Pinga
Room for All
So, that was the opening post.
Reading the posts, I do sense a bias.
It's interesting actually, that we are unable to even come to agreements regarding what measure of riches makes one "wealthy".
A bias against wealth?
- Thread starter Pinga
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
So, that was the opening post.
Reading the posts, I do sense a bias.
It's interesting actually, that we are unable to even come to agreements regarding what measure of riches makes one "wealthy".
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
If 33℅ is enough for the government to pay for programs, it is enough. That should be the only basis for setting tax rates.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Personal income tax was introduced in 1917 as a temporary measure to help finance the First World War.
How the heck did it get this complex and out of control?
If it cannot be abolished (yet) could the answer to simplifying it be a flat tax.
In its purest form, everybody would pay the same rate on all sources of income.
I think 10% should do it. No more tax forms or tax breaks or tax law ... just 10% across the board.
Total equality - no discrimination against the rich or the middle class.
How the heck did it get this complex and out of control?
If it cannot be abolished (yet) could the answer to simplifying it be a flat tax.
In its purest form, everybody would pay the same rate on all sources of income.
I think 10% should do it. No more tax forms or tax breaks or tax law ... just 10% across the board.
Total equality - no discrimination against the rich or the middle class.
I think it's part of the same thing. Really wealthy people get to keep so much of their wealth, whether it's through cuts or credits or incentives, or holding it offshore, or whatever - but increasing taxes, even significantly, on the top of the 1% especially would not even lower their standard of living. It would only lower their worth on paper.
I am against 10% across the board. It is not fair because 10% represents a lot of basic necessary income for someone earning $20,000/ yr., but for someone earning $2 million a year, not so much. And it supposes that somehow everyone who makes $2 million did something special to earn it and those making $20,000 did not.
If there's a bias, that bias leans against those who are poor, blaming them for their "deserved" poverty. And those who have lots money can afford to make that claim, with impunity and without proof. I see a lot of irony in the "bias against wealth" argument.
I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to be wealthy but it is a privelege not an entitlement.
Are the programs meeting real needs or theoretical ones? Are they providing crumbs, or opportunities? Are they being privatized to benefit the CEOs of companies more than the citizens they are meant to serve? Are they generous programs or being done on the cheap - and their consumers being blamed for failure to thrive under them? Are their websites nicer than their facilities?
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised that more people have not heard about tax havens for the very wealthy. The really wealth y - multi-millionaires pay no tax AT ALL. For some reason our governments and news media almost never look at that issue. It may have something to do with the fact that the very wealthy own them.
It's also well-known - or should be - that money is moving steadily to the very rich from the very poor. That's why there was a story today about two Canadian billionaires who have more money than the 11 million poorest Canadians. In fact, it's even worse than that because we don't know how much money those two have in tax havens.
As other incomes go down, those of the wealthy are going up. Trump has been playing into the resentment about that - though he certainly won't do anything significant about it.
My guess is that we may be in for serious violence - and not very far down the road.
As well, the very wealthy need wars to maintain their economic dominance over other countries. That's why the U.S. fighting wars almost non-stop since 1945. One result has been, of course millions of dead and tens of millions of refugees. And that's the real source of tension with China. The wealthy want China knocked out as a competitor.
And, incidentally, they're willingness to murder people by the millions to make themselves wealthier does, i admit, gives me a certain bias against them. And when you study the behaviour of Canadian and American, British, etc. in countries throughout South America and Africa, that develops a bias, too.
And taking risks is not what they usually care to do. When the U.S. had its big crash due to billionaires mishandling their holdings, remember how the taxpayers had to bail them out? At something like a trillion dollars? They aren't in business to take risks. They escape taxes, brutalize workers (especially outside North America), and routinely get handouts from governments.
And don't make me cry about how they donate to charities. The money they donate is usually far, far less than the taxes they don't pay - and their wars that we have to pay for. The donations they give are for PR, and they frequently organize their own publicity for the 'gifts' they have given.
It's very human behaviour. It was like this in the middle ages when the wealthy bled the peasantry dry. They regarded themselves as a superior breed, and the common people as really not people at all. To them, that justifies their greed and their exploitation of others.
We have so returned to that period that the U.S. is actually ruled by an oligarchy of the very wealthy. And that, I suspect, is leading to a terrible crash in the American political and economic system.
It's also well-known - or should be - that money is moving steadily to the very rich from the very poor. That's why there was a story today about two Canadian billionaires who have more money than the 11 million poorest Canadians. In fact, it's even worse than that because we don't know how much money those two have in tax havens.
As other incomes go down, those of the wealthy are going up. Trump has been playing into the resentment about that - though he certainly won't do anything significant about it.
My guess is that we may be in for serious violence - and not very far down the road.
As well, the very wealthy need wars to maintain their economic dominance over other countries. That's why the U.S. fighting wars almost non-stop since 1945. One result has been, of course millions of dead and tens of millions of refugees. And that's the real source of tension with China. The wealthy want China knocked out as a competitor.
