This revelation has rattled the nerves of the standing committee of the CCP.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35957235
China appears to be censoring social media posts on the Panama Papers document leak which has named several members of China's elite, including President Xi Jinping's brother-in-law.
Hundreds of posts on networks such as Sina Weibo and Wechat on the topic have been deleted since Monday morning.
The leaked papers, from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, reveal how the rich have used tax havens.
They mention Deng Jiagui, who is married to Mr Xi's older sister.
An investigative report by Bloomberg News in 2012 suggested that Deng and his wife had hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate, share holdings and other assets.
There are legitimate ways of using tax havens and offshore companies, although these entities are often used to hide the true owners of assets or avoid paying tax on the money.
Panama Papers reaction - latest
Censored terms
According to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the Panama Papers show that Mr Deng acquired two offshore companies in 2009, at a time when Mr Xi was rising in politics.
It is unclear what the companies were used for.
The two companies were dormant by 2012, when Mr Xi was named general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party.
Mr Deng did not respond to requests for comment from the ICIJ.
State media appeared to black out the news. But many on microblogging network Sina Weibo and mobile chat network Wechat were discussing the topic on Monday morning, sharing Chinese translations of details of the story, including information on Mr Deng.
A hashtag created on the topic quickly trended.
Checks by the BBC found that by the end of the day many of those posts had disappeared, with at least 481 discussions deleted from the hashtag's Weibo topic page, and other posts shared on Wechat also deleted.
The website Freeweibo.com, which actively tracks censorship on Weibo, listed "Panama" as the second-most censored term on the network. The top censored term was controversial Hong Kong movie "Ten Years".
The Panama papers are a who's who of wealthy hiding from national leaders to celebrities to sports stars. Lots of Canadian money sitting offshore and out of the reach of the Canada Revenue Agency.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/canadians-are-right-to-be-angry-over-the-panama-papers-leak/
Once the property of Mossack Fonseca, a law firm based in Panama City, and now in the hands of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and 100 media outlets around the world, the documents give an unprecedented glimpse of how the wealthy protect and hide their money. The names involved are already dazzling—soccer god Lionel Messi, filmmaker Pedro Almodóvar, Iceland's Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, Jackie Chan, Ian Cameron, the father of David, the British PM. And the many friends of Vladimir Putin, with fortunes totalling US$2 billion that are always at the Russian president's disposal.
The eye-popping revelations will continue for weeks, if not months. But let's not lose sight of the 350 or so largely unknown Canadians whose shell companies have been caught up in the data dump. Ottawa's official figures say $200 billion in Canuck wealth currently sits offshore and out of reach of the Canadian Revenue Agency. The actual amount, however, appears to be much, much higher, with
Quote from: "seoulbro"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35957235
China appears to be censoring social media posts on the Panama Papers document leak which has named several members of China's elite, including President Xi Jinping's brother-in-law.
Hundreds of posts on networks such as Sina Weibo and Wechat on the topic have been deleted since Monday morning.
The leaked papers, from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, reveal how the rich have used tax havens.
They mention Deng Jiagui, who is married to Mr Xi's older sister.
An investigative report by Bloomberg News in 2012 suggested that Deng and his wife had hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate, share holdings and other assets.
There are legitimate ways of using tax havens and offshore companies, although these entities are often used to hide the true owners of assets or avoid paying tax on the money.
Panama Papers reaction - latest
Censored terms
According to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the Panama Papers show that Mr Deng acquired two offshore companies in 2009, at a time when Mr Xi was rising in politics.
It is unclear what the companies were used for.
The two companies were dormant by 2012, when Mr Xi was named general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party.
Mr Deng did not respond to requests for comment from the ICIJ.
State media appeared to black out the news. But many on microblogging network Sina Weibo and mobile chat network Wechat were discussing the topic on Monday morning, sharing Chinese translations of details of the story, including information on Mr Deng.
A hashtag created on the topic quickly trended.
Checks by the BBC found that by the end of the day many of those posts had disappeared, with at least 481 discussions deleted from the hashtag's Weibo topic page, and other posts shared on Wechat also deleted.
The website Freeweibo.com, which actively tracks censorship on Weibo, listed "Panama" as the second-most censored term on the network. The top censored term was controversial Hong Kong movie "Ten Years".
If the economy was growing at 9% per annum, zhongnanhai would not lose a minute's sleep over this. With people losing their life's savings in the stock market and the economy slowing quickly, tolerance for this sort of thing is low among the masses.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/canadians-are-right-to-be-angry-over-the-panama-papers-leak/
Once the property of Mossack Fonseca, a law firm based in Panama City, and now in the hands of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and 100 media outlets around the world, the documents give an unprecedented glimpse of how the wealthy protect and hide their money. The names involved are already dazzling—soccer god Lionel Messi, filmmaker Pedro Almodóvar, Iceland's Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, Jackie Chan, Ian Cameron, the father of David, the British PM. And the many friends of Vladimir Putin, with fortunes totalling US$2 billion that are always at the Russian president's disposal.
The eye-popping revelations will continue for weeks, if not months. But let's not lose sight of the 350 or so largely unknown Canadians whose shell companies have been caught up in the data dump. Ottawa's official figures say $200 billion in Canuck wealth currently sits offshore and out of reach of the Canadian Revenue Agency. The actual amount, however, appears to be much, much higher, with
That's an interesting list of tax cheats.
What the hell is Jackie Chan doing hiding money? He lives in Hong Kong. I think they have about the lowest taxes in the developed world.
Unless the money was earned illegally who fucking cares?
Here's an article by Kevin Libin
Quote
corrupt or greedy or unfair;
it's playing by the rules.'
THE PANAMA PAPERS HAVE ALL THE JUICY INGREDIENTS TO GET
JOURNALISTS IN A LATHER.
Did you just feel the earth move? Maybe you're not paying attention, because the "Panama Papers" have already been rated the biggest bombshell of the decade. A "huge news story" about international "greed and corruption" involving offshore tax havens, one Canadian media professor tweeted Monday morning. Why, this could be more earth-shaking than LuxLeaks. Perhaps you don't remember LuxLeaks, the 2014 bombshell that was supposed to blow the lid off sneaky ways the rich and powerful evade taxes. If not, don't worry. You probably won't remember the Panama Papers, soon, either.
LuxLeaks found some multinational corporations taking perfectly legal advantage of the ability to park profits in Luxembourg at lower tax rates. A year before that, in 2013, the CBC wallpapered its TV news broadcasts, radio programming and websites for days with its "Secrecy for Sale" exposé, using "an unprecedented leak of data... that involves more than 100,000 people from around the world," nearly 500 of them in Canada. The CBC named just one — Regina lawyer Tony Merchant, who would later file a libel suit against the CBC's reporting on his alleged "tax haven." But, as the CBC itself admitted, "the reality (is) that holding an offshore account is not evidence of wrongdoing and may not be controversial." Perhaps unsurprisingly, the CBC came up with no more controversies.
