Rich getting richer, data shows

Dec 02, 2010
Rich getting richer, data shows
A new report using data provided by McMaster economist Mike Veall suggests that Canada's richest continue to get richer at a much faster rate, taking home almost one third of all growth in incomes between 1997 and 2007. Photo via flickr.com/photos/coaxial.

A new report released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), using data provided by McMaster economist Mike Veall, suggests that Canada's richest continue to get richer at a much faster rate, taking home almost one third of all growth in incomes between 1997 and 2007.

According to The Rise of Canada's Richest 1% - written by Armine Yalnizyan, CCPA senior - Canada's wealthy are taking more of the gains from than ever before in recorded history.

The last time Canada's elite held so much of the nation's was in the 1920s, says the report. Median incomes, meanwhile, have remained stagnant.

The top 0.01 per cent represent 2,400 Canadians who earn at least $1.85-million. Nearly 75 per cent of their income comes from wages. Similarly, the top 1 per cent, or 240,000 Canadian who earn more than $169,000, receive about 67 per cent of their income in wages.

Veall, who provided previously unpublished tax form data for the report, suggests that the income shift can be explained in a number of ways.

"One view is that corporate boards have allowed CEO salaries to jump because they were climbing elsewhere," he says. "Another reason may be that CEOs, known for being good communicators, are more effective and therefore more valuable in the digital age because email and mass media allow better contact with employees and the public."

A similar phenomenon can be seen in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and particularly the United States, he says. But non-English-speaking countries such as France and Italy don't show the same gaps.

Explore further: Study looks at stock market performance of polarizing brands

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Poorer people still excluded from top professions

Aug 13, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Doctors and lawyers are more likely to come from wealthy backgrounds according to new research from the Department of Economics that indicates that the ‘social gap’ that prevents poorer ...

Steady work and mental health -- is there a connection?

Sep 15, 2008

Despite low overall unemployment, Canada's manufacturing industry has cut 88,000 jobs this year, with nearly all the losses occurring in Ontario. Also, part-time employment has grown by 3.5 per cent in 12 months, much faster ...

Recommended for you

Which foods may cost you more due to Calif. drought

Apr 17, 2014

With California experiencing one of its worst droughts on record, grocery shoppers across the country can expect to see a short supply of certain fruits and vegetables in stores, and to pay higher prices ...

Performance measures for CEOs vary greatly, study finds

Apr 16, 2014

As companies file their annual proxy statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this spring, a new study by Rice University and Cornell University shows just how S&P 500 companies have ...

Investment helps keep transport up to speed

Apr 16, 2014

Greater investment in education and training for employees will be required to meet the future needs of the transport and logistics industry, according to recent reports by Monash University researchers.

User comments : 151

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AkiBola
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2010
The rich keep doing the same things that made them rich, and who'd have predicted this, they get richer. A real shocker.

Newsflash *** Look out for the sun to rise in the East tomorrow in Canada *** Newsflash
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2010
The reason the rich get richer is because they become to big to fail. How many millionairs were saved because of the GM bailouts? If these mega companies would have failed, a lot of smaller companies would have stepped in taking their place.

Also all the regulations government brings in. Larger companies are able to absorb the costs and it drives smaller companies out of business.

What about government, they mostly do contract work with businesses that have unions. Problem it, only larger companies can have unions.

Isn't it interesting, the more Progressive a country is, the more wealth is accumulated at the top.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2010
"The U.S. Treasury Department accepts gifts, payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt. Just mail them to the attention of Department G, Post Office Box 2188, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-2188. Make a note in the memo section that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public."
http://hotair.com...al-debt/
When we hear Buffet, Gates, Kerry demand taxes be raised, ask all those rich liberals how much they have donated.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2010
Had a democrat come to my business asking for my vote. I asked him if he would support the government using our business services. He said no because we didn't have union employees. I told him that the companies doing the same thing as we did that did have union employees, were large national type companies. He didn't care.

The democrats couldn't survive without the unions supplying them with funds and workers to do their bidding. Who are the biggest supporters of big business? Wait a second..... arn't most government workers unionized? Yes..... Are government workers paid by my taxes? Yes they are.... so the some of the money I pay in taxes are going directly to help get Democrats elected....Democrats are typical of Progressives organizations.... They cant survive without government assistance.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2010
Sorry for my rant.... The Democrats in the state I lived just increased the amount of tax regulations I have to deal with, which is going to take more of my time, while not increasing their revenue, it does make it harder to get business, which actually reduces their revenue.

I talked to a government worker and explained this to him, he said he doesn't care....
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2010

What about government, they mostly do contract work with businesses that have unions. Problem it, only larger companies can have unions.


@ free,
Incorrect. I personally know of two small companies(less than ten employees, including ownership) that are union shops.

Isn't it interesting, the more Progressive a country is, the more wealth is accumulated at the top.


Would you term Saudi Arabia and Russia "progressive"?

You have some valid points, but they are too generalized to support your claims.

freethinking
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2010
Saudi Arabia and Russia Progressive? I would say yes.

Why does such a small shop need a union? To get government jobs? Because they are forced to?
Jimee
3 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2010
When I get rich enough I'll be able to poison or maim anyone I want, and my lawyers will get me off. HA, HA! You miserable lowlifes will be eating scraps and dirt, while I dine on hummingbird tongues!
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2010
When I get rich enough I'll be able to poison or maim anyone I want, and my lawyers will get me off. HA, HA! You miserable lowlifes will be eating scraps and dirt, while I dine on hummingbird tongues!

Only if you can hire an army to protect you. History shows what happens to tyrants regardless of their self perceived power.
Raveon
4 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2010
Am I the only person that thinks there are only so many pieces of pie and if someone takes more someone else has to take less?

Do conservatives actually think giving people bigger pieces of pie creates more pie? Is that the new math?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2010
It's an analogy of gravitational lensing effect: rich countries and/or people can use the energy fluctuations more effectively, thus concentrating them into itself. The same effect is responsible for rogue wave formation at the open sea: the undulating water surface gets large surface area, so it becomes an obstacle, which is trapping another waves from outside.
marjon
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2010
Am I the only person that thinks there are only so many pieces of pie and if someone takes more someone else has to take less?

Do conservatives actually think giving people bigger pieces of pie creates more pie? Is that the new math?

Why do you think the size of the 'pie' is fixed?
Hunter-gatherers may have believed this, but with agriculture and technology to more fully utilize the abundant energy that hits the earth every second, the practical size of the pie is limited only by imagination.
marjon
2.6 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2010
"Mercantilist thinkers believed the world’s wealth was a fixed pie, giving rise to endless conflict among nations. After all, if you think there’s only so much and you want more, you’ve got to take it from someone else."
"Because they had little sympathy for self-interest, the profit motive, and the operation of prices, mercantilists wanted governments to bestow monopoly privileges on a favored few"
"Whatever increased the supply and quality of goods and services, lowered their price, or enhanced their value made for greater wealth and higher standards of living. The “pie” of national wealth isn’t fixed; you can bake a bigger one by producing more."
"Baking that bigger pie, Smith showed, results from investments in capital and the division of labor."
"In a free economy, he reasoned, no one can put a crown on his head and command that others provide him with goods. To satisfy his own desires, he must produce what others want at a price they can afford."
http://www.thefre...ne.org/c
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2010
"Because they had little sympathy for self-interest, the profit motive, and the operation of prices, mercantilists wanted governments to bestow monopoly privileges on a favored few. "
http://www.thefre...r-smith/
Sounds like most large corporations today and the federal govt, not a free market.
designmemetic
4 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2010
This could be a result of a market bubble in the price paid for the services of the most affluent.

Many jobs, especially high paying ones, from CEO to Financial analyst and even scientist are won based on a track record of previous success or a candidates perceived success based on that candidates wealth accumulation.

When high pay management executives get interviewed for a high paying information job, the interviewer is often not qualified to evaluate the qualifications on merit and must deduce qualifications based on how much others were willing to pay in the past.

This is similar to how the stock market often works and the result is predictably that their will be long bubble followed by sudden extreme crashes or market corrections. Someday a company will decide the CEO is not worth the cost they are paying and will let them go. this will be followed by others in a market crash.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2010
Fixed pie? Socialist believe in a fixed size pie, so they carve it up in so many small pieces so most people starve and the elite (Al Gore, Soros, Movie Stars, Congress, etc) get fat.

