Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In today's issue of the London Free Press, there is a study on page A8 by Statistics Canada which shows that in a 5 year period the income of higher income tax brackets has gone up 22% and the income of poorer tax brackets has gone down 11%. They call it a crisis situation and I can understand why. There is a direct connection to the poverty level and the criminal activity level (meaning poor people get desperate and commit crimes like theft) also the stress on low income families causes domestic violence and violence within the communities.

Also it found the it's getting harder for people born into poorer families to obtain post secondary education. Of course the main factor being lack of funds, but also the aforementioned violence causes stress for children of poor families and makes it harder for them to focus do well in school as does the all too common situation of children of those families not having enough to eat which causes them to go to school hungry or starving and also not be able to focus and do well. Many also have to quit school in order to help support the house hold with a part time or full time job which is minimum wage.

The fact is this is a crisis, and the government needs to take action and stop doing what it does best, pretending the issue isn't there.

They can get a job in Alberta. Mystery solved.

Second, once again you have no positive solutions. I would not be surprised if you were an NDP supporter, that is, you complain about everything, but won't do anything about it and can't come up with solutions. You fail... again.

I am mostly a moderate although I am right wing on the subject of crime and capital punishment.

And your brilliant advice is everyone move to Alberta? Are you crazy? Let me explain how stupid a remark that is.

1) How are people who can't even buy a carton of milk supposed to afford to move to Alberta and set up a new life?

2)What happens when Alberta becomes flooded with workers? Their job market collapses.

And while I do have issues with the NDP, they at least have a realistic grasp on whats going on in society.

And as to your childish little catch phrase there, I hope when some guy driven nuts by desperation sticks a gun in your face and asks for your wallet. I hope the last thing thats goes through your mind besides the bullet is the words "You fail."

HAHA at you.

1) Alberta has a massive labour shortage. The second largest city in Canada of Newfoundlanders is Fort McMurray. And they can afford it because companies in Alberta are so desperate for workers that anyone working here can easily get a $1000 a month living allowance on top of their regular pay. Wages average around 10% higher than anywhere in the country.
2) People are still flooding to Alberta and yet the job shortage is getting worse. Imagine that.

The fact that you think the NDP have a grasp on anything is sad. The NDP are proven failures in economics and politics.

And wishing death on me shows what a pathetic human you are. Sadly for you, your wish will never come true because Alberta has 0% unemployment. No one is desperate for a job. So, you fail... again.

Originally posted by Nellinator
HAHA at you.

1) Alberta has a massive labour shortage. The second largest city in Canada of Newfoundlanders is Fort McMurray. And they can afford it because companies in Alberta are so desperate for workers that anyone working here can easily get a $1000 a month living allowance on top of their regular pay. Wages average around 10% higher than anywhere in the country.
2) People are still flooding to Alberta and yet the job shortage is getting worse. Imagine that.

The fact that you think the NDP have a grasp on anything is sad. The NDP are proven failures in economics and politics.

And wishing death on me shows what a pathetic human you are. Sadly for you, your wish will never come true because Alberta has 0% unemployment. No one is desperate for a job. So, you fail... again.

"Haha at you?" - 2 year olds say that.

I don't think you realize just how large the amount of poor people is in this country. I don't care what you say, there is no way alberta can accommodate the country's poor. And if you claim it can, show something to back that outrageous statement up.

I don't wish death on you, I just think a situation like that may be the only thing that gets you to realize what the real situation is in this country.

And the NDP actually have done some amazing things and have had many successes in the provincial political arena, both in the west and eastern sections of Canada. Ed Brodbent was a legendary leader in the NDP.

And again someone doesn't fail simply because you act like a 2 year old and say they do.

Starhawk, maybe you should join a Canadian politics forum, as it seems to be all you care about. I'm sure they'll be plenty of Harry Potter forums, which will also accommodate you.

Don't troll my topics.

Don't flood the GDF, with the same old moaning bollocks then. Just another predicament with absolutely no contribution from you, as to what's to be done about it, it's pointless.

Suggestion:

make the thread about the growing divide between rich and poor in all industrialized nations and the war against the middle class, using the examples from Canada or where ever to support the position.

Look at BC. They were a economicly successful province that contributed to equalization payments. Just four years with an NDP government and now has to receive payments. The only place they have been successful is Saskatchewan. And the provincial NDP in Saskatchewan are far different from the national NDP party, much like the Alberta and British Columbian Liberal party is far different from the national Liberal party. In fact it is the British Columbian Liberal party (it is really a conservative government) has turned British Columbia around and put them back on track. Guess how he managed to do that? He cut taxes by 25%. I suggest you read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Campbell
Notice how successful he was with his reforms that were "right-wing" solutions and notice how the quality of life has dramatically increased in BC after the near collapse because of the NDP. Do you see more doctors, over 300 000 more jobs and whatnot by DECREASING taxes. Also notice that he is the first BC premier in 25 years to be re-elected because it works.

There is nothing wrong with making a thread about the economic situation in Canada.

No one cares.



Just immigrate to America. We're cooler, and have better weather.

And a crumbling healthcare and education system and very high poverty and crime rates.

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
No one cares.



Just immigrate to America. We're cooler, and have better weather.

*Emigrate

Originally posted by Starhawk
And a crumbling healthcare and education system and very high poverty and crime rates.

And good video games. Yes, I know. We're on top.

Originally posted by Starhawk
There is nothing wrong with making a thread about the economic situation in Canada.

