I do did not say an individual's wealth is the nation's wealth. I said that the majority of our wealthy don't have a problem with paying a little more if that is required FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION AND ITS ECONOMY.
Taxes are progressive in much the same fashion as the US and every other country on the planet. Its obvious you don't have a road map, or you'd realize how foolish your prediction is, and how much you don't know about marxism.
My Karma ran over your Dogma.
You did say that your taxes are steeply progressive. This was an essential part of Marxism's need to wreck capital formation. It strips the individual of his sovereignty and elevates the dictatorship of the proles.
And I am pretty certain you were amost gloating about how the wealth of the people is really the wealth of the state. [whisper] You are actually way closer to Radical Karl's utopia than you think.[/whisper]
there has never been a time in the past 100 years of Canadian history, where industry did not have regulations, subsidies, tax breaks etc. . But you seem to be in favour of laissez faire capitalism. Worked real well at the turn of the 20th didn't it? I am constantly amazed that people who espouse such economic freedom, would rather ignore human nature (particularly greed, corruption and ego gratification inparticular). there has never been a laissez faire capitalist system that didn't scew itself up. Hell look at what wall street et.al. did five years ago - or did you conveniently forget what reduced regulations and lack of oversight accomplished?
My Karma ran over your Dogma.
(avatar by Thomas Nast)
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
No, the central tenant is to provide for the social compact and that in order to do so, Canadians pay according to their ability to do so. A tad different, but it seems you have trouble even with obvious nuance. We are very proud of the society we have crafted - over multiple generations and multiple political parties in power.
No, I said our taxes were progressive. I made no mention of steepness. It certainly does not wreck capital formation. How you get this notion of stripping individual sovereignty is beyond me. Individual sovereignty is constrained in every society in one fashion or another. Dictatorship of the proles - now that is just hilarious.
AGain you attempt to read into my statements meaning that is not there. In Canada, our right to private property is entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So how do you figure an individuals wealth is really the wealth of the state? OTOH, most canadians recognize that giving back within reason to their nation is appropriate since it is the nation that provided the financial/economic opportunity, helped create our standard of living, enshrined our rights, helped define and certainly implemented our social compact. We view that as all positive reasons for supporting our nation with a few extra bucks here and there.And I am pretty certain you were amost gloating about how the wealth of the people is really the wealth of the state. [whisper] You are actually way closer to Radical Karl's utopia than you think.[/whisper]
You take a different tack. But notions of marxism dancing in your head are perfectly positioned.
My Karma ran over your Dogma.
American corporations? Almost no such thing anymore, sunny jim. Sure, they might have an OFFICE in the country. But a warehouse? A factory? Not when the cost of doing so is four times that of shipping that work elsewhere.American corporations have enjoyed 4 years of record corporate profits and have amassed over $5 trilllion in profits that for some strange reason they are not willing to invest in america.
I doubt his desire for freedom is a simple "kick".You know this freedom kick you're is spurious.
Ditto for the US.there has never been a time in the past 100 years of Canadian history, where industry did not have regulations, subsidies, tax breaks etc.
Yes. Last I checked, it's responsible for the modern world. If you don't LIKE the modern world...well, I assume you live in Canada...lots of space up there to go hardcore back woodsman.But you seem to be in favour of laissez faire capitalism. Worked real well at the turn of the 20th didn't it?
And I am constantly amazed that people who support more government control ignore human nature (particularly greed, corruption and ego gratification)I am constantly amazed that people who espouse such economic freedom, would rather ignore human nature (particularly greed, corruption and ego gratification inparticular).
Depends on the timeline your looking at. Over a long enough time period, EVERYTHING fails.there has never been a laissez faire capitalist system that didn't scew itself up.
The housing crisis was a result of our government REQUIRING mortgage companies to approve "minorities" (read: people with worse credit ratings) for home loans. THAT was Clinton's baby. So, the bakers approved these people for loans that they otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE. Because they had more loans and thus more paperwork to plow through, they had to hire more and more staff to handle the load. I mean, overnight, the ellegable customer base for home loans nearly doubled. If you've ever bought a house in the US, you are aware of the amount of crap involved. The banks, fearing (rightly so) that these loans were unstable, sold them off. To investment firms. The investment firms, using perfectly legal means, bundled those toxic loans (toxic = risky) with other LESS risky loans, in order to sweeten the sale, and called them securities, in a nice little bit of double speak. Insurance companies where the major customers for these, because they have to have high assets as a nature of the business they do. All of this continued right on through Bush, up till the crash. Was there corruption involved? A lack of oversight? Yes. On the part of OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. You see, many of our elected officials came to those government jobs BY WAY of jobs at places like Goldman Sachs, or, hey, Bane Capital. And many of them, should they not get re-elected, had those jobs to go BACK to. In other words, they are COMPROMISED. Many of them have SWEET retirement packages, as a result of certain deals done, papers signed, while in office. Some of them have investment returns not allowed to the rest of the general public, more results of the same actions.Hell look at what wall street et.al. did five years ago - or did you conveniently forget what reduced regulations and lack of oversight accomplished?
Do you see the problems here? The only REAL corruption we have...is NOT on the private side. It's on the public side.