Federal Budget 2016: $29B Deficit

[polak]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'm just confused by this dude. It's not like the guy came in under the cover of darkness and made his money and got out.

-He's paid taxes on all the money he's made to this point
-He grew a company from nothing to a corporation that has a 42B dollar market cap that employs thousands of people. Thats corporate tax plus a bunch of people paying income tax.
-Just because he's made his money here does that mean he's never ever allowed to leave for any reason? What right is it of yours to say he shouldnt move for x reason or paying x more in income tax shouldn't matter.
-CNRL is a corporation, its not his personal lemonade stand where all profits just roll tax free to Edwards.
-Alberta is inarguably a better place for having had him live here, if he wants to sip tea in London I'm not gonna begrudge him for it. He hasn't abandoned the Province in any meaningful sense anyway

If he left and didn't make a peep about it and just moved like any other person I wouldn't have an issue with. But since "sources" are specifically citing tax reasons and his company specifically blamed the corporate tax increase for layoffs when this all started to get bad, yeah, it's kinda ####ty that he cares about saving a tiny portion of his outrageously high income more than having that portion of his income helping his ailing home.

If he comes out and says this has nothing to do with the taxes then I have no issue with the guy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So is Edwards actually going to be living in London? How much time is he going to spend there vs. in Canada? Because if he's still using Canadian public services and not paying taxes on him then IMO, he's a bigger sponge than someone who doesn't work and collects welfare cheques.

lol

(I know it's unpopular to defend rich people, and I'll get crucified for it, but here goes anyway)

The average Canadian receives what? about $100,000 worth of public services per year? (considering roads, schools, hospitals, policemen, etc, etc)

The average Canadian pays about $10,000 - $20,000 into the system per year (based on tax rates for the average income). Let's use generous Alberta numbers and say that the average household earns $100,000 per year. In that case, they are contributing maybe $30,000 - $40,000 per year.

Someone like Edwards is paying anywhere from a few hundred thousand to (more likely) at least 7 digits per year in taxes. He pays way more than he receives, so that people like you can receive way more than you contribute.

That's the nature of the system.

Say what you want about him leaving, but suggesting that he is spunging off the system worse than someone on EI?

Can you possibly be that blind and obtuse?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Canada (which I wouldn't call socialist) was voted 13th this year. The top 10:

Denmark
Netherlands
New Zealand
Qatar
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Iceland
Australia
Norway
Sweden

It's more than a stretch to call that list 'by and large socialist'.

More to the point though, these lists consider things like crime rates, health care, and cleanliness. So your point misses the mark for relevance, as well as being very much a cross-section of the political and socio-economic spectrums.

I didn't say the list was by and large socialist. I said that nations that are by and large socialist generally top it.

Denmark
Netherlands
New Zealand
Qatar
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Iceland
Australia
Norway
Sweden

I'm not sure I know enough about all of these countries economic systems to declare them socialist, but my definition of socialist would be nations that have universal healthcare, heavily subsidized or free post-secondary, and other policies that subsidize the poor (minimum wages, high tax rates for wealthy, welfare programs, etc..). I include Canada in that category. Many that live here don't seem to want to admit it, but compared to the rest of the world, Canada is very socialist.

The ones I have bolded are ones I'm not sure of. The others I am pretty confident run relatively socialist systems. Australia I'm not QUITE sure about, but I do know they have universal healthcare (although I think it's a 2-tiered system).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There's an important aspect that you're not considering here: relevancy.

We're talking about tax rates between provinces (i.e. within the same social, economic and cultural community).

It is much easier to relocate from one province to another, or one state to another, for tax or salary reasons, than it is to move to another country, where many things, including the language, change.

Are we? I'm talking about one of our wealthiest citizens leaving the COUNTRY for tax purposes.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So is Edwards actually going to be living in London? How much time is he going to spend there vs. in Canada? Because if he's still using Canadian public services and not paying taxes on him then IMO, he's a bigger sponge than someone who doesn't work and collects welfare cheques.

Really a guy who is involved in running multiple companies and employing thousands of people, providing a ton of tax money and corporate taxes. Is more of a leach then someone who doesn't work and collects welfare?

Are you stupid?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by polak

If he left and didn't make a peep about it and just moved like any other person I wouldn't have an issue with. But since "sources" are specifically citing tax reasons and his company specifically blamed the corporate tax increase for layoffs when this all started to get bad, yeah, it's kinda ####ty that he cares about saving a tiny portion of his outrageously high income more than having that portion of his income helping his ailing home.

