longer than someone can be proteced working for his uncle I wonder ?
the rights we take for granted are the easiest rights for us to lose
complacency and ignorant apathy our greatest enemy
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16748
Likes: 312 posts
Liked in: 660 posts
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 8:38 pm

Re: NDP spending

Postby George+ » Nov 10th, 2012, 11:06 am

Weedy works for his uncle?
I did not know that?
Logging?
George+
Guru
 
Posts: 5164
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 73 posts
Joined: Oct 10th, 2011, 12:08 pm
Location: Lake Country

Re: NDP spending

Postby George+ » Nov 10th, 2012, 11:11 am

"The favorable treatment of tax-preferred investment income plays a significant role in lowering a taxpayer’s average tax rate. The average tax rate for the 19,073,000 taxpayers who filed a return in 2009 and who reported less than $50,000 of income was 6.66%. For the fortunate 183,000 who reported income of $250,000 or more, the average rate jumps to 24.82% which is still a far cry from the top marginal tax rate of 50% often associated with high-income earners."


http://business.financialpost.com/2012/ ... -tax-rate/

So...get real. No one in Canada is paying an effective tax rate of 50%
George+
Guru
 
Posts: 5164
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 73 posts
Joined: Oct 10th, 2011, 12:08 pm
Location: Lake Country

PreviousNext

Return to BC Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest