The rich are getting richer...

[oldjones]

You should be happy and grateful that the rich can afford to hire you.
You wouldn't be better off if they couldn't afford such luxuries.
People with money who spend it are what prevent depressions.

Absotively; trouble is the rich seem focussed on piling away more and more every year rather than spending and spreading it around. If their wealth actually went back into the economy instead of into luxury goods, we'd have the wealthiest poor in the world, and the disparity would be a good deal less. Since they're so inept at it, there's a common thread in history of folks deciding to do it for them.

 

[Malibook]

Absotively; trouble is the rich seem focussed on piling away more and more every year rather than spending and spreading it around.

In a free society, they are free to spend as they wish just like you are free to start up a business and create some jobs and wealth.

 

[oldjones]

Next you'll be telling us the sun comes up at dawn. Everyone's gone home and the waiters are putting the chairs up on the tables. See ya' round.

 

[Malibook]

My point is that rich people are free to give as much or as little as they want and it is not up to poor people to tell them or force them to do otherwise.

You come across as a wannabe Robin Hood communist who would steal from the rich and give to the poor and pay everybody the same wage.

It's easy and simplistic to blame the rich for the struggles of the poor but a rags-to-riches story is possible for anybody here.
Dropping out of school and having kids you can't afford and ending up on society's door step is not the way.

That being said, I wish things were much better here for poor people and the middle class.
I would like to see the minimum wage much higher as well as the personal tax exemption.
I would like to see free college and universities.
I would like to see better health care, free dental care, and free prescription drugs.
Some people seem to think that we can just make the rich pay for all of this.
The reality is that higher taxes and minimum wages kill jobs.

 

[Meister]

The problem of the income gap is not because the rich are piling away the money and leave nothing for the poor. The problem is that the traditional middle class just doesn't have the earning power as it used to. To a large extent the reason is outsourcing.
Eaxamples:
- Black and Decker stopped making products in North America a few years ago throwing out thousands of skilled (middle class) employees. These same employees are having a tough time finding similar good paying jobs as other manufacturers have done the same thing. The service industry is happy to accept them at a lower rate.
- Computer programmers used to be able to charge 40 to 60 dollars an hour under contract. Now not so much as they have to compete with cheap Indian programming.

What's the solution? I don't know except for tarrifs. To save yourselves you got to jump on the logistics/trade/service bandwagon until the economy crashes under foreign debt at which point you should have some hard assets in your possession (property, gold).

 

[maxweber]

AF said:

In a free society, they are free to spend as they wish just like you are free to start up a business and create some jobs and wealth.

And the law forbids, with equal severity, the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges.

MW

 

[papasmerf]

And the law forbids, with equal severity, the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges.

MW

Maxie,

You can come here to Buffal. We have a bridge for you.

 

[K Douglas]

And you got that figure from …? The National Review's Bruce Bartlett quotes StatsCan figures. According to them, the top 10% of earners pay 52% of the income tax. Barely more than half. Considering they make eighty times more than the lowest earners, it would seem they can easily afford it. Stacking the Rich up against the Rest of Us, the best they can complain is, "we're doing our share". And my heart so bleeds for them.

But "support" means more than taxes and government y'know; although to hear them talk, it is all conservatives seem to think it refers to. Without the ordinary, poor folk to fill their offices factories and stores, let alone, clean their houses, clothes and cars, bring them food, educate and entertain their kids and them, and let us not forget, to actually buy the 'their' goods and services, how rich do you suppose the Rich would be? That's how we support the rich.

BTW all those Conservative tax breaks: Guess who benefits most? When your entire income's $20,000, one percent off your taxes is nothing. But if your tax bill's $20,000 (and we're only at the bottom fringe of well-to-do) it's starting to be noticeable. Now imagine that one percent off the taxes of a guy making eighty times — just the average, some made multiples more —that 'ordinary' guy's pay. Now we're talkin' money. And the best part? The poor schmo's vote for it along with the wealthy, 'cause "Everyone likes lower taxes". But you knew that, didn't you?

I was throwing a figure out there I read in either the Post or the Globe last year, not exact #'s. The figures you quoted include only federal income taxes. That excludes provincial income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes. I will see if I can find support to my #'s and get back to you. Bottom line though is the poor aren't working for the rich as Questor has suggested. Tax breaks - read your article again. The article quotes as tax rates fall the burden gets larger on the higher income earners. Furthermore, the Conservatives didn't reduce the income tax rate they reduced the GST. That benefits the lower income earner more than it does a higher income earner. Reducing taxes is good for all - it stimulates economic growth, creates more jobs and gives people more discretion on how they choose to spend their money rather than entrusting that to government bureaucrats.

 

[oldjones]

Unsupported numbers are like unsupported kids: a burden on the general debate. Of course the rich pay more, as they can and should, but anyone suggesting they pay an 'outrageous' share has an obligation to support the contention w/ facts. I'll be happy to read yours, when you find them.

Now tell me again how a 1% drop in either Income or Goods and Services tax produces as much benefit for the poor as the rich. They are bo th taxes, and they both are 'progressive' which means when they go up the rich pay more, and when they go down the rich pay. Less.

