Discussion:
Average Canadian Now RICHER Than Average American for the First Time in History: The US System Is NOT Working
(too old to reply)
wy
2012-07-17 05:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-canada-richer-than-u-s-.html

On July 1, Canada Day, Canadians awoke to a startling, if pleasant,
piece of news: For the first time in recent history, the average
Canadian is richer than the average American.

According to data from Environics Analytics WealthScapes published in
the Globe and Mail, the net worth of the average Canadian household in
2011 was $363,202, while the average American household’s net worth
was $319,970.

A few days later, Canada and the U.S. both released the latest job
figures. Canada’s unemployment rate fell, again, to 7.2 percent, and
America’s was a stagnant 8.2 percent. Canada continues to thrive while
the U.S. struggles to find its way out of an intractable economic
crisis and a political sine curve of hope and despair.

The difference grows starker by the month: The Canadian system is
working; the American system is not. And it’s not just Canadians who
are noticing. As Iceland considers switching to a currency other than
the krona, its leaders’ primary focus of interest is the loonie -- the
Canadian dollar.

As a study recently published in the New York University Law Review
pointed out, national constitutions based on the American model are
quickly disappearing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on
Egyptian television, admitted, “I would not look to the United States
Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The
natural replacement? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
achieving the status of legal superstar as it reaches its 30th
birthday.

Good politics do not account entirely for recent economic triumphs.
Luck has played a major part. The Alberta tar sands -- an
environmental catastrophe in waiting -- are the third-largest oil
reserves in the world, and if America is too squeamish to buy our
filthy energy, there’s always China. We also have softwood lumber,
potash and other natural resources in abundance.

Policy has played a significant part as well, though. Both liberals
and conservatives in the U.S. have tried to use the Canadian example
to promote their arguments: The left says Canada shows the rewards of
financial regulation and socialism, while the right likes to vaunt the
brutal cuts made to Canadian social programs in the 1990s, which set
the stage for economic recovery.

The truth is that both sides are right. Since the 1990s, Canada has
pursued a hardheaded (even ruthless), fiscally conservative form of
socialism. Its originator was Paul Martin, who was finance minister
for most of the ’90s, and served a stint as prime minister from 2003
to 2006. Alone among finance ministers in the Group of Eight nations,
he “resisted the siren call of deregulation,” in his words, and
insisted that the banks tighten their loan-loss and reserve
requirements. He also made a courageous decision not to allow Canadian
banks to merge, even though their chief executives claimed they would
never be globally competitive unless they did. The stability of
Canadian banks and the concomitant stability in the housing market
provide the clearest explanation for why Canadians are richer than
Americans today.

Martin also slashed funding to social programs. He foresaw that
crippling deficits imperiled Canada’s education and health-care
systems, which even his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney,
described as a “sacred trust.” He cut corporate taxes, too. Growth is
required to pay for social programs, and social programs that increase
opportunity and social integration are the best way to ensure growth
over the long term. Social programs and robust capitalism are not, as
so many would have you believe, inherently opposed propositions. Both
are required for meaningful national prosperity.

Orderly Fairness

Martin’s balanced policies emerged organically out of Canadian
culture, which is fair-minded and rule-following to a fault. The
Canadian obsession with order can make for strange politics, at least
in an American context. For example, of all the world’s societies,
Canada’s is one of the most open to immigrants, as anyone who has been
to Toronto or Vancouver will have seen. Yet Canada also imposes a
mandatory one-year prison sentence on illegal immigrants, and the
majority of Canadians favor deportation. Canadians insist that their
compassion be orderly, too.

This immigration policy is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in the
American political sense. It just works. You could say exactly the
same thing about Canada’s economic policies.

Canada has been, and always will be, overshadowed by its neighbor, by
America’s vastness and its incredible versatility and capacity for
reinvention. But occasionally, at key moments, the northern wasteland
can surprise. Two hundred years ago last month, the War of 1812 began.
Thomas Jefferson declared, “The acquisition of Canada, this year, as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”
The U.S. was comparatively enormous -- with almost 8 million people,
compared with Canada’s 300,000. The Canadians nonetheless turned back
the assault.

Through good luck, excellent policy and even some heroism, Canada
survived the war. But it has taken 200 years for Canada to become
winners.
kady
2012-07-17 12:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)

This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.

The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
US) is quite excellent, and can be summed up rather simply:

1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.

The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.

2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.

In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.

3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.

In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.

4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent. They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."

5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.

FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.

I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God. My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.

Kady
Post by wy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-canada-richer-than-u-s-.html
On July 1, Canada Day, Canadians awoke to a startling, if pleasant,
piece of news: For the first time in recent history, the average
Canadian is richer than the average American.
According to data from Environics Analytics WealthScapes published in
the Globe and Mail, the net worth of the average Canadian household in
2011 was $363,202, while the average American household’s net worth
was $319,970.
A few days later, Canada and the U.S. both released the latest job
figures. Canada’s unemployment rate fell, again, to 7.2 percent, and
America’s was a stagnant 8.2 percent. Canada continues to thrive while
the U.S. struggles to find its way out of an intractable economic
crisis and a political sine curve of hope and despair.
The difference grows starker by the month: The Canadian system is
working; the American system is not. And it’s not just Canadians who
are noticing. As Iceland considers switching to a currency other than
the krona, its leaders’ primary focus of interest is the loonie -- the
Canadian dollar.
As a study recently published in the New York University Law Review
pointed out, national constitutions based on the American model are
quickly disappearing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on
Egyptian television, admitted, “I would not look to the United States
Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The
natural replacement? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
achieving the status of legal superstar as it reaches its 30th
birthday.
Good politics do not account entirely for recent economic triumphs.
Luck has played a major part. The Alberta tar sands -- an
environmental catastrophe in waiting -- are the third-largest oil
reserves in the world, and if America is too squeamish to buy our
filthy energy, there’s always China. We also have softwood lumber,
potash and other natural resources in abundance.
Policy has played a significant part as well, though. Both liberals
and conservatives in the U.S. have tried to use the Canadian example
to promote their arguments: The left says Canada shows the rewards of
financial regulation and socialism, while the right likes to vaunt the
brutal cuts made to Canadian social programs in the 1990s, which set
the stage for economic recovery.
The truth is that both sides are right. Since the 1990s, Canada has
pursued a hardheaded (even ruthless), fiscally conservative form of
socialism. Its originator was Paul Martin, who was finance minister
for most of the ’90s, and served a stint as prime minister from 2003
to 2006. Alone among finance ministers in the Group of Eight nations,
he “resisted the siren call of deregulation,” in his words, and
insisted that the banks tighten their loan-loss and reserve
requirements. He also made a courageous decision not to allow Canadian
banks to merge, even though their chief executives claimed they would
never be globally competitive unless they did. The stability of
Canadian banks and the concomitant stability in the housing market
provide the clearest explanation for why Canadians are richer than
Americans today.
Martin also slashed funding to social programs. He foresaw that
crippling deficits imperiled Canada’s education and health-care
systems, which even his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney,
described as a “sacred trust.” He cut corporate taxes, too. Growth is
required to pay for social programs, and social programs that increase
opportunity and social integration are the best way to ensure growth
over the long term. Social programs and robust capitalism are not, as
so many would have you believe, inherently opposed propositions. Both
are required for meaningful national prosperity.
Orderly Fairness
Martin’s balanced policies emerged organically out of Canadian
culture, which is fair-minded and rule-following to a fault. The
Canadian obsession with order can make for strange politics, at least
in an American context. For example, of all the world’s societies,
Canada’s is one of the most open to immigrants, as anyone who has been
to Toronto or Vancouver will have seen. Yet Canada also imposes a
mandatory one-year prison sentence on illegal immigrants, and the
majority of Canadians favor deportation. Canadians insist that their
compassion be orderly, too.
This immigration policy is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in the
American political sense. It just works. You could say exactly the
same thing about Canada’s economic policies.
Canada has been, and always will be, overshadowed by its neighbor, by
America’s vastness and its incredible versatility and capacity for
reinvention. But occasionally, at key moments, the northern wasteland
can surprise. Two hundred years ago last month, the War of 1812 began.
Thomas Jefferson declared, “The acquisition of Canada, this year, as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”
The U.S. was comparatively enormous -- with almost 8 million people,
compared with Canada’s 300,000. The Canadians nonetheless turned back
the assault.
Through good luck, excellent policy and even some heroism, Canada
survived the war. But it has taken 200 years for Canada to become
winners.
wy
2012-07-17 15:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy. Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist. Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan. Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada. It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes. Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Post by kady
The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.
2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.
Well, we have the Harper government now that's trying to be a Tea
Party of the north with its callous attitude towards the environment
among other things that threaten to ruin the social fabric that Canada
has carefully cultivated for nearly 150 years. What's with whacked-
out right wingnuts who feel they need to destroy what's been working
well or prevent what works well from ever happening?
Post by kady
In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.
You're, uhhh, what's that word? Oh, yeah. Stupid.
Post by kady
3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.
The social programs are currently underfunded by the right wingnut
government, explaining why it has to borrow more money.
Post by kady
In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.
4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent.
Americans pay 70% of all taxes, too? Really?
Post by kady
They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."
70% is not a "high tax" state? Could've fooled me.
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God.  My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong. Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
Post by kady
Kady
Post by wy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-c...
On July 1, Canada Day, Canadians awoke to a startling, if pleasant,
piece of news: For the first time in recent history, the average
Canadian is richer than the average American.
According to data from Environics Analytics WealthScapes published in
the Globe and Mail, the net worth of the average Canadian household in
2011 was $363,202, while the average American household’s net worth
was $319,970.
A few days later, Canada and the U.S. both released the latest job
figures. Canada’s unemployment rate fell, again, to 7.2 percent, and
America’s was a stagnant 8.2 percent. Canada continues to thrive while
the U.S. struggles to find its way out of an intractable economic
crisis and a political sine curve of hope and despair.
The difference grows starker by the month: The Canadian system is
working; the American system is not. And it’s not just Canadians who
are noticing. As Iceland considers switching to a currency other than
the krona, its leaders’ primary focus of interest is the loonie -- the
Canadian dollar.
As a study recently published in the New York University Law Review
pointed out, national constitutions based on the American model are
quickly disappearing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on
Egyptian television, admitted, “I would not look to the United States
Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The
natural replacement? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
achieving the status of legal superstar as it reaches its 30th
birthday.
Good politics do not account entirely for recent economic triumphs.
Luck has played a major part. The Alberta tar sands -- an
environmental catastrophe in waiting -- are the third-largest oil
reserves in the world, and if America is too squeamish to buy our
filthy energy, there’s always China. We also have softwood lumber,
potash and other natural resources in abundance.
Policy has played a significant part as well, though. Both liberals
and conservatives in the U.S. have tried to use the Canadian example
to promote their arguments: The left says Canada shows the rewards of
financial regulation and socialism, while the right likes to vaunt the
brutal cuts made to Canadian social programs in the 1990s, which set
the stage for economic recovery.
The truth is that both sides are right. Since the 1990s, Canada has
pursued a hardheaded (even ruthless), fiscally conservative form of
socialism. Its originator was Paul Martin, who was finance minister
for most of the ’90s, and served a stint as prime minister from 2003
to 2006. Alone among finance ministers in the Group of Eight nations,
he “resisted the siren call of deregulation,” in his words, and
insisted that the banks tighten their loan-loss and reserve
requirements. He also made a courageous decision not to allow Canadian
banks to merge, even though their chief executives claimed they would
never be globally competitive unless they did. The stability of
Canadian banks and the concomitant stability in the housing market
provide the clearest explanation for why Canadians are richer than
Americans today.
Martin also slashed funding to social programs. He foresaw that
crippling deficits imperiled Canada’s education and health-care
systems, which even his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney,
described as a “sacred trust.” He cut corporate taxes, too. Growth is
required to pay for social programs, and social programs that increase
opportunity and social integration are the best way to ensure growth
over the long term. Social programs and robust capitalism are not, as
so many would have you believe, inherently opposed propositions. Both
are required for meaningful national prosperity.
Orderly Fairness
Martin’s balanced policies emerged organically out of Canadian
culture, which is fair-minded and rule-following to a fault. The
Canadian obsession with order can make for strange politics, at least
in an American context. For example, of all the world’s societies,
Canada’s is one of the most open to immigrants, as anyone who has been
to Toronto or Vancouver will have seen. Yet Canada also imposes a
mandatory one-year prison sentence on illegal immigrants, and the
majority of Canadians favor deportation. Canadians insist that their
compassion be orderly, too.
This immigration policy is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in the
American political sense. It just works. You could say exactly the
same thing about Canada’s economic policies.
Canada has been, and always will be, overshadowed by its neighbor, by
America’s vastness and its incredible versatility and capacity for
reinvention. But occasionally, at key moments, the northern wasteland
can surprise. Two hundred years ago last month, the War of 1812 began.
Thomas Jefferson declared, “The acquisition of Canada, this year, as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”
The U.S. was comparatively enormous -- with almost 8 million people,
compared with Canada’s 300,000. The Canadians nonetheless turned back
the assault.
Through good luck, excellent policy and even some heroism, Canada
survived the war. But it has taken 200 years for Canada to become
winners.
kady
2012-07-17 16:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy. Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist. Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan. Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
Post by wy
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada. It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by wy
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes. Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.

So, I say again, 100% of government monies come from businesses, either
*directly* (in the form of corporate taxes) or through the wages paid to
individuals, which are then taxed on income or at the point of sale.
Post by wy
Post by kady
The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.
2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.
Well, we have the Harper government now that's trying to be a Tea
Party of the north with its callous attitude towards the environment
among other things that threaten to ruin the social fabric that Canada
has carefully cultivated for nearly 150 years. What's with whacked-
out right wingnuts who feel they need to destroy what's been working
well or prevent what works well from ever happening?
Generally speaking the "wacked out right wingnuts" probably don't agree
that with you that "it" is working well; or may have a different
definition of "working" than you do.
Post by wy
Post by kady
In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.
You're, uhhh, what's that word? Oh, yeah. Stupid.
For stating the factual and obvious? Perhaps so; it's become common down
here to attempt to intimidate anyone who doesn't toe an idealogical
party line.

No matter; it's relatively simple. Regulation has costs of compliance;
costs of compliance are taken out of wages and salaries; if fewer people
earn wages, the government gets a double whammy: they (a) lose those tax
receipts, AND (b) take on an expense as the displaced worker applies for
public assistance.
Post by wy
Post by kady
3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.
The social programs are currently underfunded by the right wingnut
government, explaining why it has to borrow more money.
I don't know anything about Canada's funding issues, so I can't comment.
Post by wy
Post by kady
In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.
4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent.
Americans pay 70% of all taxes, too? Really?
I don't understand your point. 70% of what taxes?
Post by wy
Post by kady
They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."
70% is not a "high tax" state? Could've fooled me.
Are you talking about marginal tax rates? The highest marginal rate in
Canada is 29%, with additional being tacked on by the provinces. WORST
CASE is the Quebecers who top about at 54% marginal; Ontario is taxed at
the highest possible rate of 40%.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Then, when you account for the fact that payroll taxes are slightly
lower than in the US, AND property taxes are also generally low by US
standards, you get a tax wedge that's approximately that of the US.
Considering the only real advantage Canada derives is the fact that they
know they really don't need to invest serious money into national
defense (it would be hard to imagine any attack on Canada that the US
wouldn't consider an attack on itself), that's very impressive.

Here, take a look at the all-in tax rates kept by the OECD:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls

Canada: 22.2% 15.3% 17.7% 15.3% 7.9% 17.7% 7.7%
US: 22.9% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2%

The columns are: single no child|single 2 children|family nochild|family
2 children, all WITHOUT deductions for kids, then single2children|family
nochildren|family 2 children WITH cash transfers

See much difference there? I don't. You get dinged in the US for being
a single parent with 2 kids, dinged in Canada for being a family with
two kids. Otherwise, kind of a push.

Thus, the tax wedge difference between the two nations is, as expected,
unremarkable, Canada at 20.5%, the US at 19.4%. Obviously, there will be
overlap depending on state and province of residence:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_inc_fam-tax-wedge-single-income-family
Post by wy
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God. My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong. Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.

I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.

Fell right in...... :-)

Please, all note another irony: I spent an entire article complimenting
Canada's economic achievements. However, since I didn't attribute those
achievements to a liberal/socialist mindset (even though the article,
misleading title aside, he/she posted explicitly mentions that the
achievements were due to rational nonpartisan behavior rather than
ideological pursuit) he/she decided to be insulted anyway.

Moral to the story: Don't be nice to liberals. They'll bite you
regardless. Nasty people.

Kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kady
Post by wy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-c...
On July 1, Canada Day, Canadians awoke to a startling, if pleasant,
piece of news: For the first time in recent history, the average
Canadian is richer than the average American.
According to data from Environics Analytics WealthScapes published in
the Globe and Mail, the net worth of the average Canadian household in
2011 was $363,202, while the average American household’s net worth
was $319,970.
A few days later, Canada and the U.S. both released the latest job
figures. Canada’s unemployment rate fell, again, to 7.2 percent, and
America’s was a stagnant 8.2 percent. Canada continues to thrive while
the U.S. struggles to find its way out of an intractable economic
crisis and a political sine curve of hope and despair.
The difference grows starker by the month: The Canadian system is
working; the American system is not. And it’s not just Canadians who
are noticing. As Iceland considers switching to a currency other than
the krona, its leaders’ primary focus of interest is the loonie -- the
Canadian dollar.
As a study recently published in the New York University Law Review
pointed out, national constitutions based on the American model are
quickly disappearing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on
Egyptian television, admitted, “I would not look to the United States
Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The
natural replacement? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
achieving the status of legal superstar as it reaches its 30th
birthday.
Good politics do not account entirely for recent economic triumphs.
Luck has played a major part. The Alberta tar sands -- an
environmental catastrophe in waiting -- are the third-largest oil
reserves in the world, and if America is too squeamish to buy our
filthy energy, there’s always China. We also have softwood lumber,
potash and other natural resources in abundance.
Policy has played a significant part as well, though. Both liberals
and conservatives in the U.S. have tried to use the Canadian example
to promote their arguments: The left says Canada shows the rewards of
financial regulation and socialism, while the right likes to vaunt the
brutal cuts made to Canadian social programs in the 1990s, which set
the stage for economic recovery.
The truth is that both sides are right. Since the 1990s, Canada has
pursued a hardheaded (even ruthless), fiscally conservative form of
socialism. Its originator was Paul Martin, who was finance minister
for most of the ’90s, and served a stint as prime minister from 2003
to 2006. Alone among finance ministers in the Group of Eight nations,
he “resisted the siren call of deregulation,” in his words, and
insisted that the banks tighten their loan-loss and reserve
requirements. He also made a courageous decision not to allow Canadian
banks to merge, even though their chief executives claimed they would
never be globally competitive unless they did. The stability of
Canadian banks and the concomitant stability in the housing market
provide the clearest explanation for why Canadians are richer than
Americans today.
Martin also slashed funding to social programs. He foresaw that
crippling deficits imperiled Canada’s education and health-care
systems, which even his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney,
described as a “sacred trust.” He cut corporate taxes, too. Growth is
required to pay for social programs, and social programs that increase
opportunity and social integration are the best way to ensure growth
over the long term. Social programs and robust capitalism are not, as
so many would have you believe, inherently opposed propositions. Both
are required for meaningful national prosperity.
Orderly Fairness
Martin’s balanced policies emerged organically out of Canadian
culture, which is fair-minded and rule-following to a fault. The
Canadian obsession with order can make for strange politics, at least
in an American context. For example, of all the world’s societies,
Canada’s is one of the most open to immigrants, as anyone who has been
to Toronto or Vancouver will have seen. Yet Canada also imposes a
mandatory one-year prison sentence on illegal immigrants, and the
majority of Canadians favor deportation. Canadians insist that their
compassion be orderly, too.
This immigration policy is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in the
American political sense. It just works. You could say exactly the
same thing about Canada’s economic policies.
Canada has been, and always will be, overshadowed by its neighbor, by
America’s vastness and its incredible versatility and capacity for
reinvention. But occasionally, at key moments, the northern wasteland
can surprise. Two hundred years ago last month, the War of 1812 began.
Thomas Jefferson declared, “The acquisition of Canada, this year, as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”
The U.S. was comparatively enormous -- with almost 8 million people,
compared with Canada’s 300,000. The Canadians nonetheless turned back
the assault.
Through good luck, excellent policy and even some heroism, Canada
survived the war. But it has taken 200 years for Canada to become
winners.
wy
2012-07-17 17:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy.  Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist.  Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan.  Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same? Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
Post by kady
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada.  It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes.  Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist. It's a two-way street, you know.
Post by kady
So, I say again, 100% of government monies come from businesses, either
*directly* (in the form of corporate taxes) or through the wages paid to
individuals, which are then taxed on income or at the point of sale.
Are you trying to remain profoundly stupid or what? 70% of all taxes
in Canada are derived from taxpayers and a case can be made that 100%
come from taxpayers since all businesses get their money from
consumers who are all taxpayers, and a portion of the money that
businesses get from taxpaying consumers is directed towards paying the
company's taxes. Businesses, in effect, pay nothing of their own
money, which they don't have because they're entirely dependent on
taxpaying consumers to earn money.
Post by kady
Post by kady
The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.
2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.
Well, we have the Harper government now that's trying to be a Tea
Party of the north with its callous attitude towards the environment
among other things that threaten to ruin the social fabric that Canada
has carefully cultivated for nearly 150 years.  What's with whacked-
out right wingnuts who feel they need to destroy what's been working
well or prevent what works well from ever happening?
Generally speaking the "wacked out right wingnuts" probably don't agree
that with you that "it" is working well; or may have a different
definition of "working" than you do.
Yeah, they really do have a different definition. The Harper
government here is getting rid of 20,000 federal employees all in the
name of creating employment. Do you understand that logic? We're
still trying to break it down ourselves.
Post by kady
Post by kady
In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.
You're, uhhh, what's that word?  Oh, yeah.  Stupid.
For stating the factual and obvious? Perhaps so; it's become common down
here to attempt to intimidate anyone who doesn't toe an idealogical
party line.
No matter; it's relatively simple. Regulation has costs of compliance;
costs of compliance are taken out of wages and salaries; if fewer people
earn wages, the government gets a double whammy: they (a) lose those tax
receipts, AND (b) take on an expense as the displaced worker applies for
public assistance.
Proving my point that businesses are entirely dependent on taxpayers
for their existence, like having to clawback on wages and salaries of
their taxpaying workers, thus penalizing them for something businesses
should have to do themselves with their own money. But they really
don't have their "own" money.
Post by kady
Post by kady
3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.
The social programs are currently underfunded by the right wingnut
government, explaining why it has to borrow more money.
I don't know anything about Canada's funding issues, so I can't comment.
It was working fine when Paul Martin was in charge of finance
throughout the liberal years of 1993-2006. Even when he cut back on
social programs, it was barely noticed since no one really seemed to
suffer much from it and there were never any negative reports on the
effects of the cutbacks that I can recall. But Harper's finance
minister, Jim Flaherty, while an able manager through the Harper's
minority government years of 2006-2011, has in the last year, under a
majority government, reared his uglier side that is reflective of
right wingnut ideology that's already begun to have some minor
heartless results. One in particular is the refusal of the fed
government to now include refugees, who have absolutely nothing when
they come here, under the health care system, claiming it would save
$100 million over 5 years, but think nothing of spending a couple of
billion on new unneeded prisons under some pretext that there's a
huge, growing crime problem in Canada, which there isn't. Maybe they
want to lock up all the refugees in those prisons - that'll teach them
a lesson to choose Canada for a life of hope and salvation.
Post by kady
Post by kady
In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.
4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent.
Americans pay 70% of all taxes, too?  Really?
I don't understand your point. 70% of what taxes?
All taxes. You just had to read the link I provided.
Post by kady
Post by kady
They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."
70% is not a "high tax" state?  Could've fooled me.
Are you talking about marginal tax rates? The highest marginal rate in
Canada is 29%, with additional being tacked on by the provinces. WORST
CASE is the Quebecers who top about at 54% marginal; Ontario is taxed at
the highest possible rate of 40%.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
Then, when you account for the fact that payroll taxes are slightly
lower than in the US, AND property taxes are also generally low by US
standards, you get a tax wedge that's approximately that of the US.
Considering the only real advantage Canada derives is the fact that they
know they really don't need to invest serious money into national
defense (it would be hard to imagine any attack on Canada that the US
wouldn't consider an attack on itself), that's very impressive.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls
Canada: 22.2%  15.3% 17.7% 15.3%  7.9% 17.7% 7.7%
US:     22.9%  13.5% 17.4%  8.2% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2%
The columns are: single no child|single 2 children|family nochild|family
2 children, all WITHOUT deductions for kids, then single2children|family
nochildren|family 2 children WITH cash transfers
See much difference there?  I don't. You get dinged in the US for being
a single parent with 2 kids, dinged in Canada for being a family with
two kids. Otherwise, kind of a push.
Thus, the tax wedge difference between the two nations is, as expected,
unremarkable, Canada at 20.5%, the US at 19.4%. Obviously, there will be
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_inc_fam-tax-wed...
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas. I said 70% of ALL taxes. Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense. Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Post by kady
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God.  My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong.  Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd? That's supposed to impress me? I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world. And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province. That shows you.
Post by kady
Please, all note another irony: I spent an entire article complimenting
Canada's economic achievements. However, since I didn't attribute those
achievements to a liberal/socialist mindset (even though the article,
misleading title aside, he/she posted explicitly mentions that the
achievements were due to rational nonpartisan behavior rather than
ideological pursuit) he/she decided to be insulted anyway.
Complimenting? You have a weird way of doing that. By distorting it
into some pro-right wingnut ideology.
Post by kady
Moral to the story: Don't be nice to liberals. They'll bite you
regardless. Nasty people.
If you want to get on my good side, just don't be biased, skewed and/
or hypocritical in your way of thinking. I don't stomach that very
well.
Post by kady
Kady
Post by kady
Kady
Post by wy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-c...
On July 1, Canada Day, Canadians awoke to a startling, if pleasant,
piece of news: For the first time in recent history, the average
Canadian is richer than the average American.
According to data from Environics Analytics WealthScapes published in
the Globe and Mail, the net worth of the average Canadian household in
2011 was $363,202, while the average American household’s net worth
was $319,970.
A few days later, Canada and the U.S. both released the latest job
figures. Canada’s unemployment rate fell, again, to 7.2 percent, and
America’s was a stagnant 8.2 percent. Canada continues to thrive while
the U.S. struggles to find its way out of an intractable economic
crisis and a political sine curve of hope and despair.
The difference grows starker by the month: The Canadian system is
working; the American system is not. And it’s not just Canadians who
are noticing. As Iceland considers switching to a currency other than
the krona, its leaders’ primary focus of interest is the loonie -- the
Canadian dollar.
As a study recently published in the New York University Law Review
pointed out, national constitutions based on the American model are
quickly disappearing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on
Egyptian television, admitted, “I would not look to the United States
Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The
natural replacement? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
achieving the status of legal superstar as it reaches its 30th
birthday.
Good politics do not account entirely for recent economic triumphs.
Luck has played a major part. The Alberta tar sands -- an
environmental catastrophe in waiting -- are the third-largest oil
reserves in the world, and if America is too squeamish to buy our
filthy energy, there’s always China. We also have softwood lumber,
potash and other natural resources in abundance.
Policy has played a significant part as well, though. Both liberals
and conservatives in the U.S. have tried to use the Canadian example
to promote their arguments: The left says Canada shows the rewards of
financial regulation and socialism, while the right likes to vaunt the
brutal cuts made to Canadian social programs in the 1990s, which set
the stage for economic recovery.
The truth is that both sides are right. Since the 1990s, Canada has
pursued a hardheaded (even ruthless), fiscally conservative form of
socialism. Its originator was Paul Martin, who was finance minister
for most of the ’90s, and served a stint as prime minister from 2003
to 2006. Alone among finance ministers in the Group of Eight nations,
he “resisted the siren call of deregulation,” in his words, and
insisted that the banks tighten their loan-loss and reserve
requirements. He also made a courageous decision not to allow Canadian
banks to merge, even though their chief executives claimed they would
never be globally competitive unless they did. The stability of
Canadian banks and the concomitant stability in the housing market
provide the clearest explanation for why Canadians are richer than
Americans today.
Martin also slashed funding to social programs. He foresaw that
crippling deficits imperiled Canada’s education and health-care
systems, which even his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney,
described as a “sacred trust.” He cut corporate taxes, too. Growth is
required to pay for social programs, and social programs that increase
opportunity and social integration are the best way to ensure growth
over the long term. Social programs and robust capitalism are not, as
so many would have you believe, inherently opposed propositions. Both
are required for meaningful national prosperity.
Orderly Fairness
Martin’s balanced policies emerged organically out of Canadian
culture, which is fair-minded and rule-following to a fault. The
Canadian obsession with order can make for strange politics, at least
in an American context. For example, of all the world’s societies,
Canada’s is one of the most open to immigrants, as anyone who has been
to Toronto or Vancouver will have seen. Yet Canada also imposes a
mandatory one-year prison sentence on illegal immigrants, and the
majority of Canadians favor deportation. Canadians insist that their
compassion be orderly, too.
This immigration policy is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in the
American political sense. It just works. You could say exactly the
same thing about Canada’s economic policies.
Canada has been, and always will be, overshadowed by its neighbor, by
America’s vastness and its incredible versatility and capacity for
reinvention. But occasionally, at key moments, the northern wasteland
can surprise. Two hundred years ago last month, the War of 1812 began.
Thomas Jefferson declared, “The acquisition of Canada, this year, as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”
The U.S. was comparatively enormous -- with almost 8 million people,
compared with Canada’s 300,000. The Canadians nonetheless turned back
the assault.
Through good luck, excellent policy and even some heroism, Canada
survived the war. But it has taken 200 years for Canada to become
winners.
kady
2012-07-17 17:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy. Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist. Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan. Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same? Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
If we agree, how is one of us being objective and the other one not?

That's like saying that 2 doesn't equal 2.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada. It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by wy
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes. Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist. It's a two-way street, you know.
It DEVELOPS into a two way street, sure. But the first businesses are
sole proprietorships --- individuals without employees making money to
support themselves, out of which they THEN (not first) pay taxes.

As that proprietorship grows and hires people, only THEN does the
feedback loop you refer to develop. But in all cases, the business
operation comes first. If the worker quits, he is replaced and the
business continues to earn profits and pay taxes; if the business quits,
the workers have no income.
Post by wy
Post by kady
So, I say again, 100% of government monies come from businesses, either
*directly* (in the form of corporate taxes) or through the wages paid to
individuals, which are then taxed on income or at the point of sale.
Are you trying to remain profoundly stupid or what? 70% of all taxes
in Canada are derived from taxpayers and a case can be made that 100%
come from taxpayers since all businesses get their money from
consumers who are all taxpayers, and a portion of the money that
businesses get from taxpaying consumers is directed towards paying the
company's taxes. Businesses, in effect, pay nothing of their own
money, which they don't have because they're entirely dependent on
taxpaying consumers to earn money.
See above. It's fairly straightforward.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.
2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.
Well, we have the Harper government now that's trying to be a Tea
Party of the north with its callous attitude towards the environment
among other things that threaten to ruin the social fabric that Canada
has carefully cultivated for nearly 150 years. What's with whacked-
out right wingnuts who feel they need to destroy what's been working
well or prevent what works well from ever happening?
Generally speaking the "wacked out right wingnuts" probably don't agree
that with you that "it" is working well; or may have a different
definition of "working" than you do.
Yeah, they really do have a different definition. The Harper
government here is getting rid of 20,000 federal employees all in the
name of creating employment. Do you understand that logic? We're
still trying to break it down ourselves.
I'd agree that a more detailed understanding beyond those sentences
would be required.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.
You're, uhhh, what's that word? Oh, yeah. Stupid.
For stating the factual and obvious? Perhaps so; it's become common down
here to attempt to intimidate anyone who doesn't toe an idealogical
party line.
No matter; it's relatively simple. Regulation has costs of compliance;
costs of compliance are taken out of wages and salaries; if fewer people
earn wages, the government gets a double whammy: they (a) lose those tax
receipts, AND (b) take on an expense as the displaced worker applies for
public assistance.
Proving my point that businesses are entirely dependent on taxpayers
for their existence, like having to clawback on wages and salaries of
their taxpaying workers, thus penalizing them for something businesses
should have to do themselves with their own money. But they really
don't have their "own" money.
Don't see it, unless you're referring back to the aforementioned
feedback loop.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.
The social programs are currently underfunded by the right wingnut
government, explaining why it has to borrow more money.
I don't know anything about Canada's funding issues, so I can't comment.
It was working fine when Paul Martin was in charge of finance
throughout the liberal years of 1993-2006. Even when he cut back on
social programs, it was barely noticed since no one really seemed to
suffer much from it and there were never any negative reports on the
effects of the cutbacks that I can recall. But Harper's finance
minister, Jim Flaherty, while an able manager through the Harper's
minority government years of 2006-2011, has in the last year, under a
majority government, reared his uglier side that is reflective of
right wingnut ideology that's already begun to have some minor
heartless results. One in particular is the refusal of the fed
government to now include refugees, who have absolutely nothing when
they come here, under the health care system, claiming it would save
$100 million over 5 years, but think nothing of spending a couple of
billion on new unneeded prisons under some pretext that there's a
huge, growing crime problem in Canada, which there isn't. Maybe they
want to lock up all the refugees in those prisons - that'll teach them
a lesson to choose Canada for a life of hope and salvation.
There's detailed knowledge in there that you have that I don't, so I
can't comment.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.
4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent.
Americans pay 70% of all taxes, too? Really?
I don't understand your point. 70% of what taxes?
All taxes. You just had to read the link I provided.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."
70% is not a "high tax" state? Could've fooled me.
Are you talking about marginal tax rates? The highest marginal rate in
Canada is 29%, with additional being tacked on by the provinces. WORST
CASE is the Quebecers who top about at 54% marginal; Ontario is taxed at
the highest possible rate of 40%.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
Then, when you account for the fact that payroll taxes are slightly
lower than in the US, AND property taxes are also generally low by US
standards, you get a tax wedge that's approximately that of the US.
Considering the only real advantage Canada derives is the fact that they
know they really don't need to invest serious money into national
defense (it would be hard to imagine any attack on Canada that the US
wouldn't consider an attack on itself), that's very impressive.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls
Canada: 22.2% 15.3% 17.7% 15.3% 7.9% 17.7% 7.7%
US: 22.9% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2%
The columns are: single no child|single 2 children|family nochild|family
2 children, all WITHOUT deductions for kids, then single2children|family
nochildren|family 2 children WITH cash transfers
See much difference there? I don't. You get dinged in the US for being
a single parent with 2 kids, dinged in Canada for being a family with
two kids. Otherwise, kind of a push.
Thus, the tax wedge difference between the two nations is, as expected,
unremarkable, Canada at 20.5%, the US at 19.4%. Obviously, there will be
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_inc_fam-tax-wed...
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas. I said 70% of ALL taxes. Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense. Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Then your use of the term is inconsistent with "high tax state" which is
a relative reference to prevailing tax rates.

My point is that Canada is not a "high tax state" in the conventional
meaning of the term. Denmark's a high tax state, the US isn't. Generally
speaking, high tax correlates with high social services, but NOT in the
case of highly efficient democracies such as Canada, New Zealand,
Australia.

