The Wealthy In Canada Are NOT Cheating You

[RW]

Tell me what use is a billionaire?

[easter bunny]

^HAHA, too fucking funny. EB and Rohammad will blindly accept anything provided it shows that companies bad and thos bad greedy rich folk.  ac_toofunny  ac_lmfao

Okay, if it makes you feel better it's probably more like 70 people who own half the planet.  :001_rolleyes:

[easter bunny]

Tell me what use is a billionaire?

This! Thank you!

[RW]

I was wondering about this earlier, but I didn't say anything because I was in a hurry..



Should we really believe what Oxfam claims without hesitation?



http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/10847">http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/10847

Don't believe self-serving Oxfam's lies



I have to leave early for London today, so I'll just briefly expose Oxfam's lies about how they really use our money.



Oxfam claim that £8.40 of every £10 we give them goes to "saving lives". This is a lie.



Here's what really happens to our money



http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Charity-B.jpg">



Oxfam raises about £385.5m a year. It spends about £90.6m running its shops and fundraising. That leaves £294.9m (£7.60 for every £10 raised) for "saving lives".



But Oxfam spends about £31.9m of this on administration and governance. That leaves £263m (£6.80 for every £10 raised) for saving lives.



Of the £263m left, Oxfam gives over £90m of this to other charities. As they will also have administration and management costs of about 20%, then that's another £18m lost to overhead costs leaving just £244.9m (£6.35 for every £10 raised) for supposedly "saving lives.



Finally, depending on the Third World country where Oxfam operates, between one third and two thirds of all money used will be lost to waste, incompetence and corruption.



So, Oxfam's claim that £8.40 of every £10 raised is spent "saving lives" is a brazen lie and you should not be fooled into giving them your money until Oxfam honestly tells us what they really do with our £385.5m a year.

I'm not sure I would consider this source all that reliable.  I suggest looking through the criticisms it has received on the sourced Wiki site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam



Charities have administration costs.  That's reality.  The bigger the charity, the more people it takes to run it but with it comes bigger donations and bigger endowments to manage.  What people forget to mention when they balk at charities is that they make money off the money donated.  A donation can keep giving in the form of investment or interest so long as the charity exists.

[J0E]

Examples of Tax Breaks for corporations which don't make sense:



Caterpillar sending hundreds of jobs to poorer locales, slashing Canadian workers wages by 40%.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/caterpillar-inc-london-ontario-lockout_n_1214305.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 14305.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/caterpillar-inc-london-ontario-lockout_n_1214305.html



Examples of Tax Breaks for corporations which make sense:



Microsoft opening 2 new offices in Vancouver and hiring at least 400 new workers



http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/05/01/microsoft-to-open-new-centre-in-vancouver-400-new-jobs/">http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/05/0 ... -new-jobs/">http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/05/01/microsoft-to-open-new-centre-in-vancouver-400-new-jobs/



In other words, governments should reward companies who add wealth to a nation's coffers, not take it out of the country. One criticism of the Harper government is that the doled out tax breaks to companies that were exporting jobs out of the country. How's that gonna make a country richer?

[Anonymous]

Tell me what use is a billionaire?

Is George Soros, Bill Gates, Li Kai Shing, Stanley Ho or Warren Buffet any less useful than secretaries from Calgary?

[Anonymous]

I was wondering about this earlier, but I didn't say anything because I was in a hurry..



Should we really believe what Oxfam claims without hesitation?



http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/10847">http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/10847

Don't believe self-serving Oxfam's lies



I have to leave early for London today, so I'll just briefly expose Oxfam's lies about how they really use our money.



Oxfam claim that £8.40 of every £10 we give them goes to "saving lives". This is a lie.



Here's what really happens to our money



http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Charity-B.jpg">



Oxfam raises about £385.5m a year. It spends about £90.6m running its shops and fundraising. That leaves £294.9m (£7.60 for every £10 raised) for "saving lives".



But Oxfam spends about £31.9m of this on administration and governance. That leaves £263m (£6.80 for every £10 raised) for saving lives.



Of the £263m left, Oxfam gives over £90m of this to other charities. As they will also have administration and management costs of about 20%, then that's another £18m lost to overhead costs leaving just £244.9m (£6.35 for every £10 raised) for supposedly "saving lives.



Finally, depending on the Third World country where Oxfam operates, between one third and two thirds of all money used will be lost to waste, incompetence and corruption.



So, Oxfam's claim that £8.40 of every £10 raised is spent "saving lives" is a brazen lie and you should not be fooled into giving them your money until Oxfam honestly tells us what they really do with our £385.5m a year.

