Communist Canada? and a Nation without a army
- Thread starter Tweed
- Start date
C
couchcommander
Guest
a_majoor said:
Taxation rates are decreasing (disproportionately so for the rich given their increase in wealth).
This from a 2005 stat can article:
This same article does point out that the portion of the federal income paid by the top 10% income earners was higher:
http://www42.statcan.ca/smr04/2005/05/smr04_12305_04_e.htm
However, as a previous study shows, the wealth of the top brackets has increased massively compared to lower tax brackets, to a startling degree. The above study also does recognize this, but it also states that the effective tax rate hasn't decreased as much as lower tax brackets. IMO given their incredible increase in wealth, especially when compared to lower tax brackets, this is not surprising.
The previous study showing how the disparity of wealth has become increasingly pronounced:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020222/d020222a.htm
Effectively, the rich are, for the most part the only net beneficiaries of the last few decades of economic growth (amazingly last year the average Canadian did experience an increase in net worth)
To me this seems to be the opposite effect of what should occur in a Welfare Fascist regime bent on exploiting the rich... seem more like society has been set up to benefit the rich... ???
As well, and I don't have a source for this off the top of my head but I can find one, it seems to me that the level of regulation has actually been decreasing.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The "rich" can be divided into two categories in Canada (and much of the rest of the world as well). There are people who are wealthy enough to hire teams of experts to game the system and arange their affairs to avoid or limit their tax exposure, for example the owner of a shipping line who moves the corporate HQ in the Bahamas so the company pays no Canadian taxes, and re flags his ships under foreign flags of conveinience to avoid Canadian regulations. Perhaps not so oddly, this class of person is also influential in politics.
Then there is the people who are designated as the "rich", but who in most nations would be middle class. These people (such as myself) have very limited means of moving or converting their assets, and the combined tax burden on most Canadians is the single biggest expense, higher even then food or shelter. You can also check this assumption by looking at Tax Freedom Day, since most Canadians work for half the year for the benefit of the Government, and the second half of the year for themselves. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/taxcalc.asp
The other part of the equation which you failed to mention is the regulatory burden on Canadians, which saps a great deal of time, effort and energy from the essential tasks of creating wealth and getting on with your life.
On the macro level, instituting a massive de regulation and a "single tax" flat rate system would create an environment which is more conducive to wealth creation, and provide the economic muscle to increase our defense spending if that is what is desired by the people.
Then there is the people who are designated as the "rich", but who in most nations would be middle class. These people (such as myself) have very limited means of moving or converting their assets, and the combined tax burden on most Canadians is the single biggest expense, higher even then food or shelter. You can also check this assumption by looking at Tax Freedom Day, since most Canadians work for half the year for the benefit of the Government, and the second half of the year for themselves. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/taxcalc.asp
The other part of the equation which you failed to mention is the regulatory burden on Canadians, which saps a great deal of time, effort and energy from the essential tasks of creating wealth and getting on with your life.
On the macro level, instituting a massive de regulation and a "single tax" flat rate system would create an environment which is more conducive to wealth creation, and provide the economic muscle to increase our defense spending if that is what is desired by the people.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Dogboy said:
Dogboy: you mean the Spanish Civil War, right?
You might want to study that conflict a bit more closely: I don't think too many of the "commies" involved were "spit polished" . And it wasn't really "asymmetric warfare": it was two makeshift forces (one with some more material support than the other) trying to fight each other in pretty conventional operations using 1920s technology.
Cheers
C
couchcommander
Guest
Well it seems we can both, at the very least, say that the system unfairly benefits the extremely wealthy.
However, I wouldn't characterize paying taxes as "working for the government". As corrupt and inefficient as it may be, they do end up providing a large number of services to the people, which are in turn required to sustain our wealth. Notable amongst these are transportation infrastructure (yes, it's shitty, but its there), education, health care, etc. At the same time, I am not in any way defending our current method of spending. I think it is incredibly inefficient to the point where it is bordering on ineffective. However, changing the way we tax, rather than how we spend it, won't solve this problem, IMO.
