[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[BoLevi]

The minimum wage is now and has always been $0.

That is, someone can simply be unemployed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

Implementation of a minimum wage is good.

There already was minimum wage legislation, but it didn’t violate anyone’s human rights.

Way to chime in but completely avoid answering the question.

Now, add taxes, hour cuts, inflation. You are back to square one. Nobody can survive off of what minimum wage is. It’s not about minimum wage, it’s about small businesses not being able to keep employees at that rate, give them the hours they need to survive.

Large businesses also pay minimum wage and small businesses benefit from lower tax rates, if the minimum wage was truly too cumbersome the government would have lowered it for all employees rather than try and exploit youth workers. Also no employer is giving extra hours to employees out of benevolence, to suggest otherwise is asinine.

You’re not very good at this are you PuckSlap?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The minimum wage is now and has always been $0.

That is, someone can simply be unemployed.

I don’t think you understand what a wage is.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Without wandering too much...I'll go back to your previous point about the dilemma you describe.

You are suggesting two things:

1. that jurisdictions have a dilemma about whether to lower taxes or not
2. that tax strategy does not draw investment

Both of these claims cannot be true at the same time.

I mean .. I don’t think you’re reading everything I type. I get I am not being concise but why bother if you’re not reading it

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

I mean .. I don’t think you’re reading everything I type. I get I am not being concise but why bother if you’re not reading it

There are a number of complex issues that you have tried to address. I think we should work on whether a dilemma actually exists or not. You have tried to make two mutually exclusive points by claiming that a dilemma exists while also claiming that one part of that dilemma either doesn't doesn't exist or is a minor factor.

[powderjunkie]

There's a strong argument that healthy public sector (even to the point of bloat, whatever that means) is a more effective way to circulate money locally and drive economic growth.

People arguing for public sector cuts never seem to consider the tax revenue decrease that comes along with an expenditure decrease. You can argue until you're blue in the face about which method is most effective, but I'll always lean to the option that puts more money into more consumers pockets, especially when it comes with the added bonus of better healthcare/education/social services

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

There's a strong argument that healthy public sector (even to the point of bloat, whatever that means) is a more effective way to circulate money locally and drive economic growth.

People arguing for public sector cuts never seem to consider the tax revenue decrease that comes along with an expenditure decrease. You can argue until you're blue in the face about which method is most effective, but I'll always lean to the option that puts more money into more consumers pockets, especially when it comes with the added bonus of better healthcare/education/social services

Public sector money comes from the private sector, so no that is not a strong argument.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Public sector money comes from the private sector, so no that is not a strong argument.

Hm. Interesting. Are you inferring that all public revenue generated is through taxes or some variation?

Public sector corporate vehicles can generate revenue as well.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Hm. Interesting. Are you inferring that all public revenue generated is through taxes or some variation?

Public sector corporate vehicles can generate revenue as well.

Where did they get the capital to start operations?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Where did they get the capital to start operations?

From the egg. No no wait, it’s from the chicken.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Public sector money comes from the private sector, so no that is not a strong argument.

I mean, to some degree, sure.

Private sector money comes on the back of public investment...it's a symbiotic relationship. Unless of course you think roads will start paving themselves, laws will start enforcing themselves, and the populace will start training itself.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I mean, to some degree, sure.

Private sector money comes on the back of public investment...it's a symbiotic relationship. Unless of course you think roads will start paving themselves, laws will start enforcing themselves, and the populace will start training itself.

there is a very important place for gov't and the public sector. But the private sector is what generates wealth.

Public sector "profitable" corporations are generally uncompetitive, or operate under a monopoly, or crowd out private investment which could do the job better and cheaper.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

And if youre a small market and don't want a team, you don't need to have one. There are 32 teams and I'm willing to bet Calgary isn't in the 32 top metro areas of Canada/US. The NHL doesn't need to have a franchise here. An owner doesn't need to operate here either.

The fact that Murray Edwards operates the team at breakeven here rather than sell it for $500m to someone who can profitably run it in Houston, is charity and community service in and of itself.

He doesn't owe you or the city anything at all. The fact that you expect him to spend more money out of his own pocket for your happiness is insane.