Simply put, Canada takes in per capita about the same as the US, perhaps
a slight bit more, but the people get back a LOT more in terms of social
services.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God. My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong. Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd? That's supposed to impress me? I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world. And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province. That shows you.
Since the top tax rate in Quebec is 14 points higher than in Ontario, it
would be an embarrassment if McGill were NOT more highly ranked, but no
matter -- the issue was a personal one. I'll note the obvious, that
YOU'RE not claiming matriculation at McGill. Simply living in the same
province as a great university is not a personal achievement.

But, because you're not nice, you can stay down in the hole and stew for
awhile.

Kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Please, all note another irony: I spent an entire article complimenting
Canada's economic achievements. However, since I didn't attribute those
achievements to a liberal/socialist mindset (even though the article,
misleading title aside, he/she posted explicitly mentions that the
achievements were due to rational nonpartisan behavior rather than
ideological pursuit) he/she decided to be insulted anyway.
Complimenting? You have a weird way of doing that. By distorting it
into some pro-right wingnut ideology.
Post by kady
Moral to the story: Don't be nice to liberals. They'll bite you
regardless. Nasty people.
If you want to get on my good side, just don't be biased, skewed and/
or hypocritical in your way of thinking. I don't stomach that very
well.
Post by kady
Kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kady
Post by wy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-c...
On July 1, Canada Day, Canadians awoke to a startling, if pleasant,
piece of news: For the first time in recent history, the average
Canadian is richer than the average American.
According to data from Environics Analytics WealthScapes published in
the Globe and Mail, the net worth of the average Canadian household in
2011 was $363,202, while the average American household’s net worth
was $319,970.
A few days later, Canada and the U.S. both released the latest job
figures. Canada’s unemployment rate fell, again, to 7.2 percent, and
America’s was a stagnant 8.2 percent. Canada continues to thrive while
the U.S. struggles to find its way out of an intractable economic
crisis and a political sine curve of hope and despair.
The difference grows starker by the month: The Canadian system is
working; the American system is not. And it’s not just Canadians who
are noticing. As Iceland considers switching to a currency other than
the krona, its leaders’ primary focus of interest is the loonie -- the
Canadian dollar.
As a study recently published in the New York University Law Review
pointed out, national constitutions based on the American model are
quickly disappearing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on
Egyptian television, admitted, “I would not look to the United States
Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The
natural replacement? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
achieving the status of legal superstar as it reaches its 30th
birthday.
Good politics do not account entirely for recent economic triumphs.
Luck has played a major part. The Alberta tar sands -- an
environmental catastrophe in waiting -- are the third-largest oil
reserves in the world, and if America is too squeamish to buy our
filthy energy, there’s always China. We also have softwood lumber,
potash and other natural resources in abundance.
Policy has played a significant part as well, though. Both liberals
and conservatives in the U.S. have tried to use the Canadian example
to promote their arguments: The left says Canada shows the rewards of
financial regulation and socialism, while the right likes to vaunt the
brutal cuts made to Canadian social programs in the 1990s, which set
the stage for economic recovery.
The truth is that both sides are right. Since the 1990s, Canada has
pursued a hardheaded (even ruthless), fiscally conservative form of
socialism. Its originator was Paul Martin, who was finance minister
for most of the ’90s, and served a stint as prime minister from 2003
to 2006. Alone among finance ministers in the Group of Eight nations,
he “resisted the siren call of deregulation,” in his words, and
insisted that the banks tighten their loan-loss and reserve
requirements. He also made a courageous decision not to allow Canadian
banks to merge, even though their chief executives claimed they would
never be globally competitive unless they did. The stability of
Canadian banks and the concomitant stability in the housing market
provide the clearest explanation for why Canadians are richer than
Americans today.
Martin also slashed funding to social programs. He foresaw that
crippling deficits imperiled Canada’s education and health-care
systems, which even his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney,
described as a “sacred trust.” He cut corporate taxes, too. Growth is
required to pay for social programs, and social programs that increase
opportunity and social integration are the best way to ensure growth
over the long term. Social programs and robust capitalism are not, as
so many would have you believe, inherently opposed propositions. Both
are required for meaningful national prosperity.
Orderly Fairness
Martin’s balanced policies emerged organically out of Canadian
culture, which is fair-minded and rule-following to a fault. The
Canadian obsession with order can make for strange politics, at least
in an American context. For example, of all the world’s societies,
Canada’s is one of the most open to immigrants, as anyone who has been
to Toronto or Vancouver will have seen. Yet Canada also imposes a
mandatory one-year prison sentence on illegal immigrants, and the
majority of Canadians favor deportation. Canadians insist that their
compassion be orderly, too.
This immigration policy is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in the
American political sense. It just works. You could say exactly the
same thing about Canada’s economic policies.
Canada has been, and always will be, overshadowed by its neighbor, by
America’s vastness and its incredible versatility and capacity for
reinvention. But occasionally, at key moments, the northern wasteland
can surprise. Two hundred years ago last month, the War of 1812 began.
Thomas Jefferson declared, “The acquisition of Canada, this year, as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”
The U.S. was comparatively enormous -- with almost 8 million people,
compared with Canada’s 300,000. The Canadians nonetheless turned back
the assault.
Through good luck, excellent policy and even some heroism, Canada
survived the war. But it has taken 200 years for Canada to become
winners.
wy
2012-07-17 18:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy.  Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist.  Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan.  Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same?  Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
If we agree, how is one of us being objective and the other one not?
That's like saying that 2 doesn't equal 2.
Only your 2 is skewed to be what you want it to be, my 2 presents it
as it really is. It helps to actually be Canadian and having lived in
Canada all your life to be able to make all the proper connections
between past and present and what's really what and what's really not
in the correct light. Again, why bother throwing Marxist socialist
into the mix when it's got nothing to do with Canada's social
democracy unless you're trying to cast aspersions on even social
democracy which, in turn, negates your objectivity?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada.  It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes.  Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist.  It's a two-way street, you know.
It DEVELOPS into a two way street, sure. But the first businesses are
sole proprietorships --- individuals without employees making money to
support themselves, out of which they THEN (not first) pay taxes.
You're talking about mom-and-pop shops. They're not businesses in the
true Corporate America sense, which for the most part don't begin with
just one lonely guy doing it all for a year or two. Even Bain Capital
didn't begin that way.
Post by kady
As that proprietorship grows and hires people, only THEN does the
feedback loop you refer to develop. But in all cases, the business
operation comes first. If the worker quits, he is replaced and the
business continues to earn profits and pay taxes; if the business quits,
the workers have no income.
Yes, but businesses need to borrow capital 99% of the time, and even
when they have capital, they still borrow. And from where do they
borrow it to get started? Banks. But not with the bank's own money
because banks don't have any money they can call their own. All money
in banks is taxpayers' money who have accounts in those banks or that
of other businesses who have accounts with money they've earned from
other taxpayers. So essentially, Corporate America once again relies
on taxpayers' money just to get itself started because Corporate
America, in every sense, has no real money of its own that it can call
its own. It relies on taxpayers' money to get started and taxpayers'
money to survive and taxpayers' money to pay taxes. Money is circular
in nature and for it to have any real value, taxpayers need to use it
and direct it to wherever they feel something will fulfill a want or
need for them. But that money just comes right back to them in the
form of wages, which is really their own money that they're getting
back to reinvest into society again. And round and round and round
she goes.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
So, I say again, 100% of government monies come from businesses, either
*directly* (in the form of corporate taxes) or through the wages paid to
individuals, which are then taxed on income or at the point of sale.
Are you trying to remain profoundly stupid or what?  70% of all taxes
in Canada are derived from taxpayers and a case can be made that 100%
come from taxpayers since all businesses get their money from
consumers who are all taxpayers, and a portion of the money that
businesses get from taxpaying consumers is directed towards paying the
company's taxes.  Businesses, in effect, pay nothing of their own
money, which they don't have because they're entirely dependent on
taxpaying consumers to earn money.
See above. It's fairly straightforward.
There are a lot of things "above". So that doesn't tell me anything.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.
2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.
Well, we have the Harper government now that's trying to be a Tea
Party of the north with its callous attitude towards the environment
among other things that threaten to ruin the social fabric that Canada
has carefully cultivated for nearly 150 years.  What's with whacked-
out right wingnuts who feel they need to destroy what's been working
well or prevent what works well from ever happening?
Generally speaking the "wacked out right wingnuts" probably don't agree
that with you that "it" is working well; or may have a different
definition of "working" than you do.
Yeah, they really do have a different definition.  The Harper
government here is getting rid of 20,000 federal employees all in the
name of creating employment.  Do you understand that logic?  We're
still trying to break it down ourselves.
I'd agree that a more detailed understanding beyond those sentences
would be required.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.
You're, uhhh, what's that word?  Oh, yeah.  Stupid.
For stating the factual and obvious? Perhaps so; it's become common down
here to attempt to intimidate anyone who doesn't toe an idealogical
party line.
No matter; it's relatively simple. Regulation has costs of compliance;
costs of compliance are taken out of wages and salaries; if fewer people
earn wages, the government gets a double whammy: they (a) lose those tax
receipts, AND (b) take on an expense as the displaced worker applies for
public assistance.
Proving my point that businesses are entirely dependent on taxpayers
for their existence, like having to clawback on wages and salaries of
their taxpaying workers, thus penalizing them for something businesses
should have to do themselves with their own money.  But they really
don't have their "own" money.
Don't see it, unless you're referring back to the aforementioned
feedback loop.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.
The social programs are currently underfunded by the right wingnut
government, explaining why it has to borrow more money.
I don't know anything about Canada's funding issues, so I can't comment.
It was working fine when Paul Martin was in charge of finance
throughout the liberal years of 1993-2006.  Even when he cut back on
social programs, it was barely noticed since no one really seemed to
suffer much from it and there were never any negative reports on the
effects of the cutbacks that I can recall.  But Harper's finance
minister, Jim Flaherty, while an able manager through the Harper's
minority government years of 2006-2011, has in the last year, under a
majority government, reared his uglier side that is reflective of
right wingnut ideology that's already begun to have some minor
heartless results.  One in particular is the refusal of the fed
government to now include refugees, who have absolutely nothing when
they come here, under the health care system, claiming it would save
$100 million over 5 years, but think nothing of spending a couple of
billion on new unneeded prisons under some pretext that there's a
huge, growing crime problem in Canada, which there isn't.  Maybe they
want to lock up all the refugees in those prisons - that'll teach them
a lesson to choose Canada for a life of hope and salvation.
There's detailed knowledge in there that you have that I don't, so I
can't comment.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.
4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent.
Americans pay 70% of all taxes, too?  Really?
I don't understand your point. 70% of what taxes?
All taxes.  You just had to read the link I provided.
Post by kady
Post by kady
They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."
70% is not a "high tax" state?  Could've fooled me.
Are you talking about marginal tax rates? The highest marginal rate in
Canada is 29%, with additional being tacked on by the provinces. WORST
CASE is the Quebecers who top about at 54% marginal; Ontario is taxed at
the highest possible rate of 40%.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
Then, when you account for the fact that payroll taxes are slightly
lower than in the US, AND property taxes are also generally low by US
standards, you get a tax wedge that's approximately that of the US.
Considering the only real advantage Canada derives is the fact that they
know they really don't need to invest serious money into national
defense (it would be hard to imagine any attack on Canada that the US
wouldn't consider an attack on itself), that's very impressive.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls
Canada: 22.2%  15.3% 17.7% 15.3%  7.9% 17.7% 7.7%
US:     22.9%  13.5% 17.4%  8.2% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2%
The columns are: single no child|single 2 children|family nochild|family
2 children, all WITHOUT deductions for kids, then single2children|family
nochildren|family 2 children WITH cash transfers
See much difference there?  I don't. You get dinged in the US for being
a single parent with 2 kids, dinged in Canada for being a family with
two kids. Otherwise, kind of a push.
Thus, the tax wedge difference between the two nations is, as expected,
unremarkable, Canada at 20.5%, the US at 19.4%. Obviously, there will be
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_inc_fam-tax-wed...
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas.  I said 70% of ALL taxes.  Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense.  Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Then your use of the term is inconsistent with "high tax state" which is
a relative reference to prevailing tax rates.
My point is that Canada is not a "high tax state" in the conventional
meaning of the term. Denmark's a high tax state, the US isn't. Generally
speaking, high tax correlates with high social services, but NOT in the
case of highly efficient democracies such as Canada, New Zealand,
Australia.
You've never been to Quebec or know much about it, do you? Talk about
high social services. A friend of mine has unfortunately fallen into
a state of welfare through a bad case of Murphy's Law over the last
few years, but it looks like she'll be climbing out of that "trap"
soon with a unexpected new job offered her. Oddly, she finds herself
in a quandary over accepting the job. Why? Because on the welfare
she's getting and other perks, she really doesn't need one. She knows
it would be good for her to take the job, but I'm trying to convince
her to get out of the scenario she's painted for herself against
taking the job. Here goes: ehe gets $715 per month on welfare, ehe
also gets $80 per month on what's called a shelter allowance, and
since last year ehe's been getting something called a solidarity tax
credit as well, which began at $22 per month last summer, went up to
$45 in January and is now at $75 this summer. And, of course, there's
the GST refund, but that comes from the feds and amounts to about $65
every 3 months or about $22 per month. So altogether ehe's making just
under $900 a month staying home. On top of that, ehe pays nothing for
health care and gets limited free dental services and eye care. Her
rent is $490 per month, ehe pays $60 for electricity each month, on
average (Quebec rates are among the cheapest in the world), a basic
landline phone for $20 tied in with her basic cable internet service
for $30 per month, but no cable TV hook-up, just a box with a digital
antenna on his old 20-inch cathode ray tube TV, which seems to suit
her just fine. In her case, she's lucky to have a cheap apartment, a
3 1/2, because it's kind of tough to find a decent one around here for
a $100 more at that size, but then, she had been living there for
quite a while so her increases are always low. So all told, she
spends $600 on bills each month and has almost $300 left over. Oh,
and I forgot. On welfare, they'll allow you to earn $200 more without
being penalized for it, so with the part-time job she does have, 4
hours every Sunday afternoon helping out at a Salvation Army store,
she qualifies for that additional $200, nothing subtracted from it,
for a total of almost $1,100 a month. Being on welfare. Her rational
is that if she took the full-time job at $12 an hour, then after
paying taxes and all the daily transportation costs of getting to work
and back and incurring full costs for dental and eye care services,
she might be lucky to still be clearing $1,100 per month. So what's
the incentive for her? It's a hard nut for me to crack because I can
see her point. So if that's not high social services, I don't know
what is.
Post by kady
Simply put, Canada takes in per capita about the same as the US, perhaps
a slight bit more, but the people get back a LOT more in terms of social
services.
We're really taxed a lot more than Americans, don't believe the
simplistic chart comparisons you see.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God.  My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong.  Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd?  That's supposed to impress me?  I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world.  And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province.  That shows you.
Since the top tax rate in Quebec is 14 points higher than in Ontario, it
would be an embarrassment if McGill were NOT more highly ranked, but no
matter -- the issue was a personal one. I'll note the obvious, that
YOU'RE not claiming matriculation at McGill. Simply living in the same
province as a great university is not a personal achievement.
Yeah, well, you try doing it. The French would kick you out before
you could say bonjour.
Post by kady
But, because you're not nice, you can stay down in the hole and stew for
awhile.
Yeah, right. Whatever it is you're talking about.
kady
2012-07-17 19:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy. Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist. Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan. Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same? Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
If we agree, how is one of us being objective and the other one not?
That's like saying that 2 doesn't equal 2.
Only your 2 is skewed to be what you want it to be, my 2 presents it
as it really is. It helps to actually be Canadian and having lived in
Canada all your life to be able to make all the proper connections
between past and present and what's really what and what's really not
in the correct light. Again, why bother throwing Marxist socialist
into the mix when it's got nothing to do with Canada's social
democracy unless you're trying to cast aspersions on even social
democracy which, in turn, negates your objectivity?
Nothing in my prior statement has anything to do with being Canadian,
American, conservative, liberal, socialist, or anything else; it's
simply a definitional issue, and we agreed that socialism and social
democracy are different beasts. You're beating a dead horse.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada. It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by wy
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes. Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist. It's a two-way street, you know.
It DEVELOPS into a two way street, sure. But the first businesses are
sole proprietorships --- individuals without employees making money to
support themselves, out of which they THEN (not first) pay taxes.
You're talking about mom-and-pop shops.They're not businesses in the
true Corporate America sense, which for the most part don't begin with
just one lonely guy doing it all for a year or two. Even Bain Capital
didn't begin that way.
Every business starts with a "lonely guy" or reasonable facsimile. If
they manage to be funded by an investor early on, then they
short-circuit a lot of the ramp-up; but that doesn't mean that didn't
start as a Guy with an Idea. >
Post by wy
Post by kady
As that proprietorship grows and hires people, only THEN does the
feedback loop you refer to develop. But in all cases, the business
operation comes first. If the worker quits, he is replaced and the
business continues to earn profits and pay taxes; if the business quits,
the workers have no income.
Yes, but businesses need to borrow capital 99% of the time, and even
when they have capital, they still borrow. And from where do they
borrow it to get started? Banks. But not with the bank's own money
because banks don't have any money they can call their own. All money
in banks is taxpayers' money who have accounts in those banks or that
of other businesses who have accounts with money they've earned from
other taxpayers. So essentially, Corporate America once again relies
on taxpayers' money just to get itself started because Corporate
America.
AGREED, *BUT* that does not place the business as a peer of the
taxpayer, worker, or citizen, and certainly not beholden to a
government. We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.

Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.

in every sense, has no real money of its own that it can call
Post by wy
its own. It relies on taxpayers' money to get started and taxpayers'
money to survive and taxpayers' money to pay taxes. Money is circular
in nature and for it to have any real value, taxpayers need to use it
and direct it to wherever they feel something will fulfill a want or
need for them. But that money just comes right back to them in the
form of wages, which is really their own money that they're getting
back to reinvest into society again. And round and round and round
she goes.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
So, I say again, 100% of government monies come from businesses, either
*directly* (in the form of corporate taxes) or through the wages paid to
individuals, which are then taxed on income or at the point of sale.
Are you trying to remain profoundly stupid or what? 70% of all taxes
in Canada are derived from taxpayers and a case can be made that 100%
come from taxpayers since all businesses get their money from
consumers who are all taxpayers, and a portion of the money that
businesses get from taxpaying consumers is directed towards paying the
company's taxes. Businesses, in effect, pay nothing of their own
money, which they don't have because they're entirely dependent on
taxpaying consumers to earn money.
See above. It's fairly straightforward.
There are a lot of things "above". So that doesn't tell me anything.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.
2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.
Well, we have the Harper government now that's trying to be a Tea
Party of the north with its callous attitude towards the environment
among other things that threaten to ruin the social fabric that Canada
has carefully cultivated for nearly 150 years. What's with whacked-
out right wingnuts who feel they need to destroy what's been working
well or prevent what works well from ever happening?
Generally speaking the "wacked out right wingnuts" probably don't agree
that with you that "it" is working well; or may have a different
definition of "working" than you do.
Yeah, they really do have a different definition. The Harper
government here is getting rid of 20,000 federal employees all in the
name of creating employment. Do you understand that logic? We're
still trying to break it down ourselves.
I'd agree that a more detailed understanding beyond those sentences
would be required.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.
You're, uhhh, what's that word? Oh, yeah. Stupid.
For stating the factual and obvious? Perhaps so; it's become common down
here to attempt to intimidate anyone who doesn't toe an idealogical
party line.
No matter; it's relatively simple. Regulation has costs of compliance;
costs of compliance are taken out of wages and salaries; if fewer people
earn wages, the government gets a double whammy: they (a) lose those tax
receipts, AND (b) take on an expense as the displaced worker applies for
public assistance.
Proving my point that businesses are entirely dependent on taxpayers
for their existence, like having to clawback on wages and salaries of
their taxpaying workers, thus penalizing them for something businesses
should have to do themselves with their own money. But they really
don't have their "own" money.
Don't see it, unless you're referring back to the aforementioned
feedback loop.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.
The social programs are currently underfunded by the right wingnut
government, explaining why it has to borrow more money.
I don't know anything about Canada's funding issues, so I can't comment.
It was working fine when Paul Martin was in charge of finance
throughout the liberal years of 1993-2006. Even when he cut back on
social programs, it was barely noticed since no one really seemed to
suffer much from it and there were never any negative reports on the
effects of the cutbacks that I can recall. But Harper's finance
minister, Jim Flaherty, while an able manager through the Harper's
minority government years of 2006-2011, has in the last year, under a
majority government, reared his uglier side that is reflective of
right wingnut ideology that's already begun to have some minor
heartless results. One in particular is the refusal of the fed
government to now include refugees, who have absolutely nothing when
they come here, under the health care system, claiming it would save
$100 million over 5 years, but think nothing of spending a couple of
billion on new unneeded prisons under some pretext that there's a
huge, growing crime problem in Canada, which there isn't. Maybe they
want to lock up all the refugees in those prisons - that'll teach them
a lesson to choose Canada for a life of hope and salvation.
There's detailed knowledge in there that you have that I don't, so I
can't comment.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.
4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent.
Americans pay 70% of all taxes, too? Really?
I don't understand your point. 70% of what taxes?
All taxes. You just had to read the link I provided.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."
70% is not a "high tax" state? Could've fooled me.
Are you talking about marginal tax rates? The highest marginal rate in
Canada is 29%, with additional being tacked on by the provinces. WORST
CASE is the Quebecers who top about at 54% marginal; Ontario is taxed at
the highest possible rate of 40%.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
Then, when you account for the fact that payroll taxes are slightly
lower than in the US, AND property taxes are also generally low by US
standards, you get a tax wedge that's approximately that of the US.
Considering the only real advantage Canada derives is the fact that they
know they really don't need to invest serious money into national
defense (it would be hard to imagine any attack on Canada that the US
wouldn't consider an attack on itself), that's very impressive.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls
Canada: 22.2% 15.3% 17.7% 15.3% 7.9% 17.7% 7.7%
US: 22.9% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2%
The columns are: single no child|single 2 children|family nochild|family
2 children, all WITHOUT deductions for kids, then single2children|family
nochildren|family 2 children WITH cash transfers
See much difference there? I don't. You get dinged in the US for being
a single parent with 2 kids, dinged in Canada for being a family with
two kids. Otherwise, kind of a push.
Thus, the tax wedge difference between the two nations is, as expected,
unremarkable, Canada at 20.5%, the US at 19.4%. Obviously, there will be
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_inc_fam-tax-wed...
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas. I said 70% of ALL taxes. Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense. Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Then your use of the term is inconsistent with "high tax state" which is
a relative reference to prevailing tax rates.
My point is that Canada is not a "high tax state" in the conventional
meaning of the term. Denmark's a high tax state, the US isn't. Generally
speaking, high tax correlates with high social services, but NOT in the
case of highly efficient democracies such as Canada, New Zealand,
Australia.
You've never been to Quebec or know much about it, do you?
I actually have and do, but I've already acknowledged that Canada is a
high social service state, and Quebec is the upper outlier in social
services available. So, again, we're agreeing, not arguing,

Talk about
Post by wy
high social services. A friend of mine has unfortunately fallen into
a state of welfare through a bad case of Murphy's Law over the last
few years, but it looks like she'll be climbing out of that "trap"
soon with a unexpected new job offered her. Oddly, she finds herself
in a quandary over accepting the job. Why? Because on the welfare
she's getting and other perks, she really doesn't need one. She knows
it would be good for her to take the job, but I'm trying to convince
her to get out of the scenario she's painted for herself against
taking the job. Here goes: ehe gets $715 per month on welfare, ehe
also gets $80 per month on what's called a shelter allowance, and
since last year ehe's been getting something called a solidarity tax
credit as well, which began at $22 per month last summer, went up to
$45 in January and is now at $75 this summer. And, of course, there's
the GST refund, but that comes from the feds and amounts to about $65
every 3 months or about $22 per month. So altogether ehe's making just
under $900 a month staying home. On top of that, ehe pays nothing for
health care and gets limited free dental services and eye care. Her
rent is $490 per month, ehe pays $60 for electricity each month, on
average (Quebec rates are among the cheapest in the world), a basic
landline phone for $20 tied in with her basic cable internet service
for $30 per month, but no cable TV hook-up, just a box with a digital
antenna on his old 20-inch cathode ray tube TV, which seems to suit
her just fine. In her case, she's lucky to have a cheap apartment, a
3 1/2, because it's kind of tough to find a decent one around here for
a $100 more at that size, but then, she had been living there for
quite a while so her increases are always low. So all told, she
spends $600 on bills each month and has almost $300 left over. Oh,
and I forgot. On welfare, they'll allow you to earn $200 more without
being penalized for it, so with the part-time job she does have, 4
hours every Sunday afternoon helping out at a Salvation Army store,
she qualifies for that additional $200, nothing subtracted from it,
for a total of almost $1,100 a month. Being on welfare. Her rational
is that if she took the full-time job at $12 an hour, then after
paying taxes and all the daily transportation costs of getting to work
and back and incurring full costs for dental and eye care services,
she might be lucky to still be clearing $1,100 per month. So what's
the incentive for her? It's a hard nut for me to crack because I can
see her point. So if that's not high social services, I don't know
what is.
I quite agree, and with the other point as well, which is that there
indeed is a level of social services which starts to disincent work.
Personally, and probably you would agree with this, people need to
aspire over and above a dole to live a full and complete life, but when
people have been beaten a bit by life's vicissitudes, it's easy to throw
in the towel if the money's there.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Simply put, Canada takes in per capita about the same as the US, perhaps
a slight bit more, but the people get back a LOT more in terms of social
services.
We're really taxed a lot more than Americans, don't believe the
simplistic chart comparisons you see.
The OECD does not lend itself to simplistic comparisons. Remember, where
you live is the outlier in Canada. YOU'RE taxed a lot more than
Americans, granted, but the data shows Ontario being about the same, and
Alberta being lower still.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God. My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong. Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd? That's supposed to impress me? I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world. And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province. That shows you.
Since the top tax rate in Quebec is 14 points higher than in Ontario, it
would be an embarrassment if McGill were NOT more highly ranked, but no
matter -- the issue was a personal one. I'll note the obvious, that
YOU'RE not claiming matriculation at McGill. Simply living in the same
province as a great university is not a personal achievement.
Yeah, well, you try doing it. The French would kick you out before
you could say bonjour.
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.

Kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
But, because you're not nice, you can stay down in the hole and stew for
awhile.
Yeah, right. Whatever it is you're talking about.
wy
2012-07-17 20:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy.  Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist.  Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan.  Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same?  Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
If we agree, how is one of us being objective and the other one not?
That's like saying that 2 doesn't equal 2.
Only your 2 is skewed to be what you want it to be, my 2 presents it
as it really is.  It helps to actually be Canadian and having lived in
Canada all your life to be able to make all the proper connections
between past and present and what's really what and what's really not
in the correct light.  Again, why bother throwing Marxist socialist
into the mix when it's got nothing to do with Canada's social
democracy unless you're trying to cast aspersions on even social
democracy which, in turn, negates your objectivity?
Nothing in my prior statement has anything to do with being Canadian,
American, conservative, liberal, socialist, or anything else; it's
simply a definitional issue, and we agreed that socialism and social
democracy are different beasts. You're beating a dead horse.
Whatever. Just never throw in Marxist into anything that has nothing
to do with Marxism if you don't want to muddy up the definitional
issue.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada.  It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes.  Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist.  It's a two-way street, you know.
It DEVELOPS into a two way street, sure. But the first businesses are
sole proprietorships --- individuals without employees making money to
support themselves, out of which they THEN (not first) pay taxes.
You're talking about mom-and-pop shops.They're not businesses in the
true Corporate America sense, which for the most part don't begin with
just one lonely guy doing it all for a year or two.  Even Bain Capital
didn't begin that way.
Every business starts with a "lonely guy" or reasonable facsimile. If
they manage to be funded by an investor early on, then they
short-circuit a lot of the ramp-up; but that doesn't mean that didn't
start as a Guy with an Idea. >
A lonely guy having a great idea doesn't necessarily equate with the
same lonely guy starting up a business all by his lonely self. A lot
of businesses are started up by partners, without which that lonely
guy's great idea would go nowhere. A lot of people have great ideas,
only few can pull them off by their lonesome selves. What often gets
in the way is the harsh reality of finances they usually don't have
and a lot of hard work most are not willing to devote themselves to,
at least not without some help.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
As that proprietorship grows and hires people, only THEN does the
feedback loop you refer to develop. But in all cases, the business
operation comes first. If the worker quits, he is replaced and the
business continues to earn profits and pay taxes; if the business quits,
the workers have no income.
Yes, but businesses need to borrow capital 99% of the time, and even
when they have capital, they still borrow.  And from where do they
borrow it to get started?  Banks.  But not with the bank's own money
because banks don't have any money they can call their own.  All money
in banks is taxpayers' money who have accounts in those banks or that
of other businesses who have accounts with money they've earned from
other taxpayers.  So essentially, Corporate America once again relies
on taxpayers' money just to get itself started because Corporate
America.
AGREED, *BUT* that does not place the business as a peer of the
taxpayer, worker, or citizen, and certainly not beholden to a
government.
If taxpayers are beholden to a government and businesses survive on
taxpayers' input, then by extension businesses are also beholden to a
government. Remember: Corporations are people too, so what goes for
people goes for corporations.
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time. Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half. Never mind 30 years. All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Post by kady
  in every sense, has no real money of its own that it can call
Post by wy
its own.  It relies on taxpayers' money to get started and taxpayers'
money to survive and taxpayers' money to pay taxes.  Money is circular
in nature and for it to have any real value, taxpayers need to use it
and direct it to wherever they feel something will fulfill a want or
need for them.  But that money just comes right back to them in the
form of wages, which is really their own money that they're getting
back to reinvest into society again.  And round and round and round
she goes.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
So, I say again, 100% of government monies come from businesses, either
*directly* (in the form of corporate taxes) or through the wages paid to
individuals, which are then taxed on income or at the point of sale.
Are you trying to remain profoundly stupid or what?  70% of all taxes
in Canada are derived from taxpayers and a case can be made that 100%
come from taxpayers since all businesses get their money from
consumers who are all taxpayers, and a portion of the money that
businesses get from taxpaying consumers is directed towards paying the
company's taxes.  Businesses, in effect, pay nothing of their own
money, which they don't have because they're entirely dependent on
taxpaying consumers to earn money.
See above. It's fairly straightforward.
There are a lot of things "above".  So that doesn't tell me anything.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.
2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.
Well, we have the Harper government now that's trying to be a Tea
Party of the north with its callous attitude towards the environment
among other things that threaten to ruin the social fabric that Canada
has carefully cultivated for nearly 150 years.  What's with whacked-
out right wingnuts who feel they need to destroy what's been working
well or prevent what works well from ever happening?
Generally speaking the "wacked out right wingnuts" probably don't agree
that with you that "it" is working well; or may have a different
definition of "working" than you do.
Yeah, they really do have a different definition.  The Harper
government here is getting rid of 20,000 federal employees all in the
name of creating employment.  Do you understand that logic?  We're
still trying to break it down ourselves.
I'd agree that a more detailed understanding beyond those sentences
would be required.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.
You're, uhhh, what's that word?  Oh, yeah.  Stupid.
For stating the factual and obvious? Perhaps so; it's become common down
here to attempt to intimidate anyone who doesn't toe an idealogical
party line.
No matter; it's relatively simple. Regulation has costs of compliance;
costs of compliance are taken out of wages and salaries; if fewer people
earn wages, the government gets a double whammy: they (a) lose those tax
receipts, AND (b) take on an expense as the displaced worker applies for
public assistance.
Proving my point that businesses are entirely dependent on taxpayers
for their existence, like having to clawback on wages and salaries of
their taxpaying workers, thus penalizing them for something businesses
should have to do themselves with their own money.  But they really
don't have their "own" money.
Don't see it, unless you're referring back to the aforementioned
feedback loop.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.
The social programs are currently underfunded by the right wingnut
government, explaining why it has to borrow more money.
I don't know anything about Canada's funding issues, so I can't comment.
It was working fine when Paul Martin was in charge of finance
throughout the liberal years of 1993-2006.  Even when he cut back on
social programs, it was barely noticed since no one really seemed to
suffer much from it and there were never any negative reports on the
effects of the cutbacks that I can recall.  But Harper's finance
minister, Jim Flaherty, while an able manager through the Harper's
minority government years of 2006-2011, has in the last year, under a
majority government, reared his uglier side that is reflective of
right wingnut ideology that's already begun to have some minor
heartless results.  One in particular is the refusal of the fed
government to now include refugees, who have absolutely nothing when
they come here, under the health care system, claiming it would save
$100 million over 5 years, but think nothing of spending a couple of
billion on new unneeded prisons under some pretext that there's a
huge, growing crime problem in Canada, which there isn't.  Maybe they
want to lock up all the refugees in those prisons - that'll teach them
a lesson to choose Canada for a life of hope and salvation.
There's detailed knowledge in there that you have that I don't, so I
can't comment.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.
4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent.
Americans pay 70% of all taxes, too?  Really?
I don't understand your point. 70% of what taxes?
All taxes.  You just had to read the link I provided.
Post by kady
Post by kady
They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."
70% is not a "high tax" state?  Could've fooled me.
Are you talking about marginal tax rates? The highest marginal rate in
Canada is 29%, with additional being tacked on by the provinces. WORST
CASE is the Quebecers who top about at 54% marginal; Ontario is taxed at
the highest possible rate of 40%.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
Then, when you account for the fact that payroll taxes are slightly
lower than in the US, AND property taxes are also generally low by US
standards, you get a tax wedge that's approximately that of the US.
Considering the only real advantage Canada derives is the fact that they
know they really don't need to invest serious money into national
defense (it would be hard to imagine any attack on Canada that the US
wouldn't consider an attack on itself), that's very impressive.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls
Canada: 22.2%  15.3% 17.7% 15.3%  7.9% 17.7% 7.7%
US:     22.9%  13.5% 17.4%  8.2% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2%
The columns are: single no child|single 2 children|family nochild|family
2 children, all WITHOUT deductions for kids, then single2children|family
nochildren|family 2 children WITH cash transfers
See much difference there?  I don't. You get dinged in the US for being
a single parent with 2 kids, dinged in Canada for being a family with
two kids. Otherwise, kind of a push.
Thus, the tax wedge difference between the two nations is, as expected,
unremarkable, Canada at 20.5%, the US at 19.4%. Obviously, there will be
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_inc_fam-tax-wed...
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas.  I said 70% of ALL taxes.  Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense.  Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Then your use of the term is inconsistent with "high tax state" which is
a relative reference to prevailing tax rates.
My point is that Canada is not a "high tax state" in the conventional
meaning of the term. Denmark's a high tax state, the US isn't. Generally
speaking, high tax correlates with high social services, but NOT in the
case of highly efficient democracies such as Canada, New Zealand,
Australia.
You've never been to Quebec or know much about it, do you?
I actually have and do, but I've already acknowledged that Canada is a
high social service state, and Quebec is the upper outlier in social
services available. So, again, we're agreeing, not arguing,
You contradict yourself. On the one hand you said high tax correlates
with high social services, but NOT in the case of highly efficient
democracies such as Canada, and then you say Canada is a high social
service state, but earlier said Canada is not a high taxed country,
being comparable to that of the US. The contradiction lies in what
you don't say, which is that Canada's taxes are really much higher
than the US's in ways that go beyond web sites' simplistic charts. An
interesting write-up is this conclusion to some guy's overall
assessment of tax differences between the US and Canada.