As well, indeed an incredible amount of these taxes are distributed in the form of "social programs" designed to benefit those less fortunate (this may not just be in regards to economic circumstances). Last I checked the total amount, when municipal, provincial, and federal funds were accounted for, it hit several hundred billion dollars per year.
My reaction, is probably the same as yours. With all of these funds, there should be no poverty left! Unfortunately, due to the divisive nature of our society, with our provincial and municipal fiefdoms, this money is used very very inefficiently.
However, this should not be taken as an argument against social spending, but an argument FOR effective social spending. The current system is completely dysfunctional, and needs to be overhauled, from top to bottom. That does not mean we should leave Canada's unfortunate out to dry.
The problem with instituting a flat tax system is that for the most part this flat tax would not affect the majority of Canadians, who currently sit in the bottom tax bracket. Though you may be correct in saying that the freeing up of capital amongst the upper tax brackets would "produce more wealth", the inherently poor distribution system in the market would result in virtually all of the benefit of this going to said upper tax brackets (as has been the case for the last 20 years).
This quote from a 2000 piece from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives summarizes the point:
They also point out that raising the level at which taxation would begin would be of little benefit overall, especially when compared to the detractors of a flat tax system.
This is the reason that a progressive tax system is in place, and is needed. If left to it's own devices, market economies have shown an amazing ability to channel wealth almost exclusively to the wealthy. This is pointidly shown by the incredible disparties that have been growing in the US between rich and poor, to the point where I have read several articles predicting the death of the American middle class.
It is unfortunate that your personal circumstances have put you into an awkward situation in regards to the tax situation, however once again this is simply a good argument for restructuring the current system to better reflect the realities of society (ie lift the burden from the lower and middle classes, and redistribute it to those who have actually had a net benefit from our growth).
Finally, in my view, the regulatory burden, while cumbersome, is important in protecting the rights, and the very lives of ourselves, and our families. Given the massive lapses in safety and oversight that currently occur, even within this system, one could only imagine what would occur if companies were not required to maintain at least a baseline. Once again, I am not arguing the system is perfect. In fact, I will be one of the first to stand up and say it needs drastic change. Once again however, completely scraping it does not seem like a beneficial move, as it does have a large number of useful qualities; rather it needs to be refined into something more effective and less cumbersome.
*edit* This discussion between a_majoor and myself should almost be moved to a new thread
However, I wouldn't characterize paying taxes as "working for the government". As corrupt and inefficient as it may be, they do end up providing a large number of services to the people, which are in turn required to sustain our wealth. Notable amongst these are transportation infrastructure (yes, it's shitty, but its there), education, health care, etc. At the same time, I am not in any way defending our current method of spending. I think it is incredibly inefficient to the point where it is bordering on ineffective. However, changing the way we tax, rather than how we spend it, won't solve this problem, IMO.
As well, indeed an incredible amount of these taxes are distributed in the form of "social programs" designed to benefit those less fortunate (this may not just be in regards to economic circumstances). Last I checked the total amount, when municipal, provincial, and federal funds were accounted for, it hit several hundred billion dollars per year.
My reaction, is probably the same as yours. With all of these funds, there should be no poverty left! Unfortunately, due to the divisive nature of our society, with our provincial and municipal fiefdoms, this money is used very very inefficiently.
However, this should not be taken as an argument against social spending, but an argument FOR effective social spending. The current system is completely dysfunctional, and needs to be overhauled, from top to bottom. That does not mean we should leave Canada's unfortunate out to dry.
The problem with instituting a flat tax system is that for the most part this flat tax would not affect the majority of Canadians, who currently sit in the bottom tax bracket. Though you may be correct in saying that the freeing up of capital amongst the upper tax brackets would "produce more wealth", the inherently poor distribution system in the market would result in virtually all of the benefit of this going to said upper tax brackets (as has been the case for the last 20 years).
