How do you define poverty?

[Pinga]

hmm, do you want someone carrying a gun in their purse? I don't.
Yup, with health care costs what they are, should wear a seatbelt, and if you don't, pay a fine.
hmm, if i didn't pay my taxes, wouldnt you want some form of enforcement?
i was walking downtown toronto, and was hit by the smell of pot in multiple places. one was extremely strong..stunk up the street.

not seeing that i agree with that post.

 

[Luce NDs]

Pot for the pistis* ... an opening for wisdom that is beyond human trends to dispel, denigrate and deprive the lesser powers ... a subliminal process ... leis below the waterline formed by those raised by Eris ...

Pistis Sophia ... search ide out ... tis beyond us it appears as we support multibillion Aria ... they state they need more to run the world according to standards ... of avarice? Avarice is another curious word ... the struggle to control ... thus fa*ther thoughts are distant ... and perhaps there is Moor tuit than appears ... an incarnate viv a' vis when coming face to face with the vessel ...

Why I am SET as ide? Off traxs ... offal ... primal sense ... deeper intellects ...

If one pounds o the neighbour is there response ... no response is indication that something is unnatural ... thoughtfulness is like that. Pound on a neighbour or two with power and will it jump back at yah some Dei ... I'm not supposed to say that as the wee folk are supposed to shut up ... and learn from natural responses ... on how to do things instead of how not to ... an altered state ... get out of here ... tis beyond eh as in NDE touché ole? Some flint and irony prerequisite ... thus the Cana ... so much Taurus as Gole'ath ... papal bulls ... papi onus? Perhaps ganglia as connectors ... a neural affair ... something to do with psyche affair ... IHCy ? AE Qui ...

There is stress and there is relaxation theory ... powers will not rest until the wee powers are driven out and then who carries out their chamber pots ... many at the top through Peter Prin. don't know the chit the disperse ...

Just observe ... vis a vis they won't see yah ...

 

[revjohn]

not seeing that i agree with that post.

Hard to agree with what is not clear.

Maybe it is just me.

I am reasonably confident that Jimmy was not in Iraq because they were rebelling against having to pay taxes or land expropriation or second amendment rights or the war on the war on drugs or even seatbelt legislation.

And while spreading democracy was the stated purpose it wasn't one that actually rang true. Not with all the Axis of Evil and Weapons of Mass Destruction rhetoric.

And if we agree that Iraq was about bringing democracy then we need to recognize that democracy is what brings us Income Tax and land expropriation and gun control and controlled substances and seatbelt legislation along with other generally helpful rules of the road.

So . . .I suppose the beauty of the cartoon is that we will read it as a proof text for what we already believe rather than a challenge to what we currently believe.

Could be that the tear in Jimmy's eye is not outrage about how his family is being treated so much as it is outrage about how his family is acting.

And one of these complaints is not at all alike the others. Income Tax, Gun Control, Controlled Substances and Seatbelt laws are all designed to be for the common good. They may need better execution than present. Land Expropriation is a different matter altogether. The legal power to deprive anyone of their property at the price you find most reasonable is not quite theft and not quite mutually agreeable transaction. I tend to think of it as theft that courts approve of. The argument is always that it is in the best interest of the common good and when the City of Brantford expropriated a large portion of the south side of Brantford's main street some years back it could not be argued that they weren't acting in Brantford's best interest in seising those properties that were seriously neglected. We weren't happy that all of those historic properties fell to the wrecking ball but we understand that properties left long in neglect are not easily or cheaply salvaged.

Brantford expropriating developed property owned by the Township of Brantford was less understandable even if it meant we could then claim to be the home of Wayne Gretzky.

Anyway my reading did not lead me to conclude that Jimmy was tearing up sympathetically. That might have been the intent of the artist. In which case I really missed the point. Or, maybe I get it an others have spectacularly missed the point.

Going to the noted web-page I see that Russmo is satire for Libertarians rather than satire of Libertarians so it looks like I missed the point.