Conservatives believe there isn't enough pie, so lets bake some more, so that they can give some away.
lengould100
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2010
You supposed political "thinkers" should learn to read. You might start with perhaps the history of industrialists treatment of coal miners in the 1800's. Proceed the to documentation of the treatment of packing plant workers. Then read the history of the union movement in Detroit in the early 1900's, including the brutal union-busting of the city and state police working in service of the factory owners, bloodshed only slowed down by the Federal government sending in the national guard with machine guns to protect the workers.

"freethinking", "marjon" etc., your politics is disgusting. Grow up.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2010
Lengould100 you need to read and understand current history, unions are now the ones who are brutal, involved in or being run by criminals and are protected by the state.

A lot has changed since 1800 and 1900

In 1940 Germany and Japan was our enemy, now they are our friends.

marjon
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2010
You supposed political "thinkers" should learn to read. You might start with perhaps the history of industrialists treatment of coal miners in the 1800's. Proceed the to documentation of the treatment of packing plant workers. Then read the history of the union movement in Detroit in the early 1900's, including the brutal union-busting of the city and state police working in service of the factory owners, bloodshed only slowed down by the Federal government sending in the national guard with machine guns to protect the workers.

"freethinking", "marjon" etc., your politics is disgusting. Grow up.


Read the Black Book of Communism. Those politics are disgusting, yet many here advocate such policies.
frajo
3 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
In 1940 Germany and Japan was our enemy, now they are our friends.
Not really. "Vassal" is the fitting term.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2010
In 1940 Germany and Japan was our enemy, now they are our friends.
Not really. "Vassal" is the fitting term.

The world may be a better place if they really were vassal states.
Raveon
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2010
You people that think it's better for us to have a few with gigantic slices of pie are full of crap. Ever heard of worker owned companies? Like Harley Davidson for one? If there is any wealth to be created they do it without giving most of it to a couple individuals. There isn't a company on this planet that couldn't operate just as well if it was owned by its workers. That alone proves you are completely full of crap and nothing but GREEDY. Oh yeah, there is one downside to that, there wouldn't be any super-rich scumbags to create giant corporations that do nothing but screw us, their workers and their customers, not to mention bailouts.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
Who owns public corporations? The public through mutual funds.
For any company to grow and expand and hire more workers, it needs capital. They can borrow or issue stock, expanding ownership of the company.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
Saudi Arabia and Russia Progressive? I would say yes.
You're absolutely insane. Saudi Arabia and Russia are progressive? Utterly laughable.
The world may be a better place if they really were vassal states.
Oh look, Marjon also supports feudalism.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
For all those who hate Comcast:
"David B. Krone, 43, is the top individual donor to Reid with at least $35,000 in contributions. A former telecommunications executive and lobbyist, Krone has been a full time senior advisor to the majority leader since December 2008. Before that, Krone was described by Roll Call as one of a “remarkably small core” of insiders close to Reid. Krone joined Comcast Corp. as senior vice president of corporate affairs in 2007"
http://www.public...B.+Krone
How will the 'liberals' stop being corporate whores?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
How about the fact sheet on your buddy Boner, or Boehner rather.
http://www.public...ry/2109/

All bankers and telecom.

Who's a corporate whore?
marjon
2 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2010
http://www.physor...firstCmt
All you 'progressives' need to force this guy to donate his process for humanity. Imagine, making a profit to solve a problem!

SH: It has been your fellow 'progressives' who have been running the show. Where is the outrage?
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2010
The fascist USA:
"In light of new reports alleging that the TSA is creating a watch list of individuals who criticized the agency as a form of collective punishment, it’s revealing to note that CNN journalist Drew Griffin was also put on a TSA watch list immediately after he filed reports critical of the organization back in 2008."
http://www.prison...tsa.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-thai-tech-wealth.html#firstCmt
All you 'progressives' need to force this guy to donate his process for humanity. Imagine, making a profit to solve a problem!
No one is against making a profit to solve a problem.
SH: It has been your fellow 'progressives' who have been running the show. Where is the outrage?
From 95-2000 the Republicans had majority in both assemblies of congress. From 2000 to 2002 it was evenly split but the Republicans maintained control due to the VP being republican (Cheney), 2006-2010 the Democrats held the house and senate, during which time job creation has grown from the negative growth under the Republican congress.

If you're trying to say anything is the democrats doing, it would be the fact that job growth was flat for 2000-2010 as opposed to largely negative as recorded from 2000-2006.

So what's your point, other than that republicans are awful at economics?
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2010
No one is against making a profit to solve a problem.

That's true. If no one made a profit there would be nothing for the govt to loot.
VOR
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
Many conservatives seem naive to the fact that gov't employees pay taxes too, are people too. The blanket mantra 'less gov't' is completely absurd and useless. 'better gov't' is of course what's needed, but that's too subtle to for today's politial catch-phrase culture. The idea that private business could self-regulate is just an arguement for corporate abuse. Unbridled captialism has a fundamental flaw in the conflict of interest between doing what's right and doing what makes money-when such exists and it often does. Hybrid captitalism is what we have and what we need. Trying to 'purify' it is regressive.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 05, 2010
What is 'better govt'?
Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro,....all supported 'better' govt.
Unbridled captialism

There is no such thing. Capitalism is controlled by the consumers. When the state meddles in capitalism, it is no longer capitalism.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 05, 2010
Capitalism in terms of the freedom of markets never occurred until some government set up the conditions for it. You think all those primitive marketplaces you love so much (which were still rife with fraud and theft) would have existed at all without being set up and policed by the local lord/king/sultan whatever? You know absolutely nothing about capitalism, marjon, let alone any other form of economic organization.
marjon
2 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2010
Capitalism in terms of the freedom of markets never occurred until some government set up the conditions for it.

That's false. People have been trading for thousands of years without govts.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 05, 2010
Conservative fantasy. People have never been without a ruling authority in the entire history of the species.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2010
Conservative fantasy. People have never been without a ruling authority in the entire history of the species.

Sure.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2010
There is no such thing. Capitalism is controlled by the consumers. When the state meddles in capitalism, it is no longer capitalism.
Then explain the term "State Capitalism".
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (27) Dec 05, 2010
Rich getting richer

An inescapable fact is that it takes fewer people to produce the same amount of work, because of automation. The rate of this replacement is accelerating. Fewer people are working and paying taxes as a result. The few who benefit from this automation are making more and more money, and are unwilling to part with the taxes needed to make up the loss.

I suggested that there must be a way of having automation- machines, software, etc.- pay taxes independently, to make up for this loss. To do this there would need to be a way of assigning value to the work they do, and compensating them for it.

This must eventually be the case as machines become independent entities unto themselves. The question is, when and how will this transition occur? Is there some way to begin it in some form now, to begin increasing revenue and paying down debt?

There is no reason a ship or tractor trailer cannot earn directly, paying for upkeep and eventual obsolesence. And tax.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
There is no such thing. Capitalism is controlled by the consumers. When the state meddles in capitalism, it is no longer capitalism.
Then explain the term "State Capitalism".

Oxymoron.
otto1932
1.6 / 5 (25) Dec 05, 2010
There is no such thing. Capitalism is controlled by the consumers. When the state meddles in capitalism, it is no longer capitalism.
Then explain the term "State Capitalism".

Oxymoron.
So oxymarjon- I have a serious question. If more money is being concentrated in the hands of wealthy people who are not compensating for lost revenues, how is the national debt going to get paid down? And- how are vital infrastructures going to be paid for? We could privatize this but since everybody uses it, the companies would just have to charge everybody which would then be the equivalent of a tax. Either way, wealthy people are not and would not be paying their fair share.

Do you see a solution here because I don't.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
There is no such thing. Capitalism is controlled by the consumers. When the state meddles in capitalism, it is no longer capitalism.
Then explain the term "State Capitalism".

Oxymoron.
So oxymarjon- I have a serious question. If more money is being concentrated in the hands of wealthy people who are not compensating for lost revenues, how is the national debt going to get paid down? And- how are vital infrastructures going to be paid for? We could privatize this but since everybody uses it, the companies would just have to charge everybody which would then be the equivalent of a tax. Either way, wealthy people are not and would not be paying their fair share.

Do you see a solution here because I don't.