This quote from a 2000 piece from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives summarizes the point:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=757&pA=DA794529&type=2
They also point out that raising the level at which taxation would begin would be of little benefit overall, especially when compared to the detractors of a flat tax system.
This is the reason that a progressive tax system is in place, and is needed. If left to it's own devices, market economies have shown an amazing ability to channel wealth almost exclusively to the wealthy. This is pointidly shown by the incredible disparties that have been growing in the US between rich and poor, to the point where I have read several articles predicting the death of the American middle class.
It is unfortunate that your personal circumstances have put you into an awkward situation in regards to the tax situation, however once again this is simply a good argument for restructuring the current system to better reflect the realities of society (ie lift the burden from the lower and middle classes, and redistribute it to those who have actually had a net benefit from our growth).
Finally, in my view, the regulatory burden, while cumbersome, is important in protecting the rights, and the very lives of ourselves, and our families. Given the massive lapses in safety and oversight that currently occur, even within this system, one could only imagine what would occur if companies were not required to maintain at least a baseline. Once again, I am not arguing the system is perfect. In fact, I will be one of the first to stand up and say it needs drastic change. Once again however, completely scraping it does not seem like a beneficial move, as it does have a large number of useful qualities; rather it needs to be refined into something more effective and less cumbersome.
*edit* This discussion between a_majoor and myself should almost be moved to a new thread
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,911
- Points
- 1,040
>Well it seems we can both, at the very least, say that the system unfairly benefits the extremely wealthy.
From my view, it looks like the wealthy benefit the wealthy. Their advantage is somewhat self-sustaining and -driving. The "system" still takes more from the wealthy.
>However, I wouldn't characterize paying taxes as "working for the government".
If you work a certain number of hours each year for which someone other than you receives the wages, then who exactly are you working for? To be fair, taxes are more like a subscription. The problem is that the subscription is open-ended and subject to the influences of other subscribers working in unison to increase their subscribed services at the expense of others.
>With all of these funds, there should be no poverty left!
There isn't. We don't seem to have poverty in Canada. Statistics Canada deals only in measures of income disparity, and anti-poverty activists are unwilling to define what constitutes poverty. Instead they seize upon measures of income disparity as a surrogate for poverty. What is poverty? First we must agree on a meaningful definition. Then we can determine if we have any.
>The problem with instituting a flat tax...
...is that if we don't immediately scale back public spending significantly or exploit other sources of public revenue, what it does is transfer part of the revenue envelope from the upper to the middle classes. Looking at the share of personal income tax revenue provided by the top 5% or 10% of earners in Canada, it is clear that moving to a flat personal income tax rate is a huge political and financial hurdle.
>Progressive taxation recognizes that the market, left to its own devices, does a poor job of distributing incomes.
Maybe, but so what? Income disparity is not a measure of poverty. If there were a finite "pie" we were all sharing, this would be a problem. However, the "pie" continues to grow. The real question is, what drives the growth of the pie; and, equally importantly, what sort of policies will kill the golden goose?
From my view, it looks like the wealthy benefit the wealthy. Their advantage is somewhat self-sustaining and -driving. The "system" still takes more from the wealthy.
>However, I wouldn't characterize paying taxes as "working for the government".
If you work a certain number of hours each year for which someone other than you receives the wages, then who exactly are you working for? To be fair, taxes are more like a subscription. The problem is that the subscription is open-ended and subject to the influences of other subscribers working in unison to increase their subscribed services at the expense of others.
>With all of these funds, there should be no poverty left!
There isn't. We don't seem to have poverty in Canada. Statistics Canada deals only in measures of income disparity, and anti-poverty activists are unwilling to define what constitutes poverty. Instead they seize upon measures of income disparity as a surrogate for poverty. What is poverty? First we must agree on a meaningful definition. Then we can determine if we have any.
>The problem with instituting a flat tax...
