Bob Long Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 7 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: Also, here is a lesson on wealth redistribution that I learned from a very smart person many years ago. If you took all the money in the world and redistributed it equally to every person, within 5 years or less all those former rich people would be rich again and all of those former poor people would be poor again. So my question to you is how often would this redistribution of wealth have to happen? Every 5 years? this is funny Petey. No, not every former rich person would be rich, and all the poor ones still poor. What a silly deterministic outlook that is. But kinda tracks for the christian right to think this way. Anyone who was rich by inheritance would be poor. Some former entrepreneurs would make it again, some wouldn't. New entrepreneurs would emerge from the former poor people. A reset of the chances to become successful would create a new mix of rich and new poor. 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post 4petesake Posted July 31 Popular Post Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, Boudrias said: The Liberal government have consistently increased their share of Canada's GDP since 2015. The Laurier Institute now says the number is 64%. What have we got from that? Almost zero GDP growth and Investment actively leaving the country. Left wingers call for more taxation because they either want full blown communism or want to destroy what remains of this country. You don't have to look very far for examples of what this does to once viable economies. Positing that the left calling for more taxation because they want full blown communism is the equivalent of saying that the right wants Canada to be a full blown oligarchy. Both are wild exaggerations. The PBO published research that in Canada the top 1% now control 26% of the wealth and Canada’s 87 richest families have roughly 45,000 times more wealth than the average Canadian household, and that was in 2020. 3 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 7 hours ago, Ilunga said: I don't know if you have heard of the Yard sale model. This article gives some detail on it. It contains these fun simulations that illustrate why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. https://pudding.cool/2022/12/yard-sale/ " Why do super rich people exist in a society ? Many of us assume that's because some people make better financial decisions than others. But what if this isn't true ? What if the economy-our economy- is designed to create a few super rich people ? That's what mathematicians argue in something called the yard scale model " Run the simulations. About that website https://pudding.cool// A very good example of why 'financial math' needs to be taught to every one. It is also a very good example of why 'financial math' is not taught to everyone. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: this is funny Petey. No, not every former rich person would be rich, and all the poor ones still poor. What a silly deterministic outlook that is. But kinda tracks for the christian right to think this way. Anyone who was rich by inheritance would be poor. Some former entrepreneurs would make it again, some wouldn't. New entrepreneurs would emerge from the former poor people. A reset of the chances to become successful would create a new mix of rich and new poor. What does the “Christian right” have to do with what I said? Why do you always bring religion into the conversation? I know religion is funny to you. You definitely got a laugh out of the French people mocking the last supper. It’s always a smart idea to piss off 2.4 billion people. Samsung thought it was so funny they pulled their $1 billion in advertising. So a few thousand people wouldn’t get rich again. Okay. That’s a huge difference. I guess we should start with the wealth redistribution then. Maybe we will start at the Bob household first. Edited July 31 by Elias Pettersson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 8 minutes ago, 4petesake said: Positing that the left calling for more taxation because they want full blown communism is the equivalent of saying that the right wants Canada to be a full blown oligarchy. Both are wild exaggerations. The PBO published research that in Canada the top 1% now control 26% of the wealth and Canada’s 87 richest families have roughly 45,000 times more wealth than the average Canadian household, and that was in 2020. what can the government really do about this? I guess we can break up the companies? Certainly we can tax this group more, but that won't change who controls these companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: What does the “Christian right” have to do with what I said? A lot. A deterministic view of the world tends to go along with that. 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: Why do you always bring religion into the conversation? I know religion is funny to you. You definitely got a laugh out of the French people mocking the last supper. It’s always a smart idea to piss off 2.4 billion people. Samsung thought it was so funny they pulled their $1 billion in advertising. those 2.4 billion snowflakes need to calm down. The same laws that protect their right to believe fairy tales also protects peoples right to mock them. Deal with it. 