It is called economic growth spurred by low taxes and less red tape.
That is what India is doing to create growth, low taxes and cutting red tape.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
The govt and the left are doing everything they can to stifle growth.
A gasoline refinery in AZ has taken over 10 years to get permission to build.
A nuclear reactor sits unused upstream from Browns Ferry.
Obama banned drilling in the Gulf, in ANWR, and off the coasts. Utube campaigns are trying to kill a pipeline from Canada to the USA.
Unions refuse to face economic reality.
The 'liberals'/'progressives' own this economy.
Of course all the additional uncertainty created by a blank health care bill is freezing growth as is uncertainty in taxes.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
Economic recovery is easy. Coolidge, JFK, Reagan have all demonstrated how it is to be done.
Data shows the current plan has failed:
"A study by Daniel J. Wilson of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, suggests that the net job creation from the $814 billion stimulus bill passed in February, 2009, was zero by August 2010."
http://www.americ...zer.html
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2010
India's tax rates are very comparable to tax rates in the US, with one major exception. Thanks to conservative meddling in the tax code in favor of their corporate buddies, mid-sized and small businesses pay a higher rate of corporate income tax than the wealthiest corporations. ~$22k plus 39% for businesses earning less than $335k per year, compared to a flat 35% for companies earning more than $18.3 million per year. And that's ignoring the substantial loopholes and deferments available to those large corporations that are not available or practical for small and medium sized businesses. India's tax rates are simple, progressive and stable. US politicians use the tax rate as a political football, so we've got a confusing, complex and ever changing system.

There is no historical evidence that cutting tax rates improves the economy and ample historical evidence that raising taxes and spending the money appropriately improves the economy for everyone.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
There is no historical evidence that cutting tax rates improves the economy

Sure.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 06, 2010
It is called economic growth spurred by low taxes and less red tape.
That is what India is doing to create growth, low taxes and cutting red tape.
Yeah but indias infrastructure expansion cannot keep up with its plans for growth:
http://www.livemi...ras.html

-Growth is limited by physical limitations including space and raw materials. And revenue, as india is finding out. How do you suppose growth can occur without the corresponding revenue to invest in the infrastructure?

Have you guys talked about the ratio of projected growth needed to remain solvent vs the revenues needed to support this growth? Marjon do you have any figures to show projected revenues anticipated from this growth vs revenues lost through animation?

According to this, income tax and payroll tax account for the largest chunk of federal revenue.
http://www.taxpol...enue.cfm
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2010
There is no historical evidence that cutting tax rates improves the economy

Sure.

The American economy is driven by consumption. When you focus the welath in a small group rather than having a natural spread of the wealth with a distinct lower, middle and upper class you'll find that in times of crisis, when the rich stop spending, the middle and lower classes cannot keep the economy functional.

That is the situation we're dealing with. Want to fix it? Tax the shit out of the rich.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2010
Tax the shit out of the rich.

And do what with the revenue?
Giving the money away for people to consume products from China has not done well the past few years.
Populist Bloomberg is afraid taxing the rich will drive them out of NYC.
Even Sweden has pulled back on their tax the wealth to attract wealthy Swedes back from Switzerland.
Tax the rich and there will no capital for create jobs in the USA because the rich will leave.
The American economy is driven by consumption.

Whose fault is that? Govt.
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (26) Dec 06, 2010
I meant to type 'automation' instead of 'animation'.

-It seems to me that as corporate entities invest in more automation which is replacing jobs, corporate taxes need to increase accordingly. But it may be more equitable and efficient to find a way of taxing the work that the machines themselves do directly, thereby avoiding the corporate middleman who would take his cut.

Sounds like socialist talk? Indeed it does- automation is eliminating the bourgeoisie as well as the worker, and the revenues both groups generate. Why should the upper class automatically be entitled to all the profits and none of the responsibility?

This looks like a real crisis. State and local govts are going bankrupt due to this equation. Dont you think we ought to start by eliminating tax relief for the wealthy?
otto1932
1.9 / 5 (27) Dec 06, 2010
And do what with the revenue?
Invest in the infrastructure and pay down the debt.
Populist Bloomberg is afraid taxing the rich will drive them out of NYC.
Even Sweden has pulled back on their tax the wealth to attract wealthy Swedes back from Switzerland.
And rich americans are moving to the caymans and elsewhere. Obviously we need to begin thinking about world taxes to go with world corporations and world govt. :)
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2010
And do what with the revenue?
Invest in the infrastructure and pay down the debt.

You mean 'invest' in union jobs to half-assed repair roads and bridges?
All the construction companies can then provide kick-backs to the politicians?
Ever wonder why roads deteriorate so quickly?

World tax, world socialism. Why am I not surprised.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2010
Tax the shit out of the rich.

And do what with the revenue?
Pay for the republican Largess of government.
Giving the money away for people to consume products from China has not done well the past few years.
Who said anything about giving money away? Is that what you think we do with tax money? Of course it is, you're a conservative. You suck at the teet harder than those you blame for the teet being there in the first place. http://www.slate....2276583/

Populist Bloomberg is afraid taxing the rich will drive them out of NYC.
Wouldn't doubt it. That city was mismanaged by Guiliani for too long.
Even Sweden has pulled back on their tax the wealth to attract wealthy Swedes back from Switzerland.
That's not the reason, cite a source.
Tax the rich and there will no capital for create jobs in the USA because the rich will leave.
The rich don't create jobs, sorry your fantasy is false. Consumption driven economies are capitalism, again, sorry.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2010
You mean 'invest' in union jobs to half-assed repair roads and bridges?
All the construction companies can then provide kick-backs to the politicians?
Ever wonder why roads deteriorate so quickly?

World tax, world socialism. Why am I not surprised.
The reason why the US is in dire economic straights is due to a need to spend state capital on infrastructure because the consumers didn't have enough money to cover the waning economy after the beginning of the housing crash. The consumers didn't have enough money because the rich don't/can't/won't spend enough.

It's sad that you think a man who makes 1,000,000 per year can't afford to pay out an additional 3% marjon. It simply shows us that you have no idea what the value of a dollar is.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2010
That's not the reason, cite a source.

Why? You don't cite sources or explain your 'logic'.
Populism has no logic or standards. How convenient.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (23) Dec 06, 2010
World tax, world socialism. Why am I not surprised.
What makes you think one automatically means the other?

Rich people and corporations can relocate but workers do not have the same opportunity. The wealthy still bear the responsibility no matter where they live and work, and the ability to make them pay should follow them.

-Or, we could be taxing the automated factories, trucks, trains, ships, etc directly that their owners use to do the work. Or redefine the term 'ownership' itself to allow machines to pay revenue and upkeep directly.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2010
Why? You don't cite sources or explain your 'logic'.
Populism has no logic or standards. How convenient.
I cite sources all the time, what planet are you living on? You can see one cited right above.

The reason why I challenge you to do so is because you don't have any. You make this shit up as you go along.

But what more could we ask of a lying turncoat politician from Chelmsford. (who also crosses the isle to support "liberals").
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2010
"Considering reports by the Swedish Tax Office that the death tax and its companion, the wealth tax, had already cost the government a staggering $200-plus billion in lost revenue – more than half the current Swedish gross domestic product – Swedish policymakers realized that the inheritance tax was a recipe for economic disaster."
"Statistics Sweden reports that 4,000 wealthy Swedes have returned since the repeal. Even the chairman of IKEA, Goran Grosskopf, acknowledged in a recent interview with the Swedish financial newspaper Dagens Industri that IKEA would have been able to stay in Sweden if the inheritance tax had been repealed before the company moved."
"when governments threaten to confiscate half or more of a family business’s capital via the death tax, families do everything they can to protect themselves."
http://www.csmoni...r-the-US
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2010
"Wealth tax is to be abolished in Sweden this year, the leaders of the four parties of the ruling Alliance have promised in a surprise move."
"They pointed out that Sweden is one of only four OECD countries to tax wealth. Sweden could lose its competitive edge if the tax remains, they said."
""The big winners are, in the long term, all Swedes, because we need to have the conditions for jobs and companies necessary to match global competition."
http://www.theloc...0070328/
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2010
How to create wealth and jobs:
"Nucor, a multi-phase iron and steel plant in St. James parish, will create up to 1,250 direct new jobs and 4,800 indirect jobs"
"Blade Dynamics will manufacture advanced wind turbine blades and components at the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, creating 600 direct new jobs and 972 indirect new jobs."
"State government must function like every other family and business — we can't spend money we don't have. That means when revenues decline, we must cut costs and live within our means, and we must absolutely not raise taxes on our people or our businesses just to grow government"
http://www.thenew.../OPINION
See how fast it can change with leadership in the right direction.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2010
Marjon, care to answer to any of the points I rasied or are you content to inappropriately quotemine, which I already slammed you for before recently?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2010
Of course your source is the Christian Science monitor. They're certainly experts in economics....

