TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Is it cruel to stand outside and hold a sign?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

a) 30 million people in a world of 6.5 billion does not a big impact make.

b) if we are indeed the smartest country on earth than a lot of smart people are going to be overqualified since not everyone can be a computer programmer.

c) you can compare cost of housing and quality of life in europe because housing is very expensive there. The loudest cry i ever hear from socialists like you is about expensive housing and the lack of "affordable housing".

D) i thought companies that employ people to make other's money were wrong. Multinationals do precisely that. How much did Ford's CEO make last year?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 BTW are you still in school? If so exactly what kind of job or what kind of pay do you expect for part time work without a degree?

I'd be thrilled to find a job where I have the opportunity to shadow something that involves my future careers options. We should have more of a farming process and student recruiting than we have. Very few students get companies contacting them anymore. The government should help our local markets be so demanding, that this happens. The top schools in the USA, Japan, and parts of Europe are influenced greatly by corporate recruiters, unfortunately, you rarely see it in Canada's top schools.

What am I expecting to get? I'm hoping right now to get a job at a bar. Nothing to do with my future, but something I would be grateful to do considering how shitty the job market is and how few positions that would actually benefit me other than monetarily are available.


Karim

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 a) 30 million people in a world of 6.5 billion does not a big impact make. b) if we are indeed the smartest country on earth than a lot of smart people are going to be overqualified since not everyone can be a computer programmer. c) you can compare cost of housing and quality of life in europe because housing is very expensive there. The loudest cry i ever hear from socialists like you is about expensive housing and the lack of "affordable housing". D) i thought companies that employ people to make other's money were wrong. Multinationals do precisely that. How much did Ford's CEO make last year?

A. Some of the countries I listed aren't that much bigger, some even smaller and have a proportionately bigger splash on the worlds wealth than we do.

B. With so many qualified people, we should have an increase in the innovation standpoint of world markets, and have more Canadian corporations growing and taking more of a stance in the world markets. We simply cannot compete because many of our qualified people moved on to other countries to make more money by providing their knowledge to foreign corporations.

C. Unfortunately the upper class societies set the price of real estate. What they are willing to pay for a house sets the prices for all real estate levels below it, eventually channeling into the prices that the lower classes have to pay. The upper classes shouldn't have as much power to dictate real estate pricing considering how much they affect the lower class. However an alternate solution to the supply and demand price fixing of real estate is very challenging to influence from a government standpoint. Housing laws should be aimed at helping the people that have difficulty affording proper housing.

E. Canada should have more multi national corporations based in Canada. Unfortunately, we are being whored by every other foreign multinational corporation, and they pretty much have the power now to dictate our markets. If any of these foreign corporations decide to pull operations out of Canada, they'd drastically damage a portion of our economy, and the decision wouldn't be in our hands. Canadians need to run most of their own economy, and not let these foreign players take over.


Karim

quote:

Originally posted by Transmotion waving a sign? awsome job =) you meet so many people!

Even cute girls

quote:

Originally posted by karim 5% of the worlds population owns 95% of the worlds wealth.

The reason for this is that 5% of the world's population is responsible for 95% of the world's production. So under those circumstances, yes, they do deserve it, and the inequality in wealth is matched by an inequality in contribution.

What your political sect also fails to realize is that the government is not a transparent entity. When your taxes are up at over 65% (including income taxes, consumption taxes and all the other crap we get taxed for), then when you stop to consider that (a) 95% of the wealth is in the upper tax bracket and (b) the upper tax bracket is taxed at about 50%, then it follows (c) that the government in fact controls about 70-80% of the wealth.

And given that the government is a very small elite, less than 1%, then under heavy Socialism you have 1% of the population controlling 70-80% of the wealth, which is hardly any less of an inequality than what you'll get within a free market. The government may choose to redistribute that income in some way but it does not change the fact that they control that immense wealth - and unlike a free market, the government does not produce anything for that wealth (they simply take it) and they are not accountable for it. The government is performing voluntarily redistribution of wealth, same as the corporate sector would do in a free market; the only difference is that the government has no incentive to do a good job of it.

The best economic policy the government ever implemented was the tax-deductible charitable donation system, because it encourages wealthy people to VOLUNTARILY donate their money to the "less fortunate" instead of allowing those less fortunate people to steal the money from people who rightfully earned it.

