Poorest to Pay for Campbell Plan?
BC already has highest poverty rates in Canada. The premier's new economic program does nothing to change that.
A few points short of a full plan.
Gordon Campbell's 10-point economic plan will have no impact on B.C.'s most serious problem -- persistent and extreme poverty in this province.
Despite years of economic growth, B.C. has the highest poverty rates in the country (by any measure used). Thirteen per cent of the population is living in poverty, and for five years running, B.C. has had the dubious distinction of having the highest child poverty rates (16 per cent) in the nation. The problem of poverty risks getting worse with a recession unless focused action is taken
Poverty rates for certain groups are stunning: female-headed, single-parent families, 40 per cent; aboriginal population, 36 per cent; people with disabilities, 30 per cent; and immigrant families with children, 46 per cent. In addition, as a recent SFU study found, the province has about 11,750 people with mental illness or severe addictions who are absolutely homeless.
The depth of poverty is extreme: the average poor person in B.C. has a yearly income that is $7,700 below the poverty line.
Why fighting poverty pays off
Taking action on poverty is a collective responsibility and should be a government priority -- just because it is a moral imperative. But recognizing that morality is not usually what makes governments act, the following argument for change will be couched in political and economic terms.
First, poverty reduction is a smart political move. People, in general, deplore poverty and support government poverty reduction plans. The U.K., for example, has moved 600,000 children out of poverty and is well on its way to cutting child poverty in half by 2009. Closer to home, both Newfoundland and Quebec have comprehensive anti-poverty strategies. Newfoundland, which previously had poverty rates similar to that in B.C., introduced a bold action plan to reduce poverty. It now has the highest social assistance benefit rates in the country and is the first province to index welfare rates to inflation. Both Ontario and Nova Scotia are in the process of developing poverty reduction plans. Evidence shows that strong political leadership on poverty reduction produces significant reductions in poverty levels.
B.C. does not have a poverty reduction plan and none appears to be on the horizon. Premier Gordon Campbell's 10-point plan to "improve economic competitiveness and reduce costs for families and business" will not address even one aspect of B.C.'s most serious problem. Reducing taxes may be a populist political move, but the tax reductions probably won't even be noticed the next time we all do our income tax. The tax cuts also give greater benefits to those in higher income brackets. Those making $40,000 a year will get $56, but those making $70,000 and more will get $140.
Surplus could erase poverty
The $144 million going to individual tax reduction would go a long way if it were instead directed towards low-income families and people who now live on $610 a month (the rate for a single person on social assistance). Bringing all of B.C.'s poor up to the poverty line would cost about what B.C. had as a surplus in its last budget. Even using some of the surplus each year toward poverty reduction would be better than doing nothing.
Neither tax reductions nor more spending for roads and bridges, such as Campbell has announced, will have as much of an economic stimulus in B.C. as would using an equivalent amount of money toward poverty reduction. Poor people spend everything on food, housing, and other necessities, most of which is locally based. The impact on their spending would be immediate within a community. This is less the case for people with more money, who are more likely than the poor to buy imported items, spend outside the country, or simply save. Similarly, large infrastructure programs are often undertaken by companies from outside the province with at least a proportion of the labour force and materials imported from elsewhere.
Now's the time for a poverty plan
B.C. is still a wealthy province and a looming recession is precisely the time when poverty reduction needs to be a priority. This would include measures to raise the minimum wage and focus building efforts on low-income housing and public transit. But above all, the government needs to introduce a bold poverty and homelessness reduction plan with clear and legislated targets and timelines.
Premier Campbell's 10-point plan is vague about some issues. We do not know what he means by acting "immediately to rein in avoidable government spending." If this means what it has meant in the past, it would be the poor who would take the brunt of the cost of the government tax reductions. This should not happen again through reductions in social services. Rather, the poor should be the object of government attention and support.
Related Tyee stories:
- Will Crash Pry Canada's Wealth Divide Even Wider?
As rich got richer here, middle class bet big on their houses. - Between Lines of Campbell's Speech: A New 'Fudge-It Budget'
He'll have to jigger the books to not show a deficit. - Risk Written on Their Faces
Harvard researchers: Blame stock market meltdown on too much testosterone.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- Appeal court upholds ruling on protection of orca habitat
- Foreign takeover score is 14,218 to two calculates Mel Hurtig, who speaks Saturday
- Abbott blames teachers' union, hints at legislation
- Greens exaggerating fracking fears 'to control you': Santorum
- Prime Minister Harper mixes oil with human rights on visit to China
- Civil jury finds former BC premier Vander Zalm guilty of defamation
- Vancouver theatre runs down curtain on section of BC's outdated liquor laws
- BC Premier Clark to replace throne speech with radio appearance
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- 'The Kids Are All Right'
- 'Leave Your Shoes On'
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- Frankie Rose Makes Life Tougher for Journalists
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Could SOPA Pervade Canadian Copyright Law?
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Becoming the Ethical Hunter
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Bill Rees' Last Lecture
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Is Canada Ignoring Signs of a Coming Economic Collapse?
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP
- Harper in China
- Bruce Carson Scandal Greased by Harper's Oil Sands Agenda
- BC Child Care Advocates in Geneva to Complain to UN
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Make It the Canadian Webcasting Corporation
- Harper in China
- When the Prize Is a Chance to Toil on BC's Farms
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- BC, You Love You
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Foreign Trade Zones Eyed for Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George
- Skating into 2012, More Resolutions
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- Scientists unveil bold new definition of addiction
- The most hellish ‘internships’: China sends 100,000 teens to work for a pittance at Foxconn making gadgets for Apple, others
- World Press Photo Contest: Editor’s choice pictures of the day
- Banks come first in a Greek rescue plan
- We’re more unequal than you think
- Cambodia launched restaurants for vultures
- Flavored vodka: sign of the imminent apocalypse?
- With Obama’s new foreclosure deal big banks win again
182
Login or register to post comments
G West
3 years ago
I heard Monte Paulsen
I heard Monte Paulsen on CBC Almanac today after lunch - he did an exemplary job of explaining why homelessness is a bad fiscal deal for the taxpayer.
If we can't make Campbell understand why much the same thing is true of poverty perhaps Monte could try to persuade him too.
Ever thought of running for political office Mr Paulsen - I think you could make Rick Coleman look bad blindfolded and with your hands tied behind your back.
Jeffrey J.
3 years ago
Ideologues Immune to Logic
Excellent article. There are simply SO MANY shortcomings to Campbell's "plan". He cancels the legislature and dictates policy from a podium; he proposes yet another tax cut, after repeated tax cuts since 2001, which only hobble democratic governments from implementing public policy; he lobs some money at BC Ferries after stating its an arm length corporation. All the while, he's let BC's logging and fishing industries become a shadow of their former importance.
But his worst error is as described by S. Klein and M. Cohen: continuing to impoverish so many of BC's citizens. Campbell spent most of his working life shilling for the real estate industry. So perhaps these failings are not surprising. Most ideologues have little ability to recognize logical defects in their belief system. Sadly.
Great coverage Tyee.
Grumpy
3 years ago
Campbell's whole economic strategy......
.........downloading taxes onto the poor. Reported in the 'Black' Press, Campbell & Co. has quietly given the nod to TransLink to charge a $100 auto levy, but to keep quiet about it until after the May election.
Cutting taxes my ass, all Campbell is doing is giving the wealthy more tax breaks and shifting the tax burden onto the poor!
ME2
3 years ago
Luke S
You're good at this sort of thing, so I'd like to pose a question for you.
Are there any generally accepted studies that hold tax reductions for the upper income brackets flow through the economy to benefit lower income brackets - perhaps even the poor?
I know there's lots of theory, but is there any hard evidence?
G West
3 years ago
ME2
There is no such evidence - in fact, the empirical data holds the opposite.
In nations where there are higher levels of taxation on upper income levels the redistributive effect of taxation reduces poverty, eliminates homelessness and increases the participation rate in things like education and training
The whole trickly down theory has been discredited in spades by the examples of Chile, Argentina and the United States - to mention just three examples.
Cynic
3 years ago
I heard Paulsen today too,
I heard Paulsen today too, and also the "experts" on the Current explaining the economic meltdown. One of them said "it's a mystery" what's happening. So now we know.
Ah, money. It's so mysterious. What is it? Where does it come from? Who knows and who cares? Not the CBC, not Campbell, and not, apparently, the Tyee. Don't we want an end to poverty and homelessness? Don't we want an end to environmental degradation? Don't we want a better world for all? Well forget it. Sorry Mr. Beers. For all the Tyee's seeming altruism, you will change exactly nothing as long as you ignore the money/banking fraud. Take note Seth, Marjorie, Marc, Murray, Monte, Rafe. Nothing will change as long as you turn a blind mind. Until then, status quo.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Welfare Rates
BC's welfare rates are scandalously low. $610 a month is a pittance. What is really needed is a national guaranteed annual income that was approximately double that figure with low income rentals added in to the mix.
"Trickle Down" is a complete sham. Even Bush Jr called it "voodoo economics." The super rich cannot consume as much as needed to stimulate the economy. You can only buy so many groceries.
BC faces some difficult challenges. The first one is our Deep Dark Secret. These are the First Nations, the first group stabbed in the back by Harper when he nixed the Kelowna accord. This is not easy for the provincial government to do much about since it is a federal responsibility.
Second is our climate. Our mild winters attract indigent from all over the country, as well as the wide availability of the best and cheapest drugs.
I am very anxious to see Carole James' solution to BC's poverty and homeless problems. I don't see anything on the NDP's website at all. As a voter, I want Carole to give me a concrete platform for what she plans to do in government rather than the "Gordon Campbell is the devil" speech we've gotten so often. It hasn't been successful in the past, and it won't be in 2009.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
ME2...
The first thing that popped out in my mind was the memory of "Reaganomics" of the early 1980's with the accompanying "trickle down effect" along with Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics.
No credited studies AFAIK and never made practical sense anyway.
That said, alot of us here equate poverty with either homelessness and/or a large proportion of one's income spent on shelter (ie. rent).
Ya know, during the post-WW2 era right through until about the early 1980's affordable apartment buildings were constructed.
And the later part of that apartment building construction era was as a result of the federal MURB (Multi-Residential Residential Building) program.
And then apt. bldg. construction almost became a by-gone era post ~1980.
That was the biggest mistake ever made federally - the nixing of the MURB program circa 1980.
Otherwise, apartment building construction would have likely continued.
We would have had a MUCH larger rental housing stock as well as concurrent lower rental rates (no ridiculously .01% vacancy rates - a landlord's market).
But I digress.
zalm
3 years ago
erp...?
BC's welfare rates are scandalously low....
..."Trickle Down" is a complete sham...
Who are you and what have you done with Wilfred Laurier?
zalm
3 years ago
Pissing on the forest fire
Just a quick number crunch - $144 million for tax cuts set against the needs of 11,750 homeless means about $12,000 of rent subsidy for each homeless - about 2 years worth rent in a small bachelor on the DTES, assuming any such existed.
We shouldn't fool ourselves that Klein's proposal would "go a long way" toward addressing all the needs mentioned. They won't do more than piss on the forest fire. We actually need a serious programme to address the needs of the poor, and I suspect those needs could well total more than $6 billion in direct supports, without even counting how government is supposed to get that money to the poorest of the poor. Remember, some of our contributors are fond of pointing out how government is the least efficient method of redistributing income and getting useful work done - except for all the other methods. (with apologies to W. Churchill)
I had to check out a few European countries to see how the housing crisis is addressed there. It seems that in Germany and Switzerland, there have been large programmes of low-interest loans made available to developers to rehab old buildings not suitable for renting any more to bring them up to snuff (and in these cases, it looks like they mean pre-war rubble, mostly) for which the developers trade 10 years of rent controls. However, it looks like the programme still runs at a large subsidy - the Germany Nation Housing Ministry mostly offers loan guarantees and subsidies to rent controls where necessary, but still runs at a budget of more than €100 billion. And of course, the problems in the old DDR don't help. Some states (Baden-Wurttemburg and Bayern) also have additional progams, and so do some cities (Berlin, Munich). Switzerland and Netherlands have devolved much more of the renovation costs to developers but support much more with subsidies to bring market rents down to where they are affordable, and use rent controls in other cases where the buildings are now older and the original developer has moved on. In France, the state uses this combination, plus a the state has taken ownership in many projects in the past, but no longer does so.
All of them appear to be expensive. How the hell are we going to do it on the cheap?
(That was a rhetorical question, dontcha know)
ME2
3 years ago
Luke S
Thank you for that answer, Luke. I'm sure the acolytes of Rush Limbaugh who lurk on these threads will do their very to ignore it.
Your answer then provokes a follow-up.
Are there any generally accepted studies which support the claim that lowered taxes on upper incomes result in direct investment in local or national productive capacity?
I'm picking numbers out of the air here, so just for discussion's sake, would $50,000 in foregone taxes result in a newly created job? Is there such a number?
I'm not trolling for an argument, I'm just wondering if the supposition advanced above is fact-based or theoretical.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Back To The Future...
From the article:
Heck, Carole James now says that not only does she support Campbell's tax cuts but that she now also wants to "one-up" Campbell and decrease taxes by another by another $570 million.
Does anybody really believe that? :)
But this doesn't sound too good:
As for affordable housing for the poor, Carole James says that the NDP wants to spend $650 million over 5 years on 7,200 units of affordable housing.
IMHO, there's a big problem with the NDP's math. Even without all of "the bells and whistles", that would equate to ~$90,000/unit for new construction.
That ~$90,000 /unit would include land costs, soft costs, and construction costs right up to the occupancy permit.
That's fantasy land in Metro Vancouver!
I would actually love to buy such a `$90,000 unit plus a 10% developer's profit.
BTW, who within the NDP conjures up these figures???
Bobby Peru
3 years ago
The Time Tunnel
There is of course a limit to the benefits of individual and corporate tax reduction insofar as how they marginally encourage investment in assets that produce jobs and most of all how such tax reductions trickle down to or directly benefit those with low or no income.
Clearly, the poor need direct aid either in the form of cash or a defined benefit like housing. Vancouver's problem is exacerbated by the fact that it's one of Canada's most expensive housing markets. Even leftists can't defy that gravity. So if, like Luke Skywalker says, the NDP wants to build large amounts of welfare housing in metro Vancouver, it better sweat out the math and come up with realistic and accurate costs. Otherwise, no one will trust the NDP with running the govt.
Funny, the Liberals are experiencing a big cost overrun at the convention centre, but the public is less concerned with that overrun than massive welfare spending. After all, Vancouver needs a competitive convention centre to draw international travellers to Vancouver- productive business and tourists that spend money and create jobs.
On the other hand, free housing downtown to crackheads and tweakers who ultimately trash every place they stay in doesn't draw much sympathy from voters. As I've said in other threads, the homeless problem isn't a 'homeless' issue, it's a drug addict problem that needs to be treated at that level. Addicts need to be housed and institutionalized in a facility, not given nice pink houses with white picket fences. Voters aren't going to support this.