The number of actual scandals so far? One. And not even a particularly exciting one at that. The Icelandic prime minister allegedly used Mossack Fonseca to register a company that lost big on bonds of failed Icelandic banks, which he later helped claimants' reach a deal over. It certainly doesn't look good for Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, but it's a sign that your globe-rocking scoop is off to a weak start when its big opener is a conflict-of-interest allegation against an Icelandic parliamentarian. Even Putin appears to go unmentioned by name in any of the documents, while his network of cronies salt away billions of dollars skimmed from his corrupt state.
As for the 350 Canadians apparently mentioned in this mountain of misconduct, the details appear to promise several news cycles of disappointment. The Star (it and the CBC were the only Canadian media allowed access to the documents), says it will deliver the story of a "Canadian art maven" with a "hidden corporate network"; a Toronto-based firm "fighting to lift the corporate veil that masks the ownership" of an allegedly Nazi-looted masterpiece; and a "Dubai-based Canadian lawyer" who helps global clients shelter money. How very nonscandalous. The Star also outs several Canadians whose passport photos appear in the Mossack Fonseca files. Not one of the "exposed" is shown to have done anything dirty.
But that's the beauty of these routine exposés, which are really about convincing us the rich still aren't being soaked hard enough. Every media organization is careful to note that "much of this is perfectly legal," as the Star put it, and "offshore accounts are not in themselves illegal" as the CBC eventually mentions. But the mere idea that anyone could arrange finances using foreign holdings to minimize taxes — even when it's all totally legitimate, as will be the case in nearly all these files — is enough to justify the unseemly snooping into private affairs. "The rich play get to play by different rules than the rest of us," complain the Star's editors, in their front-page justification for their sensationalism. "That's unfair — and everyone should know about it."
No, actually. The rules are precisely the same, rich or poor. Unlawful activity is illegal no matter the income bracket. But avoiding taxes isn't just legal and available to anyone, it's often a policy goal, as governments seek to give breaks for certain behaviour, and reshape their economies into low-tax magnets for foreign investors. Canada even earns a mention in the Mossack Fonseca documents as one option for clients to shelter cash, perhaps due to the same comparatively low business taxes that have attracted multinationals, like Burger King, to relocate here using tax inversions.
"Money goes wherever it wants and ... It wants to go where there is no tax," commented Allison Christians, McGill University's chair in tax law, in response to the Panama Papers report. And it's clear that the agenda behind these routine exposés is to inspire more rules and regulations to stop that; more barriers to capital mobility. The same group is behind all of them: the Center for Public Integrity, which is driven by the conviction of its founder, journalist Charles Lewis, that our political system is corrupted by secret wealth. In kleptocracies like Russia, that is plainly true, everyone knows it, and these leaks won't change it. But in Iceland? That just seems ridiculous. In Canada, too — where the two biggest LuxLeaks gotchas involved tax avoidance by the government-owned Public Sector Pension Investment Board and government-favoured Bombardier. Wealthy people aren't the problem. Corrupt people are.
But when people and companies use legal means to minimize taxes, that's not corrupt or greedy or unfair, it's playing by the rules. If we really want to keep more cash here, it won't happen by trying to lock it up, but by keeping taxes competitive and saving everyone the cost and trouble of resorting to Panamanian lawyers and Caribbean accountants. In the meantime, whatever estate-planning methods law-abiding people are taking advantage of are entirely none of our business.
The problem is the rules.
See people like to make money here but ship it out of Canada to avoid paying their share. That's bullshit and shouldn't be allowed not only in Canada but any where.
Quote from: "RW"
See people like to make money here but ship it out of Canada to avoid paying their share. That's bullshit and shouldn't be allowed not only in Canada but any where.
Who would want to give any government tens of millions of dollars.
I'm happy to pay my taxes for what I have in this country such as universal health care and education. Why do I have to pay my taxes and others get to shell it away in Central America? Because they're rich? That's bullshit.
Quote from: "RW"
They pay taxes too just like you and I. They are also very philanthropic. They have a problem with paying tens of millions and I do not fault anyone for that
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
They pay taxes too just like you and I. They are also very philanthropic. They have a problem with paying tens of millions and I do not fault anyone for that
I do. I have to pay my share but they don't?
They pay tens of millions because they make a shit ton more than that.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
They pay taxes too just like you and I. They are also very philanthropic. They have a problem with paying tens of millions and I do not fault anyone for that
I do. I have to pay my share but they don't?
They pay tens of millions because they make a shit ton more than that.
They do pay taxes, lots of it. Their property taxes alone are more than someone making 40 grand would pay in income taxes. Nobody should owe a government a million dollars no matter how much they earn. That is not taxation, that is the kind of fees the Hells Angels charge.
You realize taxation is based on income right?
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
Quote from: "RW"
I've never objected to paying taxes. I'm often pretty pissed at what the taxing bodies do with my money, though.
I suppose I'd be even MORE pissed if I were paying more in taxes, but as long as the tax structure is fair (i.e., not regressive) I have no problem with people who make money legally and can legally offshore it doing so. The people in this data dump who are interesting to me are the ones who did not make the money legally or who illegally evaded paying taxes on it.
I don't like the tax code at present, because too may legislators and bureaucrats have prostituted themselves to the very rich and helped create ways for them not to pay their share. That problem needs to be addressed, and if it is not...it is only a matter of time before the pitchforks and torches appear, the tumbrels roll in the streets, and the lampposts begin serving an additional purpose. It's happened before and will happen again.
I think it imbalances the system to allow one group to funnel away cash where anyone group can't. It's unfair.
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
But that's only an okay thing to do if you have lots of it. If you don't, TFB?
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
But that's only an okay thing to do if you have lots of it. If you don't, TFB?
I am talking about the rich. A cap on personal income taxes of $100,000. Get rid of incentives to hide income and we'll save money in the long run. Make it flatter, simpler, reasonable amounts and the feds will not have to waste money chasing income around the globe.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
See people like to make money here but ship it out of Canada to avoid paying their share. That's bullshit and shouldn't be allowed not only in Canada but any where.
Who would want to give any government tens of millions of dollars.
Does anyone really pay over a million dollars in taxes?
ac_wot
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
But that's only an okay thing to do if you have lots of it. If you don't, TFB?
I am talking about the rich. A cap on personal income taxes of $100,000. Get rid of incentives to hide income and we'll save money in the long run. Make it flatter, simpler, reasonable amounts and the feds will not have to waste money chasing income around the globe.
That might be a good idea.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
See people like to make money here but ship it out of Canada to avoid paying their share. That's bullshit and shouldn't be allowed not only in Canada but any where.
Who would want to give any government tens of millions of dollars.
Does anyone really pay over a million dollars in taxes?
ac_wot
If they do, I'm green with envy!
Quote from: "Peaches"
I've never objected to paying taxes. I'm often pretty pissed at what the taxing bodies do with my money, though.
I suppose I'd be even MORE pissed if I were paying more in taxes, but as long as the tax structure is fair (i.e., not regressive) I have no problem with people who make money legally and can legally offshore it doing so. The people in this data dump who are interesting to me are the ones who did not make the money legally or who illegally evaded paying taxes on it.
