[LAz]

The rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is a very welcome development. It means that our labor costs are more competitive in the world. Hence companies would rather employ peons in canada than say in norway, where wages are higher. So, the more inequality the better.


Lets face the fact, that when the rich get richer, things will just trickle down to the poor classes. That is what the brains behind the neoliberal economic system have been saying for years. Allow me to use a picture to demonstrate...

I think this clearly demonstrates how this is a very good system.




Hell, the ideal solution would be to replace the government itself with the free market. Just consider how many media companies there are. If one big one just owned everything, then a lot of money would be saved from this waste of money of competition. On top of that, the buying out of politicians will no longer be necessary, resulting in a gain in the bottom line three fold!

This bottom of the barrel is just a myth. The bottom of the barrel myth has been debunked. It can be seen that the apples at the bottom of the barrel are the sweetest ones. Naturally we would like to make brandy and juice from those as they are the sweetest. Similarly, remember when mom used to say that we should eat the apples that animals bit that are at the bottom of the tree, not the ones actually on it? The animals knew which the apples were the best, so they bit those. Hence, the bottom is the way to go!



[/cynicism]



editadd: What are you looking at you landless peasant peons?!?

 

[Admiral Beez]

If someone slugs their way through school, works hard, takes risk, commercializes a great idea or invests wisely then why shouldn't they be rewarded with additional wealth.

Because, in the leftist-socialist mind, that fellow must have exploited working people, the system, or both in order to gain that wealth, and his wealth should not be allowed to get too big, since all wealth should be shared equally regardless of merit. There's a socialist idea also that a maximum pay level should be introduced, by which no one can make more than, for example, $200K, and any income after that should be taxed 100% and redistributed to the mob and the system.

Myself, I'll never be rich, but I'm happy with my income, home ownership, leisure time, etc. When I see layabouts at the local Tims in Cabbagetown on their dole rollies I think to myself, is that why I work, so I can pay for society's deadweight? Okay, maybe that's too harsh, I need another coffee to wake up, but no one owes you anything, richer folks don't owe the poor anything. If you want more money, then work hard, build and offer scarce yet in demand skills and abilities. If you can't do that, then it's not my fault, maybe you were born into a poor family, had little educational opportunities, etc. but it's still not my fault, and there's nothing stopping you as an adult from working hard and managing your life.

 

[spider]

Beez for King!

 

[afransen]

Because, in the leftist-socialist mind, that fellow must have exploited working people, the system, or both in order to gain that wealth, and his wealth should not be allowed to get too big, since all wealth should be shared equally regardless of merit. There's a socialist idea also that a maximum pay level should be introduced, by which no one can make more than, for example, $200K, and any income after that should be taxed 100% and redistributed to the mob and the system.

Myself, I'll never be rich, but I'm happy with my income, home ownership, leisure time, etc. When I see layabouts at the local Tims in Cabbagetown on their dole rollies I think to myself, is that why I work, so I can pay for society's deadweight? Okay, maybe that's too harsh, I need another coffee to wake up, but no one owes you anything, richer folks don't owe the poor anything. If you want more money, then work hard, build and offer scarce yet in demand skills and abilities. If you can't do that, then it's not my fault, maybe you were born into a poor family, had little educational opportunities, etc. but it's still not my fault, and there's nothing stopping you as an adult from working hard and managing your life.

Part of the problem is the incentive structure. EI and welfare are almost specifically devised to prevent people from seeking employment. I'd much rather we had some kind of guaranteed annual income (like Old Age Security for everyone), and tax every dollar that a person earns. Get rid of welfare, EI (as constituted), social housing, etc. etc. Clean up the incentives (so people don't face effective tax rates of 100%) and eliminate a great deal of bureaucracy.

 

[PinkLucy]

A recently released report about rise in poverty and economic insecurity: http://www.cpj.ca/en/content/bearing-brunt

 

[LAz]

fransen, get that reaganomics thinking out of your head. The trickle down effect has been demonstrated earlier in this topic - it does not work, and is a myth.

EI and welfare are almost specifically devised to prevent people from seeking employment.

That is B.S. man. Welfare is measly. It's very little.

Get rid of welfare, EI (as constituted), social housing, etc. etc.

Dude, cities in europe often have 20, 25, 30 percent of their people in social housing. It works.
The reason why it might fail in north america is because it does not get maintained and because of the segregation of uses- we do not see small businesses in the projects, and such stuff. In europe the social housing places are vibrant and good places often - but here they often turn into ghettos. It all depends on how you do something - by the WRONG american way - which you support - or the better European way.

There's a socialist idea also that a maximum pay level should be introduced, by which no one can make more than, for example, $200K

Japan put it to use. Socialist/Communist bastards, how dare they?!
I love the idea/thought of it.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I really like the idea of a maximum pay level, and that after that is either insanely high tax or 100% tax on the rest of the salary.