Sweden reduced and eliminated multiple taxes because they were found to be illegal. The tax rates were already reduced due to tax treaties with "foreign" businesses. I use quotes because the document signatories were all based in Belgium. You must've had to find the most ignorant sources possible in order to have someone say "it was for business reasons". It wasn't to bring business back, it was to prevent business from suing the crap out of the tax bureau under EU law.
"Blade Dynamics will manufacture advanced wind turbine blades and components at the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, creating 600 direct new jobs and 972 indirect new jobs."
... See how fast it can change with leadership in the right direction.
Rebuild New Orleans yet or is it still a shithole after 10 years? Call me when the displaced residents have their homes back, then we can talk about "success"
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
Rebuild New Orleans yet or is it still a shithole after 10 years?

Whose fault is that? Non-govt programs to rebuild are doing quite well. Federal govt programs, not so well.
Then again, the federal govt was responsible for NO destruction in the first place. The levies that failed were built by the federal govt.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 07, 2010
Marjon, neither Otto or SH have ever owned a business, neither of them know history, neither of them have lived under communism, neither of them can live without government assistance. Neither of them care about the future.

Both Marjon and I want the world and the USA to be a better place for our children. We teach them values, self control, we teach to rely on themselves.

When by daughter was 17 I knew I could drop her anywhere in the world and she would thrive on her own. My Son who is now 16 I'm sure he could be dropped off anywhere and thrive on his own. I don't know of any kids of progressives who have that confidence in their kids.

If people in New Orleans were self sufficient, New Orleans would be a better place now than before the storm. Progressives destroy the ablity to grow and prosper.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2010
Marjon, neither Otto or SH have ever owned a business
Wrong.
neither of them know history
Again, quite wrong.
neither of them have lived under communism
Also wrong.
neither of them can live without government assistance
Entirely wrong.
Neither of them care about the future.
If I didn't care about the future, I wouldn't take the time to refute your comments.
We teach them values
Like name calling and quote mining.
self control
Like how to control yourself from lying and spewing aggrandized falsehoods
we teach to rely on themselves.
Because they get made fun of if they repeat the same silly shit you say.
When by daughter was 17 I knew I could drop her anywhere in the world and she would thrive on her own.
Well that's entirely false.
I don't know of any kids of progressives who have that confidence in their kids.
Define progressive, you always seem to fall down when asked to do that. Secondly, I think you got a bit confused there.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
Then again, the federal govt was responsible for NO destruction in the first place. The levies that failed were built by the federal govt.
The levies wouldn't have been necessary if the free market hadn't drilled out the barrier wetlands, you moron. They wouldn't have failed if the Republican congress had funded them appropriately prior, the Dems didn't do anything afterwards so they're just as culpable.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2010
"When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and New Orleans levee officials joined forces in July 1985 to protect the city from a long-feared hurricane, the two agencies could not agree on how to proceed. It was the beginning of a dysfunctional partnership that ushered in two decades of chronic government mismanagement."
"A confusing regulatory patchwork of ownership over the levees and canals blurred the lines of authority -- all shortcomings cited by independent engineering teams analyzing the levees' collapse."
""No one was in charge," said Raymond Seed, a UC Berkeley engineering professor leading a National Science Foundation inquiry. " {A classic govt project.}
http://articles.l...vee25/10

"A map dated 1728 shows another drainage ditch at the approximate location of present-day St.
Claude Street."
New Orleans ALWAYS had drainage problems.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2010
Then again, the federal govt was responsible for NO destruction in the first place. The levies that failed were built by the federal govt.
The levies wouldn't have been necessary if the free market hadn't drilled out the barrier wetlands, you moron.


So what even if true? The Japanese build levies 20 ft. high, no problems there...

It's like saying a kid walking on the street wouldn't have been run over of the stupid government hadn't built it for the cars to run on. The fault is the drivers...why even mention the fact the government built the street?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
So what even if true? The Japanese build levies 20 ft. high, no problems there...
How would those have stopped the 25ft surge especially considering NO is about 14 ft under water making the surge effectively 39 ft and about 4 times as heavy as these Japanese levies, (that have broken multiple times), can handle?

It's like saying a kid walking on the street wouldn't have been run over of the stupid government hadn't built it for the cars to run on.
No it isn't, it's more akin to blaming the parent(government) for not keeping an eye on their child(oil and gas companies) when they were playing in the street(drilling out the wetlands) and getting their brother killed in the process.

Those barrier wetlands had a moratorium on drilling until it was lifted by Bush, directly resulting in surge that overwhelmed an already weakened levy system.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2010
Those barrier wetlands had a moratorium on drilling until it was lifted by Bush, directly resulting in surge that overwhelmed an already weakened levy system.

Then you agree the problem was caused by the govt.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (16) Dec 07, 2010
Who lobbied the government to have those restrictions lifted? That's right oil and gas companies. Who lobbied the government to have those restrictions put in place in the first place? Restrictions that, if left in place and followed, would have greatly mitigated the disaster? That's right, citizens groups and environmental organizations. What's the lesson? Governments that serve businesses interests do bad things. Governments that serve citizen's groups do good things. Government is a tool, whether that tool helps or hurts depends on who uses it. You're a tool too, marjon, a tool of your corporatist overlords. But that's ok for you, I bet you've got a nice lobbying job ready for you when you get done defiling your position on the Agricultural Commission. It's not surprising you take the positions you do, considering you're a part of the problem.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2010
Governments that serve citizen's groups do good things.

What groups?
How about a govt that protects the property rights of everyone?
Then there would be no need for lobbyists.
As for the Ag Commission, maybe you should be a bit more skeptical.
T, like all socialists, you want to have power over your neighbors. If you don't like the color of your neighbor's house, you want to force him to change it to a color you like.
"a naďve assumption by the electorate that those in government, freed from the profit motive, could be trusted to do what was "right" for the community as a whole. "
http://www.forbes...c_2.html
Power is a greater motivator than profit.
It is better to rule in hell...?
What motivates people like Castro or lil Kim? It can't be wealth.
Why would John Edwards want to run for president? He had plenty of money.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 07, 2010
Marjon, neither Otto or SH have ever owned a business, neither of them know history, neither of them have lived under communism, neither of them can live without government assistance. Neither of them care about the future.
Hey there clueless wacko religionist. Just wanted to say hi.

OK so, what are we going to do about all this lost revenue??? Obama and the reps just renewed tax cuts. Marjons new businesses will employ proportionately fewer people because of the onslaught of automation, resulting in less revenue per capita collected than ever before. Whos going to replace broken water mains and build new sewer plants without money to do so?
Power is a greater motivator than profit.
What about a sense of duty marjon? What about doing what youve been trained to do because you enjoy doing it more than anything else? Do successful people like colin powell really get to enjoy the money they make, or would they rather be doing what they love doing the most- working...?
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2010
SH, from my experience, and I've observed many kids, the more progressive a parent is, the more likely the kids are to call names, be bullies, and to be lazy.

Hey clueless otto, if you believe that automation is causing the employment of fewer people, then we need to go back to the horse and buggy era.

Sense of duty is generally more of a conservative motivation. Conservatives want to serve their country so they join the military, police, fire departments, or become doctors and nurses (Conservatives out number Liberal in those professions).

Liberals go into government jobs so they can have power over people, like one government worker recently told me, I should feel privilaged to be able to run a business, then proceeded to tell me how tough his unionized job is.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
"The desire to control others tricks many into the false illusion of importance and power. However, a real sense of importance can only be acquired by searching for importance within yourself and not outside of yourself."
http://www.person...rol.html
What about doing what youve been trained to do because you enjoy doing it more than anything else?

