Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[VladtheImpaler]

I'm driving home yesterday, and happen to tune in to 770 and Nenshi is on taking phone calls. Some angry old man phones in with this (I be paraphrasing):

"So these useless unemployed are sitting in the park. Why should the taxpayers be paying for toilets for these idiots?"

Nenshi:

"I tend to agree with your view of the protesters, but it's better for everyone if the conditions there are sanitary"

I lol'ed.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

hey man, if you have zero problem with a company exploiting tax loopholes to pay zero tax in a country while still recording massive profits, then all the power to you. I for one, have a problem with that and think the government needs to change the taxation/regulatory system so this doesn't happen so easily. Obviously our opinions on the matter differ, which is fine by me.

Apparently the point flew right over your head. You think the GOVERNMENT needs to change the taxation/regulatory structure, and I don't completely disagree.

The point I raised was based on your previous post in which it was okay for a company to utilize the tax laws to achieve x result but not to achieve y. Why is that? If both companies are subject to the same laws, and both companies abide by those laws, why is one choice okay and the other is not? It's based solely on the result, correct? And who's fault is that? It's a companies fault for operating within the regulatory realm to which it is subject? If you think achieving result y is unjust then target the laws that facilitate the achievement of that result, not the parties who simply operate within those laws.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I can't tramp into your home with or with out my shoes on. These people are not entering the buildings and there is no need to. They are operating in free assembly.

Except these people are using the park and surrounding neighborhoods as an open sewer as well as 'bathing' in private restrooms.

Face it, these 'fighters for democracy' seem to think they're above the rules most contributing members of society follow.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by valo403

A right to free assembly, like all rights, only extends so far as to trample on the rights of others. The right of these people to assemble does not advance beyond the right of a property owner to maintain the premises or enforce reasonable rules.

Quoted for truth.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Non violent protesters can cause all sorts of change. Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi come to mind. Of course, they knew what they wanted and could articulate their goals in a meaningful way, unlike the occupy#### folks.

I said leaderless, unfocused non-violent protesters don't cause change, and I stand by that statement, when responded to in its entirety.

I don't disagree with you are saying with respect to the latter: that's definitely the problem with the movement is that it has become a focal point for a litany of agendas.

However, when looking at the financial system, it certainly seems like the system could use some tweaking to bring things back into line.

laissez faire economists rail at regulation, however, some regulation is good. having investment banks being able to leverage at 30-1? Probably not a good idea (note that was Clinton's adminstration that did that)...having quants create 'financial instruments' to minimize risk, that are so complex that even now the banks don't know who owns what mortgages? not a good idea...

[Young-Sneezy]

has anyone noticed that Daradon is conspicuously missing from the last bit of this thread?

Perhaps parking his civic (exsqueeze me, its not a vw, no selling out) in a discrete location? destroying the evidence of his secret grande double shot no whip no foam extra hot light soy milk latte from starbucks? PICKING UP EMERGENCY SIGN MAKING MATERIALS FROM....WALMART?!?!

for a capitalist 1% new-grad just starting in downtown calgary, i seem to be missing my pool of gold, jewels and thousand dollar bills...weird.

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

Apparently the point flew right over your head. You think the GOVERNMENT needs to change the taxation/regulatory structure, and I don't completely disagree.

The point I raised was based on your previous post in which it was okay for a company to utilize the tax laws to achieve x result but not to achieve y. Why is that? If both companies are subject to the same laws, and both companies abide by those laws, why is one choice okay and the other is not? It's based solely on the result, correct? And who's fault is that? It's a companies fault for operating within the regulatory realm to which it is subject? If you think achieving result y is unjust then target the laws that facilitate the achievement of that result, not the parties who simply operate within those laws.

I got your point, thanks. The reason why X is okay and not Y, in my opinion, is that a socially responsible company should accept that taxes should be paid in a country you're operating in. Doing anything in your power to avoid paying ANY taxes at all, in my opinion, is not a socially responsible act. Sure, it maximizes profits and it makes your shareholders very very happy, but what impact does it have on your local/national economy? Sure, one company may not have a great impact but many companies doing the same thing most likely has an impact.

Yes, they are legally able to do this and you have a point in why is it ok for them to do X and not Y.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Young-Sneezy

has anyone noticed that Daradon is conspicuously missing from the last bit of this thread?

