Kate is at a dog show today and said to post this;
Apparently The Economist is holding a poll as to whether you want socialism or capitalism. Of course it only seems leftist faux intellectuals have taken part and normal, everyday Joe’s have not been consulted. That may be changed.
Standard south of the border economic analysis found here.
I am poor in a wealthy town.Ngic means not guaranteen,indexed or cola. The true rich are the public sector esp federals they retire at 55 and preach about the greed of the private sector and how the poor do not have the rrsp tax dodge.
Yeah, bleet — those lousy scourges like Gates and Buffett, they have never been responsible for signing anybodies’ pay check. All they do is suck money out of the economy and never create anything of value.
You aren’t owed a G/D thing from these guys, you idiot. They have earned what they have, and through their hard work and expertise, thousands of people can put food on their own tables.
“the only politico with iron tits and a spine in the last 40 years!”
Vaclav Klaus has “iron tits and a spine”.
…-
“Vaclav Klaus on Climate Alarmism and the Central-Planning Mind
From here:
What I see in Europe (and in the U.S. and other countries as well) is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of cynical approach of those who themselves are sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project.
This brings me to politics. As a politician who personally experienced communist central planning of all kinds of human activities, I feel obliged to bring back the already almost forgotten arguments used in the famous plan-versus-market debate in the 1930s in economic theory (between Mises and Hayek on the one side and Lange and Lerner on the other), the arguments we had been using for decades — till the moment of the fall of communism. Then they were quickly forgotten. The innocence with which climate alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media now present and justify their ambitions to mastermind human society belongs to the same “fatal conceit.” To my great despair, this is not sufficiently challenged neither in the field of social sciences, nor in the field of climatology. Especially the social sciences are suspiciously silent.
The climate alarmists believe in their own omnipotency, in knowing better than millions of rationally behaving men and women what is right or wrong, in their own ability to assembly all relevant data into their Central Climate Change Regulatory Office (CCCRO) equipped with huge supercomputers, in the possibility to give adequate instructions to hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions and in the non-existence of an incentive problem (and the resulting compliance or non-compliance of those who are supposed to follow these instructions).
We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussion about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007896.asp
Yukon
Bleet would have the productive bit of the economy reduced to the lowest common denominator.
In residential construction terms this means that a greenhorn roofer on a 8/12 would only put shingles three feet up from the edge as the edge is dangerous and he’s worth the same money as the owner of the roofing company….in an intrinsic sense.
This makes for a “just society” but a piss poor roof.
Syncro
“Should the rich pay more tax to reduce social inequality?”
The mind fairly boggles that this question is in The Economist.
But I have a better question. Should the bleet and ulianov pay more tax to reduce social inequality? More to the point, should bleet and ulianov pay more tax because they don’t have any friends in the ruling CPC party?
Well, since I happen to be bestest buddies with the first undersecretary to the Minister of Social Fairness and Equality, I think bleet needs to give me his car.
Hey, the Ministry can’t be wrong. They’re the government. As friends bleet and ulianov keep telling us, more government is better government.
Just drop it off in my driveway bleet. Make sure the tank is full, eh?
Phantom
Do you really want a Lada?
Syncro
OK – so I went and took a look at the Economist Survey – I won’t bother to participate due to the whole registration thing required in oredr to do so.
In the past I was a fan of the Economist – used to buy it and read it – no longer – it’s too left. I can stand a bit of left and right – but not too much either way.
Since when has Capitalism become a a dirty endeavor? If Gov’t stayed out, everything would work fine. The failures would fail and fall. The winners would win, survive and thrive. It’s a natural law. Like it or not – it’s the law of the jungle and human nature dictates that it is the law of economics too.
“the only politico with iron tits and a spine in the last 40 years!”
After nearly two decades of Thatcherism, government spending as a percentage of GDP was at 42.25%, where it has been when she took over.
Child poverty in Britain had nearly tripled, though, so the Thatcher record did introduce some notable changes.
