They argue that "the richest 1%" isn't taxed enough and they claim to represent the remaining 99%. But they ignore one important fact: when we (the real 99%) need money, we go out and work; take extra hours or get a second job, if needed. But when these crazed commies need money - they demand more taxes on those that are more hard-working and more successful than they are.
Don't be fooled; if what they ask for ever gets implemented - it won't stop at the richest 1%. That's just how any "redistribution" works - no matter how hard you try there will always be those believing that they don't get enough, that they deserve more...
And, talking about the "richest 1%" - it was just 7 or 8 months ago when the provincial government rolled back the tax reduction for those in the upper bracket, restoring higher rate to even more than 1% of the richest taxpayers. Do you think it satisfied those crazed commies? Of course it didn't. They won't be satisfied until the extra tax money confiscated from their better-off neighbors goes directly into their pockets.
P.S.
Some complain that the media doesn't give those parasites enough coverage. And, although the media has been much friendlier to them than to let's say the Tea Party movement, in some way, it is true - there's a lot about the occupiers (and the ultra-left protesters in general) that never gets media coverage.
Update: Mockupy wall street - Andrew Breitbart, a "bad-boy journalist" from Los Angeles talks about the occupiers' rallies on Ezra Levant's show. The interview includes some video clips - see for yourself what these rallies are all about and who is behind this "mass grassroots protest".
4 comments:
You say "when we (the real 99%) need money, we go out and work". Let me ask you, why did the unemployment rate in America abruptly change in 2008? Why did millions of people stop working? If they have problems, go out and get to work, you say. Otherwise, it's their own fault.
Seems strange that so many would co-incidentally change their views or beliefs all around the same time. And they persist, they still aren't going back to work. I'd have thought they'd come around and wake up by now, and realize they need jobs. But American unemployment remains high. This must baffle you.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that jobs we want are not always available. Still, the question is - what kind of choice does one make in this situation; does he make an extra effort to get a job (even if it's not the kind of job he really likes) or does he demand that others "pay their fair share", naively assuming that he would be better off then.
And, talking about that occupier's rally, what do you think - if the government slaps extra taxes on "the richest X percent" - the jobs will miraculously materialize out of thin air? Or maybe the idea is that we should tax businesses that produce real goods and services to create token jobs like digging holes and filling them up again? (Which in the way is still better than hiring phoney "minority rights" experts or subsidizing "green" cars that cost over $100K to produce and that are way to expensive for the fuel economy to ever pay off.)
What this rally is all about is envy; a bunch of people are upset that someone else out there makes a lot more money than they do. And I don't believe that this is how people should deal with their financial situation.
Do you believe that, say, a laid of project manager or account executive should seek a job at a fast food restaurant or cleaning office buildings? I see a couple of problems with that. First, that makes an assumption that there is always some kind of work (as you say even if it's not the kind of job he really likes); I think ALL kinds of jobs have disappeared, not just the kind people like. It follows that fast food restaurant and building cleaning workers would also be competing against the managers and executives for the fewer remaining jobs. Second, overqualified people represent a 'flight risk' in that when they find a better job, they're outta there. So a hiring manager would favour someone who'd be more likely to stick with the job.
Now I never brought up the subject of taxes, and your assertion that I think higher taxes would produce jobs is a poor attempt to create a nonsensical strawman argument and label me, which I resist.
I was talking about jobs, you want to shift to talking about taxes. Fine, I'll go there. Do you think there is a strong correlation between tax rates and unemployment? I personally think that link is weak. I've seen plenty of tax cuts for corporations, but not so many jobs created as a result.
I believe there is a stronger link between demand for particular products and services and job creation; when demand sufficiently exceeds supply, then a business might (probably) try to expand production to meet the demand. Cutting taxes makes more money available, but that won't necessarily translate directly into demand - unless you believe in supply side economics. That money could be saved (e.g. paying down debt like a credit card).
Now, the kind of tax cuts determines who gets that extra money, and what kind of demand MIGHT be stimulated. Cutting personal income tax puts money in peoples pockets, which might increase demand for consumer products and services. Cutting corporate taxes gives money for businesses to spend on business-to-business products and services. So, cutting corporate taxes won't do much to increase demand for consumer products like food or housewares.
I think cutting corporate taxes is much less likely to generate demand than cutting personal income or sales tax. I believe business aren't seeing enough demand to expand and are simply sitting on extra money and building war chests. I don't believe supply side economics works in the current economy because there isn't and excess of demand, there is and excess of supply.
I believe recent corporate tax cuts haven't created jobs or stimulated the economy, but have contributed to our deficit. I don't think corporate tax cuts will enable Canada to "grow its way out" of the current deficit.
I think corporations get real value from operating in a secure, safe, stable country with a healthy, educated workforce; and I think corporations should contribute toward the costs to maintain that.
To those who say "if I don't get more corporate tax cuts, I'm moving my business outta here", great. I call your bluff. You can already do that at any time - including the time you originally started the business in Canada. There are plenty of nations in the world with much less government and far lower taxes, and you already had the chance to start there instead. Go for it. I believe your risks and cost of doing business would increase to make up for the lack of services and lower risk compared to operating in Canada.
Cutting already low corporate taxes is just growing the deficit, and giving business profits today from future tax revenue.
If the project manager you brought as an example is really an expert in his field - it's unlikely that he'd have to settle for a fast food job. He may still have to make a step back and become a deputy manager or even - an ordinary team member, the kind he himself used to manage, but he should be able to get back on his feet, without having to wait for the government to create a token job for him.
And, by the way, the fact that the government allows foreign students and unskilled workers to take jobs in Canada without having to go through the prescribed process of job offer validation (the process designed to ensure that there's no Canadian citizen or permanent resident available to take that job,) shows that the jobs are there. At least in Canada - they are. The problem is that those radicals believe that the society owes them a better opportunity.
The reason I mentioned taxes is because these "occupy your city" protests are about taxing the rich, forcing them to "share the wealth" etc. I gave an example in my blog post of how rolling back a personal tax cut for the top 1% (and slightly more) doesn't make the poor and the unemployed any better off.
Finally, when it comes to corporate taxes - the problem is that they make it more difficult to retain and reinvest the earnings within the business. Especially when it comes to investing in equipment and capital property, because only a small portion of that (the depreciation or the Capital Cost Allowance) can be written off and the rest is included in taxable income as if it was profit. Considering that Canada has a 2-tier tax system (Federal and Provincial) with the combined rate of 27-32.5% (which Harper struggles to bring down to 25) - this is a serious impediment in business expansion and, respectively - job creation.
Post a Comment