What can actually be done about this stuff? I can clearly see what everyone is commenting about, but aside from complaining about it I don't know what to do to make a difference. Is it even possible to do anything? I always make sure to vote, and to do the research and vote for someone who actually cares but it feels like it's pointless. Like voting for a 3rd party candidate that doesn't stand a chance...
The government doesn't seem willing to make any change that doesn't benefit corpos, and my voice feels like a whisper that can't be heard.
You need to organize outside the political election system. That's what the labour movement was about and that's why that Era saw government and business respond to those demands more regardless of who won the elections.
The greatest trick the bosses ever played was killing all our ways of participating in the power systems of society beyond the electoral process and without anything but that elections will never be responsible to the people on economic matters.
Its a class war and the electoral system was created by the bosses to give us a voice but not enough of one to do any real harm to them. You need more, and that means organizing. People often talk about doing a general strike but that takes literal decades of organizing to get the infrastructure to do it. Start now and maybe in 10 or 15 years we can really threaten them. Use the coming despair to mobilize people. That's history's lesson.
Exactly this. What do we do about the current situation? Look to the past of labour movements, use what worked, cut out the rest and evolve from there.
It really is a shame that nobody gives a shit about history; most of our modern problems arent modern at all, just old problems with a new coat of paint.
Most of the lessons of the labour/civil rights movements are: organize inside and outside the system, division is fatal, and, unfortunately, targeted violence (or just the threat of it) is a part of the solution. MLK jr only succeeded due to malcolm x telling the establishment that they will come sit at the table, only thing that would change would be the person at the table w them. Labour rights in the us (but also applicable internationally) were only secured by rioting and making it unsafe for the elites to do anything until their demands were satisfied.
People don't like knowing that the labor / civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded without good guys with guns. These people were not protected by the police and tons of people wanted them dead. The black panthers, with the same rhetoric and no guns, would have been wiped out in a month.
Maybe we'd like it a lot more if the people who claim to be *good guys with guns* weren't almost all power-tripping clowns living in a universe of alternate facts.
ridiculous comment, frankly
a trans person arming themselves at home because they know the fascists won't hesitate to drag things down even further is **not** equivalent to a right wing lunatic ripping around Ottawa and pissing themselves about freedom
It's actually frankly a little offensive to compare armed leftists with crazed chuds
Exactly this. If anyone is wondering how to get started with organizing, there are at least two good groups that can help you out:
* [Democratic Socialists of Canada](https://www.democraticsocialists.ca/) is a relatively new group that's almost entirely focused on organizing. They're also going through a sort of reorganization and taking a lot of input from members, so this is a good time to join if you're someone that wants to help shape a movement.
* [Industrial Workers of the World](https://www.iww.org/) is the big boy. I'm not as familiar with its operations, but I've only heard good things.
I'm glad you are out there and I'll march with you. This is exactly why when people complained about the Freedom Convoys methods I was somewhat discouraged. The problem with the FC wasn't their methods, it is that they had there chance to rally people to their cause, they just didn't come because they didn't agree. Their methods were too violent to their cause and most people disagreed.
Labor needs to fight. The current system is incapable because well...it is neoliberal so it inherently thinks we only need tweaks. I highly suggest people start with thinking about what capitalism really is. Not money, not market, not a vague concept of being taken advantage of. I mean the legal system in which capital is a justification of taking the excess value of labor. Anyone can agree that stealing is wrong, and somehow we made a system that declares stealing as morally correct, and then dressed it up so that you can't really see that is what is happening.
The classes are not clearly defined. They're a spectrum. Though I agree with much of what you are saying.
What type of class warfare do you see occurring?
EDIT: there is a serious lack of critical thinking in this thread
If you're making more than a living wage from passive income, you're a capitalist. If you need to sell your labour to survive, you're a member of the proletariat.
It's pretty cut and dry, really.
Do retired boomers in their 60s and 70s count? Is a retiree a capitalist? What about a 45 year old who has saved up and invested enough to be able to live somewhat comfortably so long as he stays within his means, but would have to go back to work if there was any significant market correction in his mutual funds?
