No need Zalm

If you hadn't said it - I'd have had to.

Well done my friend.

Green Island

- it's actually a democracy issue when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, as they say. We do that on Green Island - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html

Strange tales

Talk about an exercise in strange bits of information cobbled together to form a hypothesis that is the basis for everyone getting more of somebody else’s……followed by the usual huffing and puffing about how by sharing more, we can all be more equal, except for the posters of course, who want to be more equal than the rest of us.

You may not have the quality of life that you want but in our society today, you probably have the quality of life you deserve…….

NLN - quality of life

Well, just tell that to the 900,000 childern living in povery in Canada, NLN. And when they grow up, after having been kicked down by your ilk for 18 years, you will probably be able to tell the same to their children too.

RE: I hope your gonadal impairment does not cause you undue distress. The positive side may be that you will not be able to breed.

Erosion

Except for the unaware, tailgaters, those who can't wait there turn in line, conspicuous comsummers etc, the message is ringing loud and clear. As Naomi Wolf points out the US has adopted the 10 point system to rapidly transform into a facist state that mirrors 1930's Germany, and Italy before it. A plan adopted by every dictator in the last 100 years. The speculation on why this is happening is varied, but the evidence points to the political and industrial structure and it's evolution to the twisted and mutated creature we see today. All control is being lost and precious time is slipping away to turn it around. The comments above give me great hope that the message is getting around. Friends and family of all ages now are talking about it. George Bush and Dick Cheney need to be prosecuted and put in jail for crimes against humanity and for treason. At no other time in history has it been as important to redistribute the temporary control of wealth, energy and resources equally among all people. Only then will the race to the bottom end. Only then will we have a concept of sharing the land and building sustainable communities. We've spoken before how population growth and consummer supply are incompatable. Food shortages now tell us we can't even feed 6.5 billion let alone more on the way. So perhaps now we can see were this is going and why. You have a handful of companies trying to monopolize agriculture and its distribution, you have the end of democray in the USA, the largest miltary power with the ability to wipe everyone off the planet in about a hour. (the same time it takes to get new glasses) The plan must only be total and ultimate control for the survival of the species, because it's clear we can't continue on this path much longer. The interest alone on what we've borrowed and stolen from the future is enough to send us back to caves. That's why it seems clear to me, while no one could have planned or predicted the rate of growth on the back of 200 years of cheap energy and technology to the point of todays complex world, the power brokers behind the political puppets certainly see the end is near. They lost control when they saw the opportunity of riches and gold beyond anyones dreams. Total and complete exploitation to obtain more than anyone could ever use in one life time. More than most countries use in a year. That's a pretty big carrot to dangle and we all fell victim to some extent. Time to admit it, we fucked up. Say it with me, "I'm Guilty." Fortunately under our present state of corruption I can't be charged or punished for my crimes. The sentence will be handed down to future generations and some of them I fear, have already been born.

NoLeftNut states"

NoLeftNut states"

"You may not have the quality of life that you want but in our society today, you probably have the quality of life you deserve……."

So what you are really saying, NoNutLeft, is that EVERY POOR PERSON in Africa is poor because they deserve to be poor. Congratulations for showing your true [EDITED FOR INFLAMMATORY CONTENT. -MODERATOR.] colours NoLeftNut.

Quality of life

I would have to rate that statement as the most uninformed, offensive, and downright classless thing I've ever heard.

Hopefully you're being outrageous for effect NLN, [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

Another Reason for BC's income discrepancy

http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/newsstories/noWinkNodPopeTalbot-hopes

labour party in name only

Tony Blair unofficially renamed the Labour Party: "New Labour". Since Blair, it is more of a centre right party, though Blair would have pulled it further if he could. Blair even became a George W. Bush fan, partner and confidant. You can't get more right wing than siding with GW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

going to war

Going off to war didn't help with life expectancy of many young Brits, either, R-man. I would imagine it helped pull down the average. I would never say that, under Blair, Labour was anything but a right wing party. I speak about their collective right-wing actions, not about what their label has been.

R-Man

Keep the patent and copyright laws. After all, one's idea or product shoudl be recognized as such.

But.......as soon as the idea is broadcast to the ether, or the product scattered willy nilly (Monsanto anyone?) al bets are off and it's up for grabs.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.....

RickW

You say:

But.......as soon as the idea is broadcast to the ether, or the product scattered willy nilly (Monsanto anyone?) al bets are off and it's up for grabs.

You say, rip 'em off, Rick?

Zalm

Fair clarification. Reading this though, as I trust you agree, seemed quite a blanket statement.

R-Man

Then you will agree with me that job protection (guilds, unions, et al) fits nicely into the same catagory as copyrights, patents, and intellectual rights?

After all, when an individual has job security, (s)he is free to innovate in the execution of said job.

RickW

You seem to be blending concepts and overlapping mandates. The subject interests me but I'll have to ruminate on the concepts of job protection/security, guilds, copyrights, patents, etc. No time for that at this moment. Any elaboration on your part will be read and considered with interest.

realisticman

And did it in any way create doubt in your mind as to the path we've been on since the days of Mulroney, Reagan and Thatcher?

