|
Occupy Toronto (pg. 29)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers
To keep within the scope of this discussion, Glass-Steagall was passed in 1932 and repealed in 1999.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. |
I feel you. However, even the statement "they just need to follow a tried and true method" isn't as infallible as it seems. Furthermore, I think that seeking to pin the entire blame on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act is not entirely sound. Sure, it is a massive part of the issue, but so are many aspects of american culture, investor psychology, etc. These are all things that cannot, at any given time, be entirely predicted - hence the extreme difficulty in establishing regulation in the first place.
In the evolution of any marketplace, many, many attempts are made to expand it's productivity and enhance it's ability to generate wealth. Along this road, there are stumbling points.
Look back to the early 1700's, when England (and other nations like Holland) were going through incredibly radical shifts in the very nature of how wealth was created. Nothing was set in stone. Nothing was tried and true. it was a financial revolution, fundamentally changing the way that nobility and peasant alike dealt and viewed "money". We still live this evolution today, and every day going forward.
The point is that none of that shift could have possibly transpired without a leap of faith - the enacting of a grand experiment - to see if it would all move ahead. Regulation by Royal decree could have prevented that (at least for a time). They had a "tried and true" method established. However, they created new "tried and true" methods and The same goes for now: regulation always has the potential to stymy ideas that will, in time, work to our benefit.
Again, I'm not saying that I think deregulating banks, etc is a good idea - I've already voiced my doubts about that. However, I do think that it's vital to point out the shortcomings of both positions. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| And people, by and large, need to change their habits of consumption. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nick Cenik
There also needs to be way more regulation of how banks are permitted to operate. |
Any particular suggestions? What current method of operation, for instance, is in need of far more regulation?
These things are important additions to statements like that man. Otherwise, it's just a banner held in the wind with ultimately no substance. |
|
|
| LightsOut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
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.
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Nick Cenik
There also needs to be way more regulation of how banks are permitted to operate. |
:haha:
Nick are you referring to the US? Because in the Canada the banks operate under more stringent regulations, hence, no subprime mortgage crisis here. Our banks aren't allowed to take the same kind of irresponsible and unethical risks. In regards to the US situation, yes they need more regulation, I don't think anyone disputes that really. Their current crisis is an example of why their current regulation system does in fact, not work. |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| quote: | Originally posted by jester
Most people who want to raise taxes, want it up to 80%. |
Where does this statistic come from? What is it based off of?
| quote: | | 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.[/quote]
The example you are using to prove your point would simply never happen. The government would never change the tax system such that it would have the outcome that you are proposing. That is why what you are saying makes no sense. An 80% tax on people earning $128,800 would simply never happen.
Far too many people are lumping the situation in the US with the situation in Canada. Raising taxes on high income earners in the US is more if an immediate concern because in many cases, high income earners are paying a lower marginal tax rate than low income earners.
Increasing taxes on high income earners is a demand that protestors have in the United States, not necessarily Canada. Although I'm sure some people want this to happen, Canada's tax system is progressive, and is therefore more than fair as it is right now, and there doesn't seem a lot of political pressure or will to change it. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
Canada's tax system is progressive, and is therefore more than fair as it is right now, and there doesn't seem a lot of political pressure or will to change it. |
If something is "more than fair", doesn't it become "unfair"?
Just wondering how that works ;) |
|
|
| Nick Cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by LightsOut
:haha:
Nick are you referring to the US? Because in the Canada the banks operate under more stringent regulations, hence, no subprime mortgage crisis here. |
Yes, apologies, the U.S. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| I pay over 46% in taxes and by no means am I rich or living a luxurious lifestyle. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I pay over 46% in taxes and by no means am I rich or living a luxurious lifestyle. |
Insurance costs too much, the government should regulate it and it should only cost a dollar a month, and we should get a 13 dollar refund at the end of the year if we don't crash. |
|
|
| jester |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
Where does this statistic come from? What is it based off of?
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.
|
I had to use the extreme of the "tax the rich". Thing is many decades ago, before many of us and our parents were born. Taxes were as high as 80% here in Canada.
Tax rates (1920-2000)
Check on page 9 there is a chart.
What is interesting, income tax was supposed to be temporary. |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
If something is "more than fair", doesn't it become "unfair"?
Just wondering how that works ;) |
[color=ccff00]Touché. :)]/color] |
|
|
| DeleteFromUsers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
I feel you. However, even the statement "they just need to follow a tried and true method" isn't as infallible as it seems. Furthermore, I think that seeking to pin the entire blame on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act is not entirely sound. Sure, it is a massive part of the issue, but so are many aspects of american culture, investor psychology, etc. These are all things that cannot, at any given time, be entirely predicted - hence the extreme difficulty in establishing regulation in the first place.
In the evolution of any marketplace, many, many attempts are made to expand it's productivity and enhance it's ability to generate wealth. Along this road, there are stumbling points.
|
I don't think I'm making generalizations.
As such, perhaps the devil's advocate can take a rest for a bit. There's a time for academic speculation and thought experiments. Then there's a time to go into the real world and have honest discussions about what's really happening and what needs to be done.
As a manufacturing entrepreneur, my live revolves around the word "innovation". Innovation is how we do good business, and we're dead without it.
BUT, I sure as don't bet YOUR life on MY experiments. I don't bet my life either. INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS with lots of discussion, thought experiments, and counter-argument BEFORE we start ordering machinery, materials, patents, outside consultants, etc. The people who repealed Glass-Steagall (et al), and I mean the actual persons involved, got really god damn rich - as did their buddies who run the banks. They bet YOUR life on THEIR experiment. that and devil's advocate. All is not equal here. These issues could have (and were) predicted. It only took a decade to destroy scores of lives, useful and functional corporations, decades of innovation and success. |
|
|
|
|