With your precious socialism, you're taking 70-80% of the wealth and making it "stale" - that is, it's spent in such a way that there's no return on the investment. The other 20-30% could be invested but is more likely to be spent simply on living expenses because socialism creates a state of working poor. So you're maintaining an effectively static and finite amount of wealth on a growing population, which inevitably leads to any or all of three things: bankrupt social programs, lower wages and PPP, and higher unemployment.

For an economy to function correctly, the tax burden has to be low enough to support population and foreign market growth (that is to say, the rate of "capitalism" has to be equal to or greater than the rate of consumption growth). The issue isn't equality, it's SUSTAINABILITY. In general we should have a tax burden of 40% or below, and Canada and most of Europe is WAY above this mark - which means that even if the economy is doing great now, it can't last.

quote:

Originally posted by karim I'd be thrilled to find a job where I have the opportunity to shadow something that involves my future careers options. We should have more of a farming process and student recruiting than we have. Very few students get companies contacting them anymore. The government should help our local markets be so demanding, that this happens. The top schools in the USA, Japan, and parts of Europe are influenced greatly by corporate recruiters, unfortunately, you rarely see it in Canada's top schools. What am I expecting to get? I'm hoping right now to get a job at a bar. Nothing to do with my future, but something I would be grateful to do considering how shitty the job market is and how few positions that would actually benefit me other than monetarily are available. Karim

So i guess when the bar pays $6.50 an hour they are making you their slave?

quote:

Originally posted by karim A. Some of the countries I listed aren't that much bigger, some even smaller and have a proportionately bigger splash on the worlds wealth than we do. B. With so many qualified people, we should have an increase in the innovation standpoint of world markets, and have more Canadian corporations growing and taking more of a stance in the world markets. We simply cannot compete because many of our qualified people moved on to other countries to make more money by providing their knowledge to foreign corporations. C. Unfortunately the upper class societies set the price of real estate. What they are willing to pay for a house sets the prices for all real estate levels below it, eventually channeling into the prices that the lower classes have to pay. The upper classes shouldn't have as much power to dictate real estate pricing considering how much they affect the lower class. However an alternate solution to the supply and demand price fixing of real estate is very challenging to influence from a government standpoint. Housing laws should be aimed at helping the people that have difficulty affording proper housing. E. Canada should have more multi national corporations based in Canada. Unfortunately, we are being whored by every other foreign multinational corporation, and they pretty much have the power now to dictate our markets. If any of these foreign corporations decide to pull operations out of Canada, they'd drastically damage a portion of our economy, and the decision wouldn't be in our hands. Canadians need to run most of their own economy, and not let these foreign players take over. Karim

I have to go to work (oops i mean crack the whip over my slaves) but i will summarize:

First those countries you mentioned all formed the European Union because on their own they were too weak to do anything

Second the housing market is based on supply and demand. If you cant afford $500,000 for an average house in Toronto then move to Smith's Falls.

Also you have to ask "why do all these qualified people move to other countries most notably the United States?" Answer = lower taxes.

Go drum up some sales!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The reason for this is that 5% of the world's population is responsible for 95% of the world's production. So under those circumstances, yes, they do deserve it, and the inequality in wealth is matched by an inequality in contribution. What your political sect also fails to realize is that the government is not a transparent entity. When your taxes are up at over 65% (including income taxes, consumption taxes and all the other crap we get taxed for), then when you stop to consider that (a) 95% of the wealth is in the upper tax bracket and (b) the upper tax bracket is taxed at about 50%, then it follows (c) that the government in fact controls about 70-80% of the wealth. And given that the government is a very small elite, less than 1%, then under heavy Socialism you have 1% of the population controlling 70-80% of the wealth, which is hardly any less of an inequality than what you'll get within a free market. The government may choose to redistribute that income in some way but it does not change the fact that they control that immense wealth - and unlike a free market, the government does not produce anything for that wealth (they simply take it) and they are not accountable for it. The government is performing voluntarily redistribution of wealth, same as the corporate sector would do in a free market; the only difference is that the government has no incentive to do a good job of it. The best economic policy the government ever implemented was the tax-deductible charitable donation system, because it encourages wealthy people to VOLUNTARILY donate their money to the "less fortunate" instead of allowing those less fortunate people to steal the money from people who rightfully earned it. With your precious socialism, you're taking 70-80% of the wealth and making it "stale" - that is, it's spent in such a way that there's no return on the investment. The other 20-30% could be invested but is more likely to be spent simply on living expenses because socialism creates a state of working poor. So you're maintaining an effectively static and finite amount of wealth on a growing population, which inevitably leads to any or all of three things: bankrupt social programs, lower wages and PPP, and higher unemployment. For an economy to function correctly, the tax burden has to be low enough to support population and foreign market growth (that is to say, the rate of "capitalism" has to be equal to or greater than the rate of consumption growth). The issue isn't equality, it's SUSTAINABILITY. In general we should have a tax burden of 40% or below, and Canada and most of Europe is WAY above this mark - which means that even if the economy is doing great now, it can't last.