The Deceptive Statistic: Tax as a Percentage of GDP

"The statistic that really matters to the average citizen is taxes
paid as a percentage of income, which is never quoted and is precisely
the thing being calculated above. Even so, it is an incomplete picture
since sales taxes, provincial/state taxes, employment insurance,
duties, and social benefits are not included due to the difficulty of
comparison."

http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/comparison-of-canadian-and-us-federal-tax-rates-for-2011/

And that's why when you look at all those pretty charts and stats and
everything looks like they fit perfectly to whatever ideology one
chooses to defend, it isn't perfect. The conclusion above was arrived
at when his own exhaustive examination "proved" that Americans pay
less than Canadians, but, in fact, not necessarily so. It's all in
how you dice the tomatoes. But believe me, up here, for a lot of
people, factoring everything in, not just fed income tax, it's a hell
of a lot more than what you guys pay down there.
Post by kady
  Talk about
Post by wy
high social services.  A friend of mine has unfortunately fallen into
a state of welfare through a bad case of Murphy's Law over the last
few years, but it looks like she'll be climbing out of that "trap"
soon with a unexpected new job offered her.  Oddly, she finds herself
in a quandary over accepting the job.  Why?  Because on the welfare
she's getting and other perks, she really doesn't need one.  She knows
it would be good for her to take the job, but I'm trying to convince
her to get out of the scenario she's painted for herself against
taking the job.  Here goes: ehe gets $715 per month on welfare, ehe
also gets $80 per month on what's called a shelter allowance, and
since last year ehe's been getting something called a solidarity tax
credit as well, which began at $22 per month last summer, went up to
$45 in January and is now at $75 this summer.  And, of course, there's
the GST refund, but that comes from the feds and amounts to about $65
every 3 months or about $22 per month. So altogether ehe's making just
under $900 a month staying home.  On top of that, ehe pays nothing for
health care and gets limited free dental services and eye care.  Her
rent is $490 per month, ehe pays $60 for electricity each month, on
average (Quebec rates are among the cheapest in the world), a basic
landline phone for $20 tied in with her basic cable internet service
for $30 per month, but no cable TV hook-up, just a box with a digital
antenna on his old 20-inch cathode ray tube TV, which seems to suit
her just fine.  In her case, she's lucky to have a cheap apartment, a
3 1/2, because it's kind of tough to find a decent one around here for
a $100 more at that size, but then, she had been living there for
quite a while so her increases are always low.  So all told, she
spends $600 on bills each month and has almost $300 left over.  Oh,
and I forgot.  On welfare, they'll allow you to earn $200 more without
being penalized for it, so with the part-time job she does have, 4
hours every Sunday afternoon helping out at a Salvation Army store,
she qualifies for that additional $200, nothing subtracted from it,
for a total of almost $1,100 a month.  Being on welfare.  Her rational
is that if she took the full-time job at $12 an hour, then after
paying taxes and all the daily transportation costs of getting to work
and back and incurring full costs for dental and eye care services,
she might be lucky to still be clearing $1,100 per month.  So what's
the incentive for her?  It's a hard nut for me to crack because I can
see her point.  So if that's not high social services, I don't know
what is.
I quite agree, and with the other point as well, which is that there
indeed is a level of social services which starts to disincent work.
Personally, and probably you would agree with this, people need to
aspire over and above a dole to live a full and complete life, but when
people have been beaten a bit by life's vicissitudes, it's easy to throw
in the towel if the money's there.
It's a no-win situation for people on welfare with the system
structured as it is. If they get paid too little, they'll never climb
out from under. If they get paid enough, then yes, it calls into
question as to whether that could ever motivate them into getting a
job. What needs to be done is to have welfare tied in with the
business sector to encourage businesses to look at the resumes of
those on welfare first when hiring to fill any vacancies. If they
can't find a qualified person for the position, then they move on up
the ladder to those on unemployment insurance. And if that doesn't
work, then they're free to look as they please. Now, what would
encourage them to want to do that? Well, that's the trick. Business,
as we all know, can be very grumpy and unaccommodating to rational
approaches to things without having to kick and scream and cry
"government intrusion!" like babies having just soiled their diapers.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Simply put, Canada takes in per capita about the same as the US, perhaps
a slight bit more, but the people get back a LOT more in terms of social
services.
We're really taxed a lot more than Americans, don't believe the
simplistic chart comparisons you see.
The OECD does not lend itself to simplistic comparisons. Remember, where
you live is the outlier in Canada. YOU'RE taxed a lot more than
Americans, granted, but the data shows Ontario being about the same, and
Alberta being lower still.
Again, you're not looking at all the taxes. And neither is the OECD.
They're just comparing the easy surface level stuff, not any of the
hidden taxes. For example, the harmonized tax in some provinces is
actually a form of double taxation, which the OECD won't touch, and
this is a typical example of its added burden on taxpayers:

http://www.straight.com/article-331950/vancouver/maureen-bader-bcs-hst-stands-hidden-sales-taxes
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God.  My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong.  Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd?  That's supposed to impress me?  I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world.  And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province.  That shows you.
Since the top tax rate in Quebec is 14 points higher than in Ontario, it
would be an embarrassment if McGill were NOT more highly ranked, but no
matter -- the issue was a personal one. I'll note the obvious, that
YOU'RE not claiming matriculation at McGill. Simply living in the same
province as a great university is not a personal achievement.
Yeah, well, you try doing it.  The French would kick you out before
you could say bonjour.
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.

Loading Image...
kady
2012-07-17 21:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy. Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist. Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan. Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same? Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
If we agree, how is one of us being objective and the other one not?
That's like saying that 2 doesn't equal 2.
Only your 2 is skewed to be what you want it to be, my 2 presents it
as it really is. It helps to actually be Canadian and having lived in
Canada all your life to be able to make all the proper connections
between past and present and what's really what and what's really not
in the correct light. Again, why bother throwing Marxist socialist
into the mix when it's got nothing to do with Canada's social
democracy unless you're trying to cast aspersions on even social
democracy which, in turn, negates your objectivity?
Nothing in my prior statement has anything to do with being Canadian,
American, conservative, liberal, socialist, or anything else; it's
simply a definitional issue, and we agreed that socialism and social
democracy are different beasts. You're beating a dead horse.
Whatever. Just never throw in Marxist into anything that has nothing
to do with Marxism if you don't want to muddy up the definitional
issue.
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada. It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by wy
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes. Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist. It's a two-way street, you know.
It DEVELOPS into a two way street, sure. But the first businesses are
sole proprietorships --- individuals without employees making money to
support themselves, out of which they THEN (not first) pay taxes.
You're talking about mom-and-pop shops.They're not businesses in the
true Corporate America sense, which for the most part don't begin with
just one lonely guy doing it all for a year or two. Even Bain Capital
didn't begin that way.
Every business starts with a "lonely guy" or reasonable facsimile. If
they manage to be funded by an investor early on, then they
short-circuit a lot of the ramp-up; but that doesn't mean that didn't
start as a Guy with an Idea. >
A lonely guy having a great idea doesn't necessarily equate with the
same lonely guy starting up a business all by his lonely self. A lot
of businesses are started up by partners, without which that lonely
guy's great idea would go nowhere. A lot of people have great ideas,
only few can pull them off by their lonesome selves. What often gets
in the way is the harsh reality of finances they usually don't have
and a lot of hard work most are not willing to devote themselves to,
at least not without some help.
Quite right, but we're getting a bit afield. All businesses start with
an idea, even if it's just Jack and Jill saying "let's start a sandwich
shop", a moment that was really no different than John D. Rockefeller
and Maurice Clark deciding to build the oil refinery which now is called
Exxon.

On those discrete moments of ideation, the entire world's capitalist
system depends. From there, it's all a matter of implementation, and the
speed of implementation, as you correctly point out, is often a matter
of access to capital.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
As that proprietorship grows and hires people, only THEN does the
feedback loop you refer to develop. But in all cases, the business
operation comes first. If the worker quits, he is replaced and the
business continues to earn profits and pay taxes; if the business quits,
the workers have no income.
Yes, but businesses need to borrow capital 99% of the time, and even
when they have capital, they still borrow. And from where do they
borrow it to get started? Banks. But not with the bank's own money
because banks don't have any money they can call their own. All money
in banks is taxpayers' money who have accounts in those banks or that
of other businesses who have accounts with money they've earned from
other taxpayers. So essentially, Corporate America once again relies
on taxpayers' money just to get itself started because Corporate
America.
AGREED, *BUT* that does not place the business as a peer of the
taxpayer, worker, or citizen, and certainly not beholden to a
government.
If taxpayers are beholden to a government and businesses survive on
taxpayers' input, then by extension businesses are also beholden to a
government. Remember: Corporations are people too, so what goes for
people goes for corporations.
At the time of incorporation (actually before) the growth of the venture
of course involves many inputs from taxpayer and government. However, in
its early stages, that feedback loop does not exist. Or, put another way:

Every business owner can be an employee, but not every employee can be a
business owner.

Every business owner is a taxpayer, but not every taxpayer can be a
business owner.

Every business owner is a citizen, but not every citizen is a business
owner.

Bottom line, it is business activity which funds the citizens and who
fund the government.
Post by wy
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time. Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half. Never mind 30 years. All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
Post by wy
Post by kady
in every sense, has no real money of its own that it can call
Post by wy
its own. It relies on taxpayers' money to get started and taxpayers'
money to survive and taxpayers' money to pay taxes. Money is circular
in nature and for it to have any real value, taxpayers need to use it
and direct it to wherever they feel something will fulfill a want or
need for them. But that money just comes right back to them in the
form of wages, which is really their own money that they're getting
back to reinvest into society again. And round and round and round
she goes.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
So, I say again, 100% of government monies come from businesses, either
*directly* (in the form of corporate taxes) or through the wages paid to
individuals, which are then taxed on income or at the point of sale.
Are you trying to remain profoundly stupid or what? 70% of all taxes
in Canada are derived from taxpayers and a case can be made that 100%
come from taxpayers since all businesses get their money from
consumers who are all taxpayers, and a portion of the money that
businesses get from taxpaying consumers is directed towards paying the
company's taxes. Businesses, in effect, pay nothing of their own
money, which they don't have because they're entirely dependent on
taxpaying consumers to earn money.
See above. It's fairly straightforward.
There are a lot of things "above". So that doesn't tell me anything.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
The US left has not made this connection, still holding to (in their
minds) an us vs. them model which irrationally believes that (somehow)
if businesses are constrained (e.g., regulated) this will somehow be
better for the citizens, economy, and government programs.
2) Canadians do not let their ideologies get in the way of practicality.
They are more environmentally minded than Americans *in principle*, but
do not let that mindedness get in the way of felling trees or pumping
oil. In Canada, the government forces environmentalists to pursue
policies of ecological damage containment.
Well, we have the Harper government now that's trying to be a Tea
Party of the north with its callous attitude towards the environment
among other things that threaten to ruin the social fabric that Canada
has carefully cultivated for nearly 150 years. What's with whacked-
out right wingnuts who feel they need to destroy what's been working
well or prevent what works well from ever happening?
Generally speaking the "wacked out right wingnuts" probably don't agree
that with you that "it" is working well; or may have a different
definition of "working" than you do.
Yeah, they really do have a different definition. The Harper
government here is getting rid of 20,000 federal employees all in the
name of creating employment. Do you understand that logic? We're
still trying to break it down ourselves.
I'd agree that a more detailed understanding beyond those sentences
would be required.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
In the US, the environmentalists are permitted to damage the economy by
restricting commercial activities, thus hurting other liberal priorities
in the social sphere by robbing the government of money.
You're, uhhh, what's that word? Oh, yeah. Stupid.
For stating the factual and obvious? Perhaps so; it's become common down
here to attempt to intimidate anyone who doesn't toe an idealogical
party line.
No matter; it's relatively simple. Regulation has costs of compliance;
costs of compliance are taken out of wages and salaries; if fewer people
earn wages, the government gets a double whammy: they (a) lose those tax
receipts, AND (b) take on an expense as the displaced worker applies for
public assistance.
Proving my point that businesses are entirely dependent on taxpayers
for their existence, like having to clawback on wages and salaries of
their taxpaying workers, thus penalizing them for something businesses
should have to do themselves with their own money. But they really
don't have their "own" money.
Don't see it, unless you're referring back to the aforementioned
feedback loop.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
3) Canada's more generous social programs are monitored to insure their
funding mechanisms are inline with tax receipts. Like Sweden, Denmark,
and other social democracies, Canada has pulled back on both tax rates
AND social generosity in order to bring those funding mechanisms in line.
The social programs are currently underfunded by the right wingnut
government, explaining why it has to borrow more money.
I don't know anything about Canada's funding issues, so I can't comment.
It was working fine when Paul Martin was in charge of finance
throughout the liberal years of 1993-2006. Even when he cut back on
social programs, it was barely noticed since no one really seemed to
suffer much from it and there were never any negative reports on the
effects of the cutbacks that I can recall. But Harper's finance
minister, Jim Flaherty, while an able manager through the Harper's
minority government years of 2006-2011, has in the last year, under a
majority government, reared his uglier side that is reflective of
right wingnut ideology that's already begun to have some minor
heartless results. One in particular is the refusal of the fed
government to now include refugees, who have absolutely nothing when
they come here, under the health care system, claiming it would save
$100 million over 5 years, but think nothing of spending a couple of
billion on new unneeded prisons under some pretext that there's a
huge, growing crime problem in Canada, which there isn't. Maybe they
want to lock up all the refugees in those prisons - that'll teach them
a lesson to choose Canada for a life of hope and salvation.
There's detailed knowledge in there that you have that I don't, so I
can't comment.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
In the US, the Democrats block any attempt to bring benefits inline with
their funding mechanisms, while the Republicans block any attempt at
increasing the funding mechanisms.
4) And --- best yet -- the Canadians are doing what they're doing with a
tax burden on their businesses which is LOWER than the US, and a tax
burden on their citizens which is roughly equivalent.
Americans pay 70% of all taxes, too? Really?
I don't understand your point. 70% of what taxes?
All taxes. You just had to read the link I provided.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
They are NOT a
"high tax"state a la Denmark or Germany. This is efficiency at its best,
while in the US, one party simply screams "I need more", while the other
screams "you've already got too much."
70% is not a "high tax" state? Could've fooled me.
Are you talking about marginal tax rates? The highest marginal rate in
Canada is 29%, with additional being tacked on by the provinces. WORST
CASE is the Quebecers who top about at 54% marginal; Ontario is taxed at
the highest possible rate of 40%.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
Then, when you account for the fact that payroll taxes are slightly
lower than in the US, AND property taxes are also generally low by US
standards, you get a tax wedge that's approximately that of the US.
Considering the only real advantage Canada derives is the fact that they
know they really don't need to invest serious money into national
defense (it would be hard to imagine any attack on Canada that the US
wouldn't consider an attack on itself), that's very impressive.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls
Canada: 22.2% 15.3% 17.7% 15.3% 7.9% 17.7% 7.7%
US: 22.9% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2% 13.5% 17.4% 8.2%
The columns are: single no child|single 2 children|family nochild|family
2 children, all WITHOUT deductions for kids, then single2children|family
nochildren|family 2 children WITH cash transfers
See much difference there? I don't. You get dinged in the US for being
a single parent with 2 kids, dinged in Canada for being a family with
two kids. Otherwise, kind of a push.
Thus, the tax wedge difference between the two nations is, as expected,
unremarkable, Canada at 20.5%, the US at 19.4%. Obviously, there will be
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_inc_fam-tax-wed...
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas. I said 70% of ALL taxes. Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense. Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Then your use of the term is inconsistent with "high tax state" which is
a relative reference to prevailing tax rates.
My point is that Canada is not a "high tax state" in the conventional
meaning of the term. Denmark's a high tax state, the US isn't. Generally
speaking, high tax correlates with high social services, but NOT in the
case of highly efficient democracies such as Canada, New Zealand,
Australia.
You've never been to Quebec or know much about it, do you?
I actually have and do, but I've already acknowledged that Canada is a
high social service state, and Quebec is the upper outlier in social
services available. So, again, we're agreeing, not arguing,
You contradict yourself. On the one hand you said high tax correlates
with high social services, but NOT in the case of highly efficient
democracies such as Canada, and then you say Canada is a high social
service state, but earlier said Canada is not a high taxed country,
being comparable to that of the US. The contradiction lies in what
you don't say, which is that Canada's taxes are really much higher
than the US's in ways that go beyond web sites' simplistic charts. An
interesting write-up is this conclusion to some guy's overall
assessment of tax differences between the US and Canada.
The Deceptive Statistic: Tax as a Percentage of GDP
"The statistic that really matters to the average citizen is taxes
paid as a percentage of income, which is never quoted and is precisely
the thing being calculated above. Even so, it is an incomplete picture
since sales taxes, provincial/state taxes, employment insurance,
duties, and social benefits are not included due to the difficulty of
comparison."
http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/comparison-of-canadian-and-us-federal-tax-rates-for-2011/
And that's why when you look at all those pretty charts and stats and
everything looks like they fit perfectly to whatever ideology one
chooses to defend, it isn't perfect.
Never is. However, the OECD does their level best to come to a set of
numbers that represent a mean aggregation of tax burdens in the US and
Canada. Let's not let perfection be the enemy of the practical. We KNOW
that New York City residents pay more in total taxation that somebody in
rural Alberta; we also know that somebody in Montreal not only pays a
bit more than the New Yorker, but a *helluva* lot more than a Texan. We
can still come to an average and discuss it; and the averages show that
taxation in the US and Canada is *approximately* equivalent overall, and
that the Canadians get a lot more in social services for their money
than do the Americans.

That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.

The conclusion above was arrived
Post by wy
at when his own exhaustive examination "proved" that Americans pay
less than Canadians, but, in fact, not necessarily so. It's all in
how you dice the tomatoes. But believe me, up here, for a lot of
people, factoring everything in, not just fed income tax, it's a hell
of a lot more than what you guys pay down there.
One of the comments to your article says this:

"Though not an apples to apples comparison the fact of the matter is
that there is always been a perception that Canadians pay much higher
taxes then Americans when in truth the gap isn’t nearly as wide as
people think. The biggest contributing factor for this perception is the
high price for similar goods in Canada compared to the US. People
automatically assume the price difference is based on higher taxes in
Canada when in fact for most items the price difference is due to other
factors."
Post by wy
Post by kady
Talk about
Post by wy
high social services. A friend of mine has unfortunately fallen into
a state of welfare through a bad case of Murphy's Law over the last
few years, but it looks like she'll be climbing out of that "trap"
soon with a unexpected new job offered her. Oddly, she finds herself
in a quandary over accepting the job. Why? Because on the welfare
she's getting and other perks, she really doesn't need one. She knows
it would be good for her to take the job, but I'm trying to convince
her to get out of the scenario she's painted for herself against
taking the job. Here goes: ehe gets $715 per month on welfare, ehe
also gets $80 per month on what's called a shelter allowance, and
since last year ehe's been getting something called a solidarity tax
credit as well, which began at $22 per month last summer, went up to
$45 in January and is now at $75 this summer. And, of course, there's
the GST refund, but that comes from the feds and amounts to about $65
every 3 months or about $22 per month. So altogether ehe's making just
under $900 a month staying home. On top of that, ehe pays nothing for
health care and gets limited free dental services and eye care. Her
rent is $490 per month, ehe pays $60 for electricity each month, on
average (Quebec rates are among the cheapest in the world), a basic
landline phone for $20 tied in with her basic cable internet service
for $30 per month, but no cable TV hook-up, just a box with a digital
antenna on his old 20-inch cathode ray tube TV, which seems to suit
her just fine. In her case, she's lucky to have a cheap apartment, a
3 1/2, because it's kind of tough to find a decent one around here for
a $100 more at that size, but then, she had been living there for
quite a while so her increases are always low. So all told, she
spends $600 on bills each month and has almost $300 left over. Oh,
and I forgot. On welfare, they'll allow you to earn $200 more without
being penalized for it, so with the part-time job she does have, 4
hours every Sunday afternoon helping out at a Salvation Army store,
she qualifies for that additional $200, nothing subtracted from it,
for a total of almost $1,100 a month. Being on welfare. Her rational
is that if she took the full-time job at $12 an hour, then after
paying taxes and all the daily transportation costs of getting to work
and back and incurring full costs for dental and eye care services,
she might be lucky to still be clearing $1,100 per month. So what's
the incentive for her? It's a hard nut for me to crack because I can
see her point. So if that's not high social services, I don't know
what is.
I quite agree, and with the other point as well, which is that there
indeed is a level of social services which starts to disincent work.
Personally, and probably you would agree with this, people need to
aspire over and above a dole to live a full and complete life, but when
people have been beaten a bit by life's vicissitudes, it's easy to throw
in the towel if the money's there.
It's a no-win situation for people on welfare with the system
structured as it is. If they get paid too little, they'll never climb
out from under. If they get paid enough, then yes, it calls into
question as to whether that could ever motivate them into getting a
job. What needs to be done is to have welfare tied in with the
business sector to encourage businesses to look at the resumes of
those on welfare first when hiring to fill any vacancies. If they
can't find a qualified person for the position, then they move on up
the ladder to those on unemployment insurance. And if that doesn't
work, then they're free to look as they please. Now, what would
encourage them to want to do that? Well, that's the trick. Business,
as we all know, can be very grumpy and unaccommodating to rational
approaches to things without having to kick and scream and cry
"government intrusion!" like babies having just soiled their diapers.
Human beings hate intrusion into their decision making at the visceral
level. Businesses, which are just collections of human beings, are no
different. This is why the sort of thing you describe above (which,
depending on implementation, can be a perfectly reasonable policy) is
generally best implemented by providing a tax incentive for the business
to hire from the dole roll.

When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Simply put, Canada takes in per capita about the same as the US, perhaps
a slight bit more, but the people get back a LOT more in terms of social
services.
We're really taxed a lot more than Americans, don't believe the
simplistic chart comparisons you see.
The OECD does not lend itself to simplistic comparisons. Remember, where
you live is the outlier in Canada. YOU'RE taxed a lot more than
Americans, granted, but the data shows Ontario being about the same, and
Alberta being lower still.
Again, you're not looking at all the taxes. And neither is the OECD.
They're just comparing the easy surface level stuff, not any of the
hidden taxes. For example, the harmonized tax in some provinces is
actually a form of double taxation, which the OECD won't touch, and
http://www.straight.com/article-331950/vancouver/maureen-bader-bcs-hst-stands-hidden-sales-taxes
I can't rule out the nuances such as this; the question is if they add
up to enough to negate the conclusion drawn from the OECD numbers. For
this particular case in BC, it's entirely possible. But spread over the
entire population and distributed on a per capita basis....?

It's like pointing out that New York City has a city income tax which
the vast majority of US cities don't have. Makes NYC pricier than other
locales, but doesn't move the needle much on national per capita tax
numbers.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God. My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong. Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd? That's supposed to impress me? I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world. And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province. That shows you.
Since the top tax rate in Quebec is 14 points higher than in Ontario, it
would be an embarrassment if McGill were NOT more highly ranked, but no
matter -- the issue was a personal one. I'll note the obvious, that
YOU'RE not claiming matriculation at McGill. Simply living in the same
province as a great university is not a personal achievement.
Yeah, well, you try doing it. The French would kick you out before
you could say bonjour.
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/2919531-Cathedral_Marie_Queen_of_the_World_Montreal.jpg
Pretty sure it was this one:

http://www.basiliquenddm.org/en/

Kady
wy
2012-07-17 22:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy.  Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist.  Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan.  Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same?  Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
If we agree, how is one of us being objective and the other one not?
That's like saying that 2 doesn't equal 2.
Only your 2 is skewed to be what you want it to be, my 2 presents it
as it really is.  It helps to actually be Canadian and having lived in
Canada all your life to be able to make all the proper connections
between past and present and what's really what and what's really not
in the correct light.  Again, why bother throwing Marxist socialist
into the mix when it's got nothing to do with Canada's social
democracy unless you're trying to cast aspersions on even social
democracy which, in turn, negates your objectivity?
Nothing in my prior statement has anything to do with being Canadian,
American, conservative, liberal, socialist, or anything else; it's
simply a definitional issue, and we agreed that socialism and social
democracy are different beasts. You're beating a dead horse.
Whatever.  Just never throw in Marxist into anything that has nothing
to do with Marxism if you don't want to muddy up the definitional
issue.
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism. The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada.  It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes.  Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist.  It's a two-way street, you know.
It DEVELOPS into a two way street, sure. But the first businesses are
sole proprietorships --- individuals without employees making money to
support themselves, out of which they THEN (not first) pay taxes.
You're talking about mom-and-pop shops.They're not businesses in the
true Corporate America sense, which for the most part don't begin with
just one lonely guy doing it all for a year or two.  Even Bain Capital
didn't begin that way.
Every business starts with a "lonely guy" or reasonable facsimile. If
they manage to be funded by an investor early on, then they
short-circuit a lot of the ramp-up; but that doesn't mean that didn't
start as a Guy with an Idea. >
A lonely guy having a great idea doesn't necessarily equate with the
same lonely guy starting up a business all by his lonely self.  A lot
of businesses are started up by partners, without which that lonely
guy's great idea would go nowhere.  A lot of people have great ideas,
only few can pull them off by their lonesome selves.  What often gets
in the way is the harsh reality of finances they usually don't have
and a lot of hard work most are not willing to devote themselves to,
at least not without some help.
Quite right, but we're getting a bit afield. All businesses start with
an idea, even if it's just Jack and Jill saying "let's start a sandwich
shop", a moment that was really no different than John D. Rockefeller
and Maurice Clark deciding to build the oil refinery which now is called
Exxon.
On those discrete moments of ideation, the entire world's capitalist
system depends. From there, it's all a matter of implementation, and the
speed of implementation, as you correctly point out, is often a matter
of access to capital.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
As that proprietorship grows and hires people, only THEN does the
feedback loop you refer to develop. But in all cases, the business
operation comes first. If the worker quits, he is replaced and the
business continues to earn profits and pay taxes; if the business quits,
the workers have no income.
Yes, but businesses need to borrow capital 99% of the time, and even
when they have capital, they still borrow.  And from where do they
borrow it to get started?  Banks.  But not with the bank's own money
because banks don't have any money they can call their own.  All money
in banks is taxpayers' money who have accounts in those banks or that
of other businesses who have accounts with money they've earned from
other taxpayers.  So essentially, Corporate America once again relies
on taxpayers' money just to get itself started because Corporate
America.
AGREED, *BUT* that does not place the business as a peer of the
taxpayer, worker, or citizen, and certainly not beholden to a
government.
If taxpayers are beholden to a government and businesses survive on
taxpayers' input, then by extension businesses are also beholden to a
government.  Remember: Corporations are people too, so what goes for
people goes for corporations.
At the time of incorporation (actually before) the growth of the venture
of course involves many inputs from taxpayer and government. However, in
Every business owner can be an employee, but not every employee can be a
business owner.
Unless some are partners.
Post by kady
Every business owner is a taxpayer, but not every taxpayer can be a
business owner.
Not every taxpayer wants to be a business owner.
Post by kady
Every business owner is a citizen, but not every citizen is a business
owner.
Redundant.
Post by kady
Bottom line, it is business activity which funds the citizens and who
fund the government.
Nope. If it were true, you wouldn't have a deficit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/corporate-tax-revenues-ne_n_830361.html
Post by kady
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time.  Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half.  Never mind 30 years.  All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things. It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas.  I said 70% of ALL taxes.  Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense.  Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Then your use of the term is inconsistent with "high tax state" which is
a relative reference to prevailing tax rates.
My point is that Canada is not a "high tax state" in the conventional
meaning of the term. Denmark's a high tax state, the US isn't. Generally
speaking, high tax correlates with high social services, but NOT in the
case of highly efficient democracies such as Canada, New Zealand,
Australia.
You've never been to Quebec or know much about it, do you?
I actually have and do, but I've already acknowledged that Canada is a
high social service state, and Quebec is the upper outlier in social
services available. So, again, we're agreeing, not arguing,
You contradict yourself.  On the one hand you said high tax correlates
with high social services, but NOT in the case of highly efficient
democracies such as Canada, and then you say Canada is a high social
service state, but earlier said Canada is not a high taxed country,
being comparable to that of the US.  The contradiction lies in what
you don't say, which is that Canada's taxes are really much higher
than the US's in ways that go beyond web sites' simplistic charts.  An
interesting write-up is this conclusion to some guy's overall
assessment of tax differences between the US and Canada.
The Deceptive Statistic: Tax as a Percentage of GDP
"The statistic that really matters to the average citizen is taxes
paid as a percentage of income, which is never quoted and is precisely
the thing being calculated above. Even so, it is an incomplete picture
since sales taxes, provincial/state taxes, employment insurance,
duties, and social benefits are not included due to the difficulty of
comparison."
http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/comparison-of-canadian-and-...
And that's why when you look at all those pretty charts and stats and
everything looks like they fit perfectly to whatever ideology one
chooses to defend, it isn't perfect.
Never is. However, the OECD does their level best to come to a set of
numbers that represent a mean aggregation of tax burdens in the US and
Canada. Let's not let perfection be the enemy of the practical. We KNOW
that New York City residents pay more in total taxation that somebody in
rural Alberta; we also know that somebody in Montreal not only pays a
bit more than the New Yorker, but a *helluva* lot more than a Texan. We
can still come to an average and discuss it; and the averages show that
taxation in the US and Canada is *approximately* equivalent overall, and
that the Canadians get a lot more in social services for their money
than do the Americans.
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation. But seeing how all its verbiage
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
simple:

Loading Image...

In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues. The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
Post by kady
  The conclusion above was arrived
at when his own exhaustive examination "proved" that Americans pay
less than Canadians, but, in fact, not necessarily so.  It's all in
how you dice the tomatoes.  But believe me, up here, for a lot of
people, factoring everything in, not just fed income tax, it's a hell
of a lot more than what you guys pay down there.
"Though not an apples to apples comparison the fact of the matter is
that there is always been a perception that Canadians pay much higher
taxes then Americans when in truth the gap isn�t nearly as wide as
people think. The biggest contributing factor for this perception is the
high price for similar goods in Canada compared to the US. People
automatically assume the price difference is based on higher taxes in
Canada when in fact for most items the price difference is due to other
factors."
I repeat:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43-fig2-e.gif

In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues. The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.