Isn't that exactly what happened?
He didn't say anything, he had to list his place of residence on a regulatory form. I don't think he has made any comment either way.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I didn't say the list was by and large socialist. I said that nations that are by and large socialist generally top it.

Denmark
Netherlands
New Zealand
Qatar
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Iceland
Australia
Norway
Sweden

I'm not sure I know enough about all of these countries economic systems to declare them socialist, but my definition of socialist would be nations that have universal healthcare, heavily subsidized or free post-secondary, and other policies that subsidize the poor (minimum wages, high tax rates for wealthy, welfare programs, etc..). I include Canada in that category. Many that live here don't seem to want to admit it, but compared to the rest of the world, Canada is very socialist.

The ones I have bolded are ones I'm not sure of. The others I am pretty confident run relatively socialist systems. Australia I'm not QUITE sure about, but I do know they have universal healthcare (although I think it's a 2-tiered system).

So every country except the US

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Which brings us back to the fact that a system designed without human nature in mind is a bad system. If the tax rate hadn't risen by approximately 20%, people wouldn't be leaving, and their (continued) taxes would still be there for said schools and such.

Wanting people to behave in a particular way is pointless. The key is to motivate them to behave in a particular way.

Sorry to quote you three times, just reading back after posting.

This is a problem for me. I don't think you can call it a "bad" system when there are plenty of countries that operate as such and regularly top livable nations lists.

Disagree with it in theory or principal all you want, that's fine. But you can't call it a bad system. Other places have found ways to make it work.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Isn't that exactly what happened?
He didn't say anything, he had to list his place of residence on a regulatory form. I don't think he has made any comment either way.

No but everything else, including "sources" that the media is quoting is pointing to it being about that.

Two sources familiar with the situation who asked not to be identified said Edwards is switching his residency to the U.K. for income tax reasons.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...gary-to-london

and so for the purposes of this discussion, I'm basing my opinion off that.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Are we? I'm talking about one of our wealthiest citizens leaving the COUNTRY for tax purposes.

I made the example of provinces for clarity (vs European countries with different languages).

The point was being within areas that are easily transferable and are relatively homogenous socially.

Moving to London is marginally different than moving to Toronto or New York (in that sense)

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by polak

No but everything else, including "sources" that the media is quoting is pointing to it being about that.

The press asked a question to people who were familiar with the situation and they answered, what is the problem?
Murray didn't say anything, he just quietly made the change. He didn't call a press conference and criticize the government.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Sorry to quote you three times, just reading back after posting.

This is a problem for me. I don't think you can call it a "bad" system when there are plenty of countries that operate as such and regularly top livable nations lists.

Disagree with it in theory or principal all you want, that's fine. But you can't call it a bad system. Other places have found ways to make it work.

Your grouping a lot of countries into what you are calling the same or similar system. And you are being extremely inclusive in what you describe as working.

I have outlined in prior posts what I am referring to.

You are basically saying that every country with universal health care is a socialist society. I think most people would disagree with you on that.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So every country except the US

Not really.

The degree to which the wealthy is taxed, and the degree of benefits provided is what veers things into "socialism" territory. This is why I really hate getting bogged down in the "words" surrounding political systems. Capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism etc.. most places have elements of all of these things. Which is why it bugs me when people get all in a huff and start rambling about "but this is socialism! borderline communist! RARRRGHH!" There is socialism all around us, it's not some boogeyman in the closet waiting to jump out, take your money, and leave you with nothing.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The press asked a question to people who were familiar with the situation and they answered, what is the problem?
Murray didn't say anything, he just quietly made the change. He didn't call a press conference and criticize the government.

No and if I ever meet the guy I won't judge him based on hearsay. But since we're talking about it with the assumption that it's true, I'm just going with the flow of discussion.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You are basically saying that every country with universal health care is a socialist society. I think most people would disagree with you on that.

Would you disagree that universal healthcare is, on it's own, a socialist policy? Again, the semantics of everything really shouldn;t matter. One person's socialism is another's capitalism, is another's communism, is another's just plain common sense.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

(I know it's unpopular to defend rich people, and I'll get crucified for it, but here goes anyway)

The average Canadian receives what? about $100,000 worth of public services per year? (considering roads, schools, hospitals, policemen, etc, etc)

The average Canadian pays about $10,000 - $20,000 into the system per year (based on tax rates for the average income). Let's use generous Alberta numbers and say that the average household earns $100,000 per year. In that case, they are contributing maybe $30,000 - $40,000 per year.