GWest

Completely wrong again, and again West.

You wrote:
"Frank thought your comments were pretty close to what 'he' read in the National Post."

Frank wrote:
"To be fair, realisticman had just read his National Post.'

Please restrain yourself from cluttering up these discussions defending or criticizing other people, particularly unless you are prepared to properly read what has been written!

GWest

You quote from Stats Can when it suits your ideology but when others quote from them showing something else, like the quote below, you're not interested and denounce them.

Proportion with low income has fallen considerably

Did you totally ignore the point Realisticman

Did you totally miss the point about the phony low income cutoff? Perhaps ideology tends to blind you that kind of subtlety.

Remember that single parent with the University Education who moved from rural Ontario to the big smoke to better herself.

I can't believe you forgot that she was making well over the low-income cutoff. You can go back to the extensive excerpt I posted on the subject from last week's Toronto Star. Why do you think I did that?

As for your ad hominem attempt at humour - how do you suppose Frank knew what was in the National Post without reading it?
Osmosis I suppose. To extrapolate and come up with the statement you quoted so critically from me was hardly rocket science – and remarking about it is neither. But it’s perfectly fine with me if you don’t wish to discuss it further – just remember not to address any comments to (or about me) and I’ll ignore you completely.

As for cluttering things up and reading, perhaps you won't be offended if I remind you that your post:

West

realisticman
3 hours ago

Every news media has covered the first Stats Can release. I didn't read Monday's Post.

Would appear to have been directed at G West - consequently my subsequent response.

Now if there's someone else you care to insult who goes by the name 'G WEST' here I'm not aware of it.

So far as I know I'm the only person you refer to as "WEST", "WESTIE", "THE PASTOR", and quite a few other labels.

SO, please, no lessons from you about cluttering, being on topic, or behaving with even the most rudimentary good manners.

As I say repeatedly, I'm happy to see respectful comments to what I post here at Tyee.

G West

Futhermore.

THere are absolutely no signs of rising tides raising all ships. In the United States, where neo-con economics have held sway for decades, income inequality is far worse than it is here in Canada.

It is not a question of common cents - it is a question of simple facts

Perhaps

Perhaps it would be best if the people telling everyone how great the poor have it in BC would just try to live on $19,000 for a year. Rent, food and necessities, utilities, insurance, teeth... everything. Make sure you don't have enough for a damage deposit to start. Couch surfing is not allowed. Maybe they should try that.

Luke

I already showed you the GDP figures from BC Stats. The NDP decade was better than the Socred decade. So if you want to dump on the NDP you also have to dump on the Socreds. And as for the Liberals, all the western provinces have been rising and I doubt the Liberals are the reason for what's going on in the other western provinces.

Its just common sense

Blame that on the Feds. Both those provinces have very high native populations as a percentage of the overall population.

Its just common sense

Frank....

1985 - 1990 (BC's highest growth period to date - BC Central Credit Union - climbing payrolls and housing prices, etc.);

1992 - 1993 - BC's economic climate continued to do well under NDP;

1994 - 2003 - Despite GDP figures, general economic malaise, lower disposable income, rising unemployment rates, stable/falling house prices for most of period;

2001/2002/2003 - Liberal - poor decisions involving poorly timed tax cuts, budget cuts, and deficits;

2004 - date - record low unemployment rates, rising house prices, record government financial surpluses, etc.;

Just general knowledge.

Luke

Except that's not when the Socreds took office or left office. You don't want to count the period of the early 80's or the last year of the Socreds.

Add up the entire Bill Bennett era and compare it with the entire NDP era. The NDP did FAR better.

Or just compare the same number of years for the Socreds as the NDP were in power. Start in 1991 and count backwards so that you include the good times for the Socreds and the NDP still come out on top.

Frank...

Well, 1980, 1981 were boom years... the last time we have seen unemployment rates as low as today was back in 1981.

1982 - 84 - 20% interest rates... mini-depression, bottom fell out of economy.

1991 - Another big interest rate spike.

Leave out those 20% interest rates... and I would disagree. Really, starting in 1994 and afterward economic conditions in BC were not that great... I recollect same as an economic malaise, which continued into the first three years of the Liberals term.

Why do you think the NDP received a record low 22% in 2001 and 2 seats out of 79?

Luke

Because we live in a right-wing province. I'm always surprised they break 10%.

The NDP faced challenges too such as the Asian crisis and the Feds fighting the deficit on the backs of provincial transfers. The fact is the overall NDP period averages out with higher growth than the Socred period.

The Liberals have been very lucky, the only challenges they've faced is of their own making.

Rising Tides

I invite anyone who actually believes this to consider what happens to a well-anchored ship riding on a too-short, fixed length of rode during a rising tide.

Swamped. Sunk. F*cked.

It's an apt analogy for all the wrong reasons.

R/Man

What all of it boils down to is protection from true laissez faire practices -- not the truncated kind espoused by libertarians and their ilk.

