Kragar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 10 minutes ago, stawns said: read the book, or do some research into a book called "F--K Work", though it's a little more extreme than what is being proposed by some of the fed NDP candidates. It advocates actually enforcing tax law on corporations. Even a minute tax, actually enforced, would be billions of revenue.......money that would be used to reinforce a minimum income standard of some kind........maybe $40 000, or whatever would be determined to be a liveable income. Citizens would be be given a supplement to make sure they hit that income number. Regarding the taxes on corps, I'm not sure that will be enough. I tried googling the book, but it is not showing up. Am I supposed to spell out the F word (i.e. you edited it for CDC), or is it actually spelled with hyphens? Maybe some work filters are going on... I can try at home later. I did find an article from last year, talking about how offshore havens are saving Cdn corps 55 billion over 5 years. It sounds like a big number, but if you spread that over an approximately 20M Cdn adults, that's $550 per person per year. To be able to supplement every adult's income to 40K per year, it's going to take a hell of a lot more billions than that, given that median income is about 27K (2013 numbers). I understand that the 40K is not carved in stone, but it gives some perspective as to how big the obstacle is to fix this. 22 minutes ago, J.R. said: Guaranteed income I'm sure you could Google to get a clearer idea but the basic premise is that everyone is guaranteed a basic level of income. Tie it in to the income tax system and it basically does away with welfare at the same time. Obviously the more income you make, the more you end up paying back in taxes similar to how it works now. Isn't it just welfare with a different name? What happens if you have a person who is making 30K, and the guaranteed income is determined to be 40K. Unless there is a very good opportunity for someone to advance to a 60K+ position, what incentive is there for that person to try harder. Sure, some people will have enough pride in their work to press on, but a significant number will not. At first glance, this appears as a path to stagnation. Although, I guess some would argue we already have that One last concern I have with the proposal (maybe the book Stawns mentioned deals with this?): is there a scalable guaranteed income for those who have kids? A single 20-yr old has less needs than a 40-yr old parent, so would they get the same guarantee? Or, if parents get a higher guaranteed income, would that encourage low-income people to have kids because they get more guaranteed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 35 minutes ago, J.R. said: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/minimum-income-hugh-segal-ontario-budget-1.3740373 Thanks for the link... I'll check it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 29 minutes ago, gurn said: Long term, you are probably right about the increased costs, short term though before prices rise will result in some gains by the lesser paid folk. Prices will go up immediately. When wages go up businesses are given ample notice by government to adjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 1 hour ago, gurn said: Exactly my question. That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: What happens when corporations leave? Then who foots the bill? The corporations are already gone. All they do, right now, is take from our society, they contribute nothing. They need our markets to make any $ at all. The corporations leaving argument is a complete myth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 22 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: That's exactly what would happen. So there would be no difference. The minimum wage worker wouldn't be able to afford anything. True enough. You're a smart man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, Kragar said: Regarding the taxes on corps, I'm not sure that will be enough. I tried googling the book, but it is not showing up. Am I supposed to spell out the F word (i.e. you edited it for CDC), or is it actually spelled with hyphens? Maybe some work filters are going on... I can try at home later. I did find an article from last year, talking about how offshore havens are saving Cdn corps 55 billion over 5 years. It sounds like a big number, but if you spread that over an approximately 20M Cdn adults, that's $550 per person per year. To be able to supplement every adult's income to 40K per year, it's going to take a hell of a lot more billions than that, given that median income is about 27K (2013 numbers). I understand that the 40K is not carved in stone, but it gives some perspective as to how big the obstacle is to fix this. Isn't it just welfare with a different name? What happens if you have a person who is making 30K, and the guaranteed income is determined to be 40K. Unless there is a very good opportunity for someone to advance to a 60K+ position, what incentive is there for that person to try harder. Sure, some people will have enough pride in their work to press on, but a significant number will not. At first glance, this appears as a path to stagnation. Although, I guess some would argue we already have that One last concern I have with the proposal (maybe the book Stawns mentioned deals with this?): is there a scalable guaranteed income for those who have kids? A single 20-yr old has less needs than a 40-yr old parent, so would they get the same guarantee? Or, if parents get a higher guaranteed income, would that encourage low-income people to have kids because they get more guaranteed? Why is income assistance a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 1 minute ago, stawns said: Why is income assistance a bad thing? Income assistance is good when it goes to people who genuinely need it. It's bad when people abuse it...See Greece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just now, stawns said: The corporations are already gone. All they do, right now, is take from our society, they contribute nothing. They need our markets to make any $ at all. Actually some corporations do give back significantly. http://www.canadianminingjournal.com/news/corporate-giving-news-suncor-donates-record-5-3-million/ https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3344978 Unfortunately things are to far gone. We need these corporations more then they need us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just now, taxi said: Income assistance is good when it goes to people who genuinely need it. It's bad when people abuse it...See Greece. You're never going to getbtid of that. There is always two sides to every coin.......good and bad. Imo, the help provided to those who truly need it far far outweighs the drain of those who will abuse it. It's not ev3n a consideration from my point of view. The worth of a country is based on how it cares for those most in need, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, stawns said: The corporations are already gone. All they do, right now, is take from our society, they