Move to the U.K then. Just not anywhere near where I live.

I wouldn't move to the uk, don't get me wrong there is allot about your country I admire and respect. But if I do move to Europe, it would be France or Sweden.

Yes.

Canada should steal money from the rich and hand it over to the poor.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I wouldn't move to the uk, don't get me wrong there is allot about your country I admire and respect. But if I do move to Europe, it would be France or Sweden.

That's fair enough, I'd go with the Sweden move on that. Chirac has a few questionable policies. Not to mention, the occasional riot might be a bit annoying.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes.

Canada should steal money from the rich and hand it over to the poor.

It's in the Rich classes best interest. The healthier the poorer classes are the less of a drain on the medical sector. And it will reduce the crime rate.

Perhaps they think it's in their best interest not to have their money stolen.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And a crumbling healthcare and education system and very high poverty and crime rates.

Oh no you didn't. I'm gonna write a letter to Bush to blow up your country.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Look at BC. They were a economicly successful province that contributed to equalization payments. Just four years with an NDP government and now has to receive payments. The only place they have been successful is Saskatchewan. And the provincial NDP in Saskatchewan are far different from the national NDP party, much like the Alberta and British Columbian Liberal party is far different from the national Liberal party. In fact it is the British Columbian Liberal party (it is really a conservative government) has turned British Columbia around and put them back on track. Guess how he managed to do that? He cut taxes by 25%. I suggest you read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Campbell
Notice how successful he was with his reforms that were "right-wing" solutions and notice how the quality of life has dramatically increased in BC after the near collapse because of the NDP. Do you see more doctors, over 300 000 more jobs and whatnot by DECREASING taxes. Also notice that he is the first BC premier in 25 years to be re-elected because it works.

Canada has much higher poverty and unemployment rates than America

Yah, something needs to be done in far eastern Canada. Unemployment is a major problem there. Ontario gets the middle finger because they are catered to anyway and Quebec's problems are their own (because they are their own culture and nation ).

lol, I think it has more to do with Americans incarcerating all poor minorities at a much higher rate than we do

and the stronger the social net a society has, the more institutionalized poverty there will be

Originally posted by Starhawk
There is nothing wrong with making a thread about the economic situation in Canada.

Part of the problem it is a cliche title that is true no matter where you are in the world. It is not just a Canadian issue.

Originally posted by BackFire
Perhaps they think it's in their best interest not to have their money stolen.

And by helping the poor, they reduce the crime rate and lessen the chances of that happening.

And guys, just because the title of the thread has Canada in it, in no way prevents you from discussing the issue as it relates to the world over.

I'm sure plenty of rich voluntarily help the poor.

What more do you want from them? It's not their fault they are successful.

Actually the vast majority do not.

And no, it's not their fault, but it is in their best interest to help and as we have already talked about many of them are successful due to the advantages they had growing up.

You mean as you believe, and failed to back up in any sound way.

It doesn't matter, though. It's their money. They have the right to do what they wish with it.

Actually, they do, not only from the fact that they don't have to work as hard, that there parents cover their tuition, that they tend to get jobs easier due to family connections but I also laid out the impacts in my first post on how poverty effects education.

They're still maintaining their wealth because they are able to run a wealthy business properly or do whatever job they do well. Their upbringing has no effect on their ability. But as said, it doesn't matter.

It's still their money. They can give it to the poor, or they can horde it and laugh while the poor starve. Their decision.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually, they do, not only from the fact that they don't have to work as hard, that there parents cover their tuition, that they tend to get jobs easier due to family connections but I also laid out the impacts in my first post on how poverty effects education.

Well, that's a load of utter rubbish, you my friend, have been watching too many teen movies. In the real world the percentage of people who get good jobs, because of family, is absolutely tiny.

Actually it's not, As I said I myself am in a fairly high tax bracket and allot of my friends got their jobs due to family connections. Also BF, if they take the second option, then crime increases and they take the risk of someday one of those poor people they laughed at sticking a gun in their face demanding their money.

The fact is, you live in a society, you have a responsibility to help those incapable of doing it themselves.

What about the many many many many many poor people who aren't in their position because they are incapable, but because they are simply lazy or stupid? Do we have a "responsibility" to them?

And wonderful, now that poor person who is robbing the rich person is showing that not only don't they deserve any money, they are bad people and deserve to be where they're at.

Besides, there is no such responsibility. The government has that responsibility if one exists, it's not the responsibility of random citizens to piggy back those who ****ed their lives up.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually it's not, As I said I myself am in a fairly high tax bracket and allot of my friends got their jobs due to family connections. Also BF, if they take the second option, then crime increases and they take the risk of someday one of those poor people they laughed at sticking a gun in their face demanding their money.

The fact is, you live in a society, you have a responsibility to help those incapable of doing it themselves.

Your mates are not evidence. My mate ate his own foot, believe me? Thought not.

Originally posted by BackFire
What about the many many many many many poor people who aren't in their position because they are incapable, but because they are simply lazy or stupid? Do we have a "responsibility" to them?

And wonderful, now that poor person who is robbing the rich person is showing that not only don't they deserve any money, they are bad people and deserve to be where they're at.

Besides, there is no such responsibility. The government has that responsibility if one exists, it's not the responsibility of random citizens to piggy back those who ****ed their lives up.