Perhaps parking his civic (exsqueeze me, its not a vw, no selling out) in a discrete location? destroying the evidence of his secret grande double shot no whip no foam extra hot light soy milk latte from starbucks? PICKING UP EMERGENCY SIGN MAKING MATERIALS FROM....WALMART?!?!

for a capitalist 1% new-grad just starting in downtown calgary, i seem to be missing my pool of gold, jewels and thousand dollar bills...weird.

Maybe cell phone signal is really poor at the protest

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Young-Sneezy

has anyone noticed that Daradon is conspicuously missing from the last bit of this thread?

Perhaps parking his civic (exsqueeze me, its not a vw, no selling out) in a discrete location? destroying the evidence of his secret grande double shot no whip no foam extra hot light soy milk latte from starbucks? PICKING UP EMERGENCY SIGN MAKING MATERIALS FROM....WALMART?!?!

for a capitalist 1% new-grad just starting in downtown calgary, i seem to be missing my pool of gold, jewels and thousand dollar bills...weird.

actually, you are not part of the one percent, unless you are one of the multi-multi-millionaires/billionaire that comprise the new plutocracy.

The 1% refers to that group of people that own 40% of global wealth. you're part of the 99% like most of us.

[woob]

The city of Cleveland going about it a different way:

Occupy Cleveland protesters granted public event permit

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

I got your point, thanks. The reason why X is okay and not Y, in my opinion, is that a socially responsible company should accept that taxes should be paid in a country you're operating in. Doing anything in your power to avoid paying ANY taxes at all, in my opinion, is not a socially responsible act. Sure, it maximizes profits and it makes your shareholders very very happy, but what impact does it have on your local/national economy? Sure, one company may not have a great impact but many companies doing the same thing most likely has an impact.

Yes, they are legally able to do this and you have a point in why is it ok for them to do X and not Y.

This ridiculous disconnect seems to be a common theme among a few people in this thread, corporations owe no duty to be "socially responsible", their mandate is to operate in the best interests of their shareholders. A failure to comply with that mandate can result in a company facing lawsuits, or in extreme cases directors facing personal responsibility. You're asking corporations to diverge from their stated purpose, and for what? A wishy washy notion of social responsibility? That's not their role, they are to operate as best they can in a competitive environment. If there are regulations that allow tax income to escape they should be strengthened, but don't forget that increased taxation doesn't mean increased tax revenue, it could very well have an opposite result.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by woob

The city of Cleveland going about it a different way:

Occupy Cleveland protesters granted public event permit

The nice thing is all these hippies on the island right now won't be able to last a Calgary winter so hopefully they're gone after tomorrow.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

actually, you are not part of the one percent, unless you are one of the multi-multi-millionaires/billionaire that comprise the new plutocracy.

The 1% refers to that group of people that own 40% of global wealth. you're part of the 99% like most of us.

If you earn around $300k you're in the 1%. If Sneezy is a new grad earning that I'd be stunned, unless of course he's taking a cut from fotze's mom.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Young-Sneezy

has anyone noticed that Daradon is conspicuously missing from the last bit of this thread?

Perhaps parking his civic (exsqueeze me, its not a vw, no selling out) in a discrete location? destroying the evidence of his secret grande double shot no whip no foam extra hot light soy milk latte from starbucks? PICKING UP EMERGENCY SIGN MAKING MATERIALS FROM....WALMART?!?!

for a capitalist 1% new-grad just starting in downtown calgary, i seem to be missing my pool of gold, jewels and thousand dollar bills...weird.

You're probably not in the 1%.

[Finner]

Think this fits here but may want to go in a new thread.

Interesting article about the current financial situation in the states, looking primarily at unemployment, taxes, corporate profits and wages, and comparing throughout the last 50-100 years. Lots and lots of nice charts to look at.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...t-2011-10?op=1

The problem in a nutshell is this: Inequality in this country has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation's history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high.
In other words, in the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...#ixzz1alxfsH16

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

This ridiculous disconnect seems to be a common theme among a few people in this thread, corporations owe no duty to be "socially responsible", their mandate is to operate in the best interests of their shareholders. A failure to comply with that mandate can result in a company facing lawsuits, or in extreme cases directors facing personal responsibility. You're asking corporations to diverge from their stated purpose, and for what? A wishy washy notion of social responsibility? That's not their role, they are to operate as best they can in a competitive environment. If there are regulations that allow tax income to escape they should be strengthened, but don't forget that increased taxation doesn't mean increased tax revenue, it could very well have an opposite result.