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: So a few thousand people wouldn’t get rich again. Okay. Thatchers a huge difference. I guess we should start with the wealth redistribution then. Maybe we will start at the Bob household first. The idea you posted is silly. It assumes there's some inherent trait in all rich and poor people that "make" them that way. I'm just going to go ahead and guess the person who told you this story wasn't poor their whole life. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bishopshodan Posted July 31 Popular Post Share Posted July 31 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: What does the “Christian right” have to do with what I said? Why do you always bring religion into the conversation? I know religion is funny to you. You definitely got a laugh out of the French people mocking the last supper. It’s always a smart idea to piss off 2.4 billion people. Samsung thought it was so funny they pulled their $1 billion in advertising. So a few thousand people wouldn’t get rich again. Okay. Thatchers a huge difference. I guess we should start with the wealth redistribution then. Maybe we will start at the Bob household first. I thought it was supposed to be Dionysus? Thanks for the info about Samsung though. They just lost two customers. Wife and I were due for new phones, we usually go Samsung. Your theory about the rich being rich again quickly if everyone was made equal might have some merit. However, if the privileged upbringing of most of the rich ( top education, etc) was also removed, all things would far more equal. Wealth hoarding has to be dealt with sooner or later. The world is in trouble from it. Edited July 31 by bishopshodan Spelling worse than norm today. I need a nap. 2 1 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Warhippy Posted July 31 Popular Post Share Posted July 31 8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: Wealth redistribution doesn’t work unless you live in a communist country. Is this what you want for Canada? Instead of taking from the rich to give to the poor, maybe we should all start holding our politicians accountable for the billions in wasteful spending that they seem to enjoy doing every year. I’m old enough to remember posters in this thread bringing up on numerous occasions this current government’s wasteful spending, and your comeback every single time was a whataboutism on how Pierre Poilievre did something back in 2013 that is completely irrelevant to today’s situation. We have a $45 billion interest payment to pay every year and your solution to the problem is to tax the rich. Maybe all the rich people should simply pitch in and pay off that debt themselves? We could call Aquilini and Pattison to cover at least a few billion of that interest payment. Right? Taxes were higher period. So basically you don’t understand how marginal tax rates work then. Even when I explained to you that almost nobody back in 1954 actually paid 91% in income taxes and that the average tax rate back then was 31%, which is pretty much the same as it is now, you still gonna tell me taxes were higher in 1954? You could buy a house back in 1960 on a single income. Guess what. You could buy a house even in 2004 on a single income. So what’s your point? What happened over the last 15-20 years to make housing completely unaffordable even for people with a six figure income? Did rich people create the problem or was it the government? Who are you holding responsible for this current housing crisis? You are correct about one thing though. Multi millionaires and billionaires will always be able to get their tax money back. Because that is why they are rich in the first place. Also, here is a lesson on wealth redistribution that I learned from a very smart person many years ago. If you took all the money in the world and redistributed it equally to every person, within 5 years or less all those former rich people would be rich again and all of those former poor people would be poor again. So my question to you is how often would this redistribution of wealth have to happen? Every 5 years? Today I learned that wealth distribution doesn't work. But ONLY as long as we're talking about a general distribution via proper and appropriate taxation to those avoiding paying the most while making the most. But it DOES work so long as it is being distributed upwards like it has been for over 40 years. Today I also learned that taxing the wealthiest more for over 50 years meant that they were going to use accounting tricks to bring their marginal tax rates down so it doesn't make sense to tax them more because they obviously aren't doing the exact same thing while paying less so taxing them more makes no sense. Finally I got to learn that if you suggest doing things differently, that you want a communist Canada because that can be the ONLY logical explanation for this because people are unable to fathom any other way of doing things without a ridiculous jump to the most ludicrous and stupid extreme they can think of. 1 1 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 5 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: I thought it was supposed to be Dionysus? Why waste a good opportunity to feign being offended tho? Pfft, facts. 