First off, there is a staggering amount of poor looking for work, the unemployment office in my city is over booked due to it. They aren't lazy or stupid, in my city 2 factories closed down and those people are now out of a job, they did nothing wrong and now they are in that poor bracket.

And while I do not condone crime, they aren't all bad people, some are driven to desperation by their circumstances.

And that sucks.

Doesn't answer my question, though. What of the poor people who ARE stupid and lazy. They do exist. Should rich people hand money to them?

They are bad people, because they're doing bad things. Desperation is no excuse. They have other options, like waiting and doing things besides crime.

They do exist, but not in the numbers you claim. The government can't pick and choose who it gives assistance to, due to discrimination laws.

And I never said it was an excuse, it is a reason. I still believe they should go to jail for it absolutely. But poverty is one of the leading causes of crime.

I always thought criminals were.

And you think they just sprout out of the ground as such? That nothing drives them to commit crime?

Yes.

Them being criminals.

You should take a class in criminology, it would really open your eyes.

I did.

Teacher said crime is caused by criminals.

Who was your teacher? Forest Gump?

....

Maybe.

It should have been you, shouldn't it Starhawk? As you are of course, the most forward thinking intellectual, to ever grace this planet with your presence.

Don't troll.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Don't troll.

I beg your pardon. That statement was in complete earnest, though it is up to you whether you believe it, or not.

It has nothing to do with the topic so it's trolling.

Originally posted by Starhawk
It has nothing to do with the topic so it's trolling.

It was to do with the discussion you raised, concerning who would be a suitable criminology teacher.

I wasn't starting a discussion, now get back on topic.

OK then, why did you need a new study to tell you this? It's capitalism, it's been happening since the dawn of the industrial revolution. It's not new, and it's not solvable by increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Yes it is, that tax money can be invested in new businesses and social programs to provide assistance to them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes it is, that tax money can be invested in new businesses and social programs to provide assistance to them.

That's a good step forward, and I think you'll find most governments are already doing it. But by no means is it going to solve the problem. Companies want money and some need money, so they'll always go for cheap labour, even if they have to move factories out of the country all together. It may not be a fact that's pleasant, but it's one we have to face.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
That's a good step forward, and I think you'll find most governments are already doing it. But by no means is it going to solve the problem. Companies want money and some need money, so they'll always go for cheap labour, even if they have to move factories out of the country all together. It may not be a fact that's pleasant, but it's one we have to face.

More the WANTING then the NEEDING.

Yes and we may have to give up those. But we can get the WTO to start imposing trade taxes internationally on companies that do that.

Originally posted by Starhawk
More the WANTING then the NEEDING.

Yes and we may have to give up those. But we can get the WTO to start imposing trade taxes internationally on companies that do that.

Yes, certainly more wanting than needing, but that's human nature and an entirely different debate. To impose trade taxes internationally, would only mean massive redundancies in poorer countries. Furthermore, it would result in lower wages in your own country, which carries on the cycle, you are trying to prevent.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yes, certainly more wanting than needing, but that's human nature and an entirely different debate. To impose trade taxes internationally, would only mean massive redundancies in poorer countries. Furthermore, it would result in lower wages in your own country, which carries on the cycle, you are trying to prevent.

What redundancies are you referring to?

Originally posted by Starhawk
What redundancies are you referring to?

Well the companies that have already moved would face rocketing trade taxes. The desirable out come of this, from your side of the argument, is that they move back to Canada. This would result in redundancies in the countries these factories were in, making a poorer nation than Canada, essentially, poorer.

That nation isn't poor because of a lack of OUR industry, it's due to their governments. And we do allot to offer assistance to those countries.

Originally posted by Starhawk
That nation isn't poor because of a lack of OUR industry, it's due to their governments. And we do allot to offer assistance to those countries.

No, it's due to the fact that different nations industrialise at different speeds. Your industry benefits from the cheap labour provided by this boom in industrialisation, while the nation benefits by the raising of their economy. I'm sure your country does do a lot to support those countries, but it cannot be denied that companies still use them for cheap labour. Whether Canada as a nation helps them or not.

And the WTO can impose tax hikes to put a stop to that.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And the WTO can impose tax hikes to put a stop to that.

We've already discussed what that would lead to, lower wages for the Canadian workers. That seems to be just making sure the poor stay poor.

How would that lead to lower wages in Canada? The WTO imposes taxes if you outsource jobs. If anything that would help Canadian workers.

Originally posted by Starhawk
How would that lead to lower wages in Canada? The WTO imposes taxes if you outsource jobs. If anything that would help Canadian workers.

Because the companies that had been paying tiny wages in third world or developing countries, would likely not pay more than minimum wage. It's better than no jobs at all though, I agree with you there.

Exactly. And the Canadian Government can increase the minimum wage.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Exactly. And the Canadian Government can increase the minimum wage.

That in turn, means more income tax and product inflation though.

The government can legislate price controls.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The government can legislate price controls.

Which I'm afraid, would result in more council tax.

Council Tax?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Council Tax?

I'm not actually sure what the Canadian version would be called. But it's a local tax, set by the authorities in order to meet their budgets.

We don't have that, if they want to do it they have to take a vote among the city council to implement it and they wouldn't get voted in if they did.

Well their budget must be funded by something, and that something must be taxes. Those taxes would increase with the hugely increased workload that your propositions would require. Therefore, giving the budget a bit of a bruising.

How it works in Canada is sort of a domino effect.