I don't like the tax code at present, because too may legislators and bureaucrats have prostituted themselves to the very rich and helped create ways for them not to pay their share. That problem needs to be addressed, and if it is not...it is only a matter of time before the pitchforks and torches appear, the tumbrels roll in the streets, and the lampposts begin serving an additional purpose. It's happened before and will happen again.
Not paying their share? What amount would that be? Ten, 20, 30 million to subsidize the likes of you?
However, since you like paying more than shit is worth, I'll put you in touch with a few business owners who are almost as unscrupulous as government is at fleecing people. A sucker is born every minute, but unfortunately they take forever to die.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
I like the idea in principle, but 100 grand is too much.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Peaches"
I've never objected to paying taxes. I'm often pretty pissed at what the taxing bodies do with my money, though.
I suppose I'd be even MORE pissed if I were paying more in taxes, but as long as the tax structure is fair (i.e., not regressive) I have no problem with people who make money legally and can legally offshore it doing so. The people in this data dump who are interesting to me are the ones who did not make the money legally or who illegally evaded paying taxes on it.
I don't like the tax code at present, because too may legislators and bureaucrats have prostituted themselves to the very rich and helped create ways for them not to pay their share. That problem needs to be addressed, and if it is not...it is only a matter of time before the pitchforks and torches appear, the tumbrels roll in the streets, and the lampposts begin serving an additional purpose. It's happened before and will happen again.
Not paying their share? What amount would that be? Ten, 20, 30 million to subsidize the likes of you?
However, since you like paying more than shit is worth, I'll put you in touch with a few business owners who are almost as unscrupulous as government is at fleecing people. A sucker is born every minute, but unfortunately they take forever to die.
Easy there tigress, a high probability I think he or she is kidding.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Not paying their share? What amount would that be? Ten, 20, 30 million to subsidize the likes of you?
What are you smoking?
Quote from: "Shen Li"
However, since you like paying more than shit is worth, I'll put you in touch with a few business owners who are almost as unscrupulous as government is at fleecing people. A sucker is born every minute, but unfortunately they take forever to die.
Link to how much I like to pay and for what, please.
But really, they die quickly at the end of a rope. That's the lamppost reference, if you missed it.
Quote from: "Herman"
Easy there tigress, a high probability I think he or she is kidding.
Only about the tumbrels. ac_smile
Quote from: "Peaches"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Not paying their share? What amount would that be? Ten, 20, 30 million to subsidize the likes of you?
What are you smoking?
Quote from: "Shen Li"
However, since you like paying more than shit is worth, I'll put you in touch with a few business owners who are almost as unscrupulous as government is at fleecing people. A sucker is born every minute, but unfortunately they take forever to die.
Link to how much I like to pay and for what, please.
But really, they die quickly at the end of a rope. That's the lamppost reference, if you missed it.
Quote from: "Herman"
Easy there tigress, a high probability I think he or she is kidding.
Only about the tumbrels. ac_smile
What are you smoking? I try and cut you some slack for an obvious troll post and you respond with school yard jibberish. Do you know who pays the most taxes in the states and Canada. It probably is not you.
Did you know the top 20% pay 87% of federal income taxes. Do you know the bottom 40+ effectively pays no income tax.
Rich people pay nearly 87% of all federal individual income tax in America
Income level Share of total federal
individual income tax paid Average income tax bill
per person
Lowest 20% -2.2% -$643
Second lowest 20% -1.7% -$621
Middle income 4.2% $1,743
Second richest 20% 12.9% $6,285
Richest 20% 86.8% $50,176
Source: Tax Policy Center
The top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the U.S.; the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20% of it.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24
The states is more dependent on tax revenue from the wealthy than most other Western countries.
^Don't waste your time overloading the snippy little flame board burn out's pea-sized white liberal brain with facts. I knew he or she was a lost cause from the moment it appeared here.
I'm sorry but Peaches is making cogent arguments and you fools are flapping like fish out of water. Have you all gone unchallenged for so long that all you can do is drool and yell "troll!"?
Hey Herm - people with more money are going to pay a higher percentage of the total tax dollars. We didn't need some report from some crap NGO to tell us that.
I think the best idea by far was Herman's.
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Yeah? And what do we lose because of it?
Quote from: "Herman"
What are you smoking? I try and cut you some slack for an obvious troll post and you respond with school yard jibberish.
I hate to break this to you, but I've made no troll post regardless of how it may appear to you. I made one post speaking my mind and my opinion about taxation. I did not offer it as fact or assertion, did not support it with citations, and completely assumed it would be read as opinion...as several other posts in the thread were offered and received.
You may think I just made up the shit about tumbrels and lampposts and torches, but it was widely reported last year that in a speech to other 1%ers, a 1%er warned the others about the probable outcome of continuing to widen the income inequality gap. My words are a paraphrase of his. I'll be happy to provide a link upon request. And I'd like to know what in my post you deem "obviously troll."
Quote
It definitely is not I, and I sure as hell didn't claim it was. I'm confused by the numbers you've supplied, since my tax rate is over 20% and I'm definitely below the median household income level. But I wouldn't question the TPI and the numbers are not relevant to my post anyway.
~~~~
p.s. for Shen Li... wading into a thread just to flame someone is a sure sign that they've handed your ass to you on some other thread.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Yeah? And what do we lose because of it?
You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Yeah? And what do we lose because of it?
You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Yeah? And what do we lose because of it?
You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Yeah? And what do we lose because of it?
You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.
The reason people put money off shore is because they can.
In terms of "services", GST is charged the same rate to everyone. Same with PST. In terms of income taxation, they don't pay 100 times more than anyone except the poor. Say I pay 24% in tax. They don't pay 240% in tax.
If you want flat tax rates, fine but they're still going to pay more because they make more. If they don't like paying so many dollars in tax, they're welcome to make less money. I'd happily make more and pay more.
Quote from: "RW"
Hey Herm - people with more money are going to pay a higher percentage of the total tax dollars. We didn't need some report from some crap NGO to tell us that.
No he or she is not. The tired liberal argument that has been debunked long ago. All he or she has is the type of snippy little flame board comments that Freud used when he was here.
I could tell Peaches was a douchebag from his grand entrance and this snippy little turd has done everything to prove me right.
Oh stuff it already Shen. Your asshole shtick is fucking old.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Yeah? And what do we lose because of it?
You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.
The reason people put money off shore is because they can.
In terms of "services", GST is charged the same rate to everyone. Same with PST. In terms of income taxation, they don't pay 100 times more than anyone except the poor. Say I pay 24% in tax. They don't pay 240% in tax.
If you want flat tax rates, fine but they're still going to pay more because they make more. If they don't like paying so many dollars in tax, they're welcome to make less money. I'd happily make more and pay more.
Of course they can. We are generally talking about the best and brightest. You would need to turn the West into a North Korea to stop it. There would be a massive brain drain if we did that. There will always be some country that won't comply to get that money and talent in their country. Or the smart thing would be to cap income taxes, money stays and is invested in Canada, we lower the cost of collecting revenue and we have a steady stream of revenue.
So you really think the cost of collecting is the same as what we'd lose in tax revenues?