...is that if we don't immediately scale back public spending significantly or exploit other sources of public revenue, what it does is transfer part of the revenue envelope from the upper to the middle classes. Looking at the share of personal income tax revenue provided by the top 5% or 10% of earners in Canada, it is clear that moving to a flat personal income tax rate is a huge political and financial hurdle.
>Progressive taxation recognizes that the market, left to its own devices, does a poor job of distributing incomes.
Maybe, but so what? Income disparity is not a measure of poverty. If there were a finite "pie" we were all sharing, this would be a problem. However, the "pie" continues to grow. The real question is, what drives the growth of the pie; and, equally importantly, what sort of policies will kill the golden goose?
C
couchcommander
Guest
The Canadian Government has defined poverty.
http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/poverty.html
And indeed, it is a self sustaining cycle... which I call the system
.
Further, the pie, as having an "economy" implies, is finite. Though this pie does, as you pointed out, continue to grow; as I pointed out, all these new pieces go to the weathiest people, leaving a relatively similar or even smaller amount for the rest. a_majoor was advocating flat tax for it's growth benefits, while I was pointing out that while this may be true, it won't actually help the vast majority of Canadians in a meaningful way.
And you are right about the having to cut programs to finance a flat tax. The article I linked to pointed this out as well.
And sure, why don't we call it working for a subscription. lol, I'm good with that.
http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/poverty.html
And indeed, it is a self sustaining cycle... which I call the system
. Further, the pie, as having an "economy" implies, is finite. Though this pie does, as you pointed out, continue to grow; as I pointed out, all these new pieces go to the weathiest people, leaving a relatively similar or even smaller amount for the rest. a_majoor was advocating flat tax for it's growth benefits, while I was pointing out that while this may be true, it won't actually help the vast majority of Canadians in a meaningful way.
And you are right about the having to cut programs to finance a flat tax. The article I linked to pointed this out as well.
And sure, why don't we call it working for a subscription. lol, I'm good with that.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Since this topic has been beaten flat in the Politics forum, I will simply close by saying the disagreement lies in the matter of control.
Conservative philosophy (Classical Liberal if you prefer) is based on the idea that the owner of property can dispose of it in the manner which best supports the owner's wants and needs. If you earn the wealth, you have the right to use it for your purposes. All people are imperfect creatures motivated by self interest, so any society should be constructed in such a way as to take these factors into account.
Freedom to own and use property, voluntary association and a level playing field to settle disputes are what is required. Nothing in this construct precludes banding together to achieve goals greater than any individual can achieve, and nothing in this construct defines the nature or type of voluntary associations created to achieve these higher goals.
Any philosophy which demands outside intervention in the ownership and use of property is also by definition not providing a level playing field (who after all is deciding the disposition of your and my wealth and property?). This should be seen as immoral and something to be opposed at all costs in any form.
Conservative philosophy (Classical Liberal if you prefer) is based on the idea that the owner of property can dispose of it in the manner which best supports the owner's wants and needs. If you earn the wealth, you have the right to use it for your purposes. All people are imperfect creatures motivated by self interest, so any society should be constructed in such a way as to take these factors into account.
Freedom to own and use property, voluntary association and a level playing field to settle disputes are what is required. Nothing in this construct precludes banding together to achieve goals greater than any individual can achieve, and nothing in this construct defines the nature or type of voluntary associations created to achieve these higher goals.
Any philosophy which demands outside intervention in the ownership and use of property is also by definition not providing a level playing field (who after all is deciding the disposition of your and my wealth and property?). This should be seen as immoral and something to be opposed at all costs in any form.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I think you are all missing something here. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The MILITIA ie part of the present army in Canada were farmers and many other tradespeople. Whom do you think repelled the finians not once but twice? Who went to the red river rebellion? Who went to the Boer war etc? Do you think that during the Finian raids that all members of the QOR were regular full time infantry troops who did nothing but drill? No they were MILITIA which by its nature means part time. Farmers with guns is what most of them were to get a few extra shillings plus show a sense of national pride among other reasons.