contribute nothing. They need our markets to make any $ at all. The corporations leaving argument is a complete myth No its not a myth. Saskatchewan years ago is a perfect example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, Kragar said: Isn't it just welfare with a different name? What happens if you have a person who is making 30K, and the guaranteed income is determined to be 40K. Unless there is a very good opportunity for someone to advance to a 60K+ position, what incentive is there for that person to try harder. Sure, some people will have enough pride in their work to press on, but a significant number will not. At first glance, this appears as a path to stagnation. Although, I guess some would argue we already have that One last concern I have with the proposal (maybe the book Stawns mentioned deals with this?): is there a scalable guaranteed income for those who have kids? A single 20-yr old has less needs than a 40-yr old parent, so would they get the same guarantee? Or, if parents get a higher guaranteed income, would that encourage low-income people to have kids because they get more guaranteed? It's similar to welfare, it's not the same as welfare. It would also reduce government overhead as we wouldn't need all the welfare infrastructure as it would simply tie in with an individuals tax information and not require an entire, additional government agency. The idea isn't to get everyone in to the middle class, the idea is to get darn near everyone out of poverty. We're not talking $40k/year, more like +/-$15K. Enough that a single person could theoretically survive and pay for basic housing, food etc costs or a single mother might only have to work one or two jobs instead of 2 or 3. This in turn leads to healthier, happier, more productive people who might even have time and energy for continuing education to better themselves and contribute even more and likely reduce health care costs as well. It's about doing things better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, stawns said: You're never going to getbtid of that. There is always two sides to every coin.......good and bad. Imo, the help provided to those who truly need it far far outweighs the drain of those who will abuse it. It's not ev3n a consideration from my point of view. The worth of a country is based on how it cares for those most in need, imo. Ya and when it gets so easy that number of most in need will be huge. The most in need in this Country are our veterans and seniors, yet Canadians and government of all colours don't seem to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just now, Ryan Strome said: No its not a myth. Saskatchewan years ago is a perfect example. the myth is that corporations contribute to society in any way. All my friends in sask live a much more affluent lifestyle and have a lot more $ in their pocket at the end of the day than almost all of my friends anywhere else. Any business that isn't willing to pay a small price to access our markets can leave anyway, as they contribute nothing. It's not like we can't survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 We should be less concerned with giving poorer people more money and more concerned with ensuring that poor people (especially young and poor) have opportunities to better themselves in ways that will allow them to compete for the same jobs as the middle class. Instead of giving more money to people working menial jobs, find ways to ensure that the working class that want to get an education (whether it involve a trade or university degree) actually feel like they can do so without going hungry or homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, stawns said: You're never going to getbtid of that. There is always two sides to every coin.......good and bad. Imo, the help provided to those who truly need it far far outweighs the drain of those who will abuse it. It's not ev3n a consideration from my point of view. The worth of a country is based on how it cares for those most in need, imo. Every example in history has shown that when it gets too easy to access public welfare, the total system collapses. You end up with a situation where fewer and fewer people are working and those that do work bear the load. The economy doesn't support itself without an incentive for people to work. It's a sad truth. And I agree with you about treating those in need, but you have to be careful to differentiate between those actually in need and those that are abusing the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Ya and when it gets so easy that number of most in need will be huge. The most in need in this Country are our veterans and seniors, yet Canadians and government of all colours don't seem to care. those in need are people from all parts of our society. I guess the question is, do we want to trend more toward Europe/Scandnavia or do we want to trend toward the United States. It's a no brainer for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just now, taxi said: Every example in history has shown that when it gets too easy to access public welfare, the total system collapses. You end up with a situation where fewer and fewer people are working and those that do work bear the load. The economy doesn't support itself without an incentive for people to work. It's a sad truth. And I agree with you about treating those in need, but you have to be careful to differentiate between those actually in need and those that are abusing the system. not even remotely true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, stawns said: the myth is that corporations contribute to society in any way. All my friends in sask live a much more affluent lifestyle and have a lot more $ in their pocket at the end of the day than almost all of my friends anywhere else. Any business that isn't willing to pay a small price to access our markets can leave anyway, as they contribute nothing. It's not like we can't survive. Ya today your friends do well in Saskatchewan. But under the ndp when the pst and personal taxes were higher they didn't do so well. Corporate taxes were to high all they had was mom and pop shops. Did you read up on suncor donations? Sure wouldn't call that nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Down by the River said: We should be less concerned with giving poorer people more money and more concerned with ensuring that poor people (especially young and poor) have opportunities to better themselves in ways that will allow them to compete for the same jobs as the middle class. Instead of giving more money to people working menial jobs, find ways to ensure that the working class that want to get an education (whether it involve a trade or university degree) actually feel like they can do so without going hungry or homeless. I agree. A major issue is the cost of property ownership. Property ownership is how people in North America typcially build wealth. If hard working middle class people cannot afford to build wealth, there is a major issue with the economy. Taxing them more and giving that money to the poor won't solve any issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.