Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[SebC]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

In all cases, it's erroneously used to imply or state that the intent of certain policies is to simply "make the rich richer".

The usage of the phrase in modern times is a continuation of the misrepresentation of the intent of the policies, which is to make everyone richer. The progressives have, and always will, be wrong in their belief that an economy is a zero sum game. The rich can (and almost always do) get richer without it coming from making others poorer. People generally get rich by providing, not from taking. This should be self evident with some basic observations, but humans aren't really wired to be intuitive when they can feel the soft warmth of envy instead. Envy is a basic human instinct, so it is easy to generate a populist message about wealth creation somehow simultaneously making the populace more poor.

People generally get rich by starting rich and thus controlling the capital that lets them profit from other people's labour. Or by getting consumers to make irrational decisions.

Not going to write a whole essay but:
- planned obsolescence
- monopolies and monopsomies
- improving profit through layoffs/service cuts
- whole parasitic sectors that exist only for rent-seeking and create nothing (e.g. health care insurance)

- the latest hotness, AI, which is basically just an automated plagiarism engine


How many high market cap companies can you name that are actually providing great products and service and not abusing monopolistic, monopsomistic, anti-consumer, and/or anti-worker practices? In capitalist theory new companies should come in and eat their lunch, but in practice, barriers to entry prevent that and if you can get through the barriers, it's better to join the oligopoly than destroy it after you pay the admission price.

If wealth creation is the goal it would be best to support your population such that everyone has a chance to create wealth if they have the right idea instead of having a society where only the wealthy have the time and capital to launch businesses.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

If the goal is to shrink the bloated public sector, then i that process requires smart management.

I thought the goal of lower taxes was increased economic activity? It failed to do what its proponents predicted it would.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/kansas...-side-tax-cuts

I think this is a reasonable summary and adresses the criticism of the lack of public sector cuts.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It is self evident why this statement is false.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-relea...past-two-years

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

As an aside, "trickle down economics" isn't a serious descriptor of economic policy. It was a campaign slogan. It makes the utterer of the term sound uninformed.

It's a straw man term in the same way tax-and-spend-Liberal is.

and Conservatives being "fiscally responsible"

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You shouldn’t be telling people that. Otherwise the whole house of cards for all that the harder you work the further you will get ahead rhetoric will come crumbling down. Then people might be more inclined to realize that raising the taxes on people who make money without having to work instead of on the people who actually do the work that makes them their money isn’t the craziest idea in the world. Neither is paying the people who actually create their wealth for them a little bit more.

Good lord...Just because they did not work to invest in something, doesn't mean they didn't do work prior to earn that money, i mean short of the trust fund kids.

It was a man and he did have straws

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yes it should. So I suppose you'd support income supports/higher wages then so that people can all have surplus wealth to save?

Income supports? Define that please.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

In all cases, it's erroneously used to imply or state that the intent of certain policies is to simply "make the rich richer".

The usage of the phrase in modern times is a continuation of the misrepresentation of the intent of the policies, which is to make everyone richer. The progressives have, and always will, be wrong in their belief that an economy is a zero sum game. The rich can (and almost always do) get richer without it coming from making others poorer. People generally get rich by providing, not from taking. This should be self evident with some basic observations, but humans aren't really wired to be intuitive when they can feel the soft warmth of envy instead. Envy is a basic human instinct, so it is easy to generate a populist message about wealth creation somehow simultaneously making the populace more poor.

According to your line of thinking you present as fact, but is really the analysis of someone trying to fool people into accepting it as truth, consolidation of wealth is a feature, not a bug. So if only a sliver of humanity can participate in that(otherwise there would be unlimited wealth to go around, which is clearly false, and economic systems would break down) how do you square your opinion with reality? And that is that the rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer? A rising tide is obviously not raising all boats anymore.