- Reaction score
- 18,105
- Points
- 1,010
ohh ohh another Militia vs Regular Force battle...
duck!
duck!
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The "Militia Myth" is one of the things which harms rather than helps.
In all your historical examples, the Militia was augmenting the "Regulars" (although the ratio was something like 80:20 Miltita/Reg as opposed to the 20:80 ratio common today), with the Regular troops providing the disciplined spinal column of command, control, logistics and heavy firepower the Militia could not provide. This is not to dismiss the many and worthy contributions of the Militia then or the Reserve now, but simply to put it into some sort of perspective. The Militia Myth essentially dismisses the contributions of the professional Regular troops and suggests we can "stand up" an effective fighting force without much money or effort, something which we should all recognize as dangerously false.
That being said, the Reserve does provide not only a useful "depth" for the Regular forces, but also a much broader pool of knowledge and experience gained through work, school and just plain "life" experiences which the full time soldier does not have access to. Ally that with the command, control, logistics and special skills of the Regular force, and we have a great combination of skills and assets to take to any sort of operation.
In all your historical examples, the Militia was augmenting the "Regulars" (although the ratio was something like 80:20 Miltita/Reg as opposed to the 20:80 ratio common today), with the Regular troops providing the disciplined spinal column of command, control, logistics and heavy firepower the Militia could not provide. This is not to dismiss the many and worthy contributions of the Militia then or the Reserve now, but simply to put it into some sort of perspective. The Militia Myth essentially dismisses the contributions of the professional Regular troops and suggests we can "stand up" an effective fighting force without much money or effort, something which we should all recognize as dangerously false.
That being said, the Reserve does provide not only a useful "depth" for the Regular forces, but also a much broader pool of knowledge and experience gained through work, school and just plain "life" experiences which the full time soldier does not have access to. Ally that with the command, control, logistics and special skills of the Regular force, and we have a great combination of skills and assets to take to any sort of operation.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Sgt Bilko Surplus said:
The particpating units in the Fenian Raids are:
Regular Calvalry (British):
19th Light Dragoons
1st Dragoon Guards (later renamed the King's Dragoon Guards)
7th Light Dragoons (later the 7th Hussars)
Militia:
Govenor General's Body Guard of Upper Canada (Toronto)
13th Battalion of Canadian Volunteers
Queen's Own Rifles
Caledonia Rifles
York Rifles
Bit of a back story, quite a good read too:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbertuca/g/FenianRaid.html
http://www.doyle.com.au/fenian_raids.htm
The Northwest Rebellion:
Regular:
The Royal Canadian Dragoons
The Royal Canadian Regiment
The Northwest Mounted Police
Militia:
The Governor General's Body Guard
The Governor General's Foot Guards
The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada
The Halifax Rifles
Les Voltigeurs de Quebec
The Royal Grenadiers
The Canadian Fusiliers
The York Rangers
The Simcoe Foresters
The Durham Regiment
Les Carabiniers Mont Royal
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Winnipeg Rifles
Boer War:
http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/boer/canadianarmy_e.html
2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
The Royal Canadian Dragoons
1st Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles
Brigade Division, Royal Canadian Field Artillery
Strathcona's Horse
2nd Regiment, Canadian Mounted Rifles
10th Canadian Field Hospital
3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th Regiments, Canadian Mounted Rifles
The Canadian Scouts
The South African Constabulary
3rd (Special Service) Battalion
This thread will not degrade into a "us vs. them".
My point is both work in dandem and compliment each other. We never work alone.
a_majoor....well said.
Regards
Among the other units involved in the 1866 Fenian Raid in the Niagara Peninsula were the Royal Grenadiers from Toronto and the 19th Battalion from St. Catharines. Both were in the column commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Peacocke of the British 16th Regiment of Foot which halted at Stevensville instead of pursuing the Fenians to Fort Erie. Two other units, the Welland Canal Field Battery and the Dunnville Naval Brigade, saw action at Fort Erie on 2 June.
