Federal Budget 2016: $29B Deficit

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

While some of that may be true(I think your numbers are highly off) he was able to get where is is today by the systems we as a society have in place, like rules for resource extraction, business climate, maybe he was saved from some horrible disease as a child, had a good education etc etc...The point is, he is where he is by benefiting greatly by the system we have. That system wouldn't work if we depended on everyone to contribute exactly what they take out. To paraphrase, "he is where he is by standing on the shoulders of giants". To take those benefits and horde them seams a bit of a kick to Canada, does it not?

Highly off how? If we take the federal budget per capita, plus the provincial budget per capita, plus the civic budget per capita, you should end up with a pretty reasonable estimate of the total services being provided (on average).

I admit to only an extremely quick and dirty in-my-head calculation, but I think it's within the ballpark for conversation purposes. If you would like to provide a more accurate number, I would love to see it.

And I don't disagree that the system supported his efforts (though that same system and the same opportunities haven't gotten the rest of us to where he is). Also, he has paid taxes for every year he lived here so I am not sure how he is hording anything.

Anyway, rubecube claimed he was a sponge and I think my post makes a valid argument against that claim.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No. The US has unemployment insurance, does that make them a socialist state?

We have now moved so far off the original discussion that it is pointless.

A system that motivates people to act in the right way is far more likely to succeed than a system that hopes people will act in an ideologically-preferred way.

Yeah we may be veering into an off topic, theoretical discussion (which I do like to particpate in, but there are other things to discuss in here), but I would say my thoughts closely align with Locke. There are probably disagreements on what the lines of "too much" actually are and for what industries/services, but as far as the idea behind what I'm trying to say, it's what I'm getting at.

Either way, I would like to ask, what do you mean by the "right" way vs the "ideological preffered" way? Aren't those the same thing?

[Fuzz]

Mostly with our public services used per year. I'd guess closer to $20 000, but that is a wild guess.

Anyway, not really the point. I'm not sure how you can disagree that the system supported him. Was he birthed in a Canadian hospital? Go through the Canadian education system? Start a company that uses our resource extraction rules to get wealthy? Frankly I'm at a loss to how you could defend him not using our system to get where he is, but have at it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Highly off how? If we take the federal budget per capita, plus the provincial budget per capita, plus the civic budget per capita, you should end up with a pretty reasonable estimate of the total services being provided (on average).

I admit to only an extremely quick and dirty in-my-head calculation, but I think it's within the ballpark for conversation purposes. If you would like to provide a more accurate number, I would love to see it.

And I don't disagree that the system supported his efforts (though that same system and the same opportunities haven't gotten the rest of us to where he is). Also, he has paid taxes for every year he lived here so I am not sure how he is hording anything.

Anyway, rubecube claimed he was a sponge and I think my post makes a valid argument against that claim.

I would have to agree. He was hardly a 'sponge.'

He paid his taxes, and likely more than his 'fair-share.'

He contributed to Canada far more than is ever expected of anyone, regardless of what he took out of it.

This argument is an inability to see the forest through all of these pesky trees.

Canada is a nation that is predicated with the belief that we are all equals. If someone is expected and required to shoulder an additional burden due to their success then they should also be granted extra privileges.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Mostly with our public services used per year. I'd guess closer to $20 000, but that is a wild guess.

Anyway, not really the point. I'm not sure how you can disagree that the system supported him. Was he birthed in a Canadian hospital? Go through the Canadian education system? Start a company that uses our resource extraction rules to get wealthy? Frankly I'm at a loss to how you could defend him not using our system to get where he is, but have at it.

Again, of course the system supported him. But he also supported the system.

I can 112% guarantee you that Murray Edwards has paid more taxes, personally and corporately, as of today, than I ever will over the course of my entire life.

I could probably roll the dice and say make the same claim of this entire site and still be right. But I wont.

Do you believe that he has used and abused the system in excess to his contribution to the same said system?

He bought his ticket and he took his ride. He had advantages and various other benefits but he isnt a sponge.

He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot and a communist but he is NOT a porn star. Or a sponge, for that matter.

[Fuzz]

I didn't say that at all, I said the system enabled him to get where he is. Without it, he wouldn't have had the success he did.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I didn't say that at all, I said the system enabled him to get where he is. Without it, he wouldn't have had the success he did.

I dont know that anyone can say that without all of the facts.

I think you're right in principle.

Other than his qualifications as a porn star. Those are questionable.

[malcolmk14]

Murray Edwards probably pays more in federal tax in a month than I've paid in my life.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Murray Edwards probably pays more in federal tax in a month than I've paid in my life.

I have no particular love for Edwards, I jut think that calling him a 'mooch' or a 'leach' is disingenuous.

[EldrickOnIce]

He is a leech. And a mooch.
He has only donated a few hundred million to scholarships and charities.
The bum

[Jason14h]

Not completely accurate but fits the theme of this discussion well !

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.
The 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. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer 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. And so:

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 bar, 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 important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. 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.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Anyway, rubecube claimed he was a sponge and I think my post makes a valid argument against that claim.

It was a bit of an exaggeration but I doubt the guy has contributed as much to the country as he's gotten out of it. My point was that if he was moving his residency to avoid paying taxes but still using services that are funded by tax dollars, then it's not exactly a commendable or heroic action.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Not completely accurate but fits the theme of this discussion well !