So, who are you going to believe? Someone who actually lives in
Canada and has taxes extracted out of every orifice of his body after
it's extracted from the orifice of his wallet, or someone who lives
1500 miles from the Canadian border and doesn't pay a single copper
penny of Canadian taxes?
Post by kady
Post by kady
   Talk about
Post by wy
high social services.  A friend of mine has unfortunately fallen into
a state of welfare through a bad case of Murphy's Law over the last
few years, but it looks like she'll be climbing out of that "trap"
soon with a unexpected new job offered her.  Oddly, she finds herself
in a quandary over accepting the job.  Why?  Because on the welfare
she's getting and other perks, she really doesn't need one.  She knows
it would be good for her to take the job, but I'm trying to convince
her to get out of the scenario she's painted for herself against
taking the job.  Here goes: ehe gets $715 per month on welfare, ehe
also gets $80 per month on what's called a shelter allowance, and
since last year ehe's been getting something called a solidarity tax
credit as well, which began at $22 per month last summer, went up to
$45 in January and is now at $75 this summer.  And, of course, there's
the GST refund, but that comes from the feds and amounts to about $65
every 3 months or about $22 per month. So altogether ehe's making just
under $900 a month staying home.  On top of that, ehe pays nothing for
health care and gets limited free dental services and eye care.  Her
rent is $490 per month, ehe pays $60 for electricity each month, on
average (Quebec rates are among the cheapest in the world), a basic
landline phone for $20 tied in with her basic cable internet service
for $30 per month, but no cable TV hook-up, just a box with a digital
antenna on his old 20-inch cathode ray tube TV, which seems to suit
her just fine.  In her case, she's lucky to have a cheap apartment, a
3 1/2, because it's kind of tough to find a decent one around here for
a $100 more at that size, but then, she had been living there for
quite a while so her increases are always low.  So all told, she
spends $600 on bills each month and has almost $300 left over.  Oh,
and I forgot.  On welfare, they'll allow you to earn $200 more without
being penalized for it, so with the part-time job she does have, 4
hours every Sunday afternoon helping out at a Salvation Army store,
she qualifies for that additional $200, nothing subtracted from it,
for a total of almost $1,100 a month.  Being on welfare.  Her rational
is that if she took the full-time job at $12 an hour, then after
paying taxes and all the daily transportation costs of getting to work
and back and incurring full costs for dental and eye care services,
she might be lucky to still be clearing $1,100 per month.  So what's
the incentive for her?  It's a hard nut for me to crack because I can
see her point.  So if that's not high social services, I don't know
what is.
I quite agree, and with the other point as well, which is that there
indeed is a level of social services which starts to disincent work.
Personally, and probably you would agree with this, people need to
aspire over and above a dole to live a full and complete life, but when
people have been beaten a bit by life's vicissitudes, it's easy to throw
in the towel if the money's there.
It's a no-win situation for people on welfare with the system
structured as it is.  If they get paid too little, they'll never climb
out from under.  If they get paid enough, then yes, it calls into
question as to whether that could ever motivate them into getting a
job.  What needs to be done is to have welfare tied in with the
business sector to encourage businesses to look at the resumes of
those on welfare first when hiring to fill any vacancies.  If they
can't find a qualified person for the position, then they move on up
the ladder to those on unemployment insurance.  And if that doesn't
work, then they're free to look as they please.  Now, what would
encourage them to want to do that?  Well, that's the trick.  Business,
as we all know, can be very grumpy and unaccommodating to rational
approaches to things without having to kick and scream and cry
"government intrusion!" like babies having just soiled their diapers.
Human beings hate intrusion into their decision making at the visceral
level. Businesses, which are just collections of human beings, are no
different. This is why the sort of thing you describe above (which,
depending on implementation, can be a perfectly reasonable policy) is
generally best implemented by providing a tax incentive for the business
to hire from the dole roll.
Right, raid the pockets of taxpayers again to subsidize business
decisions when businesses have all the money and more to make such
decisions themselves that, in fact, requires no money at all to make,
whether they hire a qualified person on welfare or a qualified person
off the street. What is supposed to be the expense incurred by
businesses in hiring either qualified person to justify subsidizing
hiring people? It's stupid logic that could be expanded to
subsidizing companies to hire everyone they hire, on welfare,
unemployment or otherwise. I know you're probably going through a
drought in Texas, by do stay hydrated so you can think properly.
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Simply put, Canada takes in per capita about the same as the US, perhaps
a slight bit more, but the people get back a LOT more in terms of social
services.
We're really taxed a lot more than Americans, don't believe the
simplistic chart comparisons you see.
The OECD does not lend itself to simplistic comparisons. Remember, where
you live is the outlier in Canada. YOU'RE taxed a lot more than
Americans, granted, but the data shows Ontario being about the same, and
Alberta being lower still.
Again, you're not looking at all the taxes.  And neither is the OECD.
They're just comparing the easy surface level stuff, not any of the
hidden taxes.  For example, the harmonized tax in some provinces is
actually a form of double taxation, which the OECD won't touch, and
http://www.straight.com/article-331950/vancouver/maureen-bader-bcs-hs...
I can't rule out the nuances such as this; the question is if they add
up to enough to negate the conclusion drawn from the OECD numbers. For
this particular case in BC, it's entirely possible. But spread over the
entire population and distributed on a per capita basis....?
It's like pointing out that New York City has a city income tax which
the vast majority of US cities don't have. Makes NYC pricier than other
locales, but doesn't move the needle much on national per capita tax
numbers.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God.  My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong.  Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd?  That's supposed to impress me?  I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world.  And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province.  That shows you.
Since the top tax rate in Quebec is 14 points higher than in Ontario, it
would be an embarrassment if McGill were NOT more highly ranked, but no
matter -- the issue was a personal one. I'll note the obvious, that
YOU'RE not claiming matriculation at McGill. Simply living in the same
province as a great university is not a personal achievement.
Yeah, well, you try doing it.  The French would kick you out before
you could say bonjour.
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/2919531-Cathedral_Marie_Queen_of_t...
http://www.basiliquenddm.org/en/
That's in Old Montreal further southwest from the Hilton. Queen of
the World is much closer to the hotel, about a couple of blocks away.
kady
2012-07-17 22:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy. Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist. Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan. Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same? Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
If we agree, how is one of us being objective and the other one not?
That's like saying that 2 doesn't equal 2.
Only your 2 is skewed to be what you want it to be, my 2 presents it
as it really is. It helps to actually be Canadian and having lived in
Canada all your life to be able to make all the proper connections
between past and present and what's really what and what's really not
in the correct light. Again, why bother throwing Marxist socialist
into the mix when it's got nothing to do with Canada's social
democracy unless you're trying to cast aspersions on even social
democracy which, in turn, negates your objectivity?
Nothing in my prior statement has anything to do with being Canadian,
American, conservative, liberal, socialist, or anything else; it's
simply a definitional issue, and we agreed that socialism and social
democracy are different beasts. You're beating a dead horse.
Whatever. Just never throw in Marxist into anything that has nothing
to do with Marxism if you don't want to muddy up the definitional
issue.
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism. The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada. It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by wy
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes. Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist. It's a two-way street, you know.
It DEVELOPS into a two way street, sure. But the first businesses are
sole proprietorships --- individuals without employees making money to
support themselves, out of which they THEN (not first) pay taxes.
You're talking about mom-and-pop shops.They're not businesses in the
true Corporate America sense, which for the most part don't begin with
just one lonely guy doing it all for a year or two. Even Bain Capital
didn't begin that way.
Every business starts with a "lonely guy" or reasonable facsimile. If
they manage to be funded by an investor early on, then they
short-circuit a lot of the ramp-up; but that doesn't mean that didn't
start as a Guy with an Idea. >
A lonely guy having a great idea doesn't necessarily equate with the
same lonely guy starting up a business all by his lonely self. A lot
of businesses are started up by partners, without which that lonely
guy's great idea would go nowhere. A lot of people have great ideas,
only few can pull them off by their lonesome selves. What often gets
in the way is the harsh reality of finances they usually don't have
and a lot of hard work most are not willing to devote themselves to,
at least not without some help.
Quite right, but we're getting a bit afield. All businesses start with
an idea, even if it's just Jack and Jill saying "let's start a sandwich
shop", a moment that was really no different than John D. Rockefeller
and Maurice Clark deciding to build the oil refinery which now is called
Exxon.
On those discrete moments of ideation, the entire world's capitalist
system depends. From there, it's all a matter of implementation, and the
speed of implementation, as you correctly point out, is often a matter
of access to capital.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
As that proprietorship grows and hires people, only THEN does the
feedback loop you refer to develop. But in all cases, the business
operation comes first. If the worker quits, he is replaced and the
business continues to earn profits and pay taxes; if the business quits,
the workers have no income.
Yes, but businesses need to borrow capital 99% of the time, and even
when they have capital, they still borrow. And from where do they
borrow it to get started? Banks. But not with the bank's own money
because banks don't have any money they can call their own. All money
in banks is taxpayers' money who have accounts in those banks or that
of other businesses who have accounts with money they've earned from
other taxpayers. So essentially, Corporate America once again relies
on taxpayers' money just to get itself started because Corporate
America.
AGREED, *BUT* that does not place the business as a peer of the
taxpayer, worker, or citizen, and certainly not beholden to a
government.
If taxpayers are beholden to a government and businesses survive on
taxpayers' input, then by extension businesses are also beholden to a
government. Remember: Corporations are people too, so what goes for
people goes for corporations.
At the time of incorporation (actually before) the growth of the venture
of course involves many inputs from taxpayer and government. However, in
Every business owner can be an employee, but not every employee can be a
business owner.
Unless some are partners.
Post by kady
Every business owner is a taxpayer, but not every taxpayer can be a
business owner.
Not every taxpayer wants to be a business owner.
Post by kady
Every business owner is a citizen, but not every citizen is a business
owner.
Redundant.
Post by kady
Bottom line, it is business activity which funds the citizens and who
fund the government.
Nope. If it were true, you wouldn't have a deficit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/corporate-tax-revenues-ne_n_830361.html
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time. Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half. Never mind 30 years. All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things. It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
I quite agree. Which goes to my point --- government needs to nurture
these unusual individuals, not restrict them.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas. I said 70% of ALL taxes. Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense. Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Then your use of the term is inconsistent with "high tax state" which is
a relative reference to prevailing tax rates.
My point is that Canada is not a "high tax state" in the conventional
meaning of the term. Denmark's a high tax state, the US isn't. Generally
speaking, high tax correlates with high social services, but NOT in the
case of highly efficient democracies such as Canada, New Zealand,
Australia.
You've never been to Quebec or know much about it, do you?
I actually have and do, but I've already acknowledged that Canada is a
high social service state, and Quebec is the upper outlier in social
services available. So, again, we're agreeing, not arguing,
You contradict yourself. On the one hand you said high tax correlates
with high social services, but NOT in the case of highly efficient
democracies such as Canada, and then you say Canada is a high social
service state, but earlier said Canada is not a high taxed country,
being comparable to that of the US. The contradiction lies in what
you don't say, which is that Canada's taxes are really much higher
than the US's in ways that go beyond web sites' simplistic charts. An
interesting write-up is this conclusion to some guy's overall
assessment of tax differences between the US and Canada.
The Deceptive Statistic: Tax as a Percentage of GDP
"The statistic that really matters to the average citizen is taxes
paid as a percentage of income, which is never quoted and is precisely
the thing being calculated above. Even so, it is an incomplete picture
since sales taxes, provincial/state taxes, employment insurance,
duties, and social benefits are not included due to the difficulty of
comparison."
http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/comparison-of-canadian-and-...
And that's why when you look at all those pretty charts and stats and
everything looks like they fit perfectly to whatever ideology one
chooses to defend, it isn't perfect.
Never is. However, the OECD does their level best to come to a set of
numbers that represent a mean aggregation of tax burdens in the US and
Canada. Let's not let perfection be the enemy of the practical. We KNOW
that New York City residents pay more in total taxation that somebody in
rural Alberta; we also know that somebody in Montreal not only pays a
bit more than the New Yorker, but a *helluva* lot more than a Texan. We
can still come to an average and discuss it; and the averages show that
taxation in the US and Canada is *approximately* equivalent overall, and
that the Canadians get a lot more in social services for their money
than do the Americans.
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation.
You are a very difficult person to compliment. :-)

Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed. when you factor in point of
sales taxes,

But seeing how all its verbiage
Post by wy
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43-fig2-e.gif
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues. The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
What matters is the all-in rate. You have to pick up our high property
taxes and add in our private health insurance to normalize.
Post by wy
Post by kady
The conclusion above was arrived
Post by wy
at when his own exhaustive examination "proved" that Americans pay
less than Canadians, but, in fact, not necessarily so. It's all in
how you dice the tomatoes. But believe me, up here, for a lot of
people, factoring everything in, not just fed income tax, it's a hell
of a lot more than what you guys pay down there.
"Though not an apples to apples comparison the fact of the matter is
that there is always been a perception that Canadians pay much higher
taxes then Americans when in truth the gap isn�t nearly as wide as
people think. The biggest contributing factor for this perception is the
high price for similar goods in Canada compared to the US. People
automatically assume the price difference is based on higher taxes in
Canada when in fact for most items the price difference is due to other
factors."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43-fig2-e.gif
Oh yea, that helps a lot. :-)
Post by wy
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues. The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
So, who are you going to believe? Someone who actually lives in
Canada and has taxes extracted out of every orifice of his body after
it's extracted from the orifice of his wallet, or someone who lives
1500 miles from the Canadian border and doesn't pay a single copper
penny of Canadian taxes?
So if I tell you that your stats are wrong and Texas actually has the
highest educational standards in the country, and that you should
believe me because I live here, whatchagonnasay?

Look, we've agreed that it is VERY DIFFICULT to come to these averages.
HOWEVER, every source that **I've cited** and that **YOU'VE** cited
indicate my original point, which is that Canadian taxation is a LOT
CLOSER TO AMERICAN LEVELS THAN DENMARK, GERMANY, and FRANCE, although
Canada delivers THE SAME OR BETTER SOCIAL SERVICES THAN THOSE HIGH TAX
COUNTRIES DO. For the US "bar" to make sense, it HAS to include property
taxation and health care premiums, because those components are
extremely high here.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Talk about
Post by wy
high social services. A friend of mine has unfortunately fallen into
a state of welfare through a bad case of Murphy's Law over the last
few years, but it looks like she'll be climbing out of that "trap"
soon with a unexpected new job offered her. Oddly, she finds herself
in a quandary over accepting the job. Why? Because on the welfare
she's getting and other perks, she really doesn't need one. She knows
it would be good for her to take the job, but I'm trying to convince
her to get out of the scenario she's painted for herself against
taking the job. Here goes: ehe gets $715 per month on welfare, ehe
also gets $80 per month on what's called a shelter allowance, and
since last year ehe's been getting something called a solidarity tax
credit as well, which began at $22 per month last summer, went up to
$45 in January and is now at $75 this summer. And, of course, there's
the GST refund, but that comes from the feds and amounts to about $65
every 3 months or about $22 per month. So altogether ehe's making just
under $900 a month staying home. On top of that, ehe pays nothing for
health care and gets limited free dental services and eye care. Her
rent is $490 per month, ehe pays $60 for electricity each month, on
average (Quebec rates are among the cheapest in the world), a basic
landline phone for $20 tied in with her basic cable internet service
for $30 per month, but no cable TV hook-up, just a box with a digital
antenna on his old 20-inch cathode ray tube TV, which seems to suit
her just fine. In her case, she's lucky to have a cheap apartment, a
3 1/2, because it's kind of tough to find a decent one around here for
a $100 more at that size, but then, she had been living there for
quite a while so her increases are always low. So all told, she
spends $600 on bills each month and has almost $300 left over. Oh,
and I forgot. On welfare, they'll allow you to earn $200 more without
being penalized for it, so with the part-time job she does have, 4
hours every Sunday afternoon helping out at a Salvation Army store,
she qualifies for that additional $200, nothing subtracted from it,
for a total of almost $1,100 a month. Being on welfare. Her rational
is that if she took the full-time job at $12 an hour, then after
paying taxes and all the daily transportation costs of getting to work
and back and incurring full costs for dental and eye care services,
she might be lucky to still be clearing $1,100 per month. So what's
the incentive for her? It's a hard nut for me to crack because I can
see her point. So if that's not high social services, I don't know
what is.
I quite agree, and with the other point as well, which is that there
indeed is a level of social services which starts to disincent work.
Personally, and probably you would agree with this, people need to
aspire over and above a dole to live a full and complete life, but when
people have been beaten a bit by life's vicissitudes, it's easy to throw
in the towel if the money's there.
It's a no-win situation for people on welfare with the system
structured as it is. If they get paid too little, they'll never climb
out from under. If they get paid enough, then yes, it calls into
question as to whether that could ever motivate them into getting a
job. What needs to be done is to have welfare tied in with the
business sector to encourage businesses to look at the resumes of
those on welfare first when hiring to fill any vacancies. If they
can't find a qualified person for the position, then they move on up
the ladder to those on unemployment insurance. And if that doesn't
work, then they're free to look as they please. Now, what would
encourage them to want to do that? Well, that's the trick. Business,
as we all know, can be very grumpy and unaccommodating to rational
approaches to things without having to kick and scream and cry
"government intrusion!" like babies having just soiled their diapers.
Human beings hate intrusion into their decision making at the visceral
level. Businesses, which are just collections of human beings, are no
different. This is why the sort of thing you describe above (which,
depending on implementation, can be a perfectly reasonable policy) is
generally best implemented by providing a tax incentive for the business
to hire from the dole roll.
Right, raid the pockets of taxpayers again to subsidize business
decisions when businesses have all the money and more to make such
decisions themselves that, in fact, requires no money at all to make,
whether they hire a qualified person on welfare or a qualified person
off the street.
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
Post by wy
What is supposed to be the expense incurred by
businesses in hiring either qualified person to justify subsidizing
hiring people? It's stupid logic that could be expanded to
subsidizing companies to hire everyone they hire, on welfare,
unemployment or otherwise. I know you're probably going through a
drought in Texas, by do stay hydrated so you can think properly.
Actually, we've been in quite the rainstorm the past week, but thanks
for the concern.
Post by wy
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Pretty easily, due to the employee being a "triple threat" in this
scenario. The employer gets a deduction AND the employees sweat equity,
and pays a salary to get it; the employee loses the dole but gets a
salary that's higher, and the government loses the dole liability and
gets tax revenues.

It's a thing of beauty.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Simply put, Canada takes in per capita about the same as the US, perhaps
a slight bit more, but the people get back a LOT more in terms of social
services.
We're really taxed a lot more than Americans, don't believe the
simplistic chart comparisons you see.
The OECD does not lend itself to simplistic comparisons. Remember, where
you live is the outlier in Canada. YOU'RE taxed a lot more than
Americans, granted, but the data shows Ontario being about the same, and
Alberta being lower still.
Again, you're not looking at all the taxes. And neither is the OECD.
They're just comparing the easy surface level stuff, not any of the
hidden taxes. For example, the harmonized tax in some provinces is
actually a form of double taxation, which the OECD won't touch, and
http://www.straight.com/article-331950/vancouver/maureen-bader-bcs-hs...
I can't rule out the nuances such as this; the question is if they add
up to enough to negate the conclusion drawn from the OECD numbers. For
this particular case in BC, it's entirely possible. But spread over the
entire population and distributed on a per capita basis....?
It's like pointing out that New York City has a city income tax which
the vast majority of US cities don't have. Makes NYC pricier than other
locales, but doesn't move the needle much on national per capita tax
numbers.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God. My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong. Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd? That's supposed to impress me? I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world. And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province. That shows you.
Since the top tax rate in Quebec is 14 points higher than in Ontario, it
would be an embarrassment if McGill were NOT more highly ranked, but no
matter -- the issue was a personal one. I'll note the obvious, that
YOU'RE not claiming matriculation at McGill. Simply living in the same
province as a great university is not a personal achievement.
Yeah, well, you try doing it. The French would kick you out before
you could say bonjour.
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/2919531-Cathedral_Marie_Queen_of_t...
http://www.basiliquenddm.org/en/
That's in Old Montreal further southwest from the Hilton. Queen of
the World is much closer to the hotel, about a couple of blocks away.
We got to it somehow. I guess we took a cab to the restaurant --- it was
the day before New Year's, and you can imagine the weather.

Kady
wy
2012-07-18 00:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
This is a great article, except for the fact that Canada's not
socialist. :-)
It's a social democracy.  Of all the provinces, Quebec is the most
socialist, and whenever the NDP run it, British Columbia can be fairly
socialist.  Socialized medicine, the basis of the universal health
care system, got its start in Saskatchewan.  Overall, Canadians have
more of a European social "we" mindset than an American individualist
"I" outlook.
Understood. My point is that "social democracy" is not a variant of
Marxist socialism. A "socialist" state can exist with or without social
services, while a "democratic" state can do the same.
There are no Marxist socialist states that work well or ever have, so
why even bring it up other than to taint socialism or social democracy
and cast an illusion that they're all one and the same?  Try to be a
bit more objective by never being biased.
If we agree, how is one of us being objective and the other one not?
That's like saying that 2 doesn't equal 2.
Only your 2 is skewed to be what you want it to be, my 2 presents it
as it really is.  It helps to actually be Canadian and having lived in
Canada all your life to be able to make all the proper connections
between past and present and what's really what and what's really not
in the correct light.  Again, why bother throwing Marxist socialist
into the mix when it's got nothing to do with Canada's social
democracy unless you're trying to cast aspersions on even social
democracy which, in turn, negates your objectivity?
Nothing in my prior statement has anything to do with being Canadian,
American, conservative, liberal, socialist, or anything else; it's
simply a definitional issue, and we agreed that socialism and social
democracy are different beasts. You're beating a dead horse.
Whatever.  Just never throw in Marxist into anything that has nothing
to do with Marxism if you don't want to muddy up the definitional
issue.
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism.  The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
This is simply another example of socialists pretending that social
democracy = socialism, hoping that someday people will be stupid enough
to try (again) to advance *real* socialism, which of course is
government ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do
with the level of social services offered in a society.
The Government owns no means of production in Canada.  It may have a
small number of Crown corporations, but for the most part they're run
privately.
Exactly.
Post by kady
The rationality of the Canadian approach (especially as compared to the
1) Canadians realize that 100% of government monies come from business.
No, the majority comes from individual income taxes, the GST paid by
individuals and "PST" (various acronyms for each province's form of
double taxation) and various other taxes.  Corporate taxes account for
only 30% of all taxes
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-43-e.htm
Post by kady
Therefore, it is irrational to pursue policies which constrain business
profits, since without business profits, the government will have no money.
That's a joke, of course.
Not at all. Without jobs provided by business, individuals would have no
income nor any ability to purchase items; so, receipts from taxation on
individuals (income or sales) would be nil.
Without people wanting to work for businesses, businesses wouldn't
exist.  It's a two-way street, you know.
It DEVELOPS into a two way street, sure. But the first businesses are
sole proprietorships --- individuals without employees making money to
support themselves, out of which they THEN (not first) pay taxes.
You're talking about mom-and-pop shops.They're not businesses in the
true Corporate America sense, which for the most part don't begin with
just one lonely guy doing it all for a year or two.  Even Bain Capital
didn't begin that way.
Every business starts with a "lonely guy" or reasonable facsimile. If
they manage to be funded by an investor early on, then they
short-circuit a lot of the ramp-up; but that doesn't mean that didn't
start as a Guy with an Idea. >
A lonely guy having a great idea doesn't necessarily equate with the
same lonely guy starting up a business all by his lonely self.  A lot
of businesses are started up by partners, without which that lonely
guy's great idea would go nowhere.  A lot of people have great ideas,
only few can pull them off by their lonesome selves.  What often gets
in the way is the harsh reality of finances they usually don't have
and a lot of hard work most are not willing to devote themselves to,
at least not without some help.
Quite right, but we're getting a bit afield. All businesses start with
an idea, even if it's just Jack and Jill saying "let's start a sandwich
shop", a moment that was really no different than John D. Rockefeller
and Maurice Clark deciding to build the oil refinery which now is called
Exxon.
On those discrete moments of ideation, the entire world's capitalist
system depends. From there, it's all a matter of implementation, and the
speed of implementation, as you correctly point out, is often a matter
of access to capital.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
As that proprietorship grows and hires people, only THEN does the
feedback loop you refer to develop. But in all cases, the business
operation comes first. If the worker quits, he is replaced and the
business continues to earn profits and pay taxes; if the business quits,
the workers have no income.
Yes, but businesses need to borrow capital 99% of the time, and even
when they have capital, they still borrow.  And from where do they
borrow it to get started?  Banks.  But not with the bank's own money
because banks don't have any money they can call their own.  All money
in banks is taxpayers' money who have accounts in those banks or that
of other businesses who have accounts with money they've earned from
other taxpayers.  So essentially, Corporate America once again relies
on taxpayers' money just to get itself started because Corporate
America.
AGREED, *BUT* that does not place the business as a peer of the
taxpayer, worker, or citizen, and certainly not beholden to a
government.
If taxpayers are beholden to a government and businesses survive on
taxpayers' input, then by extension businesses are also beholden to a
government.  Remember: Corporations are people too, so what goes for
people goes for corporations.
At the time of incorporation (actually before) the growth of the venture
of course involves many inputs from taxpayer and government. However, in
Every business owner can be an employee, but not every employee can be a
business owner.
Unless some are partners.
Post by kady
Every business owner is a taxpayer, but not every taxpayer can be a
business owner.
Not every taxpayer wants to be a business owner.
Post by kady
Every business owner is a citizen, but not every citizen is a business
owner.
Redundant.
Post by kady
Bottom line, it is business activity which funds the citizens and who
fund the government.
Nope.  If it were true, you wouldn't have a deficit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/corporate-tax-revenues-ne_n_...
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business. So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time.  Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half.  Never mind 30 years.  All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things.  It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
I quite agree. Which goes to my point --- government needs to nurture
these unusual individuals, not restrict them.
The only way to do that is inject the workaholic DNA gene into them.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
You're going stupid on me, which is a typically American thing to do,
especially if you live in Texas.  I said 70% of ALL taxes.  Marginal,
effective, all that other gobbledygook is double-talk nonsense.  Just
understand 70% of ALL taxes - that says it ALL.
Then your use of the term is inconsistent with "high tax state" which is
a relative reference to prevailing tax rates.
My point is that Canada is not a "high tax state" in the conventional
meaning of the term. Denmark's a high tax state, the US isn't. Generally
speaking, high tax correlates with high social services, but NOT in the
case of highly efficient democracies such as Canada, New Zealand,
Australia.
You've never been to Quebec or know much about it, do you?
I actually have and do, but I've already acknowledged that Canada is a
high social service state, and Quebec is the upper outlier in social
services available. So, again, we're agreeing, not arguing,
You contradict yourself.  On the one hand you said high tax correlates
with high social services, but NOT in the case of highly efficient
democracies such as Canada, and then you say Canada is a high social
service state, but earlier said Canada is not a high taxed country,
being comparable to that of the US.  The contradiction lies in what
you don't say, which is that Canada's taxes are really much higher
than the US's in ways that go beyond web sites' simplistic charts.  An
interesting write-up is this conclusion to some guy's overall
assessment of tax differences between the US and Canada.
The Deceptive Statistic: Tax as a Percentage of GDP
"The statistic that really matters to the average citizen is taxes
paid as a percentage of income, which is never quoted and is precisely
the thing being calculated above. Even so, it is an incomplete picture
since sales taxes, provincial/state taxes, employment insurance,
duties, and social benefits are not included due to the difficulty of
comparison."
http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/comparison-of-canadian-and-...
And that's why when you look at all those pretty charts and stats and
everything looks like they fit perfectly to whatever ideology one
chooses to defend, it isn't perfect.
Never is. However, the OECD does their level best to come to a set of
numbers that represent a mean aggregation of tax burdens in the US and
Canada. Let's not let perfection be the enemy of the practical. We KNOW
that New York City residents pay more in total taxation that somebody in
rural Alberta; we also know that somebody in Montreal not only pays a
bit more than the New Yorker, but a *helluva* lot more than a Texan. We
can still come to an average and discuss it; and the averages show that
taxation in the US and Canada is *approximately* equivalent overall, and
that the Canadians get a lot more in social services for their money
than do the Americans.
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation.
You are a very difficult person to compliment. :-)
Compliment? Compliment what? My awareness that you didn't understand
the citation?
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed.  when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say. On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST. Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year. That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%. The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
Post by kady
  But seeing how all its verbiage
Post by wy
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43...
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues.  The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
What matters is the all-in rate. You have to pick up our high property
taxes and add in our private health insurance to normalize.
No, what matters is what we actually pay that determines the rate, not
what some generic chart that averages everything out says. For
example, if the total population of Canada was 10 and 7 people paid
$10,000 in taxes and 3 people paid $100 in taxes, the average would be
$7,300 paid in taxes. But the majority actually pays $10,000 each and
the minority only $100 each, so the average of $7,300 is misleading.
Now magnify that to 20 million taxpayers and in all probability the
majority will pay a significantly higher amount over the average.
That's why I say it's higher, much higher up here, because most people
pay higher - significantly higher than the average. To make a fair
comparison with the US, you'd have to determine how many taxpayers
compromise the majority above the average line (if it actually is a
majority, it might be possible that more Americans may be below the
average, especially due to how many millionaires and billionaires skew
the average), and then determine to what degree is the difference in
spread between the average of what the majority pays in Canada above
the average and what the majority (if it is a majority) pays in the US
above the average. If most taxpayers are below the average, then that
spread would be even much wider between the countries, which would be
in line with what the OECD has arrived at - 26% for the US and 33% for
Canada. And that's when you can see in more credible terms how much
most people actually pay and the real difference between Canada and
the US. I'm confident enough to say it's much higher for Canadians
than Americans.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
   The conclusion above was arrived
at when his own exhaustive examination "proved" that Americans pay
less than Canadians, but, in fact, not necessarily so.  It's all in
how you dice the tomatoes.  But believe me, up here, for a lot of
people, factoring everything in, not just fed income tax, it's a hell
of a lot more than what you guys pay down there.
"Though not an apples to apples comparison the fact of the matter is
that there is always been a perception that Canadians pay much higher
taxes then Americans when in truth the gap isn t nearly as wide as
people think. The biggest contributing factor for this perception is the
high price for similar goods in Canada compared to the US. People
automatically assume the price difference is based on higher taxes in
Canada when in fact for most items the price difference is due to other
factors."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43...
Oh yea, that helps a lot.  :-)
Take another sip, you're coming to now.
Post by kady
Post by wy
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues.  The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
So, who are you going to believe?  Someone who actually lives in
Canada and has taxes extracted out of every orifice of his body after
it's extracted from the orifice of his wallet, or someone who lives
1500 miles from the Canadian border and doesn't pay a single copper
penny of Canadian taxes?
So if I tell you that your stats are wrong and Texas actually has the
highest educational standards in the country, and that you should
believe me because I live here, whatchagonnasay?
You're proving how dumb you are by living in Texas.
Post by kady
Look, we've agreed that it is VERY DIFFICULT to come to these averages.
HOWEVER, every source that **I've cited** and that **YOU'VE** cited
indicate my original point, which is that Canadian taxation is a LOT
CLOSER TO AMERICAN LEVELS THAN DENMARK, GERMANY, and FRANCE, although
Canada delivers THE SAME OR BETTER SOCIAL SERVICES THAN THOSE HIGH TAX
COUNTRIES DO. For the US "bar" to make sense, it HAS to include property
taxation and health care premiums, because those components are
extremely high here.
It does include it, or did "Other Taxes" slip past you? And one would
think "Other Taxes" would include for both the US and the other
countries it to be comparable. And if it doesn't include it, then the
comparison is still fair but minus property taxes and health care
premiums for all countries. Don't try to get desperate and make it
sound like they included property tax and health care premiums for all
the others but not the US.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
    Talk about
Post by wy
high social services.  A friend of mine has unfortunately fallen into
a state of welfare through a bad case of Murphy's Law over the last
few years, but it looks like she'll be climbing out of that "trap"
soon with a unexpected new job offered her.  Oddly, she finds herself
in a quandary over accepting the job.  Why?  Because on the welfare
she's getting and other perks, she really doesn't need one.  She knows
it would be good for her to take the job, but I'm trying to convince
her to get out of the scenario she's painted for herself against
taking the job.  Here goes: ehe gets $715 per month on welfare, ehe
also gets $80 per month on what's called a shelter allowance, and
since last year ehe's been getting something called a solidarity tax
credit as well, which began at $22 per month last summer, went up to
$45 in January and is now at $75 this summer.  And, of course, there's
the GST refund, but that comes from the feds and amounts to about $65
every 3 months or about $22 per month. So altogether ehe's making just
under $900 a month staying home.  On top of that, ehe pays nothing for
health care and gets limited free dental services and eye care.  Her
rent is $490 per month, ehe pays $60 for electricity each month, on
average (Quebec rates are among the cheapest in the world), a basic
landline phone for $20 tied in with her basic cable internet service
for $30 per month, but no cable TV hook-up, just a box with a digital
antenna on his old 20-inch cathode ray tube TV, which seems to suit
her just fine.  In her case, she's lucky to have a cheap apartment, a
3 1/2, because it's kind of tough to find a decent one around here for
a $100 more at that size, but then, she had been living there for
quite a while so her increases are always low.  So all told, she
spends $600 on bills each month and has almost $300 left over.  Oh,
and I forgot.  On welfare, they'll allow you to earn $200 more without
being penalized for it, so with the part-time job she does have, 4
hours every Sunday afternoon helping out at a Salvation Army store,
she qualifies for that additional $200, nothing subtracted from it,
for a total of almost $1,100 a month.  Being on welfare.  Her rational
is that if she took the full-time job at $12 an hour, then after
paying taxes and all the daily transportation costs of getting to work
and back and incurring full costs for dental and eye care services,
she might be lucky to still be clearing $1,100 per month.  So what's
the incentive for her?  It's a hard nut for me to crack because I can
see her point.  So if that's not high social services, I don't know
what is.
I quite agree, and with the other point as well, which is that there
indeed is a level of social services which starts to disincent work.
Personally, and probably you would agree with this, people need to
aspire over and above a dole to live a full and complete life, but when
people have been beaten a bit by life's vicissitudes, it's easy to throw
in the towel if the money's there.
It's a no-win situation for people on welfare with the system
structured as it is.  If they get paid too little, they'll never climb
out from under.  If they get paid enough, then yes, it calls into
question as to whether that could ever motivate them into getting a
job.  What needs to be done is to have welfare tied in with the
business sector to encourage businesses to look at the resumes of
those on welfare first when hiring to fill any vacancies.  If they
can't find a qualified person for the position, then they move on up
the ladder to those on unemployment insurance.  And if that doesn't
work, then they're free to look as they please.  Now, what would
encourage them to want to do that?  Well, that's the trick.  Business,
as we all know, can be very grumpy and unaccommodating to rational
approaches to things without having to kick and scream and cry
"government intrusion!" like babies having just soiled their diapers.
Human beings hate intrusion into their decision making at the visceral
level. Businesses, which are just collections of human beings, are no
different. This is why the sort of thing you describe above (which,
depending on implementation, can be a perfectly reasonable policy) is
generally best implemented by providing a tax incentive for the business
to hire from the dole roll.
Right, raid the pockets of taxpayers again to subsidize business
decisions when businesses have all the money and more to make such
decisions themselves that, in fact, requires no money at all to make,
whether they hire a qualified person on welfare or a qualified person
off the street.
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load. You're not very
good at this, are you?
Post by kady
Post by wy
What is supposed to be the expense incurred by
businesses in hiring either qualified person to justify subsidizing
hiring people?  It's stupid logic that could be expanded to
subsidizing companies to hire everyone they hire, on welfare,
unemployment or otherwise.  I know you're probably going through a
drought in Texas, by do stay hydrated so you can think properly.
Actually, we've been in quite the rainstorm the past week, but thanks
for the concern.
Not enough apparently:

Recent thunderstorms have brought some much needed relief to Central
Texas, but have done very little to fill the Highland Lakes and
relieve the prolonged drought.

http://www.lcra.org/water/drought/index.html
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Pretty easily, due to the employee being a "triple threat" in this
scenario. The employer gets a deduction AND the employees sweat equity,
and pays a salary to get it; the employee loses the dole but gets a
salary that's higher, and the government loses the dole liability and
gets tax revenues.
It's a thing of beauty.
You're forgetting one thing, though. The government spends more on
someone unemployed on the dole than it gets back from that same now-
employed someone in tax revenues, so it's still a deficit. And the
employer doesn't need a deduction, especially when the employer can
afford it and especially when it only adds up to even more deficit for
the government (a.k.a. taxpayers). You're not very good at this, are
you?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Simply put, Canada takes in per capita about the same as the US, perhaps
a slight bit more, but the people get back a LOT more in terms of social
services.
We're really taxed a lot more than Americans, don't believe the
simplistic chart comparisons you see.
The OECD does not lend itself to simplistic comparisons. Remember, where
you live is the outlier in Canada. YOU'RE taxed a lot more than
Americans, granted, but the data shows Ontario being about the same, and
Alberta being lower still.
Again, you're not looking at all the taxes.  And neither is the OECD.
They're just comparing the easy surface level stuff, not any of the
hidden taxes.  For example, the harmonized tax in some provinces is
actually a form of double taxation, which the OECD won't touch, and
http://www.straight.com/article-331950/vancouver/maureen-bader-bcs-hs...
I can't rule out the nuances such as this; the question is if they add
up to enough to negate the conclusion drawn from the OECD numbers. For
this particular case in BC, it's entirely possible. But spread over the
entire population and distributed on a per capita basis....?
It's like pointing out that New York City has a city income tax which
the vast majority of US cities don't have. Makes NYC pricier than other
locales, but doesn't move the needle much on national per capita tax
numbers.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
5) I would disagree with the article in two points. First, the problem
is not the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution philosophically
PROMOTES government policies of efficiency --- we simply haven't
actualized them due to the aforementioned "us vs them" mentality.
FURTHER, the idea that Canada is highly regulated is a myth; this myth
stems from the mistaken belief that extensive welfare programs come
hand-in-hand with government-driven economies. If you look at the Index
of Economic Freedom (which, at its core, gauges the extent to which
laissez-faire policies dominate in a country, Canada is 6th behind Hong
Kong, Singapore, et al; the US is 10th due to its increasingly regulated
economic environment. There were, for example, no regulations that
prevented Canadian banks from speculating in CDOs. They just didn't.
Several of the CEOs of Canadian banks appeared on CBNC during the crisis
and aftermath to discuss this point.
I have mentioned in the past (which I'm sure that nobody remembers :-) )
that I am a border baby, raised in Western New York on the Canadian
border, graduated from the University of Toronto central campus, now
Texan by the grace of God.  My daughter, I am happy to say, has decided
to create our own family tradition by also going to U of Toronto,
although she's set her sights pretty high by wanting University,
Victoria, or Trinity Colleges, where admissions are legacy-driven. We'll
see how that turns out.
Explains why you got everything wrong.  Especially when you chose to
live in Texas, second dumbest state in the union after Mississippi.
What our vituperative "friend" doesn't wish to tell you is that the
University of Toronto Central Campus is an extremely competitive
educational institution, ranked 23rd in the world ahead of such US
institutions as Northwestern and the Ivy League Brown University.
I specifically mentioned "Toronto central campus" in the same paragraph
as "Texan" to see if he/she would fall into the trap of insulting either
my intelligence at the same time I was mentioning the fact of my
matriculation at a highly regarded university.
Fell right in...... :-)
23rd?  That's supposed to impress me?  I live in Quebec where McGill
is situated and ranks 17th in the world.  And Quebec is Canada's most
socialist province.  That shows you.
Since the top tax rate in Quebec is 14 points higher than in Ontario, it
would be an embarrassment if McGill were NOT more highly ranked, but no
matter -- the issue was a personal one. I'll note the obvious, that
YOU'RE not claiming matriculation at McGill. Simply living in the same
province as a great university is not a personal achievement.
Yeah, well, you try doing it.  The French would kick you out before
you could say bonjour.
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/2919531-Cathedral_Marie_Queen_of_t...
http://www.basiliquenddm.org/en/
That's in Old Montreal further southwest from the Hilton.  Queen of
the World is much closer to the hotel, about a couple of blocks away.
We got to it somehow. I guess we took a cab to the restaurant --- it was
the day before New Year's, and you can imagine the weather.
Sometimes it's not bad on New Year's, other times it can be sloppy,
and other times still somewhat brutal. Most of the last five years or
so have been unusually mild - global warming, you know.
kady
2012-07-18 01:55:30 UTC
Permalink
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism. The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Not everyone is inclined to be well read on all subjects. Varying POV's
will always appear on such issues.
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business. So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.

Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.

How would anyone else get money to pay taxes with, or to buy stuff with
so as to pay taxes at the point of sale?
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time. Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half. Never mind 30 years. All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things. It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
I quite agree. Which goes to my point --- government needs to nurture
these unusual individuals, not restrict them.
The only way to do that is inject the workaholic DNA gene into them.
You got it or you don't. I deal with these major corporation executives
every day and watch how they work 14 hour days and seven day weeks long
after they have multimillion dollar bank accounts. Makes no sense to me;
If I had two bills I'd have it invested and be living off the income on
a beach somewhere. I'm more than happy to take my lower income (which is
not meager in any sense) AND my evenings AND my weekends (although they
do a very good job of figuring out how to make us give those up, from
time to time.)

I always like to remind myself that nobody's (well, nobody that you'd
ever want to know) tombstone is going to say "Sr. Vice President at
{corp name)
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation.
You are a very difficult person to compliment. :-)
Compliment? Compliment what? My awareness that you didn't understand
the citation?
The fact that Canada is running a much more efficient government than
the US.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed. when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say. On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST. Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year. That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%. The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
So, your conclusion is (a) that all the data about Canadian taxation,
including the Canadian government's own tax website (where this part got
started) is all bullshit, your nation is (b) actually ineptly run, and
(c) you're taxed enough to make blood pour from your eyes???
Post by wy
Post by kady
But seeing how all its verbiage
Post by wy
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43...
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues. The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
What matters is the all-in rate. You have to pick up our high property
taxes and add in our private health insurance to normalize.
No, what matters is what we actually pay that determines the rate, not
what some generic chart that averages everything out says.
OK. Let's end this one.

The OECD is the acknowledged authority in economic analysis of member
states, including the earlier citation which compares the all-in
individual tax rates between the US and Canada. That analysis shows a
relatively minor tax burden rate between the US and Canada. The other
OECD methodology quoted, the tax wedge, also shows a relatively minor
differential, with the US tax wedge at 19.4%, Canada at 20.5%, and
places like Sweden at 41%.

We've spent most of the day burning up bandwidth because you disagree
with their analysis. Fair enough, and there are certainly a LOT of
variables, to the extent that a person without deductions in Quebec may
possibly reach Swedish levels, but the guy in rural Alberta has to be
considered as well in the averages. At the end of the day, you may
disagree with the OECD, but it's still the OECD. Canada's a member, and
the OECD hires loads of economists to get this kind of stuff right.

<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load. You're not very
good at this, are you?
To the contrary, it was extremely well explained. I suggest you rethink
the math. All you have to do is set the subsidy = to the dole, and the
government profits by the tax receipts.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
What is supposed to be the expense incurred by
businesses in hiring either qualified person to justify subsidizing
hiring people? It's stupid logic that could be expanded to
subsidizing companies to hire everyone they hire, on welfare,
unemployment or otherwise. I know you're probably going through a
drought in Texas, by do stay hydrated so you can think properly.
Actually, we've been in quite the rainstorm the past week, but thanks
for the concern.
Recent thunderstorms have brought some much needed relief to Central
Texas, but have done very little to fill the Highland Lakes and
relieve the prolonged drought.
http://www.lcra.org/water/drought/index.html
I would have thought you were aware that from a statistical standpoint,
"drought" refers to a dearth of rainfall over a period of time. It's
quite possible to be flooded out and still be in a technical drought,
depending on how bad the earlier months in the reporting period are.

Suffice to say that nobody feels they're in a drought right now; we're
well over our average rainfall for the year, but those dry months in
2011 are still in the reporting period.

Here are some pictures of our drought:

https://www.google.com/search?q=flooding%20in%20houston&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RhEGUKvCBImjrQHahNXvCA&biw=1540&bih=721&sei=-REGUIb2Moa5qQGguOS0CA#um=1&hl=en&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=flooding+in+houston+2012&oq=flooding+in+houston+2012&gs_l=img.3...6192.9785.2.10121.26.19.0.0.0.1.936.9996.2-6j2j1j1j8.18.0...0.0...1c.fd6d5_u6QZU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=6eedf625d45a2fe9&biw=1540&bih=721
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Pretty easily, due to the employee being a "triple threat" in this
scenario. The employer gets a deduction AND the employees sweat equity,
and pays a salary to get it; the employee loses the dole but gets a
salary that's higher, and the government loses the dole liability and
gets tax revenues.
It's a thing of beauty.
You're forgetting one thing, though. The government spends more on
someone unemployed on the dole than it gets back from that same now-
employed someone in tax revenues, so it's still a deficit. And the
employer doesn't need a deduction, especially when the employer can
afford it and especially when it only adds up to even more deficit for
the government (a.k.a. taxpayers). You're not very good at this, are
you?
How's that? All you have to do is set the subsidy to approximate the
dole. Instead of giving the money to the individual, you give it to the
corporation (net/net) and then the goverment nets up by the tax receipts.
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/2919531-Cathedral_Marie_Queen_of_t...
http://www.basiliquenddm.org/en/
That's in Old Montreal further southwest from the Hilton. Queen of
the World is much closer to the hotel, about a couple of blocks away.
We got to it somehow. I guess we took a cab to the restaurant --- it was
the day before New Year's, and you can imagine the weather.
Sometimes it's not bad on New Year's, other times it can be sloppy,
and other times still somewhat brutal. Most of the last five years or
so have been unusually mild - global warming, you know.
This one was sloppy; I distinctly remember having to search for spots to
step so I wouldn't ruin my boots (I chose style over practicality that
night. Complicated things. :-)

Kady
wy
2012-07-18 03:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism.  The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Not everyone is inclined to be well read on all subjects. Varying POV's
will always appear on such issues.
Yeah, more so in the uneducated US than anywhere else.
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.  And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business.  So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.
Nice evasive manoeuver - no math required. Translation: Duhhh, I
can't do the math 'cause I don'ts know how, sorry - tee-hee. And the
US and Canada do have businesses, like GSEs such as Corp. for Public
Broadcasting and the post office in the US and Crown corporations in
Canada such as the CBC and Via Rail.
Post by kady
Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.
There is no business without taxpayers lending them money to start
businesses through bank loans using taxpayers' deposits and government
subsidy programs using taxpayers' money. Money just doesn't
materialize independently out of nowhere whenever a business wants to
get started, you know; it has to come from somewhere and invariably,
through one means or another, it comes from taxpayers who get it in
the form of wages from businesses that got started by taxpayers' money
and round and round and round she goes. Which came first, the chicken
or the egg?
Post by kady
How would anyone else get money to pay taxes with, or to buy stuff with
so as to pay taxes at the point of sale?
Win a lottery or in a Vegas casino.
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time.  Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half.  Never mind 30 years.  All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things.  It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
I quite agree. Which goes to my point --- government needs to nurture
these unusual individuals, not restrict them.
The only way to do that is inject the workaholic DNA gene into them.
You got it or you don't. I deal with these major corporation executives
every day and watch how they work 14 hour days and seven day weeks long
after they have multimillion dollar bank accounts. Makes no sense to me;
If I had two bills I'd have it invested and be living off the income on
a beach somewhere. I'm more than happy to take my lower income (which is
not meager in any sense) AND my evenings AND my weekends (although they
do a very good job of figuring out how to make us give those up, from
time to time.)
I always like to remind myself that nobody's (well, nobody that you'd
ever want to know) tombstone is going to say "Sr. Vice President at
{corp name)
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation.
You are a very difficult person to compliment. :-)
Compliment?  Compliment what?  My awareness that you didn't understand
the citation?
The fact that Canada is running a much more efficient government than
the US.
Then what's the compliment got to do with me, as you were referring to
me as a very difficult person to compliment? You've been under the
hot Texas sun for too long now.
Post by kady
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed.  when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say.  On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST.  Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year.  That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%.  The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
So, your conclusion is (a) that all the data about Canadian taxation,
including the Canadian government's own tax website (where this part got
started) is all bullshit, your nation is (b) actually ineptly run, and
(c) you're taxed enough to make blood pour from your eyes???
No, that's your conclusion. My conclusion is that we're taxed more
than you are but we see what we get in return for it and generally we
like it, though we still wish we didn't have to pay so much for it.
Post by kady
Post by kady
   But seeing how all its verbiage
Post by wy
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43...
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues.  The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
What matters is the all-in rate. You have to pick up our high property
taxes and add in our private health insurance to normalize.
No, what matters is what we actually pay that determines the rate, not
what some generic chart that averages everything out says.
OK. Let's end this one.
The OECD is the acknowledged authority in economic analysis of member
states, including the earlier citation which compares the all-in
individual tax rates between the US and Canada. That analysis shows a
relatively minor tax burden rate between the US and Canada. The other
OECD methodology quoted, the tax wedge, also shows a relatively minor
differential, with the US tax wedge at 19.4%, Canada at 20.5%, and
places like Sweden at 41%.
We've spent most of the day burning up bandwidth because you disagree
with their analysis. Fair enough, and there are certainly a LOT of
variables, to the extent that a person without deductions in Quebec may
possibly reach Swedish levels, but the guy in rural Alberta has to be
considered as well in the averages. At the end of the day, you may
disagree with the OECD, but it's still the OECD. Canada's a member, and
the OECD hires loads of economists to get this kind of stuff right.
The only acknowledged authority is the one who actually pays taxes
among the majority above the average taxes paid, everything else is
just averages which, as I've explained before, can be very misleading.
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load.  You're not very
good at this, are you?
To the contrary, it was extremely well explained. I suggest you rethink
the math. All you have to do is set the subsidy = to the dole, and the
government profits by the tax receipts.
No, it makes more sense if there was no subsidy at all. That way tax
receipts are maximized.
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
What is supposed to be the expense incurred by
businesses in hiring either qualified person to justify subsidizing
hiring people?  It's stupid logic that could be expanded to
subsidizing companies to hire everyone they hire, on welfare,
unemployment or otherwise.  I know you're probably going through a
drought in Texas, by do stay hydrated so you can think properly.
Actually, we've been in quite the rainstorm the past week, but thanks
for the concern.
Recent thunderstorms have brought some much needed relief to Central
Texas, but have done very little to fill the Highland Lakes and
relieve the prolonged drought.
http://www.lcra.org/water/drought/index.html
I would have thought you were aware that from a statistical standpoint,
"drought" refers to a dearth of rainfall over a period of time. It's
quite possible to be flooded out and still be in a technical drought,
depending on how bad the earlier months in the reporting period are.
Suffice to say that nobody feels they're in a drought right now; we're
well over our average rainfall for the year, but those dry months in
2011 are still in the reporting period.
https://www.google.com/search?q=flooding%20in%20houston&oe=utf-8&clie...
Well, you'll know in about 10 days if you are or aren't because that's
when the state of the corn crops in particular will determine if
you're officially in a drought or not - even if it doesn't look like a
drought to you if it's concluded that it actually is.
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Pretty easily, due to the employee being a "triple threat" in this
scenario. The employer gets a deduction AND the employees sweat equity,
and pays a salary to get it; the employee loses the dole but gets a
salary that's higher, and the government loses the dole liability and
gets tax revenues.
It's a thing of beauty.
You're forgetting one thing, though.  The government spends more on
someone unemployed on the dole than it gets back from that same now-
employed someone in tax revenues, so it's still a deficit.  And the
employer doesn't need a deduction, especially when the employer can
afford it and especially when it only adds up to even more deficit for
the government (a.k.a. taxpayers).  You're not very good at this, are
you?
How's that? All you have to do is set the subsidy to approximate the
dole. Instead of giving the money to the individual, you give it to the
corporation (net/net) and then the goverment nets up by the tax receipts.
Here's the equation: no subsidy = more revenue.
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/2919531-Cathedral_Marie_Queen_of_t...
http://www.basiliquenddm.org/en/
That's in Old Montreal further southwest from the Hilton.  Queen of
the World is much closer to the hotel, about a couple of blocks away.
We got to it somehow. I guess we took a cab to the restaurant --- it was
the day before New Year's, and you can imagine the weather.
Sometimes it's not bad on New Year's, other times it can be sloppy,
and other times still somewhat brutal.  Most of the last five years or
so have been unusually mild - global warming, you know.
This one was sloppy; I distinctly remember having to search for spots to
step so I wouldn't ruin my boots (I chose style over practicality that
night. Complicated things. :-)
Kady
kady
2012-07-18 04:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism. The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Not everyone is inclined to be well read on all subjects. Varying POV's
will always appear on such issues.
Yeah, more so in the uneducated US than anywhere else.
An interesting thing on that subject --- the US does indeed have ON
AVERAGE relatively poor educational outcomes, but yet turns out a
tremendous number of leading scholars, Nobel winners, etc; and of course
has top-notch universities, with 11 of the top 15 universities that we
each referred to earlier today.

I heard a lecture a while back on the subject where the researcher, a
leader in the area of cognitive research discussed this very subject --
that the US clearly suffers in educational measurements at the primary
and secondary levels, these discrepancies not just disappear, but
reverse themselves at the higher educational level.

His point was that although the US suffers on measurements that we KNOW
how to make, we are doing something very, very *right* at the level of
higher education that we do *not* know how to measure.

An interesting conundrum.
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business. So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.
Nice evasive manoeuver - no math required. Translation: Duhhh, I
can't do the math 'cause I don'ts know how, sorry - tee-hee.
I know you pride yourself on being an excellent baiter, but substituting
this sort of thing with a straw man is rather weak. There is no reason
to think that a matter of simple logic requires resolution by mathematics.

Which is undoubtedly what upsets you so. Businesses pay taxes, and
businesses pay people who then use the money to pay taxes and buy
things. Ergo, all the money comes from business. Simple.

And the
Post by wy
US and Canada do have businesses, like GSEs such as Corp. for Public
Broadcasting and the post office in the US and Crown corporations in
Canada such as the CBC and Via Rail.
And how do the people who pay for such services obtain their money?
Post by wy
Post by kady
Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.
There is no business without taxpayers lending them money
We have already disproven this nonsense. Few businesses receive funding
prior to their first earnings; the vast majority have a bootstrap phase;
capital is raised through savings and families. So, let's drop this ---
it's at variance with reality.

to start
Post by wy
businesses through bank loans using taxpayers' deposits and government
subsidy programs using taxpayers' money. Money just doesn't
materialize independently out of nowhere whenever a business wants to
get started, you know; it has to come from somewhere and invariably,
through one means or another, it comes from taxpayers who get it in
the form of wages from businesses that got started by taxpayers' money
and round and round and round she goes. Which came first, the chicken
or the egg?
The person with the idea to start the business, who does so whether or
not he gets a loan.
Post by wy
Post by kady
How would anyone else get money to pay taxes with, or to buy stuff with
so as to pay taxes at the point of sale?
Win a lottery or in a Vegas casino.
Yes, that happens so often. :-)
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time. Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half. Never mind 30 years. All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things. It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
I quite agree. Which goes to my point --- government needs to nurture
these unusual individuals, not restrict them.
The only way to do that is inject the workaholic DNA gene into them.
You got it or you don't. I deal with these major corporation executives
every day and watch how they work 14 hour days and seven day weeks long
after they have multimillion dollar bank accounts. Makes no sense to me;
If I had two bills I'd have it invested and be living off the income on
a beach somewhere. I'm more than happy to take my lower income (which is
not meager in any sense) AND my evenings AND my weekends (although they
do a very good job of figuring out how to make us give those up, from
time to time.)
I always like to remind myself that nobody's (well, nobody that you'd
ever want to know) tombstone is going to say "Sr. Vice President at
{corp name)
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation.
You are a very difficult person to compliment. :-)
Compliment? Compliment what? My awareness that you didn't understand
the citation?
The fact that Canada is running a much more efficient government than
the US.
Then what's the compliment got to do with me, as you were referring to
me as a very difficult person to compliment? You've been under the
hot Texas sun for too long now.
Are you not proud of your country? Do you not take pride it its
achievements?
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed. when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say. On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST. Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year. That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%. The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
So, your conclusion is (a) that all the data about Canadian taxation,
including the Canadian government's own tax website (where this part got
started) is all bullshit, your nation is (b) actually ineptly run, and
(c) you're taxed enough to make blood pour from your eyes???
No, that's your conclusion. My conclusion is that we're taxed more
than you are but we see what we get in return for it and generally we
like it, though we still wish we didn't have to pay so much for it.
And mine is that all that is correct, but you're *not* taxed, on
average, that more than us, if at all. Close enough.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
But seeing how all its verbiage
Post by wy
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43...
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues. The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
What matters is the all-in rate. You have to pick up our high property
taxes and add in our private health insurance to normalize.
No, what matters is what we actually pay that determines the rate, not
what some generic chart that averages everything out says.
OK. Let's end this one.
The OECD is the acknowledged authority in economic analysis of member
states, including the earlier citation which compares the all-in
individual tax rates between the US and Canada. That analysis shows a
relatively minor tax burden rate between the US and Canada. The other
OECD methodology quoted, the tax wedge, also shows a relatively minor
differential, with the US tax wedge at 19.4%, Canada at 20.5%, and
places like Sweden at 41%.
We've spent most of the day burning up bandwidth because you disagree
with their analysis. Fair enough, and there are certainly a LOT of
variables, to the extent that a person without deductions in Quebec may
possibly reach Swedish levels, but the guy in rural Alberta has to be
considered as well in the averages. At the end of the day, you may
disagree with the OECD, but it's still the OECD. Canada's a member, and
the OECD hires loads of economists to get this kind of stuff right.
The only acknowledged authority is the one who actually pays taxes
among the majority above the average taxes paid, everything else is
just averages which, as I've explained before, can be very misleading.
Always are.
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load. You're not very
good at this, are you?
To the contrary, it was extremely well explained. I suggest you rethink
the math. All you have to do is set the subsidy = to the dole, and the
government profits by the tax receipts.
No, it makes more sense if there was no subsidy at all. That way tax
receipts are maximized.
How? Without the incentive strategy, the company will be biased in their
hiring towards the employed; the dole is never averted, the unemployed
is never put onto the rolls of the hired.

This part of the discussion began with YOUR story and concern about
cycles of dependency and how to end them. Part of that cycle is the bias
toward the employed. You end that by incenting the company to hire the
unemployed, and there is no other way to accomplish it without further
negative consequences.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
What is supposed to be the expense incurred by
businesses in hiring either qualified person to justify subsidizing
hiring people? It's stupid logic that could be expanded to
subsidizing companies to hire everyone they hire, on welfare,
unemployment or otherwise. I know you're probably going through a
drought in Texas, by do stay hydrated so you can think properly.
Actually, we've been in quite the rainstorm the past week, but thanks
for the concern.
Recent thunderstorms have brought some much needed relief to Central
Texas, but have done very little to fill the Highland Lakes and
relieve the prolonged drought.
http://www.lcra.org/water/drought/index.html
I would have thought you were aware that from a statistical standpoint,
"drought" refers to a dearth of rainfall over a period of time. It's
quite possible to be flooded out and still be in a technical drought,
depending on how bad the earlier months in the reporting period are.
Suffice to say that nobody feels they're in a drought right now; we're
well over our average rainfall for the year, but those dry months in
2011 are still in the reporting period.
https://www.google.com/search?q=flooding%20in%20houston&oe=utf-8&clie...
Well, you'll know in about 10 days if you are or aren't because that's
when the state of the corn crops in particular will determine if
you're officially in a drought or not - even if it doesn't look like a
drought to you if it's concluded that it actually is.
No doubt. However, if we continue for the rest of the year at the
present rate, at some point in time, the NOAA will officially tell us
that it is "over".

In the meantime, our local reservoirs are within shouting distance of
being full again, after falling frighteningly low last summer.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Pretty easily, due to the employee being a "triple threat" in this
scenario. The employer gets a deduction AND the employees sweat equity,
and pays a salary to get it; the employee loses the dole but gets a
salary that's higher, and the government loses the dole liability and
gets tax revenues.
It's a thing of beauty.
You're forgetting one thing, though. The government spends more on
someone unemployed on the dole than it gets back from that same now-
employed someone in tax revenues, so it's still a deficit. And the
employer doesn't need a deduction, especially when the employer can
afford it and especially when it only adds up to even more deficit for
the government (a.k.a. taxpayers). You're not very good at this, are
you?
How's that? All you have to do is set the subsidy to approximate the
dole. Instead of giving the money to the individual, you give it to the
corporation (net/net) and then the goverment nets up by the tax receipts.
Here's the equation: no subsidy = more revenue.
The unemployed will simply be left that way, then. The unemployed
individual continues to represent the cost of the dole and the lost tax
receipts; the company hires somebody already employed, who gets a 10%
raise, of which the government gets a 2% cut.

Kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/2919531-Cathedral_Marie_Queen_of_t...
http://www.basiliquenddm.org/en/
That's in Old Montreal further southwest from the Hilton. Queen of
the World is much closer to the hotel, about a couple of blocks away.
We got to it somehow. I guess we took a cab to the restaurant --- it was
the day before New Year's, and you can imagine the weather.
Sometimes it's not bad on New Year's, other times it can be sloppy,
and other times still somewhat brutal. Most of the last five years or
so have been unusually mild - global warming, you know.
This one was sloppy; I distinctly remember having to search for spots to
step so I wouldn't ruin my boots (I chose style over practicality that
night. Complicated things. :-)
Kady
wy
2012-07-18 05:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism.  The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Not everyone is inclined to be well read on all subjects. Varying POV's
will always appear on such issues.
Yeah, more so in the uneducated US than anywhere else.
An interesting thing on that subject --- the US does indeed have ON
AVERAGE relatively poor educational outcomes, but yet turns out a
tremendous number of leading scholars, Nobel winners, etc; and of course
has top-notch universities, with 11 of the top 15 universities that we
each referred to earlier today.
I heard a lecture a while back on the subject where the researcher, a
leader in the area of cognitive research discussed this very subject --
that the US clearly suffers in educational measurements at the primary
and secondary levels, these discrepancies not just disappear, but
reverse themselves at the higher educational level.
His point was that although the US suffers on measurements that we KNOW
how to make, we are doing something very, very *right* at the level of
higher education that we do *not* know how to measure.
An interesting conundrum.
No conundrum at all. Those who made it to university simply had the
grades, that's all - which is why they appear to do well there.
Sheesh, you really get bowled over easily by some researcher's
gobbledygook, don't you?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.  And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business.  So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.
Nice evasive manoeuver - no math required.  Translation: Duhhh, I
can't do the math 'cause I don'ts know how, sorry - tee-hee.
I know you pride yourself on being an excellent baiter, but substituting
this sort of thing with a straw man is rather weak. There is no reason
to think that a matter of simple logic requires resolution by mathematics.
You have to prove the logic. That's what algebra does all the time.
Just saying it's logic doesn't automatically make it so.
Post by kady
Which is undoubtedly what upsets you so. Businesses pay taxes, and
businesses pay people who then use the money to pay taxes and buy
things. Ergo, all the money comes from business. Simple.
And where do businesses get all that money to not only start up as
businesses but also pay people?
Post by kady
   And the
Post by wy
US and Canada do have businesses, like GSEs such as Corp. for Public
Broadcasting and the post office in the US and Crown corporations in
Canada such as the CBC and Via Rail.
And how do the people who pay for such services obtain their money?
From businesses that had to obtain their money from somewhere to begin
as businesses in the first place before they could pay people. And
from where would that actually be that they'd get that money?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.
There is no business without taxpayers lending them money
We have already disproven this nonsense. Few businesses receive funding
prior to their first earnings; the vast majority have a bootstrap phase;
capital is raised through savings and families. So, let's drop this ---
it's at variance with reality.
Virtually all businesses begin with loans, so don't be an ignoramus.
Even successful major corporations borrow money, for tax deduction
purposes, to finance expansion or whatnot. Corporate America runs on
loans and subsidies. For example, why does Exxon need billions in
subsidies each year? Isn't $40 billion in profit each year enough for
the company - especially when its taxes are at a negative rate of
about 14%, far below the 35% it should have to pay? So who ends up
forking over all those billions in subsidies to Exxon? Right,
taxpayers. And not only does it come from taxpayers, but they get
shafted again at the pump not only by paying for gas, but also paying
the tax on gas that Exxon doesn't pay itself because the taxpayers'
subsidies effectively pay a good portion of those taxes that the
company should be paying itself. So taxpayers lose by handing over
subsidies and they lose again by paying Exxon's taxes for them at the
pump. Nice.
Post by kady
to start
Post by wy
businesses through bank loans using taxpayers' deposits and government
subsidy programs using taxpayers' money.  Money just doesn't
materialize independently out of nowhere whenever a business wants to
get started, you know; it has to come from somewhere and invariably,
through one means or another, it comes from taxpayers who get it in
the form of wages from businesses that got started by taxpayers' money
and round and round and round she goes.  Which came first, the chicken
or the egg?
The person with the idea to start the business, who does so whether or
not he gets a loan.
The idea is basically DOA without getting the loan and/or partners.
This is not to say that it can't be done with one lonely guy doing it
all by himself at the start, but not only would he have to have his
own money, and enough of it, which usually isn't the case, but it's
also a real rarity that it would happen and nowhere near to being the
rule.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
How would anyone else get money to pay taxes with, or to buy stuff with
so as to pay taxes at the point of sale?
Win a lottery or in a Vegas casino.
Yes, that happens so often. :-)
It happened to me. $25 grand on the lottery. Great thing about
lotteries in Canada is that when they say you've won $25 grand, then
you've actually won $25 grand - fully tax-free. The same could
happen in the US, if you guys would only tax the rich more so you
wouldn't have to suck money out of the poor lottery winner.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time.  Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half.  Never mind 30 years.  All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things.  It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
I quite agree. Which goes to my point --- government needs to nurture
these unusual individuals, not restrict them.
The only way to do that is inject the workaholic DNA gene into them.
You got it or you don't. I deal with these major corporation executives
every day and watch how they work 14 hour days and seven day weeks long
after they have multimillion dollar bank accounts. Makes no sense to me;
If I had two bills I'd have it invested and be living off the income on
a beach somewhere. I'm more than happy to take my lower income (which is
not meager in any sense) AND my evenings AND my weekends (although they
do a very good job of figuring out how to make us give those up, from
time to time.)
I always like to remind myself that nobody's (well, nobody that you'd
ever want to know) tombstone is going to say "Sr. Vice President at
{corp name)
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation.
You are a very difficult person to compliment. :-)
Compliment?  Compliment what?  My awareness that you didn't understand
the citation?
The fact that Canada is running a much more efficient government than
the US.
Then what's the compliment got to do with me, as you were referring to
me as a very difficult person to compliment?  You've been under the
hot Texas sun for too long now.
Are you not proud of your country? Do you not take pride it its
achievements?
I still don't get how that's supposed to be trying to compliment ME.
You might want to rephrase that statement about me being a very
difficult person to compliment.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed.  when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say.  On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST.  Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year.  That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%.  The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
So, your conclusion is (a) that all the data about Canadian taxation,
including the Canadian government's own tax website (where this part got
started) is all bullshit, your nation is (b) actually ineptly run, and
(c) you're taxed enough to make blood pour from your eyes???
No, that's your conclusion.  My conclusion is that we're taxed more
than you are but we see what we get in return for it and generally we
like it, though we still wish we didn't have to pay so much for it.
And mine is that all that is correct, but you're *not* taxed, on
average, that more than us, if at all. Close enough.
Well, I win because I have to pay those taxes and you don't.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
    But seeing how all its verbiage
Post by wy
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43...
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues.  The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
What matters is the all-in rate. You have to pick up our high property
taxes and add in our private health insurance to normalize.
No, what matters is what we actually pay that determines the rate, not
what some generic chart that averages everything out says.
OK. Let's end this one.
The OECD is the acknowledged authority in economic analysis of member
states, including the earlier citation which compares the all-in
individual tax rates between the US and Canada. That analysis shows a
relatively minor tax burden rate between the US and Canada. The other
OECD methodology quoted, the tax wedge, also shows a relatively minor
differential, with the US tax wedge at 19.4%, Canada at 20.5%, and
places like Sweden at 41%.
We've spent most of the day burning up bandwidth because you disagree
with their analysis. Fair enough, and there are certainly a LOT of
variables, to the extent that a person without deductions in Quebec may
possibly reach Swedish levels, but the guy in rural Alberta has to be
considered as well in the averages. At the end of the day, you may
disagree with the OECD, but it's still the OECD. Canada's a member, and
the OECD hires loads of economists to get this kind of stuff right.
The only acknowledged authority is the one who actually pays taxes
among the majority above the average taxes paid, everything else is
just averages which, as I've explained before, can be very misleading.
Always are.
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load.  You're not very
good at this, are you?
To the contrary, it was extremely well explained. I suggest you rethink
the math. All you have to do is set the subsidy = to the dole, and the
government profits by the tax receipts.
No, it makes more sense if there was no subsidy at all.  That way tax
receipts are maximized.
How? Without the incentive strategy, the company will be biased in their
hiring towards the employed; the dole is never averted, the unemployed
is never put onto the rolls of the hired.
This part of the discussion began with YOUR story and concern about
cycles of dependency and how to end them. Part of that cycle is the bias
toward the employed. You end that by incenting the company to hire the
unemployed, and there is no other way to accomplish it without further
negative consequences.
How's this for an incentive strategy? If they hire someone other than
a welfare or unemployed person, the company gets penalized the
equivalent of the first 6 months of the hired person's salary. That
money would then go towards the costs of retraining the passed-over
welfare or unemployed person, if he or she has been passed over too
many times, to sharpen their skills or help redirect them to another
line of work. Now that's a much better and more constructive use of
money than subsidizing businesses that really don't need the
subsidies. Your problem is you don't think outside of the box to
shake things up in a different direction, restricting yourself instead
to the same old rehash of the same old banal ideas that seldom have
proven to have effectively worked.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
What is supposed to be the expense incurred by
businesses in hiring either qualified person to justify subsidizing
hiring people?  It's stupid logic that could be expanded to
subsidizing companies to hire everyone they hire, on welfare,
unemployment or otherwise.  I know you're probably going through a
drought in Texas, by do stay hydrated so you can think properly.
Actually, we've been in quite the rainstorm the past week, but thanks
for the concern.
Recent thunderstorms have brought some much needed relief to Central
Texas, but have done very little to fill the Highland Lakes and
relieve the prolonged drought.
http://www.lcra.org/water/drought/index.html
I would have thought you were aware that from a statistical standpoint,
"drought" refers to a dearth of rainfall over a period of time. It's
quite possible to be flooded out and still be in a technical drought,
depending on how bad the earlier months in the reporting period are.
Suffice to say that nobody feels they're in a drought right now; we're
well over our average rainfall for the year, but those dry months in
2011 are still in the reporting period.
https://www.google.com/search?q=flooding%20in%20houston&oe=utf-8&clie...
Well, you'll know in about 10 days if you are or aren't because that's
when the state of the corn crops in particular will determine if
you're officially in a drought or not - even if it doesn't look like a
drought to you if it's concluded that it actually is.
No doubt. However, if we continue for the rest of the year at the
present rate, at some point in time, the NOAA will officially tell us
that it is "over".
In the meantime, our local reservoirs are within shouting distance of
being full again, after falling frighteningly low last summer.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Pretty easily, due to the employee being a "triple threat" in this
scenario. The employer gets a deduction AND the employees sweat equity,
and pays a salary to get it; the employee loses the dole but gets a
salary that's higher, and the government loses the dole liability and
gets tax revenues.
It's a thing of beauty.
You're forgetting one thing, though.  The government spends more on
someone unemployed on the dole than it gets back from that same now-
employed someone in tax revenues, so it's still a deficit.  And the
employer doesn't need a deduction, especially when the employer can
afford it and especially when it only adds up to even more deficit for
the government (a.k.a. taxpayers).  You're not very good at this, are
you?
How's that? All you have to do is set the subsidy to approximate the
dole. Instead of giving the money to the individual, you give it to the
corporation (net/net) and then the goverment nets up by the tax receipts.
Here's the equation: no subsidy = more revenue.
The unemployed will simply be left that way, then. The unemployed
individual continues to represent the cost of the dole and the lost tax
receipts; the company hires somebody already employed, who gets a 10%
raise, of which the government gets a 2% cut.
Yeah, well, see above penalty plan for companies that pass on hiring
welfare and unemployed people - which is what would happen in a
perfect universe.
Post by kady
Kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
I like the Cathedral downtown down the street from the to the Hilton
Bonaventure. It's what, St. Louis Cathedral? Truly a gem.
You probably mean Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/2919531-Cathedral_Marie_Queen_of_t...
http://www.basiliquenddm.org/en/
That's in Old Montreal further southwest from the Hilton.  Queen of
the World is much closer to the hotel, about a couple of blocks away.
We got to it somehow. I guess we took a cab to the restaurant --- it was
the day before New Year's, and you can imagine the weather.
Sometimes it's not bad on New Year's, other times it can be sloppy,
and other times still somewhat brutal.  Most of the last five years or
so have been unusually mild - global warming, you know.
This one was sloppy; I distinctly remember having to search for spots to
step so I wouldn't ruin my boots (I chose style over practicality that
night. Complicated things. :-)
Kady
kady
2012-07-18 11:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism. The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Not everyone is inclined to be well read on all subjects. Varying POV's
will always appear on such issues.
Yeah, more so in the uneducated US than anywhere else.
An interesting thing on that subject --- the US does indeed have ON
AVERAGE relatively poor educational outcomes, but yet turns out a
tremendous number of leading scholars, Nobel winners, etc; and of course
has top-notch universities, with 11 of the top 15 universities that we
each referred to earlier today.
I heard a lecture a while back on the subject where the researcher, a
leader in the area of cognitive research discussed this very subject --
that the US clearly suffers in educational measurements at the primary
and secondary levels, these discrepancies not just disappear, but
reverse themselves at the higher educational level.
His point was that although the US suffers on measurements that we KNOW
how to make, we are doing something very, very *right* at the level of
higher education that we do *not* know how to measure.
An interesting conundrum.
No conundrum at all. Those who made it to university simply had the
grades, that's all - which is why they appear to do well there.
Sheesh, you really get bowled over easily by some researcher's
gobbledygook, don't you?
The conundrum still exists, even if you choose not to look at it.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business. So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.
Nice evasive manoeuver - no math required. Translation: Duhhh, I
can't do the math 'cause I don'ts know how, sorry - tee-hee.
I know you pride yourself on being an excellent baiter, but substituting
this sort of thing with a straw man is rather weak. There is no reason
to think that a matter of simple logic requires resolution by mathematics.
You have to prove the logic. That's what algebra does all the time.
Just saying it's logic doesn't automatically make it so.
Post by kady
Which is undoubtedly what upsets you so. Businesses pay taxes, and
businesses pay people who then use the money to pay taxes and buy
things. Ergo, all the money comes from business. Simple.
And where do businesses get all that money to not only start up as
businesses but also pay people?
Money saved from other business activity, paid out to people as wages.
Post by wy
Post by kady
And the
Post by wy
US and Canada do have businesses, like GSEs such as Corp. for Public
Broadcasting and the post office in the US and Crown corporations in
Canada such as the CBC and Via Rail.
And how do the people who pay for such services obtain their money?
From businesses that had to obtain their money from somewhere to begin
as businesses in the first place before they could pay people. And
from where would that actually be that they'd get that money?
Precisely. Other businesses.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.
There is no business without taxpayers lending them money
We have already disproven this nonsense. Few businesses receive funding
prior to their first earnings; the vast majority have a bootstrap phase;
capital is raised through savings and families. So, let's drop this ---
it's at variance with reality.
Virtually all businesses begin with loans
The vast majority begin with personal savings or noncommercial loans
from family. And, even in those cases, the money is STILL the product of
other wages, so what you have is businesses indirectly funding the
startup of new businesses.