The 140th anniversary of the Battle of Ridgeway will be commemorated on 2 June this summer and will include the dedication of a plaque provided by the Ontario Heritage Foundation.
The 140th anniversary of the Battle of Ridgeway will be commemorated on 2 June this summer and will include the dedication of a plaque provided by the Ontario Heritage Foundation.
C
couchcommander
Guest
a_majoor said:
Well I cannot really comment on you're view what is moral or immoral as that is your view. Indeed this has been beaten flat before. So I'll close as well by saying that it seems to me, in my moral schema, that we have a duty, not just has citizens, but as fellow human beings, to aid and assist those of us who are less fortunate. Sociological theory is quite insistant that humans are, in large part at least, and of course not in whole, a product of their environment. Further, as unpopular as the view is, due to the strong effect that society has upon the nature of a human, we are, in effect, responsible for whatever is produced, whether we view it as good or bad, lazy or productive, kind, or mean. This of course does not mean we should baby them, and our current system is not effective. This does mean, that we SHOULD try and effectively help them, however.
Further, it has been my experience that an individuals goals often run contrary to the goals of society, and the other individuals within it. These goals, as well it seems, over a long term, are often contrary to the good of said individual as well. Of course, individual freedoms, to an extent, are beneficial to society as a whole, but need to be tempered with some direction.
Finally, it seems to me that a group, cooperating together, is able to achieve much greater things than an individual. This cooperation should be encouraged, fostered, and directed by an efficient, and effective mechanism. If individuals, with no mechanism of control, are left to try and cooperate, it is often the case that a significant number of said individuals end up being exploited by a few. This, unfortunately, effectively means that these exploited individuals would be unable to pursuit their own goals, thus leading to a breakdown of the individualistic system.
To me, it seems, that the good of even individuals is not servered by their pursuit of their own material goals, but is better served by their pursuit of goals which will end up having a net benefit to the nation as a whole, and themselves.
Hey CC,
You were doing great until your last post
"So I'll close as well by saying that it seems to me, in my moral schema, that we have a duty, not just has citizens, but as fellow human beings, to aid and assist those of us who are less fortunate"
I tend to agree, but playing devil's advocate- so what? Why should my tax dollars support someone who chooses not to support themselves? Is citizenship merely a guarantee of a free ride? Taking it one step further- if the population of canada really and truly agrees with you, then there should be no backlash against your views. If that's true, then the process of delivering that aid should/could be relegated back to the populace. (maybe with the churches and other aid organisations, like it was years ago, and for many years)
"Further, it has been my experience that an individuals goals often run contrary to the goals of society, and the other individuals within it."
That's what society is, a group of individuals with similiar moral standards. Those standards allow us to assign mores and laws, which remove from soviety those who contravene it's laws. (jail) So, individual goals may sometimes run contrary, but not often nor regularly- or then society itself has changed and those who haven't are out of the norm.
Bottom line, the Government is there to serve the people. Not just the poor, but all the people. (news flash- the rich are people too) Want a truly fair way of funding the Government? Abolish all taxes except sales tax. Since I'm on my soapbox, Abolish all laws except those that define how we interact. Make judges a voters responsibility. Define those things that Governments are responsible for. (I can think of National Defence.....I'm sure there are others, give me a minute or two
)
Lastly, maybe we'd be better served if a citizen actually had to earn the responsibility to vote- say own land, or (stretching the point-horrors!!) actually support yourself and your family!!
Last thing is a quote from Winston Churchill: "A man who, at age 20, isn't a Liberal has no heart. A man who, at age 40, isn't a Conservative has no brain".