Terrible analogy is terrible. The rich pay more in a progressive tax system because they're benefiting the most from the pool of labour and resources that is subsidized by the tax system (i.e. public education, health care, social programs etc.), which isn't a complete picture either, but it's more accurate than what you've posted.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Terrible analogy is terrible. The rich pay more in a progressive tax system because they're benefiting the most from the pool of labour and resources that is subsidized by the tax system (i.e. public education, health care, social programs etc.), which isn't a complete picture either, but it's more accurate than what you've posted.

what a load of garbage

they pay the most because they can, and the system needs them to

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

what a load of garbage

they pay the most because they can, and the system needs them to

Murray Edwards pays about 7% more income tax than I do. I can guarantee he makes much more than an additional 7% of what I make. I rely largely on the public services that allowed me to get to where I am for my income. How many people does Murray Edwards rely on the system to provide social services to to make what he makes?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Murray Edwards pays about 7% more income tax than I do. I can guarantee he makes much more than an additional 7% of what I make. I rely largely on the public services that allowed me to get to where I am for my income. How many people does Murray Edwards rely on the system to provide social services to make what he makes?

taxes are for the social system

you are trying to claim he benefits from employees and resources - even if we grant that stretch, that's not the social system, that's not what taxes are for.

and for you to sit there and say he pays 7% more income tax than you - unless you are paying 7 digits in taxes (if so, congrats!) you are off your rocker

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It was a bit of an exaggeration but I doubt the guy has contributed as much to the country as he's gotten out of it. My point was that if he was moving his residency to avoid paying taxes but still using services that are funded by tax dollars, then it's not exactly a commendable or heroic action.

I'm sorry rubecube but is that the end game here? That getting ahead means someone is getting boned, it's not fair and unless we play a zero sum game we are... Somehow being unethical?

Look, I get it. Packing up and taking off to save money on taxes is something he is doing for his own best interests. The man has created many jobs, and it was posed earlier in the thread that jobs created also generate tax revenue for the govt.

But some people are acting in this thread like the man snapped his fingers, black gold spewed out his ass, he wiped it clean with the shirt tails of us poor commoners and yet somehow did this in the exact same system that we all live and operate in. And he should be... Punished for his personal success that has at the same time contributed to this provinces success?

Basically the argument being presented is that he should be punished for being a shrewd businessman. Then when our elected officials decide that, hell yeah that's the way to go, stick it to him, he packs his bags and says eff you like any free person can do. He's not some prisoner to our tax collection agency.

Maybe instead of blaming an individual for his own actions, we could question the govt that enacts short sighted policy in the hopes of filling public coffers and drives investment out of the country.

[Ryan Coke]

I can't believe I need to point this out, but the people who make more money have often worked very hard, gotten higher levels of education, and generally have made sacrifices and achieved things which has allowed them to make larger sums of money.

It's more than just them benefitting from our society, so give us lots back. And human nature allows us to achieve great things when the motivation to do so is there. Take away the motivation, and we tend to achieve less.

[chemgear]

But we're all equal! If we are not, then I'm gonna wring the extra tax out of you until we are.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

taxes are for the social system

you are trying to claim he benefits from employees and resources - even if we grant that stretch, that's not the social system, that's not what taxes are for.

So you're saying our social system doesn't help to produce and maintain the quality of employees that Edwards needs to be an ultra-successful businessman? That's ignoring the all of the government services he likely uses to run his business (which granted should be considered paid by his corporate taxes).

Regardless, we kind of got sidetracked here. If you're using government services that you as a citizen aren't paying for, then by definition you're leeching off society. I don't even think EI is a comparable because people pay into EI and also pay taxes on their EI cheques. I'm not really interested in what he's paid in the past because it's irrelevant to the principle of paying to use the services he's taking advantage of.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm sorry rubecube but is that the end game here? That getting ahead means someone is getting boned, it's not fair and unless we play a zero sum game we are... Somehow being unethical?

That's not what I said, but exploitation is the very essence of capitalism. People don't employ others out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they can exploit their labour for their own personal gain. That's just how the system works. I'm not making a moral argument for or against it.

Look, I get it. Packing up and taking off to save money on taxes is something he is doing for his own best interests. The man has created many jobs, and it was posed earlier in the thread that jobs created also generate tax revenue for the govt.

But some people are acting in this thread like the man snapped his fingers, black gold spewed out his ass, he wiped it clean with the shirt tails of us poor commoners and yet somehow did this in the exact same system that we all live and operate in. And he should be... Punished for his personal success that has at the same time contributed to this provinces success?

Basically the argument being presented is that he should be punished for being a shrewd businessman. Then when our elected officials decide that, hell yeah that's the way to go, stick it to him, he packs his bags and says eff you like any free person can do. He's not some prisoner to our tax collection agency.

Maybe instead of blaming an individual for his own actions, we could question the govt that enacts short sighted policy in the hopes of filling public coffers and drives investment out of the country.

I'm not blaming him for anything. I haven't made any moral proclamation about the guy. I'm speaking strictly to what his actions entail, and I even posed it as a hypothetical. For all I know the guy probably pays privately for most of the services that we get publicly. Although it's hard to say he doesn't benefit from things such as emergency services.

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I can't believe I need to point this out, but the people who make more money have often worked very hard, gotten higher levels of education, and generally have made sacrifices and achieved things which has allowed them to make larger sums of money.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

[rubecube]

Let me put it another way. I have about $25k in student loans that I could very easily skip town on because I have dual citizenship. AFAIK, student loans work on a variable interest rate. If that interest rate went up by 1% and I used that as a justification to skip town and not pay them back, I doubt people would be applauding my actions.