Patent and Copyright

Realisticman sez:
Quote:

"Fair clarification. Reading this though, as I trust you agree, seemed quite a blanket statement.

Quote:

any monopoly behaviour, including that based on copyright and patent law) ought to be taxed so highly that it fades from respectability, profitability and eventually existence"

Nawp, no agreement at all. It WOULD be a blanket statement if I could figure out what I consider to be a fair alternative. I've long had trouble with copyright and patent as a form of private property, except for the fact that (like Churchill on democracy) the alternative is worse. Copyright and patent are so often used by owners (who may not necessarily be the inventors or creators of the work) to lock up monopoly power and prevent the ready access and benefit of the invention or work by humanity at large. This is never good.

But the alternative - no copyright or patent power - is equally untenable, as it enables those with power to pass others' work off as their own, and still does not prevent them from monopolizing the benefits against society's best interests. There simply is no good answer to the ownership of patents and copyrights - whether public or private, in the commons or in secrecy - both act against the interests of society at large. One is reduced to prevailing upon the inventor or creator to balance their personal need for wealth, power and aggrandizement against the needs and benefits accruing to society, whether it be a heart-lung machine or an epic poem.

Or making laws. Never a good solution as law rarely leads to justice. And taxing the proprietary nature of these issues doesn't make any difference - the balance of power between individual and societal rights is not altered at all by taxation.

But nobody ever said life was fair. I've just got enough accidental death, poverty and labour strife in my family history (going back nigh on 400 years, as I've found out) that I admit to a lurking desire to see the poor screw the rich at least once or twice....

copyright and patents

Why? Lack of either won't stop people from creating or profiting. It doesn't much matter anymore anyway... technology has rendered the principle of authorized copies irrelevant.

Choose your enemies wisely

I'm just saying don't upset apple-carts for no good reason. When you have a reason, then go ahead.

And I'm not just talking about DVDs from some performer - that's the smallest end of the market, though the RIAA would love to have you think Hong Kong is the greatest threat to freedom and liberty since OBL. I'm talking about things that make a difference to life, like patents on medications, patents on life-forms, registration of industrial designs that include laws of physics instead of just the process - in general, those who have and use their power to purchase the competition (who may have a better mousetrap), and put them out of business.

Who benefits when drug companies can pay to keep generics out of competition with them?
http://drugtopics.modernmedicine.com/drugtopics/Supplements/Pay-for-delay-tactics-under-scrutiny/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/443132

And why support Monsanto, trying to put God out of the business of "giving the increase" so that shareholders can amass more financial power at the expense of farmers, whose income multiplier is smaller out there in the country than the wheeler-dealer in the city?

The problem's much bigger than a few DVDs. Don't let yourself be distracted by the entertainment industry, or you may find they've already done their number on you.

A rising tide drowns real people

I keep hearing this load of bupkus and I'm sick and tired of it. It isn't true except in a very limited set of circumstances involving perfect economic competition, which is in extremely short supply, especially in the Western world.

The essential proof of this theory relies heavily on the economic application of the Nash Equilibrium (from John Nash, subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind) which essentially says that it is possible for a variety of people or firms in competition with each other for scarce resources (food, energy, women, cars, money, jobs, clothing, DVDs, gaining the highest price possible for goods sold - you name it) to make decisions in such a way as to provide a net benefit to all or most of the players.

Nash's work relied heavily on zero-sum games, in which he sought to prove exceptions to the rule. Nash provided several situations in his thesis which did prove economics isn't always a zero-sum game, and it resulted in the Nobel Prize to him. However, it was also obvious to him (and to others who followed him) that examples of Nash Equilibrium (especially stable Nash Equilibrium) in the world were exceedingly rare, and were found only in places where perfect competition existed.

If that "rising tide" were truly lifting all boats, we wouldn't have food riots throughough Asia as people find they are not able to afford staple foods. India's 6% growth rate and high GINI has resulted in no change among the poorest hundred million who earn less than $2 a day. The only difference now is they will starve to death a little faster than before.

Of course, NoLeftNutter says they deserve it.....do I hear any chorus of agreement out there among the libertarian loony-bin?

More realisticbumph from realisticman

Here's alink showing Canada has the fourth HIGHEST corporate Taxes, I'm sure you'll be glad to know.

www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html

Which just goes to show you can't believe everything you read, especially when they couch it in all sorts of disclaimers like "OECD countries" and "statutory rates and "marginal rates". Structure your corporation any way you like and pay any amount you want - the price for Little Corp . is the marginal rate. And Canada's is 22.1% or 96th-highest out of 122, much lower than the US at 35% or 18th-highest out of 122.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_hig_mar_tax_rat_cor_rat-highest-marginal-tax-rate-corporate

So spare us the benefit of any more of your wisdom on corporate tax rates. You're not paying your fair share, especially when you can deduct expenses that real people can't.

zalm

This is the proverbial "nutshell". The government in all instances should be in the business of providing a "level playing field" - which is the essence of what I've been trying to say regarding job protection if patent and copyright protection is to be provided.