It's hard to read your post and take anything away from it other than you have zero idea how the world functions. I'll give you an opportunity to defend your theory, but only if you can back it up with real sources by people who aren't already pushing an agenda to get richer. Trevor tombe like people are good sources. If you can't do that, the only reasonable conclusion is that you have an unrestrained imagination that isn't bound by facts, or you yourself are trying to fool people.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

In all cases, it's erroneously used to imply or state that the intent of certain policies is to simply "make the rich richer".

The usage of the phrase in modern times is a continuation of the misrepresentation of the intent of the policies, which is to make everyone richer. The progressives have, and always will, be wrong in their belief that an economy is a zero sum game. The rich can (and almost always do) get richer without it coming from making others poorer. People generally get rich by providing, not from taking. This should be self evident with some basic observations, but humans aren't really wired to be intuitive when they can feel the soft warmth of envy instead. Envy is a basic human instinct, so it is easy to generate a populist message about wealth creation somehow simultaneously making the populace more poor.

What an odd take, this sounds like you asked an AI bot to write you a passage explaining wealth from the viewpoint of Elon Musk or something.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

What an odd take, this sounds like you asked an AI bot to write you a passage explaining wealth from the viewpoint of Elon Musk or something.

Is there an AI bot programmed by tech oligarchs to spit out this boot licking claptrap to convince simpletons to hand over more money and not resist them? That seems like what this is.

[MelBridgeman]

lol it's like trying to convince people that the twin towers weren't demolished by the goverment.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Good lord...Just because they did not work to invest in something, doesn't mean they didn't do work prior to earn that money, i mean short of the trust fund kids.

You’re contradicting yourself here. According to you the longer a person is actively investing the more likely they didn’t work for the money they are investing because as you’ve stated simply investing your money isn’t work. Not saying whether I agree or disagree with that, just pointing out what you’ve said.

It was a man and he did have straws

Paper straws or those plastic-like biodegradable ones?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What do you do to support the disadvantaged? Is it the part where you mock them for earning minimum wage? Do you support governments who provide actual support for them? How much do you donate a year to causes that help out?


What actionable things do you do?

Guessing he pays 50% of his earnings to the government that funds support programs. Based on previous comments.

How much more should he give?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

What Empathy is NOT









You both are getting it confused with "feeling pity or sorrow for someone"

If that makes me a horrible person Pickles so be it.

I chose to support, both of you chose to shield. One is helpful (ME!) and one is not (You)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Where do these quotes come from?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Guessing he pays 50% of his earnings to the government that funds support programs. Based on previous comments.

How much more should he give?

nobody pays 50% income taxes.


Do they teach anything in schools these days?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Guessing he pays 50% of his earnings to the government that funds support programs. Based on previous comments.

How much more should he give?

You understand the difference between marginal rate and the amount of tax you pay right?

[Fuzz]

If he listened to Danielle Smith interview a Frasier Centre member, he absolutely does not. Another one of her long term lies or ignorance she spread to many on her #### show.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

nobody pays 50% income taxes.


Do they teach anything in schools these days?

Erm, at least where that particular bit of knowledge is concerned, I genuinely don’t think they do. I only learned how marginal tax rates work in high school because I took accounting in grade 12. Granted, that was in 2002-2003, but I’m not optimistic that shortcoming has been improved upon.

[belsarius]

This thread has turned into a masterclass nightmare of everything I despise about neoliberalism and the failed supply-side economic theory.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

This thread has turned into a masterclass nightmare of everything I despise about neoliberalism and the failed supply-side economic theory.

But on the positive side we've concluded that the Earth is flat and, while the debate about the number of Angels that can fit on the head of a pin still rages, we all at least agree on the whole bit about the Angels.

Progress!!

Slow and steady wins the race.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by GGG

You understand the difference between marginal rate and the amount of tax you pay right?

You do understand there are more taxes then just income tax right? 50% may have been a touch high, but the total tax bill for the average Canadian family is 46%

Tax Freedom Day

Financial Post Article - open incognito to bypass paywall