Now, tax the bejusus outta the rich give it all to the poor to buy the necessities of life and tell me that doesn't stimulate the economy.

 

[Malibook]

And the law forbids, with equal severity, the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges.

MW

True but my point is that poor people are not born and destined to be losers for life.
This is a land of opportunity for all even if some require student loans and grants.
Poor people with potential, drive, and desire are free to attain a great life here.
Those who succeed are not to blame for those who fail nor are they financially responsible for them.

 

[papasmerf]

True but my point is that poor people are not born and destined to be losers for life.
This is a land of opportunity for all even if some require student loans and grants.
Poor people with potential, drive, and desire are free to attain a great life here.
Those who succeed are not to blame for those who fail nor are they financially responsible for them.

How dare you suggest such ideas that men are responsible for their own self? In this day and age we have to expect Government care and guidance from the cradle to the grave.

 

[danmand]

How dare you suggest such ideas that men are responsible for their own self? In this day and age we have to expect Government care and guidance from the cradle to the grave.

It appears that you do not get it. It is the responsibility of government to help make the playing field more even. There is no way a society can give poor peoples children the same chances of success in life as the children of rich people, but at least society can give them access to education.

 

[papasmerf]

It appears that you do not get it. It is the responsibility of government to help make the playing field more even. There is no way a society can give poor peoples children the same chances of success in life as the children of rich people, but at least society can give them access to education.

You must be discounting the options for education available to people.

 

[oldjones]

You must be discounting the options for education available to people.

Why not make the poor responsible for paying for their own education? Why should the rich pay for it?

The question is what sort of society we want— and we long ago decided on one that is mutually supportive as well as individually free—and the degrees of difference we can tolerate

 

[papasmerf]

Why not make the poor responsible for paying for their own education? Why should the rich pay for it?

The question is what sort of society we want— and we long ago decided on one that is mutually supportive as well as individually free—and the degrees of difference we can tolerate

I think your idea has merrit if the education is wasted.

 

[oldjones]

I think your idea has merrit if the education is wasted.

Even better, make everyone pay back their education costs. But how would you determine who was a waste of education?

If we have state-supported anything—schools included—then the communist bogeyman's already abroad in the land, and we're just repeating the old GBS joke. You know, the one where he asks, "Would you sleep with a grizzled old fart like me for a million pounds?"
"Mr. Shaw, I and many of my sex who share my admiration would feel it a privilege"
"Fine, I now offer a shilling; let's go upstairs"
"Why Mr. Shaw! What kind of woman do you think I am?"
"We have already established that. All we're doing now is quibbling over prices"

So are we.

 

[notenufmuff]

You can thank the Liberals for the elimination of the freaking middle class. It all started with Trudeau and continued on with Cretien. Do you know that the middle class did best when Brian Mulrooney was in power? Liberals and NDP: Sure, give money to low income families and tax everyone else. Those with real money can afford the high taxes through fancy write-offs and loop-wholes. With a minority government, unfortunately the Conservatives are powerless to do anything. Lets hope the next election changes that

 

[onthebottom]

Absotively; trouble is the rich seem focussed on piling away more and more every year rather than spending and spreading it around. If their wealth actually went back into the economy instead of into luxury goods, we'd have the wealthiest poor in the world, and the disparity would be a good deal less. Since they're so inept at it, there's a common thread in history of folks deciding to do it for them.

Don't be silly, if you spend it, it drives the economy, if you save it, it also helps.... Buying luxury goods has the same impact on the economy. Don't look now but your envy is showing.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Unsupported numbers are like unsupported kids: a burden on the general debate. Of course the rich pay more, as they can and should, but anyone suggesting they pay an 'outrageous' share has an obligation to support the contention w/ facts. I'll be happy to read yours, when you find them.

How about, 750 returns payed 25% of the income tax bill in the US in 2002 and the top 10% pay more than half the income tax. That means the bottom 90% are heavily subsidized. They can pay more, they should is a value judgement open to degree (how much more).

OTB

 

[slowpoke]

You say the solution is more education, yet the cost of post secondary education is becoming more and more prohibitive unless your daddy pays the bills. And more education does not help workers who earn minimum wage. Only legislation raising minimum wage will help those workers.

I think the solution is to move away from free market policies that favour the rich and begin implementing policies that reward those who do the work in our society in a fair and just way.

The costs of post secondary education may seem high but Canada's student awards program makes it quite feasible for low income students to still get an excellent post-secondary education. Sure they will owe about $60K by the time they graduate but the student loan repayment options are EXTREMELY flexible and the interest rates are low. If a poor student is willing to work hard at getting an education, he or she will be able to get one and to pay it off without undue hardship. Many of those "wealthy" households are just hard working couples who pull down $80K to $100K each and who once had big student loans. And many of those lower class households who just can't seem to get ahead have simply made too many bad choices with regard to education and hard work. Canada is VERY generous to its poor so lower income family members have a huge opportunity to get ahead. The problem is that many of them just can't be bothered.