|
Hahahah - check out this great t-shirt on ebay (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| discojoe |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Has there been an official statement made that this was applied toward the national debt? If so, then I stand corrected, and they did exactly the right thing (now all they need to do is deregulate *everything* and we'll be one step toward financial recovery :))
. |
i think there was. that's why everyone was so upset because i think they had to apply it to the debt. cons were pissed cause it didnt go to taxes and the ndp was pissed it didnt go to more spending. Whatever the case i dont think 10 billion dollars went into any politicians pockets.
this is the cp article on the issue:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Londo.../14/668501.html
the national national debt right now is 500 million and i read somewhere it was 600 million in 1999 at which point 40-50 billion was paid in interest payments (more than 1000 per person). The combined provincial debt in the country is about 220 billion. so we have a combined debt not that much smaller than our gdp. I dont think its all that bad of a thing if we try to pay a bit of it off. Then again, theres the arguement, and i guess a valid one at that, that they should cut taxes instead and let the economy grow and then just swallow it one day in one fell swoop. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Discojoe: U need look no further than the country next door to you to see what happens when a country accumulates too much debt.
The Argentines had a rough period a few years ago and their currency is still devalued. They defaulted on their debt and now no one will lend them a dime. Talk about a forced balanced budget!!
If Bush is re-elected i see the same happening to the US sometime in the next 10 years. But if that happens we will all suffer economically. |
|
|
| discojoe |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Discojoe: U need look no further than the country next door to you to see what happens when a country accumulates too much debt.
The Argentines had a rough period a few years ago and their currency is still devalued. They defaulted on their debt and now no one will lend them a dime. Talk about a forced balanced budget!!
If Bush is re-elected i see the same happening to the US sometime in the next 10 years. But if that happens we will all suffer economically. |
I completely agree with you heh. I was just debating the best ways to pay off those debts. I said i dont think it is a bad thing to pay it off. |
|
|
| discojoe |
| BTW durafei haha that rhymes doesnt it or at least it does the way i pronounce it.. anyway what are the taxes like where you are there in california. how are you enjoying yourself there |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
No no no... I agree that paying down the debt is a good idea... I just think the benefits you're suggesting to personal income taxes are a bit exaggerated. Besides, knowing the conservatives, they'd likely give a disproportionally large portion of it to the rich, who're more likely to reinvest it outside of Canada. Look at the tax cuts Bush gave to the rich... same with Harris in Ontario. That kind of money doesn't trickle down to the rest of society as much as we'd like to think because a lesser proportion of it gets reinvested quickly or back into the Canadian economy.
We're all paying for the way our parents lived anyway... I'd rather spend less now and spend more later... why give the taxs cuts at all? Why not cut fewer taxes and pay down the debt more? I guess it's all about balance and moderation. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Im all for a flat income tax. That way you arent punished for being successful.
The whole arguement that it benefits the poor far less because they make less is about as valid as the arguement that it harms the rich more because they make more. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
No no no... I agree that paying down the debt is a good idea... I just think the benefits you're suggesting to personal income taxes are a bit exaggerated. Besides, knowing the conservatives, they'd likely give a disproportionally large portion of it to the rich, who're more likely to reinvest it outside of Canada. Look at the tax cuts Bush gave to the rich... same with Harris in Ontario. That kind of money doesn't trickle down to the rest of society as much as we'd like to think because a lesser proportion of it gets reinvested quickly or back into the Canadian economy.
We're all paying for the way our parents lived anyway... I'd rather spend less now and spend more later... why give the taxs cuts at all? Why not cut fewer taxes and pay down the debt more? I guess it's all about balance and moderation. |
OMFG, what is your problem with "the Rich?"
Can you even define "the Rich?" Or is it just anyone that has more money than you? Are you upset that some people in this world who are smarter and worked harder than you get to make more money, so you think we should tax the out of them and "redistribute" their wealth to people more "deserving?"
THE RICH WORKED FOR THEIR MONEY. LET THEM HAVE IT. Nobody gave "tax cuts to the rich" - they gave tax cuts TO ING EVERYONE. The "rich" in the tax sense (highest tax bracket) are already paying a load more in taxes than anyone else - how is that fair!?
ing "trickle down" nonsense.
And the point I made earlier, which is BASIC ECONOMICS that you STILL don't seem to be picking up on, is that reducing the debt means LOWER INTEREST PAYMENTS, which means THE COUNTRY CAN PERFORM ALL THE SAME SERVICES AT LESS COST, which means THEY DON'T NEED TO COLLECT AS MUCH IN TAXES. Does putting it in ALL CAPS make it any clearer? Taxing "the rich" does NOT improve a country's economy - virtually every single country on this planet with backbreaking taxes has an utterly economy, period. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
It's honestly really frustrating to hear all this re-hashed Communist theory going around. I think these people don't realize that the jury *isn't* still out on this one - there are literally hundreds of years' worth of debate and books written on Communism, Socialism and Capitalism, and guess what - CAPITALISM WON!