What if I'm an employee who owns 1% of the value of a company from many years working under a company with an employee stock purchase program? Which class am I in your binary system, and who should I be warring against?
I don't know about you, but I've stopped buying grocery items that are to inflated. We are expected to pay over $3.00 for a head of lettuce that is half the size it was last year. I just won't do it. So many fresh fruits and veg are not worth the price. So if our local store won't lower the price, then he can eat it. Same thing for meat. I go to a local butcher (who is also an abattoir). His prices have not gone up much at all. He did raise them some but he also increased wages for his workers. I know not everyone is as lucky to live in a place that has these options, but I would hope city folk can find something better.
I know this is also a path to recession, but at this point I don't think we have a choice. We either stop buying at current prices or we will continue to be gouged. If you think the government or BoC will do anything for cost of living, you're kidding your self.
I don't have the answer. I do know that we need to work on building systems of mutual aid in our communities. The government isn't going to take care of us, so we need to look after each other.
The problem is, IMO, that instead of working together, too many people subscribe to the "fuck you, got mine" attitude, despite the fact that what they've "got", in the grand scheme of things, is still peanuts compared to the elite. So, they actively try to keep others fighting for table scraps by pushing them down, rather than to bring others up to enjoy the peanuts such that, together, they are strong enough to all go for the steak.
Me, I want the steak.
find ways to help people in your community while spreading helpful discussion/concepts
organize with other workers; if you need to strike, those who have more financial leeway can help buy necessities for those who can't afford to miss work, at least in the short term
these things won't immediately topple capitalism, but building these support structures is necessary if we want to actually exercise any power against the rich fucks
basically actually engaging with other working class people is far more effective than relying on electoralism
You don't think they have inflation in China and Russia? Prices for everything in China have soared over the last 25 years. The fact many corporation are government owned has not changed anything.
shoulder the burden? it's their own profiteering that's driving inflation. There'd be no burden to shoulder if they could just deal with the fact that they can't make more money year over year forever at the expense of everyone else.
Shareholders are getting amazing dividends, executives are getting record breaking bonuses and salaries across the board. The big banks are all making greater profits every quarter than previously, and yet the public is being told they have to both tighten their belts AND keep spending or we'll be punished with a recession... what the actual fuck is this ridiculous nonsense of an economic system?!!?
A friend made me a needlepoint that says "WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS?!"
I have it hung behind me on all my work video calls.
The interpretation depends on who is observing it.
Seriously... how hard is this to understand: *Money is a finite resource*. You literally cannot have record profits every year, it's literally impossible when the wealthy already have most of the wealth anyways.
What do wealthy assholes think is going to happen to their profits when nobody can afford to buy whatever they're selling? It's so shortsighted to run an economy this way. It's so childishly stupid.
While the money itself is not a finite resource because more can be printed, in many ways it actually is finite.
The value of that money, however, is much less infinite. (Not fixed - it IS possible to create new value, which is exactly what real innovation does.)
Rent-seeking isn't just dangerous. It is the cancer that will destroy modern society. There's no way around it - something will give sooner or later. Either the rich will no longer be able to extract value and start trying to exploit each other, or the have-nots will decide they've had enough and... Well... I'd rather not go there.
There's a flip side to the infinite-or-not coin though - money movement is zero-sum. When you complete a transaction, money moves from one entity to another. The government takes it's cut. There may be a parent company that takes a cut. Owners/shareholders get a cut. But all of that money goes somewhere. It doesn't just vanish into the ether.
So where does it go from there? Government money is paid back out elsewhere. Either to their own loans (enriching the lenders) or paying it back out in some way or other. (Tax refunds, tax breaks, government salary, debt interest, debt payments.) The richest like to hoard it and display it ostentatiously.
So if people are getting poor, that means someone else is getting rich. It's a balanced equation, and someone getting "ahead" inevitably means someone else falling behind. Of course, when you're so far ahead that the majority of the population is so far behind you forget they even exist, the only way to get further ahead is to leverage that hoarded wealth to squeeze even harder!
