• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Every taxation choice a government(society) makes influences personal decisions, there is no way to avoid that, to argue otherwise is ridiculous.  A lot of western social democracies have focused on encouraging reproduction for two obvious reasons economic growth and societal maintenance. Any one individual can choose to be childless but if everyone did or too many than economic decay is inevitable and rapid.
 
1700-1910 does not hold a candle to today's complex, global economy. They weren't even their own country for the first 76 years of your timeframe.

The US has very limited (until recently) healthcare, social supports, etc.

Your Swiss example doesn't hold water. They're a super small economy, a country of only 8 million people, naturally defended by mountains and untouched by a whole lot of immigration. They also have conscription, so don't require a standing army. You can't possibly try to extrapolate a country of 8 million that has half the land mass of New Brunswick into 35+ million and the second largest landmass with a melting pot of cultures and socioeconomic ideas.
 
ballz said:
History suggests otherwise. The American economy from 1700 - 1910 was largely unregulated with open borders. It was the greatest expansion of productivity ever. Money deflated every year for 200 years, because each year they became much more efficient at producing than they were the last year, so you could buy more with less money. ... Despite all the government involvement since 1910, over 100 years of government solutions and "expertise" and people looking out for the "greater good," they still haven't been able to recreate that kind of economic performance.
Do you think, maybe, the industrial revolution (applied technology) had something to do with the productivity growth while heavy immigration further contributed to economic growth?  Pointing to a silver bullet in history seems to oversimplify history and erode the value of history's lessons.
 
Without a doubt taxes are a burden, but its been a conscious decision by the government to switch the tax burden from corporations to individuals.

It's not government policy to support full employment but rather to rein in inflation
 
it seems to me that government just uses more of my money to bribe me to keep them in office and collecting perks.
 
YZT580 said:
it seems to me that government just uses more of my money to bribe me to keep them in office and collecting perks.

Seems like that is what everyone is complaining about. The policy that didn't benefit them the most is being changed/not being enacted
 
MCG said:
Do you think, maybe, the industrial revolution (applied technology) had something to do with the productivity growth while heavy immigration further contributed to economic growth?  Pointing to a silver bullet in history seems to oversimplify history and erode the value of history's lessons.

The industrial revolution was a *result* of entrepreneurship, of free markets. All that technology was created to increase production so that people could further their own self-interests (make profit). In doing so, they made the entire western world more prosperous. Our "poor" today are much richer and much less plentiful than the poor 400 years ago, and our middle class lives like kings compared to pre-industrial revolution. So yes, all that productivity growth did have something to do with the IR and that's my point.

I'm not sure why you mentioned heavy immigration... I clearly said "open borders" in my post. Free markets + open borders = 2x libertarian policies.

PuckChaser said:
1700-1910 does not hold a candle to today's complex, global economy.

The economy is not complex. A very smart man with some very dumb ideas named John Maynard Keynes convinced the world that it is, and we have been suffering for it ever since. Those who stuck to old school fundamental Austrian economics, such as Peter Schiff, predicted the 2008 recession with ridiculous accuracy. Despite the fact that the evidence was in front of their faces, most economists couldn't see it as they live in this "complex, global economy" like yourself.

PuckChaser said:
They weren't even their own country for the first 76 years of your timeframe.

What in the flying saucers does that have to do with it? It was a very libertarian-esque country, regardless of who claimed ownership of it. Contrary to your claim that libertarianism would "doom" the economy, they were prosperous.

PuckChaser said:
Your Swiss example doesn't hold water. They're a super small economy, a country of only 8 million people, naturally defended by mountains and untouched by a whole lot of immigration. They also have conscription, so don't require a standing army. You can't possibly try to extrapolate a country of 8 million that has half the land mass of New Brunswick into 35+ million and the second largest landmass with a melting pot of cultures and socioeconomic ideas.

I'm not sure why you are so focussed on the standing army part. I only threw that in there because it is a very libertarian-esque policy. Again, what does that have to do with anything? So they have better terrain for defence... and that trumps the fact that they are a low-tax, low-regulation economy with high income inequality but is one of the most prosperous in the world... how exactly?
 
8 million is one large city in the US, and you want to run the whole country like that. You conveniently ignored that part, and you chose to focus on the standing army piece which was already refuted.

That Libertarian-esque economy you extol the virtues of, made a lot of its money on raw materials produced via slavery until the mid 1800s. Still a good example on how we should run things?
 
PuckChaser said:
8 million is one large city in the US, and you want to run the whole country like that. You conveniently ignored that part, and you chose to focus on the standing army piece which was already refuted.

That Libertarian-esque economy you extol the virtues of, made a lot of its money on raw materials produced via slavery until the mid 1800s. Still a good example on how we should run things?

Oh dear god, you are unbearable. Slavery being legal was a result of the government's failure to do its one legitimate job (protection of life, liberty, and property). Some of the biggest anti-slavery people were Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin. Look at how they wrote the US constitution for God's sake... "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and all that jazz. While libertarianism wasn't really a word or a philosophy at that time, for all intents and purposes they were libertarians.