Social programs get shit on way more in a free market society than they would in a socialist society. I fully understand that socialism has it's faults, I just like to point out the problems that our capitalist driven world has.

The current government, although not perfect, does put a fair chunk of our tax money back into social programs. Taxes are paid for the benefit of the nation, although not practically cause of government irresponsibility, but in theory.

Corporations these days are demanding tax relief or threaten to leave. The government becomes cornered, virtually told what to do, and makes the sacrifice, giving corporations much lower taxes, limiting the cash flow into government hands, in turn limiting the flow into social programs. Social programs fail. Interestingly, corporations create these "social programs" of their own to "give back to the community" (ronald mcdonald house, TimHortons camps, etc.), but ironically, their charitable expenditures are only a fraction of what would otherwise be spent if they paid full taxes. It's nothing more than a publicity grab to give people the impression that these companies are righteous. This is all mentioned in the movie Corporation. These "tax deductable charitable donations" have become a joke amongst the corporate world and they'll continue to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of the social programs. As corporations grow, so do their power to control our government, and I'd much rather have the people control than corporations.

Another note against free markets, I'm very much against privatization. Since companies are simply driven by profits, they would not operate at a loss no matter what, even if their service is very much needed by the population. Profits come first, the service gets cut. Public sectors would maintain operations, even if they were at a loss, simply to provide the public the goods they need. I feel there's no way that Canada's social welfare would be better if we let it run laissez-faire.

The government can still promote growth in many ways, but for some reason, the current government doesn't promote internal growth by letting in and allowing all this international competition to take over our markets. How many big box strip malls have you seen spring up in virtually every suburb across Canada? How many of those stores are purely Canadian? Canada's biggest Video Store chains (Rogers and Jumbo Video) are struggling because of Blockbuster. Hell, Labatt breweries is now owned by American investors, and Tim Hortons makes money for Wendy's. Canada's money is filtering itself out of our country. Taxes are not the only thing a government can do to change the shape of Canadian markets.


Karim

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 First those countries you mentioned all formed the European Union because on their own they were too weak to do anything Second the housing market is based on supply and demand. If you cant afford $500,000 for an average house in Toronto then move to Smith's Falls. Also you have to ask "why do all these qualified people move to other countries most notably the United States?" Answer = lower taxes.

First, they joined the european union to improve trade between those nations, and compete with the monopoly that the US has on the world.

Second, your point doesn't go against mine. Prices are set by supply and demand, but the supply and demand curves are dictated by how much the rich are willing to pay for certain housing, and the ENTIRE housing market is relative to eachother. The price of a condo in downtown toronto does have an effect on the prices of houses in Smith Falls. Not as much as say the local industry in the city, but it does have an effect. If people are no longer able to afford to live in Toronto with $300 000, and they all go to Smith Falls, they have $300 000 still that they are willing to spend on a home. The best home prices are decided on a bidding war. As people get richer, the entire housing market prices goes up, and if there's an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor, the poor suffer the most.

And on to your third point, the government can provide more incentives to keep our qualified people in Canada other than simply just taxes. If the government beefed up it's small business programs, Canada's qualified would find it worth while to stay in Canada, build up their own companies, and find support from the government when ready to go international. Taxes are brutal when our economy is weak and not as much money is to be made, but if Canada was an area of strong economic growth, with lots of money to be made, taxes wouldn't be as much of a burden.


Karim

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.