I'm not sure I would consider this source all that reliable.  I suggest looking through the criticisms it has received on the sourced Wiki site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam



Charities have administration costs.  That's reality.  The bigger the charity, the more people it takes to run it but with it comes bigger donations and bigger endowments to manage.  What people forget to mention when they balk at charities is that they make money off the money donated.  A donation can keep giving in the form of investment or interest so long as the charity exists.

I have and I have been reading negative things about Oxfam including their studies for a while..



This study likely has elements of truth to it, but it just as likely stretches it too..



Take it with a grain of salt is all I'm saying.

[RW]

Tell me what use is a billionaire?

Is George Soros, Bill Gates, Li Kai Shing, Stanley Ho or Warren Buffet any less useful than secretaries from Calgary?

In terms of stimulating local economies, I'd say yes.

[Anonymous]

Examples of Tax Breaks for corporations which don't make sense:



Caterpillar sending hundreds of jobs to poorer locales, slashing Canadian workers wages by 40%.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/caterpillar-inc-london-ontario-lockout_n_1214305.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 14305.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/caterpillar-inc-london-ontario-lockout_n_1214305.html

The capital cost allowance deduction for locomotive purchases was doubled. But the incentive for this deduction goes directly to their customers which would be CNR and not Caterpillar itself.



Ontario has lost over three hundred thousand jobs since the Liberals took power in 2003. Failed green energy schemes are the culprit. They have artificially raised the cost of power at the same time neighbouring jurisdictions in the US or even Quebec have enjoyed lower costs thanks to the shale gas revolution.

[Anonymous]

Tell me what use is a billionaire?

Is George Soros, Bill Gates, Li Kai Shing, Stanley Ho or Warren Buffet any less useful than secretaries from Calgary?

I don't know that Stanley Ho and George Soros are the best example to use. I get your point though.



http://communicatingacrossboundaries.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/we-are-the-one-percent.jpg">

The study by Oxfam is like so many other dubious studies that reach a conclusion first and then work backwards to support it.

[J0E]

Examples of Tax Breaks for corporations which don't make sense:



Caterpillar sending hundreds of jobs to poorer locales, slashing Canadian workers wages by 40%.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/caterpillar-inc-london-ontario-lockout_n_1214305.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 14305.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/caterpillar-inc-london-ontario-lockout_n_1214305.html

The capital cost allowance deduction for locomotive purchases was doubled. But the incentive for this deduction goes directly to their customers which would be CNR and not Caterpillar itself.



Ontario has lost over three hundred thousand jobs since the Liberals took power in 2003. Failed green energy schemes are the culprit. They have artificially raised the cost of power at the same time neighbouring jurisdictions in the US or even Quebec have enjoyed lower costs thanks to the shale gas revolution.

The last government gave tax breaks to companies such as Caterpillar, and then they took the money and ran.

They didn't keep the jobs in this country as was expected with the tax breaks:



http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/12/29/19179381.html">http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011 ... 79381.html">http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/12/29/19179381.html

If London's Electro-Motive plant is closed and its jobs moved to Indiana, it'll be after having milked the benefits of a billion-dollar tax break once trumpeted on the plant floor by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.



Three years ago, Harper donned protective goggles and posed with workers to chat up how his government had created a $1-billion tax break for industry broadly and a $5-million break to grease the wheels for sales by the locomotive-maker.

As a penalty for their dodge and run tactics, the new government should seek compensation from them & increase their taxes.



On the other hand, I think it is a mistake for Rachel Notley's NDP government to raise  taxes now when Alberta is in the midst of an economic drastic downturn.

It's moves like this which will probably be their undoing just like it was for Bob Rae a quarter century ago.

Sure, raise taxes in good times, but not bad when they need the money.

It's just poor timing on their part.

Even the left-wing Obama didn't raise taxes of the wealthy and corporations until their economy turned a corner.



Notley should heed the oft stated advice of Carlos Santayana: Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

[Anonymous]

Tell me what use is a billionaire?

That question brings back memories. I used to get asked in some of the holes I have lived in what good is a decadent Westerner. You know, two cars, 2500 and over square foot home, every single digital device that will end up in landfills in their countries, frequent air travel and more food than they can possibly eat. I could never give people a satisfactory answer and I doubt I will be able to answer your question to your satisfaction.



I have no issue with billionaires who amassed their own fortune which is often not in hard assets or cash anyway. Most billionaire capital is working not sitting in a vault.