However, there's a big problem with doing that here in Canada. That mainly being that any high level CEOs looking for a bigger salary (not sure why they think they need that much money, but they do,) can just retreat south to the US to enjoy their multi-million dollar salary. In Japan, that doesn't work because of the unique Japanese culture. One could go to LA and enjoy their CEO salary, but they wouldn't be able to live in Japan. Vancouver's nice, but it's a lot easier to justify moving to Beverly Hills and enjoying a higher salary when US and Canadian culture's so similar.

So I've been trying to find a way about this big boondoggle in my thoughts about turning Canada into a (near) socialist (near) utopia. I still think that simply a government plan to encourage small, local business would be a great way to not only grow our economy, but also make people happier. That wouldn't unnaturally impose restrictions on people's economic freedom, but would allow the wealth to be spread out more evenly and would give more personalization in both the workplace and marketplace.

 

[ganjavih]

If you put a cap at $200K, you are guaranteed to see a massive exodus out of the country... an exodus of people we can't afford to lose.

 

[AGTO]

If you put a cap at $200K, you are guaranteed to see a massive exodus out of the country... an exodus of people we can't afford to lose.

We'd lose a number of TTC ticket takers, and perhaps some traffic cops....who else?

 

[LAz]

If you put a cap at $200K, you are guaranteed to see a massive exodus out of the country... an exodus of people we can't afford to lose.

So make that a little higher. 400,000 good enough?

But I must admit that the US is a real big problem regarding this.






What do you guys think about starting taking citizenship away from those canadian medical professionals who came down to the US for the money?

 

[ganjavih]

We'd lose a number of TTC ticket takers, and perhaps some traffic cops....who else?

GM auto workers.

 

[afransen]

fransen, get that reaganomics thinking out of your head. The trickle down effect has been demonstrated earlier in this topic - it does not work, and is a myth.





That is B.S. man. Welfare is measly. It's very little.




Dude, cities in europe often have 20, 25, 30 percent of their people in social housing. It works.
The reason why it might fail in north america is because it does not get maintained and because of the segregation of uses- we do not see small businesses in the projects, and such stuff. In europe the social housing places are vibrant and good places often - but here they often turn into ghettos. It all depends on how you do something - by the WRONG american way - which you support - or the better European way.







Japan put it to use. Socialist/Communist bastards, how dare they?!
I love the idea/thought of it.

I'd rather give people money and let them decide where to live and when, rather than assign them a living place after they spend long stretches on a waiting list. I'm more concerned with outcomes. I doubt that government can efficiently supply housing for a lower cost than the private sector can. Keep in mind that the private sector can include not-for-profits like co-ops.

If you think I am advocating supply side economics, you didn't understand what I wrote. I support giving money to poor people, no strings attached. Welfare and EI is giving money to poor people, with many strings attached. Like, you're not allowed to work, or we pull your EI or welfare. I'd rather they work AND get the payments.

Yes, welfare is very little. And if you work, what little you get on welfare is clawed back, often at as high a rate as 100%. What incentive is it to find a job if your entire paycheque goes to the government? People on the left seem to think that giving people money on the condition that they don't work is a good idea. I don't understand it.

 

[LAz]

Yeah, well, capitalistic western europe has huge chunks of their population in public housing... 20, 25, 30 percent.

You see, the idea that the market always knows best is a phanatic radical lunatic religous fever. Such free market fanatic supporters of neoliberalism (removal of the state from the econ) are worshipors of st. andrews cross, rather than the regular cross. You know how st andrew was crusified... on a sideways cross. Aka supply and demand curves. That is the religion of such numbsculls.



Call me insane, but all over eastern europe public housing dominanted the scene. They assigned stuff to people, and people moved in. You can see these huge high-rise complexes. I actually like them, no matter how much you condemn them. You guys have no idea how much life there is there. They are not ghettoized slums like the public high rises are in america. They're something beautiful.
One of my favourite places in the world is new Belgrade, which was built over a swamp after ww2. It's mainly highrises and boulevards. It's so beautiful. And the life there... they are not ghettos. I mean yo, you go there and the neighborhoods are not called something like pape village.. .they're called BLock 20, Block 25, Block 45... it's a totally different thing.
Here is a short youtube link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm2pX7n39vA ... is that atmosphere amazing or what? One more, a music link that shows a bit of new belgrade... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ldSG4zVUM&feature=related

(edit: here!, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrJnvRKMtCc&feature=related it's in english and tells about the city)




Hm, that is interesting... so which poor people get what, and how much moolah? What bothers me is that this would just be fueling mass consumerism... it's not good to be so wasteful.

 

[afransen]

Read up on guaranteed annual income or negative income tax.

Why you like the idea of the government telling you where to live is beyond me. If you like the Commie towers, you are free to live in one if you choose. Why should that have to satisfy everyone else? Giving money to poor people means they can continue to live in social-housing-esque buildings if they choose, or they can choose other housing options. And with the private sector, you won't have 5 year waiting lists. I'm not exactly some free market zealot. I just happen to believe that experience shows us that government is pretty bad at providing housing of reasonable quality and cost.

 

[urbandreamer]

Has anyone considered perhaps this growing gap is really due to mass immigration? ie, too many immigrants are living in poverty for too long? Surely the solution would be to cap immigration until incomes increase?