Why do people enjoy being responsible for thousands of lives?
You don't think it takes an ego and political savvy to become a general?
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
Both Marjon and I want the world and the USA to be a better place for our children.
You sure couldn't get that from anything you guys have said. No government? That's pure wacko. Marjon, if there were no government, some biker'd be eating soup from your skull in a week, I'll bet.

Markets REQUIRE governments to operate. Right back to the dark ages market squares, they were always set up within the protection of the local castle or city, because OTHERWISE MAURAUDING GANGS WOULD SIMPLY STEAL THE GOODS OR THE CASH BOXES! Figuring that out doesn't take even an average capability to reason.

Government is absolutely essential, and the more complex the society wants to be, the more complex the government needed to ensure its operation.

So, detail for us. WHAT FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT ARE YOU WILLING TO SUPPORT? Is the answer the "none" that your so constantly pitching here? No police? No prisons? No military? No air traffic control? No airport security? etc.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2010
SH, from my experience, and I've observed many kids, the more progressive a parent is, the more likely the kids are to call names, be bullies, and to be lazy.
Oh please freebigot, more made up bullshit stories.
Sense of duty is generally more of a conservative motivation. Conservatives want to serve their country so they join the military, police, fire departments, or become doctors and nurses (Conservatives out number Liberal in those professions).
No they don't. If conservatives have such a sense of duty, then why do you conservatives have no sense of duty to your fellow man?

Liberals go into government jobs so they can have power over people,
You mean like police, frie and military?
like one government worker recently told me, I should feel privilaged to be able to run a business, then proceeded to tell me how tough his unionized job is.
Spoken like someone who's never formed a business, nor been in a union.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2010
So, detail for us. WHAT FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT ARE YOU WILLING TO SUPPORT?

Read the US Constitution. I have stated many times I would support a return to a govt limited by the US Constitution.
We need a federal govt that will defend the US-Mexican border from violence, but we now a federal govt that prosecutes state govts that try to protect their citizens from incursion from the Mexican border.
We a federal govt that fails what is should do and 'excels' a doing what it should not.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 08, 2010
Yeah, right, conservatives view military service as an honor and a duty. I guess that's why Tom Tancredo recently referred to military service as a punishment (he just can't understand why gays would want to serve in the military). I guess that's also why John Kerry was attacked for his military service, not to mention Jim Webb, or most infamously, Max Cleland. I suppose that's also behind all their most recent attempts to reduce funding for the VA, put limits on the GI bill, and reduce pay and benefits. I mean, hey, soldiers are lucky to get any kind of pay at all, after all, it's a duty and and honor to serve, so shut up and get back in line. /sarcasm
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2010
High alcohol consumption might be a relative term, especially in the Mormon worldview eh Marjon? It might also mean that Scandanavians actually have time and spare cash to actually attend a party occasionally, unlike their US working people counterparts. BTW, Scandanavians are known for taking the most world-travelling vacations as well, but of course you likely think that's a bad thing too.

It looks actually like you could use some education in the realities of social democracy, versus that corporatist yoke you live under.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 08, 2010
Hey clueless otto, if you believe that automation is causing the employment of fewer people, then we need to go back to the horse and buggy era.

"Robots Are Stealing American Jobs, According to MIT Economist"
http://www.popsci...ists-say

"The middle class is disappearing in large part because technology is rendering middle-class skills obsolete."

-This is not to mention accounting, legal, medical, drafting, etc software which is displacing workers; plus barcode readers, easypass readers at toll booths, etc etc. This is accelerating hyperbolically, geometrically, or whatever.

You shouldnt challenge things that everybody knows but you. Its embarrassing.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2010
Scandanavians actually have time and spare cash to actually attend a party occasionally,

Alcohol is taxed heavily. Many make their own.
Sure, why bother trying to get ahead when the govt will confiscate a higher percentage of take home pay?
lengould100
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2010
If the govt is going to confiscate progressively more income, why bother to try and earn more?
See, thats where I don't get you guys attitude. By the math they teach here, a 25% total tax on $50,000 would leave one with $37,500 whereas a 40% tax on $100,000 would leave one with $60,000. And you're saying you'd rather live on the net $37,500. Perhaps a remedial math course would help you.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Alcohol is taxed heavily. Many make their own.
Sure, why bother trying to get ahead when the govt will confiscate a higher percentage of take home pay?

So the only reason why you work is to make money? Rather Mammonish of you. How lazy you must be, especially within the scope of your religious views.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Alcohol is taxed heavily. Many make their own.
Sure, why bother trying to get ahead when the govt will confiscate a higher percentage of take home pay?
So the only reason why you work is to make money? Rather Mammonish of you.
The poor guy never made the experience how utterly satisfactory work alone can be. Never got a complicated program running, never composed some fine music, never found a scientific solution, never felt the aesthetics of mathematics and never felt the pride of the farmer after a good harvest.

I always worked for the fun of it. Before, while, and after I was being paid for work.

Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2010

It is called economic growth spurred by low taxes and less red tape.
That is what India is doing to create growth, low taxes and cutting red tape.


Yep. And here is an example of how tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and corporations is going to create jobs in America, and increase tax revenues to pay off the Deficit:

http://www.nypost...2Sc96rUK

It would be amusing that you are sitting on the same end of the rapacious rod of the "freimarket" as nearly everyone else, and find it comfortable -indeed, celebrate it!- rather than fighting it, except that it is only too obvious that you would gleefully stick it to anyone and everyone, in an extension of the daisy chain of rapine.

I don't buy what mangy sells/shills.

marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2010
I always worked for the fun of it. Before, while, and after I was being paid for work.

There are millions of people who prefer NOT to work and have the govt pay for it with unemployment checks.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2010
SH, conservatives give much more back to society of their own free will than do progressives. It's a known fact.

I know an unionized Electrician who has been out of work for 99 weeks. If he wouldn't be on unemployment insurance, he would have a job. At times when I have been unemployed, I had to move, across the country and even out of country. Now a lot of people ARE sitting on their behinds waiting for work to come to them.

If I make $10 an hour with little effort and risk and I get taxed at 10%, I feel happy. If I make $100 and hour, with lots of risk, a lot of stress, and a lot of sacrifice, then the government comes and because of my risk takes 50% thats not fair.

What would happen if on the first $10K someone makes they get taxed at 50%, the next $30K you get taxed at 25%, and the next $50K you only get taxed at 10%. Human nature would take over and soon more people will be working harder to avoid paying taxes.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2010
I would like to make a poll, how many people who seem to be able to live on physorg actually have a job? Or if they are employed would like their employer know how much time they spend writing on physorg?

I own my own business, often times for days I'm too busy to comment, however I love to see the dumb progressive comments are made on these posts, by people who don't have a clue about business or people.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2010
Progressives dumb? Don't say its so :)

http://www.youtub...embedded

You might get my 8 year old to sign the first one, as he doesn't know economics, but the second one would have him laughing at you. But then again I bet he knows more about science than the people going to the conference...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
SH, conservatives give much more back to society of their own free will than do progressives. It's a known fact.
No, it isn't. There's a reason why they have the moniker "conservative". They refuse change and certainly don't hand it out.
If I make $10 an hour with little effort and risk and I get taxed at 10%, I feel happy. If I make $100 and hour, with lots of risk, a lot of stress, and a lot of sacrifice, then the government comes and because of my risk takes 50% thats not fair.
Life ain't fair kid. Besides, you still have $50 while the other you only has $9. There's a quality of life difference there.
Human nature would take over and soon more people will be working harder to avoid paying taxes.
That's greed. Don't you silly Christians consider that a mortal sin? Aren't you supposed to encourage charity and poverty? If the tax rate worked like that you'd have two sets of people, the ultrarich and the ultra poor. They used to do that, in the dark ages.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2010
"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money." "
http://abcnews.go...p;page=1
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
24 were red states in the last presidential election.
Depends on what you consider a charity. Mega churches are not charity.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
I always worked for the fun of it. Before, while, and after I was being paid for work.