I also note that this satire for Libertarians is looking for patrons. Why would I not get to see the cartoons for free I wonder?

 

[Luce NDs]

Hard to agree with what is not clear.

Maybe it is just me.

I am reasonably confident that Jimmy was not in Iraq because they were rebelling against having to pay taxes or land expropriation or second amendment rights or the war on the war on drugs or even seatbelt legislation.

And while spreading democracy was the stated purpose it wasn't one that actually rang true. Not with all the Axis of Evil and Weapons of Mass Destruction rhetoric.

And if we agree that Iraq was about bringing democracy then we need to recognize that democracy is what brings us Income Tax and land expropriation and gun control and controlled substances and seatbelt legislation along with other generally helpful rules of the road.

So . . .I suppose the beauty of the cartoon is that we will read it as a proof text for what we already believe rather than a challenge to what we currently believe.

Could be that the tear in Jimmy's eye is not outrage about how his family is being treated so much as it is outrage about how his family is acting.

And one of these complaints is not at all alike the others. Income Tax, Gun Control, Controlled Substances and Seatbelt laws are all designed to be for the common good. They may need better execution than present. Land Expropriation is a different matter altogether. The legal power to deprive anyone of their property at the price you find most reasonable is not quite theft and not quite mutually agreeable transaction. I tend to think of it as theft that courts approve of. The argument is always that it is in the best interest of the common good and when the City of Brantford expropriated a large portion of the south side of Brantford's main street some years back it could not be argued that they weren't acting in Brantford's best interest in seising those properties that were seriously neglected. We weren't happy that all of those historic properties fell to the wrecking ball but we understand that properties left long in neglect are not easily or cheaply salvaged.

Brantford expropriating developed property owned by the Township of Brantford was less understandable even if it meant we could then claim to be the home of Wayne Gretzky.

Anyway my reading did not lead me to conclude that Jimmy was tearing up sympathetically. That might have been the intent of the artist. In which case I really missed the point. Or, maybe I get it an others have spectacularly missed the point.

Going to the noted web-page I see that Russmo is satire for Libertarians rather than satire of Libertarians so it looks like I missed the point.

I also note that this satire for Libertarians is looking for patrons. Why would I not get to see the cartoons for free I wonder?

Takes some soul and spirit ... some refuse soul as it is mysterious and fishy ... leads to demiurge as we return to the pool of wisdom ... that beyond us! Blackpool? The waters above, or below ...

 

[Ritafee]

It's tax time good and faithful servants ... for some of us that means write-offs ... and for others it brings us one step closer to claiming bankruptcy and contemplating becoming voluntary wards of the state as opposed to 'paying our own way'. It is always at this time that our household has to consider 'cashing in our chips' - 'cutting our losses' and moving in with the parents. I am 62 and Garry is 65 and has recently suffered a heart attack. His already reduced wages are being garnished by the bank @ 30% for a car loan debt that we did not 'honor' - we are in tax arrears of 11,000.00 once the 2017 return is filed - and they will be happy to garnish wages as well. Last July payments to his ex-wife of 1,600 a month were terminated as agreed in the divorce finalization. Apparently that will not stand and he is now being taken back to court to re-instate those spousal support payments with arrears back to July - again the courts will be happy to garnish his wages if he does not comply. Our recreational property has been rezoned to residential - we are mandated to install municipal water and sewer - at our expense which they will add to our tax bill if we do not comply with the environmental enforcement - voluntarily.

On the poverty scale - our tax return will report income as 135,000.00 for 2017. I am not looking for sympathy here. Just the facts. Poverty is one step away for many people that according to the tax audits appear almost 'wealthy'.

And now I will go out and watch the birds ... and relax ... today I have my daily bread and then some to share with the various critters that love to forage on this piece of land that belongs to the banks and the crown corporations that we serve - some of us better than others.