, so don't be an ignoramus.
Post by wy
Even successful major corporations borrow money, for tax deduction
purposes, to finance expansion or whatnot. Corporate America runs on
loans and subsidies. For example, why does Exxon need billions in
subsidies each year? Isn't $40 billion in profit each year enough for
the company - especially when its taxes are at a negative rate of
about 14%, far below the 35% it should have to pay? So who ends up
forking over all those billions in subsidies to Exxon? Right,
taxpayers. And not only does it come from taxpayers, but they get
shafted again at the pump not only by paying for gas, but also paying
the tax on gas that Exxon doesn't pay itself because the taxpayers'
subsidies effectively pay a good portion of those taxes that the
company should be paying itself. So taxpayers lose by handing over
subsidies and they lose again by paying Exxon's taxes for them at the
pump. Nice.
Doesn't matter. The "taxpayer" has no money other than that which they
have earned from wages. Therefore, Exxon getting a loan from a bank
funded by taxpayer savings is simply Exxon indirectly getting a loan
from other businesses. If the taxpayer had no wages, they would have no
savings, and if they had no savings, Exxon couldn't get the loan.
Post by wy
Post by kady
to start
Post by wy
businesses through bank loans using taxpayers' deposits and government
subsidy programs using taxpayers' money. Money just doesn't
materialize independently out of nowhere whenever a business wants to
get started, you know; it has to come from somewhere and invariably,
through one means or another, it comes from taxpayers who get it in
the form of wages from businesses that got started by taxpayers' money
and round and round and round she goes. Which came first, the chicken
or the egg?
The person with the idea to start the business, who does so whether or
not he gets a loan.
The idea is basically DOA without getting the loan and/or partners.
This is not to say that it can't be done with one lonely guy doing it
all by himself at the start, but not only would he have to have his
own money, and enough of it, which usually isn't the case, but it's
also a real rarity that it would happen and nowhere near to being the
rule.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
How would anyone else get money to pay taxes with, or to buy stuff with
so as to pay taxes at the point of sale?
Win a lottery or in a Vegas casino.
Yes, that happens so often. :-)
It happened to me. $25 grand on the lottery. Great thing about
lotteries in Canada is that when they say you've won $25 grand, then
you've actually won $25 grand - fully tax-free. The same could
happen in the US, if you guys would only tax the rich more so you
wouldn't have to suck money out of the poor lottery winner.
Yet, an exception doesn't make the rule; and even in the case of the
lottery, all a lottery is is a regurgitation of taxpayer's wages paid to
them by their employer.

The exception to the rule is not a lottery or a casino, but a situation
where (for example) somebody were to discover some sort of natural
resource on their land. In THAT case, you could say that money moved
into the system *without* first starting in the hands of another business.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time. Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half. Never mind 30 years. All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things. It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
I quite agree. Which goes to my point --- government needs to nurture
these unusual individuals, not restrict them.
The only way to do that is inject the workaholic DNA gene into them.
You got it or you don't. I deal with these major corporation executives
every day and watch how they work 14 hour days and seven day weeks long
after they have multimillion dollar bank accounts. Makes no sense to me;
If I had two bills I'd have it invested and be living off the income on
a beach somewhere. I'm more than happy to take my lower income (which is
not meager in any sense) AND my evenings AND my weekends (although they
do a very good job of figuring out how to make us give those up, from
time to time.)
I always like to remind myself that nobody's (well, nobody that you'd
ever want to know) tombstone is going to say "Sr. Vice President at
{corp name)
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation.
You are a very difficult person to compliment. :-)
Compliment? Compliment what? My awareness that you didn't understand
the citation?
The fact that Canada is running a much more efficient government than
the US.
Then what's the compliment got to do with me, as you were referring to
me as a very difficult person to compliment? You've been under the
hot Texas sun for too long now.
Are you not proud of your country? Do you not take pride it its
achievements?
I still don't get how that's supposed to be trying to compliment ME.
You might want to rephrase that statement about me being a very
difficult person to compliment.
:-)
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed. when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say. On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST. Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year. That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%. The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
So, your conclusion is (a) that all the data about Canadian taxation,
including the Canadian government's own tax website (where this part got
started) is all bullshit, your nation is (b) actually ineptly run, and
(c) you're taxed enough to make blood pour from your eyes???
No, that's your conclusion. My conclusion is that we're taxed more
than you are but we see what we get in return for it and generally we
like it, though we still wish we didn't have to pay so much for it.
And mine is that all that is correct, but you're *not* taxed, on
average, that more than us, if at all. Close enough.
Well, I win because I have to pay those taxes and you don't.
You "win"? :-) Is that why you enter into these discussions?
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
But seeing how all its verbiage
Post by wy
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43...
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues. The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
What matters is the all-in rate. You have to pick up our high property
taxes and add in our private health insurance to normalize.
No, what matters is what we actually pay that determines the rate, not
what some generic chart that averages everything out says.
OK. Let's end this one.
The OECD is the acknowledged authority in economic analysis of member
states, including the earlier citation which compares the all-in
individual tax rates between the US and Canada. That analysis shows a
relatively minor tax burden rate between the US and Canada. The other
OECD methodology quoted, the tax wedge, also shows a relatively minor
differential, with the US tax wedge at 19.4%, Canada at 20.5%, and
places like Sweden at 41%.
We've spent most of the day burning up bandwidth because you disagree
with their analysis. Fair enough, and there are certainly a LOT of
variables, to the extent that a person without deductions in Quebec may
possibly reach Swedish levels, but the guy in rural Alberta has to be
considered as well in the averages. At the end of the day, you may
disagree with the OECD, but it's still the OECD. Canada's a member, and
the OECD hires loads of economists to get this kind of stuff right.
The only acknowledged authority is the one who actually pays taxes
among the majority above the average taxes paid, everything else is
just averages which, as I've explained before, can be very misleading.
Always are.
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load. You're not very
good at this, are you?
To the contrary, it was extremely well explained. I suggest you rethink
the math. All you have to do is set the subsidy = to the dole, and the
government profits by the tax receipts.
No, it makes more sense if there was no subsidy at all. That way tax
receipts are maximized.
How? Without the incentive strategy, the company will be biased in their
hiring towards the employed; the dole is never averted, the unemployed
is never put onto the rolls of the hired.
This part of the discussion began with YOUR story and concern about
cycles of dependency and how to end them. Part of that cycle is the bias
toward the employed. You end that by incenting the company to hire the
unemployed, and there is no other way to accomplish it without further
negative consequences.
How's this for an incentive strategy? If they hire someone other than
a welfare or unemployed person, the company gets penalized the
equivalent of the first 6 months of the hired person's salary.
Then the company hires the guy abroad, or simply performs that job
function with an outsourcer.

You can't cramdown stuff like this into business. They hold way too many
cards.

That
Post by wy
money would then go towards the costs of retraining the passed-over
welfare or unemployed person, if he or she has been passed over too
many times, to sharpen their skills or help redirect them to another
line of work. Now that's a much better and more constructive use of
money than subsidizing businesses that really don't need the
subsidies. Your problem is you don't think outside of the box to
shake things up in a different direction, restricting yourself instead
to the same old rehash of the same old banal ideas that seldom have
proven to have effectively worked.
Nonsense; you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the practical, and
ignoring the effect of a world economy on the corporate sector. It's not
just "US" or "Canada" anymore. I have a friend who runs a small IT
services shop. Even HE has but 15 employees US and timeshares another 30
in India. Cramdown measures such as you propose simply accelerate that
entire process, making the Indian even more attractive, even though
their hourly rates are no longer so low as to justify the pain in the
ass of managing a workforce which is 12 hours off your time.

As long as any government has a "my way or the highway" posture towards
their businesses, the business will choose the highway. They won't
complain or grouse about it too much --- they'll just slowly attrition
their Western workforce and grow their overseas one.
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Pretty easily, due to the employee being a "triple threat" in this
scenario. The employer gets a deduction AND the employees sweat equity,
and pays a salary to get it; the employee loses the dole but gets a
salary that's higher, and the government loses the dole liability and
gets tax revenues.
It's a thing of beauty.
You're forgetting one thing, though. The government spends more on
someone unemployed on the dole than it gets back from that same now-
employed someone in tax revenues, so it's still a deficit. And the
employer doesn't need a deduction, especially when the employer can
afford it and especially when it only adds up to even more deficit for
the government (a.k.a. taxpayers). You're not very good at this, are
you?
How's that? All you have to do is set the subsidy to approximate the
dole. Instead of giving the money to the individual, you give it to the
corporation (net/net) and then the goverment nets up by the tax receipts.
Here's the equation: no subsidy = more revenue.
The unemployed will simply be left that way, then. The unemployed
individual continues to represent the cost of the dole and the lost tax
receipts; the company hires somebody already employed, who gets a 10%
raise, of which the government gets a 2% cut.
Yeah, well, see above penalty plan for companies that pass on hiring
welfare and unemployed people - which is what would happen in a
perfect universe.
Which we don't have, and can't have, for the reasons stated above.

Kady

<bandwidth>
wy
2012-07-18 15:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism.  The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Not everyone is inclined to be well read on all subjects. Varying POV's
will always appear on such issues.
Yeah, more so in the uneducated US than anywhere else.
An interesting thing on that subject --- the US does indeed have ON
AVERAGE relatively poor educational outcomes, but yet turns out a
tremendous number of leading scholars, Nobel winners, etc; and of course
has top-notch universities, with 11 of the top 15 universities that we
each referred to earlier today.
I heard a lecture a while back on the subject where the researcher, a
leader in the area of cognitive research discussed this very subject --
that the US clearly suffers in educational measurements at the primary
and secondary levels, these discrepancies not just disappear, but
reverse themselves at the higher educational level.
His point was that although the US suffers on measurements that we KNOW
how to make, we are doing something very, very *right* at the level of
higher education that we do *not* know how to measure.
An interesting conundrum.
No conundrum at all. Those who made it to university simply had the
grades, that's all - which is why they appear to do well there.
Sheesh, you really get bowled over easily by some researcher's
gobbledygook, don't you?
The conundrum still exists, even if you choose not to look at it.
There is no conundrum. The conundrum is all in your head because you
refuse to recognize the obvious. The same thing happens in Canada.
Kids don't do as well in grade and high school but somehow in
university they're geniuses. How is that? Because they were smart
from the start. What pulls the ranks down in grade and high school
are all the mental losers who never manage to get to university.
University gets the cream of the crop from high school so student
performance suddenly looks much better. It's a no-brainer, but you
need to have a brain to see it.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.  And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business.  So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.
Nice evasive manoeuver - no math required.  Translation: Duhhh, I
can't do the math 'cause I don'ts know how, sorry - tee-hee.
I know you pride yourself on being an excellent baiter, but substituting
this sort of thing with a straw man is rather weak. There is no reason
to think that a matter of simple logic requires resolution by mathematics.
You have to prove the logic.  That's what algebra does all the time.
Just saying it's logic doesn't automatically make it so.
Post by kady
Which is undoubtedly what upsets you so. Businesses pay taxes, and
businesses pay people who then use the money to pay taxes and buy
things. Ergo, all the money comes from business. Simple.
And where do businesses get all that money to not only start up as
businesses but also pay people?
Money saved from other business activity, paid out to people as wages.
Before all those other business activities could happen, the company
needed to start with its initial business. From where does it get the
money to begin its initial business so it can then later branch out to
its other businesses?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
    And the
Post by wy
US and Canada do have businesses, like GSEs such as Corp. for Public
Broadcasting and the post office in the US and Crown corporations in
Canada such as the CBC and Via Rail.
And how do the people who pay for such services obtain their money?
 From businesses that had to obtain their money from somewhere to begin
as businesses in the first place before they could pay people.  And
from where would that actually be that they'd get that money?
Precisely. Other businesses.
See previous.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.
There is no business without taxpayers lending them money
We have already disproven this nonsense. Few businesses receive funding
prior to their first earnings; the vast majority have a bootstrap phase;
capital is raised through savings and families. So, let's drop this ---
it's at variance with reality.
Virtually all businesses begin with loans
The vast majority begin with personal savings or noncommercial loans
from family. And, even in those cases, the money is STILL the product of
other wages, so what you have is businesses indirectly funding the
startup of new businesses.
Very few people have a spare $100 grand of their own money, the
absolute bare bones minimum needed to begin a small mom-and-pop shop,
and borrowing from family is usually not as simple as it sounds,
especially assuming that 10 members each have $5-$10 grand to spare to
add to what the start-up person has. Most start businesses through
commercial loans.
Post by kady
, so don't be an ignoramus.
Post by wy
Even successful major corporations borrow money, for tax deduction
purposes, to finance expansion or whatnot.  Corporate America runs on
loans and subsidies.  For example, why does Exxon need billions in
subsidies each year?  Isn't $40 billion in profit each year enough for
the company - especially when its taxes are at a negative rate of
about 14%, far below the 35% it should have to pay?  So who ends up
forking over all those billions in subsidies to Exxon?  Right,
taxpayers.  And not only does it come from taxpayers, but they get
shafted again at the pump not only by paying for gas, but also paying
the tax on gas that Exxon doesn't pay itself because the taxpayers'
subsidies effectively pay a good portion of those taxes that the
company should be paying itself.  So taxpayers lose by handing over
subsidies and they lose again by paying Exxon's taxes for them at the
pump.  Nice.
Doesn't matter. The "taxpayer" has no money other than that which they
have earned from wages.
The business has no money to get started other than that which they
get from taxpayers through loans and subsidies. Chicken or egg.
Post by kady
Therefore, Exxon getting a loan from a bank
funded by taxpayer savings is simply Exxon indirectly getting a loan
from other businesses.
But those other businesses needed taxpayer funding to even become
businesses. Your problem is that you look at a human (business) and
think he or she never had parents (personal [sperm] and taxpayer money
[egg]) in order to become a human (business).
Post by kady
If the taxpayer had no wages, they would have no
savings, and if they had no savings, Exxon couldn't get the loan.
Proving that businesses always end up relying on taxpayers' money to
both become a business and to survive as one. Very few businesses
actually start with privately-held money, Besides, in starting up a
business you want to borrow money because then you can write it off on
your taxes, which further takes advantage of taxpayer money.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
to start
Post by wy
businesses through bank loans using taxpayers' deposits and government
subsidy programs using taxpayers' money.  Money just doesn't
materialize independently out of nowhere whenever a business wants to
get started, you know; it has to come from somewhere and invariably,
through one means or another, it comes from taxpayers who get it in
the form of wages from businesses that got started by taxpayers' money
and round and round and round she goes.  Which came first, the chicken
or the egg?
The person with the idea to start the business, who does so whether or
not he gets a loan.
The idea is basically DOA without getting the loan and/or partners.
This is not to say that it can't be done with one lonely guy doing it
all by himself at the start, but not only would he have to have his
own money, and enough of it, which usually isn't the case, but it's
also a real rarity that it would happen and nowhere near to being the
rule.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
How would anyone else get money to pay taxes with, or to buy stuff with
so as to pay taxes at the point of sale?
Win a lottery or in a Vegas casino.
Yes, that happens so often. :-)
It happened to me.  $25 grand on the lottery.  Great thing about
lotteries in Canada is that when they say you've won $25 grand, then
you've actually won $25 grand - fully tax-free.   The same could
happen in the US, if you guys would only tax the rich more so you
wouldn't have to suck money out of the poor lottery winner.
Yet, an exception doesn't make the rule; and even in the case of the
lottery, all a lottery is is a regurgitation of taxpayer's wages paid to
them by their employer.
And the employer used a regurgitation of taxpayers' wages to get his
business started.
Post by kady
The exception to the rule is not a lottery or a casino, but a situation
where (for example) somebody were to discover some sort of natural
resource on their land. In THAT case, you could say that money moved
into the system *without* first starting in the hands of another business.
Discover some sort of natural resource on their land? Yeah, I'm sure
everybody's sitting on an oil field.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
We have excellent examples showing this in the developing
nations, where people have no real access to credit. It took nations
like Malaysia DECADES to reach a level of economic development
equivalent to the West because there WAS no access to capital and
islamic financing regulations made what was available subject to
conditions that did not provide as much leverage as we have in the West.
So, in a very real sense, they had to bootstrap their development over
decades, much like Wal-Mart, who spent 25-30 years bootstrapping until
Sam Walton COULD get access and then started moving out of the rural
markets into the suburban.
Businesses grow (and can get massive) without credit. It just takes a
ver, very, VERY long time to do it.
Very few can last out that very long time.  Just look at how many
businesses fail within five years - half.  Never mind 30 years.  All
you're doing is extolling the virtues of business to almost a saintly
standard and ignoring the devilish reality of it.
Not at all. It is indeed difficult to build a business that persists
over time.
It's not only the building of it, by the draining of one's energy, the
sapping of one's time, the constant worries of keeping afloat and
making all due payments, the hassles from distributors, the complaints
from consumers and even in some cases the personality changes that
come with business owners under stress, as I've seen with a couple of
friends of mine who I'd rather keep at a distance these days because
all the fun has gone out of them and they've just lost their proper
perspective on things.  It's not easy, pretty or even the much fun to
make your first million, only those who are DNA-inclined for it really
thrive on it and they are few in number.
I quite agree. Which goes to my point --- government needs to nurture
these unusual individuals, not restrict them.
The only way to do that is inject the workaholic DNA gene into them.
You got it or you don't. I deal with these major corporation executives
every day and watch how they work 14 hour days and seven day weeks long
after they have multimillion dollar bank accounts. Makes no sense to me;
If I had two bills I'd have it invested and be living off the income on
a beach somewhere. I'm more than happy to take my lower income (which is
not meager in any sense) AND my evenings AND my weekends (although they
do a very good job of figuring out how to make us give those up, from
time to time.)
I always like to remind myself that nobody's (well, nobody that you'd
ever want to know) tombstone is going to say "Sr. Vice President at
{corp name)
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
That's a good thing. Your citation shows the same.
You didn't understand the citation.
You are a very difficult person to compliment. :-)
Compliment?  Compliment what?  My awareness that you didn't understand
the citation?
The fact that Canada is running a much more efficient government than
the US.
Then what's the compliment got to do with me, as you were referring to
me as a very difficult person to compliment?  You've been under the
hot Texas sun for too long now.
Are you not proud of your country? Do you not take pride it its
achievements?
I still don't get how that's supposed to be trying to compliment ME.
You might want to rephrase that statement about me being a very
difficult person to compliment.
:-)
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed.  when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say.  On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST.  Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year.  That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%.  The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
So, your conclusion is (a) that all the data about Canadian taxation,
including the Canadian government's own tax website (where this part got
started) is all bullshit, your nation is (b) actually ineptly run, and
(c) you're taxed enough to make blood pour from your eyes???
No, that's your conclusion.  My conclusion is that we're taxed more
than you are but we see what we get in return for it and generally we
like it, though we still wish we didn't have to pay so much for it.
And mine is that all that is correct, but you're *not* taxed, on
average, that more than us, if at all. Close enough.
Well, I win because I have to pay those taxes and you don't.
You "win"?  :-)  Is that why you enter into these discussions?
Well, I wait only so long for somebody to win over me and I give them
plenty of time to do it, but then somebody needs to declare a victory
when it's so obvious there is one, so yeah, I win.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
     But seeing how all its verbiage
Post by wy
got in the way for you, maybe something simpler is needed, really
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/images/2011-43...
In terms of just fed income taxes (not ALL taxes, double, hidden and
otherwise), Americans pay about 26% and Canadians pay about 33% of
total revenues.  The OECD average is 35%, so Canada is closer to the
average, as well as significantly higher (about 20% higher), than the
US.
What matters is the all-in rate. You have to pick up our high property
taxes and add in our private health insurance to normalize.
No, what matters is what we actually pay that determines the rate, not
what some generic chart that averages everything out says.
OK. Let's end this one.
The OECD is the acknowledged authority in economic analysis of member
states, including the earlier citation which compares the all-in
individual tax rates between the US and Canada. That analysis shows a
relatively minor tax burden rate between the US and Canada. The other
OECD methodology quoted, the tax wedge, also shows a relatively minor
differential, with the US tax wedge at 19.4%, Canada at 20.5%, and
places like Sweden at 41%.
We've spent most of the day burning up bandwidth because you disagree
with their analysis. Fair enough, and there are certainly a LOT of
variables, to the extent that a person without deductions in Quebec may
possibly reach Swedish levels, but the guy in rural Alberta has to be
considered as well in the averages. At the end of the day, you may
disagree with the OECD, but it's still the OECD. Canada's a member, and
the OECD hires loads of economists to get this kind of stuff right.
The only acknowledged authority is the one who actually pays taxes
among the majority above the average taxes paid, everything else is
just averages which, as I've explained before, can be very misleading.
Always are.
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load.  You're not very
good at this, are you?
To the contrary, it was extremely well explained. I suggest you rethink
the math. All you have to do is set the subsidy = to the dole, and the
government profits by the tax receipts.
No, it makes more sense if there was no subsidy at all.  That way tax
receipts are maximized.
How? Without the incentive strategy, the company will be biased in their
hiring towards the employed; the dole is never averted, the unemployed
is never put onto the rolls of the hired.
This part of the discussion began with YOUR story and concern about
cycles of dependency and how to end them. Part of that cycle is the bias
toward the employed. You end that by incenting the company to hire the
unemployed, and there is no other way to accomplish it without further
negative consequences.
How's this for an incentive strategy?  If they hire someone other than
a welfare or unemployed person, the company gets penalized the
equivalent of the first 6 months of the hired person's salary.
Then the company hires the guy abroad, or simply performs that job
function with an outsourcer.
Then you penalize the company for doing that as well, but you'd have
to make sure that the 6 months salary penalty is what it would've been
for a hired person in the US, not the hired persion in India, which
would be a penalty of peanuts. You're not very good at this, are you?
Post by kady
You can't cramdown stuff like this into business. They hold way too many
cards.
They only hold cards that you let them hold.
Post by kady
  That
Post by wy
money would then go towards the costs of retraining the passed-over
welfare or unemployed person, if he or she has been passed over too
many times, to sharpen their skills or help redirect them to another
line of work.  Now that's a much better and more constructive use of
money than subsidizing businesses that really don't need the
subsidies.  Your problem is you don't think outside of the box to
shake things up in a different direction, restricting yourself instead
to the same old rehash of the same old banal ideas that seldom have
proven to have effectively worked.
Nonsense; you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the practical, and
ignoring the effect of a world economy on the corporate sector. It's not
just "US" or "Canada" anymore. I have a friend who runs a small IT
services shop. Even HE has but 15 employees US and timeshares another 30
in India. Cramdown measures such as you propose simply accelerate that
entire process, making the Indian even more attractive, even though
their hourly rates are no longer so low as to justify the pain in the
ass of managing a workforce which is 12 hours off your time.
I don't know too many people who want to move to India. Maybe visit
it, but move there? Naa. Even company CEOs prefer to stay in America
than run their businesses out of India or Asia, they just let some
Indian or Asian lackey do the running of their offices there instead.
Post by kady
As long as any government has a "my way or the highway"  posture towards
their businesses, the business will choose the highway. They won't
complain or grouse about it too much --- they'll just slowly attrition
their Western workforce and grow their overseas one.
Not unless you raise up barriers in a way that wouldn't make it
profitable for them to do so. It wouldn't stop most of them from
going overseas, but at least they'll be paying a penalty for that
which would pay for the unemployment insurance costs for those people
in America kicked out of their jobs as a result. Why should the
government (taxpayers) pay for the unemployment problem inflicted on
the nation because of a bunch of callous, greedy corporations who
simply think in terms of taking the money and running without caring
anything about the consequences they leave behind? You're not a
revolutionary thinker, are you? Too staid, restrictive and status quo
in your views is what you are.
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
When an unemployed person gets hired, the government gets a double benny
--- they lose the negative (the dole) and gain a taxpayer.
Yeah, and try to do that without subsidizing anyone if you don't want
to add a negative to taxpayers' wallets.
Pretty easily, due to the employee being a "triple threat" in this
scenario. The employer gets a deduction AND the employees sweat equity,
and pays a salary to get it; the employee loses the dole but gets a
salary that's higher, and the government loses the dole liability and
gets tax revenues.
It's a thing of beauty.
You're forgetting one thing, though.  The government spends more on
someone unemployed on the dole than it gets back from that same now-
employed someone in tax revenues, so it's still a deficit.  And the
employer doesn't need a deduction, especially when the employer can
afford it and especially when it only adds up to even more deficit for
the government (a.k.a. taxpayers).  You're not very good at this, are
you?
How's that? All you have to do is set the subsidy to approximate the
dole. Instead of giving the money to the individual, you give it to the
corporation (net/net) and then the goverment nets up by the tax receipts.
Here's the equation: no subsidy = more revenue.
The unemployed will simply be left that way, then. The unemployed
individual continues to represent the cost of the dole and the lost tax
receipts; the company hires somebody already employed, who gets a 10%
raise, of which the government gets a 2% cut.
Yeah, well, see above penalty plan for companies that pass on hiring
welfare and unemployed people - which is what would happen in a
perfect universe.
Which we don't have, and can't have, for the reasons stated above.
Yeah, because of too many stupid sheeple without an iota of fresh
thinking.
kady
2012-07-18 16:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism. The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Not everyone is inclined to be well read on all subjects. Varying POV's
will always appear on such issues.
Yeah, more so in the uneducated US than anywhere else.
An interesting thing on that subject --- the US does indeed have ON
AVERAGE relatively poor educational outcomes, but yet turns out a
tremendous number of leading scholars, Nobel winners, etc; and of course
has top-notch universities, with 11 of the top 15 universities that we
each referred to earlier today.
I heard a lecture a while back on the subject where the researcher, a
leader in the area of cognitive research discussed this very subject --
that the US clearly suffers in educational measurements at the primary
and secondary levels, these discrepancies not just disappear, but
reverse themselves at the higher educational level.
His point was that although the US suffers on measurements that we KNOW
how to make, we are doing something very, very *right* at the level of
higher education that we do *not* know how to measure.
An interesting conundrum.
No conundrum at all. Those who made it to university simply had the
grades, that's all - which is why they appear to do well there.
Sheesh, you really get bowled over easily by some researcher's
gobbledygook, don't you?
The conundrum still exists, even if you choose not to look at it.
There is no conundrum. The conundrum is all in your head because you
refuse to recognize the obvious.
Please. This is a tremendously weak argument on your part that has
nothing to do with self-selection. The simple fact is that an
educational system that does not develop critical thinking skills can't
maintain a record of higher education as storied as the US has. The
problem is that the measurment of success in teaching such skills is
difficult at best. If you choose to stand with the Luddites and reject
pedological studies, that's your business, but I'm under no obligation
to walk the plank with you.


The same thing happens in Canada.
Post by wy
Kids don't do as well in grade and high school but somehow in
university they're geniuses. How is that? Because they were smart
from the start. What pulls the ranks down in grade and high school
are all the mental losers who never manage to get to university.
University gets the cream of the crop from high school so student
performance suddenly looks much better. It's a no-brainer, but you
need to have a brain to see it.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business. So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.
Nice evasive manoeuver - no math required. Translation: Duhhh, I
can't do the math 'cause I don'ts know how, sorry - tee-hee.
I know you pride yourself on being an excellent baiter, but substituting
this sort of thing with a straw man is rather weak. There is no reason
to think that a matter of simple logic requires resolution by mathematics.
You have to prove the logic. That's what algebra does all the time.
Just saying it's logic doesn't automatically make it so.
Post by kady
Which is undoubtedly what upsets you so. Businesses pay taxes, and
businesses pay people who then use the money to pay taxes and buy
things. Ergo, all the money comes from business. Simple.
And where do businesses get all that money to not only start up as
businesses but also pay people?
Money saved from other business activity, paid out to people as wages.
Before all those other business activities could happen, the company
needed to start with its initial business. From where does it get the
money to begin its initial business so it can then later branch out to
its other businesses?
I've said this at least half a dozen times now. In most cases, "savings
from previous wages". Or, mom, who got hers from wages. Or, dad, who got
his from wages. Or, Uncle Joe, who got HIS from wages.

The consistent point is that everything starts with a business activity,
all the way back to the farmer and hunter who, well before any
government or bank was invented, figured out that they could peddle
their surplus to somebody else. That's the point of inception of
business ctivity.

From there, businesses can expand according to their productivity,
using profits to fund that expansion. As we've already agreed, that
takes TIME, and a significant amount of it, before any serious size is
reached. So now, enter government and banks, who by the creation of
infrastructure and by providing funding, can markedly accelerate the
expansion process.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
And the
Post by wy
US and Canada do have businesses, like GSEs such as Corp. for Public
Broadcasting and the post office in the US and Crown corporations in
Canada such as the CBC and Via Rail.
And how do the people who pay for such services obtain their money?
From businesses that had to obtain their money from somewhere to begin
as businesses in the first place before they could pay people. And
from where would that actually be that they'd get that money?
Precisely. Other businesses.
See previous.
Back atcha.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.
There is no business without taxpayers lending them money
We have already disproven this nonsense. Few businesses receive funding
prior to their first earnings; the vast majority have a bootstrap phase;
capital is raised through savings and families. So, let's drop this ---
it's at variance with reality.
Virtually all businesses begin with loans
The vast majority begin with personal savings or noncommercial loans
from family. And, even in those cases, the money is STILL the product of
other wages, so what you have is businesses indirectly funding the
startup of new businesses.
Very few people have a spare $100 grand of their own money, the
absolute bare bones minimum needed to begin a small mom-and-pop shop,
and borrowing from family is usually not as simple as it sounds,
especially assuming that 10 members each have $5-$10 grand to spare to
add to what the start-up person has. Most start businesses through
commercial loans.
Incorrect. You can start a business tomorrow in your kitchen; I've done
it. I spent half a year turning $20 into $50 25-30 times a week with my
oven until I started missing technology. I have no idea where you come
up with a 100K minimum investment to start a business, but it's
nonsense. The world is much simpler than that; stop creating your own
roadblocks to its understanding.
Post by wy
Post by kady
, so don't be an ignoramus.
Post by wy
Even successful major corporations borrow money, for tax deduction
purposes, to finance expansion or whatnot. Corporate America runs on
loans and subsidies. For example, why does Exxon need billions in
subsidies each year? Isn't $40 billion in profit each year enough for
the company - especially when its taxes are at a negative rate of
about 14%, far below the 35% it should have to pay? So who ends up
forking over all those billions in subsidies to Exxon? Right,
taxpayers. And not only does it come from taxpayers, but they get
shafted again at the pump not only by paying for gas, but also paying
the tax on gas that Exxon doesn't pay itself because the taxpayers'
subsidies effectively pay a good portion of those taxes that the
company should be paying itself. So taxpayers lose by handing over
subsidies and they lose again by paying Exxon's taxes for them at the
pump. Nice.
Doesn't matter. The "taxpayer" has no money other than that which they
have earned from wages.
The business has no money to get started other than that which they
get from taxpayers through loans and subsidies. Chicken or egg.
The idea that loans are necessary is refuted above. And even if true,
the taxpayers got their money from their own employers in the form of
wages; so the entrepreneur's ability to get the loan is actually from
other businesses, not the individual.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Therefore, Exxon getting a loan from a bank
funded by taxpayer savings is simply Exxon indirectly getting a loan
from other businesses.
But those other businesses needed taxpayer funding to even become
businesses. Your problem is that you look at a human (business) and
think he or she never had parents (personal [sperm] and taxpayer money
[egg]) in order to become a human (business).
Nope. You're the one who has unilaterally decided without evidence that
some massive amount of seed capital is required to start up a business.
If that's true in Montreal, you ought to getthehelloutta there. Down
here, I can even lease a shop in a strip center in a decent area for
$500 a month, and if I sign a year long lease, the owner will build it
out for me.

Where's this 100K thing come from?
Post by wy
Post by kady
If the taxpayer had no wages, they would have no
savings, and if they had no savings, Exxon couldn't get the loan.
Proving that businesses always end up relying on taxpayers' money to
both become a business and to survive as one.
"Proving?" Please stop with the assumptive closes. It's getting tedious.
Exxon could (and did) start up with minimal money. AFTER THE FACT, they
did use financing to fund rapid growth. That's their choice, not a
requirement.

Very few businesses
Post by wy
actually start with privately-held money,
You've repeated yourself several times on this opinion-stated-as-fact.
If you want to build up some credibility, I suggest you start to cite
some reason for me to believe you. My own research and experience is
quite the opposite.