Quote
How is progressive taxation working for ya? Forty five percent of Americans pay no effective income tax and the top 20% pay more than 80. If it was 100 would so-called income equality disappear? Robin Hoodism is not working South of the border.
Quote
Please, if you're going to talk about asses go back to Freud on the flame boards.
Quote from: "RW"
No, but the value added of having that money working in Canada instead of the Cayman Islands is good for all of us.
It's unreasonable to expect the very rich to voluntarily give the government millions and millions. Since it won't happen let's find a top amount that deincentivises taking that capital outside Canada.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
No, but the value added of having that money working in Canada instead of the Cayman Islands is good for all of us.
Paying CRA employees is having money working in Canada. Closing taxation loopholes makes less work and keeps money here.
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Tax the shit out of money taken out of the country and set incentives for money kept in the country.
Quote from: "Peaches"
Quote from: "Herman"
You may think I just made up the shit about tumbrels and lampposts and torches, but it was widely reported last year that in a speech to other 1%ers, a 1%er warned the others about the probable outcome of continuing to widen the income inequality gap.
Was he referring to declining wages or low government revenue>
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Tax the shit out of money taken out of the country and set incentives for money kept in the country.
Countries that have done that in that past have seen capital return or even foreign inflows. It's a far more effective than chasing money from island to island in the Caribbean.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
Hmmm, that might be a bit low Herm. Take someone like PK Subban who makes $10 million a year in player salary not including endorsements and appearances. If he were to pay $250 k a year in federal taxes not including the Quebec portion he would be basically paying taxes for himself and about nine other regular working people. It is not 33%, but nobody can say he is not paying his fair share. It's a number he can live with and still sends a lot of money to Ottawa.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
No, but the value added of having that money working in Canada instead of the Cayman Islands is good for all of us.
Paying CRA employees is having money working in Canada. Closing taxation loopholes makes less work and keeps money here.
Having more employees than is necessary at the CRA is not good for taxpayers. Closing loopholes only makes sense if the taxes are not astronomical as you and Peaches want. If you over charge people millions of dollars just for the privilege of living here they will not be living here. You lose bright minds, capital/investment and tax dollars. Lots of places in this world will be only too happy to give them and their capital residence. Punitive, excessive taxation is a lose - lose situation.
This has been going on for some time. Lots of people come to this country thinking that they can hide and hide their $$. No way. CR is closely tied to the US, which includes the IRS. I've had friends who tried to hide, only to lose their property, bank accounts, social security benefits. Very stupid. Panama is another story. Friend Mark made millions on the homes shopping network. He did manage to move his money to CR. He quickly moved that money to Panama, relinquished his citizenship. Obtained Irish citizenship, still living in Panama near his cash. All this before they could nail him. Lucky fucker. What fool would give up US citizenship through?
We have a mix of people in our church..
From the unemployed to contractors making millions annually..
They are all required to tithe, but the affluent are paying the bills and salaries of the congregation while helping members of the fellowship, more than ever now..
They also decide what initiatives get funded and by how much whether it is missions or in the community..
And they do this willingly and joyfully..
But I doubt they feel the same way about giving to the various levels of government that they are forced to pay and have little say in how funds are spent..
It's too bad governments are not run like a church fellowship
Quote from: "Twenty Dollars"
CR is not a true tax haven. According to Investopedia it is more like the Switzerland of Central America. They have been very successful in attracting foreign corporations to establish a presence. They have twenty year exemptions from any taxation to many corporations. Corporate entities that are required to pay taxes pay extremely low rates and are generally exempt from taxes on interest, capital gains or dividend income.
Offshore companies incorporated in Costa Rica do not have to file any financial reports with Costa Rican tax authorities. They are not required to disclose the names of owners to the registrar of companies.
Costa Rica tightly protects the privacy of offshore banking. Money or other financial assets can be transferred in or out of Costa Rica without any limitation on the amount – and without having to disclose the source of funds. It's this last one that has seen CR in the past be a laundering centre for the proceeds of organized crime. But, I hear they are changing that now.
I would set up in Panama or Anguilla myself.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Peaches"
Quote from: "Herman"
You may think I just made up the shit about tumbrels and lampposts and torches, but it was widely reported last year that in a speech to other 1%ers, a 1%er warned the others about the probable outcome of continuing to widen the income inequality gap.
Was he referring to declining wages or low government revenue>
It's not quite that simple or binary. It's a long article (but not a speech as I erroneously recalled) which I found well worth the read.
//http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
Hmmm, that might be a bit low Herm. Take someone like PK Subban who makes $10 million a year in player salary not including endorsements and appearances. If he were to pay $250 k a year in federal taxes not including the Quebec portion he would be basically paying taxes for himself and about nine other regular working people. It is not 33%, but nobody can say he is not paying his fair share. It's a number he can live with and still sends a lot of money to Ottawa.
But he makes more than 9 times as much. I'd settle for him paying what a normal working person makes per dollar. Having money shouldn't entitle him to pay less per dollar than the working class.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
Hmmm, that might be a bit low Herm. Take someone like PK Subban who makes $10 million a year in player salary not including endorsements and appearances. If he were to pay $250 k a year in federal taxes not including the Quebec portion he would be basically paying taxes for himself and about nine other regular working people. It is not 33%, but nobody can say he is not paying his fair share. It's a number he can live with and still sends a lot of money to Ottawa.
But he makes more than 9 times as much. I'd settle for him paying what a normal working person makes per dollar. Having money shouldn't entitle him to pay less per dollar than the working class.
Of course you would settle for that. It's not your money, it's his. And just because he earns more why should he be charged more for everything? Contributions to EI max out why should taxattion not have a ceiling. Paying the equivalent of ten or more other regular workers' plus his own is more than fair---it's generous.
Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty
I'll read your article when I have time. However, the article I linked was not intended to be about the state of the US economy today. I am not even persuaded that the state of the US economy even matters a lot to the plutocrats to whom the article is addressed.
I'll also add, re the rest of that post, that one reason income tax rates are progressive is because all other taxes to which we are subject...tend to be REgressive. It's been argued that even a flat tax will not correct the overall regressive nature of taxes.
Quote from: "Peaches"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty
I'll read your article when I have time. However, the article I linked was not intended to be about the state of the US economy today. I am not even persuaded that the state of the US economy even matters a lot to the plutocrats to whom the article is addressed.
I'll also add, re the rest of that post, that one reason income tax rates are progressive is because all other taxes to which we are subject...tend to be REgressive. It's been argued that even a flat tax will not correct the overall regressive nature of taxes.
That article I linked tears to shreds Hanauer's entire eat the rich plutocrat case. It exposes it as nothing more than the empty slogan and distraction that it is.
So you do acknowledge that the upper income earners in the US pay the majority of income taxes? But, it's a misnomer to claim that flat taxes are regressive. I would argue that progressive taxation without limitation is the most regressive form of taxation a nation can inflict upon itself.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.
No, I did not know that. :laugh3:
Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.
Hmmm, that might be a bit low Herm. Take someone like PK Subban who makes $10 million a year in player salary not including endorsements and appearances. If he were to pay $250 k a year in federal taxes not including the Quebec portion he would be basically paying taxes for himself and about nine other regular working people. It is not 33%, but nobody can say he is not paying his fair share. It's a number he can live with and still sends a lot of money to Ottawa.