The Federal Government gives money to each province, then those provinces give money out of their budget to the municipal governments. now of course each level also has their own taxation to help as well, but when they go over budget they tend to just ask for more money from the level of government above them.

Oh right. But surely every level of government's budget is paid for by taxes. So the theory would work the same, no matter what level.

Yes I imagine so, but the tax increases are almost always at the federal level, not the municipal one.

I believe federal taxes are still paid by the public though are they not? So, there would still be a tax increase. Or, there would have to be drastic cuts of resources etc, made in other federal areas such as schools and hospitals.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Don't troll my topics.

This is the general discussion forum. You can claim the rights to any thread you like, but you can't micro-manage them, and you'll have to deal with it.

So you want to increase government spending on social programmes and raise minimum wage, which will increase inflation. But intend to curb inflation by exacting price control income policies on businesses. The same businesses you want to force to employ locals at the higher minimum wage, impeding their profit. The same businesses you want to unduly tax in order to fund social programmes, likewise impeding their profit. The same businesses that will be affected by price controls, which will again impede their profits. While still expecting those businesses to have growth in profits in order to create more employment, for which they'll be paying a higher minimum wage, and to generate tax revenue to pay for increased government spending? Hooray for stupid economics.

Oh and no one cares about Canada.

Exactly the point I've been trying to get across, through a good two pages.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I believe federal taxes are still paid by the public though are they not? So, there would still be a tax increase. Or, there would have to be drastic cuts of resources etc, made in other federal areas such as schools and hospitals.

There's nothing wrong with a tax increase on the higher tax brackets, Canada has a fairly low tax rate as it is.

Originally posted by Starhawk
There's nothing wrong with a tax increase on the higher tax brackets, Canada has a fairly low tax rate as it is. Yes there is.

Originally posted by Starhawk
There's nothing wrong with a tax increase on the higher tax brackets, Canada has a fairly low tax rate as it is.

Somebody needs to teach you economics, fining company's raising taxes, increasing their expenses on personal and then taxing them even more will not do anything to make them grow. It will weaken your marketing position hugely. It would result in Canadian company's being forced to fire most of their personal just to stay alive.

Outsourcing to poorer country's at first was a nice way to make more money, now it's a way to survive for most company's as they can't compete with the company's that do outsource their personal if they don't.

Companies are making record profits and still doing that. And no they do not need to outsource to survive, they do it to increase their profit margins even more then they are now. That's why the WTO needs to impose trade taxes on companies that do it.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Companies are making record profits and still doing that. And no they do not need to outsource to survive, they do it to increase their profit margins even more then they are now. That's why the WTO needs to impose trade taxes on companies that do it.

Okay let's go over this again.

If company's don't outsource they have to spend more on personal in the country's they are already in. That would mean they will not be able to offer their services as cheap as they can now. Reducing their profits. And very possibly their total production ability.

The country's they have outsourced too will get hit incredibly hard if all of a sudden the rich western company's withdraw. Country's like India need our company's in order to get their economy on track. Eventually it will get on track and the result will be that the company's will outsource to other places.

The position of Canadian company's on the global market will start to weaken because of that. Now any fine you would give the company would only hurt it more.

The WTO for the best of my knowledge also doesn't have the power to fine company's. Not to mention that a lot of the member states of the WTO are dependent on this international trading. So the WTO would never forbid it.

Not to mention there are still plenty of large country's that aren't members of the WTO, and a few country's that would easily step out of it if the fines would start appearing.

You can't solve this problem by fining, the only way you can solve it is by making investing in Canada more interesting then investing in country's like India. Keep company's in Canada by reducing corporate taxes, minimal wage or things like that.

Originally posted by Fishy

You can't solve this problem by fining, the only way you can solve it is by making investing in Canada more interesting then investing in country's like India. Keep company's in Canada by reducing corporate taxes, minimal wage or things like that.

I've always been a bigger fan of tax "loopholes" that in turn promote re-investment into the company. Raise workers salaries, save that in taxes.

Thus, the corporation does what the government should be doing anyways, only they do it with the efficiency of the private sector. Let companies open schools as a tax relief.

Minimum wage is really important to me

Originally posted by inimalist
I've always been a bigger fan of tax "loopholes" that in turn promote re-investment into the company. Raise workers salaries, save that in taxes.

Thus, the corporation does what the government should be doing anyways, only they do it with the efficiency of the private sector. Let companies open schools as a tax relief.

Minimum wage is really important to me

That would work too, but I know a certain person here that hates tax loopholes because he thinks they are evil and invention of right wingers that hate the environment...

But you are right things like that could work as well, as long as the "loopholes" can't be used when investing in foreign country's. That would just serve to keep the problem alive.

Actually the WTO can, I don't think you understand, they probably have more power the the UN. One example, Canada was able to offer postal services cheaper then the US, but the WTO forced them to keep their rates. But even if the WTO didn't, the Canadian Government can impose such taxes on companies that outsource.

Also companies that don't outsource are still making record profits, they do not need to outsource to survive, just to line their pockets even more.

I don't think you understand. If we don't do something to help the low income classes, they don't have the money to buy products and feed back into the economy and considering they are the vast majority in society, your domestic product goes right down the tubes.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually the WTO can, I don't think you understand, they probably have more power the the UN. One example, Canada was able to offer postal services cheaper then the US, but the WTO forced them to keep their rates. But even if the WTO didn't, the Canadian Government can impose such taxes on companies that outsource.

