|
Occupy Toronto (pg. 28)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DeleteFromUsers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
I most certainly agree that regulation is a major fact of life that we all benefit from in many, many ways. I would certainly never deny that. Hell, if increased regulation on banks in the United States is a primary goal and concern of the movement, I wouldn't oppose it by any means. I would, however, point out that in many cases, it is regulation that creates potential for monopoly or oligopoly to form, and decreases ease of access into market for small businesses. I would caution against looking to regulation as a save-all, and rather look to it as applying in some cases, but ultimately failing in others. The determination of where to apply regulation relies in the hands of incredibly intelligent think-tanks more than it does politicians and every day individuals.
|
To keep within the scope of this discussion, Glass-Steagall was passed in 1932 and repealed in 1999. Disaster in less than a decade. In Canada we have similar legislation which helped keep our economy as strong as it is, and a leader in the world.
Sure, can't just legislate all problems away. Not suggesting that. They just need to follow a tried and true method. |
|
|
| Skipper |
My understanding of the wealthy is that most of their money comes from investments or inheritance (ie royalty). That means they may or may not work...
According to this the top 1% of earners in Canada make approximately $181,000 or more. That's much lower than I expected. There are a lot of people in that category that do NOT embody this evil corporate persona that the Occupy Movement is casting out there. |
|
|
| GGM |
I haven't physically partaken in this movement so I can't really say for sure what it's about. But that being said I don't think it's really about the actual money distribution in terms of figures at all, it's about what comes with it. If they were protesting simply for wealth I'd be right with the "go get a job you unemployed bum" bandwagon. But from everything I've seen it's more so about the massive imbalance in power that currently exists in almost all systems worldwide.
Personally speaking I've met more than enough wealthy people in life to determine that money does not at all equal happiness. In fact the happiest people I've met are usually middle or lower class. Wealth is usually handed down (person doesn't appreciate it enough to enjoy it), accumulated from hard work (person works too much to enjoy it), or obsession (person is too focused on accumulating it to enjoy it). I want none of those. But I do want to know that my job is secure and not at the whims of some guy lighting a cigar with my future kids' education savings account. |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
I would, however, point out that in many cases, it is regulation that creates potential for monopoly or oligopoly to form, and decreases ease of access into market for small businesses. |
Possibly, but keep in mind the States have about as many major banks as Canada except they have 10 times our population. There used to be regulation down there putting huge limitations on what banks could do outside of their home State. It basically made it quite hard for them to operate in multiple States thus you had lots of small ones spread all over the country. This regulation was wiped out of course and quite quickly many small ones became very few large ones.
On top of that I can't count how many times the major banks have tried to merge in Canada and been denied by regulation. It's at the point where they more or less don't even bother trying anymore as they know they'll be denied. One of the best banking regulations we have limits the amount of a bank that can be owned by a foreign body. And believe me when I say if that wasn't in place you'd be going to HSBC, Bank of America, and Citi ATMs instead of TD/RBC/BMO etc.
One thing we have in Canada which imo could fix a lot of problems and avoid tons of BS is credit unions/caisse populaire (wiki that here). They're big in BC and especially Quebec but unfortunately get somewhat blocked out of Ontario by the major banks. |
|
|
| jester |
I know I am entering this conversation, late in the game. What are the real problems in this country?
Financial
- household debt on the rise
- credit card debt
Yes we could raise interest rates, but everyone will be screaming bloody murder even more. In these situations no one really wins. They want cheap money and someone else to pay for their idiotic spending sprees. People need to be accountable for their spending habits. People need to learn to live within their means and not blame someone else for their mistakes. Don't get me wrong, it is sad what happened to the people in the US, but they had it coming, they were told they could really "afford" that home, but they should have been asking themselves, can I really pay for this?
All the other stuff I can think of like medicare and the infrastructure is the government domain and they do not know how to handle or spend the money. If we want those changes, it be better if we occupied Parliament Hill or the youths start putting together their own political parties, if they really want change.
One thing we should be all happy, that most of our education is subsidized by the government. True, it isn't the best but it does fair well. Could it be better, for sure.