Someone like Edwards is paying anywhere from a few hundred thousand to (more likely) at least 7 digits per year in taxes. He pays way more than he receives, so that people like you can receive way more than you contribute.

That's the nature of the system.

Say what you want about him leaving, but suggesting that he is spunging off the system worse than someone on EI?

Can you possibly be that blind and obtuse?

This is a fundamental flaw with the system we have in place.

When you have people making huge sums of money you run into the issue of: What happens to it?

Generally speaking, your use of the public industries doesnt change a whole lot depending on your income whereas conversely, your contribution to them does.

Its an inequality, not the one that gets brought up constantly but an inequality all the same. But the popular reaction to that is: you're rich, suck it up, no one cares.

Which is also understandable to a degree, but we have to remember that these are people too and while they have the luxury of 'sucking it up' they may not want to and they dont necessarily 'have' to. And making them 'have' to is actually making them another class of citizen which is something that we as a society have generally wanted to avoid. The difference is you arent making them a higher class, you would be making them a lower class, which is also bad.

The thing is: Reagonomics was bullplop.

If you're rich and not interested in the global Playboy jet-setting lifestyle then you have 1 car, 1 mansion, 1 yacht, 1 faberge egg etc.

You arent consuming sufficiently relative to the rate that you're earning.

Actually, they are doing the WORST thing any responsible citizen of this society can do. They're saving.

And when saving is bad then something is broken.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Would you disagree that universal healthcare is, on it's own, a socialist policy? Again, the semantics of everything really shouldn;t matter. One person's socialism is another's capitalism, is another's communism, is another's just plain common sense.

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.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Would you disagree that universal healthcare is, on it's own, a socialist policy? Again, the semantics of everything really shouldn;t matter. One person's socialism is another's capitalism, is another's communism, is another's just plain common sense.

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.

Actually I think Matty was on to something here.

I get it, individual policies shouldnt necessarily blanket an entire organization or state but yes, Universal Healthcare is a socialist policy, as is Unemployment Insurance.

I have a lot of Socialist values as well, the difficulty is drawing the line and saying 'thats too much' but I feel that socialism is important. There definitely are things that our Government should be doing for us as best they can.

But once they become an unwieldy behemoth then a culling is required and this is something that hasnt been handled.

A lot has been made of people's definitions of socialism despite the fact that theres a theoretical definition, a practical application and the real facts of it. It isnt a 'thing' its more a 'range of values.'

I hate the fact that there are individuals that attack the concept of socialism like Mcarthy-era Communist witchhunting but I also hate the fact that some people think that Government spending and activities should run rampant and unchecked.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Locke

Actually I think Matty was on to something here.

I get it, individual policies shouldnt necessarily blanket an entire organization or state but yes, Universal Healthcare is a socialist policy, as is Unemployment Insurance.

I have a lot of Socialist values as well, the difficulty is drawing the line and saying 'thats too much' but I feel that socialism is important. There definitely are things that our Government should be doing for us as best they can.

But once they become an unwieldy behemoth then a culling is required and this is something that hasnt been handled.

A lot has been made of people's definitions of socialism despite the fact that theres a theoretical definition, a practical application and the real facts of it. It isnt a 'thing' its more a 'range of values.'

I hate the fact that there are individuals that attack the concept of socialism like Mcarthy-era Communist witchhunting but I also hate the fact that some people think that Government spending and activities should run rampant and unchecked.

I agree with what you're saying. And yes, there are a wide range of values and policies that overlap ideological definitions and platforms.

A country with universal health care is no more 'socialist' than a country with an army is fascist or a country with thriving businesses is 'conservative' (or choose your term).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

(I know it's unpopular to defend rich people, and I'll get crucified for it, but here goes anyway)

The average Canadian receives what? about $100,000 worth of public services per year? (considering roads, schools, hospitals, policemen, etc, etc)

The average Canadian pays about $10,000 - $20,000 into the system per year (based on tax rates for the average income). Let's use generous Alberta numbers and say that the average household earns $100,000 per year. In that case, they are contributing maybe $30,000 - $40,000 per year.

Someone like Edwards is paying anywhere from a few hundred thousand to (more likely) at least 7 digits per year in taxes. He pays way more than he receives, so that people like you can receive way more than you contribute.

That's the nature of the system.

Say what you want about him leaving, but suggesting that he is spunging off the system worse than someone on EI?

Can you possibly be that blind and obtuse?

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?