Lies, damn lies....

Luke Skywalker asks us to

Year/Income/% Change

1990: $28,282 ....

Luke, Stats Can defines the Low Income Cutoff (LICO) as 50% of the median family income for that year (adjusted for family size and location), which was $68,000 for 1990 and $72,000 for 2000). Your "Disposable Income per Capita" means nothing as it means that LICO families are spending more than 90% of their incomes on food, shelter, and clothing, not including transportation.

The proportion of the population below the LICO is the same in 2005 (last year available) as it was in 1990 - 11%. No gains at all for the poor. Big gains for the rich. After all, Gordo's tax cuts in 2001 led to $9000 increases in disposable income for the rich (making over $108,000), and $670 for those under the LICO line.

Whatever the Notional Pest is trying to put over on us, it isn't remotely true.

And no, I would not like fries with that....

Rick W

True, but any form of monopoly, which patent and copyright provide, distorts the market and screws society. Unfortunately, abolishing patent and copyright does not abolish monopoly, and society is still screwed.

That's the essential difference with unions and guilds. There is generally an alternative to monopoly in labour, and that is:
1) an investment in capital means of production (automation) or
2) in comparative advantage (buying your labour-made or guild-made products elsewhere).

Car production in automated Japanese factories that use 4 hours of manual labour per car produced, compared to more than 30 in America. Telephone call centres in India. GIS mapping in Hungary and Romania. Forestry in Russia. Medical tourism in Singapore - hell - almost anywhere in Asia.

Hence, the level playing field exists only for products and services we can see, feel touch, measure and compare. Intellectual property is likely to be exempted from these rules forever. I wish it were otherwise.

If you ever find a solution, let me know, and don't forget to speak slowly and distinctly, and use words of less than three syllables, because I ain't the brightest clown in the circus.

zalm

Quote from Zalm:

How could anyone expect that you would be interested in an organization like this:

As a nonpartisan educational organization, the Tax Foundation has earned a reputation for independence and credibility. However, it is not devoid of perspective. All Tax Foundation research is guided by the following principles of sound tax policy, which should serve as touchstones for good tax policy everywhere:

Simplicity: The tax system should be as simple as possible, and taxes should be easy to understand and comply with.

Transparency: Taxes should be as visible as possible to taxpayers, and should make clear who and what is being taxed.

Stability: Tax law should not change continually, and changes in tax law should not be retroactive.

Neutrality: Taxes should aim to raise revenue with a minimum of economic distortion, and should not attempt to micromanage the economy.

Growth-Promotion: Taxes should raise revenue for programs while consuming as small a portion of national income as possible, and should interfere with economic growth, trade and capital flows as little as possible.

Unbiased non-profit organizations can't be trusted, can they?

Nope, they sure can't

Just because they say they're something doesn't mean they are - or aren't. And you’re quoting their little motto doesn’t really give readers the actual ‘flavour’ of what these guys actually believe in.

Unless 'programs' is more carefully defined and delineated, that last little turkey of an 'operating principle' (if that's what it is) really lacks much more than perspective from my point of view. In fact, it's just code for the usual flat-tax, no tax US BS that clutters up real discourse much of the time on this subject.

But then, if I were American, I'd want all the stupid tax-exempt and family-fortune sheltering foundations wound up and rolled over once and for all. That's the kind of tax certainty I'd support.

Given that it's an American organization and America is the birthplace and progenitor of the whole globalized market worshipping boondoggle that has turned the USA into a class-drenched society where every passing year sees the tax system used less to create a background that promotes fundamental equity and real chances for all citizens and more to create bigger personal siphons for the wealthy and the rich to continue to milk the culture, minorities and the poor than I think I'll stick with Warren Buffett.

And, I think you'll find that the Tax Foundation is one of the chief opponents of the fresh air Mr Buffett has been trying to pump into the system of late.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977274341&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace

So, we clearly disagree.

The Tax Foundation is about as biased as every other libertarian clap-shop, non-profit or otherwise. They sure as hell don’t lack bias.

Wouldn't trust a single one of them any further than I could toss them off my front stoop if they ever find their way into this country.

Zalm may not think he's the brightest clown in the circus; he certainly is one of the brightest guys posting around here.

You're gonna have to work a lot harder to find some avatars of the rich to promote around here. Maybe look to pre-revolutionary Russia and a man called Leo Tolstoy for a start.

I always welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee

G West.

errata

Should be 'your' quoting in 2nd sentence above. Sorry.

Absolutely

As the nobleman Tolstoy said;

ie: Less government, more personal responsibility.

Quite right GWest.

But first, as Tolstoy also knew

You have to take away the privileges, land and treasure of the nobles and give it back to the peasants - from whom it had been stolen in the first place.

Not much has changed - the nobles these days just have better marketing consultants.

In the interim, I'll try and change the government, thank you very much.

Very glad you agree.

Let's do Survivor with the rich and the poor!