There are millions of people who prefer NOT to work and have the govt pay for it with unemployment checks.
Which just proves that capitalism isn't the proper choice if you want to have a job which is fun to work in.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
I would like to make a poll, how many people who seem to be able to live on physorg actually have a job?
And I would like to see which books are on the shelves of the conservatives.
Or if they are employed would like their employer know how much time they spend writing on physorg?
You'd propose the employer to control one's postings night and day? Or are you a business owner who is too exhausted to phrase his thoughts properly?
I own my own business, often times for days I'm too busy to comment,
And too busy to think carefully. That's why you need to listen to non-conservatives.
however I love to see the dumb progressive comments are made on these posts, by people who don't have a clue about business or people.
If you had the time to think more carefully, you'd discover that in reality you love only the feeling to be superior. And you would discover that the feeling is just that, no more.
Because those who _are_ superior never tell.
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2010
Yea progressives want me to sit down, play video games, have sex with whom ever I want, live on unemployment or wealfare, rely on others, keep quiet while people are harmed.

So the truth is out as per frajo, progressives are lazy bums. Listen to them you too will be begging on the street corner, posting on physorg, while you play professor.

Sometimes work isn't fun. Sometimes responsiblity isn't fun. But when the chips are down, you can either stand up, or go running home and live in the basement with your mommy.

SH - Again your ignorance of Christianity is shown. Lazyness is a sin. 2 Thess 3 10, the one who is unwill to work shall not eat. Other passages about work.
1 Timothy 5 18,
1 Corinthians 4:12
1 Corinthians 5:7
2 Corinthians 6:5
1 Thessalonians 4:11
2 Thessalonians 3:8
Proverbs 10:4 Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring weath.
Proverbs 12:27 The lazy do not roast any game, but the diligent feed on the riches of the hunt
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2010
Proverbs 26:15 A sluggard buryies his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth.
Hebrews 6:12 We do not want you to become lazy.

It is un-Christian to be lazy, it is un-Christian not to work.

Its a waste of time, if I just sat around spending hours phrasing everything, making sure all my grammar is correct, just to make a point to lazy ignorant progressives. I rather spend my time working with my customers, working with my family, on productive things.
freethinking
1 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2010
I don't like royalty and I don't like Charles and Camilla, but was it conservatives or progressives

http://www.dailym...hot.html

Why is it when progressives don't get their way they go violent.

http://www.telegr...ons.html

When progressives get in trouble, they run to government or their mommies and cry. When their mommies or the government says no, they get violent and destroy.

When conservatives get angry, we vote. When the chips are down, we shake it off and get to work. I throw my hat in with builders not destroyers.

Just wait, these riots are coming to America, fueled by progressives and unions, and humanities studends.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
SH - Again your ignorance of Christianity is shown. Lazyness is a sin. 2 Thess 3 10, the one who is unwill to work shall not eat. Other passages about work.
I wasn't talking about work, I was talking about greed. You can work to earn a living and not be a greedy prick. You cannot be a greedy prick and not work.
Its a waste of time, if I just sat around spending hours phrasing everything, making sure all my grammar is correct, just to make a point to lazy ignorant progressives.
So in conversation it is ok to be lazy? I thought it was
un-Christian to be lazy.
Why is it when progressives don't get their way they go violent.
http://www.telegr...ons.html
Actually, those would be the conservatives in that case. They're trying to maintain their status quo. I've never seen a progressive bring a gun to a protest.
Just wait, these riots are coming to America, fueled by progressives and unions, and humanities studends.
Or threaten violent rebellion in modern times.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2010
'Progressives' also engage in personal attacks when they can't defend their socialist positions.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
'Progressives' also engage in personal attacks when they can't defend their socialist positions.
Like generalization and slander?

@Non-thinking

What field is your business in. You like to say you're a business man, but you never extrapolate. You just make up anecdotes. Let us know, what field of work are you in? How many of your customers make more than a mil a year. How many don't? How would your business benefit from tax breaks for a non-existant customer base.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
24 were red states in the last presidential election.
Depends on what you consider a charity. Mega churches are not charity.


And nor are conservative/tea party campaign funds.

But, between the two of them, they will easily account for this above-average level of "giving" during -and these are telling words- "the last presedential election".

One is tempted to suppose, of course, that outside of the last presidential campaign, these states' levels of "giving" were merely at(if not below) average levels.

Yay for conservative "giving".

Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
'Progressives' also engage in personal attacks when they can't defend their socialist positions.


Just to prove you wrong, I ranked you 5 for that egregious slander.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2010
Cali, the data is available to refute. Please feel free to do so.
http://www.amazon...65008216
Just to prove you wrong, I ranked you 5 for that egregious slander.

What slander?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
Cali, the data is available to refute. Please feel free to do so.
http://www.amazon...65008216
As usual, you pick a biased source, marjon.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 10, 2010
Cali, the data is available to refute. Please feel free to do so.
http://www.amazon...65008216
As usual, you pick a biased source, marjon.

Then it should be easy to refute the results.
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 10, 2010
What would you like first, marjon? Proof that your source is biased? Arthur Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute, a notorious conservative apologist think tank. His so-called credentials include a bachelor's degree from a no-name Florida commuter public school and a "PhD" from the Rand corporation, another group of notorious conservative apologetics. The basic flaw with his claims is that he counts all money given to churches, no matter what the church ultimately does with that money, as charity. He doesn't count voluntary additional donation to the US (you can pay more than you owe in taxes, you know) as charity at all. This is a bad parody of actual sociological research. He knew what he wanted to find before he went looking, and massaged the data to fit is preconceptions.
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2010
The rioters were leftists progressives. But don't let facts get in your way. We keep showing sources for conservative giving, show me how progressive give? Progressives rely on government taking to give to their cause. Two examples, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, survive by getting money from government. Crises Pregnancy centers, Concerned Woman for America don't get a dime.

Mega Churches, though I don't agree with them and am against them for theological reasons, employee people, run child care, take care of the poor, help out the community, etc.. If they didn't exist (though I think a lot of smaller churches would be better) a lot of people would be worse off.

Conservatives put their money where their mouths are, Tea party is a charity, though I havent given them a dime. and is completely supported by voluntery donations. Union dues taken by force go directly to the Democrat party.
freethinking
1.1 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2010
ryggesogn2 are you Marjon?

T - Name one progressive that has actually given more money to the government than they owed?

How about we look at recent Presidents and Presidential candidates of both parties. Which ones have given more to charity of any sort?

Also you haven't refuted any fact, just attacked him becasue he is conservative and comes from a conservative think tank. Are you saying we can only believe in progressive professors, who are communists, who espouse deceit and revolution?

SH I have started 4 businesses, and currently run 2. They are brick and mortar businesses that actually produce products. I deal with other small business and I don't ask how much they make I would guess marjority earn >250K, several however I guess make over 20M. If these business had more money, they would spend more money, which would make me more money.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
So SH what type of business are you in. Would they be able to give you a raise or employ you or other people if their tax rate went up? I would like to know because if they do better with government taking more money from them, and allowing an employee such as yourself to waste so much of their time (I'm assuming you are posting on company time, if not I appologize in advance) on physorg, I should get into it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
T - Name one progressive that has actually given more money to the government than they owed?
Bill and Melinda Gates.
How about we look at recent Presidents and Presidential candidates of both parties. Which ones have given more to charity of any sort?
Democrats. Clinton, Gore, and Carter are some of the most charitable around.
SH I have started 4 businesses, and currently run 2. They are brick and mortar businesses that actually produce products. I deal with other small business and I don't ask how much they make I would guess marjority earn >250K, several however I guess make over 20M. If these business had more money, they would spend more money, which would make me more money.
And that's a flaw in your thinking. You produce, they sell, and no one is buying, so they don't need more of your products. The Republican economic plan further reduces your customer base. The economy is built on the backs of the middle class.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
So SH what type of business are you in. Would they be able to give you a raise or employ you or other people if their tax rate went up? I would like to know because if they do better with government taking more money from them, and allowing an employee such as yourself to waste so much of their time (I'm assuming you are posting on company time, if not I appologize in advance) on physorg, I should get into it.
I'm a contractor. I work for myself. I also have a small code clearing house on the side. And yes, I did just hire 3 coders as I claimed prior. If you increase my taxes, I'll be able to afford the exact same amount of employees that I have now and more, because my business doesn't operate check to check.The government is again, built on the backs of the middle class.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2010
I agree SH, but I think that on the whole the less money that ends up in the public sector and the more than ends up in the private sector the better.

Better if it's people making between 15-60k a year rather than 250k+, but I'll take it where I can get it...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
I agree SH, but I think that on the whole the less money that ends up in the public sector and the more than ends up in the private sector the better.