The way I see it, even those two major financial problems we have, at least we are still better off than the US and some other countries in the world.
More taxes isn't really the answer. Thing is, lets go back to bartering. Those same people with their occupy "insert city name" will be still screaming on top of their lugs that things aren't right still. For these people, nothing will every be just or morally correct. Some people will always more well of than others.
I am happy my family decided to stay in Canada and not move to the US back in the early 2000s. |
|
|
| Nick Cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by jester
[Demanding] [m]ore taxes isn't really the answer. |
The rich should be taxed more heavily than they currently are. |
|
|
| jester |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nick Cenik
The rich should be taxed more heavily than they currently are. |
Guess 50% isn't enough? If you change the tax laws, people who are making lets say $250,000 a year, instead of losing what 50% it has to be 80%, so they come out with only $50000 a year. If that did happen, I hope the government would raise the limit for the people who wouldn't have to pay taxes to like $30000 a year. Seeing I would love to make $30000 and not have to pay income tax and have the wealthy pay for everything, it won't happen. Soon enough those people making $250000 and losing most of their income will be like, screw it I will take a pay cut and just make the $30000 a year and not pay my taxes. You are just passing on the burden to someone else. Soon enough, no one will be paying taxes, seeing it be way to high. , while were at it, start taxing what people save each year. Let all the money go to corrupt public officials. |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| quote: | Originally posted by jester
Guess 50% isn't enough? If you change the tax laws, people who are making lets say $250,000 a year, instead of losing what 50% it has to be 80%, so they come out with only $50000 a year. If that did happen, I hope the government would raise the limit for the people who wouldn't have to pay taxes to like $30000 a year. Seeing I would love to make $30000 and not have to pay income tax and have the wealthy pay for everything, it won't happen. Soon enough those people making $250000 and losing most of their income will be like, screw it I will take a pay cut and just make the $30000 a year and not pay my taxes. You are just passing on the burden to someone else. Soon enough, no one will be paying taxes, seeing it be way to high. , while were at it, start taxing what people save each year. Let all the money go to corrupt public officials. |
This makes no sense at all. |
|
|
| jester |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
This makes no sense at all. |
So you make $128,800 per year and pay around 46% in taxes, $59248 goes to the government. Most people who want to raise taxes, want it up to 80%. So that $128,800 turns more or less into $103,040 in taxes. So that person that makes $128,800 is walking off with peanuts, while the person making like $39000 per year pays $10920 in taxes. So they pretty much make the same amount each year. Why would someone making $128800 a year want to be taxed at 80%, when he can just make less money and pay less taxes and walk off with the same amount as the higher taxed version of himself.
Does that make any sense now? |
|
|
| LightsOut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nick Cenik
The rich should be taxed more heavily than they currently are. |
How so? People making over $100K already give about half of that away. Compare that to people who make $35K and pay 20%.
Taxes on 35K = 7K. Taxes on 130K = 60K.
Imagine you up the rates for the higher tax brackets, whats the incentive for these people to stay in this country and contribute here?
Combined Federal & Provincial rates for Ontario 2010
15.00% $0-$13,022
25.10% $13,023-$17,101
20.05% $17,102-$37,106
24.15% $37,107-$40,970
31.15% $40,971-$65,344
32.98% $65,345-$74,214
35.39% $74,215-$76,986
39.41% $76,987-$81,941
43.41% $81,942-$127,021
46.41% $127,022+ |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nick Cenik
The rich should be taxed more heavily than they currently are. |
I think, again, that blanket statements/generalizations like this are why I have concerns for the people involved in the "movement" in the first place.
What is the qualification for "rich"?
Statements like this can easily be interpreted as "I want a bigger piece of your pie".
Do you mean small to medium sized business owners should be taxed more? Do you mean inheritors should be taxed more? Do you mean families over the 150,000 dollar income tax bracket should be taxed more?
See what I mean? These things seem so simple, but when you actually expand upon it, that house of cards comes crumbling down. |
|
|
| Nick Cenik |
| There also needs to be way more regulation of how banks are permitted to operate. |
|
|
|
|