The NDP has to get its budgetary brains around sustainable social spending rather than grand projects that require more money to maintain in the future. Somehow, I think the economics or business minded members of the senior NDP ranks don't have a place at the policy table which is dominated by teachers, social workers and union activists.
Grumpy
3 years ago
Cost overruns...............
.........only get the publics and the media's attention when the NDP are in office.
Funny, the biggest project overrun, the RAV/Canada Line, which zoomed to $1.3 billion in 2002 to a now over $2.5 billion in 2008, is hardly ever mentioned. "just go InTransit BC's web site.........la-de-da" is what one gets as an answer and like they will tell you the truth?
RAV's massive overrun makes the FastFerry fiasco look like small potatoes!
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Carole and Tax Cuts
Carole sounds surprisingly the same as the Premier. I don't really see a concrete policy on anything. This is exactly the same tactic she used last time. She can continue on "Gordon Campbell is Lucifer" and "I've been all over the province to see the carnage" but as usual, she is singing to the choir. People who don't support her or don't want NDP goodies aren't going to attend her meetings anyway.
Seems to me Carole and her Faithful have (yet again) convinced themselves they are going to waltz into government because that Dirty Rotten Campbell is Mean and Rotten. No actual platform, because if they had one, they would have to honour it. Does anyone see a repeating pattern here? But Jim Sinclair is the premier in waiting, not Carole James.
Frank
3 years ago
Hmm
Change the name from Carole to Gordon in the above post and it reads even better.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Good Point Bobby
"On the other hand, free housing downtown to crackheads and tweakers who ultimately trash every place they stay in doesn't draw much sympathy from voters."
This is a good point. I would actually like Carole to get into power and build a nice house for each of the above people. Put nice curtains and make sure there is a tea pot, replete with tea cozy. I am sure this would be a really successful project. All it takes is love and money. But somebody else's love and money.
The only solution to hard core addicts is admission to a mental hospital under section 15 of the mental health act. Give them an apartment and they'll rip the sinks out to sell for crack. Committing them would also send a message that BC is no longer a free haven for crackheads.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Frank
Frank, I would like your opinion of your party's Faithful, the Glen Clarkites, of Carole's speech last night and her (lack of) platform. Do you think that she is going to get elected by speeches like that one? Is what she has been doing, i.e. Campbell is Lucifer and "meeting people all over the province" going to get her into the premier's chair?
Is is a done deal? Is Carole guaranteed victory?
realisticman
3 years ago
Call it wealth or whatever.
Trickle down?
The article states that by compaprison Newfoundland, which previously had poverty rates similar to that in B.C., introduced a bold action plan to reduce poverty. It now has the highest social assistance benefit rates in the country and is the first province to index welfare rates to inflation.
Newfoundland:
Government Releases Fall Update:
Province Forecasting Historic Surplus
The Honourable Tom Marshall, Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, today released the province’s fall financial update which forecasts an $881.8 million surplus for 2007-08, compared to a surplus of $261.2 million that was forecast when Budget 2007 was released in April.
Budget 2007 had forecast total revenues of $5,632 million, compared to the current forecast of $6,148 million, an improvement of $516 million.
Minister Marshall said the change is due to much higher oil prices, increased production from the offshore projects, higher royalties for the White Rose project and higher than expected mineral prices. The province's improved financial position over the past couple of years is also largely a result of the re-negotiated Atlantic Accord which finally allowed the province to benefit from oil revenues in a meaningful way. The additional monies allowed the province to address significant liability issues and, in turn, freed up money and improved interest rates.
http://www.budget.gov.nl.ca/budget2008/highlights.htm
What BC needs are similar benefits by developing its own off-shore and land based oil and gas reserves and thereby catch up to Newfoundland with similar financial surpluses that drive the kinds of programmes that the article is describing.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Interesting that nobody
Interesting that nobody talks about the thousands of minimum wage, part time jobs, forcing people into poverty and reliance on the food banks.
This racket should be outlawed and part time jobs should only be permitted for people who ask for them. There's no excuse for them, because the same employers are raising prices to the public every day.
We're off to town for our biweekly shopping and it is sure as hell that many prices have risen substantially in the past 2 weeks, while producers and employees are stolen blind.
When it comes to the Friedmanite, Chicago School "trickle down" idiocy, those who believe in trickle down will be trickled on.
The only thing that's trickling down are transferred costs, and poverty, while the tricklers are stealing millions.
Ed Deak.
G West
3 years ago
Hmmm?
Are you including St John's West in that calculation R/man?
I think you'll find, like Ireland of old, that depopulating the place and sending them to Ft McMurray has more to do with their situation today than anything Danny boy has done with his oil revenue - The OutPorts are in as much trouble as ever and the fishery is a joke.
Some success story - trickle down is a cruel Friedmanite joke - like the rest of the globalizing market crap.
I find myself agreeing more and more with Ed's analysis...
Frank
3 years ago
Wilf
I'm still waiting for MSM criticisms on Campbell's speech as well as his entire first two terms in office. Do you know where I could find some?
In this province its attack the NDP full-time and nobody ever asks where Campbell is getting the money for his projects and tax cuts. No wonder our debt has ballooned to $100 billion.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Trickledown
Trickledown is a complete farce. It has never worked anywhere.
However, the idea that high income earners in Canada do not pay high taxes is equally absurd. A family of 4 making $45,000 a year in BC pays no provincial or federal tax.
Newfoundland's recent windfall was caused a surge in oil prices. Oil was never worth $150 a barrel. It is worth around $40 a barrel. "Peak oil" was just a way of selling newspapers.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Frank
Frank, instead of unsuccessfully attacking the Premier, tell me your party's platform and seat projections. What exactly are you going to do that is different or better?
I know you will avoid this question so I won't bother to repeat myself.
But if The Faithful think they can win without a platform or a record in government, best of luck. Oh, because that is because you have already decided you are going to win, right?
G West
3 years ago
Wilf - buddy
Do you know anything about the tax system?
Apparently not.
High earners in Canada pay little or no tax - certainly less on a percentage basis than the poor and the middle class...guess you haven't heard why all the folks living along the Bridle Path were so exercised when Flaherty took away (in the future) ‘some’ of their income trusts.
[SNIDE PERSONAL COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
Suffice to say that the rates of tax on the kinds of things high earners make their jeans jingle with are a lot lower than the rates the guy who picks up your garbage pays. And the low income guys pay ALL the payroll taxes too….
Live and learn!
G West
3 years ago
Unsuccessful??
I think Frank's attacks on our EDITED FOR INACCURACY of a premier are very successful.
Where'd you get the idea they weren't?
In fact, I have it on good authority that members of the Public Affairs Bureau are posted here at Tyee to report on everything Frank writes.
Then they can let Jessica know so she can comfort Campbell when he calls her up at two in the morning!
Frank
3 years ago
Wilf
I find it hard to believe when you say you won't repeat yourself but regardless, why would I write an NDP platform for you?
I'm not the NDP and I don't see you or any other Socred ever writing for me a Socred platform so that I can decide if I want to vote Socred. Instead you just write apologies for Socred policies afterwards.
Don't ask of others what you're not willing to write yourself.
As for winning, show me where I ever write the NDP will win. You can't because I never do. That's just something you like to say because it doesn't require any thinking. Which is up your alley.
On the other hand I see you claim the Libs will win constantly. I've never seen you claim anyone but the Libs will ever win. I think you're a true-believer which is why I never ask your opinion on anything, I already know what it is.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
One of Dr.Goebbels
One of Dr.Goebbels philosophies was that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it.
The Germans were not informed what and where the frontline was, until Russian troops broke down the doors and raped their women.
Goebbels gave his last broadcast about fantastic German victories, then went home, dodging Russian bullets on his way, killed his children and then himself.
So much for the rightie propaganda machine.
Everything is booming, until it crashes and people can just stand there and say :What happened?
The world has just put up to $5. trillion of imaginary, taxpayers money into the great, booming economic system to keep people fooled for another day, yet it is still in a "booming" freefall.
Ed Deak.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Proof is in the pudding
"Where'd you get the idea they weren't?"
Because of the election defeats in 2001 and 2005. But since you are addressing each other, people who would never vote for the Liberal party anyway, and have already decided Victory is Yours, you think your tactic is successful.
But if you think you can win this way, have at 'er.
G West
3 years ago
Wilf
Please see Ed's post...the one about propaganda - I'm busy and he's covered the situation pretty well.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
OK Garth
Well, Garth, by your own estimation, something like 81% of eligible voters didn't vote NDP in the last election.
And they were all wrong and you and Ed were correct. I feel so assured.
G West
3 years ago
What election are you talking about Wilf?
Because I'm much more interested in pointing out that less than 22% of the population voted for the Harper Government.
I'd say that means more than 78% of Canadians don't want him running the government - what do you think it means?
Of course, we don't actually have democracy in this country anyway - something else Ed points out from time to time.
I'm glad you're happy though - just hope you're not going to be in need of long term care any time soon.
Stump
3 years ago
love and money
"All it takes is love and money. "
This is actually true. And love is free. All you have to do is remember we're talking about human beings in terrible pain, rather than labelling them crackheads... as though they are nothing more than the substance to which they are addicted. So if you can wrap your head around an attitude change, you've made a start. As to money, perhaps we are penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to the costs of addiction?
It would also help to stop expecting a 100% success rate. We will unfortunately have people who can't or won't be helped. But, I would suggest they are a very small minority that are trotted out as emblematic when it's convenient for the haters.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Ergo, Garth....
Ergo, Garth, only 9% of voters voted for the NDP in the federal election. That is less than one in ten.
That means 91% of Canadian voters do not want an NDP government in Ottawa. Those are pretty strong numbers, aren't they?
G West
3 years ago
Doesn't mean any such thing
Simply means we have a disfunctional democracy - unlike real countries where everyone's vote counts.
We simply elect four year dictators here in Canada - glad you like it.
bob the cat
3 years ago
"have you met the poor?"
" They`re really quite delightful."
Robin Hood (John Cleese) to King Arthur and his knights upon meeting for the first time in Sherwood Forest.
Poorest to Pay for Campbell Plan?
Of course! Has it not always been thusly?
sirjohna
3 years ago
the tyee as shrill you say?
the tyee as shrill you say? never can get too much of a good thing.
by the way, is carole james really as simple as she sounds?
kootenay
3 years ago
All you Righties who post
All you Righties who post here on a regular basis amaze me. Your leaders, financial visionaries, global market, free market enterprise, etc, etc, is a total failure!
Your system has caused a world wide recession/depression that will take years to recover from. You have caused untold additional suffering for the poor and middle class people of the world. Many have lost their savings, person pension plans have been reduced by half or worse. Aid to the poorest countries will be cut if it hasn't been already, many more people will die as a result of it.
Rather than hang your heads in shame and plead for mercy for your soulless bodies, you continue to praise these same people, and their same policies, and condemn anyone who has a different idea.
And as for tax cuts. How the hell do you think we pay for health care and education and elderly care.... Through taxes, Lower taxes, less social services. You say you don't believe in the trickle down theory, but you're in favor of lower taxes, seems to be the same philosophy to me.
God help us all, you lunatics are still in charge and haven't learnt a damn thing
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Actually....
I consider myself a centrist. I am middle of the road all the way. However, I do believe any political party that wants my vote should provide me with a comprehensive, costed, platform.
Carole James has not done that. She hasn't even tried. She is so confident that she will coast to victory she hasn't been bothered. She was this confident in 2005, too.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
kootenay...
So let me get this straight. Campbell announces tax reductions.
NDP leader Carole James jumps up and down and says ME TOO... ME TOO.
Then Carole James says I want to be more popular. The NDP will provide another $570 million in tax cuts!
Go figure.
Carole, are ya listening???
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Carole's Tax Cuts
Actually, Me Too Carole's tax cuts are more than double that Gordon Campbell promised, something in the order of $2.3bn. She also says she will not run a deficit.
What do the Clarkites have to say about this?
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
ME2...
Not as far as I am aware and frankly I'm not too much of a fan of "studies" in any event. Too many assumptions that can be haywire resulting in different conclusions.
Case in point, I personally recall three separate engineering firms providing a study on one specific matter. Each came out with a different conclusion on the same matter.
That said and generally speaking, a positive tax environment certainly assists economically. Alot of that involves perceptions. For instance, Quebec has always been viewed as one of the highest taxed jurisdictions in North America.
Would I move my head office to Quebec or to Calgary? Calgary or Vancouver?
Anyway, head office locations and employment might give a better indication. Calgary obviously has no 7% PST and a lower personal tax rate above $111,000 than Vancouver, and I believe some of that is reflected in the following head office and employment figures:
CALGARY
Head offices
2002: 68
2007: 109
+60.3%
Head office employment
2002: 16,167
2007: 20,175
+24.8%
VANCOUVER
Head offices
2002: 74
2007: 80
+8.1%
Head office employment
2002: 14,515
2007: 17,852
+23.0%
Stump
3 years ago
give me head (offices)
How many of those head offices are Oilpatch related?
Further, Vancouver head offices managed a nearly equal percentage increase in employment despite having only one sixth (approx.) the percentage increase in head offices. Seems to me as a taxpayer (or a politician) I'd take the companies that seem to be exhibiting a trend of creating more employment per office. If that trend continues, Vancouver will soon be doing more with less. And, at a higher tax rate.
Perhaps head offices open where they need to, unless they open where they know they can get employees who will want to live there, and tax rates are merely one factor among many?
G West
3 years ago
happiest place on earth
DENMARK
Stump
3 years ago
math correction
"despite having only one sixth (approx.) the percentage increase in head offices"
actually, one eighth.
Frank
3 years ago
Who's Wilfred Laurier? A cousin of Wilfrid Laurier?
"What do the Clarkites have to say about this?"
You wanted to see some numbers from her, there they are.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Head Offices...
Head Offices: 2002 - 2006
5-Year Total Growth
Calgary : 68 [2002] : 109 [2006] : +60.3%
Edmonton: 17 [2002] : 22 [2006] : +29.4%
Vancouver: 74 [2002]: 80 [2006] : +8.1%
Toronto: 295 [2002] : 275 [2006] : -6.8%
Ottawa: 15 [2002] : 13 [2006] : -13.3%
Montreal: 111 [2002] : 89 [2006] -19.8%
Head Office Concentration: 2002 - 2006(Per 100,000 Population)
5-Year Total Growth
Calgary : 6.8 [2002] : 9.8 [2006] : +45.1%
Edmonton: 1.7 [2002] : 2.1 [2006] : +20.8%
Vancouver: 3.5 [2002]: 3.6 [2006] : +2.1%
Toronto: 5.9 [2002] : 5.1 [2006] : -13.4%
Ottawa: 1.3 [2002] : 1.1 [2006] : -16.3%
Montreal: 3.1 [2002] : 2.4 [2006] -22.4%
Head Office Employment: 2002 - 2006
Head Office Employees
5-Year Total Growth
Calgary:16,167[2002]: 20,175[2006]: +24.8%
Vancouver:14,515[2002]: 17,852[2006]: +23%
Ottawa:4,768[2002]: 5,718[2006]: +19.9%
Edmonton:3,415[2002]: 3,772[2006]: +10.5%
Toronto:56,022[2002]: 60,676[2006]: +8.3%
Montreal:34,587[2002]: 35,858[2006]: +3.7%
In terms of the most positive taxation environment in Canada, provinces are ranked as follows:
1. Alberta (Calgary, Edmonton)
2. BC (Vancouver)
3. Ontario (Toronto and Ottawa)
4. Quebec (Montreal)
Interestingly enough, those cities with the most postive tax environment also performed the best over the past five years in terms of head office growth, head office employment, and head office concentration... namely Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver, with Montreal at the bottom of the list.
http://www.calgaryeconomicdevelopment.com/files/Calgary_Head_Office_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Well, Frank...