Also companies that don't outsource are still making record profits, they do not need to outsource to survive, just to line their pockets even more.

I don't think you understand. If we don't do something to help the low income classes, they don't have the money to buy products and feed back into the economy and considering they are the vast majority in society, your domestic product goes right down the tubes.

No the WTO is a trade organization forum for a lot of country's. They try to keep trading fair. They aren't capable of giving fines. And even if they could they never would, seeing as half of their members profit greatly from this stuff.

Now if the Canadian government would do that, it would only serve to weaken Canada it's marketing position and in turn it would really hurt the Canadian economy. You don't fine your own company's for trying to make more money. Either you act on a global scale or you won't act.

And might I ask you for some source on those things you are saying? Record profits for company's that don't outsource? What company's are you talking about here? Do they have the ability to outsource? Are you making this up?

And I understand perfectly that the lower class needs to be helped, but I also understand that it's the middle class that keeps the economy going. Still you are right, increasing the funds of the poor would help the economy. If it can be done without hurting the company's. Something that can only be done by giving company's benefits. Not by fining them.

Also, how nice that you ignore my point of weakening nations like India and destroying their economy. It seems all you really care about is Canada.

Really quick on the WTO:

They really don't have any power outside of their tribunal that can make rulings one way or another, though not enforce them. This was extremely evident in the soft wood lumber issue.

Originally posted by Fishy
That would work too, but I know a certain person here that hates tax loopholes because he thinks they are evil and invention of right wingers that hate the environment...

But you are right things like that could work as well, as long as the "loopholes" can't be used when investing in foreign country's. That would just serve to keep the problem alive.

I agree. I don't know how far that type of public-private partnership can be extended, but to me they just seem like the best way to try and run things in the country.

Originally posted by Fishy
No the WTO is a trade organization forum for a lot of country's. They try to keep trading fair. They aren't capable of giving fines. And even if they could they never would, seeing as half of their members profit greatly from this stuff.

Now if the Canadian government would do that, it would only serve to weaken Canada it's marketing position and in turn it would really hurt the Canadian economy. You don't fine your own company's for trying to make more money. Either you act on a global scale or you won't act.

And might I ask you for some source on those things you are saying? Record profits for company's that don't outsource? What company's are you talking about here? Do they have the ability to outsource? Are you making this up?

And I understand perfectly that the poorer class needs to be helped, but I also understand that it's the middle class that keeps the economy going. Still you are right, increasing the funds of the poor would help the economy. If it can be done without hurting the company's. Something that can only be done by giving company's benefits. Not by fining them.

Also, how nice that you ignore my point of weakening nations like India and destroying their economy. It seems all you really care about is Canada.

Yes I do care about Canada, and the middle class is disappearing, as that article shows that divide between rich and poor is widening.

The automotive industry is one prime example. They made record profits last year and now they see they can make even more by outsourcing and so they have and many of their workers are now jobless, again through no fault of their own.

There isn't always a perfect solution, You want to help the lower income group and pump up the profits of the higher income group. Sometimes it has to be one or the other.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes I do care about Canada, and the middle class is disappearing, as that article shows that divide between rich and poor is widening.

The automotive industry is one prime example. They made record profits last year and now they see they can make even more by outsourcing and so they have and many of their workers are now jobless, again through no fault of their own.

There isn't always a perfect solution, You want to help the lower income group and pump up the profits of the higher income group. Sometimes it has to be one or the other.

The undeniable fact is though, developing countries which currently have the jobs you are talking about, need them a lot more than Canada does. Your lack of geographical empathy is absurd.

No it's not our responsibility to provide those countries with work, thats the job of their government.

A high tide raises all ships

Originally posted by inimalist
A high tide raises all ships

Not in this case.

international trade is to our detriment?

Trade no, Outsourcing yes.

so raise taxes to prevent outsourcing?

It is one idea.

/sigh

What a well thought out response, care to clarify?

taxation is one of the primary drivers of outsourcing?

Economically speaking it doesn't matter where you tax the whole country is effected equally. Although an externality of taxing the rich is that they can higher lawyers who find millions of loop holes and diminish the tax burden on themselves in comparison to the poor.

Originally posted by inimalist
taxation is one of the primary drivers of outsourcing?

That's why you levy a tax on companies that outsource, make it so it's cheaper for them to stay in the country.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
Economically speaking it doesn't matter where you tax the whole country is effected equally. Although an externality of taxing the rich is that they can higher lawyers who find millions of loop holes and diminish the tax burden on themselves in comparison to the poor.

And thats why I want those loopholes eliminated.

Originally posted by Starhawk
That's why you levy a tax on companies that outsource, make it so it's cheaper for them to stay in the country.

lol

yes, the government should strong arm the corporate sector

Originally posted by Starhawk
That's why you levy a tax on companies that outsource, make it so it's cheaper for them to stay in the country.

And what would stop these company's from moving their headquarters to some other nation that doesn't have the same laws and same taxation levels? It's easy for them to do, and unless you want to stop international trade absolutely impossible to stop.

So what you would do is hurt your economy by removing big company's and lower the tax income you get from them.

Punishing won't make them change, it will make them try to find ways out. Rewarding for staying is the only way to fix this.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No it's not our responsibility to provide those countries with work, thats the job of their government.

So you are basically willing to destroy entire country's just so Canada can have fewer unemployments... How nice of you, of course you fail to understand the impacts this would have on Canada's economy and just wouldn't work. But it's good to know you value the lifestyle of a Canadian above the life of somebody in India

Originally posted by Starhawk
Who was your teacher? Forest Gump?