Let's see who is going to be the survivor! Oh! Forgot to tell you! There are rules! The rich survivors have eaten for 3 days and have food to spare! The poor have not! Gee! Aren't they lazy these poor people who can't even stand when talked to!

We need a revolution to shut these spoiled, emotionally-poor brats up and their fancy remora-like trophee wives, who might be partly to blame for the whole mess we have been in for centuries in the first place! I said PARTLY! Call me sexist or whatever! I believe there are sociopaths everywhere, women and men. The only difference is that women let men do the dirty work! That being said, women are ruled by their ovaries and that put some of them in precarious position of exploitaton and poverty!

Sorry for the tangeants!

Better education could help in that regard, by giving the poor much higher budgets to help them make better decisions. WHo is getter a better education right now? Who can afford tutors? I could go on!

BTW, rich people can have really dumb kids, but money can pay for consultants who will get fired if income decreases. Rich kids can also threaten to sue anyone if they don't get better grades, for instance. True story! In other words, the rich cannot get poor unless they are really, really, really dumb! And the poor cannot get rich, unless they are extremely lucky or evil!

If you want something more elaborate, ... buy my book! :)

Thanks, GWest...

....having one's own horn tootled is always an honour, especially when superior intellects such as yourself and Frank and SIG & RickW accurately get the vision I try to put forth in words.

As to the rest, well, biting neo-liberals in the ass is getting tiresome, and I don't do it that well. I always like my statistics in place before I set pen to paper, but there are so many thousands of them out there that it takes me far too long, and the on-line conversation has moved on too far for me to yank everyone back to some particularly egregious vat of foul-smelling thought.

But sometimes I can't resist.... ;>)

Sorry R'man, but you should have put the hipwaders on.

Parasites

GWest said:

And it would be better for America too, as Sharon Smith points out.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon05082008.html

R'man

"Neutrality: Taxes should aim to raise revenue with a minimum of economic distortion, and should not attempt to micromanage the economy."

Oh? How would YOU manage waste and pollution? Or don't they exist in your world?

And what kind of economic distortion would you consider making corporations "legal persons"?

There isn't a shred of economic theory in anything this Tax Policy Blog has to say - it's 100% politics without one scrap of economic theory behind it to back it up.

'Nuff said.

zalm

Sure, man. Who needs a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that's been around for 71 years to tell us what's what? How can we believe their statistics and facts? They're probably in cahoots with Harper and Bush.

Nope Realisticman

It's the other way around. Bush and Harper are sycophants for the Tax Foundation.

The Fraser Institute is another (not quite so old and hoary but equally reactionary) non-partisan, non-profit 'research' organization - that's all.

And by the way, perhaps next we could discuss Pahom that famous character of Tolstoy's from 'How Much Land Does a Man Need'.

You can brush up on it here - if you haven't got a copy on your shelves:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/tolstoy.html

BTW, I see long distance air travel just took quite a hit.

I always welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee

G West.

R'man

If they REALLY were a research organization dealing in facts and statistics, they'd mention as part of their study that the US is the only OECD country without a value-added tax such as GST and factor that into their "study".

But they don't - they just rail against taxes in general, and corporate taxes in the specific. No mathematical evaluation of the comparative advantage to corporations of not taxing consumption indirectly (VAT) versus taxing corporate profits at a nominal combined rate.

There are so many things wrong with US tax policy - excessive complexity, excessive regressivity, excessive numbers of exemptions, imperfect assignment of exemptions (nobody knows what the rules are from one case to another unless ruled on boy a court of law).... Honestly, a sales tax on food is the one of the most regressive policies you can devise to hurt the poor, yet the US has always permitted the states to do exactly this, while expressly prohibiting them from taxing more harmful practices to society such as cigarettes, simply because they're in the federal jurisdiction.

But I'll bet there isn't a single study in the Tax Foundation's "library" on regressive taxes and "rising tides". You look - I can't be bothered wasting my time.

Bwaaaahahahahahaaaaa!!!

GWest said:

And the Tax Foundation tried to hit back at Mr Buffet with this: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22804.html
saying that the "super-rich" 1% are paying more taxes - a whole 27.6% in federal taxes! 38.8% in income taxes! The shock!

But when you actually go to the study mentioned by the Tax Foundation, you find that those totals are up by only 8% - from 25.4% to 27.6% in federal tax and from 36.7% to 38.8% in income tax.

Yet when you look at the change in income of this top 1%, you find the average income went up from $1,299,300 to $1,558,500 - an increase of 20%! In one year!

When you look further into the figures presented by the REAL researchers in the CBO who did the study (as opposed the the bogus researcher, Scott Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation, who tried to cherry-pick figures out of the study), you find that most of the increase was for capital gains (which we all pretty much knew), and that they were taxed at a rate lower than the marginal rate of income, (which again we knew). No senior manager takes an increase in his salary when he could take a stock or option payment instead and trade that for cash, especially when it's printed by the millions, regardless of what the shareholders say.