I see so many people trying to reinvent the wheel, coming up with their own "theories" about how some country's economy is best served. Guys, go read a book - honestly, these issues have been discussed ad nauseam since the middle ages. And I mean a real book, like something from Adam Smith, not one of those inflammatory Socialist books full of classism and anti-Americanism written by some sheltered European or French-Canadian Liberal crackpot. The prediction of "American Decline" has been around for some 300-odd years, and astonishingly enough, it hasn't declined yet! The prediction of the "Decline of Capitalism" has been around for about 2000 years, or more, and the most astounding thing about it is that capitalism HASN'T DECLINED!!
Theory politics don't work because they assume ideal conditions and we live in an imperfect world. In science, it's sometimes OK to assume ideal conditions if the real conditions are close enough to the ideal ones, but in politics, we're not even close.
Early Canadian politicians, from the era when our country was actually considered one of the best, understood this all too well. Here's a quote from one of our finance ministers, Sir Thomas White, on corporate tax:
"During the war there has been considerable criticism to the effect that the Business Profits Tax was not sufficiently heavy. In my view this criticism is not sound and fails to take into consideration many vital aspects of the subject. A Business Profits Tax is justifiable during a prolonged war, because money is urgently needed and it is a ready method of obtaining it in large amounts. There is also a justification in the fact that public opinion is offended at the sight of abnormal profits in a period of great suffering and privation. On principle, however, the tax is not sound and tends to produce much economic evil in the State. It is really a tax upon business success and consequently tends to discourage business enterprise and administrative efficiency."
Wow, imagine that, a Minister referring to corporate tax as "evil!" It goes to show you just how severely political opinion in this country has shifted to the left. When corporate tax and income tax were first instated, they were supposed to be temporary measures in order to collect money for (gasp) NATIONAL DEFENSE. They were never, EVER supposed to be "trickle down" methods or means to social welfare. The true pioneers of this country never intended for taxes to be used for creating this ridiculous "classless society" that some people daydream about all the time. No, quite the opposite - they all knew that tax was a penalty on success and could only hurt the Canadian economy in the long run.
What a sad state of affairs we're in now that there has to be a tax on everything in the name of "equality", or some other Good Deed. It's the relentless do-gooders that hurt us the most, because they never seem to have any understanding of the Law of Diminishing Returns. |
|
|
| discojoe |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It's honestly really frustrating to hear all this re-hashed Communist theory going around. I think these people don't realize that the jury *isn't* still out on this one - there are literally hundreds of years' worth of debate and books written on Communism, Socialism and Capitalism, and guess what - CAPITALISM WON!
|
I think you need to chill out. I don't think not wanting tax cuts for the rich makes anyone a communist. Maybe we should get him blacklisted from the forum for that. |
|
|
| discojoe |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
OMFG, what is your problem with "the Rich?"
Taxing "the rich" does NOT improve a country's economy - virtually every single country on this planet with backbreaking taxes has an utterly economy, period. |
Thats just not correct again. Scandanavian countries have some of the best and most efficient economies in the world. Their tax structures arn't much different than our own. I can't beleive some of the things you say sometimes. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by discojoe
I think you need to chill out. I don't think not wanting tax cuts for the rich makes anyone a communist. Maybe we should get him blacklisted from the forum for that. |
It's not tax cuts FOR THE RICH, it's tax cuts PERIOD. I'm not even saying that everybody should be in favour of tax cuts (as I said, the debt interest savings could just as easily go toward some kind of government program). What I'm referring to is the way people refer to tax cuts as though they somehow only apply to the "rich" - THEY APPLY TO EVERYONE! And lower taxes benefit the middle class A LOT more than the extremely rich - when you're a millionaire you don't really give a about the taxes anyway. It's ordinary working-class joes like me that get reamed up the ass by ridiculous taxes.
| quote: | | Thats just not correct again. Scandanavian countries have some of the best and most efficient economies in the world. Their tax structures arn't much different than our own. I can't beleive some of the things you say sometimes. |
You're going to have to back this up, because most of Europe has a economy. Germany is doing well but that's because their system actually respects private property.
P.S. I am by *no* means saying that the Scandinavian countries are bad places to live, but their productivity both total and per capita is nowhere near U.S. levels, some of them aren't even near Canadian levels. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by discojoe
Thats just not correct again. Scandanavian countries have some of the best and most efficient economies in the world. Their tax structures arn't much different than our own. I can't beleive some of the things you say sometimes. |
I was speaking to a Swedish girl who told me that with EU passports a lot of Swedes are leaving the country to work in lower taxed countries because they are sick of "the welfare state". Also i have been told that news of swedish success in socilism as been greatly exaggerated. |
|
|
|
|