 

[revjohn]

It is situations such as the one that Monk has mentioned that lead me to define poverty and wealth as I did rather than pretend to assign dollar values to either.

Having spent some years ministering in rural Ontario where fourth generation farmers were preparing to pack it in because of the debt owed to somebody or other and the poor return one gets on agricultural pursuits. Combined with years in outport NL where fisher folk risk their lives on the sea for the privilege of getting paid cents per pound on a Lobster that will sell for dollars per ounce in a store or higher in a restaurant. Where quota is cut back routinely to the point where the captain of a vessel only comes out ahead if he or she sells his boat and quota to somebody else.

Skipper might have more to sell than does the deckhand who works the boat. Skipper is wealthy by no means. No matter how much you paid for your Lobster dinner.

And the irony is that in NL Lobster is what the poor folk eat.

It is an ocean-going cockroach.

 

[Graeme Decarie]

Oh, I quite agree with jae. We should not, in fact, have a minimum wage at all. That's the way it used to be. And we were all happier.

It is however, important to pay corporate bosses in tens of millions and even billions because they work for it.

Corporate bosses also should not be burdened with taxes, either. (In fact, they aren't. Most of them hide their money in secret bank accounts Our news media haven't told us this because any report would just be misunderstood.) The big boss in my province pays virtually no income tax or property tax - and also gets lavish gifts from our puppet government.

In the U.S. the loss in taxes is in the trillions every year. In Canada it's many, many billions. And this has been going for many years. (Of course, on the generous side, our wealthiest, local family has built and maintained a chapel that us rabble can go to - and we get to hear the rent-a rev of the week. The chapel is, of course, named after the family.)

Of course, we read in our papers (that that our corporate boss owns) that their money is used to create jobs in this province. Right.
In fact, the money gets invested wherever the returns are best - as in the brutal mines of Latin America and Africa, and the sweat shops all over this world. (Do your bit. Next time you're shopping, buy clothes by Joe Fresh. They're real cheap.)

I remember the meaning of poverty well from my childhood. It means a powerful sense of unworthiness and inability. It means contempt for yourself. It means dropping out of school because nobody expects any better of you. It means watching friends and relatives die slowly in the their miserable homes because there was no money for care. (In a maudlin way, it means I have toes crossed over each other because in childhood, shoes had to be worn just about forever, long after they were much too small.

Worst of all, poverty means being inferior to all those who have more than you ever can - and having contempt for oneself.

 

[Ritafee]

hmm, do you want someone carrying a gun in their purse? I don't.
Yup, with health care costs what they are, should wear a seatbelt, and if you don't, pay a fine.
hmm, if i didn't pay my taxes, wouldnt you want some form of enforcement?
i was walking downtown toronto, and was hit by the smell of pot in multiple places. one was extremely strong..stunk up the street.

not seeing that i agree with that post.

I do not want any form of enforcement for taxes that I do not agree to in the first place - even on you - my enemy - I do not care if you carry your gun in your purse or keep it locked up in your car trunk when you go out for Sunday drives - I do not support fines for non-criminal behavior - I do not buy into the fallacy that revenue collected through fines goes anywhere near paying medical expenses - smoking pot in moderation does not offend me either. Making something illegal does not make it a moral wrong - and making something legal does not make it a moral right. And that is why I count you as my enemy - you who believe that man's laws are supreme over common sense and moral right. I am doing my best to love you - but that does not mean that I do not recognize you as my enemy - and by that I mean - in you I recognize someone that would have no qualms whatsoever for incarcerating me for daring to question 'your authority'.

 

[Luce NDs]

I heard on CBC yesterday that financial aid for farms generating less than $10K will not be considered as the bottom level is being raised to $30K. What else can we do to exclude people from subsistence living ... eugenics?

Then there is the other side of the game ... I was acquainted with a big time farmer that a few decades ago bragged that his net income was a bit over $5K after all deductions were made. The deductions allowed was the point that got my attention ... he lived quite high on the hog ... just to bring the moral economy and ethics back into the great swirl ...