"You wanted to see some numbers from her, there they are."
Well, Frank, we have and Carole is the biggest tax cutter of them all.
kootenay
3 years ago
Denmark
Thank you G West, at least someone understood my post.
All you righties can do is condemn Carol James and stand by your man, Gordon Campbell. If her tax cuts are out of line, why are his so great?
Now I don't believe for a second that Carol James is going to be the saviour of the free world, but to keep voting for the same system, the system that just crashed and burned spectacularly, is insane. In fact that is one of the definitions of insanity, keep repeating the same action over and over again, expecting a different outcome.
I for one believe strongly in socialism. We need to support people, not corporations. No matter how many billions of dollars a year corporations or banks make, nothing trickles down to the people.
Government continues to give them tax breaks to the detrement of our social structure. Life for the average Joe continues to worsen and the rich get richer.
If this great monetary system of yours worked so well then we wouldn't need to be investing trillions of dollars into the banking system. It would balance itself, be self correcting.
I got to agree with G West, Ed Deak is starting to make a hell of a lot of sense.
Frank
3 years ago
Who's Wilfred Laurier? A cousin of Wilfrid Laurier?
"Well, Frank, we have and Carole is the biggest tax cutter of them all."
Excellent, now you can quit posting every 20 minutes that you don't know what Carole wants to do.
Stump
3 years ago
head offices redux
Luke you can cut and paste statistics till our eyes bleed, but if even a cursory examination of which head offices are being opened in AB reveals that many are allied with the oil and gas industry, anyone can see how it certainly casts Calgary and Edmonton's growth in a whole other light. You're certainly welcome to prove me wrong, but frankly, I don't care much either way. Our economic future is only secure if we are creating self-sufficient enterprises to serve Canadian interests. Whoring ourselves out to every fickle multi-national willing to pull up stakes for a few percentage points of tax savings is a mug's game.
Skywalker
3 years ago
All the numbers prove.
Greedy corporations will move to where they can have the most profit and that leads to a whipsaw effect for lower and lower taxes just to pirate business from another region. That is dumb. Taxes pay for services and some equality in the access. The continual slide to the lowest common denomenator in a country can be stopped by having the same rules applied throughout the country. Then it requires a national government to apply some restrictions in the flow of capital across its border.
All your numbers prove is the movement of jobs. Lower taxes don't increase the number, just in which province they are located. As I said that kind of playing to greedy corporations is really dumb.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
But Frank
Frank, as our resident NDP stalwart, what is your opinion of Carole's $2.3 billion tax cut? Do you think that she will be able to balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time?
G West
3 years ago
Oh and for all you lovely 'Liberals'
I'm talking to you sirjohna as well, sorry to break it to you but the McKenna as savior movement just left the rails and crashed:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081028.wmckenna1028/BNStory/National/home
G West
3 years ago
Wilf
I don't think the current budget is actually balanced (have a look at how they're using the carbon tax receipts to pump up the current fiscal year's revenues) so why would I care if the NDP ran a deficit too? And, Hansen seems to be saying we're already in the red now - or did you miss that little “confession”?
If some of the things that have gone to hell in the last 7 1/2 years get fixed then I'd be more than happy - even if I had to pay some more taxes (real ones not just licenses and fees) and I wouldn’t be too upset if the exchequer ran up a deficit.
That's the price of civilization - a price we haven't been willing to pay this century.
I think it's time we stopped soaking the poor and started charging the rich.
YOU?
Cause I thought you were a middle of the roader?
Frank
3 years ago
Who's Wilfred Laurier? A cousin of Wilfrid Laurier?
Isn't that what Campbell is already claiming he's doing? Isn't this BC? I was sure it was when I woke up this morning. And in BC, I never see the media question how taxes can be cut and the budget balanced.
And as we learned from Justine Hunter in the Globe, via our friend Luke, we are already in deficit. The budget is not balanced right now. So how can Carole's policies be accused of making that happen since she's not in gov't and probably never will be?
All those Campbell tax cuts have given us a debt of around $100 billion, just as all those Bush tax cuts gave them a debt in the trillions.
Yet the MSM only has a problem with the out-of-office James... any idea as to why that is?
And I'm still waiting for that link to any MSM columnist writing on the subject of Campbell's speech last week questioning how Campbell proposes to pay for tax cuts in BC. All I've heard is that we can't afford the NDP tax cuts yet nary a word on the Liberal tax cuts.
And the weird thing is that the proposed NDP tax cuts haven't taken place because the party isn't in power and no one expects them to be. Yet the Campbell tax cuts, that he can't pay for, are in the here and now and being delivered by a party that expects to still be in power in June.
Methinks people like Fazil Mihlar of the Sun editorial board and ex-member of the Fraser Institute and Michael Campbell, the premier's brother who has been telling people for months that "now" is a good time to buy stocks, are biased.
Frank
3 years ago
NDP tax cuts
The hypothetical NDP tax cuts :
Getting rid of the $570 million gas tax, is a good idea. I have no problem with that.
What other taxes is Carole proposing to cut besides the ones Campbell is already cutting?
G West
3 years ago
Speaking of spending the taxpayers' money
Guess you've all seen the big ads in the local dailies from the BEST PLACE ON EARTH© folks - funny they'd all end up in the papers (as public expense) on the eve of two Vancouver by-elections innit?
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Kootney
Bravo--
Personaly speaking, Carole James when she axes the gas tax,she should also axe the 5% tax cut--
Maybe i`m getting stupid,I don`t know,the 5% tax cut,isn`t a tax cut,its money collected on the gas tax!
How does money taken from people on gas/heating oil/propane/etc etc--
Then you return the money,and the goverment calls it a tax cut,am I missing something?
Frank,how would you like a 1000.00 cut?
Lend me a 1000.00 and when I return it to you it won`t be called paying back a loan,it will be called a TAX CUT
I believe that if Carole James explains that borrowed money returned is neither a tax cut nor an enviromental plan that people would understand!
Just more gobbily goop---All this talk about balanced budgets is moot.
Think about it, the so-called boom years by Campbell have achieved what?
Highest poverty level in Canada
Highest level of homelessness (tripled under Campbell)
Assets sold,railway,rivers,utilites
Loss of salmon,whales,loss of the ALR,massive tracts of crown land ceded to companies that contributed but a few dollars to the Liberal party.
Our BC debt has not been lowered,it`s gone up,up by billions, seems to me that a deficit is fine if you were actualy lowering our BC debt
The social fabric of community,schools,hospitals, seniors care has been shredded by Campbell.
Are democtatic rights have been taken away,no legilative sessions,courts have been corrupted,safety nets removed,wcb removed,gag laws.
While Campbell has had a propoganda machine the likes no one has seen or heard since "Tokyo Rose"
So what has Campbell acomplished in 7 years--
More debt, lies,corruption,class warfare,towns pitted against towns,seniors,disabled,work injured,autistic,children---All the most vulnerable people in our province tossed aside like garbage.
What legacy for Campbell?
A speed skating oval--A slightly straighter highway to Whistler, 5 colleges with name changes to universities!
A legacy of the death of salmon,human rights,respect to elders,death to everthing we as a society hold precious.
And you Luke Skywalker/Rman--Wilf/Johnna and others want to talk about whether the numbers add up too fudge!
I feel sorry for you,must be difficult having to look behind yourselves or to look in the mirror,hope your all proud of yourselves---pleasent dreams
Cheers
Stump
3 years ago
I second that emotion
You nailed it Egmont. They know there's only one outcome with their philosophy, the eventual destruction of human civilization, so they assuage their guilt with stolen wealth and call it just rewards for a job well done.
Frank
3 years ago
saltery bay
I agree with you on the tax cut, she should axe it as well, but she's scared of being labelled.
I don't see why, she is anyway.
zalm
3 years ago
Costs? You're talking costs?
"IMHO, there's a big problem with the NDP's math. Even without all of "the bells and whistles", that would equate to ~$90,000/unit for new construction.
That ~$90,000 /unit would include land costs, soft costs, and construction costs right up to the occupancy permit.
That's fantasy land in Metro Vancouver!
I would actually love to buy such a `$90,000 unit plus a 10% developer's profit."
Good thing it was your humble opinion. Here's some facts to feed your opinion, give it a little growth and maturity.
The extended care home society I'm secretary for has a project on the table awaiting funding from the P-3 department in Gordo's cabinet. (Hello Larry Blain - anybody home?) We've been waiting more than a year. Our costs are $320 a square foot, which has gone up from $145 four years ago when we first proposed it. That's for everything but the furnishings, but including all the medical equipment backup, new kitchen and laundry and grounds shops and parkade, everything ready to go.
We've another site for social housing in South Van that needs rebuilding and densifying and the builders on the board say we could build FSR 3.0 to six stories for $250 a square foot in this market, but wait a year or two and that will come down.
That's the cost with no builder profit because these guys volunteer their time and money on the board because it's the right thing to do. Incidentally, in residential construction, builder profit is 25% at the low end and 40% at the high end. Carrying costs post-completion are expected to come out of this if they don't sell them all, which they rarely do.
Minimum standard housing for City of Vancouver is 275 square feet, which at $250 a square foot in this market is $69,000. There are approximately 40 social housing societies in Vancouver alone that could take on the job, and 200 in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley, some of which have already built hospitals, care homes and residential facilities of up to 600 units. No need to give a plum contract to one of Gordo's builder friends who would double the costs.
ME2
3 years ago
The shell game goes on....
I note that to date, no one - on ether the Right or the Left - can come up with any data which suggests that there is a provable "trickle down" to the whole of society (let alone to the poor) as a result of tax cuts to the rich.
So can the the situation be corrected, since even Mr Peru, our resident Panglossian, admits there is a need?
quoting him :
"Clearly, the poor need direct aid either in the form of cash or a defined benefit like housing."
Having said that, in the next breath he goes on to characterize the poor as :
"......On the other hand, free housing downtown to crackheads and tweakers who ultimately trash every place they stay in doesn't draw much sympathy from voters."
Which boils down to the standard neocon rationalizaion that the poor are merely agents of their own destruction, who refuse to compete in "The Market", and thus ineligible for help from the rest of us. I know he'll say he was referring only to druggies, so I'd ask him who are the "tweakers" and how many of them are there?
I was flabbergasted when RMan, in noting how Newfoundland has dramatically raised assistance to the poor by diverting some of its O&G royalties to them, wrote :
"What BC needs are similar benefits by developing its own off-shore and land based oil and gas reserves and thereby catch up to Newfoundland with similar financial surpluses that drive the kinds of programmes that the article is describing."
Sounds an awful lot like a Socialistic measure to me, more suitable for Communist nations like Norway. Perhaps that's why royalty-rich Provinces like BC and Oilberta haven't adopted it? Ooooh yes, now I get it, reading back through his post, I see he qualifies the idea by noting it would be applicable to BC ONLY if we develop our offshore O&G.
Hmmmm, sounds like another neoon promise, the usual carrot-on-a-stick game.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Good One Zalm...
I should of thought better of ya.
I literally grew up in an environment of single-family home construction as well as single-family residential subdivision development. Meh, what do I know. ;)
Well, I have no idea about your situation or connections but I do have an associate involved in that arena ("non-profit" extended care homes) and they have been quite successful in expedited financing and development through their connections at VIHA and BC Housing over the past 10 years.
That's all nice and fine from a builder/developer's potential internal perspective in a crazy upward price spiral, but, in terms of preparing a business plan for "major" financing, anyone with half a brain will utilize conservative figures inclusive of developer's profit at a "maximum" of 15%.
Why? Greed begets greed. Large lenders see those types of figures and they get greedy. Fer instance, ya know the $350 million Infinity Towers that recently filed for creditor-protection with now-bankrupt Lehman Bros. financing?
A mortgage with CIBC (syndicated) and a face interest rate of 25%. The Lehman mortgage had a face rate of 20%. And that does not include 7-figure lender fees, brokerage fees, etc. increasing the effective rate of interest. And another sub-ordinated mortgage in favour of one of the company principals.
I was provided the financial documentation last week. What a mess.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/10/15/bc-surrey-infinity-refinancing.html?ref=rss
Well I can't comment on your buildable per sq. ft. figure but you have omitted land costs.
That said, I will re-iterate that the NDP's estimate was $90,000/unit for "affordable" housing. Does that mean "subsidized" housing or "social" housing? Does that include land costs or not? And are we looking at 275 sq. ft. cubicles or not?
One thing I can say, is that City of Vancouver residents are notoriously NIMBY in terms of the location of "social" housing in their back yard. Witness the stringent opposition that has occurred regarding such proposals on City of Vancouver owned land on both the east side and the west sides over the past few years.
Bobby Peru
3 years ago
Beggar thy neighbour
ME2, I'm not so 'Panglossian' as to not understand that not all information is knowable and not all risks are measureable. This lies at the bottom of the current financial crisis and staying on topic, at the root of all economic policies. In the main, lower taxes encourages more economic activity, which creates real jobs. All of which enlarges and sustains the tax base. That's one thing those on the left simply can't fathom or abide by. Merely creating taxes and punishing business because of some strange moral crusade only reduces the tax base.
I wonder if lowering taxes again during the start of a recession makes any difference if consumer sentiment is negative.
On the other hand, I wonder if raising taxes and throwing too much money at the homeless is economically productive. Spending it on economic infrastructure like roads may be even more vital. You see, if we give the homeless little pink houses with white picket fences, BC will become even more of a haven for druggies. And we all know druggies will trash the properties creating a desolate ghetto. Addicts will always engage in addict behaviour- so utterly predictable.
Saying that I classify all poor as drug addicts is wrong and another one of the BC left's public relation tricks to paint anyone who disagrees with them as heartless. Of course the working poor are a problem in BC. But, if we're talking about Vancouver's downtown east side, it's clear that alot of these people's homelessness was caused by drug addiction and the latter may have been caused by the inability to cope with difficult economic or personal circumstances.
Without making individual judgements of how certain people can and can't cope with the stress and vicissitudes of life, the solution of giving them decent housing downtown, in one of the country's most expensive areas, is ridiculous. Simply put, the problem isn't homelessness, it's drug addiction. And these people need a facility for treatment before they can re-enter society responsibly and be responsible for a dwelling. Now I call that progressive and practical thinking.