Besides, in starting up a
Post by wy
business you want to borrow money because then you can write it off on
your taxes, which further takes advantage of taxpayer money.
That is a very nice OPTION, but not required for business inception, and
does not refute the larger points, which are that government gets all
their money from business, and business can startup and operate without
government.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
to start
Post by wy
businesses through bank loans using taxpayers' deposits and government
subsidy programs using taxpayers' money. Money just doesn't
materialize independently out of nowhere whenever a business wants to
get started, you know; it has to come from somewhere and invariably,
through one means or another, it comes from taxpayers who get it in
the form of wages from businesses that got started by taxpayers' money
and round and round and round she goes. Which came first, the chicken
or the egg?
The person with the idea to start the business, who does so whether or
not he gets a loan.
The idea is basically DOA without getting the loan and/or partners.
This is not to say that it can't be done with one lonely guy doing it
all by himself at the start, but not only would he have to have his
own money, and enough of it, which usually isn't the case, but it's
also a real rarity that it would happen and nowhere near to being the
rule.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
How would anyone else get money to pay taxes with, or to buy stuff with
so as to pay taxes at the point of sale?
Win a lottery or in a Vegas casino.
Yes, that happens so often. :-)
It happened to me. $25 grand on the lottery. Great thing about
lotteries in Canada is that when they say you've won $25 grand, then
you've actually won $25 grand - fully tax-free. The same could
happen in the US, if you guys would only tax the rich more so you
wouldn't have to suck money out of the poor lottery winner.
Yet, an exception doesn't make the rule; and even in the case of the
lottery, all a lottery is is a regurgitation of taxpayer's wages paid to
them by their employer.
And the employer used a regurgitation of taxpayers' wages to get his
business started.
And the taxpayer got it from where? Wages from business.
Post by wy
Post by kady
The exception to the rule is not a lottery or a casino, but a situation
where (for example) somebody were to discover some sort of natural
resource on their land. In THAT case, you could say that money moved
into the system *without* first starting in the hands of another business.
Discover some sort of natural resource on their land? Yeah, I'm sure
everybody's sitting on an oil field.
I threw you a bone because you were floundering about talking about
lotteries and Vegas. Show a little gratitude. :-)
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed. when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say. On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST. Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year. That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%. The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
So, your conclusion is (a) that all the data about Canadian taxation,
including the Canadian government's own tax website (where this part got
started) is all bullshit, your nation is (b) actually ineptly run, and
(c) you're taxed enough to make blood pour from your eyes???
No, that's your conclusion. My conclusion is that we're taxed more
than you are but we see what we get in return for it and generally we
like it, though we still wish we didn't have to pay so much for it.
And mine is that all that is correct, but you're *not* taxed, on
average, that more than us, if at all. Close enough.
Well, I win because I have to pay those taxes and you don't.
You "win"? :-) Is that why you enter into these discussions?
Well, I wait only so long for somebody to win over me and I give them
plenty of time to do it, but then somebody needs to declare a victory
when it's so obvious there is one, so yeah, I win.
I'll be looking forward to it. Everything I AND you have posted
indicates that I am correct in saying that the tax rates are ON AVERAGE
not particularly different. In Quebec, yes, on average, no.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load. You're not very
good at this, are you?
To the contrary, it was extremely well explained. I suggest you rethink
the math. All you have to do is set the subsidy = to the dole, and the
government profits by the tax receipts.
No, it makes more sense if there was no subsidy at all. That way tax
receipts are maximized.
How? Without the incentive strategy, the company will be biased in their
hiring towards the employed; the dole is never averted, the unemployed
is never put onto the rolls of the hired.
This part of the discussion began with YOUR story and concern about
cycles of dependency and how to end them. Part of that cycle is the bias
toward the employed. You end that by incenting the company to hire the
unemployed, and there is no other way to accomplish it without further
negative consequences.
How's this for an incentive strategy? If they hire someone other than
a welfare or unemployed person, the company gets penalized the
equivalent of the first 6 months of the hired person's salary.
Then the company hires the guy abroad, or simply performs that job
function with an outsourcer.
Then you penalize the company for doing that as well, but you'd have
to make sure that the 6 months salary penalty is what it would've been
for a hired person in the US, not the hired persion in India, which
would be a penalty of peanuts. You're not very good at this, are you?
I am nowhere near as good as you as pulling ideas out of thin air
without any thought whatsoever to its practicality or legality. The
government has no way of knowing if a particular job is even OPEN, much
less who filled it, or if it was shifted, unless the company tells them;
and the only way they're going to tell them is if they get a little tax
benny for doing so; otherwise, they'll say nothing about it.

Further, there is no way of determining if an unfilled position is (a)
unfilled due to shift overseas, (b) unfilled due to outsource, or (c)
unfilled due to automation.

Stick that kind of micromanaged reporting onto a company, and you'll see
jobs flying out of the country --- with the company automating the
beejeezus out of the US workforce.


Ever heard the term "unintended consequences?" It doesn't appear you
consider them much.
Post by wy
Post by kady
You can't cramdown stuff like this into business. They hold way too many
cards.
They only hold cards that you let them hold.
Rubbish. They hold the money that government depends on. No business, no
tax receipts, no tax receipts, no ability to buy votes. It is a wet
dream to fantacize that government has and significant control of
business; business permits government a modicum of control up to the
point where significant impact on profits occurs, then they bite back.
They have constitutional rights as well, and those rights limit what the
government can do to them.
Post by wy
Post by kady
That
Post by wy
money would then go towards the costs of retraining the passed-over
welfare or unemployed person, if he or she has been passed over too
many times, to sharpen their skills or help redirect them to another
line of work. Now that's a much better and more constructive use of
money than subsidizing businesses that really don't need the
subsidies. Your problem is you don't think outside of the box to
shake things up in a different direction, restricting yourself instead
to the same old rehash of the same old banal ideas that seldom have
proven to have effectively worked.
Nonsense; you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the practical, and
ignoring the effect of a world economy on the corporate sector. It's not
just "US" or "Canada" anymore. I have a friend who runs a small IT
services shop. Even HE has but 15 employees US and timeshares another 30
in India. Cramdown measures such as you propose simply accelerate that
entire process, making the Indian even more attractive, even though
their hourly rates are no longer so low as to justify the pain in the
ass of managing a workforce which is 12 hours off your time.
I don't know too many people who want to move to India. Maybe visit
it, but move there? Naa. Even company CEOs prefer to stay in America
than run their businesses out of India or Asia, they just let some
Indian or Asian lackey do the running of their offices there instead.
He's not moving, he's just outsourcing tech work there. The fact that
India is not a great place to live for Westerners does not inhibit the
outsourcing dynamic in the slightest.
Post by wy
Post by kady
As long as any government has a "my way or the highway" posture towards
their businesses, the business will choose the highway. They won't
complain or grouse about it too much --- they'll just slowly attrition
their Western workforce and grow their overseas one.
Not unless you raise up barriers in a way that wouldn't make it
profitable for them to do so.
You can't. First, you've signed trade agreements preventing such barriers.

It wouldn't stop most of them from
Post by wy
going overseas, but at least they'll be paying a penalty for that
which would pay for the unemployment insurance costs for those people
in America kicked out of their jobs as a result. Why should the
government (taxpayers) pay for the unemployment problem inflicted on
the nation because of a bunch of callous, greedy corporations who
simply think in terms of taking the money and running without caring
anything about the consequences they leave behind?
Flip it around. Why should corporations, who (for the most part) are
forced to be efficient due to competitive pressures, have any sympathy
for big, bloated, inefficient government agencies who continue to insult
and restrict them while kicking their financial problems down the road?
Government ought to be begging Exxon (which is legendary for their
management controls and efficiency) to come in and fix all of Washington
DC, while thanking all the corporations for funding that den of thieves.

You're not a
Post by wy
revolutionary thinker, are you? Too staid, restrictive and status quo
in your views is what you are.
I am not in the least bit interested in some two-bit "revolution" which
defends or creates bloated and inefficient governmental units all the
while upsetting and disturbing a very nice standard of living. Neither
the US nor Canada have anything to complain about in that regard --- as
crappy as we feel about "the system" from time to time, we live
extremely well; and that standard of living would *not* improve though
massive change in the governmental status quo.

Talk to me about fixing problems in an evolutionary fashion, I'm all
ears. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Nah.

99% of all "revolutionaries" only remain so until they realize that
nobody is keeping the the lights on after the revolution.

Kady
wy
2012-07-18 18:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Kind of hard to do, in that Marx is the most significant contributor to
socialist theory.
But erroneously mistaken by virtually all Americans as being
associated with communism, explaining why they see little difference
between socialism and communism.  The Bolsheviks perverted the ideals
of socialism into communism as a steppingstone to socialism.
Not everyone is inclined to be well read on all subjects. Varying POV's
will always appear on such issues.
Yeah, more so in the uneducated US than anywhere else.
An interesting thing on that subject --- the US does indeed have ON
AVERAGE relatively poor educational outcomes, but yet turns out a
tremendous number of leading scholars, Nobel winners, etc; and of course
has top-notch universities, with 11 of the top 15 universities that we
each referred to earlier today.
I heard a lecture a while back on the subject where the researcher, a
leader in the area of cognitive research discussed this very subject --
that the US clearly suffers in educational measurements at the primary
and secondary levels, these discrepancies not just disappear, but
reverse themselves at the higher educational level.
His point was that although the US suffers on measurements that we KNOW
how to make, we are doing something very, very *right* at the level of
higher education that we do *not* know how to measure.
An interesting conundrum.
No conundrum at all. Those who made it to university simply had the
grades, that's all - which is why they appear to do well there.
Sheesh, you really get bowled over easily by some researcher's
gobbledygook, don't you?
The conundrum still exists, even if you choose not to look at it.
There is no conundrum. The conundrum is all in your head because you
refuse to recognize the obvious.
Please. This is a tremendously weak argument on your part that has
nothing to do with self-selection. The simple fact is that an
educational system that does not develop critical thinking skills can't
maintain a record of higher education as storied as the US has. The
problem is that the measurment of success in teaching such skills is
difficult at best. If you choose to stand with the Luddites and reject
pedological studies, that's your business, but I'm under no obligation
to walk the plank with you.
Thost students that made it to university had already acquired
critical thinking skills in high school and even grade school. You're
not getting the math on this, are you? No wonder, Repugnants seldom
do understand kindergarten math. Let's really dumb it down for you.

Let's say there are 1,000 students attending grade one this year.
Either through genetics or hard work, let's say 200 of those students
will end up going to university. So, of course, it's going to look
bad that 800 out of 1000 students in grade school and high school over
the next 11 years suck, ignoring the other 200 that are excelling and
on path to university. If 800 students have an average grade of 70%
and the other 200 have an average grade of 95%, then that entire group
of 1,000 kids will only score an average of 75%, which can look bad
against the rest of the world if in Canada it's, say, 85%. When
universities look at grades, they're of course going to select
students with the top grades, being the 200 that scored 95% while the
others don't have a chance in hell of getting in. Those 200 then
merge with 800 other students in university, comprised of 200 top
grade students from each of 4 other schools, and bingo! What
happens? Suddenly the average grade of those students in university
is 95%, which could be at par with that of Canada, also at 95%.
Universities simply filter out the bad stuff and take in the good
stuff to make them look like they have the best and brightest of
brainiacs. That's how come there's a sudden upsurge in intelligence
once students enter university - the intelligence was always there in
the first place. And you actually claim to have gone to university
yourself and don't even know something as obvious as that? No wonder
you live in Texas - you're among your own kind.
Post by kady
  The same thing happens in Canada.
Post by wy
Kids don't do as well in grade and high school but somehow in
university they're geniuses.  How is that?  Because they were smart
from the start.  What pulls the ranks down in grade and high school
are all the mental losers who never manage to get to university.
University gets the cream of the crop from high school so student
performance suddenly looks much better.  It's a no-brainer, but you
need to have a brain to see it.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.  And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business.  So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.
Nice evasive manoeuver - no math required.  Translation: Duhhh, I
can't do the math 'cause I don'ts know how, sorry - tee-hee.
I know you pride yourself on being an excellent baiter, but substituting
this sort of thing with a straw man is rather weak. There is no reason
to think that a matter of simple logic requires resolution by mathematics.
You have to prove the logic.  That's what algebra does all the time.
Just saying it's logic doesn't automatically make it so.
Post by kady
Which is undoubtedly what upsets you so. Businesses pay taxes, and
businesses pay people who then use the money to pay taxes and buy
things. Ergo, all the money comes from business. Simple.
And where do businesses get all that money to not only start up as
businesses but also pay people?
Money saved from other business activity, paid out to people as wages.
Before all those other business activities could happen, the company
needed to start with its initial business.  From where does it get the
money to begin its initial business so it can then later branch out to
its other businesses?
I've said this at least half a dozen times now. In most cases, "savings
from previous wages". Or, mom, who got hers from wages. Or, dad, who got
his from wages. Or, Uncle Joe, who got HIS from wages.
I know what you keep saying, and you keep saying it to avoid answering
the question as to where that mom and pop's employer got his money to
start his business so that he could pay that mom and pop in order that
they may be able to lend some money to their kid to start up his own
business. Don't bother pursuing this further until you have an actual
answer for the chicken or egg equation because you only keep
demonstrating that either you don't have the answer or are avoiding in
giving the obvious and only answer there is.
Post by kady
The consistent point is that everything starts with a business activity,
The business activity can't begin without money from somebody.
Otherwise, how does the business activity materialize? Or do you
think businesses get their money from the Federal Treasury as they
print up more cash just for the purposes of lending to start-ups? In
that case, you would be right, that taxpayers wouldn't be funding a
business start-up because the money would be newly created, not
something already in use or stored. But that's not the way it works.
Post by kady
all the way back to the farmer and hunter who, well before any
government or bank was invented, figured out that they could peddle
their surplus to somebody else. That's the point of inception of
business ctivity.
 From there, businesses can expand according to their productivity,
using profits to fund that expansion. As we've already agreed, that
takes TIME, and a significant amount of it, before any serious size is
reached. So now, enter government and banks, who by the creation of
infrastructure and by providing funding, can markedly accelerate the
expansion process.
Still avoiding answering the question of where businesses get their
money to begin the ball rolling. Asking that question of you is like
everybody asking Romney about releasing his tax forms - what are you
hiding?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
     And the
Post by wy
US and Canada do have businesses, like GSEs such as Corp. for Public
Broadcasting and the post office in the US and Crown corporations in
Canada such as the CBC and Via Rail.
And how do the people who pay for such services obtain their money?
  From businesses that had to obtain their money from somewhere to begin
as businesses in the first place before they could pay people.  And
from where would that actually be that they'd get that money?
Precisely. Other businesses.
See previous.
Back atcha.
I don't accept Palinisms.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.
There is no business without taxpayers lending them money
We have already disproven this nonsense. Few businesses receive funding
prior to their first earnings; the vast majority have a bootstrap phase;
capital is raised through savings and families. So, let's drop this ---
it's at variance with reality.
Virtually all businesses begin with loans
The vast majority begin with personal savings or noncommercial loans
from family. And, even in those cases, the money is STILL the product of
other wages, so what you have is businesses indirectly funding the
startup of new businesses.
Very few people have a spare $100 grand of their own money, the
absolute bare bones minimum needed to begin a small mom-and-pop shop,
and borrowing from family is usually not as simple as it sounds,
especially assuming that 10 members each have $5-$10 grand to spare to
add to what the start-up person has.  Most start businesses through
commercial loans.
Incorrect. You can start a business tomorrow in your kitchen; I've done
it. I spent half a year turning $20 into $50 25-30 times a week with my
oven until I started missing technology. I have no idea where you come
up with a 100K minimum investment to start a business, but it's
nonsense. The world is much simpler than that; stop creating your own
roadblocks to its understanding.
Yeah, and you got far with that business, right? I bet you've built
quite an empire that you're sitting on now, huh? And you what? You
gave it up because you started missing technology? Some
businessperson you are. By that experience, it's evident you don't
know what you're talking about.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
, so don't be an ignoramus.
Post by wy
Even successful major corporations borrow money, for tax deduction
purposes, to finance expansion or whatnot.  Corporate America runs on
loans and subsidies.  For example, why does Exxon need billions in
subsidies each year?  Isn't $40 billion in profit each year enough for
the company - especially when its taxes are at a negative rate of
about 14%, far below the 35% it should have to pay?  So who ends up
forking over all those billions in subsidies to Exxon?  Right,
taxpayers.  And not only does it come from taxpayers, but they get
shafted again at the pump not only by paying for gas, but also paying
the tax on gas that Exxon doesn't pay itself because the taxpayers'
subsidies effectively pay a good portion of those taxes that the
company should be paying itself.  So taxpayers lose by handing over
subsidies and they lose again by paying Exxon's taxes for them at the
pump.  Nice.
Doesn't matter. The "taxpayer" has no money other than that which they
have earned from wages.
The business has no money to get started other than that which they
get from taxpayers through loans and subsidies.  Chicken or egg.
The idea that loans are necessary is refuted above. And even if true,
the taxpayers got their money from their own employers in the form of
wages; so the entrepreneur's ability to get the loan is actually from
other businesses, not the individual.
Another case in point of how you failed at your kitchen oven business
and didn't learn anything. Here's an overly simplistic explanation of
how you start a business:

"Remember that you cannot start a business today and expect to realize
a huge fat profit the following month. When creating a start-up
budget, it should include your initial capitalization plus your basic
living expenses until you realistically can expect profits. You need
to know if your business needs $15,000 at the start and you expect to
reach your break-even point after six months, then your start-up
budget should be as much as $30,000 to cover basic living expenses and
how much you need to run the business. When calculating how much money
you need to earn to cover all living expenses, don't forget to account
for taxes, health insurance, and other additional costs."

http://www.powerhomebiz.com/vol15/howmuch.htm

$30,000 for 6 months, at least $45,000 for 12 months because you'll
still be borrowing money as the early stages of your profit still
won't be enough to help cover all expenses. And that's just for a
moderately successful home business. For a real storefront business,
yeah, at least $100 grand in today's dollars. So you can bake your
cookies for $20, but the volume of sales on cookies won't get you far
in life if you're just going to restrict it to your kitchen.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Therefore, Exxon getting a loan from a bank
funded by taxpayer savings is simply Exxon indirectly getting a loan
from other businesses.
But those other businesses needed taxpayer funding to even become
businesses.  Your problem is that you look at a human (business) and
think he or she never had parents (personal [sperm] and taxpayer money
[egg]) in order to become a human (business).
Nope. You're the one who has unilaterally decided without evidence that
some massive amount of seed capital is required to start up a business.
If that's true in Montreal, you ought to getthehelloutta there. Down
here, I can even lease a shop in a strip center in a decent area for
$500 a month, and if I sign a year long lease, the owner will build it
out for me.
Where's this 100K thing come from?
Ever hear of a bank? They do a lot of business that way. There are
even business grants. You sure you went to university?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
If the taxpayer had no wages, they would have no
savings, and if they had no savings, Exxon couldn't get the loan.
Proving that businesses always end up relying on taxpayers' money to
both become a business and to survive as one.
"Proving?" Please stop with the assumptive closes. It's getting tedious.
Exxon could (and did) start up with minimal money. AFTER THE FACT, they
did use financing to fund rapid growth. That's their choice, not a
requirement.
How does an oil company start up with minimal money? Seriously, I
gotta hear this answer.
Post by kady
  Very few businesses
Post by wy
actually start with privately-held money,
You've repeated yourself several times on this opinion-stated-as-fact.
If you want to build up some credibility, I suggest you start to cite
some reason for me to believe you. My own research and experience is
quite the opposite.
Research that you've never cited yourself and experience limited to
baking cookies in your kitchen.
Post by kady
Besides, in starting up a
Post by wy
business you want to borrow money because then you can write it off on
your taxes, which further takes advantage of taxpayer money.
That is a very nice OPTION, but not required for business inception, and
It's not a required option, but it's the SMART thing to do. Are you
really sure you went to university? It wasn't all just a dream for
you, was it? It sure is coming across like a dream to me.
Post by kady
does not refute the larger points, which are that government gets all
their money from business, and business can startup and operate without
government.
Does 10% seem like 100% to you?

http://tinyurl.com/7zjkqta

Are you really, really, really sure you went to university? Think
about that one real hard.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
to start
Post by wy
businesses through bank loans using taxpayers' deposits and government
subsidy programs using taxpayers' money.  Money just doesn't
materialize independently out of nowhere whenever a business wants to
get started, you know; it has to come from somewhere and invariably,
through one means or another, it comes from taxpayers who get it in
the form of wages from businesses that got started by taxpayers' money
and round and round and round she goes.  Which came first, the chicken
or the egg?
The person with the idea to start the business, who does so whether or
not he gets a loan.
The idea is basically DOA without getting the loan and/or partners.
This is not to say that it can't be done with one lonely guy doing it
all by himself at the start, but not only would he have to have his
own money, and enough of it, which usually isn't the case, but it's
also a real rarity that it would happen and nowhere near to being the
rule.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
How would anyone else get money to pay taxes with, or to buy stuff with
so as to pay taxes at the point of sale?
Win a lottery or in a Vegas casino.
Yes, that happens so often. :-)
It happened to me.  $25 grand on the lottery.  Great thing about
lotteries in Canada is that when they say you've won $25 grand, then
you've actually won $25 grand - fully tax-free.   The same could
happen in the US, if you guys would only tax the rich more so you
wouldn't have to suck money out of the poor lottery winner.
Yet, an exception doesn't make the rule; and even in the case of the
lottery, all a lottery is is a regurgitation of taxpayer's wages paid to
them by their employer.
And the employer used a regurgitation of taxpayers' wages to get his
business started.
And the taxpayer got it from where? Wages from business.
And the business got its start-up capital from where? Come on, prove
you're not a Romney.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
The exception to the rule is not a lottery or a casino, but a situation
where (for example) somebody were to discover some sort of natural
resource on their land. In THAT case, you could say that money moved
into the system *without* first starting in the hands of another business.
Discover some sort of natural resource on their land?  Yeah, I'm sure
everybody's sitting on an oil field.
I threw you a bone because you were floundering about talking about
lotteries and Vegas. Show a little gratitude.  :-)
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by kady
Anyway, understood it just fine. My marginal rate in the US is 28%; in
Canada it would be 26%. Then, you tack on state/provincial taxes, which
in Texas are levied via property tax; add on another 5%-ish here, add on
another 11% in Ontario. 33% for me, 37% in Ontario. You pay a little
less in social insurance taxes than we do, we tack on 7.75%, you tack on
about 7%. 33% to 36%. Now we tack on health insurance premiums, which
for me is another 3%-ish; yours are included. That's a deuce, roughly,
and you pay a little more at point of sale, add adding up to a very
modest higher taxation level, which is precisely what both my OECD and
my nationmaster tax wedge citations showed.  when you factor in point of
sales taxes,
It don't matter what they say.  On a $50,000 salary Canadians easily
spend 40% of that on taxes, fed and provincial (including premiums for
Medicare, Canada and provincial pension plans) and GST/PST/HST.  Fed
income tax would amount to about $2,700, Quebec provincial tax is
under $13,000 and the highest (average is about $10,000-$11,000), GST/
PST/HST adds up to another $4,500 per year.  That's over $20 grand a
year on taxes right there - 40%.  The saving grace, of course, is how
many deductions you can claim.
So, your conclusion is (a) that all the data about Canadian taxation,
including the Canadian government's own tax website (where this part got
started) is all bullshit, your nation is (b) actually ineptly run, and
(c) you're taxed enough to make blood pour from your eyes???
No, that's your conclusion.  My conclusion is that we're taxed more
than you are but we see what we get in return for it and generally we
like it, though we still wish we didn't have to pay so much for it.
And mine is that all that is correct, but you're *not* taxed, on
average, that more than us, if at all. Close enough.
Well, I win because I have to pay those taxes and you don't.
You "win"?  :-)  Is that why you enter into these discussions?
Well, I wait only so long for somebody to win over me and I give them
plenty of time to do it, but then somebody needs to declare a victory
when it's so obvious there is one, so yeah, I win.
I'll be looking forward to it. Everything I AND you have posted
indicates that I am correct in saying that the tax rates are ON AVERAGE
not particularly different. In Quebec, yes, on average, no.
Nice to be living in la-la-Texasland, isn't it?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by kady
Doesn't raid the taxpayer at all. If I give a business a tax break of X
for taking a dole that's equal to to X off my books, and then I GAIN the
tax revenue from that individual, both the taxpayer, the employee, and
the government get a good deal. There's a multiplier there because the
employee is a double bogey to the government.
A subsidy is a subtraction from government revenues which taxpayers
contributed to for things that would find themselves short-changed on
because the government would have to redirect the money from those
things to pay for the subsidies; otherwise, in order to pay for both
the subsidies and have those things still be funded without any
cutbacks, government would have to borrow money to make up the
difference, which again adds to taxpayers' debt load.  You're not very
good at this, are you?
To the contrary, it was extremely well explained. I suggest you rethink
the math. All you have to do is set the subsidy = to the dole, and the
government profits by the tax receipts.
No, it makes more sense if there was no subsidy at all.  That way tax
receipts are maximized.
How? Without the incentive strategy, the company will be biased in their
hiring towards the employed; the dole is never averted, the unemployed
is never put onto the rolls of the hired.
This part of the discussion began with YOUR story and concern about
cycles of dependency and how to end them. Part of that cycle is the bias
toward the employed. You end that by incenting the company to hire the
unemployed, and there is no other way to accomplish it without further
negative consequences.
How's this for an incentive strategy?  If they hire someone other than
a welfare or unemployed person, the company gets penalized the
equivalent of the first 6 months of the hired person's salary.
Then the company hires the guy abroad, or simply performs that job
function with an outsourcer.
Then you penalize the company for doing that as well, but you'd have
to make sure that the 6 months salary penalty is what it would've been
for a hired person in the US, not the hired persion in India, which
would be a penalty of peanuts.  You're not very good at this, are you?
I am nowhere near as good as you as pulling ideas out of thin air
without any thought whatsoever to its practicality or legality. The
government has no way of knowing if a particular job is even OPEN, much
less who filled it, or if it was shifted, unless the company tells them;
and the only way they're going to tell them is if they get a little tax
benny for doing so; otherwise, they'll say nothing about it.
The government can know by businesses having to file their intention
to outsource, which I believe they probably have to do anyway in one
form or another.
Post by kady
Further, there is no way of determining if an unfilled position is (a)
unfilled due to shift overseas, (b) unfilled due to outsource, or (c)
unfilled due to automation.
Stick that kind of micromanaged reporting onto a company, and you'll see
jobs flying out of the country --- with the company automating the
beejeezus out of the US workforce.
Ever heard the term "unintended consequences?" It doesn't appear you
consider them much.
Everything results in unintended consequences because not everything
will be perfect. There'll always be something to muck things up, but
should that be a reason to just remain stagnant with a status quo that
gets you nowhere or keeps you getting into deeper shit?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
You can't cramdown stuff like this into business. They hold way too many
cards.
They only hold cards that you let them hold.
Rubbish. They hold the money that government depends on.
Does 10% look like 100% to you:

http://tinyurl.com/7zjkqta
Post by kady
No business, no
tax receipts, no tax receipts, no ability to buy votes. It is a wet
dream to fantacize that government has and significant control of
business; business permits government a modicum of control up to the
point where significant impact on profits occurs, then they bite back.
They have constitutional rights as well, and those rights limit what the
government can do to them.
Post by wy
Post by kady
   That
Post by wy
money would then go towards the costs of retraining the passed-over
welfare or unemployed person, if he or she has been passed over too
many times, to sharpen their skills or help redirect them to another
line of work.  Now that's a much better and more constructive use of
money than subsidizing businesses that really don't need the
subsidies.  Your problem is you don't think outside of the box to
shake things up in a different direction, restricting yourself instead
to the same old rehash of the same old banal ideas that seldom have
proven to have effectively worked.
Nonsense; you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the practical, and
ignoring the effect of a world economy on the corporate sector. It's not
just "US" or "Canada" anymore. I have a friend who runs a small IT
services shop. Even HE has but 15 employees US and timeshares another 30
in India. Cramdown measures such as you propose simply accelerate that
entire process, making the Indian even more attractive, even though
their hourly rates are no longer so low as to justify the pain in the
ass of managing a workforce which is 12 hours off your time.
I don't know too many people who want to move to India.  Maybe visit
it, but move there?  Naa.  Even company CEOs prefer to stay in America
than run their businesses out of India or Asia, they just let some
Indian or Asian lackey do the running of their offices there instead.
He's not moving, he's just outsourcing tech work there. The fact that
India is not a great place to live for Westerners does not inhibit the
outsourcing dynamic in the slightest.
That's what makes CEOs a bunch of cowards with no core beliefs other
than make more money at the expense of taxpayers.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
As long as any government has a "my way or the highway"  posture towards
their businesses, the business will choose the highway. They won't
complain or grouse about it too much --- they'll just slowly attrition
their Western workforce and grow their overseas one.
Not unless you raise up barriers in a way that wouldn't make it
profitable for them to do so.
You can't. First, you've signed trade agreements preventing such barriers.
Point to where it says that in those agreements.
Post by kady
  It wouldn't stop most of them from
Post by wy
going overseas, but at least they'll be paying a penalty for that
which would pay for the unemployment insurance costs for those people
in America kicked out of their jobs as a result.  Why should the
government (taxpayers) pay for the unemployment problem inflicted on
the nation because of a bunch of callous, greedy corporations who
simply think in terms of taking the money and running without caring
anything about the consequences they leave behind?
Flip it around. Why should corporations, who (for the most part) are
forced to be efficient due to competitive pressures, have any sympathy
for big, bloated, inefficient government agencies who continue to insult
and restrict them while kicking their financial problems down the road?
Government ought to be begging Exxon (which is legendary for their
management controls and efficiency) to come in and fix all of Washington
DC, while thanking all the corporations for funding that den of thieves.
Yeah, we saw how willing BP was to fix the Gulf Oil spill. Thanks to
the government and Obama having to twist BP's arm and humiliate them
in public, they managed to get around to taking their sweet time in
cleaning things up, but still not all of it. Yep, really efficient
that private business there.
Post by kady
You're not a
Post by wy
revolutionary thinker, are you?  Too staid, restrictive and status quo
in your views is what you are.
I am not in the least bit interested in some two-bit "revolution" which
defends or creates bloated and inefficient governmental units all the
while upsetting and disturbing a very nice standard of living. Neither
the US nor Canada have anything to complain about in that regard --- as
crappy as we feel about "the system" from time to time, we live
extremely well; and that standard of living would *not* improve though
massive change in the governmental status quo.
Talk to me about fixing problems in an evolutionary fashion, I'm all
ears. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Nah.
99% of all "revolutionaries" only remain so until they realize that
nobody is keeping the the lights on after the revolution.
Kady
kady
2012-07-18 19:35:56 UTC
Permalink
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
There is no conundrum. The conundrum is all in your head because you
refuse to recognize the obvious.
Please. This is a tremendously weak argument on your part that has
nothing to do with self-selection. The simple fact is that an
educational system that does not develop critical thinking skills can't
maintain a record of higher education as storied as the US has. The
problem is that the measurment of success in teaching such skills is
difficult at best. If you choose to stand with the Luddites and reject
pedological studies, that's your business, but I'm under no obligation
to walk the plank with you.
Thost students that made it to university had already acquired
critical thinking skills in high school and even grade school. You're
not getting the math on this, are you?
Got it perfectly. You're not well informed on pedagogy. Therefore, I
raise an issue, you don't understand it, but because you can't admit you
don't understand something, you provide an answer to something that
sounds to you as if its related but is off topic, then add an ad hominem
because it makes you feel good.

You're as transparent as glass.


<snip nonsense>
Post by wy
Post by kady
The same thing happens in Canada.
Post by wy
Kids don't do as well in grade and high school but somehow in
university they're geniuses. How is that? Because they were smart
from the start. What pulls the ranks down in grade and high school
are all the mental losers who never manage to get to university.
University gets the cream of the crop from high school so student
performance suddenly looks much better. It's a no-brainer, but you
need to have a brain to see it.
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Nope. Again, the point is that the government has only one source of
funding, and that source is business. If the government borrows, people
who lend them money do so because of the expected future streams of
revenue from those businesses.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And normally I'd insult
people like you at this point for inflicting brain damage on yourself,
but I'm in a good mood right now and will give you the chance to use
whatever corrupt form of math you use to prove that government gets
all its revenues from business. So it's all yours now, the spotlight
is on you, you better give me a good show, or else.
Piffle; it's evident, prima facie, no math required. Unless a government
*does* have own actual businesses (not the case in the US or Canada), it
can come from no other place.
Nice evasive manoeuver - no math required. Translation: Duhhh, I
can't do the math 'cause I don'ts know how, sorry - tee-hee.
I know you pride yourself on being an excellent baiter, but substituting
this sort of thing with a straw man is rather weak. There is no reason
to think that a matter of simple logic requires resolution by mathematics.
You have to prove the logic. That's what algebra does all the time.
Just saying it's logic doesn't automatically make it so.
Post by kady
Which is undoubtedly what upsets you so. Businesses pay taxes, and
businesses pay people who then use the money to pay taxes and buy
things. Ergo, all the money comes from business. Simple.
And where do businesses get all that money to not only start up as
businesses but also pay people?
Money saved from other business activity, paid out to people as wages.
Before all those other business activities could happen, the company
needed to start with its initial business. From where does it get the
money to begin its initial business so it can then later branch out to
its other businesses?
I've said this at least half a dozen times now. In most cases, "savings
from previous wages". Or, mom, who got hers from wages. Or, dad, who got
his from wages. Or, Uncle Joe, who got HIS from wages.
I know what you keep saying, and you keep saying it to avoid answering
the question as to where that mom and pop's employer got his money to
start his business
No, I keep answering that as well. Horse - water - drink.


so that he could pay that mom and pop in order that
Post by wy
they may be able to lend some money to their kid to start up his own
business. Don't bother pursuing this further until you have an actual
answer for the chicken or egg equation because you only keep
demonstrating that either you don't have the answer or are avoiding in
giving the obvious and only answer there is.
Post by kady
The consistent point is that everything starts with a business activity,
The business activity can't begin without money from somebody.
Granted.
Post by wy
Otherwise, how does the business activity materialize? Or do you
think businesses get their money from the Federal Treasury as they
print up more cash just for the purposes of lending to start-ups?
Nope.

In
Post by wy
that case, you would be right, that taxpayers wouldn't be funding a
business start-up because the money would be newly created, not
something already in use or stored. But that's not the way it works.
Precisely what I have been saying.
Post by wy
Post by kady
all the way back to the farmer and hunter who, well before any
government or bank was invented, figured out that they could peddle
their surplus to somebody else. That's the point of inception of
business ctivity.
From there, businesses can expand according to their productivity,
using profits to fund that expansion. As we've already agreed, that
takes TIME, and a significant amount of it, before any serious size is
reached. So now, enter government and banks, who by the creation of
infrastructure and by providing funding, can markedly accelerate the
expansion process.
Still avoiding answering
No. However, you're still avoiding listening.

<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Businesses pay taxes directly, and individuals pay taxes out of the
money they obtain from those businesses. No income, no taxes. Ergo, it
*all* comes from businesses, in the former case directly, in the latter
case indirectly.
There is no business without taxpayers lending them money
We have already disproven this nonsense. Few businesses receive funding
prior to their first earnings; the vast majority have a bootstrap phase;
capital is raised through savings and families. So, let's drop this ---
it's at variance with reality.
Virtually all businesses begin with loans
The vast majority begin with personal savings or noncommercial loans
from family. And, even in those cases, the money is STILL the product of
other wages, so what you have is businesses indirectly funding the
startup of new businesses.
Very few people have a spare $100 grand of their own money, the
absolute bare bones minimum needed to begin a small mom-and-pop shop,
and borrowing from family is usually not as simple as it sounds,
especially assuming that 10 members each have $5-$10 grand to spare to
add to what the start-up person has. Most start businesses through
commercial loans.
Incorrect. You can start a business tomorrow in your kitchen; I've done
it. I spent half a year turning $20 into $50 25-30 times a week with my
oven until I started missing technology. I have no idea where you come
up with a 100K minimum investment to start a business, but it's
nonsense. The world is much simpler than that; stop creating your own
roadblocks to its understanding.
Yeah, and you got far with that business, right?
Did fine, yep. It met the objective for which I intended it.

I bet you've built
Post by wy
quite an empire that you're sitting on now, huh?
The goal wasn't to build an empire. The goal was to take a short leave
with my daughter in the summer while she was off of school, but still
drag some money in. When that was over, I got bored and returned to my
company.