One has to wonder why some people can doo this and others are denied ...

 

[GeoFee]

Hi,

I had the good fortune of growing up in poverty. This being my preferred economic sphere. Coming from an ancient agrarian people, I am not much interested in the acquisition of more simply for the sake of having more. From my ancestors I have learned to be content with what I have. Well being does not consist in material status. Well being consists in spiritual identity and purpose.

We live in a Hobbesian dystopia. Those successful in predation have made food of those vulnerable to their rapacious appetite for power. The earth and its peoples are being spoiled for the satisfaction of egoism as the highest human good. Well noticed in Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". Rand being a leading proponent of unbridled capitalism as the way forward.

Poverty seems to equate with failing to obtain material advantage. Wealthy seems to equate with success in the obtaining of material advantage. Each of these at one end of a spectrum from extreme poverty to extreme wealth.

George

 

[Pinga]

If there is no repercussion for not paying taxes, it is logical people would quit paying, ....and if that occurred, who would pay the firefighters, doctors, snowplow drivers, food inspectors, teachers,

@monk, if the wish to ensure that I live in a place where we have such services .then, I guess I will remain your enemy

 

[Graeme Decarie]

Well, most of the very wealthy of this world agree with Monk. They hide their money in 'special' accounts, and pay no tax at all. It costs Americans trillions of dollars every year. That's why the U.S. has a decadent public school system, no medicare, very , very limited social services of any sort. That's why there's no money for the homeless. And that's why the wealthy are getting steadily wealthier while everybody else suffers.

It also means big, government contracts for the wealthy for which we have to borrow money. And, in the end, we are the ones who get stuck with the bill - as the wealthy have their money safely tucked away. And they don't invest in Canada or the U.S. No. It's much better to invest in mines, for example, in Latin america and Africa where they can degrade humans and the environment - and kill anybody who objects.

The same is true in Canada. (It's a real biggie in the mining racket.) And the rich don't pay taxes. That's why Canada is knee deep in deficit spending just to keep basic services.

The myth is that the wealthy create jobs. The reality is that they rob us blind. And where that will take us is straight into economic chaos.

 

[Pinga]

Graeme...you seem to be talking about the very wealthy......I know that I pay taxes, and lots of it, and by the definitions used here, i am in that wealthy group.

It is why, when I was writing earlier, i suggestions that there are degrees of wealth. I, and my peers, pay taxes. Some more begrudingly than others. I don't know any of them that have figured out how NOT to pay taxes.

 

[ChemGal]

Graeme...you seem to be talking about the very wealthy......I know that I pay taxes, and lots of it, and by the definitions used here, i am in that wealthy group.

It is why, when I was writing earlier, i suggestions that there are degrees of wealth. I, and my peers, pay taxes. Some more begrudingly than others. I don't know any of them that have figured out how NOT to pay taxes.

I would say the majority of the 1% do. It's a small portion of those who don't.

 

[Ritafee]

If there is no repercussion for not paying taxes, it is logical people would quit paying, ....and if that occurred, who would pay the firefighters, doctors, snowplow drivers, food inspectors, teachers,

@monk, if the wish to ensure that I live in a place where we have such services .then, I guess I will remain your enemy

• As the tax deadline looms, it's worth reviewing a brief history of Canada's federal income tax, to see how far we've come and where we might be going in terms of the income taxes we send to Ottawa.

• Along with Confederation's 150th anniversary, 2017 also marks the centennial year for Canada's federal income tax. As a result of the funding demands of the First World War, the federal government brought in personal income and corporate income taxes in 1917, and the federal sales tax in 1921.

• The personal income tax marked a shift in federal tax philosophy, as since Confederation, the ethos was that taxing incomes weakened Canada's competitive position. It changed federal public finances and our lives forever.