I see the left's welfare studies on how it's cheaper to house and care for the homeless in the downtown area than to incarcerate the. Rather than care for them in their current dysfunctional and decrepit community and give them free but costly housing, why don't we make the programme even more cost effective by treating and confining them to a large mental institution in an area with cheap land, like way up in northern BC?
As much as I'd love to know and save every human tragedy in the downtown east side, the govt neither has the money or power to restore each of their lives. Face it, most of them probably require confinement for the rest of their lives.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
What is that "left" you're
What is that "left" you're constantly referring to Bobby ? And what is the "right" for that matter ?
What is the difference between "conservative" and "conservation" and why ?
Ed Deak.
Stump
3 years ago
The drug free far north
Isn't.
Can't believe this argument is getting trotted out again.
All we will do is provide new markets for the drug dealers.
Witness the growth in drug abuse as guys bring their habits back to Newfoundland from the Alberta Oil Patch.
Bobby, if you really truly want to tackle drug addiction you have to look higher up the food chain. Don't be surprised to find the big players intertwined in a money embrace with your captains of industry.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Ed....
What is that "neocon" you're constantly referring to Ed? And what is the "left" for that matter ?
What is the difference between "communist" and "socialist" and why ?
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Perhaps we should try to
Perhaps we should try to look at the psychological causes of all kinds of substance abuse, but that shouldn't stop with what people eat, or drink, or inject, but also their habits.
I short, it all goes back to certain forms of energy control.
Getting high on drugs, or booze is basically the same form of energy control obsession, as the mile long limos, or the jewelry, or the mansions, or the collection of billions of dollars.
As I repeat"Wealth is the temporary control of energy" and substance abuse is
part of this demand, as it makes the addicts feel good, even if it kills them on the long run.
People who are stuck on these control habits, regardless what they are, feel worthless and the habit gives them the opportunity to cover up their hangups even for a short time. Whether it is getting drunk, or buying another corporation.
Now what do the righties think ?
Ed Deak.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Wilfred... Exactly. What
Wilfred... Exactly. What are they?
I'm only referring to the stupid names they're using to describe themselves with.
The difference between so called "socialists" and "communists" is that way back in the 30s the Comintern, or Communist International, declared so called "social democracy", as their biggest enemy and social democrats were hunted down, put into the gulags and murdered by the tens of thousands in the Soviet occupied areas after WW2.
Today, so called "capitalism", is moving steadily toward another form of Soviet style communism, by destroying all forms of private freedoms and collectivizing the economy in the hands of the same predator ruling class. The former big communists of the Soviet bloc are now the biggest capitalists and the Mediterranean area is filled with them in their fancy villas and yachts.
I've spent 45 years of my life fighting communism and will spend the rest fighting the same crooks now calling themselves capitalists.
In short, I don't like any form of VIPs and Power, and dictatorships. A democracy is not supposed to have "powerful people" regardless what they call themselves.
Ed Deak.
G West
3 years ago
Neo-Con, or Neo-Liberal
Makes no differnce Wilf.
Do you know how to use Google.
Please let me know if you don't and I'll provide you with a quick definition - but it'll have to be later today....
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Good Points, Ed
Ed, the more things change, the more they stay the same. You are correct, in my opinion, in your above analysis.
The ongoing market crash show us how unregulated capitalism is nothing but an excuse for the wealthy to steal the working people's built up wealth. That wealth has not disappeared, as I am sure you know; it has only moved. While said working people panic, after being conditioned to believe in the system, the rich will wait for things to bottom and buy it back. Meanwhile, governments will print huge amounts of money and make the working people pay it back over time.
Your comment about the Comintern declaring war against social democracy is also very adept; the same thing goes on here in British Columbia in our NDP party. There is a hard ideological of the party typified by Glen Clark that constantly wants to hijack power. Mike Harcourt ran a very reasonable government but his own party deposed him because he was not hard line enough.
I also don't like any kind of power but we have to live with government. I do have faith in Canada's system. Most Canadians live pretty good lives, regardless of what one sees on this board. Canadians are more educated than most people in the world. Our elected leaders tend to be pretty moderate because if they aren't, they can't retain office. I have lived in some pretty nasty places myself and believe me, I am very happy to live in Canada.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Wilfred... Exactly. What
Wilfred... Exactly. What are they?
I'm only referring to the stupid names they're using to describe themselves with.
The difference between so called "socialists" and "communists" is that way back in the 30s the Comintern, or Communist International, declared so called "social democracy", as their biggest enemy and social democrats were hunted down, put into the gulags and murdered by the tens of thousands in the Soviet occupied areas after WW2.
Today, so called "capitalism", is moving steadily toward another form of Soviet style communism, by destroying all forms of private freedoms and collectivizing the economy in the hands of the same predator ruling class. The former big communists of the Soviet bloc are now the biggest capitalists and the Mediterranean area is filled with them in their fancy villas and yachts.
I've spent 45 years of my life fighting communism and will spend the rest fighting the same crooks now calling themselves capitalists.
In short, I don't like any form of VIPs and Power, and dictatorships. A democracy is not supposed to have "powerful people" regardless what they call themselves.
Ed Deak.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
I don't know how this
I don't know how this posting repeated itself, but it must be one of the little guys who live inside our machines.
In any case, we've lived in Canada for 53 years, never left, apart from a few short trips across the border many years ago and wouldn't live anywhere else on Earth.
When somebody tells me "Ah you're Hungarian Canadians!" I correct it immediately to "Canadians".
This is why I'm wasting my precious time on politics I hate with a passion, because this could be the country to wake up the whole world to its real potentials and
how they're being misled by screwballer crooks pushing ideologies and religions into self destruction.
I have seen a few miracles in my life and, being a perennial optimist, always hope for the real one.
Ed Deak.
realisticman
3 years ago
Sell the Jewelry
Thanks for that Ed. Glad to know that all we need to do to eliminate drug addiction is to ban Limos, sell the jewelry and move into a townhouse.
It is a terrible place this, as you say. On the other hand, may I offer this quote from you to some colleagues who are constantly looking for positive comments from people that have an understanding of the rest of the planet and feel as you do?
"... we've lived in Canada for 53 years, never left, apart from a few short trips across the border many years ago and wouldn't live anywhere else on Earth."..
Szervusz!
Bobby Peru
3 years ago
Conspiracy Theory
Well, Stump, until we can determine who it is further up in the food or economic change you are referring to that is running the drug trade or until you can tie a captain of industry as 'Mr. Big' we have to come up with solutions for poverty that we can practically implement. Believe me, I am also working on who killed Kennedy.
As I said, the downtown homeless problem is a drug addiction and mental illness problem. The socialists want to call it a homeless problem and conclude that giving them homes is the beginning of the answer. I say that's the start of trashing homes and another ghetto. It's the edge of an income redistribution policy that socialists want to impose on the rest of and the most productive members of society.
Rather than trying to solve the problem, the poverty pimps want the world to see the freak show that is DTES- a protest against capitalism.
G West
3 years ago
Hmmm
Interesting realisticman that you left out the rest of what Ed posted.
I'm sure it was an oversight, I'll add it for you:
This is why I'm wasting my precious time on politics I hate with a passion, because this could be the country to wake up the whole world to its real potentials and
how they're being misled by screwballer crooks pushing ideologies and religions into self destruction.
Stump
3 years ago
Capital Ideas
"As I said, the downtown homeless problem is a drug addiction and mental illness problem. The socialists want to call it a homeless problem and conclude that giving them homes is the beginning of the answer. I say that's the start of trashing homes and another ghetto. It's the edge of an income redistribution policy that socialists want to impose on the rest of and the most productive members of society."
Homes are the beginning of the answer. You're just choosing to mischaracterize this beginning as misplaced sentimentality, when in reality, a sense of stability and value is a crucial to one's emotional well-being, from childhood to the grave. It's a very logical first step that requires all the other steps to occur as well, for it to be successful.
You don't seem unhappy with the idea of a ghetto, as long as it's 'up north' What's up with that?
Income redistribution? Sorry, that's a big leap. Not that I personally have a problem with the profits from public resources being shared more equitably. Characterizing those who use their money to make more money as productive just indicates you're swallowing that 'big lie' and asking for seconds.
And finally, the DTES drug trade is an object lesson in capitalism. No rules, no taxes, a total free market. You couldn't ask for a better example of what happens when self-regulation by businesses is the norm. Turning out real pretty isn't it?
realisticman
3 years ago
Hmmm
Interesting gwest that you chose to emphasize Ed's comment but ignored bobby peru's. I'm sure it was an oversight.
He's right. "...the downtown homeless problem is a drug addiction and mental illness problem. The socialists want to call it a homeless problem and conclude that giving them homes is the beginning of the answer. I say that's the start of trashing homes and another ghetto. It's the edge of an income redistribution policy that socialists want to impose on the rest of and the most productive members of society.
Rather than trying to solve the problem, the poverty pimps want the world to see the freak show that is DTES- a protest against capitalism.".
Perhaps the best thing is to forget the whole thing and quote Ed again. Visualize miracles.
"I have seen a few miracles in my life and, being a perennial optimist, always hope for the real one."
Fiat lux
3 years ago
RM.....As I've said it
RM.....As I've said it before, through my profession I have known many VIPs, the big names around Vancouver in the 6os and 70s, and because of my background, I do have the experience to open people up, and have listened to their stories, phone calls, in their houses, offices and boardrooms for 20 years.
Sometimes it surprised me how much they wanted to talk, but once some of them opened up, they just couldn't stop. Many were very unhappy in their jobs, with all their power and money and drowned their problems in booze, the call girls in their hospitality suites, the $120. bottles of wine, when a good week's pay was about $75.
I've had some begging me to take them on as apprentices at middle age. But they had the talent to play the cash registers and were stuck. Also with their alcoholic wives, some of the reeking of booze by 9 am, when I went to the houses.
One of my customers shot the head of his wife off with a shotgun, when he found out she was also "entertaining" in the company's hospitality suite. There was a headline in the Sun during the trial : "Who is xxxxx ?"
Of course, everybody associated knew.
In short, what I have learned from them in those years made me hate everything that particular class stood and stand for, because the present has been planned by them 30 or 50 years ago, but it was so unbelievable at the time that I couldn't believe it myself.
Now I know what they were talking about and I can only feel sorry for the suckers who follow them and have nothing but contempt for the politicians who sell themselves to them.
The limos etc, in some cases the crazy religions they're hooked on, are nothing more than the drugs on skidrow......
Ask any real psychologist.....
Ed Deak.
G West
3 years ago
Oh not at all
I've had discussions with Bobby Peru...several times, as I'm sure he'll attest.
I don't think he's right - whereas I think Ed is - but then I'm sure you're not surprised at that.
Are you?
Still, I'm an optimist too - if I weren't reading certain peoples' jaundiced opinions of the prospects of the fellow men would be depressing.
It'a also the reason I show up to help at a soup kitchen here in Victoria.
I think I've offered you the chance to join me before now.
Right?
G West
3 years ago
errata
that should be 'prospects of their fellow men and women' would be depressing....
Frank
3 years ago
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=629aab49-dc02-4374-a63e-a02066f5d7f0&p=1
"The situation isn't as extreme in Canada, but the same underlying trend is at work. In 2005, the richest 20 per cent of Canadian families held 75 per cent of the country's wealth, compared to 73 per cent in 1999 and 69 per cent in 1984. At the bottom, many Canadians owned just the clothes on their back.
A report published last week by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a cozy group of 30 of the world's most advanced economies, showed that for most of its member countries the gap between rich and poor has kept widening over the past two decades.
The OECD singled out Canada for particular criticism: Our income-inequality and poverty gap have both outstripped the OECD average. The richest Canadians are richer than their counterparts in other OECD countries - with an average income of $71,000 compared with the OECD's of $54,000."
Frank
3 years ago
Campbell wipes out whales
So Campbell's anti-salmon policies have driven whales to starvation too. Guess the whales don't know we're paying 2.4 cents a litre more for gas now which somehow, its unexplained by both Suzuki and Campbell, means all mammals in BC are supposed to be fine and not require any habitat protection.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081029.BCKILLERWHALES29/TPStory/TPScience/BritishColumbia/
realisticman
3 years ago
Furthermore...
"On the plus side, poor and middle-income Canadians also earn more than their OECD counterparts. As well, fewer poor people in Canada struggle to buy basic goods or have decent housing.
Work is the primary way out of poverty in this country. In households with a single income-earner, the rate of poverty is 21 per cent. With two or more people working, the rate goes down to four per cent."
I wonder who works the hardest. What do you think Frank? Government employees, small business owners, corporate executives. I know of some people that are very well paid but they do not have the luxury of walking out the door at 5 o'clock, if something needs to be done. I know people that own their own business and are in there before 6am, then back on the weekend to do the cleaning. They're doing quite well financially and they enjoy their work too. You could say they're rich and getting richer.
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
So the richest 20% simply work 3 times the number of hours than the other 80% which is why they have 3 times the wealth?
And yet this phenomenon doesn't happen in most other OECD countries because I assume their top 20% are lazy?
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
Marie Antionette must have worked really really hard considering that her wealth was thousands of times what that of a French peasant was. A shame they killed someone with such a great work ethic.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Frank...
Lighten Up! :)
I've changed my mind. The NDP will win both by-elections tonight!
Why, apparently brutally low voter turnout.
So there. You've got somethin' to crow about. :)
realisticman
3 years ago
Now you're getting to the crux
I know a guy that had six retail outlets in Europe. He started with one, it worked so he expanded. Stronger buying power meant that he went out and sourced his own items. One day he shocked me when he explained that he was closing five because the increased business had put him into a higher tax bracket and it meant that he could net the same with just one shop. He had to fire lots of staff and a few places lost out on his property taxes too.
Another guy I know moved his business and himself to another country for the same reason.
G West
3 years ago
Maybe if he'd stuck with one
Five other fellows would have started similar small businesses in their communities, employed local people and not paid any more taxes. In fact that happens all over France…among other countries.
All the Europeans I know enjoy their time off, their generous holidays, their excellent lifestyle superb health care - among other things – most wouldn’t trade places with North Americans under any circumstances. And for the most part they don't beggar the people who work beside them either.
Same thing is true in Japan...we certainly are weird here in North America - the whole object seems to be to work till you're exhausted - put down your employees and chisel or cheat your competitors - kinda like the Campbell Government.
Hasn't worked out so well, has it?
Did I mention Denmark is the happiest country in the world...and they've got some very high taxes too.
Strange.
Some folks just hang with the wrong people.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
I'm a man of my word, the by-elections don't mean anything to me, even if my side wins.
As for the title of your post, what's the problem? I'm just posting what I think is an article that should worry anyone rational. (Unless you mean the Campbell killing the whales one, which I mistakenly posted here)
In 20 years the richest 20% increased their control of Canada's wealth by 6%, meaning that since there's only 25% they don't control, they will have all of it within this century.