“Look at Maple leaf food number of poisening dead people”
Posted by: news at April 11, 2009 2:04 PM
Hmmm… interesting. How did they manage that?
As somebody noted above, who has the right to determine what earnings are “too much” or “not enough”? Progressive taxation is pure marxism: QED. When you don’t have the right over the fruits of your own labour (that is, your private property), you become a slave of the state, working for the government. The left seem to marvel at the conservative’s rallying against taxation of “the rich”; in this case, the canard is billionaires. Most conservatives want to make more than what they earn now, and perhaps earn “high” wages one day, if not at the billionaire level. So if you want to earn big bucks, why would it be inconsistent for you not to support confiscatory taxation of high earners now? You want to get there eventually, so… where’s the disconnect?
For what it’s worth, I’d be overjoyed to see a rigid flat income tax, with no deductions and an exemption for those at very low levels. It’d be a snap to do taxes that way, and would certainly be more fair to everyone involved. Also, with a low earning exemption, even a flat tax is “progressive”, so that’d keep the marxists somewhat happy (maybe). And to have a flat tax with a 30% cut in government spending… ahhh! I need a cigarette after that thought, Baby
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
“Your attitude is too pedestrian for you ever to become rich” Ha, ha! Loved that line.
Hey bleet, you hypocritical little twit, hiding when the evidence is against your degenerate leftist brand of stupidity. Glad to see you chiming in on this thread. Keep on believing in your economically illiterate brand of crap. People will produce in accordance with the utility they get from it. Tax the most productive (and wealthiest) segment of society too much and they will reduce their productivity until it matches the confiscation imposed by illiterate leaders like Obama. Problem is, when the most productive segment of society opts out, there is a chain reaction which ends up really hurting the low income folks – just like a minimum wage that doesn’t reflect market values or rent control that doesn’t reflect the true cost of housing. Socialism is the politics of the most illiterate segment of the political caste, enabled by the most entitlement-minded (and laziest) segment of society. Go for it – tax the most productive segment of society into the ground, and watch what happens… idiot… and don’t try to lecture me, bleet me son – this kind of stuff is my bread and butter. You don’t even have close to enough of an intellect to understand.
mhb said : “that’d keep the marxists somewhat happy”
Note for future reference, marxists are never happy, they are in a perpetual state of revolution.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
“Billionaire… be punished for creating your job”
The billionaire is rewarded for creating my job. He’s rewarded with billions of dollars! My request is that the rest of us also be rewarded, rewarded for creating his profits.
“You weren’t there to create the cheese”
In all likelihood, you and I were both there creating the cheese.
“the world owes you nothing”
But apparently the world owes the children of billionaires the right to hoard wealth that they merit solely from the accident of being born in the right family.
A huge proportion of the distribution of wealth comes through accident of birth. Progressive taxation is the notion that some of that good fortune should be redistributed to those of us who work hard but weren’t born with a silver spoon in our mouths.
And far from being selfish, I see that process working both ways, with some of my earnings going to those even less fortunate. You and I undoubtedly earn wages ten or fifty times higher than equally hard working people in Bangladesh or Bolivia. Again, merit has little to do with it. Accident of birth looms large.
Our society should reward hard work. Yes. But it should also counteract the cruel inequalities of fate.
“It’s wonderful to see you exclaim that billionaires like Buffet, Gates, et al, owe nothing to the society or the world which allowed them to create their massive wealth.”
How many thousands of people, worldwide, does Microsoft employ? How many people, worldwide, are able to perform their jobs more efficiently and effectively due to software developed by Microsoft? How many companies, worldwide, rely on Microsoft network technology to operate?
So you tell me why someone like Bill Gates doesn’t deserve to be a billionaire. You tell me why they shouldn’t make the decisions on how their money is handled.