The population size of Switzerland is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you think the fundamentals of economics don't apply to bigger countries.

I'm not sure why you are still talking about the standing army thing, you didn't refute anything, and I didn't argue with your point that it is easier to defend. I will concede that their terrain is easier to defend... that has nothing to do with their stellar economic performance. You didn't "refute" anything, you wasted a lot of time talking about the one thing you thought you could debate.

And speaking of wasting a lot of time, I'm out for the night. Good night.
 
I think a big part of the American economic/political landscape owes itself to the nature of American expansion and the frontier- Frederick Jackson Turner; The significance of the frontier in American history
 
LOL!
ballz said:
Oh dear god, you are unbearable. Slavery being legal was a result of the government's failure to do its one legitimate job (protection of life, liberty, and property). Some of the biggest anti-slavery people were Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin. Look at how they wrote the US constitution for God's sake... "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and all that jazz. While libertarianism wasn't really a word or a philosophy at that time, for all intents and purposes they were libertarians.

While you say "libertarianism" wasn't really a word or a philosophy at that time, nor was the concept that slaves were not property. 

PS:  Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

Applying the values we hold today to events of two centuries or more in the past, even a couple decades ago, hold little credibility to this type of argument.  Even applying the values that our Western society holds to those of non-Western societies is not a credible argument.

 
suffolkowner said:
Without a doubt taxes are a burden, but its been a conscious decision by the government to switch the tax burden from corporations to individuals.

It's not government policy to support full employment but rather to rein in inflation

I see you did not comprehend, perhaps not even read, what JFK had said. 
 
George Wallace said:
LOL!
While you say "libertarianism" wasn't really a word or a philosophy at that time, nor was the concept that slaves were not property. 

PS:  Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

Applying the values we hold today to events of two centuries or more in the past, even a couple decades ago, hold little credibility to this type of argument.  Even applying the values that our Western society holds to those of non-Western societies is not a credible argument.

While its a fairly complicated manner, Thomas Jefferson was no doubt one of the leaders of the anti-slavery movement. Unfortunately, you are right, in his world, it was a radical idea during that time period since free labour was so abundant. His reasons for keeping his slaves were financial. He may have been pragmatic in his approach, but he effective.

As the governor of Virginia, he passed legislation that banned importing slaves in Virginia, *one of the first places in the world to do so.*
As a member of congress (I believe), he introduced a bill to congress to end slavery that ended up not passing by one vote. As President, he led the charge on the bill that did end up passing congress to make the international slave trade illegal, which curtailed the slave trade.


I assume your last bit is speaking to the one who seems to be trying to blame the free market for the slave trade, since I am not the one bringing this ridiculous argument forward, only pointing out how silly it is myself.
 
>If we lived within our means, we wouldn't be relying upon future generations to support us.

Having them support us (financially) is not the issue - we could easily fix that; all we lack is will.  We would be relying on future generations to be present in enough numbers to run things.  No amount of money can make someone materialize in your room when you press a call button.
 
And now the tax changes have been passed.

Liberals' middle class income tax cut passes House vote
CTV News
09 Dec 2015

OTTAWA -- The Liberals faced accusations of broken election vows Wednesday as their centrepiece pledge to raise taxes on the biggest income earners, while cutting them in a lower bracket, passed the House of Commons.

MPs voted 230-95 in favour of a motion to enact a package of tax changes that will, in fact, starve the treasury of a net $1.2 billion in each of the next five years.

This comes after the Liberals told voters the headline change in that package -- the income tax cuts and increases -- would be revenue-neutral.

Earlier this week, the government acknowledged the $1.2-billion shortfall. The announcement followed the party's recent moves to back down from another campaign pledge: capping Ottawa's annual budgetary deficits at $10 billion in 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau only added to the doubt Wednesday that the government would be able to keep those shortfalls from slipping deeper than $10 billion, particularly in a hobbled economy.

"We always targeted modest deficits, we had hoped it would be around $10 billion -- we will see if we will be able to hold at that level," Trudeau told reporters after the tax motion passed.

During the campaign, Trudeau vowed to respect the $10-billion upper limit for deficits unless the economic situation got "radically worse."

On Wednesday, he expressed concern for the state of the economy and called the oil-price and revenue forecasts in the previous government's April budget "wildly optimistic."

"And things have gotten significantly worse from those rosy projections, even assuming those rosy projections were anchored in reality," Trudeau said.

The Liberals have argued their tax-bracket tweaks will help the country's weakened economy, because middle earners are likely to spend what they save on income taxes.

Starting Jan. 1, the income-tax rate will drop to 20.5 per cent, from 22 per cent for taxable earnings between $45,282 and $90,563.

The rate on all income earned beyond $200,000 will rise to 33 per cent, from 29 per cent. About 319,000 Canadians will reach the upper tax level.

An evaluation by the Finance Department, however, found the projected revenues the Liberals expected to generate from their election vow were, in fact, off the mark.

The higher tax rate in the new, upper bracket is not expected to bring in as much revenue as anticipated, in part because the biggest earners are expected to make more of an effort to avoid taxes.