Unless you're realisticman and think 75% is not enough the numbers should be sobering.
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
Talk to Bono, perhaps we can get a Live-Aid thing going for your too wealthy friends.
realisticman
3 years ago
Great solace
Is what I take from the fact that we still have record low unemployment. Especially when, "Work is the primary way out of poverty in this country. In households with a single income-earner, the rate of poverty is 21 per cent. With two or more people working, the rate goes down to four per cent."
Sha da da da da da
http://www.nutsie.com/song/Get+A+Job/7190072?album_id=7190065&artist_id=2911784
Didn't you hear Frank. Bono's busy copping some rays in St. Trop.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1080636/What-St-Bonos-wife-say-partying-teenage-girls.html
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
Then it sounds like that rich guy Bono isn't as hard-working as you tell me.
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
That's a nice yacht Bono cruises around on, what's the carbon output of that sucker? I'll bet he never fills it up in BC eh?
Frank
3 years ago
Revolution
With the wealthiest controlling 75% everything seems pretty copasetic on the Che Guevara front, I wonder if it'll be the same at 85%? or 95%?
My prediction is that at 99% Canadians will say revolution if necessary but not necessarily revolution. Instead we'll probably raise the carbon tax on ourselves.
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
A question popped into my head, you're proud of the low unemployment rate at the same time you're proud of the inequality stat.
With low unemployment don't you think the inequality numbers should have been trending downwards?
After all, if inequality is increasing when there's supposedly lots of jobs how bad will inequality be when there aren't?
G West
3 years ago
Two working parents
So, realisticman, can I sign you up as a supporter of a Quebec-style state subsidized professional child care program?
Post your addess and I'll send along the attestation papers.
It's okay frank, that baby would probably qualify as a cruise ship - Gordo wouldn't bill Bono for the Campbell Tax at all.
Stump
3 years ago
Ethics, Schmethics
"I know a guy that had six retail outlets in Europe. He started with one, it worked so he expanded. Stronger buying power meant that he went out and sourced his own items. One day he shocked me when he explained that he was closing five because the increased business had put him into a higher tax bracket and it meant that he could net the same with just one shop. He had to fire lots of staff and a few places lost out on his property taxes too.
Another guy I know moved his business and himself to another country for the same reason."
So what you are telling us is that despite the fact this business owner wasn't losing money and in fact was contributing employment and taxes to the economy and providing a service people wanted, he chose to do economic damage because it suited him?
And these other guys just took their ball and went and played with the kids who let them always be quarterback?
So much for this work ethic or sense of community that them there rich people are supposed to have. More money for less work. Pretty much what you'd crucify a union worker for admitting to desiring.
Double. Standard.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Work definitely helps, but
Work definitely helps, but the worker must receive decent wages and none of this minimum wage, part time BS, the policy of most businesses is now.
Including in dear Jimmy's supermarkets, where all I can see are ads for part timers. Poor Jimmy needs the dough! Right?
Is it then the workers' fault that they have to rely on the foodbanks to survive, or sleep on the streets. There were no homeless 40-50 years ago, apart from a few real drunks.
So, what happened in our great, booming, wealth creating world?
As I said before, my granddaughter makes $12/hr for 24 hours a week and can't get more hours, so the boss can "save", and her rent is $900.
How can anybody survive on these kinds of jobs, but this is the norm for thousands, especially for young people.
Ed Deak.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Frank...
Yeah, I get the sense.
There wasn't any title but the whale thingy, the Marie Antoinette thingy, and now the Che Guevara thingy is a bit over my head.
That's a bit "rich", no pun intended. That's an average lower middle/middle household income.
But that's the definition of being rich???? lol
As for the evil rich bogeyman:
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Ed....
I've always meant to ask you... Since you've celebrated so many anniversaries of your 20th birthday :) (83 yrs. I believe?).
How do you stay soooooo sharp and have such excellent grammar and writing skills? If I wouldn't know better, you could be a 30-year old buck.
Sheesh, I don't know anyone with your capabilities.
Really, what's your secret??? :)
G West
3 years ago
Sorry bud the canadian rich
And that's 'individual' incomes - not family income.
The Canadian rich are doing just fine - despite not paying their proper share of tax.
In 2005, Canadians in the top 20 per cent of wealth distribution had a median net worth of about $551,000. By comparison, the median net worth of all Canadian families in 2005 was about $84,800.
Guess they're managing okay despite the taxes my friend...you're worrying about the wrong people.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
There Ya Go Again...
And every retired "working class" individual, owning a home in the City of Vancouver (among other locales) for decades and decades, has a net worth almost twice that.
From the retired Italian bricklayer to the retired Hungarian secretary.
Here we go again with the same classic Marxist-Leninst Party rhetoric "Make the Rich Pay". Really, you are in the WRONG political party.
Gimme an quasi-intellectual break dude.
G West
3 years ago
Nope, sorry luke, the 84,800 figure was the interesting one
Y'know why?
Because that includes the rich folks - it covers ALL FAMILIES....
factor out the top 20 percent and the median networth of the 80 percent is a lot less.
Things are getting worse my friend, a lot worse, and until we change the tax system it's not going to get any better.
When some kinds of income attract less tax than others it just isn't fair luke and you know it.
Why do you think the wealth keeps piling up at one end of the table?
G West
3 years ago
And, once again
Your inability to actually discuss these things rationally is amply underlined by your facile tendency to revert to type when you start calling people names.
How old are you?
Twelve?
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Luke
Cash or certified cheque! Thats okay Luke.
I don`t want your money.
Tell ya what, buy a living in poverty toddler an insulin pump,that way they can lead a normal life.
A mere 8000.00 for a SMALL CHILD TO LIVE A NORMAL LIFE.
200 million dollars to give people a 50 dollar tax cut .(isn`t that important)
3 to 4 million a year(the cost of beuracratic pay raises)
3 to 4 million a year for little kids with type 2 diabetes(for poor parents with no income) to have an insulin pump.
Campbell just can`t afford that,Abbott (health minister) says " We are still working on it, maybe we will make a decision on it this fall" (Abbott statement from june 2008)
Apparently Abbott misplaced the file,maybe it got filed by mistake in Rich Colemans desk, next to the secret file to cut off funding to autistic adults with an IQ of 71--In the july/backroom deal with Campbell as they did an end run around the courts!
YA CAMPBELL HE`S THE MAN!
Childhood comes once Luke,
Cheers
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Luke....Don't make me so
Luke....Don't make me so old....I'm only 81.
To the vast majority of people I'm a bloody old fool and idiot, and do the best to ignore me. English was my 5th and never had a lesson, just picked it up by listening, movies and reading with a dictionary.
But I like to be versatile, have been a workaholic all my life, 60-70 hr workweeks, never had a holiday. Well, not true, we went camping in Osoyoos for 3 days in 1968.
When other people spent their money on fancy holidays etc. we were buying, land, tools, equipment and most important..books. Still have about 1,500, but the must have been double that.
If there's one thing we've learned, "we" because my wife has been the most important part and partner of my life, was to be as self sufficient as possible, both in the physical and mental ways. We met when she was 17 and I 18 and in a POW hospital.
Born in a fascist country, in a fascist, ultra conservative family, grown up and educated as a good fascist. This is why I know how they think and can predict how they will act.
Have lived in 4 countries, my wife in 5, under every known ideology, sentenced to death by the nazis, innocently, to the gulags by the commies, no so innocently but they couldn't catch me.
No, my life story will never be written. Not by me anyway. Nothing to hide, just don't need the attention.
We have seen too many old people go down the hill, when they have "nothing to do", so we decided to keep on going the best we can till we drop. And we're doing it from 6 am to 10:30 pm.
As far my writings are concerned, they're based on over 60 years of studies and research, for my own interest, to find the "common denominator of history's tragedies", which took me 40 years, in an economics textbook, so I thought, some people might get something out of it.
By the way, I don't believe either that 2 towers, built around 47 huge steel columns,
can collapse vertically at freefall speed with the vertical beams breaking into small sedgments with 45 degree breaks.
Bu then, who am I to question the rulers ?
Cheers, Ed.
realisticman
3 years ago
Stump
Do you have any idea how much work it is to run six shops, as opposed to one? Six landlords, six properties to maintain, six times the inventory to finance and manage and all the staff to manage. For the same money why wouldn't anyone reduce the load and enjoy life a bit more?
Frank, isn't Bono one of your buddies? Save the planet and all that jazz.
""The G-8 are not making good largely on their commitments. About half, I would say, is where we've got," Bono said. He expressed dismay that the United Nations' millennium development goals - reducing extreme poverty and hunger by half by 2015 - are not likely to be met.
"And this is a scandal," he said."
Frank: "With low unemployment don't you think the inequality numbers should have been trending downwards?". The only conclusion can be that more and more people just do not want to work. Perhaps some prophets are convincing them that all will be OK because the socialists are coming into power and they're going to soak the rich, spread the wealth and find them a warm bed.
realisticman
3 years ago
Ed, a Question
Since you have always worked so hard and applied your mind, can you speculate as to why so many able-bodied younger people do not seem to want to apply themselves to any work, have no drive, cannot find something to do with themselves that they enjoy?
I often work seven days a week, like you I guess, but I enjoy what I do so I have no resentment because of that. I feel extremely fortunate be doing what I like, as I suspect you do too.
One other thing, have you had a chance to read Arthur Koestler's, The Act of Creation? What an interesting mind. Many extraordinary brains, brilliant and yet also somewhat crazy, have emerged from Hungary, is it the water?
G West
3 years ago
I'll tell you why R'man
Because you've told them they aren't important, that they're expendable, that they'll probably have to be prepared to switch careers a dozen times in their working lives - they know they can't afford a house - can't possibly have a family and have one parent stay home with the kids. It shows in attitudes right here at Tyee every day.
You tax their earnings differently than the boss's earnings (see Warren Buffett) and you tip the scales hopelessly against them.
These kids are smart - why the hell wouldn't they tend to give up - as Ed points out in reference to his granddaughter?
But no, lots of bloody tax breaks for millionaires and no help for kids to get a decent first job. Special tax rates for investors are more important that a decent minimum wage.
What's to enjoy R'man? I stopped at McDonald's for a coffee this morning they have signs all over the place looking for workers and yet after waiting for five minutes for a clerk ( a middle aged woman) she told me they were short staffed because a young woman had phoned in sick.
She sounded really sick, the woman told me and then, quietly, said this:
"You should have heard what the manager called her when she called in to say she couldn't make it - I'm surprised any young person works here at all"
I know young married professionals in their 30s who are struggling so hard they've moved back home for Christ Sakes – do you have any idea what that does to a man and woman's ego and self-image? 10 years of post secondary education and you're only able to afford to live in your parents' basement...and not even dream of a day when you might be able to afford to have a child, let alone a house: Give your head a shake. You must not have a family my friend.
You think that makes dedicated, involved workers?
It beats them down!
Any other questions?
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Ed...
lol... sorry about that ... but every anniversary of one's 20th birthday is just a state of mind. ;)
In a sense ya remind me of my great uncle... 83 yrs. old with his "original" black hair and always jolly. Looks 50... But the distinction is that your mental, grammar, writing, and reasoning abilities are out of this world comparatively!!!
And I'm not trying to flatter you.. but you do have UBC-quality English.
Sounds very conservative post-WW2 European immigrant. I'm familiar with that work ethic.
And I hope that was Haynes Point Provincial Campground, which I consider to be BC's best campground since I was a kid.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/haynes_pt/
Yeah, under those auspices and background, one views life through different glasses. My relatives were also from the same background (either Deutsch or Volk Deutsch) and were post WW2 DP's from eastern Europe. It's been hammered into my head the misery that people led at that time and people here in Canada today could never comprehend same.
I understand all of the grief that people incurred and unless someone has lived under such conditions, they don't/won't appreciate what they now have here in Canada.
Well, those hours are typical of traditional hard-working Europeans... perhaps that is what keeps you so sharp.
Ahhhh 9-11. Perhaps we may disagree there. The fully loaded jet fuel, the extreme and extended heat of the jet fuel upon the steel beams and the extreme weight above...
That's irrelevant anyway.
Ed, I took that unusual step of asking you because I've been quite impressed... and it takes alot for me to be impressed.
That doesn't mean that I will agree with ya. ;)
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
"Frank, isn't Bono one of your buddies?"
Nope, I don't have any buddies with yachts bigger than BC Place. I'm pretty sure he's in the top 20%, if he isn't let me know. So I think he qualifies as one of your hard workers working till midnight before going home. Which is why I found it amusing that he wasn't working from dawn to dusk, instead he was cruising on a yacht and hanging out on a paradise island.
"The only conclusion can be that more and more people just do not want to work."
But you just said unemployment was at a record low or something like that. How do you square that circle? Is unemployment low or isn't it? Assuming you're right, why are the bottom 80% eating a smaller pie if more of them are employed than ever before?
"Perhaps some prophets are convincing them that all will be OK because the socialists are coming into power and they're going to soak the rich, spread the wealth and find them a warm bed."
Again, you are telling me that the bottom 80% are all working. So how come they're not getting a bigger slice of the wealth?
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
I think you need to re-read the article. Your argument seem to ignore the central thesis.
zalm
3 years ago
But Luke...
"As for the evil rich bogeyman:
Quote:
The top 5% of income earners pay almost 40% of the money Ottawa collects in personal income taxes, according to new information from Statistics Canada.
...You forgot to quote the rest of the paragraph in the StatsCan article.
"The top five per cent of earners enjoyed 30 per cent growth in their income between 1992 and 2004, and the top 0.01 per cent saw their earnings more than double. During that same period, the other 95 per cent of Canadians saw almost no change in their overall income, though certain pockets within that group -- including those at the very bottom -- saw some gains.
"People were told, 'Work hard, get better educated, improve your productivity, grow the economy and good things will come to you,'" Yalnizyan says. "This report basically says it doesn't for 95 per cent of the population.""
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1392e033-711b-41f6-89e0-c6b01b0d220a
Very selective of you...and very INACCURATE
zalm
3 years ago
HEY EDITOR
What's with editing GWest for INACCURACY but nobody else? Isn't that the kind of thing the dialogue is supposed to do?
Well, if you're going to take over that job, you'd better sharpen up that blue pencil - some of our posters have a problem with accuracy in every post - you're going to be busy!
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
zalm - You're Smarter than That!!!!
That's not even the article!!! lol
Here it is... and read carefully!!! :)
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6982cd17-a6b2-4c11-8234-42693ee70259
Frank
3 years ago
Cue the guillotine
"The lower half of Canadian taxpayers accounted for 6.7% of federal taxes in 1990 and 4.4% in 2002."
That would be because they don't own anything and are falling further behind the upper crust with each passing decade.
Since the top 20% control three times the wealth than the bottom 80%, why shouldn't they pay more in tax?