And finally, you tell me why you think the poor has the right to demand a share of his earnings even though he was the one to take the risks and make the million dollar decisions that affected his reputation and credibility, his company, and everyone employed under him.
bleet If the 50% or so paid some tax then everyone would pay less. I pay taxes and I don’t really mind. I hate waste. What I see is waste. The thing about the tax system is there are people with millions collecting supplement old age pension and GST rebate. Why should they use their money? It sits in cash or gold in a safety deposit box. No investment but no income tax, no estate tax, no probate tax, no legal fees and if they need health care bad enough they go buy it.
Otherwise they just use the one we pay for and won’t improve. Universal means lowest common denominator acceptable.
Uzi
Where do you think the cruel inequalities of life stem from? Living or dying?
Syncro
“But apparently the world owes the children of billionaires the right to hoard wealth that they merit solely from the accident of being born in the right family.”
Well, considering it was the parents that had earned the billions, why shouldn’t they decide where their money goes? I dislike spoiled little rich kids like the next guy, but I don’t think that the masses have a right to someone else’s earnings, even if they were inherited.
“Our society should reward hard work. Yes. But it should also counteract the cruel inequalities of fate. ”
I don’t agree with this. It’s not our responsibility to counteract the poor economic decisions and environments created by foreign governments in their own countries.
“uzi” and “bleet” should remember that in a full-fledged capitalist society based on voluntary trade for mutual benefit, business profits go hand-in-hand with raising the standard of living of consumers (which is a profit in a sense too). Only through finding ways of making more or cheaper or better products, thereby making the masses’ lives easier, can businesses make a profit. It’s a win-win situation, and certainly not an example of “exploitation”.
Furthermore, the savings created by making cheaper products allows the businesses time to look for even better ways to make more or cheaper or better products in future. This is the “raging torrent of progress” that Ayn Rand described, and it was working well until the scope of government exploded under false pretenses a few decades ago.
In a system that is not fully “capitalist”, however, businessmen can sometimes get their friends in government to do all kinds of mischief on their behalf, and maybe end up with more than they’re entitled to, at the expense of the working man. The obvious solution is to get rid of government intervention in the economy.
How touching to see that one little comment from me has spawned a neverending procession of angry outbursts, snarky ad hominems, and the usual displays of drivelling idiocy.
And what did I say? I merely suggested that the wealthy might owe something back to the society in which they wield so much power, in which they are so priveleged, and by which they have made an absurd amount of money.
The usual suspects snap to attention, snarling like guard dogs. Because that’s what they are: dogs trained to protect their masters’ interests. They may have nothing themselves, but they’re so quick to attack anyone who suggests the rich have any obligation whatever to lessen the suffering around them.
No – they go into the attack mode immediately, for who knows? Maybe their masters’ will reward them with a special treat – or perhaps a crumb will fall from Master’s table!
Woof! Woof! Snap! Snap!
Uzi some advise; don’t get out of bed. Shit happens.
Bleet – the so-called “rich” already finance the lavish lifestyle of Canadian losers like you and the millions of public employees.
10% of the population pays for the other 90%. I don’t consider myself to be “rich” but the various levels of government already extract over 60% of my earnings that I work damn hard for, including spending more than 50% of my time out of the country.
I’m actually creating wealth for Canada as all my clients are offshore. But do I get any thanks for that?
Certainly not from NDP parasites.
I could say more, but Kate would not approve of what I would say.
(Unoffically she probably woulod)
Hahaha – my vote just helped even up the score. Soon the socialist horde will be losing this poll too! hahahaha
November 22 2008 the world went backwards, then sideways, today…….. in the toilet.
Rich guys create wealth, you gotta serve somebody,
Compare and to contrast the Economist’s neo-bolshevism to this, the most commented article at the People’s Daily, the paper of record of the “Communist” Party of China:
“Don’t hate the rich, be one of them
By Li Hongmei People’s Daily Online
Despite the turmoil in financial markets and global economic downtrend, the Chinese rich will go on accumulating wealth faster than ever anticipated. According to the private wealth report released some time ago that the number of China’s high net worth individuals is growing by leaps and bounds on a year-on-year basis. The concept of so-called high net worth individuals refers to those with net assets of at least US$1m excluding their main home.