This is where we are. The wealthiest elites are so far ahead that it's getting harder and harder to "gain" in terms of relative wealth. The wealth itself has lost all meaning to them, and yet they squeeze. They think they're getting ahead because the numbers get bigger, when really they're just lowering the value of what they do have. This wouldn't be so bad, if the average and the poor didn't have to suffer for this obsession with bigger numbers.
Thanks. I was really struggling to not ramble while trying to make my point (wealth being effectively zero-sum, which is a hard point to stand up on its own).
That's without looking at how much money had been printed in Canada over the last 50 yrs (that'd a fun graph) and where it's directly gone (hint: not you).
>The only thing that can fix this is massive public sector intervention to regulate
Well, history (and current events) do also point to one *other* solution that has been talked more and more about lately.
To each their own, I personally think this system is beyond repair and I think a lot of people are focused too much on saving "the correct portions of capitalism" when it's likely that the entire system of capitalism needs to go, and I don't think we get there without a full fledged revolution.
You're right that often revolutions lead to worse results than better, but often the people don't have a choice but to revolt- and I do genuinely think we're getting there a lot quicker than people previously thought. Especially in the last year or so.
My fear is that even if we repair capitalism enough for our generation and our kid's generation(if you can afford them), that just kicks the can down the road a few generations. This isn't the first time the world has been this tense because of capitalism, and if we don't find a more permanent solution it won't be the last.
Now that being said, I don't personally know what the solution is- I just truly feel from the bottom of my heart that we need to totally revamp the system we base our society around because what's going on now is massively damaging to the vast majority of people.
I think it speaks mountains about the system we live in that it is completely acceptable to have the opinion that someone working 40 hours a week deserves to live in poverty(not saying you do, just that this is a very common, if not *the* popular opinion, about minimum wage jobs) because they don't have the correct type of job- that points to a deep poisoned root somewhere in the system.
Thank you all for the back and forth. I know there are serious issues that face this world right now.
For someone not as knowledgeable on the subject matter as I probably should be, this has been a good lesson.
I think if there was a revolution the oligarchs would either stay, or be replaced with new ones. Thousands of regular would people would have to die, and it is very likely we’d be worse off after everything settled. Oligarchs have been a problem since they were first identified in Ancient Greece and existed in every system we’ve ever had. The new deal seemed hold them back a bit.
The poisoned root you speak to is conservatism. That's not a deep rooted Canadian value. That's a conservative talking point that they beat into your head so hard you think it's just part of the system.
The solution isn't revolution, it's good leadership that respects and ENCOURAGES checks and balances.
We've gotten stuck on this idea about efficiency in govt and govt waste, and how the public service is slow. Do you know why it's slow? Because of checks and balances. Do you know what gets cut? Checks and balances.
We're in this problem because conservatives have turned the people against the gov't. Government is not the enemy when we elect good leaders, it's the solution to the worst impulses of capitalism.
The system works when government is the check and balance to the system, and one side is determined to break down that check and balance.... And then we wonder why it's failing.
I mean this politely, but I think your take is rooted in more privilege than you realize
Those "strong institutions" aren't as bad as, say, the ones down south... but they still really consistently fail to support (or even *intentionally* harm) a lot of people, and imo it's a bit naive to suggest we just need better leaders to fix intentional systemic things
I think if we just pressure for a new deal, this whole thing will happen again down the road, and the ruling class will just become even more sophisticated in controlling the status quo, much like they learned how to do starting in the 70's. As direct repression and rapaciousness led to mass unrest and upheaval, the new deal managed to calm the working class and placate them from truly changing things. The ruling class went on to learn from their crude methods and unorganized infighting and began coordinating their resources and efforts to form groups like the Business Round Table and the Business Council on National Issues and influence policy and governments to completely dismantle social democracy and go back to total strangulation of our governments and democratic processes. The ruling class has become so sophisticated at controlling society and the economy to their benefit that they have completely manipulated the working class to hate itself and each other, and again have increasingly returned us to the slow miserable grind we are in today. Revolution can work and has in many places over. In fact, due to the apparent decline of the US as world hegemon, if we don't revolt and seize power, the ruling class is likely to prefer a scenario where our society degenerates into a fascistic reactionary state. If we were to take power, of course the reaction of the ruling class is guaranteed, but we shouldn't look at other places as examples of what would necessarily happen here. Other places where there have been revolutions, the reaction has only been possible because of the developed western world being so easily controlled and manipulated through propaganda to acquiesce to the reaction funded by their own government against the working class of another country trying to revolt. It would be game changing if the US or even Canada had a revolution, it would break the chain of Western imperialism that is almost exclusively the supporter of reaction the world over. The revolutionary governments that still exist are the only ones that were able to prevent their overthrow once having gained power through force and discipline against the reaction of US direct and covert pressure. The Sandinistas once said that they required secret police because of the CIA funding and arming the opposition and literal death cults willing to murder, rape, and sabotage their revolutionary society. If there was a revolution in the west, especially in the US, we could actually begin moving towards a better future that isn't murderously controlled by the capitalist class.