Europe used to be full of countries that didn't tax the nobility and just look at how grand life was for the bottom 90% as a result. The Canadian Taxpayer's Federation would like to bring those blissful days back according to the National Post.
zalm
3 years ago
Luke
I suppose your financial expose on the Infinity Towers shouldn't surprise me - I already got that when I found out how "uncompetitive" commercial lenders are on big projects, though there's no 20-25% in our original contract before Partnerships BC stuck its fingers in the pie. But our best offer was 2.5% more than I was paying for my residential mortgage.
A SFR builder's family, eh? Not Mennonite, are you? The City of Vancouver has two building inspectors who formerly built SFR - one on the Island with his father, and one in the Interior.
"Well I can't comment on your buildable per sq. ft. figure but you have omitted land costs.
Always. Everybody who's building social housing under non-profit society auspices in Vancouver already owns their land and generally paid it off long ago. It's almost an inheritance now, if such a thing can be said to occur for societies.
That said, I will re-iterate that the NDP's estimate was $90,000/unit for "affordable" housing. Does that mean "subsidized" housing or "social" housing? Does that include land costs or not? And are we looking at 275 sq. ft. cubicles or not?
Yes. That's all that is being built. The Portland Housing Society projects, the Hazelwood, the various MCC Social Housing Society projects, the Coast projects, all are built to some variation of the minimum standards of 275 sq. ft. (yes, some may be 285 or whatever, but there's no bonus living space bigger than a closet in any of 'em). As for "social" or "subsidized" housing, I'm not sure what the difference is. It's all non-market and doesn't pay its own way, whether the governments pick up the tab at any level or whether the society funds reduced rents with donations and what-not.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
zalm...
Relatively good commentary!
lol... that's when I was a kid... and it went into SFR subdivision development. And then I, um, never mind.
lol... Mennonite, I know what ya mean, lol... but NADA...
zalm
3 years ago
Luke
That's not even the article!!! lol
I saw that article and I figured not even YOU would be so silly as to quote from an article more than three years old when more recent data was available. But if you want to use stale data, go ahead.
Cheapens your argument, though, which is none too robust as it is. You should have said "In 2005, an article in the Notional Pest used ancient 2002 data to say to us about the rich that they aren't fat enough for us to eat right now, and we should wait a few years until they fatten some more..." or Swiftian words to that effect.
Funny thing about that Notional Pest article too - it conflates single-earner income figures AND family income figures to arrive at the 52% of federal taxes paid - I can only guess to make it look like the upper income families 'really have it bad', when the Stats Can report breaks them down separately, and the Ottawa Citizen article reports them accurately as separate figures.
Not that I'm any big fan of Canvas Goebbels productions, but if the Ottawa Citizen is fishwrap, the Notional Pest is found underneath the outhouse that contains that contains the excrescence of that piscene meal.
zalm
3 years ago
And
..Aren't you the Mark Twain fan? Haven't you read his greatest wisdom before?
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who, having failed at ditching and shoemaking fetched up in journalism on the way to the poorhouse. I am personally acquainted with hundreds of journalists, and the opinion of the majority of them would not be worth a tuppence in private, but when they speak in print, it is the newspaper that is talking (the pygmy scribe is not visible) and then their utterances shake the community like thunders of prophecy."
ME2
3 years ago
On "taxing the rich'
Frank notes:
"The richest Canadians are richer than their counterparts in other OECD countries - with an average income of $71,000 compared with the OECD's of $54,000."
But I know machine operators in the forest and constuction industries who regularly make that kind of money. However, following up to 40% taxation, what's left doesn't seem so much, eh? And so in the grand scheme of things, that kind of money is chickenfeed.
I've read that these middle income earners - who are NOT the "rich" most of us here think of - already pay by far the bulk of the income taxes in Canada. And as GWest has noted, we Lefties are not out to nail the guy who owns an apartment block, or who has honestly accrued minor wealth to his / her name.
Rather, the people who deserve to be nailed, and nailed hard, are those persons / corporations who with the services of high-priced tax acountants and lawyers can avoid paying taxes on hundreds of millions of income dollars - not picayune tens of thousands - by taking advantage of special loopholes, and schemes like the derivatives market.
These have been conveniently provided by our neocon gov'ts who have convinced the sheeple that "trickle down" really works. I'm pleased to note we are in general agreement here that it doesn't.
As long as the Corporados sell the idea, and can hide behind it, that "tax the rich" means punitive taxation on anyone who has a relatively few dollars tucked away - these people will vote for the neocons, and I don't blame them.
That notion, in case you hadn't noticed, is what people like B Peru and RMan are selling, and successfully.
G West
3 years ago
Attacks on the premier
You're correct editor - the word 'felon' isn't used in Canada.
I think the readers know what I meant when I applied it to the Premier....he certainly is guilty of having been convicted of a criminal offence and, since the charge and the conviction occured in the United States I'm not sure using the term 'felon' is all That inaccurate either.
As to 'snide' please spend a little time going back through Bobby Peru's offerings here...then we can talk about snide.
realisticman
3 years ago
A petty misdemeanor
In Hawaii, 1st , 2nd and 3rd offenses are petty misdemeanors.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-hawaii.html
Absolutely not a felony.
Bobby Peru
3 years ago
Come on, we're all friends here...
Snide, oh no! I'm more like the dispenser of tough economic love. And unlike the firebrand leftists I try to stay clear of moralizing and making moral judgements or seeking to change how people think and live their lives. I realize that life and the world is fundamentally unfair; not only is it impossible to completely rectify this unfairness, but even if you could you would end up with a bland and boring society with little incentive to succeed.
Taxing the rich is one of the left's recurring dreams, playing on the often rerun excuse that the rich necessarily exploit the poor to make money. That is largely untrue and moreover and unproductive way to run a tax system. After a certain point, the rich can always find ways to manage the loopholes. I remember the Glenn Clark NDP govt even created an absurd tax on corporate share capital- so counterproductive.
Now one of Gwest's threads highlights a problem that plagues Western economies: lower economic expectations for working to middle income households. Econ studies have showed that 1974 represented the high point for real household incomes and standard of living. Anecdotally, in BC this was true as favourable union jobs in resource and other sectors created a good life around this province. Today, in BC and America, the secure, cradle to grave union jobs at Ford, GM and Boeing are largely gone or insecure.
Which leave us with fast food jobs at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Being 30 years old and still unable to gain any traction on a real career after graduating from university is kind of tragic, but is it something the govt should take the blame for or do something about?
Maybe we should take back all those low skilled jobs we've shipped over to China. But, somehow I don't think you can reverse that trend because no one wants to pay $50 for a soap basket that can be made in China for $5 (believe me, that's the price difference) in order to support Canadian workers.
Or if you can't find success you should suck it up and work three jobs and make sure you don't bury your woes in a crack pipe (otherwise you'll end up homeless on Hastings). Like it or not, no one owes you a living in this world.
G West
3 years ago
Well in Canada it's an indictable offence
I'll make sure to give the Premier full credit EVERY time I have an chance.
As for Bobby's latest post, things certainly have gone downhill since Nixon changed the rules and Reagan decided deficits didn't matter but tax cuts for the rich did.
Please, Bobby, just read this little piece from Ben Stein - quoting Warren Buffett - I guess you figure you owe HIM a living.
In fact, since I'm not sure you'll be able to find the article, I'll quote the whole thing for you....
Fiat lux
3 years ago
RM.....When my 3 kids were
RM.....When my 3 kids were growing up, they were earning their monies from the age of 10 with paper routes, baby sitting, cleaning my shop, in stores, gas stations, etc. etc.. Never bought any clothes, bikes, cars etc. for them. They did it all themselves.
My eldest daughter did her grade 11 in England, staying with my mother, but paying her own way and other costs from her savings, at 16.
I told them that I don't care what they will do in their lives, but they had to learn trades first.
When we were refugees, we noticed that people with academic education were lost, many living in filth, always crying over how much they have lost.
At the same time, trades people always managed to find work, extra food for their kids, their rooms, often walled by blankets, were clean and orderly.
That's when I decided that I have to learn a trade. Got the opportunity to learn a trade at 28, when we came to Vancouver.
Today it would be impossible, because the shops and manufacturing are gone to China.
Neither of my children works in the trades they've learned, but they received a good background in logical, practical thinking, because once you know a "creative" trade, it is easy to switch to another, and more.
When I was growing up during the depression, the village had yearly trade/craft exhibitions, much of it showing the "masterpieces" apprentices had to make every year in the shops of other masters, testing their skills.
Some of the works by 14-16 year old kids were absolutely amazing and unforgettable. No such things today, not even in Europe that dug itself our of the ruins by the skills of their tradespeople, who knew how to make things from junk.
They were dirt poor, but they were somebody. I had the same feeling later in life, when I was repairing antiques and saw the pencil markings and sometimes the signatures of tradesmen dead for 200 years. The were human beings, who have left their marks on civilization.
Today, young people are miseducated from day one. They're brought up as mindless robots. Totally incompetent, with any individual and "creative" instincts burned out of them by massproduced junk and all they can think about are "jobs" and what they can buy as "consumers".
In short, they're forced into hopeless, animalistic existence, where they're nothing, but monetary numbers.
And now the powers are planning to go even further by implanting microchips into babies, denying them even the most elementary human freedoms, to make them "efficient" and "productive".
I have learned hypnosis and past life experiments, but hope very sincerely that there's no such thing as reincarnation, as I don't want to come back into this slave world these crooks are building.
It is no wonder that young people are subconsciously turning their backs on this criminal system and drown themselves in drugs and other mind erasing pursuits, ugly clothes, ugly music, practically begging for and waiting for death.
Ed Deak.
G West
3 years ago
On Class Warfare
November 26, 2006
EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS
Article I. In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning
By BEN STEIN
NOT long ago, I had the pleasure of a lengthy meeting with one of the smartest men on the planet, Warren E. Buffett, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, in his unpretentious offices in Omaha. We talked of many things that, I hope, will inspire me for years to come. But one of the main subjects was taxes. Mr. Buffett, who probably does not feel sick when he sees his MasterCard bill in his mailbox the way I do, is at least as exercised about the tax system as I am.
Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.
Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”
Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
....(there's lots more, let me know if you're interested - or just being 'snide'.
Frank
3 years ago
Bobby Peru
The top 20% own 75% of Canada and if current trends continue will own every asset in the nation by 2085.
You think "the rich" owning 75% of the country is not enough, fine, you think its okay to tax the bottom 80% at a rate above their share of the wealth, fine. But eventually the bottom 80% will have nothing left to give so at some point your ideology will smack head-on into the reality wall.
You should try reading some history, specifically the 50 years lead up to the French and Russian revolutions.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Luke....The jet fuel broke
Luke....The jet fuel broke into molecules when the planes hit the towers, there are tons of photos showing people standing in the openings, the fire captain radioed down that the fire was no problem a few minutes before they were all killed.
The centre core of the buildings was impossible to collapse vertically, because no vertical steel columns, especially when welded and bolted together into a solid cage, can fold and break up. They may tip over, but never fold. The legbone of a human can carry a1000 kg. vertical load.
Even ordinary small plane crashes have months and even years of investigations by various professional boards. None here. There were no plane wrecks at the big hole in Pennsylvania, or the Pentagon.
Now even the FBI admitted that there were no cellphone calls from the planes, because it was impossible.
Building 7 was not hit and the movies show a typical, textbook demolition collapse toward the middle.
WW2 was started by an SS officer by the name of Alfred Naujocks, and his troop, dressed in Polish uniforms, attacking a German radio station at Danzig, now Gdansk.
Ed Deak.
realisticman
3 years ago
Tea in China
gwest "Well in Canada it's an indictable offence". So? Why do you always back-peddle and come back trying to re-itterate? Is that the counsel you'd dispense to Canadians busted for 'smack' in Thailand? "Hey dude, I'm from Vancouver and there it's on every street corner."
He wasn't convicted of anything either, he pleaded 'no-contest' (Nolo contendere) and as you know there's a distinct difference. The distinction between felonies and misdemeanors usually depends on the penalties or consequences attaching to the crime. What was done was wrong and any discussing or name-calling should, if it's going to be done, be done precisely.
Frank
3 years ago
Our loveable drunken premier
Fact : Campbell was roaring drunk
Fact : He decided he was okay to drive and got behind the wheel
Fact : He was seen meandering all over the road by the Hawaiian police
Fact : He spent the night in the drunk tank
Fact : He got a mugshot
Fact : He didn't contest it
Fact : Doing what he did is a crime in BC, the province he's a premier of.
Fact : Voters responded by giving him a second majority government because they don't think being a drunk driver should hold someone back from being premier.
Hypothesis : 45% of the population went to the polls in 2005 just as drunk and thought it would be a gas to vote for him again.
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Rman
To compare the punishment of other countries to the OFFENDERS is not a valid argument.
Lots of countries have harsher penalties than Canada.
It is lucky Campbell lives and resides in Canada!
I can think of many countries where IF Campbell was living or residing in he would be WALKING AROUND WITH BOTH OF HIS ARMS LOPED OFF, for what I would describe as committing the offence T_EF_
But Rman,I guess to have Campbell TRIED and CONVICTED under American laws is appropiate,considering he never was a Canadian/ He has always been an American disguised as a Candian Maple Leaf!
G West
3 years ago
I'm not backpeddaling
That’s rich…I happily acknowledge when I’ve made an error – you might want to try it once in a while.
The fact that Hawaii doesn't call drunk driving a felony is pretty subsidiary to the actual issue, isn't it?
Almost as irrelevant as the editorial action I was talking about.
I didn't see your factual errors about the impact of the carbon tax being redacted. Cause they were a lot more inaccurate than a question about legal terminology.
How about it?
The occasionally pedantic inaccuracy doesn't bother me for a moment: if Gordon Campbell had performed his little drunk driving diva exercise (and tried to hide it and laugh it off the way he did - loved those tears!) you think the media would have covered it the way they covered Glen's deck?
Nope! And what about the coverage of the two close personal aides of the Premier’s who the cops caught on tape mau-mauing the political process here in the province…you think that’s an indictable offence or a summary conviction?
The problem is, the wrong guys are under charge, in my view.
And yep, I'll be sure to keep mentioning - along with everything else the guy is 'guilty' of.
T
realisticman
3 years ago
See that gwest?
quote-egmont rapids: "To compare the punishment of other countries to the OFFENDERS is not a valid argument." Quite right egmont, that's why I called gwest on it.
By the way, Campbell was not tried nor was he convicted, he pleaded 'no-contest'.
realisticman
3 years ago
the is a big difference
Misdemeanor crimes tend not to bar one from working in public law enforcement or the armed forces. In most cases, however, a felony conviction bars one from working for most military branches, and might also influence one’s ability to get security clearance for jobs in the private sector.
Someone convicted of a felony is called a felon, pleading nolo contendere to a misdemeanor has no equivalent.
I'm surprised that you treat such a distinction so cavalierly.
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
I'm not surprised you don't care if your premier is a drunk driver
egmont rapids
3 years ago
"Snail`s belly standard"
Rman--NO CONTEST is the same as a guilty plea!
Try to gat back to your low standard Rman!