But he makes more than 9 times as much. I'd settle for him paying what a normal working person makes per dollar. Having money shouldn't entitle him to pay less per dollar than the working class.
Of course you would settle for that. It's not your money, it's his. And just because he earns more why should he be charged more for everything? Contributions to EI max out why should taxattion not have a ceiling. Paying the equivalent of ten or more other regular workers' plus his own is more than fair---it's generous.
Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty
Wait. Why should it have a ceiling? It doesn't for anyone else who doesn't make a boat load of cash. Why should rich people be exempt because they make a lot of money?
If you put a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat, it'll never flinch. It'll sit there until the water is boiling and its little froggy hide is cooked. But if you try to drop the same frog into already boiling water, it'll instantly jump right out.
It works the same for taxation policy.
"Progressive" politicians think they can jack taxes up by large amounts – particularly on "the rich" – and the fat froggies will just sit there and take it.
But taxpayers are like the frog dropped in boiling water. Raise their taxes too suddenly and they bolt.
Take the example of Calgary billionaire Murray Edwards.
Edwards is the chairman of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL), one of the four largest oilsands producers. On corporate reports, he used to list his residence as "Calgary/Banff." This year he has begun listing it as "London, UK."
Maybe Edwards truly does prefer life in London over life closer to his business interests (oil, Rocky Mountain ski resorts, real estate, the Calgary Flames). But consider this: between federal tax hikes on the "rich" and Alberta provincial hikes on those making over $125,000 a year, top effective tax rate in Alberta has gone from 40.25% in 2015 to 48% this year.
That's a rise of one-fifth in a year.
And that's just on income. That doesn't include the effects of GST, PST or HST, property taxes, excise taxes, gas-guzzler taxes, tire recycling "fees" and a myriad of other taxes and government charges.
I never thought I'd see the day when Britain was viewed as a tax haven for Canadians. But according to Mark Milke, the author of Tax Me I'm Canadian!, if Edwards is making around $50 million a year, his combined federal-provincial tax bite this year would be $24 million versus $19.5 million last year.
So as Milke points out,
They couldn't be satisfied with $80 million from Edwards. They had to try to squeeze out $100 million. Now they get nothing.
That's why last December, the Toronto-based, economic think tank, the C.D. Howe Institute, estimated
Last week, a national newspaper clucked that there could be a "reverse brain drain" if Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidency in November – talented professionals and entrepreneurs escaping to Canada from the States.
Fat chance. Canada now has among the highest tax rates in the industrialized world on innovators, investors, creators and entrepreneurs.
We might like to comfort ourselves with smug thoughts about how much more morally superior Canada would be to a Trump America. Yeah, maybe. But high-income individuals would keep a lot more of their earnings in the United States of Donald.
I have objections to Murray Edwards.
Last November, when Alberta Premier Rachel Notley was announcing her economy-crippling Climate Leadership Plan, there was the CNRL chairman standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the socialist leader proclaiming her green plan "a significant step forward for Alberta."
What we didn't know then was that he had quietly negotiated a $1.50 per barrel "output allocation" (read: subsidy) for CNRL to soften the blow on his company's bottomline.
And now that he has done his bit to convince Albertans the green plan is a good idea, with its annual $3-billion tax on every thing that moves, he has left the province to avoid the consequences.
Still, Edwards won't be the last Canadian to seek greener tax pastures elsewhere.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/04/05/tax-jolts-can-send-high-earners-abroad
The province of Alberta and the federal government got greedy and it ends up costing all Canadians. Businesses get greedy, they lose customers. The same principle applies to governments that do that too.
Reading some of these poasts is entertaining... Cap income tax at $100,000? Really? So that the rich get even richer? What kind of elitist shit is that? I agree that the US and other country's tax structure is befuckered, but tht is easily solved with a flat tax rate. Make it 15% for the sake of argument. Everyone who makes money kicks in 15% to the nasty assed gummint scum for roads, programs, etc. No cap, up or down. Everyone pays that percentage, no loopholes, no exceptions.
Now tell me how that's not fair?
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Now tell me how that's not fair?
I really like your idea of a flat tax. It is the best of all possibilities.
Clearly progressive taxation without limits is not working. I think what Herman is getting at is why should one person pay so much more for the same services that another person pays so much less for? Does a rich person go to the hospital 100 times more? But they are asked to pay 100 times more for the same service. I look at it like ordering food and asking what the price will be? The person taking the order says that all depends on your income. Nobody likes to be over charged. And the consequences of gouging some people is they take their money to countries where it is treated with respect.
I knew the Trudeau's plan to raise taxes on people making over $200 k would not produce the revenue he said it would during the election. The Liberals knew it too.
How do rich people get rich? All by themselves?
Quote from: "RW"
In PK's case, God given talent plus practice, practice, practice. That's his formula for success.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
And now it joins a lengthy list of broken campaign promises.
Or Daddy's money when he pffffffts. Any really rich person made their money off someone else's labor and sweat.
Name one possible instance where that did not happen?
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Name one possible instance where that did not happen?
I thought I just did.
Bar Stool Economics Show Why A Progressive Tax System Is Wrong
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
he tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
With the new system:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. This is called, "No shit Sherlock". Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!
http://www.financialsamurai.com/bar-stool-economics-show-why-a-progressive-tax-is-wrong/
Quote from: "seoulbro"
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
he tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
With the new system:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. This is called, "No shit Sherlock". Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!
http://www.financialsamurai.com/bar-stool-economics-show-why-a-progressive-tax-is-wrong/
Right on brother. How many people do we have to send to pubs overseas before we get it through our thick skulls. I guess no explanation is possible. :laugh3:
Quote from: "seoulbro"
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
he tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
With the new system:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. This is called, "No shit Sherlock". Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!
http://www.financialsamurai.com/bar-stool-economics-show-why-a-progressive-tax-is-wrong/
I've been out with many people who have money. The richest guy ends up picking up the whole tab.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
he tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
With the new system:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. This is called, "No shit Sherlock". Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!
http://www.financialsamurai.com/bar-stool-economics-show-why-a-progressive-tax-is-wrong/
I've been out with many people who have money. The richest guy ends up picking up the whole tab.
Everyday?
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "RW"
In PK's case, God given talent plus practice, practice, practice. That's his formula for success.
And someone put together a team and built a stadium for him to play in. People go to games to see his talent and pay money for tickets and use public transportation systems to get there. God given talent for sports doesn't get you millions on its own.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Name one possible instance where that did not happen?
I thought I just did.
You didn't :)
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Name one possible instance where that did not happen?
I thought I just did.
Not sure who PK is, but God-given talents don't make you rich. You still need a lot of help from the less fortunate, whether you are a businessman or an athlete.
I have NEVER in my life paid a dime when eating or dining with a millionaire.
Quote from: "RW"
I know a few very rich captains of industry, as it were. They invariably pick up the tab when dining or drinking. I think they do it because they feel bad that I make such a pittance compared to them.
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Name one possible instance where that did not happen?