And you what? You
Post by wy
gave it up because you started missing technology? Some
businessperson you are. By that experience, it's evident you don't
know what you're talking about.
You're getting hysterical. Take a deep breath and consider that not
everyone wants to be in your little, pre-arranged boxes so you can
easily explain them away according to your ideology.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
, so don't be an ignoramus.
Post by wy
Even successful major corporations borrow money, for tax deduction
purposes, to finance expansion or whatnot. Corporate America runs on
loans and subsidies. For example, why does Exxon need billions in
subsidies each year? Isn't $40 billion in profit each year enough for
the company - especially when its taxes are at a negative rate of
about 14%, far below the 35% it should have to pay? So who ends up
forking over all those billions in subsidies to Exxon? Right,
taxpayers. And not only does it come from taxpayers, but they get
shafted again at the pump not only by paying for gas, but also paying
the tax on gas that Exxon doesn't pay itself because the taxpayers'
subsidies effectively pay a good portion of those taxes that the
company should be paying itself. So taxpayers lose by handing over
subsidies and they lose again by paying Exxon's taxes for them at the
pump. Nice.
Doesn't matter. The "taxpayer" has no money other than that which they
have earned from wages.
The business has no money to get started other than that which they
get from taxpayers through loans and subsidies. Chicken or egg.
The idea that loans are necessary is refuted above. And even if true,
the taxpayers got their money from their own employers in the form of
wages; so the entrepreneur's ability to get the loan is actually from
other businesses, not the individual.
Another case in point of how you failed at your kitchen oven business
and didn't learn anything.
Incorrect, as I didn't fail.

<snip all the crap that tries to explain away reality>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
Therefore, Exxon getting a loan from a bank
funded by taxpayer savings is simply Exxon indirectly getting a loan
from other businesses.
But those other businesses needed taxpayer funding to even become
businesses. Your problem is that you look at a human (business) and
think he or she never had parents (personal [sperm] and taxpayer money
[egg]) in order to become a human (business).
Nope. You're the one who has unilaterally decided without evidence that
some massive amount of seed capital is required to start up a business.
If that's true in Montreal, you ought to getthehelloutta there. Down
here, I can even lease a shop in a strip center in a decent area for
$500 a month, and if I sign a year long lease, the owner will build it
out for me.
Where's this 100K thing come from?
Ever hear of a bank?
Non sequitur. The question was "where did you get the strange and
bizarre notion that you couldn't start a business without least 100K?

They do a lot of business that way. There are
Post by wy
even business grants. You sure you went to university?
Post by kady
Post by wy
Post by kady
If the taxpayer had no wages, they would have no
savings, and if they had no savings, Exxon couldn't get the loan.
Proving that businesses always end up relying on taxpayers' money to
both become a business and to survive as one.
"Proving?" Please stop with the assumptive closes. It's getting tedious.
Exxon could (and did) start up with minimal money. AFTER THE FACT, they
did use financing to fund rapid growth. That's their choice, not a
requirement.
How does an oil company start up with minimal money? Seriously, I
gotta hear this answer.
Standard Oil started as a refinery, not an exploration or retailing
operation.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Very few businesses
Post by wy
actually start with privately-held money,
You've repeated yourself several times on this opinion-stated-as-fact.
If you want to build up some credibility, I suggest you start to cite
some reason for me to believe you. My own research and experience is
quite the opposite.
Research that you've never cited yourself and experience limited to
baking cookies in your kitchen.
Dodging the request, I see. IOW, you've got bupkis.
Post by wy
Post by kady
Besides, in starting up a
Post by wy
business you want to borrow money because then you can write it off on
your taxes, which further takes advantage of taxpayer money.
That is a very nice OPTION, but not required for business inception, and
It's not a required option, but it's the SMART thing to do. Are you
really sure you went to university? It wasn't all just a dream for
you, was it? It sure is coming across like a dream to me.
Again, nonresponsive. Bored? You appear to be flailing in this go-round.
Post by wy
Post by kady
does not refute the larger points, which are that government gets all
their money from business, and business can startup and operate without
government.
Does 10% seem like 100% to you?
http://tinyurl.com/7zjkqta
OK, this has gone on long enough. We'll do it once more for the fans,
and then cut it short.

The graph shows three sources of income for government. Without
businesses, none of those three income sources exist; the lower because
they are taxes paid directly to the government, the upper two because
they yield nothing without a business generating a paycheck to an
individual. Ergo, 100% of the income received by the government comes
from business, one way or another.

This is a pathetically simple concept.
Post by wy
Are you really, really, really sure you went to university? Think
about that one real hard.
This has nothing to do with anybody being more educated than another; I
can take a middle school child, explain the above using your graph, and
they'll get it just fine.

And, so do you. I have no idea if this behavior on your part is done
because you believe it advances your particular ideology, or perhaps
it's as simple as an odd fetish. That's your business.

I engaged this thread with the objectives of pointing out that (a)
Canada's not a socialist country, (b) their social services are
delivered at tax rates which are not aberrantly high compared to the
all-in rates in the US, and (c) the sort of efficiency that Canada
demonstrates comes from the realization that all their tax revenues
come, one way or another, from business, and that (d) policies that slow
that business activity are counterproductive to the objective of
maintaining a robust social infrastructure.

Not only are those assertions, at this point, unrefuted by anything you
have posted (in several cases, you posted things that reinforced MY
point, not yours) AND I have had the added bonus now to drive these
rather glorious free market notions home several times to anyone who has
been reading.

For this I thank you, but you've become repetitive and dull. I'll leave
you now so you can sink your vituperative fangs into your next victim. :-)

Kady
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
2012-07-18 19:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
There is no conundrum. The conundrum is all in your
head because you
refuse to recognize the obvious.
Please. This is a tremendously weak argument on your
part that has
nothing to do with self-selection. The simple fact is
that an
educational system that does not develop critical
thinking skills can't
maintain a record of higher education as storied as
the US has. The
problem is that the measurment of success in teaching
such skills is
difficult at best. If you choose to stand with the
Luddites and reject
pedological studies, that's your business, but I'm
under no obligation
to walk the plank with you.
Thost students that made it to university had already
acquired
critical thinking skills in high school and even grade
school. You're
not getting the math on this, are you?
Got it perfectly. You're not well informed on pedagogy.
Therefore, I raise an issue, you don't understand it,
but because you can't admit you don't understand
something, you provide an answer to something that
sounds to you as if its related but is off topic, then
add an ad hominem because it makes you feel good.
You're as transparent as glass.
BINGO! You go, girl!!!

This is an established liberal feint. They all do it
because not a one of them has the facts on their side. All
they have is Move On dot Org-type talking points that they
believe as gospel without ever having examined the
farcical nature of them. They can't engage in critical
thinking. They have been indoctrinated rather than
educated.

Trying to debate a liberal is an exercise in frustration
because they can't debate. All they can do is resort to a
rambling, disingenuous, disassembling dissertation.
--
Sir Gregory
kady
2012-07-18 21:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
There is no conundrum. The conundrum is all in your
head because you
refuse to recognize the obvious.
Please. This is a tremendously weak argument on your
part that has
nothing to do with self-selection. The simple fact is
that an
educational system that does not develop critical
thinking skills can't
maintain a record of higher education as storied as
the US has. The
problem is that the measurment of success in teaching
such skills is
difficult at best. If you choose to stand with the
Luddites and reject
pedological studies, that's your business, but I'm
under no obligation
to walk the plank with you.
Thost students that made it to university had already
acquired
critical thinking skills in high school and even grade
school. You're
not getting the math on this, are you?
Got it perfectly. You're not well informed on pedagogy.
Therefore, I raise an issue, you don't understand it,
but because you can't admit you don't understand
something, you provide an answer to something that
sounds to you as if its related but is off topic, then
add an ad hominem because it makes you feel good.
You're as transparent as glass.
BINGO! You go, girl!!!
This is an established liberal feint. They all do it
because not a one of them has the facts on their side. All
they have is Move On dot Org-type talking points that they
believe as gospel without ever having examined the
farcical nature of them. They can't engage in critical
thinking. They have been indoctrinated rather than
educated.
I don't even think this guy/chick is even that. When somebody fails to
grasp a pathetically simple concept as the relationship between business
and tax receipts after a dozen back and forths, and somehow feels
obligated to take an ad hominem shot at you every time THEY fail to
understand (or acknowledge) the obvious, it's more of a trollish
behavior than an ideological one. We could have gone two dozen more
rounds, and he/she would still be denying that the source of funds for
an individual's income tax is......none other than businesses.

If they had picked a less simple concept to zero in on, the pattern
would not have been as obvious. But the source of funds thing is so
straightforward that nobody has an excuse to not "get it", regardless of
political inclination.

No question that the individual is an ideologic moonbat. But the pattern
of the back-and-forth is not rational; it's a constant milieu of moving
goalposts, denial of the obvious, and opinions stated as fact designed
to give the *sense* of a progressing discussion, but that progession
ultimately circles back on itself and starts over.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Trying to debate a liberal is an exercise in frustration
because they can't debate. All they can do is resort to a
rambling, disingenuous, disassembling dissertation.
This has become more true since 2004, when Bushinsanity took over from
decent discussion. It used to be that you could have a decent discussion
with a social democrat and walk away agreeing that there were some
middle grounds upon which compromise could exist. Then Howard Dean's
angry rhetoric supplanted the reasonable opposition --- the reasonables
either disappeared or decided angry rhetoric was more fun.

Since then, it's been one Sid after another. If you give them facts, you
must have gotten them at "Faux", and once they pull THAT excuse out of
thin air, they feel authorized to hammer away at you personally and it's
all Bush's fault anyway.

Kady
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
2012-07-18 21:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by kady
<bandwidth>
Post by wy
Post by kady
Post by wy
There is no conundrum. The conundrum is all in your
head because you
refuse to recognize the obvious.
Please. This is a tremendously weak argument on your
part that has
nothing to do with self-selection. The simple fact is
that an
educational system that does not develop critical
thinking skills can't
maintain a record of higher education as storied as
the US has. The
problem is that the measurment of success in teaching
such skills is
difficult at best. If you choose to stand with the
Luddites and reject
pedological studies, that's your business, but I'm
under no obligation
to walk the plank with you.
Thost students that made it to university had already
acquired
critical thinking skills in high school and even grade
school. You're
not getting the math on this, are you?
Got it perfectly. You're not well informed on pedagogy.
Therefore, I raise an issue, you don't understand it,
but because you can't admit you don't understand
something, you provide an answer to something that
sounds to you as if its related but is off topic, then
add an ad hominem because it makes you feel good.
You're as transparent as glass.
BINGO! You go, girl!!!
This is an established liberal feint. They all do it
because not a one of them has the facts on their side. All
they have is Move On dot Org-type talking points that they
believe as gospel without ever having examined the
farcical nature of them. They can't engage in critical
thinking. They have been indoctrinated rather than
educated.
I don't even think this guy/chick is even that. When somebody fails to
grasp a pathetically simple concept as the relationship between business
and tax receipts after a dozen back and forths, and somehow feels
obligated to take an ad hominem shot at you every time THEY fail to
understand (or acknowledge) the obvious, it's more of a trollish
behavior than an ideological one. We could have gone two dozen more
rounds, and he/she would still be denying that the source of funds for
an individual's income tax is......none other than businesses.
If they had picked a less simple concept to zero in on, the pattern
would not have been as obvious. But the source of funds thing is so
straightforward that nobody has an excuse to not "get it", regardless of
political inclination.
No question that the individual is an ideologic moonbat. But the pattern
of the back-and-forth is not rational; it's a constant milieu of moving
goalposts, denial of the obvious, and opinions stated as fact designed
to give the *sense* of a progressing discussion, but that progession
ultimately circles back on itself and starts over.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Trying to debate a liberal is an exercise in frustration
because they can't debate. All they can do is resort to a
rambling, disingenuous, disassembling dissertation.
This has become more true since 2004, when Bushinsanity took over from
decent discussion. It used to be that you could have a decent discussion
with a social democrat and walk away agreeing that there were some
middle grounds upon which compromise could exist. Then Howard Dean's
angry rhetoric supplanted the reasonable opposition --- the reasonables
either disappeared or decided angry rhetoric was more fun.
Since then, it's been one Sid after another. If you give them facts, you
must have gotten them at "Faux", and once they pull THAT excuse out of
thin air, they feel authorized to hammer away at you personally and it's
all Bush's fault anyway.
Kady
All so true and sadly so. Do you ever listen to Sean Hannity on radio? He tries to debate with these indoctrinated liberals all the time. He'll ask them a simple, straightforward, yes or no question and they NEVER answer. Instead they either try to dodge by 1) asking him a question, or 2) go off on a rambling, talking point tangent where half the time they bash Bush.

It should be enough to embarrass and silence any rational person but these liberals - it just goes right over their heads - how they are an public embarrassment to themselves and their Democrat party turned Socialist party.
--
Sir Gregory
kady
2012-07-18 21:22:54 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by kady
Since then, it's been one Sid after another. If you give them facts, you
must have gotten them at "Faux", and once they pull THAT excuse out of
thin air, they feel authorized to hammer away at you personally and it's
all Bush's fault anyway.
Kady
All so true and sadly so. Do you ever listen to Sean Hannity on radio? He tries to debate with these indoctrinated liberals all the time. He'll ask them a simple, straightforward, yes or no question and they NEVER answer. Instead they either try to dodge by 1) asking him a question, or 2) go off on a rambling, talking point tangent where half the time they bash Bush.
It should be enough to embarrass and silence any rational person but these liberals - it just goes right over their heads - how they are an public embarrassment to themselves and their Democrat party turned Socialist party.
My biggest concern is that the paucity of ideas on the US left at this
point hasn't yet registered with the electorate. It will take another
four years of stagnation (and probably stagflation, by the end of the
next term) and the nomination of a the geezer-ess Clinton (at that time)
to drive home the message that the Dims have nothing new to offer.

The Dims really screwed the pooch when they tossed the DLC under the
bus. Of course, they kept bragging about their fiscal responsibility,
but hoped that no one would notice (and few did) that they had tossed
the Dem thinktank RESPONSIBLE for that fiscal responsibility off a
cliff, and replaced with a bunch of warmed-over ideas from the
(traditionally) disenfranchised left channeled by Barack Obama. The fact
that they keep whining about how MODERATE Obama is simply illustrates
how far off the reservation the Dims are these days.

Kady
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
2012-07-18 21:32:26 UTC
Permalink
On 07/18/2012 04:12 PM, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
On 07/18/2012 02:59 PM, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
<snip>
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Since then, it's been one Sid after another. If you
give them facts, you
must have gotten them at "Faux", and once they pull
THAT excuse out of
thin air, they feel authorized to hammer away at you
personally and it's
all Bush's fault anyway.
All so true and sadly so. Do you ever listen to Sean
Hannity on radio? He tries to debate with these
indoctrinated liberals all the time. He'll ask them a
simple, straightforward, yes or no question and they
NEVER answer. Instead they either try to dodge by 1)
asking him a question, or 2) go off on a rambling,
talking point tangent where half the time they bash
Bush.
It should be enough to embarrass and silence any
rational person but these liberals - it just goes right
over their heads - how they are an public embarrassment
to themselves and their Democrat party turned Socialist
party.
My biggest concern is that the paucity of ideas on the
US left at this point hasn't yet registered with the
electorate. It will take another four years of
stagnation (and probably stagflation, by the end of the
next term) and the nomination of a the geezer-ess
Clinton (at that time) to drive home the message that
the Dims have nothing new to offer.
My only real hope is that many of the outspoken and
ignorantly dumb
people who speak up on the leftist blogs and other
discussion groups
probably won't bother to vote in any kind of significant
numbers. I think
they like to blow smoke out of their collective asses just
to get a rise
out of somebody on the Internet but that's about the
extent of their
involvement with the political process.

I predict a landslide defeat for the Muslim - in - Chief.
More and more
folks are just plain disgusted with his Marxist agenda.
The Dims really screwed the pooch when they tossed the
DLC under the bus. Of course, they kept bragging about
their fiscal responsibility, but hoped that no one would
notice (and few did) that they had tossed the Dem
thinktank RESPONSIBLE for that fiscal responsibility off
a cliff, and replaced with a bunch of warmed-over ideas
from the (traditionally) disenfranchised left channeled
by Barack Obama. The fact that they keep whining about
how MODERATE Obama is simply illustrates how far off the
reservation the Dims are these days.
The DLC was not nearly leftist enough for those in control
of the
Democrat party. They just had to be silenced lest they
were a public
demonstration to reject insanity - doing the same failed
economic
policies over and over while expecting different results.
Just listen
to Debby Blabberman Schultz and you will know the meaning
of
insanity.
--
Sir Gregory
wy
2012-07-18 23:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by kady
<snip>
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by kady
Since then, it's been one Sid after another. If you give them facts, you
must have gotten them at "Faux", and once they pull THAT excuse out of
thin air, they feel authorized to hammer away at you personally and it's
all Bush's fault anyway.
Kady
All so true and sadly so. Do you ever listen to Sean Hannity on radio? He tries to debate with these indoctrinated liberals all the time. He'll ask them a simple, straightforward, yes or no question and they NEVER answer. Instead they either try to dodge by 1) asking him a question, or 2) go off on a rambling, talking point tangent where half the time they bash Bush.
It should be enough to embarrass and silence any rational person but these liberals - it just goes right over their heads - how they are an public embarrassment to themselves and their Democrat party turned Socialist party.
My biggest concern is that the paucity of ideas on the US left at this
point hasn't yet registered with the electorate. It will take another
four years of stagnation (and probably stagflation, by the end of the
next term) and the nomination of a the geezer-ess Clinton (at that time)
to drive home the message that the Dims have nothing new to offer.
The Dims really screwed the pooch when they tossed the DLC under the
bus. Of course, they kept bragging about their fiscal responsibility,
but hoped that no one would notice (and few did) that they had tossed
the Dem thinktank RESPONSIBLE for that fiscal responsibility off a
cliff, and replaced with a bunch of warmed-over ideas from the
(traditionally) disenfranchised left channeled by Barack Obama. The fact
that they keep whining about how MODERATE Obama is simply illustrates
how far off the reservation the Dims are these days.
And still you can't answer where a business gets its funding from when
it wants to start up. And still you can't answer if 10% really does
look like 100% to you. The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won at this
game.
Post by kady
Kady
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
2012-07-19 00:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
And still you can't answer where a business gets its
funding from when it wants to start up. And still you
can't answer if 10% really does look like 100% to you.
The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won
at this game.
Your problem is you can't focus. You lose every debate
simply because you don't stick to the topic. You go off on
all the tangents you can think of which tangents have
nothing to do with debating the issue. After a time it
becomes apparent to the reading audience that you're just
tap dancing around trying to stay on the debate stage
doing everything but debating the issue.
--
Sir Gregory
kady
2012-07-19 02:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
And still you can't answer where a business gets its
funding from when it wants to start up. And still you
can't answer if 10% really does look like 100% to you.
The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won
at this game.
Your problem is you can't focus. You lose every debate simply because
you don't stick to the topic. You go off on all the tangents you can
think of which tangents have nothing to do with debating the issue.
After a time it becomes apparent to the reading audience that you're
just tap dancing around trying to stay on the debate stage doing
everything but debating the issue.
What he said. :-)

Kady
wy
2012-07-19 03:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
And still you can't answer where a business gets its
funding from when it wants to start up.  And still you
can't answer if 10% really does look like 100% to you.
The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won
at this game.
Your problem is you can't focus. You lose every debate simply because
you don't stick to the topic. You go off on all the tangents you can
think of which tangents have nothing to do with debating the issue.
After a time it becomes apparent to the reading audience that you're
just tap dancing around trying to stay on the debate stage doing
everything but debating the issue.
What he said.  :-)
The clueless mimicking the clueless. And you actually claim to have
gone to university?
wy
2012-07-19 03:13:22 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 18, 8:38 pm, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by wy
And still you can't answer where a business gets its
funding from when it wants to start up.  And still you
can't answer if 10% really does look like 100% to you.
The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won
at this game.
Your problem is you can't focus. You lose every debate
simply because you don't stick to the topic. You go off on
all the tangents you can think of which tangents have
nothing to do with debating the issue. After a time it
becomes apparent to the reading audience that you're just
tap dancing around trying to stay on the debate stage
doing everything but debating the issue.
And even you can't answer those two questions, either. So I win
again. All I'm asking for is some Repugnant to actually and directly
answer those two simple kindergarten-level questions bullshit-free.
But apparently, kindergarten was a higher standard of education you
never acquired.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
--
Sir Gregory
Vandar
2012-07-20 01:52:08 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 18, 8:38 pm, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by wy
And still you can't answer where a business gets its
funding from when it wants to start up. And still you
can't answer if 10% really does look like 100% to you.
The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won
at this game.
Your problem is you can't focus. You lose every debate
simply because you don't stick to the topic. You go off on
all the tangents you can think of which tangents have
nothing to do with debating the issue. After a time it
becomes apparent to the reading audience that you're just
tap dancing around trying to stay on the debate stage
doing everything but debating the issue.
And even you can't answer those two questions, either. So I win
again. All I'm asking for is some Repugnant to actually and directly
answer those two simple kindergarten-level questions bullshit-free.
But apparently, kindergarten was a higher standard of education you
never acquired.
It depends on a variety of factors. Some business models require very
little seed money, while others may pursue needed funding through loans,
venture investments, friends & family, personal sacrifice, or a host of
other options.
wy
2012-07-20 02:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
On Jul 18, 8:38 pm,   Sir · Gregory · Hall,  Esq.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by wy
And still you can't answer where a business gets its
funding from when it wants to start up.  And still you
can't answer if 10% really does look like 100% to you.
The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won
at this game.
Your problem is you can't focus. You lose every debate
simply because you don't stick to the topic. You go off on
all the tangents you can think of which tangents have
nothing to do with debating the issue. After a time it
becomes apparent to the reading audience that you're just
tap dancing around trying to stay on the debate stage
doing everything but debating the issue.
And even you can't answer those two questions, either.  So I win
again.  All I'm asking for is some Repugnant to actually and directly
answer those two simple kindergarten-level questions bullshit-free.
But apparently, kindergarten was a higher standard of education you
never acquired.
It depends on a variety of factors. Some business models require very
little seed money, while others may pursue needed funding through loans,
venture investments, friends & family, personal sacrifice, or a host of
other options.
You're not answering the questions, either. But then, that's because
you were too lazy to read the whole thread. Aside from that, tell us
something we don't know besides what we do know, that "it depends on a
variety of factors". Sheesh, everything depends on a variety of
factors, that's such a no-brainer.
Vandar
2012-07-20 02:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Vandar
On Jul 18, 8:38 pm, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by wy
And still you can't answer where a business gets its
funding from when it wants to start up. And still you
can't answer if 10% really does look like 100% to you.
The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won
at this game.
Your problem is you can't focus. You lose every debate
simply because you don't stick to the topic. You go off on
all the tangents you can think of which tangents have
nothing to do with debating the issue. After a time it
becomes apparent to the reading audience that you're just
tap dancing around trying to stay on the debate stage
doing everything but debating the issue.
And even you can't answer those two questions, either. So I win
again. All I'm asking for is some Repugnant to actually and directly
answer those two simple kindergarten-level questions bullshit-free.
But apparently, kindergarten was a higher standard of education you
never acquired.
It depends on a variety of factors. Some business models require very
little seed money, while others may pursue needed funding through loans,
venture investments, friends & family, personal sacrifice, or a host of
other options.
You're not answering the questions, either. But then, that's because
you were too lazy to read the whole thread. Aside from that, tell us
something we don't know besides what we do know, that "it depends on a
variety of factors". Sheesh, everything depends on a variety of
factors, that's such a no-brainer.
If you don't want arbitrary answers, don't ask questions that require them.
wy
2012-07-20 02:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
On Jul 18, 8:38 pm,   Sir · Gregory · Hall,  Esq.
Post by Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Post by wy
And still you can't answer where a business gets its
funding from when it wants to start up.  And still you
can't answer if 10% really does look like 100% to you.
The blatant avoidance in answering both those
very simple questions is very telling of how much I won
at this game.
Your problem is you can't focus. You lose every debate
simply because you don't stick to the topic. You go off on
all the tangents you can think of which tangents have
nothing to do with debating the issue. After a time it
becomes apparent to the reading audience that you're just
tap dancing around trying to stay on the debate stage
doing everything but debating the issue.
And even you can't answer those two questions, either.  So I win
again.  All I'm asking for is some Repugnant to actually and directly
answer those two simple kindergarten-level questions bullshit-free.
But apparently, kindergarten was a higher standard of education you
never acquired.
It depends on a variety of factors. Some business models require very
little seed money, while others may pursue needed funding through loans,
venture investments, friends & family, personal sacrifice, or a host of
other options.
You're not answering the questions, either.  But then, that's because
you were too lazy to read the whole thread.  Aside from that, tell us
something we don't know besides what we do know, that "it depends on a
variety of factors".  Sheesh, everything depends on a variety of
factors, that's such a no-brainer.
If you don't want arbitrary answers, don't ask questions that require them.
I'd only get arbitrary answers from those who don't bother reading the
whole thread to understand the context - oops, there goes that
annoyingly abstract and surreal word for Repugnants again, "context" -
of the questions posed.
cc-scrutinizer
2012-07-21 16:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
If you don't want arbitrary answers, don't ask questions that require them.
Canada is an arbitrary place, eh?

Bob
2012-07-17 14:05:15 UTC
Permalink
"wy" <***@myself.com> wrote in message news:4b0871d5-9700-4150-aca2-***@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-canada-richer-than-u-s-.html

On July 1, Canada Day, Canadians awoke to a startling, if pleasant,
piece of news: For the first time in recent history, the average
Canadian is richer than the average American.

According to data from Environics Analytics WealthScapes published in
the Globe and Mail, the net worth of the average Canadian household in
2011 was $363,202, while the average American household’s net worth
was $319,970.

A few days later, Canada and the U.S. both released the latest job
figures. Canada’s unemployment rate fell, again, to 7.2 percent, and
America’s was a stagnant 8.2 percent. Canada continues to thrive while
the U.S. struggles to find its way out of an intractable economic
crisis and a political sine curve of hope and despair.

The difference grows starker by the month: The Canadian system is
working; the American system is not. And it’s not just Canadians who
are noticing. As Iceland considers switching to a currency other than
the krona, its leaders’ primary focus of interest is the loonie -- the
Canadian dollar.

As a study recently published in the New York University Law Review
pointed out, national constitutions based on the American model are
quickly disappearing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on
Egyptian television, admitted, “I would not look to the United States
Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The
natural replacement? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
achieving the status of legal superstar as it reaches its 30th
birthday.

Good politics do not account entirely for recent economic triumphs.
Luck has played a major part. The Alberta tar sands -- an
environmental catastrophe in waiting -- are the third-largest oil
reserves in the world, and if America is too squeamish to buy our
filthy energy, there’s always China. We also have softwood lumber,
potash and other natural resources in abundance.

Policy has played a significant part as well, though. Both liberals
and conservatives in the U.S. have tried to use the Canadian example
to promote their arguments: The left says Canada shows the rewards of
financial regulation and socialism, while the right likes to vaunt the
brutal cuts made to Canadian social programs in the 1990s, which set
the stage for economic recovery.

The truth is that both sides are right. Since the 1990s, Canada has
pursued a hardheaded (even ruthless), fiscally conservative form of
socialism. Its originator was Paul Martin, who was finance minister
for most of the ’90s, and served a stint as prime minister from 2003
to 2006. Alone among finance ministers in the Group of Eight nations,
he “resisted the siren call of deregulation,” in his words, and
insisted that the banks tighten their loan-loss and reserve
requirements. He also made a courageous decision not to allow Canadian
banks to merge, even though their chief executives claimed they would
never be globally competitive unless they did. The stability of
Canadian banks and the concomitant stability in the housing market
provide the clearest explanation for why Canadians are richer than
Americans today.

Martin also slashed funding to social programs. He foresaw that
crippling deficits imperiled Canada’s education and health-care
systems, which even his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney,
described as a “sacred trust.” He cut corporate taxes, too. Growth is
required to pay for social programs, and social programs that increase
opportunity and social integration are the best way to ensure growth
over the long term. Social programs and robust capitalism are not, as
so many would have you believe, inherently opposed propositions. Both
are required for meaningful national prosperity.

Orderly Fairness

Martin’s balanced policies emerged organically out of Canadian
culture, which is fair-minded and rule-following to a fault. The
Canadian obsession with order can make for strange politics, at least
in an American context. For example, of all the world’s societies,
Canada’s is one of the most open to immigrants, as anyone who has been
to Toronto or Vancouver will have seen. Yet Canada also imposes a
mandatory one-year prison sentence on illegal immigrants, and the
majority of Canadians favor deportation. Canadians insist that their
compassion be orderly, too.

This immigration policy is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in the
American political sense. It just works. You could say exactly the
same thing about Canada’s economic policies.

Canada has been, and always will be, overshadowed by its neighbor, by
America’s vastness and its incredible versatility and capacity for
reinvention. But occasionally, at key moments, the northern wasteland
can surprise. Two hundred years ago last month, the War of 1812 began.
Thomas Jefferson declared, “The acquisition of Canada, this year, as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”
The U.S. was comparatively enormous -- with almost 8 million people,
compared with Canada’s 300,000. The Canadians nonetheless turned back
the assault.

Through good luck, excellent policy and even some heroism, Canada
survived the war. But it has taken 200 years for Canada to become
winners.

*********************************************
Good job, Mr. President.
Christopher Helms
2012-07-18 06:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-c...
On July 1, Canada Day, Canadians awoke to a startling, if pleasant,
piece of news: For the first time in recent history, the average
Canadian is richer than the average American.
According to data from Environics Analytics WealthScapes published in
the Globe and Mail, the net worth of the average Canadian household in
2011 was $363,202, while the average American household’s net worth
was $319,970.
A few days later, Canada and the U.S. both released the latest job
figures. Canada’s unemployment rate fell, again, to 7.2 percent, and
America’s was a stagnant 8.2 percent. Canada continues to thrive while
the U.S. struggles to find its way out of an intractable economic
crisis and a political sine curve of hope and despair.
The difference grows starker by the month: The Canadian system is
working; the American system is not. And it’s not just Canadians who
are noticing. As Iceland considers switching to a currency other than
the krona, its leaders’ primary focus of interest is the loonie -- the
Canadian dollar.
As a study recently published in the New York University Law Review
pointed out, national constitutions based on the American model are
quickly disappearing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on
Egyptian television, admitted, “I would not look to the United States
Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The
natural replacement? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
achieving the status of legal superstar as it reaches its 30th
birthday.
Good politics do not account entirely for recent economic triumphs.
Luck has played a major part. The Alberta tar sands -- an
environmental catastrophe in waiting -- are the third-largest oil
reserves in the world, and if America is too squeamish to buy our
filthy energy, there’s always China. We also have softwood lumber,
potash and other natural resources in abundance.
Policy has played a significant part as well, though. Both liberals
and conservatives in the U.S. have tried to use the Canadian example
to promote their arguments: The left says Canada shows the rewards of
financial regulation and socialism, while the right likes to vaunt the
brutal cuts made to Canadian social programs in the 1990s, which set
the stage for economic recovery.
The truth is that both sides are right. Since the 1990s, Canada has
pursued a hardheaded (even ruthless), fiscally conservative form of
socialism. Its originator was Paul Martin, who was finance minister
for most of the ’90s, and served a stint as prime minister from 2003
to 2006. Alone among finance ministers in the Group of Eight nations,
he “resisted the siren call of deregulation,” in his words, and
insisted that the banks tighten their loan-loss and reserve
requirements. He also made a courageous decision not to allow Canadian
banks to merge, even though their chief executives claimed they would
never be globally competitive unless they did. The stability of
Canadian banks and the concomitant stability in the housing market
provide the clearest explanation for why Canadians are richer than
Americans today.
Martin also slashed funding to social programs. He foresaw that
crippling deficits imperiled Canada’s education and health-care
systems, which even his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney,
described as a “sacred trust.” He cut corporate taxes, too. Growth is
required to pay for social programs, and social programs that increase
opportunity and social integration are the best way to ensure growth
over the long term. Social programs and robust capitalism are not, as
so many would have you believe, inherently opposed propositions. Both
are required for meaningful national prosperity.
Orderly Fairness
Martin’s balanced policies emerged organically out of Canadian
culture, which is fair-minded and rule-following to a fault. The
Canadian obsession with order can make for strange politics, at least
in an American context. For example, of all the world’s societies,
Canada’s is one of the most open to immigrants, as anyone who has been
to Toronto or Vancouver will have seen. Yet Canada also imposes a
mandatory one-year prison sentence on illegal immigrants, and the
majority of Canadians favor deportation. Canadians insist that their
compassion be orderly, too.
This immigration policy is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in the
American political sense. It just works. You could say exactly the
same thing about Canada’s economic policies.
Canada has been, and always will be, overshadowed by its neighbor, by
America’s vastness and its incredible versatility and capacity for
reinvention. But occasionally, at key moments, the northern wasteland
can surprise. Two hundred years ago last month, the War of 1812 began.
Thomas Jefferson declared, “The acquisition of Canada, this year, as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”
The U.S. was comparatively enormous -- with almost 8 million people,
compared with Canada’s 300,000. The Canadians nonetheless turned back
the assault.
Through good luck, excellent policy and even some heroism, Canada
survived the war. But it has taken 200 years for Canada to become
winners.
As long as they don't start allowing their top 1% to run the
government and dictate their definition of "fair" tax and government
policies to the other 99%, they'll probably continue mopping the floor
with us while we wander around like a senile old man in our pajamas,
babbling about George Washington, gold currency, birth control pills
and how we won The Big One.
Oglethorpe
2012-07-20 01:09:50 UTC
Permalink
"wy" <***@myself.com> wrote in message news:4b0871d5-9700-4150-aca2-***@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Hardheaded Socialism Makes Canada Richer Than U.S.
By Stephen Marche Jul 15, 2012 6:30 PM GMT-0400
--
No, dispshit, moronic fascist style socialism by Obama is the cause.
Bradley K Sherman
2012-07-20 01:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Really? Which nation has single-payer, universal health care? Which
one spends less of its GDP on its military? Which provides a better
retirement plan to its citizens?
Yeah Schroedie.... that works well... until the money runs out and you
turn your country into an economic basket case disaste.
Any sign this is happening to Canada? That its citizens are richer
seems to say just the opposite.
===========
The only reason Canadians are richer is because of the US exchange rate
which has collapsed from 1 Loonie = 65 Cents US under Bush to now 1 loonie
= 1 Dollar under Marxist Hussein from Kenya. The US dollar has lost 33 % of
its value vs the Loonie under this Abominable Muslim Administration.
Greg Carr
2012-07-20 05:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K Sherman
Really?  Which nation has single-payer, universal health care?  Which
one spends less of its GDP on its military?  Which provides a better
retirement plan to its citizens?
  Yeah Schroedie....  that works well... until the money runs out and you
turn your country into an economic basket case disaste.
Any sign this is happening to Canada?  That its citizens are richer
seems to say just the opposite.
===========
The only reason Canadians are richer is because of the US exchange rate
which has collapsed from  1 Loonie = 65 Cents US under Bush  to now 1 loonie
= 1 Dollar under Marxist Hussein from Kenya. The US dollar has lost 33 %  of
its value vs the Loonie under this Abominable Muslim  Administration.
Also the Cdn govt runs a per capita deficit that is one third that of
the USA. That and oil is hundred bucks a barrel which is good for the
oil industry. The Cdn govt has recently announced changed to the OAS
so that my generation and the one after it won't be able to collect
until were 67 instead of 65. There has been no boom and bust housing
crisis and with 250,000 immigrants a year not including the illegals
and 100,000 foreign guest workers all of whom need accomodation not to
mention the 30% of the population that rents and wants to own a home
some day it seems unlikely that the housing market will collappse.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...