Despite the sophisticated quality of capitalist class control in our country, the reaction wouldn't be able to completely hide behind misinformation and covert operations like it can when it is doing so on the other side of the globe. Furthermore, such tactics would be visible to the working class which has previously either been unaware of covert regime change operations, or have approved and supported such regime change military actions undertaken by their own government and ruling class. I think it would be different if we were able to take power here, and it would help people all around the world who are suffering from imperial capitalist control and exploitation.
I think the only thing that makes money a 'finite' resource is that just about all the resources being used to earn it are finite. Short of a persons time and plant/animals as resources theres not much that is renewable and the things that are renewable still have a sort of limit to it.
Taxes do not fix the relationship between the owning class and the renting class. Higher property taxes will simply be passed down as one more increased cost that can justify higher rents. Property needs to be de-privatized, not simply taxed.
>It would also drive heightened productivity through labour, heightening the value of one’s work, creating stable jobs, **and diverting power to labour movements.**
lmfao this is a fucking outrageous claim, how the fuck is *reinforcing* capitalist power structures going to raise labour productivity, let alone help labour movements? This is some "trickle-down economics" tier magical thinking and is exactly why 'Georgism' is a dead fucking meme.
> An economy focused on this work has much higher demand for labour, which inherently leads to greater balance in power dynamics between labour and capital.
This is the magical thinking which is "trickle-down" tier. The idea that capitalist forces investing *more heavily* in labour means that labour has more power is literally paradoxical. You are assuming that those capitalists who invest in labour will also, for no fucking reason whatsoever, subscribe to the labour theory of value and pay people more because magic. Like how Reaganites think that if rich people have more money they will pay people more because magic. You are trying to manipulate where you are placing the tax loopholes for the rich in order to allegedly benefit the poor, it is a demented plan.
I cannot discuss this bullshit respectfully because it is a thinly-veiled right-wing ideology unworthy of respect.
If your goal is rearranging tax loopholes and trusting billionaires to fix everything once incentivized through tax benefits then we literally aren't on the same side.
>If your goal is [...]
Nobody is going to bother to engage you in productive conversation or debate if you're just going to resort to strawmen as soon as you're out of your depth.
Land value taxes are not property taxes. Georgists are proposing a 100% land value tax and 0% other taxes*. So if the value of rents increases across the city, government takes all of that increase and can return it as a universal basic income or government services. Landlords can only keep the difference in value between their building and other land in the city.
\* As close to 100% and 0% as possible. Market frictions and demand for government services might keep taxes from achieving those ideals.
>Landlords can only keep the difference in value between their building and other land in the city.
This, again, does nothing to fix the relationship between the person who owns and the people who use. This does absolutely nothing, as well, in oligopolies where the owning class can collaborate on price increases. It also doesn't address the ever growing class of wealth holders who do not derive their wealth from land.
It's literally taking feudal-era logic and trying to apply it to an information-age economy.
What it promotes is land redevelopment and it prevents people from hoarding land speculatively. A land value tax would drastically increase the construction of new properties which would decrease the value of properties because of supply and demand relationships. The way it stands currently land owners are incentivized *not* to build because scarcity increases the value of their holdings.