Cheers-Garry
You were doing great until your last post
"So I'll close as well by saying that it seems to me, in my moral schema, that we have a duty, not just has citizens, but as fellow human beings, to aid and assist those of us who are less fortunate"
I tend to agree, but playing devil's advocate- so what? Why should my tax dollars support someone who chooses not to support themselves? Is citizenship merely a guarantee of a free ride? Taking it one step further- if the population of canada really and truly agrees with you, then there should be no backlash against your views. If that's true, then the process of delivering that aid should/could be relegated back to the populace. (maybe with the churches and other aid organisations, like it was years ago, and for many years)
"Further, it has been my experience that an individuals goals often run contrary to the goals of society, and the other individuals within it."
That's what society is, a group of individuals with similiar moral standards. Those standards allow us to assign mores and laws, which remove from soviety those who contravene it's laws. (jail) So, individual goals may sometimes run contrary, but not often nor regularly- or then society itself has changed and those who haven't are out of the norm.
Bottom line, the Government is there to serve the people. Not just the poor, but all the people. (news flash- the rich are people too) Want a truly fair way of funding the Government? Abolish all taxes except sales tax. Since I'm on my soapbox, Abolish all laws except those that define how we interact. Make judges a voters responsibility. Define those things that Governments are responsible for. (I can think of National Defence.....I'm sure there are others, give me a minute or two
)Lastly, maybe we'd be better served if a citizen actually had to earn the responsibility to vote- say own land, or (stretching the point-horrors!!) actually support yourself and your family!!
Last thing is a quote from Winston Churchill: "A man who, at age 20, isn't a Liberal has no heart. A man who, at age 40, isn't a Conservative has no brain".
Cheers-Garry
C
couchcommander
Guest
Ah we all slip up at some point.Garry said:Hey CC,
You were doing great until your last post
Sorry a_majoor was right that this had been debated to death already, and had given a quick outline of his position as a (closing argument). I thought I could get away with much the same thing.... dang.lol, the population of Canada doesn't agree with my views, unfortunately. But no, I wouldn't say it gives a free ride. IMO if someone refuses to support themselves, that is a sign of something being wrong (most normal humans seem to have the desire to better themselves). They need help, and whether that just means occsionaly counciling, or institutionalization, whatever, they need help. Once again though, my own personal moral structure.
Oh i wasn't talking about criminals. But take for example an individuals desire to accumulate vast amounts of material items. Despite the fact we actually have more than enough goods for everyone, we still have (and I don't have an exact figure for this) a vast number of Canadian's not able to meet their basic needs (or those of their families) due to this unequal distribution of resources. These are often times not bums or welfare bums, but working poor (sources can be found if required).
Problem with having popular justice is that it becomes, as the name would suggest, a popularity contest rather than an exercise in justice. Just having GST would be... interesting IMO, as GST doesn't cover a lot transactions, especially those concerned with the rich.Bottom line, the Government is there to serve the people. Not just the poor, but all the people. (news flash- the rich are people too) Want a truly fair way of funding the Government? Abolish all taxes except sales tax. Since I'm on my soapbox, Abolish all laws except those that define how we interact. Make judges a voters responsibility. Define those things that Governments are responsible for. (I can think of National Defence.....I'm sure there are others, give me a minute or two
lol, own land? I'm all for earnign the right to vote, but I would make it something like being employed, having a certain level of education, possibly military service.
Yea I've heard that many a time.
But thanks for the reminder that Churchill was a conservative. Thanks (and sorry for the typo's, I'm madly writing these posts inbetween doing a paper, so I don't have a lot of time to read it through again).
PS As I said before, this really wasn't meant to be a controversial post, more of a closing argument... but if you want to, I'm good to go a few more rounds.
"PS As I said before, this really wasn't meant to be a controversial post, more of a closing argument... but if you want to, I'm good to go a few more rounds. "
Well said!
I'll gracefully bow out of the public comments as well.
However (especially since a closing statement sems to be de rigeur) I'll stand available to continue your education via PM.
Cheers-Garry
Well said!
I'll gracefully bow out of the public comments as well.
However (especially since a closing statement sems to be de rigeur) I'll stand available to continue your education via PM.
Cheers-Garry
Similar threads