…
A society without producing wealthy people is never progressing on the healthy track. Indeed, even the Bible says ‘money is the root of all evils.’ In this light, a highly commercialized society is not a noble one, either. But it is noteworthy that wealth in itself has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and what matters most is how to manage it. Nevertheless, it will be beneficial to the general good of a society that, instead of bitterly envying the rich, more people are learning to become one of them.”
english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002/96417/6628619.html
The trick is, not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Under a progressive income tax system, those who make more money pay more tax than others. I believe it’s generally a fair approach as long as everybody contributes and as long as more and more money doesn’t go to fuel more and more government. There’s the rub, eh?
Lower taxes should be good for everybody.
Social planners are immature people who have three of the worst qualities of mankind – covetousness, jealousy and greed.
They always want somebody else pay to make things ‘free’ for them.
Always keep in mind that nothing is so mobile as Capital. It, like electricity, follows the path of least resistance.
Also keep in mind that if your boss – the so-called rich guy entrepreneur – gets taxed too high he will find another place to open up shop and poof! someone else has your job.
Careful what you ask for.
Wow, it’s like Atlas Shrugged in here. Poor bleet and Uzi, nobody gave them a chance! They could have been as good as Gates or Buffett, only if someone would have given them a company to run.
I posted this in readers tips…
Regarding taxing the “rich”.
So, who in Canada would our resident trolls trust to this noble task? Mr dithers and his fleet of Liberian ships? Stephen Lewis and his $3000.00 suits and private schools? Iggy Pop, because of his deep knowledge and experience in all things economic? Zimbobrae, and his power corp brother and friends?
Thanks, but no thanks. Every time one of these “limousine liberals” fosters a “tax the rich” program upon us, the only people who get taxed are the hard working slobs who are at the lower end of the “top earners”.
The day that I see the family compact paying 40% will be the day that I stop complaining.
But we all know that day will never come.
“Our society should reward hard work. Yes. But it should also counteract the cruel inequalities of fate.”
Our society has already counteracted those inequalities – freedom of speech and religion, equality of all, property rights, a free market economy. Any “cruel inequalities” in Canada are on the Native reserves where, it must be noted, they’ve rejected the solution. For the rest of us, not having a 50″ plasma is not an inequality, cruel or otherwise.
One other thing struck me about the above quote – the use of the word fate. It implies that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to improve one’s lot in life. What a depressing and self-defeating attitude, particularly for someone living in a society that has given Uzi and everyone else the means to improve every aspect of his or her life.
As Ben Franklin said, “You have the right to pursue happiness but it’s up to you to catch it.”
Bleet it isn’t about you. There are people that read this that have an open mind. The leftern half of the universe spews without opposition. They convince themselves they are right and socialism is great. It ain’t. Losers lose under any system. We should provide for those unable not unwilling to work. Physical and mental handicaps no problem. People that don’t like working for someone that takes the risk but has more than they do is kinda tough nuggies as far as I am concerned.
bleet: “I merely suggested that the wealthy might owe something back to the society”
The wealthy “owe” exactly the same thing to society that the rest of do – obey the law and pay as little tax as legally possible. If the wealthy, or the poor or anyone in between, wish to give their time or money to endeavours they consider worthy, that’s their choice as free people but no one and no organization has a claim to their private property.
But apparently the world owes the children of billionaires the right to hoard wealth….
Heads up, uzi, most billionaires give vast amounts of their wealth back to society. The Gates Foundation has $30 billion plus Buffett’s contribution(85% of his wealth, $40 billion) of most of his wealth earmarked to global healthcare.
Charitable foundations funded by billionaires are commonplace. And, as is typical private charities are more efficient than government.
You really have a small worldview with some serious naivete and narcissism operating in your attitude. I’ll repeat, the owner of a business who took the risk and provided the capital to built it owes you nothing but your paycheck.
uzi, ulianov, & bleet – proving why it can be called the ‘politics of envy’. What a trio of whining losers.