Your response is neither cute nor worth responding to.
As I mentioned the other day
" I feel sorry for guys and gals Rman/Luke/Wilf/Johnna and others"
To excuse deplorable behavior, extra low standard even for you Rman!
Luke,I know you would never part with 10.000.00 dollars,thats fine,but you need to MAN UP ON OUR BET OF 10.000.00
YOU NEED TO SAY TO EVERYONE ON THE tyee THAT YOU WERE WRONG ON CAMPBELL WINNING BOTH BI-ELECTION--
I MUST SAY ---I expected your avoidance Luke on the issue because
The Campbell/Corporate mantra is to NEVER TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR ANYTHING,TO BLAME EVERYONE ELSE FOR FAILURE.
6 more month Luke for Campbell to reign-- And everyone here at the TYEE knows that after the NDP victory in may and your job ends we will never hear from you again.
EAT CROW LUKE--100 MILLION ON ADVERTIZING COULDN`T SAVE CAMPBELL, WHAT WILL CAMPBELL`S NEXT TRICK BE?
DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES!
CHEERS
realisticman
3 years ago
Frank
That's not fair. I did say that "What was done was wrong".
realisticman
3 years ago
egmont
quote; "Try to gat back to your low standard Rman!"
You said that Campbell [was] "TRIED and CONVICTED". That's just not the case. It's incorrect and completely wrong. That's all.
On the contrary, unlike you I have very high standards and any accusations need to be precise, so do the editors here at The Tyee and that, my friend, is why GWest's inaccurate statement was quite properly removed.
Frank
3 years ago
realisticman
You never did expand on your thesis that the reason the top 20% have gone from owning 69% of the total wealth in Canada to 75% in just 20 years is because we currently have low unemployment rates.
I'd like to hear the precise reasons for that being the case.
G West
3 years ago
The editors took out one word
Felon
They said it was 'inaccurate' - apparently this has provided sufficient amusement to keep you from your seven day a week job for several hours.
Can you forgive me?
I'll make sure next time I'll call the Premier someone 'guilty of an indictable offence'.
that make you happy - and, like Frank, I'd like to know something about you too realisticman.
I'd like to know what you think of Warren Buffett and his tax reform proposals.
They seem to have left Bobby Peru speechless.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
BRUTALLY LOW VOTER TURNOUT - Spontaneous? Or Staged?
Luke Skywalker
I've changed my mind. The NDP will win both by-elections tonight!
Why, apparently brutally low voter turnout.
Turnout was very low. Did the Liberals encourage some of their supporters to stay home, hoping a pair of byelection wins would make the NDP complacent?
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Budd...
The world is not as Machiavellian as ya sometimes see it. :)
realisticman
3 years ago
GWest
"I'd like to know what you think of Warren Buffett and his tax reform proposals."
I don't live in the USA. As far as I know the taxes in Canada are differently structured. We have state funded, through taxes, health-care, for example. We also spend very little on our military, compared to what they do. I'm far too busy to start considering Iowa state taxes.
Bobby Peru
3 years ago
Taxing the Rich
Gwest, I think you and many others on this thread have to understand the nature of wealth and how today's rich have become rich. You can't compare how someone who only earns a salary as an employee to someone who has built up his/her wealth by founding and building a company.
Buffett's disappointment in the tax system lies in it's inability to tax the rich; there are always loopholes.
Most of the rich hold almost all of their wealth in the stock or equity of their company. It's very rarely in the form of pure cash or some huge income. So the rich possess two levels and sources of wealth. One is the income flow they receive from the company they own or control. The other is their share of their company's assets and earnings, some or most of which is not paid out, but kept in the company.
Don't forget that citizens are taxed on their income, not how much money they have in the bank or stocks. They are taxed on how much income they derive from a bank acct or stock dividends.
So before some of you start vilifying the rich (and what is the definition of rich?) you should think about the nature of wealth.
G West
3 years ago
You haven't been paying attention
How many times have I pointed out the report of the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation?
A report commissioned by the Diefenbaker government and delivered after Pearson had taken over.
Look up its recommendations....please!
Of course equities, dividend and capital gains are taxed differently from ordinary income - that's the problem.
I don't care how you earn a dollar, it should be treated exactly the same whether you're a ditch digger or an investor.
If you can't figure out why special treatment for some kinds of income (as opposed to other kinds) wouldn't create and exacerbate inequality - exactly what it has done - then there really isn't any point in my trying to explain it to you.
Read those words from Warren Buffett again.
You apparently like things the way they are - as Frank points out, continue this way for another generation and the top 5% will own everything.
Good luck with getting anyone to pick up your garbage, and you better buy yourself a gun and build a fence, a very high fence.
Get a grip - it has to change.
G West
3 years ago
Realisticman
Then you don't know much about the tax system - it's not that different - believe me - and the same criticisms Buffett leveled at the American Tax boondoggle would apply right here in Canada too.
You haven't been paying attention - even the payroll taxes impinge far more heavily on low incomes than high ones.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Why is everybody constantly
Why is everybody constantly complaining about taxes, which at least give something back to people, but never the huge and obscene profits of certain corporations and the millions paid into the pockets of their executives?
Profits are necessary for businesses, just as taxes are necessary for the survival of societies, but what did we, the customers, get out of the $500. million handshake given to the retiring chairman of Exxon, or the multiplied profits of Cargill, in control of the Canadian beef industry, while farmers and ranchers are going broke all over through their price fixing rackets ?
Let's have the brainwashed faithful explain this ?
Corporations have been making good profits and the stockmarkets were doing OK in the 50s and 60s, while workers have been paid decent wages, there were no part timers, or foodbanks, or homeless.
So where are the improvements and why do people put up with being screwed and keep on electing the governments paid off by the screwers?
How can anybody justify that the lowest paid in Tom d'Aquino's Chief Executive gang takes home an alleged $2. million per year, but many take tens of millions, while some of their employees are in the foodbank lines ?
Is this a democracy, where everybody's supposed to be equal, or just another version of the politbureau system nobody dares to question?
Ed Deak.
realisticman
3 years ago
So Complain!
If your pension plan has funds in a corporation that in your opinion overpays anyone you should make that opinion known and take steps to change the situation. It is your right to do so. On a more micro level you can buy one share in a public corporation and then attend the corporation's AGM and speak directly to the board and the audience and the attendant press and get your message across.
It's not necessarily up to any government to address this issue. How on earth could any government decide on compensation and which government should even consider it? Victoria, Toronto, Ottawa, New York, Delaware....?
G West
3 years ago
R/man
That's why the only effective and fair approach to this problem is through the tax system - as Warren Buffett has so clearly demonstrated.
Changing the law with respect to corporate governance and the role of the corporation - things I'd suggest your dismissal of Ed's post ignores - is another important needed reform. There is no such thing as corporate democracy or even corporate transparency in this province now - in fact, your friends in Victoria made changes to the law so that, since March 29, 2004, BC has the highest level of corporate secrecy in the country.
And right now, when the motivations and actions of the neo-liberal con job which has led to the current cock up is at the top of everyone's bitch list is the perfect time to start....
You and your avatars blew it - whether the rest of us have the beans to take corporate hegemony and drown it in the bathtub is the only real question that's important at the moment.
It should start everywhere - today; hell, it should have started a week ago.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
How very realistic of you, realisticman
realisticman:
If your pension plan has funds in a corporation that in your opinion overpays anyone you should make that opinion known and take steps to change the situation. It is your right to do so. On a more micro level you can buy one share in a public corporation and then attend the corporation's AGM and speak directly to the board and the audience and the attendant press and get your message across.
Buy one (1) share. Out of the millions and millions issued. Then go the annual meeting and speak out. Kind of like Mr Smith going to Washington. And where is the meeting, exactly? In Toronto? New York? Will that add $1,500 to $2,000 in travel costs to the price of this bit of corporate democracy? When was the last time you did any of this, realisticman?
I recently read a very good review of a book in the AEA's Journal of Economic Literature which bears on the subject of executive compensation:
Weisbach, Michael S. June 2007
Optimal Executive Compensation versus Managerial Power: A Review of Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried’s 'Pay without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation.'
Journal of Economic Literature, 45(2): 419–428.
To some degree, realisticman, Weisbach agrees with you that effective legislative action to change CEO pay practices may be hard to achieve. However, I don't think he sees your prefered remedy of making yourself the one lonely whining nut-case at the shareholder's meeting, to the great amusement of the board and its sycophants, as a more viable policy than government intervention.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
I am not talking about the world. I am talking about BC
Luke Skywalker
The world is not as Machiavellian as ya sometimes see it.
I am not talking about the world.
I am talking about BC. About BC politics. About the BC provincial Liberal-Conservative Coalition, currently doing business as the BC Liberal Party, formerly known as the BC Social Credit Party, and prior to that known as The Coalition.
I doing so in the aftermath of a federal election in which three quarters of the Liberal vote in some ridings went Conservative. Their organizers didn't want them to stop Harper. They wanted them to stop the NDP. How's that for Machiavelli in action?
Fiat lux
3 years ago
RM....In case you don't
RM....In case you don't know, which is quite possible with the faithful, living in blissful ignorance, the voting system of corporations is not on a vote per person, but vote per share system. This, again, is called "democracy".
Anybody who'd buy 1 share and expected to be heard must be a damn fool.
Or a conservative.
We don't permit trucking outfits to take over our road systems, even on toll roads, and give them the right to push small cars off the road and the same system must be applied to economics, unless we want a criminal element to take control and rob everybody blind.
As they are doing it now......
This is why we're supposed to be electing governments, to service the public interest and not to take bribes with the promise of directorships.
Ed Deak
realisticman
3 years ago
Budd Campbel...
You crumple so easily. Don't be such a defeatist. Obviously you haven't heard of Yves Michaud. With this being an important issue one would think that organizers would be prepared to have representation in all major Canadian cities to pursue this style of correcting overly lavish executive compensation in public companies.
"When Canadian shareholder activist Yves Michaud rose
to speak at the annual meetings of several Canadian
banks in 1997, he effectively ushered in the era of
shareholder activism in Canada.
The victory of shareholder activist Yves
Michaud in 1997 opened the door for individual
shareholders to have their proposals included in the proxy
circulars of banks prior to the annual general meeting.
This court victory has largely eased the process of
shareholder activism, especially in cases involving
shareholder proposals."
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:rvI6W74JXxwJ:www.iveybusinessjournal.com/view_article.asp%3FintArticle_ID%3D589+yves+michaud+shareholder+activist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/848754-1.html
realisticman
3 years ago
Furthemore
GWest, tax reform would almost certainly not work because, as you MUST know, when certain corporations wish to compensate certain individuals they pick-up the tax obligation.
More on Michaud:
Nevertheless, shareholder
proposals remained rare in the governance of Canadian
corporations until 1997, when the Quebec Superior Court
and the Quebec Court of Appeals forced three banks-
Laurentian Bank of Canada, National Bank of Canada
and the Royal Bank of Canada-to include activist Yves
Michaud's proposals in their proxy circulars, and to allow
for voting on the proposals attheir annual general meetings.
Subsequently, in 1998, more activists followed Michaud's
example in sending proposals to other banks. Bell Canada
Enterprises and Dofasco were the first non-bank
companies to be targeted by activists. Since then, activists
have routinely filed shareholder proposals with banks, and
the practice has gradually spread to other types of
companies. ..."
Interesting from a Kitimat, BC perspective:
"In 1982,
Alcan Aluminum became the first Canadian corporation
to vote on a shareholder proposal relating to social responsibility."
It's a choice. Either scream and wait for the soon-to-arrive utopia when progressives will run everything, or play the game within the existing rules, and play to great effect - and cause change to happen.
G West
3 years ago
Tax Reform
What do you mean tax reform won't work? As Ed has pointed out, you seem to have some difficulties with understanding reality.
There are two separate issues, one is the fact that some kinds of income (the stuff Warren Buffett and Paul Martin earn) isn't taxed equitably with the income of working people.
That can certainly be addressed.
As to the other matter, the legislation governing corporations can he changed anytime the government wants to.
As, for example, the current bunch changed the terms of the Terms of the Business Corporations Act.
That interference with openness and a reckless slap in the face of a decision of the Supreme Court of BC can, and should, be reversed the moment a decent government is elected in this province once again.
Change will not happen without legislative action - and no change will ever happen if the matter is left in the hands of the fraudsters in power in the corporate board rooms today.
As far as corporate statements of social responsibility - please, spare me. That's the kind of thing the boss hangs up in the board room and posts on the company website.
You can't be that naive. Change will come or the situation will get worse.
I say start with the tax reform - and trim the corporate kleptomaniacs’ wings that way....once they can't fly they'll be a lot easier to control...Once everyone pays their fair share of the costs of society, the quality of the civilization will be enhanced a hundred fold.
And that bit about Alcan and corporate responsibility: Why don't you talk to the Mayor of Kitimat about that?
realisticman
3 years ago
Kitimat
More proposals can be presented - to shareholders - as before.
G West
3 years ago
It won't make any difference
Please, go back up to where Ed presented the problem with that approach....it hasn't worked - it won't work.
The only thing corporations understand is sheer power - and the only way to address that is with the law.
If they want to wind up their operations, so be it - I'll wave goodbye and good riddance to the whole bunch.
The assets, especially in BC, are public assets - and they're not going to disappear.
The people who need to disappear are politicians that Howe Street and Bay Street carry in their back pocket.
ME2
3 years ago
RMan
As usual, RMan, you're being your usual disingenuous self by implying (without actually stating it) that Yves Michaud was just an ordinary shareholder. Yeah, he just walked in off the street into the Corporate AGM, clutching his lone share and demanded to be heard.
And so, since the Corpoadoes believe implicitly in truth and honesty and the due process which ensures the prominence of these values in the Corporate world, his lone voice was heard, and now the right of every shareholder to be heard is ensured.
Google didn't reveal much about the man, and I didn't go digging, but the following should be revealing enough for us to form a judgement on whether or not Mr Michaud was just another Joe Blow shareholder.
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/chronos/michaud.htm
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Rm....you seem to be living
Rm....you seem to be living in a world of idealistic dreams.
I could tell you umpteen examples from my own experience in business, even naming still well revered billionaire name(s), that minority shareholders are dirt, when it comes to decisions.
I sold an incorporated business once upon a time, but the guy didn't have the money to buy majority. The business wasn't a big money maker, but had an excellent reputation going back over 20 years. I was tired and burned out and just wanted to get out, so when the guy begged me to give him majority, I fell for it and gave it to him so he can act and work after I'm gone.
The minute he had majority, he set up a paper company and started buying from my business at bankruptcy prices and reselling products still sitting on the same shop floor at the real prices.
He didn't want to bankrupt the business on account of its name and reputation, just keep it broke enough to screw me out of my years of work.
When the arbitrators, Coopers& Lybrand, went after him, he told them, that if I push him too hard, he'll put the business into bankruptcy....etc. and offered .20 cents on the dollar.