Originally posted by Fishy
And what would stop these company's from moving their headquarters to some other nation that doesn't have the same laws and same taxation levels? It's easy for them to do, and unless you want to stop international trade absolutely impossible to stop.

So what you would do is hurt your economy by removing big company's and lower the tax income you get from them.

Punishing won't make them change, it will make them try to find ways out. Rewarding for staying is the only way to fix this.

So your solution is that we give more benefits to companies who are going to outsource no matter how much you give them and then almost no one in your country can afford to buy things and feed the economy and you lose you domestic product, which in turn makes you even more dependant on foreign trade and the cycle spirals downwards.

Originally posted by Starhawk
So your solution is that we give more benefits to companies who are going to outsource no matter how much you give them and then almost no one in your country can afford to buy things and feed the economy and you lose you domestic product, which in turn makes you even more dependant on foreign trade and the cycle spirals downwards.

Do you not understand that the rewards, would act as an incentive for them to keep their corporation in the country? If they outsource they will not be rewarded, it's as simple as that.

They will still make more money outsourcing, and thats all they care about. The Government cannot afford to give them what it would take to make it cheaper to stay.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to increase minimum wage, create heavier tax legislation for companies who outsource, and try and keep inflation from rising too much? It would cost as much, if not more than this reward scheme. Though yes the companies would not make as much, they would save on shipping costs etc. and would also have the benefit of better insurance for their factories and warehouses.

Originally posted by Starhawk
So your solution is that we give more benefits to companies who are going to outsource no matter how much you give them and then almost no one in your country can afford to buy things and feed the economy and you lose you domestic product, which in turn makes you even more dependant on foreign trade and the cycle spirals downwards.

No my solution would be to reward the company's that stay. You don't have to make staying as cheap as outsourcing, there are plenty of reasons company's would like to stay in the country they are already in. Because it's easier to do that, but when the gain from outsourcing is great they are more likely to do it.

Making staying in the country attractive will make a lot of company's doubt and not go through with it at all. Sure it's not a perfect solution, but it sucks a hell of lot less then yours. As you would just fine them until they move their headquarters to some other country and they can do whatever they want. You need to understand that company's can do that, and they need to make more money, so punishing them if they do something to make more money won't work. You need to give them a way to make more money, and hope that something like that boosts your economy at the same time. (which it usually does)

Originally posted by Fishy
No my solution would be to reward the company's that stay. You don't have to make staying as cheap as outsourcing, there are plenty of reasons company's would like to stay in the country they are already in. Because it's easier to do that, but when the gain from outsourcing is great they are more likely to do it.

Making staying in the country attractive will make a lot of company's doubt and not go through with it at all. Sure it's not a perfect solution, but it sucks a hell of lot less then yours. As you would just fine them until they move their headquarters to some other country and they can do whatever they want. You need to understand that company's can do that, and they need to make more money, so punishing them if they do something to make more money won't work. You need to give them a way to make more money, and hope that something like that boosts
your economy at the same time. (which it usually does)

They make enough money, and more and more
companies are moving anyways, we live in a world where greed rules all.

Basically it comes down to this,

Your way destroys domestic profits.
My way destroys foreign profits.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Do you have any idea how much it would cost to increase minimum wage, create heavier tax legislation for companies who outsource, and try and keep inflation from rising too much? It would cost as much, if not more than this reward scheme. Though yes the companies would not make as much, they would save on shipping costs etc. and would also have the benefit of better insurance for their factories and warehouses.

In my province of Ontario, they have increased minimum wages up to
10$ an hour. Unfortunately, they didn't increase pensions so the disabled and elderly are about to get screwed worse then ever in history.

Originally posted by Starhawk
They make enough money, and more and more
companies are moving anyways, we live in a world where greed rules all.

Basically it comes down to this,

Your way destroys domestic profits.
My way destroys foreign profits.

Bullshit,

your way forces company's to move. They will move their headquarters to other country's that don't have those laws. They will continue outsourcing and Canada will lose a lot of tax income.

My way has in the past often proved to boost economics and it will make company's have more reasons to stay. Meaning that the company's can increase their foreign and domestic profits.

It's real easy really, punishing company's for leaving will make them move their headquarters to other country's to avoid the legal trouble you are going to give them.

Giving them advantages for staying will make them stay. Easy.

Originally posted by Fishy

Your way forces company's to move. They will move their headquarters to other country's that don't have those laws. They will continue outsourcing and Canada will lose a lot of tax income.

My way has in the past often proved to boost economics and it will make company's have more reasons to stay. Meaning that the company's can increase their foreign and domestic profits.

It's real easy really, punishing company's for leaving will make them move their headquarters to other country's to avoid the legal trouble you are going to give them.

Giving them advantages for staying will make them stay. Easy.

And those advantages will hurt the poorer classes who make up the majority, The middle class in Canada is disappearing and as that article shows the divide between the richer classes and the poorer classes is widening drastically. So you will do great in foreign markets, but domestically people can't afford to buy from you, they go to places like wall-mart that are american owned and shop there. And those place are even getting too expensive for allot of families.

The poor make up by far the largest section of the population in Canada. So if these companies end up only making products for foreign trade and having to pay the shipping costs anyways, they will just move to places that offer incredibly cheap wages anyways.