I love the Flames but would far rather them move to Houston than receive any public funding. If he can profit from selling the team and that's what he wants to do, that's well within his rights.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

I love the Flames but would far rather them move to Houston than receive any public funding. If he can profit from selling the team and that's what he wants to do, that's well within his rights.

sports teams are for the fan, they are not municipal playthings.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

there is a very important place for gov't and the public sector. But the private sector is what generates wealth.

Public sector "profitable" corporations are generally uncompetitive, or operate under a monopoly, or crowd out private investment which could do the job better and cheaper.

Someone on CP activated the Reagan Platitudes Bot*TM

[Monahammer]

The government can also just create new money and add it to the monetary supply. So, the egg is therefor the government, as it creates the money which then cycles endlessly through all of our pockets.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The government can also just create new money and add it to the monetary supply. So, the egg is therefor the government, as it creates the money which then cycles endlessly through all of our pockets.

The government can create money, but that is not the same as creating wealth. As we have seen recently.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Corporate taxes matter most to advanced companies and fresh startups. Growing companies in the mid growth stage probably aren't considering tax rates too much. Fresh startups deserve incentives- it's hard to start a business and we shouldn't punish risk takers who are trying to create additional jobs, products, and future tax revenues in the jurisdiction. But advanced corporations? Those tax breaks are going to stock buy backs and executive bonuses.

When you write this stuff do you even understand what the hell you're talking about?

"Corporate taxes" - I assume you're talking about "corporate income taxes" - matter not a whit to a start up, because income tax is paid on profit, not revenue. And start ups don't make a profit.

[PuckSlap]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There already was minimum wage legislation, but it didn’t violate anyone’s human rights.

Way to chime in but completely avoid answering the question.



Large businesses also pay minimum wage and small businesses benefit from lower tax rates, if the minimum wage was truly too cumbersome the government would have lowered it for all employees rather than try and exploit youth workers. Also no employer is giving extra hours to employees out of benevolence, to suggest otherwise is asinine.

You’re not very good at this are you PuckSlap?

Would you like a deep fryer for that potato brain?

The minimum wage was implemented to enable people to live. They call it a livable wage for a reason. But, for example - privately owned grocery stores in 2015 were forced to increase the livable wage to $15 an hour, at the same time they had to cut hours, increase prices and lose customers (including their own employees) in the process.

When you made $12 and hour, but we’re given 32-40 hours a week, Benefits and a better balanced work life balance, especially if you have kids or go to school.

But when you get your hours cut, and I’ve seen it happen almost immediately after the increase in minimum wage). You now make more money, but you now have to find another job, to pay the bills because you now only get 12-20 hours a week. That new wage doesn’t cover babysitting or daycare. Because those people now need more

So, now the people get hurt, the employers struggle to keep their place of business running properly and therefor lose customers, which leads to more cutbacks and more layoffs, hour cuts and so forth.

Yes, Walmart - Costco - superstore( excluding no frills) pays higher taxes. But they don’t care, because they’re not looking out for the people of the community; like the small businesses are. They are the ones that keep commerce in the neighborhoods and community’s

Minimum wage should have been increased at a pace that reflected the inflation rate starting in the 80s after the crash.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

Would you like a deep fryer for that potato brain?

The minimum wage was implemented to enable people to live. They call it a livable wage for a reason. But, for example - privately owned grocery stores in 2015 were forced to increase the livable wage to $15 an hour, at the same time they had to cut hours, increase prices and lose customers (including their own employees) in the process.

When you made $12 and hour, but we’re given 32-40 hours a week, Benefits and a better balanced work life balance, especially if you have kids or go to school.

But when you get your hours cut, and I’ve seen it happen almost immediately after the increase in minimum wage). You now make more money, but you now have to find another job, to pay the bills because you now only get 12-20 hours a week. That new wage doesn’t cover babysitting or daycare. Because those people now need more

So, now the people get hurt, the employers struggle to keep their place of business running properly and therefor lose customers, which leads to more cutbacks and more layoffs, hour cuts and so forth.

Yes, Walmart - Costco - superstore( excluding no frills) pays higher taxes. But they don’t care, because they’re not looking out for the people of the community; like the small businesses are. They are the ones that keep commerce in the neighborhoods and community’s

Minimum wage should have been increased at a pace that reflected the inflation rate starting in the 80s after the crash.

you have inadvertently described why minimum wage is a bad idea as it does not accomplish what proponents say it does, ie lift people out of poverty