The best way to do that is to tax the rich and use that to fund the systems that pay out to the disadvantaged and middle class. These people spend their money at local businesses, small businesses, some big box stores, but just about none of it in taxes.

Meanwhile we can pay off the debt and restore the currency. That's how you fix it.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
SH, if government took more of your money, you would just raise your rates. Meaning less people/companies could afford your services. I'm very sure you wouldn't work for minimum wage and if you did, you wouldn't be able to hire others. How about this, why don't you send an extra 30% of your income to the government.

Bill and Milinda Gates, run their own charity. They dont the government to do right with their money.

Clinton, Gore are actually some of the most stingy, don't know about Carter though, didn't think to research him.

SH, for you denying to be a progressive, you sure talk like one, you defend them, and you act like them. Oh I get it you just claim to be non-partisan just like all the other progressive non-partisan groups.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
I agree SH, but I think that on the whole the less money that ends up in the public sector and the more than ends up in the private sector the better.

The best way to do that is to tax the rich and use that to fund the systems that pay out to the disadvantaged and middle class. These people spend their money at local businesses, small businesses, some big box stores, but just about none of it in taxes.

Meanwhile we can pay off the debt and restore the currency. That's how you fix it.


Means, means, means it's all about means. We don't disagree on the ends.

I prefer a sales tax, perhaps graduated on the product in question. Less middle men to pay off in my estimation...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
Means, means, means it's all about means. We don't disagree on the ends.

What is the end, a larger govt?
Of course it is all about the means. If the means were not an issue, then the govt could take everyone's wealth.
Bill and Milinda Gates, run their own charity. They dont the government to do right with their money.

Why do all these rich 'liberals' want to raise everyone's taxes? Why don't they donate what the govt would force them to pay?
Maybe the govt should end the tax breaks for the Gates Foundation and the Ford Foundation and all other similar tax havens.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
Means, means, means it's all about means. We don't disagree on the ends.

What is the end, a larger govt?
Of course it is all about the means. If the means were not an issue, then the govt could take everyone's wealth.


Uh what? No, honestly I have no clue what you just said. Can you try to be at least as coherent as Mushmouth on fat Albert this time?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
What are the 'ends'? What do you want govt to do with the taxes it confiscates?
How it determines those taxes, 'means', certainly affects govt power and whether the economy prospers.
Those who support progressive taxation do not have the same 'ends' as those who support a flat tax or the fair tax.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
I think a sales tax is the fairer way to go. The rich like BMW's and fur coats, but I drive cheaper cars and avoid fur coats. But, if business collect tax, they should be compensated for doing so.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 10, 2010
Only if the sales tax rate varied according to the social utility of the product. People need food, shelter, clothing, medical care. Further, buying those sorts of goods creates jobs. Those things shouldn't be taxed at all. Sales tax rates on the sale of company stocks and other ownership notes should be taxed at at least 100%, considering nobody really needs to buy those things and the money only goes to the previous owners of those notes, not creating any jobs or helping really anybody at all.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
Sales tax rates on the sale of company stocks and other ownership notes should be taxed at at least 100%, considering nobody really needs to buy those things and the money only goes to the previous owners of those notes, not creating any jobs or helping really anybody at all.


So no one should invest in the companies that produce food, shelter, clothing or medical care?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2010
SH, if government took more of your money, you would just raise your rates. Meaning less people/companies could afford your services. I'm very sure you wouldn't work for minimum wage and if you did, you wouldn't be able to hire others.
The tax that the business pays, and the tax that I pay are not the same. If you owned a business you'd know that FT. If you raise my personal income tax that doesn't affect my business. How stupid are you?
How about this, why don't you send an extra 30% of your income to the government.
I already donate over 50%, how about you do the same?
Bill and Milinda Gates, run their own charity. They dont the government to do right with their money.
I wasn't referring to their charity.
Clinton, Gore are actually some of the most stingy
LOL
don't know about Carter though, didn't think to research him.
Ever heard of habitat for Humanity?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2010
I already donate over 50%, how about you do the same?

To the govt?
If not, do you take the tax deduction?
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 11, 2010
Buying a company's stock is only "investing" in that company in that that's what we call it. Buying a company's stock that's already gone public doesn't do that company any good at all. It doesn't increase their revenues, it doesn't lower their costs, it doesn't add any new customers. It does benefit the prior owners of that company, but the owners of a company are not the same as the company itself. Stock market trading has about as much to do with business performance as baseball card trading has to do with a pitcher's ERA.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2010
Buying a company's stock that's already gone public doesn't do that company any good at all.

Yes, it does.
Companies don't sell all their stock, and corporate officers and employees obtain shares in compensation.
Companies do have an interest in the value of their stock on the free market.
It doesn't increase their revenues,

It does if the company owns shares and many companies buy back shares. Why would they do that?
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2010
And how does any of that improve the company's ability to perform? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Buying stock in a company doesn't improve that company at all, and selling stock in a company doesn't hurt that company at all. Companies buy back their own shares because they have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value. Buying back stocks increases the value of shares still in the market. When you buy a share of Google for $50, that $50 doesn't go to Google's managers or any of its employees to improve their performance. It goes to the guy who owned that share before you did.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2010
And how does any of that improve the company's ability to perform? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.
That you don't understand is a measure of your socialist 'education'.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2010
Go ahead, marjon, tell us how. How does someone who owns a share of Google, who then sells that share to someone else, improve Google's ability sell ad space on their search engines or write their search engines? How does buying a few of GM's shares from someone else improve GM's ability to make cars? In and of themselves, stocks do not finance any part of a business's operations. The finance of the business comes from the money they make selling their product. Not from the money the owners make from selling their ownership stake.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2010
Google is now selling near $600/share.
If Google has shares it did not sell in the IPO, they could sell shares to raise capital or borrow against those shares to raise capital.
But as you don't seem to understand the concept of capitalism, I can see why you don't understand.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2010
"The vast majority of the 271 million shares remained under the control of Google"
Having such a large pool of capital to draw from will certainly affect performance and operations.
They can afford to loose money on sales. Amazon lost money for many years and so do many high tech start ups. Stock prices on the secondary market can have a significant impact on company performance.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2010
Google is now selling near $600/share.
If Google has shares it did not sell in the IPO, they could sell shares to raise capital or borrow against those shares to raise capital.
But as you don't seem to understand the concept of capitalism, I can see why you don't understand.

So you're saying Google can sell stake in it's company for money. That would be the same thing as if google decided to sell off a few datacenters. Stocks don't make money for a company. They make money for the companies owners.

How many people want to invest in Worldcom? Why do stock crash if the ownership of the company isn't in good shape?

Exactly. It isn't an investment as there are no physical assets, no wealth to hold. You're making a currency bet.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2010
Well that only holds true if the company is worth buying stake in.

That's why a free market exchange is important.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2010
There's an awful lot of truth in the statement "buying publicly traded stocks on an exchange is not investing, it's gambling".

PERHAPS a stock owner who buys and holds stocks for a long term is providing some part of that purchase price as a loan to the corporation, but that question has become very murky lately.

As far as the big shot funds who computer trade hunting for minute marginal advantages over other investors, and cash out every night, like day traders, they're just pure parasites who provide no critical service to the companies whose shares they trade.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2010
Unless you purchase the stock during its original release, you're not putting any money into the corporate coffers. Even then, that money doesn't go into the general revenue funds for that corporation, it goes to the previous, private owners of that corporation. Selling off ownership stakes in the company weakens that company's position in negotiating loans for itself, as it no longer owns that fraction of its assets to be used to back the loan. The only good it provides is as an incentive for private entrepreneurs to develop a marginally working business model and then cash out by selling off their private capital stake in that company. Further, I have a significant moral concern regarding the justice of allowing ownership of a productive enterprise by those who have no clear and independent stake in the functioning of that enterprise.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (23) Dec 11, 2010
it goes to the previous, private owners of that corporation
You make it sound like it goes into their pockets which it doesnt. When a company goes public, owners get shares like investors. They benefit when shares go up, but lose when the price goes down.

It can be said that "the first and foremost mission of Publicly Traded Companies, is to increase the Value of the Stock for the Shareholders. And if it performs poorly, the big guys can get ousted" by shareholders.