"Actually, there have always been, throughout the campaign many different economists with very different analyses of how much it was going to cost, how much it was going to bring in," Trudeau said.

The essence of the commitment, he said, remained the same: raise taxes on the wealthiest one per cent, while lowering taxes on the middle bracket.

"We know that it's not just good for middle-class Canadians to get more money in their pockets every paycheque, it's also good for fighting against the income inequality that continues to be a problem for growth in Canada," he said.

The government has also faced flak over the fact people making $90,563 and higher will receive the largest possible benefit of $679.

It's only once people hit the $217,000 mark that the pinch of the highest tax rate erases the benefit entirely.

Conservative finance critic Lisa Raitt has accused the government of breaking promises because the tax changes won't be revenue-neutral and for the $10-billion annual deficit caps.

"We now know definitively that this is going to be a structural deficit inherent within," Raitt told reporters.

The opposition New Democrats, who voted in favour of the tax-package motion, have said the tax-rate changes should have been extended to also benefit those who earn less than $45,282.

The motion will also cancel the Conservative move to increase limits on tax-free savings accounts to $10,000 from $5,500, also as of Jan. 1. The new Liberal legislation, however, will index the ceilings on the popular accounts to inflation.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-middle-class-income-tax-cut-passes-house-vote-1.2693674
 
suffolkowner said:
Without a doubt taxes are a burden, but its been a conscious decision by the government to switch the tax burden from corporations to individuals.

It's not government policy to support full employment but rather to rein in inflation

Just to throw a few things in the mix:

Governments used to be far more Keynesian than they are now, and I actually took economics at a time when Keynes was still "king". Oddly, while I struggled with things likethe Phillips Curve and the IS/LM model, which showed how one could trade inflation for employment, in the real world "Stagflation" was tearing economies apart, despite the fact it was explicitly impossible in any Keynesian construct. Reality took another bite out of my instructors, who rabidly predicted the Reagan Revolution would fail, even as the US economy began growing at the fastest rate since the Kennedy tax cuts (strange coincidence there).

Milton Freidman nailed in when he said "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon ". Central bankers had been keeping inflation under control from the Reagan Revolution in the 1980's until the Financial meltdown in 2008; tricks like QE, negative interest rates and running deficits again are all working to bring inflation back (and look at food and energy prices since 2008, I'm sure it is also a coincidence that food and energy prices somehow don't figure in the calculations of the inflation rate).

Governments around the world are still trying to pump air into various inflationary bubbles, rather than attack the root cause of the global financial crisis, the massive debt overhang. The central bankers have learned just enough since the last massive debt overhang at the end of the Great War triggered the global Great Depression to keep the economy from becoming openly depressed; our "best case" scenario will probably look like the lost decade in Japan.

Canadian politics in 2015 and for the next several years seems to be built on more hiding of heads in the sand. While we *should* be deleveraging, instead we are promised more deficits. While we *should* be working with our allies to neutralize rapidly growing threats to our peace and saftey (not to mention the free passage of goods and services which underpin our place in the global economy and source of our wealth), we are rapidly retreating from engaging the world on any sort of realistic basis, retreating again into platitudes and virtue signalling behaviours (the signs of "Little Canada" in a memorable Ruxstead Group article "One Nation: Two visions" published on 4 Jul 2007). And of course the tax changes which set off the acrimonious debate will be exposed as smoke and mirrors (well, they already have, but don't look for lots of media coverage of that) as "rich" people find new ways to shelter their income and poor people get whatever potential benefits from tax cuts clawed back by higher fees and the rest devalued by continuing deflation and devaluation of the dollar.

I mentioned in another thread that the ever growing signs of "weak and ineffectual and dishonest" government and bureucratic political elites prompts the growth of populist resentment and the rise of the Donald Trumps and Marie Le Pen's of the world; there is no reason to suspect that *we* are somehow immune to this, and my big prediction is Canada is going to see our own versions of the Trumps and LePens rising at both the Federal and Provincial levels. The Ford brothers might have seemed funny at the time, now I'm thinking they were just a few years too early....

 
Thucydides said:
and poor people get whatever potential benefits from tax cuts clawed back by higher fees and the rest devalued by continuing deflation and devaluation of the dollar.

You meant inflation, not deflation, right?
 
Brad Sallows said:
>If we lived within our means, we wouldn't be relying upon future generations to support us.

Having them support us (financially) is not the issue - we could easily fix that; all we lack is will.  We would be relying on future generations to be present in enough numbers to run things.  No amount of money can make someone materialize in your room when you press a call button.

Each generation tries to add to the mix, my parents generation earned a free ride, but didn't get it, they buckled down and kept on building. I benefited by getting a decent education. Then I spent 20 years paying to the education system with no stake in it. Then I had kids who are moving through that education. I'm pretty healthy, so i pay more for healthcare than I use for now. But in a decade that may change. for a society to function your supposed to think beyond your own wants and needs and try to give more than you receive. If everyone or most people plays by those rules then things work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top