“Also keep in mind that if your boss – the so-called rich guy entrepreneur – gets taxed too high he will find another place to open up shop and poof! someone else has your job”
Posted by: a different bob at April 12, 2009 9:29 AM
Best and most accurate comment in the thread; well-put, ADB. And the real danger is the killing of the Golden Goose; New York mayor bloomberg has opposed tax increases on the wealthy. Why? Because of the 8 million people who live in New York City, 40,000 of them pay 50% of the city’s taxes. Think about that, because bloomberg is. He’s worried about the obvious: what happens when, say, a quarter or half of these folks think there are greener pastures elsewhere, where their hard efforts won’t be penalized because they earn “too much”?
The oft-repeated, tired old cliche still holds true: the problem with socialism is sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money to spend.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
mhb:
Heard an audio clip of Rush Limbaugh in which he revealed that he has been audited by New York EVERY year since 1997 as he spends maybe 20 days a year there. Audited EVERY year. They even insisted on going to his various residences to try and determine — from the furniture, paintings, etc — which one he lived in most (for some tax reason I’m not privy too).
Rush LEFT NYC in 1997, evidently. And now he’s determined to spend no time there at all to escape the harrassment.
We can see clearly that hate/resentment trumps self interest here. NY should be wining and dining him not audit-torturing him.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the “rich” pay disproportionately higher income (and no doubt other) taxes that other income groups, some still cling to this discredited idea there is unfairness in the tax system.
To them more income redistribution is the answer, despite further overwhelming evidence that socialist societies redistribute poverty to all, rather than wealth. These new elites (Breshnev lived in western opulence as does that North Korean pipsqueak) always use coercive totalitarian (yes, comrade) methods (controlled press, oppressive military and police) to achieve their ends.
Zimbobrae velvet socialism is only constrained by our rule of law and democracy; non-democratic socialism is not limited in this way.
Even if, despite overwhelming evidence against, the “rich” don’t pay “enough” tax, policies to mitigate that always end up skewering the middle class, who are responsible for the vast productive capabilities (remember, the “rich” are nowhere without the great unwashed, who buy their products and services, or supply the taxes for Hansenian correctness).
Remember, WRT taxation policy, you are the “rich” folks, the ones who would be required to turn over even more of their income to the appartchiks of envy.
Churchill said is best (paraphrased no doubt) “in capitalism, riches are shared unequally, in socialism, misery is shared equally.”
MND – yes, I’ve heard Rush talk about the tax intifada he’s fought with NYC. And of course you’re right: the more high earners you have, the more you take in. When the people get disgusted with the overtaxation and move, the cities lose, and particular those that are receiving city benefits or aid.
What the socialists and leftists have never understood, and they never will, likely, is this: what you earn is yours; it’s not the government’s. It’s your property. You earn it in your own self-interest, for your benefit, or for your family’s or loved ones. There is no right in a free society for the government to unjustly remove your freely-earned wages. And the other sad thing that the left (or most people, for that matter) seem to miss: there is no virtue or nobility in enforced and confiscatory charity.
mhb
interesting blog
🙂
Funny how bleet doesn’t bother to respond to our counterpoints. It’s as expected though.
“I merely suggested that the wealthy might owe something back to the society in which they wield so much power, in which they are so priveleged, and by which they have made an absurd amount of money.”
You presume that the wealthy didn’t make it to where they were due to ambition, high risks, and hard work, thus believing they are “undeserving” of their wealth. You also seem to forget that wealthy business owners create jobs for us. The only thing they owe us is a paycheck. Performance bonuses, benefits, and a healthy work place are in their best interests for retention purposes. But they owe us nothing outside of that.
So why do you believe that, for example, Bill Gates owes part of his wealth to you if you require one of his products or services to perform work, thus allowing you to receive a paycheck?