Both sides can't win in this.

Originally posted by Starhawk
They make enough money, and more and more
companies are moving anyways, we live in a world where greed rules all.

Basically it comes down to this,

Your way destroys domestic profits.
My way destroys foreign profits.

No, it comes down to

Fishy's way increases domestic and foreign profit

Yours makes you feel good about yourself like only a cock in your butt does usually.



But seriously, what makes you think those companies will stay in your country if you treat them like shit? They can jsut as well move somewhere else, making Canadians lose jobs and companies. Is that what you want?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Basically it comes down to this,

Your way destroys domestic profits.
My way destroys foreign profits.

Brilliant! Destroying the economy of other nations couldn't possibly backfire.

It does NOT help domestic profits, because no one can afford to buy domestically. So they buy things that were imported.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And those advantages will hurt the poorer classes who make up the majority, The middle class in Canada is disappearing and as that article shows the divide between the richer classes and the poorer classes is widening drastically. So you will do great in foreign markets, but domestically people can't afford to buy from you, they go to places like wall-mart that are american owned and shop there. And those place are even getting too expensive for allot of families.

The poor make up by far the largest section of the population in Canada. So if these companies end up only making products for foreign trade and having to pay the shipping costs anyways, they will just move to places that offer incredibly cheap wages anyways.

Both sides can't win in this.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Brilliant! Destroying the economy of other nations couldn't possibly backfire. Actually I am more worried about him being in favour of destroying the economy of his own nation.

Originally posted by Starhawk
First off, there is a staggering amount of poor looking for work, the unemployment office in my city is over booked due to it. They aren't lazy or stupid, in my city 2 factories closed down and those people are now out of a job, they did nothing wrong and now they are in that poor bracket.

And while I do not condone crime, they aren't all bad people, some are driven to desperation by their circumstances. Why are you complaining about the factories being shut down? That helps meet the Kyoto accord, but you argue that low income families aren't going to suffer because of it? Only big business? This is living proof for you of what meeting the Kyoto accord is going to do. It's going to reduce the jobs of hard-working labours and increase unemployment. It's terrible because poverty is far worse than anything we are doing to the environment.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually I am more worried about him being in favour of destroying the economy of his own nation.

Well yes. However you can dig yourself out of it if you crush your own economy. If you mess with the economy of everybody else you're screwed.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Why are you complaining about the factories being shut down? That helps meet the Kyoto accord, but you argue that low income families aren't going to suffer because of it? Only big business? This is living proof for you of what meeting the Kyoto accord is going to do. It's going to reduce the jobs of hard-working labours and increase unemployment. It's terrible because poverty is far worse than anything we are doing to the environment.

No, changing the way factories do business would help, they can keep running and reduce the pollution.



Raising the minimum wage was a good start for Canada, now they need to raise the pensions to an equal level.

There is no bright future on the horizon, pollution is going to get worse, we are going to have astronomical levels of poor people, lack of health care is becoming a major issue.

Originally posted by Starhawk

Raising the minimum wage was a good start for Canada, now they need to raise the pensions to an equal level.


Again this would raise taxes. You can't just get money to do these things out of no where, and if the problems are as bad as you say it is, it's going to take a lot of money.

Post:Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Do you have any idea how much it would cost to increase minimum wage, create heavier tax legislation for companies who outsource, and try and keep inflation from rising too much? It would cost as much, if not more than this reward scheme. Though yes the companies would not make as much, they would save on shipping costs etc. and would also have the benefit of better insurance for their factories and warehouses. Reply not addressing any of the points raised in the post:Originally posted by Starhawk
In my province of Ontario, they have increased minimum wages up to
10$ an hour. Unfortunately, they didn't increase pensions so the disabled and elderly are about to get screwed worse then ever in history.

"then" is a noun, adjective or adverb.
"than" is a conjunction or preposition.

Yeah the fact that my post was completely ignored by old Star hawk. Yet quoted, to look as if he was somehow proving me wrong, did annoy me somewhat.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Again this would raise taxes. You can't just get money to do these things out of no where, and if the problems are as bad as you say it is, it's going to take a lot of money.

Yes, and unfortunately taxes are the best way we have of paying for them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes, and unfortunately taxes are the best way we have of paying for them.

The tax hike for these things would be so high though, that the people who are being paid minimum wage, would not feel the benefit of the increase. As, it would be lost in income tax.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The tax hike for these things would be so high though, that the people who are being paid minimum wage, would not feel the benefit of the increase. As, it would be lost in income tax.

Thats why you also reduce the taxes on the poorer tax brackets.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Thats why you also reduce the taxes on the poorer tax brackets.

That's a fairly ridiculous proposal. The poor typically outnumber the rich, to reduce tax in the poorer tax brackets would mean a huge increase in the richer brackets. This would then be seen as going against work ethic, and highly protested.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
That's a fairly ridiculous proposal. The poor typically outnumber the rich, to reduce tax in the poorer tax brackets would mean a huge increase in the richer brackets. This would then be seen as going against work ethic, and highly protested.

Protested by whom? The poor greatly outnumber the rich by the way, and I really don't think you understand the gravity of the situation.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Protested by whom? The poor greatly outnumber the rich by the way, and I really don't think you understand the gravity of the situation.