And, incidentally, they're willingness to murder people by the millions to make themselves wealthier does, i admit, gives me a certain bias against them. And when you study the behaviour of Canadian and American, British, etc. in countries throughout South America and Africa, that develops a bias, too.
And taking risks is not what they usually care to do. When the U.S. had its big crash due to billionaires mishandling their holdings, remember how the taxpayers had to bail them out? At something like a trillion dollars? They aren't in business to take risks. They escape taxes, brutalize workers (especially outside North America), and routinely get handouts from governments.
And don't make me cry about how they donate to charities. The money they donate is usually far, far less than the taxes they don't pay - and their wars that we have to pay for. The donations they give are for PR, and they frequently organize their own publicity for the 'gifts' they have given.
It's very human behaviour. It was like this in the middle ages when the wealthy bled the peasantry dry. They regarded themselves as a superior breed, and the common people as really not people at all. To them, that justifies their greed and their exploitation of others.
We have so returned to that period that the U.S. is actually ruled by an oligarchy of the very wealthy. And that, I suspect, is leading to a terrible crash in the American political and economic system.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
On June 22, 2016 Bill C-15 became law along with its controversial "Bail-In Regime". In the crash of 2008 governments "bailed out" banks with billions of dollars. The next time around banks will be permitted to seize your deposits and exchange them for shares, shares in a failed bank.
Some say that Canadian banks are so strong Canadians don't have to worry. But the experts say "Canada is in Serious Trouble". DBRS, Moody's and Standard and Poors all have downgraded Canadian banks to a "negative" outlook. The Bank of Canada says our housing market is 30% overvalued, Deutsche Bank says 63% and CMHC says 35%. With average house prices now over $1.3 million in Toronto and Vancouver, a crash appears imminent.
Canadian banks have over $1 trillion invested in residential mortgages. If values come down, banks could easily find themselves under water at which time they will be permitted to take your hard earned deposits to pay their debts.
Deposits under $100,000 appear to be covered by CDIC insurance but anything above, personal or business, will be fair game for the bail-in.
http://www.canadiantimes.ca/ct2/ind...aw-to-allow-banks-to-confiscate-your-deposits
Some say that Canadian banks are so strong Canadians don't have to worry. But the experts say "Canada is in Serious Trouble". DBRS, Moody's and Standard and Poors all have downgraded Canadian banks to a "negative" outlook. The Bank of Canada says our housing market is 30% overvalued, Deutsche Bank says 63% and CMHC says 35%. With average house prices now over $1.3 million in Toronto and Vancouver, a crash appears imminent.
Canadian banks have over $1 trillion invested in residential mortgages. If values come down, banks could easily find themselves under water at which time they will be permitted to take your hard earned deposits to pay their debts.
Deposits under $100,000 appear to be covered by CDIC insurance but anything above, personal or business, will be fair game for the bail-in.
http://www.canadiantimes.ca/ct2/ind...aw-to-allow-banks-to-confiscate-your-deposits
Ritafee
Is Being Human
@Pinga I am thinking what you are wanting to figure out is if we are biased against the middle class that chooses to keep working. Our household annual 'income' is approx 125,000$ before deductions. I am 60 and retired ($350 monthly pension is my portion of that income) - my 'spouse' is 64 and earns the rest. My 'spouse' has to pay his 'ex-spouse' 1600. a month spousal support for as long as he has this 'taxable' income (it is automatically deducted from his paycheque). Are we middle class?
IMO, yes. Well off, even. Especially where you live.
Try this cost of living calculator to get an idea of how much you need to live comfortably in various cities in Canada. It varies widely. I also think it gives a pretty good idea why there might be a "bias against the wealthy".
http://o.canada.com/news/calculator-how-much-you-need-to-earn-to-live-comfortably-across-canada
http://o.canada.com/news/calculator-how-much-you-need-to-earn-to-live-comfortably-across-canada
Oh you couldn't do that ... be against the ruse/roues created by the high waves ... Q wanton dissonance ... quantum diversity as stopped by the stoically wealthy? Cause of humour in the grey, imaginary Zoans ... farcide sensations ... kinda out there ...
It would be ruination of a financial situation ... a fallacy for those determined in fallible !
Fair Deal echo in the imaginary organ ... demented mine ... tis adept unreachable toes-ome ...
Does a bias leave a stich in time ... a kind of schism ... for the weaver to observe how the lesser powers can gather from that ... while those on a high are devoid? Truth in a world conceived on Lyon about everything ... accrued ground of faith in the rich and powerful ... if you can gather and grasp at straw people ?
A matter of de deucing ... beyond induction ... that's sucking it in ...
Geez, look at all the social programs Americans had to help them prosper in the 50's...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal
The solution ... live in the sticks as staid ... but business and government wish us collected into getto's so they have easy access to beat us down ... ground level faith that the poor can be beat out of existence ... elimination as in ... mercy 've death?
Could be another seam in the bias of infallible leadership ... a Primal thing based on passionate laws as directed one-way ... that' Sid ... Caesar I zing ...
T
to add... It was because of this period of prosperity that the baby boomers were able to thrive and become the wealthiest generation ever...and yet the wealthiest of them recoil at the idea of Truman style ecomomic and social policies.