And you manage to accurately summarize one of the reasons why people are protesting. How far do you let "maximize profits and shareholder value" go? You're accurately explaining the status quo on the corporate front and people are saying the status quo is no longer OK with them. You are 100% valid holding your opinion that this ok and business as usual. The protesters and other people are also 100% valid in stating otherwise.

Regarding a company being socially responsible, let me share this story of a company I know about. The company is facing a land use dispute. The group of people making the dispute are asking for monetary compensation to make the dispute go away, essentially. Now, the O&G company could just pay this group of people and be done with it. Project moves ahead, profits rise, shareholder value increases. However, they are not just throwing money at the dispute as the group of people are requesting. They are going to mediation saying yes, we'll provide you with monetary compensation but it will be in the form of community improvements, money for programs, etc. They are addressing the dispute and making a socially responsible choice that is no doubt affecting the project, their profits, and their shareholder value.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I don't disagree with you are saying with respect to the latter: that's definitely the problem with the movement is that it has become a focal point for a litany of agendas.

However, when looking at the financial system, it certainly seems like the system could use some tweaking to bring things back into line.

laissez faire economists rail at regulation, however, some regulation is good. having investment banks being able to leverage at 30-1? Probably not a good idea (note that was Clinton's adminstration that did that)...having quants create 'financial instruments' to minimize risk, that are so complex that even now the banks don't know who owns what mortgages? not a good idea...

Dodd-Frank

Basel III

It's not like the banks were bailed out and then 'kept on keeping on' after 2008. And also it's not like all these stupid hippies were the first ones to think about these issues, they're three years late to the party.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

And you manage to accurately summarize one of the reasons why people are protesting. How far do you let "maximize profits and shareholder value" go? You're accurately explaining the status quo on the corporate front and people are saying the status quo is no longer OK with them. You are 100% valid holding your opinion that this ok and business as usual. The protesters and other people are also 100% valid in stating otherwise.

Regarding a company being socially responsible, let me share this story of a company I know about. The company is facing a land use dispute. The group of people making the dispute are asking for monetary compensation to make the dispute go away, essentially. Now, the O&G company could just pay this group of people and be done with it. Project moves ahead, profits rise, shareholder value increases. However, they are not just throwing money at the dispute as the group of people are requesting. They are going to mediation saying yes, we'll provide you with monetary compensation but it will be in the form of community improvements, money for programs, etc. They are addressing the dispute and making a socially responsible choice that is no doubt affecting the project, their profits, and their shareholder value.

You still don't get it. I'm not arguing for business as usual, I'm pointing out that the direction of your scorn is entirely misplaced. You're blaming businesses for playing by the rules when your real beef is with the rules.

As for your example, unless you can provide details on the dollar figures involved and particular offers made I'm going to have to reserve any judgment on what the company is truly doing. They could well be acting in a very self serving manner with their subsequent offer, you simply haven't looked deep enough into the issues to see it.

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

You still don't get it. I'm not arguing for business as usual, I'm pointing out that the direction of your scorn is entirely misplaced. You're blaming businesses for playing by the rules when your real beef is with the rules.

With all due respect, you still don't get it either. I've stated previously that I think government needs to change the rules, that much we both realize. However, this does not mean my scorn for business is unfounded. I have every right to rally against business as do the protesters. You can play by the rules AND make socially responsible choices at the same time. Just because you play by the rules doesn't mean you get carte blanch when it comes to being a socially responsible corporation. As I said before, how far do we let maximize profits and shareholder value go? When do we look at the status quo and realize it needs changing, both from a regulations point and from a corporate values point?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Dodd-Frank

Basel III

It's not like the banks were bailed out and then 'kept on keeping on' after 2008. And also it's not like all these stupid hippies were the first ones to think about these issues, they're three years late to the party.

retroactive legislation? not sure why this is being cited, as wall street is fighting tooth and nail against Dodd-Frank as we speak...and having 4.5 reserve liquidity isn't too much to ask for...canadian banks sit on a minimum 8%

the fact of the matter is the "stupid hippies" were probably the last ones to think about this...they are too low on the food chain to understand the repercussions of legislation during the time it is under debate or the period after it has passed.