It would be protested by the rich who would be giving up half of their pay in taxes. The poor greatly outnumber the rich, that's the problem, think how much the taxes would rise in the higher tax brackets. Do you not think that the rich would argue that they do not deserve to be taxed through the roof, despite how hard they've worked to get where they are? It would cause outcry from both middle tax brackets and the higher ones, this I think you'll find is the majority. This means that by no means would any political party introduce this, it would completely eradicate their chances of being voted in a second time.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It would be protested by the rich who would be giving up half of their pay in taxes. The poor greatly outnumber the rich, that's the problem, think how much the taxes would rise in the higher tax brackets. Do you not think that the rich would argue that they do not deserve to be taxed through the roof, despite how hard they've worked to get where they are? It would cause outcry from both middle tax brackets and the higher ones, this I think you'll find is the majority. This means that by no means would any political party introduce this, it would completely eradicate their chances of being voted in a second time.

The middle class are almost gone in Canada, The poor are vastly the majority and the rich could protest all they want, the votes would be with the poor.

Statistics prove you wrong Starhawk, I've done some research and Canada unemployment rates are at a historic 33 year low at 6.1%. Heres are some figures for you to chew on http://tinyurl.com/2skgh9

Just because people are working doesn't mean they aren't poor. Get some stats on what the cost of living is.

Just to remind you,

Income in the higher tax brackets has gone up 22%

Income in the lower tax brackets had gone down 11%

There are disabled people in Canada who live in incredible poverty, most of them through a disease they developed through no fault of their own. There is disabled people starving in missions because they can't afford a place to live. Keep in mind many of these people have on going health conditions.

Step outside and see the world for what it is.

Keep in mind you are the one who raised the point of unemployed people, waving guns in order to further your point. I will try and find some statistics for you on that, though as I'm sure you're aware it's hard to find statistics on living costs alone. Generally because they will always include factors such as the raising prices in petrol, which as we know has nothing to do with the Canadian government, nor can they help it.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Keep in mind you are the one who raised the point of unemployed people. I will try and find some statistics for you on that, though as I'm sure you're aware it's hard to find statistics on living costs alone. Generally because they will always include factors such as the raising prices in petrol, which as we know has nothing to do with the Canadian government, nor can they help it.

If they want to get re-elected they will. The raise in the minimum wage is a start but we need to lessen the tax burden on them as well as increase the pension benefits.

This is the part where the debate starts going in circles.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If they want to get re-elected they will. The raise in the minimum wage is a start but we need to lessen the tax burden on them as well as increase the pension benefits.

This is the part where the debate starts going in circles.

Yes because the same point stands. That would require a raise in taxes, a massive raise in taxes and one that would be seen as unjustified. You could raise the rich brackets, but you'd have to raise the poor ones as well.

'The average of weekly earnings using this measure was $728.17, for an
annual total (52.2 working weeks) of $38,010.' That's the average earnings of Canadians. What I've found for living costs seem to differ in each province while the cheaper provinces are in the 17 thousands per annum, the more expensive are in the higher 18 thousands. These take into account food, shelter, car insurance etc etc. To me that seems fairly comfortable compared to a lot of countries.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yes because the same point stands. That would require a raise in taxes, a massive raise in taxes and one that would be seen as unjustified. You could raise the rich brackets, but you'd have to raise the poor ones as well.

No you don't have to raise the the poorer ones too. And it would be seen as justified by the people it would help which are a not to small majority.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
'The average of weekly earnings using this measure was $728.17, for an
annual total (52.2 working weeks) of $38,010.' That's the average earnings of Canadians. What I've found for living costs seem to differ in each province while the cheaper provinces are in the 17 thousands per annum, the more expensive are in the higher 18 thousands. These take into account food, shelter, car insurance etc etc. To me that seems fairly comfortable compared to a lot of countries.

A couple of references to add, here's one which agrees with you style of thinking Starhawk, that's where I got the national average earnings from: http://tinyurl.com/yrfvb7
And here's the one I used for average living costs: http://tinyurl.com/2z2l6b

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
'The average of weekly earnings using this measure was $728.17, for an
annual total (52.2 working weeks) of $38,010.' That's the average earnings of Canadians. What I've found for living costs seem to differ in each province while the cheaper provinces are in the 17 thousands per annum, the more expensive are in the higher 18 thousands. These take into account food, shelter, car insurance etc etc. To me that seems fairly comfortable compared to a lot of countries.

And where did you get these numbers from?

And saying that we are above 3rd world countries isn't enough.

And have you seen what rent costs are? Utilities? Phone bills? Food? Transportation? Gas prices?

Originally posted by Starhawk
And where did you get these numbers from?

And saying that we are above 3rd world countries isn't enough.

And have you seen what rent costs are? Utilities? Phone bills? Food? Transportation? Gas prices?

Those things are included in the averages I got. They may not be top notch but they give a clearer indication than just your moanings. EDIT oh, and no it's not nessacerily third world countries I was talking about. The UK national average earnings is only around 22,000 pounds for example. The fact that the pound is stronger than the Canadian dollar is irrelevant, if that's a point you're thinking of raising.

My points still stand though. People are earning less and less prices are going up, people, even working people can't find places to live or take care of themselves.

Originally posted by Starhawk
My points still stand though. People are earning less and less prices are going up, people, even working people can't find places to live or take care of themselves.

I'm afraid the same has to be said for a lot of places. It's a stark realisation we all have to face.

And after we face it, we do something about it.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And after we face it, we do something about it.

Yes, certainly, but I think as we've seen; people's opinions differ on how to do something.

How would you fix the problem?