5 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: Thanks for the info about Suamsung though. They just lost two customers. Wife and I were due for new phones, we usually go Samsung. You're theory about the rich being rich again quickly if everyone was made equal might have some merit. However, if the privileged upbringing of most of the rich ( top education, etc) was also removed, all things would far more equal. Wealth horading has to be dealt with sooner or later. The world is in trouble from it. Entrepreneurial drive is a human trait. One that can't be known just by looking at someone's bank account out of context. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: But you know that's never going to happen again, nor is it enough to cover everything the NDP wants to do, and it wouldn't be sustainable. It's a convenient statement to make when the left is out of ideas. Show me the NDP ideas on creating new industries. Why? The NDP will never form government. They never have. Why is the NDP a boogeyman or even part of this conversation? I certainly never brought them up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 31 minutes ago, 4petesake said: Positing that the left calling for more taxation because they want full blown communism is the equivalent of saying that the right wants Canada to be a full blown oligarchy. Both are wild exaggerations. The PBO published research that in Canada the top 1% now control 26% of the wealth and Canada’s 87 richest families have roughly 45,000 times more wealth than the average Canadian household, and that was in 2020. People can not fathom a situation in which an equitable form of taxation where corporations and the wealthiest are unable to avoid paying without suggesting the most insane reasons behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 Just now, Warhippy said: Why? The NDP will never form government. They never have. Why is the NDP a boogeyman or even part of this conversation? I certainly never brought them up I guess because I want to stay open to choices? If we want to change from the 'other two' I'd like to see a good plan in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 22 minutes ago, Bob Long said: what can the government really do about this? I guess we can break up the companies? Certainly we can tax this group more, but that won't change who controls these companies. I don’t make the argument that these companies should be broken up, simply that these families are doing very well in this system that has allowed them to amass uber-wealth and that it’s not an unreasonable ask that they contribute more. Until recently Liberals and Conservatives were two sides of the same card on even the smallest wealth tax. When Peter Jillian tabled a motion for a 1% wealth tax in 2020 not a single yea vote was cast from either of the two parties, even though over 80% of Canadians were in favour. “A moderate wealth tax of 1% over $10 million and 3% over $100 million could make post-secondary education free for Canadians, it could fund universal pharmacare, and it could create 100,000 non-market affordable homes each year, and yet we don’t see a comprehensive wealth tax being discussed federally.” 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Warhippy Posted July 31 Popular Post Share Posted July 31 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: What does the “Christian right” have to do with what I said? Why do you always bring religion into the conversation? I know religion is funny to you. You definitely got a laugh out of the French people mocking the last supper. It’s always a smart idea to piss off 2.4 billion people. Samsung thought it was so funny they pulled their $1 billion in advertising. So a few thousand people wouldn’t get rich again. Okay. Thatchers a huge difference. I guess we should start with the wealth redistribution then. Maybe we will start at the Bob household first. You mean the feast of Dionysus right? Last supper what? The feast of Dionysus was spoken about almost 500 years before Christ even existed and the painting of the last supper was literally stolen from that exact frescoe. Religion is funny to me personally because it shows people to be the ignorant bigots they pretend not to be when they are forced to face the facts that their religion is based on even older stories and that their sky daddy is just a construct meant ot keep the idiocy in check while ensuring a sizeable redistribution of wealth from the sheep to the upper echelons. Funny...why does that sound so familiar? Edit* A few thousand people won't get rich again? If we're speaking of wealth "distribution" via appropriate taxation. Those few thousand people hold more accumulated wealth than almost 5 billion people on this planet. So darn, guess my thoughts and prayers will have to suffice for the poor few thousand who would still be fabulously wealthy compared to the 5 ish billion who might get a house or a regular meal. Edited July 31 by Warhippy 1 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bishopshodan Posted July 31 Popular Post Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, Boudrias said: Left wingers call for more taxation because they either want full blown communism or want to destroy what remains of this country. Just look at that sentence. What are you doing? The extreme rhetoric is getting a bit silly. You are too smart for that. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 9 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Why? The NDP will never form government. They never have. Why is the NDP a boogeyman or even part of this conversation? I certainly never brought them up 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 8 hours ago, Ilunga said: I don't know if you have heard of the Yard sale model. This article gives some detail on it. It contains these fun simulations that illustrate why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. https://pudding.cool/2022/12/yard-sale/ " Why do super rich people exist in a society ? Many of us assume that's because some people make better financial decisions than others. But what if this isn't true ? What if the economy-our economy- is designed to create a few super rich people ? That's what mathematicians argue in something called the yard scale model " Run the simulations. About that website https://pudding.cool// Will look at this later for sure. Love me some good reading. here out west we call that Crony-Capitalism. The belief of wealth predicated on infinite growth is so ridiculous as to border on the insane. But the trickle down model of Crony-Capitalism that we see here now over the last 40 years is directly attributed to and the cause of the massive wealth disparity we see So...ya. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 7 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I guess because I want to stay open to choices? If we want to change from the 'other two' I'd like to see a good plan in place. Unfortunately we won't see that with Singh at the helm. We also have to look historically and see that a strong federal NDP showing at the polls has always resulted in an overwhelming Conservative majority. We are a two party system with choice adjacent parties in the Bloc NDP and Greens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 33 minutes ago, Bob Long said: A lot. A deterministic view of the world tends to go along with that. those 2.4 billion snowflakes need to calm down. The same laws that protect their right to believe fairy tales also protects peoples right to mock them. Deal with it. The idea you posted is silly. It assumes there's some inherent trait in all rich and poor people that "make" them that way. I'm just going to go ahead and guess the person who told you this story wasn't poor their whole life. You better hope that Trudeau resigns and Mark Carney takes over. Cause if he doesn’t then PP will be the next Prime Minister. If that happens watch out. If I were an Athiest I’d be worried. But I’m sure you will “deal with it” at that time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: You better hope that Trudeau resigns and Mark Carney takes over. Cause if he doesn’t then PP will be the next Prime Minister. If that happens watch out. If I were an Athiest I’d be worried. But I’m sure you will “deal with it” at that time. Are we being threatened now? Just why should athiests be worried? Haven't you been telling us all this time we have nothing to worry about from religious conservatives? Take a breath Petey. I think you are posting in anger. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: PP will be the next Prime Minister. If that happens watch out. If I were an Athiest I’d be worried Please explain what you mean by this. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 17 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: You better hope that Trudeau resigns and Mark Carney takes over. Cause if he doesn’t then PP will be the next Prime Minister. If that happens watch out. If I were an Athiest I’d be worried. But I’m sure you will “deal with it” at that time. You're insinuating that the next PM hopeful will do something that will harm the lives or freedoms of people with no recognized religion or on the flip side allow more specific religion in to government institutions. These kind of threats and insinuations are not exactly defeating the belief that ierre will do just this and fly directly against your claims that he successfully put his religious ideals aside to be a qualified leader of the people. So please, do explain what you mean by the bolded 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 11 minutes ago, Satchmo said: I think you are posting in anger. In fairness, that's all the Conservatives have, Anger 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 22 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Unfortunately we won't see that with Singh at the helm. We also have to look historically and see that a strong federal NDP showing at the polls has always resulted in an overwhelming Conservative majority. We are a two party system with choice adjacent parties in the Bloc NDP and Greens That's why I bought up Nenshi. I think he has a chance of putting forward a federal plan that drops the 'us vs them' tropes and could actually be focused on new development. Doing that without alienating the progressives will be the hard part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 20 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: You better hope that Trudeau resigns and Mark Carney takes over. Cause if he doesn’t then PP will be the next Prime Minister. If that happens watch out. I am hoping for that. 20 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: If I were an Athiest I’d be worried. But I’m sure you will “deal with it” at that time. Why would I be worried? Is Skippy coming for non-believers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.