Oooops! Kind of hard to defend someone making 1-1/2 million a year, who gets an increase of a quarter million bucks in a year, isn't it? Not for the Tax Foundation - all in a day's work. This after the median family income in the US declined in the same period for five straight years after 1999 due to regressive tax policy and outsourcing of jobs.

R'man, if this is your hero, he disgusts me. He's a lying snot.

GWest

I have only cited the Tax Foundation as a source of statistical data on varying world rates of corporate taxes. It's just plain silly to now claim anyone there is my hero.

As for the good news that air travel being hit with a fuel surcharge; perhaps this will help reduce some of the tedious crowding that seems to have affected airports worldwide. It used to be so much more sedate to fly. It certainly has become too accessible. A little inflation is also needed to keep growth on track. We've enjoyed quite a few years with very low inflation, it had to happen.

GWest

How do you like Dion's winning carbon tax?

Funny Realisticman - re the Tax Foundation -

You might care to direct your comments toward someone else.

I may agree with Zalm's assessment - but I didn't write the words or post the comment you're talking about - please read more carefully. As to how you feel about the Tax Foundation, I think you should look back over what you said about them too - because I think your citation meant a little more than that they were a source of data - data which is, also as Zalm demonstrated - far from honest and accurate.

I take it you're in favour too of the airlines currently going bust all round the world - more passengers for those elite Cathay and Singapore Airlines first class seats I guess. I certainly don’t expect the international traveler to save the world – but significant increases in the cost of travel – especially for needless business (ie all of it) and self important tourist nonsense – will begin to cut down on the significant damage intercontinental air travel is doing to the world.

Dion? What ARE you talking about.

The only Carbon Tax I've offered an opinion on is the utterly stupid and pointless money shuffling machine that CEO Campbell has decided will prove he's a greenie at heart.

The only carbon tax which means anything is one which will encourage create and pay for viable alternatives to burning fossil fuels - nothing like that is going on in BC at the moment. In the United States, Europe and a couple of Canadian cities that have extensive, efficient and reasonably priced rapid transit systems there is already a move away from the automobile - no such thing will happen here because:
a) the Campbell Carbon Tax is nothing more than an administrative Rube Goldberg machine, and;
b) there is no rapid transit alternative to the infernal car - especially in areas where it would be useful in this province.

Generally though, I pay no attention whatever to Dion, he's irrelevant.

I always welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee

G West.

A shot messenger

Of course, if we remember, the Tax Foundation squabble started when 'Van Isle' wrote about Canada's corporate tax rate and 'SharingIsGood' went off about BC lowering them further. Third lowest in the world was mentioned after he thought he heard Mel Hurtig say that.

Check out Wiki. It's complicated but I only count five countries with higher rates. I see that Canada has the sixth highest corporate tax rates in the world-not the third from bottom lowest.

You don't like the Tax Foundation, perhaps you prefer Wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

I actually prefer it when people 'read' what I've said

You quoted this passage about the Tax Foundation and its 'BLOG', remember:

As a nonpartisan educational organization, the Tax Foundation has earned a reputation for independence and credibility. However, it is not devoid of perspective. All Tax Foundation research is guided by the following principles of sound tax policy, which should serve as touchstones for good tax policy everywhere:

If you didn't agree with their point of view and their attitudes, why did you post the passage?

Later you said this:

Now you quote Wikipedia.

The fact is, my friend, you picked out a few random factoids from a source you thought would bolster your argument - upon having these avatars unmasked as scoundrels you make a lame attempt at satire.

If you can't justify the idea that a rigorously progressive tax is a much more effective means of working toward some kind of fundamental equity than the utter failure of the current model then so be it.

I suggest you join the ranks of the flat-taxers - you'll be much more comfortable there anyway.

I always welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee

G West.

Canada gets a high...

...ranking in the list of countries, when it comes to corporate, and other, tax rates. Not a low one as some constantly suggest. That's the point West, if you refuse to see it.

Furthermore, quoting a mission statement or any source is not tantamount to endorsing it.

By the way, I'm surprised, well not really, that there has not been any discussion here regarding last week's announcement that Québec is giving the New York investment banker Morgan Stanley a $60 million corporate tax holiday. Who's going to pay it; da little guy, I guess. What's the comment from super-star NDPer Thomas Mulcair? Maybe I missed it. How about NDP head office and Jack Layton, any opinion on this corporate largess? Or does everyone, including Tyee'ers feel happy with this taxpayer handout?

No doubt the Liberal government in Québec consider that low, or reversed, corporate taxes stimulate growth.

Strange

Did the NDP get elected overnight in Ottawa and Quebec City?

I would have thought such a cataclysimic event would have made the front page of at least one national paper.

Please, post the reference - because if the NDP is behind handouts to Morgan Stanley I'd like to know about it.

As for your penchant for quoting 'mission' statements...I'll let my previous remarks stand - you still haven't disavowed your affection for the point of view the journalism at the head of this long train of comments is meant to criticize.

However, it is a human reaction to want to change the subject when you've done something a bit embarrassing in public.