• Canada's federal personal income tax arrived Sept. 20, 1917, with a 4-per-cent tax on all income of single people (unmarried persons, widows or widowers without dependent children) over $1,500. For everyone else, the personal exemption was $3,000. In today's dollars, the exemptions were worth approximately $24,500 and $50,000, respectively.

• For married Canadians with dependents and an annual income greater than $6,000 (approximately $99,500 in today's dollars), the tax rate ranged from 2 to 22 per cent. However, because of the relatively high exemptions, only between 2 per cent and 8 per cent of individuals filed returns during the initial years of the federal personal income tax. Indeed, federal personal income taxation remained a relatively modest source of federal government revenue until the transformations of the Second World War.

• The Second World War dramatically expanded the federal personal income tax with the most notable change being the introduction of high marginal tax rates. For example, the pre-Second World War marginal tax rate on taxable income between $1,000 and $2,000 in the dollars of the day was 4 per cent. By 1942, it had increased to 44 per cent. For taxable income between $10,000 and $15,000, it was 13.7 per cent before the war, but 69 per cent by 1942.

• While marginal tax rates came down after the war, they remained substantially higher than they had been before the war. Moreover, the proportion of the population having to file income taxes rose over time. While only 2.3 per cent of the population filed personal income taxes in 1938, by 1975, that number had grown to 52 per cent and currently stands at approximately 75 per cent of Canadians.

• Changes occurred in tax rates and brackets over time. By 2015, there were four brackets with rates of 15, 22, 26 and 29 per cent. However, the brackets increased to five in 2016 with rates ranging from 15 per cent to 33 per cent. And there are concerns further changes may be on the way given the increase of spending.

• The one constant in all of this change is growing revenue from the personal income tax. In terms of per-person federal personal income taxes, the burden has increased from roughly $14 a person in 1918 (in 2016 dollars) to roughly $4,120 in 2017, an almost 300-fold increase. As a share of GDP, it has grown from 0.2 per cent and is expected to be 7.2 per cent in 2017. As a share of total federal revenue, the tax has grown from 2.6 per cent in 1918 and is expected to reach 51 per cent in 2017.

Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published April 26, 2017 Updated April 26, 2017
Livio Di Matteo is a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute and professor of economics at Lakehead University.

How did they get paid before 1917?

 

[Ritafee]

Graeme...you seem to be talking about the very wealthy......I know that I pay taxes, and lots of it, and by the definitions used here, i am in that wealthy group.

It is why, when I was writing earlier, i suggestions that there are degrees of wealth. I, and my peers, pay taxes. Some more begrudingly than others. I don't know any of them that have figured out how NOT to pay taxes.

Stop filing your returns.

 

[Pinga]

Seriously, do you realize the level of supports that exist now? Where do you think the $$ come from

Monk, I believe that taxation helps provide health care. I look forward to pharmacare

Why would I not pay my share. I have had s**t luck

I am able to pay

As a Canadian citizen, I psy

 

[Ritafee]

Seriously, do you realize the level of supports that exist now? Where do you think the $$ come from

Monk, I believe that taxation helps provide health care. I look forward to pharmacare

Why would I not pay my share. I have had s**t luck

I am able to pay

As a Canadian citizen, I psy

Good for you ... and from the sounds of it you have used more than your fair share already ... yet you would begrudge a child with measles being allowed into the same health care facility that you use to excess for illnesses that some people might consider a direct result of your own lifestyle choices.

 

[Ritafee]

Seriously, do you realize the level of supports that exist now? Where do you think the $$ come from

Monk, I believe that taxation helps provide health care. I look forward to pharmacare

Why would I not pay my share. I have had s**t luck

I am able to pay

As a Canadian citizen, I psy

What s**t luck do you speak of?

 

[Pinga]

Good for you ... and from the sounds of it you have used more than your fair share already ... yet you would begrudge a child with measles being allowed into the same health care facility that you use to excess for illnesses that some people might consider a direct result of your own lifestyle choices.

Wait, what? I would begrudge a child? Say what?

Note: I will not engage in your personal attack