I thought I just did.
Not sure who PK is, but God-given talents don't make you rich. You still need a lot of help from the less fortunate, whether you are a businessman or an athlete.
Hockey player for the Montreal Canadiens.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Name one possible instance where that did not happen?
I thought I just did.
Not sure who PK is, but God-given talents don't make you rich. You still need a lot of help from the less fortunate, whether you are a businessman or an athlete.
Hockey player for the Montreal Canadiens.
Well then that proves my point. Mr. PK had help and support from his parents, no doubt, and coaches and equipment managers and such. I doubt he was born from a hockey puck with his skills intact.
Well someone buys tickets to watch his games which generates revenue which pays players.
Quote from: "RW"
Neither do the first four people who have been drinking off the rich guy.
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Quote from: "RW"
I know a few very rich captains of industry, as it were. They invariably pick up the tab when dining or drinking. I think they do it because they feel bad that I make such a pittance compared to them.
They do it voluntarily because they choose to. Obscene taxation like in the millions of dollars is not voluntary. It is like paying the Hells Angels to do business.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Neither do the first four people who have been drinking off the rich guy.
Have you ever talked to a "rich" person about paying taxes?
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Well then that proves my point. Mr. PK had help and support from his parents, no doubt, and coaches and equipment managers and such. I doubt he was born from a hockey puck with his skills intact.
He has natural skill, that is unquestionable. And he takes good care of his parents. I have no doubt they see what he has become as a good investment of their time and money.
What is questionable is why he should pay millions of dollars to the CRA and Quebec? Did they buy his skates and drive him around when he was in junior? Why should they get more than his family who sacrificed for him? He is a wealthy guy, so he can pay a little more, but there is no way he should be given a multi million dollar bill for services. Nobody should. Remember, like so many wealthy people he donates a lot to charity. One million dollars alone in 2015. What a waste that would be for Canadian society if that money went into general government coffers to buy votes with.
Even at a flat tax rate they'll still pay more.
Like I asked seoul, why should they pay less per dollar than anyone else???
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Neither do the first four people who have been drinking off the rich guy.
Have you ever talked to a "rich" person about paying taxes?
I am the consultant. I deal with wealthy contractors every single day I am on the lease. I was part owner in a swabbing outfit in the early 2000's. ELPHUPPHY's characterization of wealthy people is so ignorant and wrong I do not even know where to begin.
You didn't answer my question.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
he tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
With the new system:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. This is called, "No shit Sherlock". Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!
http://www.financialsamurai.com/bar-stool-economics-show-why-a-progressive-tax-is-wrong/
Nine drunks getting their daily habit paid for by one generous guy and they scream it's unfair when he gets a break. :001_rolleyes:
Two threads about the same thing..
I noticed someone had posted a link to a Nick Hanauer speech..
Not that long ago, I read an article about him..
He promotes raising the American minimum wage nationally to $15 an hour, but pays his own workers less than half that..
Nothing against Peaches, but I am tired of rich hypocrites like him who are politically connected, preach one thing and do the opposite..
It is as hypocritical as Leonardo DiCaprio calling us greedy for using fossil fuels to make our lives better while he rents gigantic yachts, has several homes and uses private aircraft all the time.
:negative:
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Nothing against Peaches, but I am tired of rich hypocrites like him who are politically connected, preach one thing and do the opposite.
Nick Hanauer is a major dark money contributor, his interests are political and of course he's a total hypocrite. If Peach had a done any research whatsoever instead of gushing over his bullshit"plutocrat" speech, he/she might realize he's a fucking phony using class warfare and money to get political favours just like his buddy Tom Steyer. Oh the pitchforks will be coming, but it will be for the hypocritical scumbags like Hanauer in the Democracy Alliance and the politicians who prostitute themselves to such nefarious types.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Neither do the first four people who have been drinking off the rich guy.
Have you ever talked to a "rich" person about paying taxes?
I am the consultant. I deal with wealthy contractors every single day I am on the lease. I was part owner in a swabbing outfit in the early 2000's. ELPHUPPHY's characterization of wealthy people is so ignorant and wrong I do not even know where to begin.
Tsk tsk, there Herrmie. While you may not agree with me, it's rather harsh to characterize my comments as ignorant. Shame on you. I thought this board was a bit more polite than that.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Well then that proves my point. Mr. PK had help and support from his parents, no doubt, and coaches and equipment managers and such. I doubt he was born from a hockey puck with his skills intact.
He has natural skill, that is unquestionable. And he takes good care of his parents. I have no doubt they see what he has become as a good investment of their time and money.
What is questionable is why he should pay millions of dollars to the CRA and Quebec? Did they buy his skates and drive him around when he was in junior? Why should they get more than his family who sacrificed for him? He is a wealthy guy, so he can pay a little more, but there is no way he should be given a multi million dollar bill for services. Nobody should. Remember, like so many wealthy people he donates a lot to charity. One million dollars alone in 2015. What a waste that would be for Canadian society if that money went into general government coffers to buy votes with.
I don't disagree that in many countries, the rich pay much more than their fair share. Especially since any government makes poor use of the taxes they do collect.
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Neither do the first four people who have been drinking off the rich guy.
Have you ever talked to a "rich" person about paying taxes?
I am the consultant. I deal with wealthy contractors every single day I am on the lease. I was part owner in a swabbing outfit in the early 2000's. ELPHUPPHY's characterization of wealthy people is so ignorant and wrong I do not even know where to begin.
Tsk tsk, there Herrmie. While you may not agree with me, it's rather harsh to characterize my comments as ignorant. Shame on you. I thought this board was a bit more polite than that.
Herman is a nice guy and has had an interesting work career..
He's a little rough around the edges..
But what you wrote about rich people is the no different than saying poor people are all lazy, drug and alcohol addicted.
So...
What do you want to bet that a good number of the Canadians who have money in these accounts haven't declared it to CRA as income?
Shen is a bad influence on him Haha
Now what did Phuppy write that was stereotypical? I missed it. I did see him say he thinks the wealthy people he's been around paid his tab because they felt sorry for him and his lack of income. How that's comparable to calling poor people lazy, I'm not sure.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "ELPHUPPHY"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Neither do the first four people who have been drinking off the rich guy.
Have you ever talked to a "rich" person about paying taxes?
I am the consultant. I deal with wealthy contractors every single day I am on the lease. I was part owner in a swabbing outfit in the early 2000's. ELPHUPPHY's characterization of wealthy people is so ignorant and wrong I do not even know where to begin.
Tsk tsk, there Herrmie. While you may not agree with me, it's rather harsh to characterize my comments as ignorant. Shame on you. I thought this board was a bit more polite than that.
Herman is a nice guy and has had an interesting work career..
He's a little rough around the edges..
But what you wrote about rich people is the no different than saying poor people are all lazy, drug and alcohol addicted.
I didn't think so at all. It certainly wasnt meant that way. I said, I think, that the few rich people I know tend to pick up tabs because they might have felt sorry for me because I earn less then they do. I make, by the way, a touch under $60,000, so I'm not indigent. I think picking up the tab is something rich folks do as a friendly kind of thing, not as something meant to demean us lowlies. To say my comment was ignorant would, on another board, be grounds for a war. There's no reason to insult me because my statement is not agreed with. I'll over look it because I'm not here to fight with anyone.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
I noticed someone had posted a link to a Nick Hanauer speech..