“What the socialists and leftists have never understood, and they never will, likely, is this: what you earn is yours; it’s not the government’s. It’s your property. You earn it in your own self-interest, for your benefit, or for your family’s or loved ones. There is no right in a free society for the government to unjustly remove your freely-earned wages. And the other sad thing that the left (or most people, for that matter) seem to miss: there is no virtue or nobility in enforced and confiscatory charity.”
Well said.
The real question never answered by those on the left is; who shall determine how much money shall the ‘rich’ contribute to the welfare of the ‘poor’ through taxation? Is it the lazy and the greedy that have never had the ability or the responsibility to raise or make payroll? Is it those who can’t balance their own cheque books? Is it those whose addictions to their sensual beings control their every action? Is it the envious who never would sooner expropriate than earn wealth?
“…what you earn is yours; it’s not the government’s. It’s your property.”
Not according to bleet, ulianov or more importantly, ANY Western country’s government. Particularly ours.
Welcome to Canada. You have no property rights. Everything you have or ever will have can be expropriated at any time by merely passing a bill in parliament. Your income is what government allows you to keep, or what you can hide from them.
It is not the Left who calls for a revolution. They’ve had theirs already. It moved so slowly no one noticed it. Today we suddenly realize nothing we have is ours, after decades of stealthy incrementalism.
We are the ones calling for a revolution. It is us that face the entrenched establishment. bleet and ulianov are the reactionary bourgeois who respond with alarm to the very notion of a man keeping what he earns.
What’s mine is mine. Up the revolution!
uzi and bleet are reading from the unionist handbook, repeating, parroting the manifesto of the useful idiots. I’ve been hearing it for years, and it’s nothing short of amazing that these people refuse to think for themselves, it’s easy when your comrade tells you what to think.
The politics of envy (socialism) has the potential to destroy any vibrant economy. Right now, it has a foothold in the US, with terrible consequences if left unchallenged.
Cuba is what you have with socialism, where everybody (almost) is equal…………..equally poor, that is…..
At what point is someone considered wealthy anyway?
The left wants financial equality amongst unequal people so how is that to be measured? Somewhere between Bleet and Bill Gates or between an African bushman and Bleet?
Obambas policies are not targeted at the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world, they are targeted at the middle, and upper income groups in the US who foot the American tax bill and social programs. The very rich are Obambas friends! If the government increases tax’s on the uber rich too much, they close the doors and move abroad, business and all.
I’d personally like to see all talent-less Rap star multi millionaires like 50 cent taxed to labor incomes. But that’s not going to happen anytime soon, nor would he flee the country and start up somewhere else. The left always seems concerned about the “rich” that actually have something to offer society.
PM Harper gets results.
Good job.
More, please.
…-
“Harper government doing good job on economy: poll”
urlm.in/cbzw
Uzi -What if the “billionaire” you work for goes belly up and loses his shirt, are you willing to share that to… I think we both know the answer to that.
I’ll bet you’ve never taken a risk in your life, most lefties don’t.
A question to all those deriding socialism:
Do you also wish to get rid of law enforcment, firefighters, and public education?
Oh yeah, you all send your kids to private schools, have no need of law enforcment (guns, fuc* yeah!) and dont care if your house burns down.
All modern western/european nations practice a form of socialist capitalism. Don’t like it? Move to Somalia. You can practice pure capitalism over there. Yarrr!
Herb, your lack of intellect is showing. In case you haven’t noticed law enforcement, fire fighters, armed forces are part of the state mandate and as such should be paid out of taxes. Education is an area that should be looked at for better ways of delivery. State run educational monopoly is not a real good thing because there is no natural check and balance to ensure that the student is gathering needed skills and knowledge. However the truth be told I am a firm believer that everyone should contribute to the common good and not just the ‘rich’. If everyone contributed a minimum 10% regardless of income those who have minimal incomes would be more responsible with the commonwealth instead of voting more and more for their selfish needs.
A flat tax is the fairest.