The health of a company is directly reflected in the value of stock and the dividend it can pay. So the people who run the company care very much about stock prices for a number of reasons, which is incentive to keep it functioning well.
otto1932
1.4 / 5 (22) Dec 11, 2010
Further, I have a significant moral concern regarding the justice of allowing ownership of a productive enterprise by those who have no clear and independent stake in the functioning of that enterprise.
But perhaps, with the explanation I've given you, you can realize that your moral qualms are unfounded.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2010
So then the question is, why do we as a society not simply tolerate, but venerate, those few who have worked the rules to their advantage and are able to outperform the average investor on the return on their gambling?

I suppose it's no different than half the nation watching high-stakes poker games on TV. But does anyone think the winning poker players are sufficiently more worthy than the losers to justify their taking eg. $1,000,000 in winnings while the losers take nothing? Of course not, its simply the vagaries of chance mixed with a rudimentary knowledge of a relatively simple set of rules and odds.

So why are we increasingly modeling our entire economic system on that system (a very few lucky winners take all, the rest of us get nothing).
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2010
The health of a company is directly reflected in the value of stock and the dividend it can pay
That's simply false. The stock is sold in a separate market, its price is determined by the demand people have to buy that stock and the amount of that stock available to buy. There is no connection between the price of the stock and the underlying soundness or social value of the company except through the choices of investors. Investors are known to make flawed choices, furthermore, what value is to be gained by gambling on the perceived performance of that company? It doesn't help the company, it doesn't help its suppliers and it doesn't help its customers.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2010
There is no connection between the price of the stock and the underlying soundness or social value of the company except through the choices of investors.

Yes there is.
Who else will determine the price of a company except the investors?
The fundamental reason socialism can never be successful is because the govt can't know the value of everything in the market. The people who choose to sell or buy a product are the only ones who can determine vale.
I have a significant moral concern regarding the justice of allowing ownership of a productive enterprise by those who have no clear and independent stake in the functioning of that enterprise.

Who are you to allow ownership?
Who owns an enterprise that doesn't care if it makes a profit?
The only reason anyone would want to loose money is to create a tax write off. But this is another govt distortion of the economy.
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2010
We're not talking about products, marjon, we're talking about ownership stakes in a productive enterprise. I'm saying that the value of a productive enterprise cannot be disconnected from the productive activities it engages in. Selling ownership stakes of a productive enterprise in a completely separate and independent market explicitly separates the value of that enterprise from its productive activities. Who is allowed to own what, how much they are allowed to own, and what they are allowed to do with what they own is an explicitly social concern. Insofar as you consider yourself a member of society, it is your concern as well. I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that only those directly involved in the productive activity of an enterprise ought to be allowed ownership stakes in that enterprise.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2010
Selling ownership stakes of a productive enterprise in a completely separate and independent market explicitly separates the value of that enterprise from its productive activities.

No, it does not.

My only social concern is that every individual's property rights are respected.
Socialists like T do NOT respect such rights.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
You make it sound like it goes into their pockets which it doesnt. When a company goes public, owners get shares like investors. They benefit when shares go up, but lose when the price goes down.
Some clarification is necessary here. When a company goes public the owners turn the total value of the company into stock. The IPO is the first offering of stake in the company.

If I have a company and bring you on as a partner for 50,000, if you have a vested interest in the business itself, you don't want an IPO. If you're in it for the sell out, you want an IPO. The money made during an IPO goes directly into the pockets of the stock holders at time of IPO. I cashed out my first company on the IPO. That is exactly how it works, you get paid for releasing a percentage of the company and it doesn't go to the company, it goes directly into the owners pockets.

I can further invest that money attempting to boost the value of the shares I hold, but that isn't the companies money.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 12, 2010
The very fact that I am concerned with them shows that I respect them, marjon. The only connection between the value of a company's ownership stock and the value of the good or service they provide is through the judgments and actions of investors. Those judgments are prone to known errors, and there is no universal principle governing the actions of investors. Further, buying/selling a company's stock does nothing to help that business do its business more productively. The stock market is a leech that keeps capital out of being used for production or consumption.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
Stock markets are effectively a mode of inflation. Those ignorant of economics like to say that the stock market creates wealth, it doesn't, it subdivides wealth into smaller parcels over time.

Unless a company generates wealth, which outside of resource companies, cannot happen, you're merely distributing wealth through a trickledown system. This is why wall street can boom while main street suffers. Every gain on wall street is in funds taken out of main street through the economy. It's abig funnel that moves cash, without regulations, that cash becomes imaginary and arbitrary as we found with the big Enron led scandal of "creating the books".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (24) Dec 12, 2010
That's simply false. The stock is sold in a separate market, its price is determined by the demand people have to buy that stock and the amount of that stock available to buy. There is no connection between the price of the stock and the underlying soundness or social value of the company except through the choices of investors.
No, it's simply and substantially true. You only think it isnt because you dont know that much about it. Professional brokers evaluate companies and make recommendations to their clients based on a companies performance. A healthy company draws investment and the stock value responds accordingly.

Owners and operators have a primary interest in the value of their stock. Most trading is done by professionals for mutual funds, 401ks, corporate clients etc who follow rules and guidelines for trading.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
Unless a company generates wealth, which outside of resource companies,

That is false.
Wealth creation is essentially the reduction of entropy. The sources of wealth are minerals and products grown: trees, corn, cotton.....all which converted solar energy.
Companies of all sorts use energy and add value to such products, creating wealth.
People are wealth generators not just by fabrication, but also in knowledge created.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2010
What did I say otto? The only connection between the value of an ownership stake in a company and the actual productivity of that company is through the judgments and actions of investors. Brokers can only make recommendations, and their judgments are based on necessarily flawed and incomplete models. SH has it right, Wall Street is the modern day equivalent to pyramid building. It takes capital that would otherwise contribute to inflation and partially removes it from circulation by sequestration in a large gambling house. We'd have been better off building pyramids.

Wealth creation has nothing to do with entropy. Wealth is created either through the transformation of public resources into private ones through application of work (necessitating an overall increase in entropy), or in the exchange of private resources.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
SH - your business you own, and your taxes are in reality one and the same. If you owned a business you would know that. If just personal tax goes up, you will need to take more money out of your business to make ends meet.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (23) Dec 12, 2010
Wall Street is the modern day equivalent to pyramid building.
That's a little extreme don't you think? Because if you have that little respect for other peoples professions, they would be free to disparage yours as well, yes?

Lots of Wharton and harvard grads handling your retirement account. You better hope they know what they're doing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
T, no business is forced to sell stock to raise capital to expand.
Businesses can borrow from banks or venture capital companies or issue bonds.
With stock, the public has an opportunity to share the rewards, and the risks, of a business.
Stock ownership and trading such shares seems like quite a socialist way to grow and share the wealth.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2010
SH - your business you own, and your taxes are in reality one and the same.
So you're saying I own every dollar that the company makes? If you run a business, it must be an awfully small one.
If you owned a business you would know that.
Actually everything you promote is entirely contrary to proper business operation. I draw a slary, the business maintains it's own money. We are not a non-profit.
If just personal tax goes up, you will need to take more money out of your business to make ends meet.
No, no I won't, because my businesses makes enough to pay a good wage without bankrupting the business.

I thought you knew what you were doing. You're so proud of your "business" yet you don't seem to know much about how businesses work. Either you're playing tax games, (illegal at that) or you don't own a business outside of being an individual contractor.

This is very telling that you in fact own nothing, and simply repeat what non-economists are saying about tax.

More news stories

Newlyweds, be careful what you wish for

A statistical analysis of the gift "fulfillments" at several hundred online wedding gift registries suggests that wedding guests are caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to buying an appropriate gift for the ...

Can new understanding avert tragedy?

As a boy growing up in Syracuse, NY, Sol Hsiang ran an experiment for a school project testing whether plants grow better sprinkled with water vs orange juice. Today, 20 years later, he applies complex statistical ...

Crowd-sourcing Britain's Bronze Age

A new joint project by the British Museum and the UCL Institute of Archaeology is seeking online contributions from members of the public to enhance a major British Bronze Age archive and artefact collection.

Male monkey filmed caring for dying mate (w/ Video)

(Phys.org) —The incident was captured by Dr Bruna Bezerra and colleagues in the Atlantic Forest in the Northeast of Brazil.  Dr Bezerra is a Research Associate at the University of Bristol and a Professor ...