Not that long ago, I read an article about him..
He promotes raising the American minimum wage nationally to $15 an hour, but pays his own workers less than half that..
Nothing against Peaches, but I am tired of rich hypocrites like him who are politically connected, preach one thing and do the opposite..
It is as hypocritical as Leonardo DiCaprio calling us greedy for using fossil fuels to make our lives better while he rents gigantic yachts, has several homes and uses private aircraft all the time.
:negative:
You are spot on as usual Fash. Hanauer's illogical rants and buying of leftist politicians is the problem not the solution. In fact that plutocrat speech was so so full of holes TED refused to carry it. It was to economics what Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was to climate change---pure fiction.
We had an election in this country where the current pm promised more goodies for almost everyone and it would be paid in full by the "rich." We know how that worked out and who will really be paying for it----your kids. Like you said, Hanauer is a hypocrite who does not walk the talk. If he was serious about growing the middle class(much more important than so called income equality) he would take the cash that he is just sitting on and innovate his businesses to make each worker more productive allowing for higher wages. It would also create new jobs too. He has the power and resources right now without buying politicians to change things for the economy and the people. The fact that he does not proves his speech does not water.
Quote from: "RW"
What do you want to bet that a good number of the Canadians who have money in these accounts haven't declared it to CRA as income?
That seems to be a safe bet. After all, the average Joe has no need nor use for an offshore account. They haven't got resources to hide from the gummint.
When read about the very rich who tell us that increased taxes on their income or carbon pricing will make our lives better I know the opposite is true..
Taiwan can no longer grow at the high rates that it has in the past..
Super rich industrialists with ties to the Kuomintang said
The result was less revenue for Taipei as the affluent produced less or worse moved their small factories to South East Asia but subsidies for the super rich who benefitted from green projects and infrastructure contracts..
It would be preferable for Americans if Mr Hanauer or Buffett gave their billions to scholarships, dental and pharma care, medical research, The Salvation Army, invest in new or existing businesses and pay better wages than pay more In taxes.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Peaches"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty
I'll read your article when I have time. However, the article I linked was not intended to be about the state of the US economy today. I am not even persuaded that the state of the US economy even matters a lot to the plutocrats to whom the article is addressed.
I'll also add, re the rest of that post, that one reason income tax rates are progressive is because all other taxes to which we are subject...tend to be REgressive. It's been argued that even a flat tax will not correct the overall regressive nature of taxes.
That article I linked tears to shreds Hanauer's entire eat the rich plutocrat case. It exposes it as nothing more than the empty slogan and distraction that it is.
So you do acknowledge that the upper income earners in the US pay the majority of income taxes?
Yes, of course I do acknowledge that the majority of US income taxes are paid by those in higher brackets...but I'm unsure what your point is. As to the part I bolded in your post, I'd be interested in hearing that argument ...especially since the claim doesn't compute at all for me.
Trickle down economics is fail Fash. Well established.
Quote from: "RW"
Is Canada a failure..
Is that well established?
Do we follow a trickle down economic model?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "RW"
Is Canada a failure..
Is that well established?
Rewarding producers is what successful economies have done Fash. Some form of supply side economics such as tax breaks and dereulation are some of the tools used from Stockholm to Singapore. That is well established. It's how our countries lifted themselves out of poverty
But, Taiwan and Korea as well as Canada have all reached growth limits for a number of reasons. Trudeau is not going to restore pent up consumer demand of the sixties with his fantasy Robin Hood promises. His own numbers show that.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "RW"
Is Canada a failure..
Is that well established?
Rewarding producers is what successful economies have done Fash. Some form of supply side economics such as tax breaks and dereulation are some of the tools used from Stockholm to Singapore. That is well established. It's how our countries lifted themselves out of poverty
But, Taiwan and Korea as well as Canada have all reached growth limits for a number of reasons. Trudeau is not going to restore pent up consumer demand of the sixties with his fantasy Robin Hood promises. His own numbers show that.
We can see in this country how increased regulation and bureaucratic red tape have worked. We can't get a single frickin new pipeline to tidewater built. If we had a government like Sweden or Singapore we would have a major industrial project like EE not only approved, but in the ground producing revenue and jobs.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
The result was less revenue for Taipei as the affluent produced less or worse moved their small factories to South East Asia but subsidies for the super rich who benefitted from green projects and infrastructure contracts..
It would be preferable for Americans if Mr Hanauer or Buffett gave their billions to scholarships, dental and pharma care, medical research, The Salvation Army, invest in new or existing businesses and pay better wages than pay more In taxes.
It's not just Taiwan, that's everywhere. Higher taxes are usually combined with more spending and produce less revenue and future tax increases for everyone to cover the increased debt. My kid brother lives in Portugal. Right next door in Spain sky high taxes have driven a sick economy's best and brightest along with their capital to other countries in Europe furthering that country's decline. Hell, it's happening in parts of Canada too.
A buddy of mine is the sole proprietor of a sucker truck and water hauling business in Brooks. He is using both types of trucks for mostly none oilfield related work right now. He said he will not pay the combined federal and provincial 20% increase in taxes so Trudeau can buy off corrupt Indian chiefs and Notley can buy the approval of provincial labor union bosses. He will deliberately work less this year. The result is less work for contracted drivers and less revenue for Alberta and Canada. This comes back to the op point of how government greed has a negative impact on the everyone, poor, middle and rich.
The personal income tax, a dominant source of revenue among Western countries, is of relatively minor importance in Korea. Taxes on consumption are by far the dominant source of revenue, although their share has been on a declining trend. More than half of consumption tax revenues come from the VAT with the rest contributed by a variety of excise taxes. Korea's economic decline has coincided with more reliance on corporate and income taxes vs the traditional consumption and excise taxes.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
That is a way better way to generate revenue than taxing income as long as the full amount of the VAT is not applied to basic groceries, rent/mortgages, utilities, and baby products.
Quote from: "Herman"
It's not just Taiwan, that's everywhere. Higher taxes are usually combined with more spending and produce less revenue and future tax increases for everyone to cover the increased debt. My kid brother lives in Portugal. Right next door in Spain sky high taxes have driven a sick economy's best and brightest along with their capital to other countries in Europe furthering that country's decline. Hell, it's happening in parts of Canada too.
A buddy of mine is the sole proprietor of a sucker truck and water hauling business in Brooks. He is using both types of trucks for mostly none oilfield related work right now. He said he will not pay the combined federal and provincial 20% increase in taxes so Trudeau can buy off corrupt Indian chiefs and Notley can buy the approval of provincial labor union bosses. He will deliberately work less this year. The result is less work for contracted drivers and less revenue for Alberta and Canada. This comes back to the op point of how government greed has a negative impact on the everyone, poor, middle and rich.