There was nothing anybody could do, it was legal and an accepted business practice among the big boys and I've lost in today's terms about $3 to 400,000. putting us into poverty for years.
Of course we have the knowhow and dug ourselves out, but I've been fighting these crooks and the system they and their gullible, and also crooked, followers represent ever since, and will keep on fighting until it falls around their necks.
And make no mistake, it will fall.
I could tell you similar stories involving the biggest names, but it would bring on a slew of defamation suits by the dirty and guilty "wealth creators".
Ed Deak.
Bobby Peru
3 years ago
Post - Money
All the tax reform and fire and brimstone about reconstituting the role of the corporation in society is useless. The corporation is a person designed by people to maximize profits.
Unless, money no longer exists as the currency of society, you will always have a system that exerts pressure to maximize profits. Only if the goal for all people in society is to better yourself and society and not make money can we get above all this. Truthfully, I ripped this off dialogue from Captain Picard in a Star Trek TNG episode.
Try this for hypocrisy. I'm sure Bono of U2 means well when he preaches tax forgiveness for Third World countries. But when it came out earlier this year that U2's tax advisors were moving corporate domiciles in order to 'maximize tax efficient regulations' many wondered how Bono could as avg taxpayers t bear the cost of tax forgiveness while he was avoiding taxes.
So unless we take money or any desire for material gain out of our civilization, there'll always be hypocrisy down the line.
ME2
3 years ago
Our resident Panglossian offers a pearl of wisdom
"So unless we take money or any desire for material gain out of our civilization, there'll always be hypocrisy down the line."
C'mon, Bobby, that's hardly original. Surely you have a better argument than that for our best of all possible worlds?
Fiat lux
3 years ago
We've lived in a moneyless
We've lived in a moneyless society for 3 years after WW2 in Europe and it was sheer hell. We had tons on money, but it was worthless and couldn't buy anything.
We need money as a tool of exchange, but not as a weapon for enslavement and exploitation.
Money and its creation must be under strict public control, as we can see right now with the world going downhill on account of the free money creation powers given into the hands of special interests, transferring liabilities on the public.
Few people realize that money is public debt and therefore must be under strict public control, or it will destroy civilization, by permitting an international corporate mafia to use it or criminal purposes. As it is right now.
Corporations are "persons" by the opinion of some screwball judge and at certain level can easily become criminal organizations. Why this hasn't been attacked in courts long ago is a mystery.
This is what the constant cry and demand for "competition" is about, to excuse and legalize criminal activities, permitting the transfer of costs on others by stealing them blind.
Anybody who makes any excuses for the criminal activities of the present system and personages has serious problems.
And, as I've been writing for years, the scriptural legalization of the ongoing crime wave against humanity, and the ecology, originates in our universities and until this pseudo religious racket is stopped, there's no hope for humanity.
Ed Deak.
G West
3 years ago
Good points Ed
And when Madam Justice Morrison of the BC Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that anyone can attend the registered office of a company and examine the list of shareholders it created an atmosphere of openness that the Campbell Government wasn't going to sustain.
And it didn't.
Because in 2002 the Campbell government replaced the Companies Act with the Business Corporations Act; one of its many changes was to overrule the effect of the court's decision. It strictly prohibited access to the list of shareholders for any company, public and private, but the government (big surprise) didn't let anyone know that its legislative language was designed to have that effect. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Finance confirmed that elimination of the right to view the shareholder list was an intentional change. When the new legislation was proclaimed on March 29, 2004 as of that date the share register was not open for inspection, except for corporate purposes.
Lovely free, open and accountable arrangement - entirely for the purposes of the corporate 'friends' who pay Gordo isn't it?
Citizens, the media, anyone who wants to know who is behind the businesses that run much of our lives, are out of luck.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Huh?
g west:
A little history. During the late 1980's, then Premier Vander Zalm publicly stated that all shares in the company owning Fantasy Gardens were held in the name of his wife.
A curious reporter began sniffing around and attended at the registered office of the company (a law firm), reviewed the shareholder's list and lo and behold Vander Zalm was still a shareholder in the company.
Circa 1996, I got a call from a law firm, (the registered office of where the company records are kept of which I was a shareholder/director) and "so and so" inspected the shareholder lists. Didn't know the person and couldn't care less.
Last year I attended the registered office (a law firm) of a company in order to ascertain the new shareholders of the company as well as the financial consideration for the transfer of those shares. No problem.
From the Business Corporations Act
[SBC 2002] Chapter 57:
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
And...
And subsections 42 (1) (l) to (o) and (r) (iii), 42 (1) (i) to (q) and (r) (ii) to (iv)?
(j) a copy of each consent resolution of shareholders and each consent under section 327 (1), and, if the consents of the shareholders are expressed on more than one record, a copy of each of those records;
(k) unless contained in the minutes of the applicable meeting or in a consent resolution,
(i) the complete text of any resolution passed at a meeting of shareholders, and
(ii) a copy of each written record referred to in section 148 (3) or (4) or 153 that records a disclosure made to the shareholders under Division 3 of Part 5 by a current director or a current senior officer;
(l) the minutes of every meeting of directors or of a committee of directors, and, unless contained in the minutes of the applicable meeting, a list of every director present at the meeting;
(m) a copy of each consent resolution of the directors or of a committee of directors, and, if the consents of the directors are expressed on more than one record, a copy of each of those records;
(n) unless contained in the minutes of the applicable meeting or in a consent resolution,
(i) the complete text of any resolution passed at a meeting of directors or of a committee of directors,
(ii) a copy of each written record referred to in section 148 (3) or (4) or 153 that records a disclosure made to the directors under Division 3 of Part 5 by a current director or a current senior officer, and
(iii) a copy of each written record that records a disclosure under section 195 (7) (a);
(o) a copy of each written dissent received under section 154 (5) or (8);
(r) if the company is an amalgamated company, copies of the records described in the following paragraphs of this subsection for each amalgamating company:
(iii) paragraphs (l) to (o);
(i) the minutes of every meeting of shareholders;
(j) a copy of each consent resolution of shareholders and each consent under section 327 (1), and, if the consents of the shareholders are expressed on more than one record, a copy of each of those records;
(k) unless contained in the minutes of the applicable meeting or in a consent resolution,
(i) the complete text of any resolution passed at a meeting of shareholders, and
(ii) a copy of each written record referred to in section 148 (3) or (4) or 153 that records a disclosure made to the shareholders under Division 3 of Part 5 by a current director or a current senior officer;
(q) a copy of any representations sent to the company under section 209 (5) and any response sent to the company under section 209 (6);
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Just off the news wire
Gordon Campbell has just announced that his goverment is "freezing property assessments at 2007 levels, this will help create stability in the markets"
Well exscuse me---If I`m not mistaken,house prices have dropped by 30% from the start of 2008 to present date and they continue to fall!
It seems to me that Gordon Campbell wants the tax dollars from over inflated assessments, will keeping property assessment artificially high not only cost BCers more money but will also increase revenues to the province.
It won`t take long for this scam to be exposed!
More arrogance,more outta touch,more of a fall in the polls for Gordon Campbell!
Campbell will quickly go from 12 points down to 20 points down in a blink!
egmont rapids
3 years ago
More on property assessments
Is this move by Campbell supposed to make people feel good when they look at their assessment?
Many homes that were selling at 1.6 million last year are lucky to get 900.000.00$ today.
Prices are in freefall!
Campbell is now interfering in the marketplace.
The market sets the price,not Gordon Campbell!
I don`t hear Campbell freezing the price on gas prices.
I don`t hear Campbell freezing ferry rates,transit rates,BC hydro rates.
And if prices fall by another 30% next year is he still going to freeze property assessments at the heigth of the property boom!
This move of Gordon Campbell sounds like SOCIALISM (taboo for a Americanized BC premier)
Maybe Campbell thinks were stupid?
Another announcement from the back of an envelope!
egmont rapids
3 years ago
More of Campbell`S bag of TRICKS or CHEATS!
Campbell is also allowing people in hard hit communities with at least 15% equity in their homes to defer their property taxes for a year.
Wow,now people can stay in their dead forstry town and wait for a whopper of a bill in 2 years! Yea, I will stay in Mckenzie with no job because I can pay my tax bill later!
Campbell also says he will talk talk to the federal goverment about RRSPs RRIFs, Campbell will be on his knees for Harper!
Campbell also announced he will spend 20 million dollars on rural roads over 18 months, up from the whole 1 million his goverment spent on rural roads last year.
Lets look at the money, 20 million over 18 months on rural roads, from june through the end of this year 90 million dollars on goverment ads!
I hope all those rural communities enjoy their 15% increase in BC hydro rates from april 1st 2008 and I hope they enjoy that 2 teir BC hydro rate that came in to effect october 1st 2008 and I hope they enjoy the 11% more increase that goes in effect at the end of this month! november 2008
Hell those increases are only about 600.00 dollars a year for an average BC home!
Fiat lux
3 years ago
We're on the road between
We're on the road between 150 Mile House and Likely, used by the huge, overloaded Polley Mtn. copper mine trucks, running day and night, taking our real capital to the docks.
These trucks are still running fully loaded, when there are road limits in effect at breakup times, and the company is paying an alleged $10. million yearly fine to the govt. to keep them running on these approx. 80kms.
The pavement is broken up, with deep ruts dug by the trucks. The only maintenance it receives is the yearly crack filling, which are covering the surface all over.
Last year the yellow lines on the road were painted in Sept. this year in late August, just about ready for the snow cover.
But they are talking about 4 laning Hwy 97, going South, without admitting that it is preparation for the hookup to the NAFTA superhighway to take out more of our resources and bring back, "competitively efficient" Mexican labour under the now secretly negotiated SPP, and the "free movement of labour".
Ed Deak.
G West
3 years ago
The sections involved weren't proclaimed
The sections involved weren't proclaimed in force until 2004 luke..
I think you'll find that the information is NOT available to the public...It certainly was prior to the changes and that was confirmed by Madame Justice Morrison in this case:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/98/03/s98-0340.txt
If you check, you'll find that the information released to the public, for example, re the contract for the new BC FERRY Corporation, is full of Black Holes..
The 2002 legislation also eliminated the requirement for a resident BC director.
G West
3 years ago
And, just for you luke
I did a little hunt around to see if my legal advisor was the only one who noticed that secrecy is now A/OK for corporate folks who have something to hide and want to keep their records 'closed' to the public and the media...Anyway, as I said, just for you I hunted up the following from wayyyyyyyyyyy back in 2004:
http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2004/shareinfo.html
Now, what do you supposs the Maui Mauler has to hide?
G West
3 years ago
And a little more
Business BCeID
Allows you to access Online Services where your business or organization's identity must be verified and you are acting in a business capacity (not as an individual). These accounts are used by representatives of companies, partnerships, proprietorships and organizations (for example, Municipalities, not for profit, societies). When registering for a Business BCeID the business's unique identity is verified. In addition, the individual requesting the BCeID account is verified as an authorized representative of the business. A business can establish BCeID Accounts for employees. Because a business's identity is verified with a Business BCeID, Online Services will know with whom interactions are occurring and an electronic history of a business's interactions will exist.
G West
3 years ago
Sure looks to me
As if the freedom of the individual or the freedom of a reporter to access this information has been sharply curtailed.
Should we continue this, or would you like to acknowledge that Gordon Campbell and the bright light of daylight and public scrutiny are about as good friends as a vampire and the sunrise?
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Read the comments section
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=962adc6-e7ff-4e77-8723-2d0a53add930
Campbell isn`t conning anyone
egmont rapids
3 years ago
I try again
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=962adc6d-e7ff-4e77-8723-2d0a53add930
Campbell isn`t fooling anyone
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Huh???
The relevant sections of the Business Corporations Act - Inspection of Records - Paragraph 46, have never been repealed and are quoted from the same statute "updated to December 1, 2007".
g west:
You always claim to read various legislation. Here's the link to the statute. Go find those sections!! I certainly can't.
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/list_statreg_b.htm
As for NDPer David Schreck, I don't give much credence to his off the wall musings.
lol ....Yeah so what? I also have an account with BC Online. Has nothing to do with my ability to attend at a registered office.
lol... and what does someone's simple petition to the SCBC to enforce the applicable sections of a statute have to do with anything? It happens all of the time!
G West
3 years ago
luke
Try getting the information if you don't have a number - it's not OPEN TO THE PUBLIC - and that's the point.
AND, If someone at a registered office (like BC FERRIES) wants to block access to the public they can. AND DO. Until the change in legislation, after the Morrison decision, that WAS not the case. Since 2004 it has been.
You tell me what these turkeys have to hide - because I'd very much like to know.
Obviously those who don't have anything to hide won't - but the legislation and the way it's implemented permit corporations in BC to do something now they couldn't do before.
Thanks to Gordon Campbell.
You clearly haven't got a clue how the system works. And how it plays the tune Campbell's friends want it to.
I suggest you talk to some professional journalists who've been waiting months or years for resonse to FOI requests.
WEASER
3 years ago
facilities not the answer
Locking people away in facilities to deal with their mental illnesses and addictions is not the answer because people do not recover in institutions. That is just the road of least resistance. The Campbell government has failed to provide the primary and secondary help necessary to help people to recover. Keeping people in total poverty doesn't help. When people have no hope, they are more apt to fall into addictions. Well, many feel that people with disabilities are at fault for their disability and thus don't give them enough to live on. Not everyone with a disability is an addict but they are expected to live on $906. a month with only $375 of that being for rent and utilities. Disability pensions have only gone up $50 in seven years. Not much wonder so many end up homeless or at risk of being homeless. You can't live adequately on that amount anywhere in this province let alone the East End. We treat our animals better than we treat our people. Nobody has proposed giving people houses with little white fences but we won't even let people pitch tents. We don't even have near enough shelter beds. People don't just wake up one day and say. " Gee, it sure would be fun to be homeless. Maybe if we weren't so fast to label people but were more willing to help people we wouldn't see the problems we are seeing today. It is amazing how much homelessness has grown since Campbell has been in power. The face of homelessness is changing everyday with the evictions of people by greedy landlords from apartments they say they are renovating so they can double or triple the rent and trailer courts that are evicting people so they can redevelop. We are putting our elderly out on the street. We need to ask why that is so?
sicntired
3 years ago
Taxes and Gordon Campbell
This government came to power and lowered every tax bracket but the very lowest.They got an increase.Welfare was made a nightmare and a phoney job finding service was set up to enrich the friends of Gordon.Homelessness has steadily climbed and the steps the government has taken are playing catch up for the units lost to the friends of Gordon's development schemes.While apartments disappear,condo's are everywhere and well beyond the reach of the average Canadian.Vancouver is rapidly becoming a place where the wealthy live in super comfort and the rest of us hold on hoping our apartment buildings don't get torn down for "renovations".Evictions for that purpose have steadily climbed as well as this government removed any protection apartment dwellers once had.That is just a small sample of how this government has made the lives of the poor far worse than ever before.Year three of the carbon tax will put the poorest of us in worse shape than ever.Then there's the theft of our rivers.That's too sick to even think about.