As for the evidence that reducing corporate taxes actually helps anyone but the corporate elite - I'm still waiting to see it. So far, the case for the reciprocal of your thesis is much easier to prove.

I always welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee

G West.

errata

should be: 'cataclysmic' event - my apologies.

I get it

The NDP doesn't comment because it agrees with the tax holiday for the N.Y. investment bank.

More and more people are coming around to understand that low corporate taxes stimulate growth and employment.

Excellent Realisticman

Unembarrassed at the disconnect between a particular point of view and the actual evidence at hand: The increasing and troubling distance between haves and have-nots as revealed in the recent census release, it is curious that some advocates continue to make the kind of throw-away remark above here.

One might actually ask if affection for investment banks is showing and where exactly ‘that’ might lead. Reducing corporate taxes is an excellent way to continue the progress of what appears to be the right-wing’s real objective – the functional and practical enslavement of anyone who can't fly first class to Hong Kong at the slightest whim.

At a time when poverty is growing, the state of the middle class is stagnant, the cost of a public education is out of control and the family is being torn apart by stress and economic pressure one would have thought the same old neocon market nonsense might actually be something its supporters would begin to question.

Apparently that's happening south of the border - I know it is happening in Great Britain - led, of all things, by the Conservative Party and I can see it is beginning to happen here in British Columbia.

Happily, the average individual knows when he or she has been sold a bill of goods.

BTW, in the interests of full disclosure, I agree with the Harper government decision not to permit the alienation of part of McDonald-Detweiler. I believe that’s now a total of two decisions made since elected with which I have to concur.

That's all I intend to say on this subject but I will conclude with this short quote from Crawford Kilian in the article above.

I think it provides a nice coda to the discussion.

The Globe and Mail published a Second Coming headline about those findings. Pundits chimed in. Yet, despite all the chatter, we still seem unable to confront this fact: The wider the income gap in a country, the worse its life expectancy.

Have a nice weekend.

I always welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee

G West.

Realisticman...

The hard left on here just don't "get it" and never will.

OTOH, Manitoba's neo-liberal New Democrat Gary Doer certainly "gets it":

2008 budget highlights include:

1. Reduction of corporate income tax rate;

2. Elimination of corporate capital tax, two years earlier than planned;

3. Capital gains refund provision for mutual fund corporations;

4. Top personal income tax rate lower than Ontario or Quebec;

5. Community enterprise investment tax credit;

6. Book publishing tax credit;

7. Manufacturing investment tax credit;

8. Mineral exploration tax credit;

http://www.bdo.ca/library/publications/tax/budgets/2008/manitoba.cfm

child poverty and homelessness first

The elimination of child poverty and homelessness must come first on all Canadian's minds. Cost benefit analysis necessary fist is uber-capitalist speak for shirking one's present duty to care for those who are least able to take care of themselves. I'm getting mighty tired of watching a new Dickens novel unfolding in real time.

Luke Skywaler has, in postings on another recent article, admitted that we must do more for the poor. He has admitted that welfare rates are too low, and he has stated that he believes that the minimum wage needs to be raised to $9.50 or $10.00 per hour. If the welfare rates are to be raised, Luke, who should pay for that if not those people and non-persons (corporations) receiving the greatest benefit for living and doing business in the province? How many billions do the corporate elite get to skim off the top? When will they have enough so that poor people can get stronger? Certainly you don't want the middle to pay more?

The middle has already lost earnings for years and years according to the stats Can figures. It is that compounding effect of lost earnings that really has a negative effect on the well-being of others.

So, Realisticman and Luke, where should the money to help the poor come from?

Oh West, Oh Gee West

If all you can do is rehash that broken record in the face of the plethora of facts that, obviously, negate the flag you've decided to hoist so high, then too bad for you.

Inflexibility to change is most unhealthy and the sub-head of this piece echoes it again.

Social engineering and envy for those that work hard, along with coveting their possessions is not going to work as all religions tell us. Jealousy is a distasteful sentiment and when coupled with a superiority complex by social engineers it becomes quite tiresome.

As for Britain. Was the resounding rejection of Mayor 'Red Ken' Livingstone in London, what you West call the populace becoming fed up with neocon nonsense? Who's now being humourous?

As Tolstoy rightly said, "less government, more personal responsibility". It's no accident that Libertarian thought overlaps with what your hero Tolstoy thought.

If you must quote from the article above, I'll quote, again, from the later Statistics Canada report which mangles and utterly refutes your, and the writer's, gloomy doomsday suggestions. The end is not nigh and the glass is more than half full and it's becoming fuller!

Proportion with low income has fallen considerably

Thanks to economic conditions over the past decade, the percentage of Canadians below the low-income cutoff rate—the threshold below which a larger share of income than average is devoted to the necessities of food, shelter and clothing—has decreased considerably. Among all family types, the proportion fell from a high of 12.1% in 1996 to 7.4% in 2005.

Sharing

The shrinking numbers of the poor will continue to decline if the government maintains its course. Benefits and conditions could increase and improve if the able-bodied got off the gravy-train bandwagon and the truly needy were thereby given higher priority.