Raising taxes doesn't produce the results it claims to anywhere, but that's not why governments do it. It gets the vote of ideological whites. I'm talking about the occutard Sanders supporters. They don't give a flying fuck if it works or not, it's the idea that appeals to them. Free stuff by sticking to the man.
As I'm sure you know from ur wife, East Asians are generally a pragmatic lot. We want practical things that actually work not idealism that doesn't.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
The only thing dumber than income taxes is raising them. We see that with examples from Edmonton, Winnipeg, Fredericton, Ottawa, Taipei, Paris and Madrid. Since we have to have some form of revenue earner, consumption taxes are the way to go. The are the best of the worst by a country mile. I hope East Asian economies don't lose sight of what has worked for them. Copying the West's mistakes with Robin Hood taxes is no solution to their demographic problems.
So what is the solution?
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
The only thing dumber than income taxes is raising them. We see that with examples from Edmonton, Winnipeg, Fredericton, Ottawa, Taipei, Paris and Madrid. Since we have to have some form of revenue earner, consumption taxes are the way to go. The are the best of the worst by a country mile. I hope East Asian economies don't lose sight of what has worked for them. Copying the West's mistakes with Robin Hood taxes is no solution to their demographic problems.
We've had 17 years of the same party promising us that rich people can pay for all their excess spending. Wealth taxes didn't work so everyone is now paying for the 800 million dollar deficit. This on top of the transfer payments this province gets.
Thanks Fash for merging the two threads. I wanted to point out Hanauer's plutocrats and pitchforks speech contained the Walmart and Costco wage gap analogy. They are apples and oranges and there is no comparison. Costco has sales of $51 billion, 110,000 employees (45% part time, similar to WalMart) and WalMart has sales (in North America) of $191 billion and 1.3 million associates. So Costco has sales of some $465,000 per employee and WalMart $147,000 per employee. An associate at Walmart is responsible for about 600 square feet while an associate at Costco has about 950 per square feet. Mr. Hanauer himself relies on cheap, low productivity employees himself, so I don't understand who he thinks he's fooling.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
I noticed someone had posted a link to a Nick Hanauer speech..
Not that long ago, I read an article about him..
He promotes raising the American minimum wage nationally to $15 an hour, but pays his own workers less than half that..
Nothing against Peaches, but I am tired of rich hypocrites like him who are politically connected, preach one thing and do the opposite..
It is as hypocritical as Leonardo DiCaprio calling us greedy for using fossil fuels to make our lives better while he rents gigantic yachts, has several homes and uses private aircraft all the time.
:negative:
You may not have noticed that I posted the link to his piece by way of attributing the "pitchforks and torches" language I had used in a prior post which was only about my own opinion (the thing people keep saying I don't have.)
I did not post Hanauer's article as an endorsement of it. I can't honestly say that I fully endorse every thought in every source I cite. I mostly cite sources to establish what I assert as fact. In the instance where I cited the link, I only said that I found the article interesting and worth a read. Anyone wishing to impugn my character for having done so can kiss my entire ass.
As to the TED flap, it should in fairness be noted that Chris Anderson, TED curator, took a lot of heat for not curating that article. In fact, he subsequently in 2014 DID curate a longer talk by Hanauer on a similar theme.
Neither Hanauer nor I can help it if his thoughts on income inequality are unnerving to some readers. That does not make his thoughts wrong, any more than his business practices do. It might make him hypocritical, but that is a word being thrown around A LOT these days and there is a good deal of unintended irony in the throwing of it.
Quote from: "Peaches"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
I noticed someone had posted a link to a Nick Hanauer speech..
Not that long ago, I read an article about him..
He promotes raising the American minimum wage nationally to $15 an hour, but pays his own workers less than half that..
Nothing against Peaches, but I am tired of rich hypocrites like him who are politically connected, preach one thing and do the opposite..
It is as hypocritical as Leonardo DiCaprio calling us greedy for using fossil fuels to make our lives better while he rents gigantic yachts, has several homes and uses private aircraft all the time.
:negative:
You may not have noticed that I posted the link to his piece by way of attributing the "pitchforks and torches" language I had used in a prior post which was only about my own opinion (the thing people keep saying I don't have.)
I did not post Hanauer's article as an endorsement of it. I can't honestly say that I fully endorse every thought in every source I cite. I mostly cite sources to establish what I assert as fact. In the instance where I cited the link, I only said that I found the article interesting and worth a read.
As to the TED flap, it should in fairness be noted that Chris Anderson, TED curator, took a lot of heat for not curating that article. In fact, he subsequently in 2014 DID curate a longer talk by Hanauer on a similar theme.
Neither Hanauer nor I can help it if his thoughts on income inequality are unnerving to some readers. That does not make his thoughts wrong, any more than his business practices do. It might make him hypocritical, but that is a word being thrown around A LOT these days and there is a good deal of unintended irony in the throwing of it.
Peaches grow up or get lost.
Seoul is a wonderful guy who has been around a long time..
If there's an issue between the two of you, I know who is at fault.
Quote from: "Peaches"
Neither Hanauer nor I can help it if his thoughts on income inequality are unnerving to some readers. That does not make his thoughts wrong, any more than his business practices do.
If Hanauer was serious about income inequality, he would shed his billions of dollars and give the money directly to his employees. Drain his bank accounts and give the proceeds to the spend-happy middle class. If consumer demand truly grows the economy, then the profits will come roaring back. There will be no time gap between having to adjust capital investment to make sure goods reach store shelves. There will be no inability to purchase raw materials or pay employees while waiting for the finished product to hit the market. He does not even pay his employees half the minimum wage he wants everyone else to.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Peaches grow up or get lost.
Seoul is a wonderful guy who has been around a long time..
If there's an issue between the two of you, I know who is at fault.
As you wish.
Quote from: "Peaches"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Peaches grow up or get lost.
Seoul is a wonderful guy who has been around a long time..
If there's an issue between the two of you, I know who is at fault.
As you wish.
:001_rolleyes:
Unbelievable.
I believe it.
I believe you're a lippy little douchebag and Fash just validated your assholery.
Quote from: "RW"
That's fine and good, but the same could be said about you and Peaches.
You can kiss Peaches entire ass and mine as well. :D
Quote from: "RW"
Back the fuck off RW. Peaches is snippier than Dinky Dianna.
Go fuck yourself Shen. He added more to this place than your incessant hostility ever did.
Quote from: "RW"
In your drug induced fantasy world maybe, but down here on earth.....not so fucking much.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "RW"
In your drug induced fantasy world maybe, but down here on earth.....not so fucking much.
So you being a raging bitch day in and day out is better than someone talking about actual issues?
HAHAHAHA!
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "RW"
In your drug induced fantasy world maybe, but down here on earth.....not so fucking much.
So you being a raging bitch day in and day out is better than someone talking about actual issues?
HAHAHAHA!
Peaches does not have a monopoly on
Every poster here discusses the issues that are near and dear to their heart.
:001_rolleyes:
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "RW"
In your drug induced fantasy world maybe, but down here on earth.....not so fucking much.
So you being a raging bitch day in and day out is better than someone talking about actual issues?
HAHAHAHA!
Peaches does not have a monopoly on
He has such lovely diction though.