Innovation needs a lot of things, but it certainly needs innovators. And if we ever plan on colonizing Mars, we'd much rather have Elon Musk leading the charge — and not an odd assortment of new stockholders. Just as we preferred Apple in the hands of Steve Jobs, who created the world's biggest company and jump-started mobile computing with a single-minded focus. Did Jobs build Apple and create those products without personal ego? No. He enjoyed the wealth, the fame, the power (and famously gave none of his billions to charity). The perks fueled him, as they did Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell and hundreds of others.



Quality of life for us has drastically improved throughout the years (including for the poor) and it's not thanks to extra foodstuffs appearing at local food shelves. It's due to the invention of the refrigerator and the cell phone, the mass production of those devices and the introduction of versions that can be obtained at lower prices. Now overseas, in places where there are no telephone lines, mobile broadband technology pioneered in wealthy countries like the United States and Japan is pulling entire areas into the 21st century. In short, innovation is vital for success — and you don't get success without innovators, who yes, often become wealthy individuals.



Now most third world billionaires are not worth spit. The kings, sheikhs and prices of the middle east for example. Millionaire entertainers and athletes do not have much use either.

[RW]

You forget that many of the people you've mentioned have become rich due to consumerism.  When people who are to buy the products don't have the money to buy them, billionaires don't make money.



You also look to the first world but in other countries, billionaires have been made by back pocketing politicians which stifles economic growth and can lead to instability.  See Russia and Mexico for details.



For US example, the man behind Walmart gets rich by taking money from local economies and lining his pockets with it.  You'll find Walmarts end up closing down local stores in smaller centres.  That causes a shift in the distribution of local wealth that should be kept in a local economy and becomes gas for some rich man's yacht.

[Anonymous]

You forget that many of the people you've mentioned have become rich due to consumerism.  When people who are to buy the products don't have the money to buy them, billionaires don't make money.



You also look to the first world but in other countries, billionaires have been made by back pocketing politicians which stifles economic growth and can lead to instability.  See Russia and Mexico for details.



For US example, the man behind Walmart gets rich by taking money from local economies and lining his pockets with it.  You'll find Walmarts end up closing down local stores in smaller centres.  That causes a shift in the distribution of local wealth that should be kept in a local economy and becomes gas for some rich man's yacht.

I agree with you about most third world millionaires and billionaires. Unlike here where billionaire capital is working, third world capital is not. They need an uneducated population and corrupt regimes to make that kind of wealth which is usually inherited anyway even possible.  They have highways and airports in Saudi Arabia only for the billionaire royal family. Putin could be one of the richest men in the world. Corrupt regimes produce corrupt everything including wealth.



Because of the risks taken by risk takers who became wealthy more people than ever have a refrigerator, and cell phones. Even here in Canada, I remember my dad saving up for a year to buy a new colour tv when I was a kid. Sounds strange today I know.



Take Elon Musk, for example. His wealth is estimated at $2.4 billion and nearly all of it comes from equity in Tesla Motors, SpaceX and Solar City. Two of those companies are trying to conserve traditional energy sources while the third is looking for new sources of raw materials. Is every Western billionaire involved with such exciting pursuits? No, but by and large their isn't sitting in a vault while they are lounging on a yacht off the South coast of France.

[J0E]

Millionaire entertainers and athletes do not have much use either.

...I don't necessarily agree. As long as they earn their keep, this class of millionaires can generate revenue for the economy and provide others with a job. ie - whenever an athlete sells some athletic wear with their name on it, be it a female figure skater, or a 300 lb. flootball player, they're generating revenue for the economy. Somebody else made money off them. And that's not necessarily bad.



I just don't like the kind of athletes who aren't worth the money they get paid. ie - the NHL has so many mediocre players who are getting millions of dollars per year, and they don't produce and aren't especially talented. Have you noticed that? It used to be that only the best players in the league got a million dollars per year. Like Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull. Now it seems like everybody, even the bench warmer who's just a step up from the team's waterboy or janitor is getting paid a million. Worse yet, many of them are on losing teams who don't even make it to the playoffs. In other words, they don't earn it. They're just cardboard - filler. Many of those journeymen are nobodies whom no one is willing to pay to see.



If most professional sports operated on the same model as the NHL, they'd surely go broke. ie - In Tennis or Golf, the athlete doesn't get paid unless they win. If Tiger Woods or Rafael Nadal, former the #1 players in their respective sports don't win this year, they don't get paid. Actually, didn't the Atlanta Thrashers have to move to Winnipeg because they couldn't afford the salaries of their players?



The NHL should put a cap on the salaries, say at $5 million max for regular season, then pay the player extra for the playoffs, depending on how far they go. And only then if they make it to the final or win the Cup, then pay them the $10 or $20 million they feel they're owed.