I've already said enough on this thread

I'm not interested in trading insults with you and I'm tired of your rhetoric.

Whatever growth the economy has experienced has gone, hands down, into the pockets of the few and I've posted literally reams of information to illustrate that fact, as have others.

I'll just leave it to Tolstoy, he puts it better anyway.

Have a nice weekend.

“What shall I do,” he thought again, “I have grasped too much and ruined the whole affair. I can’t get there before the sun sets.”

And this fear made him still more breathless. Pahom went on running, his soaking shirt and trousers stuck to him and his mouth was parched. His breast was working like a blacksmith’s bellows, his heart was beating like a hammer, and his legs were giving way as if they did not belong to him. Pahom was seized with terror lest he should die of the strain.

Though afraid of death, he could not stop. “After having run all that way they will call me a fool if I stop now,” thought he. And he ran on and on, and drew near and hear the Bashkirs yelling and shouting to him, and their cries inflamed his heart still more. He gathered his last strength and ran on.

The sun was close to the rim, and cloaked in mist looked large, and red as blood. Now, yes now, it was about to set! The sun was quite low, but he was also quite near his aim. Pahom could already see the people on the hillock waving their arms to hurry him up. He could see the fox-fur cap on the ground and the money on it, and the Chief sitting on the ground holding his sides. And Pahom remembered his dream.

and concluding

“There is plenty of land,” though he, “but will God let me live on it? I have lost my life, I have lost my life! I shall never reach that spot!”

Pahom looked at the sun, which had reached the earth: one side of it had already disappeared. With all his remaining strength he rushed on, bending his body forward so that his legs could hardly follow fast enough to keep him from falling. Just as he reached the hillock it suddenly grew dark. He looked up - the sun had already set! He gave a cry: “All my labor has been in vain,” though he, and was about to stop, but he heard the Bashkirs shouting, and remembered that though to him, from below, the sun seemed to have set, they on the hillock could still see it. He took a long breath and ran up the hillock. It was still light there. He reached the top and saw the cap. Before it sat the Chief laughing and holding his sides. Again Pahom remembered his dream, and he uttered a cry: his legs gave way beneath him, he fell forward and reached the cap with his hands.

“Ah, that’s a fine fellow!” exclaimed the Chief. “He has gained much land!”

Pahom’s servant came running up and tried to raise him, but he saw that blood was flowing from his mouth. Pahom was dead!

The Bashkirs clicked their tongues to show their pity.

His servant picked up the spade and dug a grave long enough for Pahom to lie in, and buried him in it. Six feet from his head to his heels was all he needed. [/i]

the poor need help now

The increased homelessness and the rising numbers children in poverty as a percentage of the total number of children is in direct conflict with your statement realisticman. How many years must people live in the streets before they die or get help, R-man? How long? Who decides? Why have any?

Housing

The provincial government should ensure that the rights of landlords to evict bad tenants can occur quickly and firmly and the federal government should be encouraged to re-introduce (MURB) tax benefits that would encourage construction and ownership of rental housing. Many government housing buildings are absolutely disgusting.

Nice quote, G West

In my younger years, I had not the patience for classic Russian authors. Your posting has shown me that I should reattempt a couple of old tombs. Perhaps now I can be still enough to fathom their truths. It is always about the journey at the moment, not the reward to come, isn't it? In the end, we all meet the same reward.

SIG...

Yes I agree. But my previous post in this thread raises a fundamental concept that the hard left doesn't seem to understand.

Laying an economic foundation for growth, employment, and wealth creation overrides everything else.

Manitoba New Democrat Premier Gary Doer "gets it".

Former BC New Democrat Premier Mike Harcourt "got it" with his promise to eliminate the corporation capital tax.

Former BC New Democrat Premier Dan Miller "got it" with the natural gas exploration tax credits in the northeast.

From the various musings that I've heard from Carole James and the BC NDP, they don't seem to "get it".

Never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

That said, over the past four years, BC has experienced its best economic conditions since 1980/81 (without the then subsequent 20% prime rate).

Now that BC also has its fiscal house in order, yes it's time to focus on other outstanding social matters such as an increase in the minimum wage. I doubt most business, likely in the service sector, will have a problem with that.

Other matters, such as social assistance and social housing should be addressed as well.

The funds for that should be derived from our budget surpluses.

IIRC, this years budget revenue forecast for natural gas royalties was roughly $6 - $7/MMBtu, while current prices have spiked to around roughly $11.50/MMBtu, which would equate to another roughly ~$1 billion in unanticipated royalties for the provincial treasury this year.

As far as I am concerned phrases such as "corporate elites" or "union elites" are just hard left code words in ideology.

GWest

[EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

Leo Tolstoy

some do change, R-man

My life has been a continual evolution R-man. Before I began working with the homeless and the poor, I used to believe like you, and I have changed. I may be a fool, but I believe both, you and Luke Skywalker, can change too, R-man. I believe that if I keep engaging you, you can put altruism ahead of greed.