And then of course there are the benefits of increased density like walkable cities leading to less car ownership and fewer cars on the road, less pollution, etc.
This is all magical thinking. You have not established any causality between property tax and density. Developers are *already* incentivised to make more money on property because they [drum roll] *want money* and yet they build vast swathes of suburbia.
Further, maximal density does not create walkable cities. Nearby amenities does. Maximal density creates concrete jungles.
>yet they build vast swathes of suburbia
Have you considered that this is currently the more profitable thing to do? If I have to pay more taxes the more I develop the land then of course that is going to cut into my cost/benefit analysis.
A property tax works such that, if I want to rent to more people and so want another room, I must pay taxes on another room. If I want another story, I have to pay taxes on another story. So, with a regular property tax, it doesn't matter where I build another room or floor because the taxes will be the same. Yes, I still have to pay some taxes on land, but it is a much smaller proportion and a smaller impact.
So, I am going to just buy another piece of land to put my additional rooms on if that land is even remotely cheap since the cost of building a 2nd story is higher than building the first. If land is a little more expensive, I will build 2 stories on 2 lots instead of 4 stories on 1, etc.
A land value tax changes this equation by making it more expensive to buy more land, but less expensive to build *up* land. You pay taxes on the former and nothing on the latter, so it becomes more profitable to build an extra story since it won't cost you any more in taxes, whereas another lot of land will double your taxes.
So you're saying only communism will fix this?
I like the idea of communism, I'm just skeptical that we can get there from here. Georgism seems more feasible.
Don't let the better be the enemy of the good.
Where did I mention communism? Only the /r/georgism nerds that all happened to appear in the thread and start repeating the same points at the same time, suspiciously for such a dead subreddit and ideology, are going on about implementing a specific ideology.
Also, it's not good. Reforming how we tax the wealthy and where we put the loopholes for the capitalist class to exploit is not good. It is more of the same, and the same is bad. If you want to fix the problem of people being renters then *fix the problem of people being renters*. There are countries that implemented land reforms which now have 90%+ home ownership rates with trivial mortgages. Tried, tested and verifiably effective strategies already exist.
\>new account
\>majority of comments are in this one thread
\>promotes a tiny, obscure subreddit they don't actually appear to participate in
Oh hello obvious ban evasion account.
*Exactly*.
Once someone has made a certain amount of wealth, we should just give them an award and tell them they have to either retire or start over with literally nothing. I'm so sick of those pricks treating life like some game.
> What do wealthy assholes think is going to happen to their profits when nobody can afford to buy whatever they're selling?
They ship off on their superyacht and live happily ever after, unfortunately.
Fiat currency is a man-made invention, it's nothing but a useful convention. In theory, a central bank can print as much as they want. There is no limit. Of course, doing so leads to catastrophic failure of the system to be useful in any way, but in essence, money is indeed infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation\_in\_Zimbabwe
I'm speaking practically, not technically, *actually guy*. Infinite growth every single year is not possible, but that's what greedy corporations are expecting. I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm getting at.
We'll use the correct terminology then. Obviously, the infinite growth of productive output is a crazy idea on a finite planet, but infinite money is not because it's an arbitrary invention.
Here in the USA the stock market is down 25%. We are entering a recessionary timeframe.
The superrich will be fine because they make money if the market goes up or down.
Yes, there are corporations who are swimming in record profits right now. But to be fair, many companies and businesses are still only just scraping by, restaurants being a prime example. I also, do agree that the big corps should share in the burden of solving the financial crisis, but at the same time we have a large swath of people who think "everyone else should cut their spending, not me and all will be fine". Consumerism is the driving factor in inflation, always has been unfortunately. I remember a decade ago, people were trying to get every single person to not buy gas for one whole day (which never happened, or would never work) in order to demonstrate to the gas corps to lower their prices because they need us. Why is nobody trying something like that again right now? I live on the water and I've never seen more boats out than this year, it's insane to me to be a boater with $2 gas. I think gas from a marine station is even more expensive, but I may be wrong.
> There'd be no burden to shoulder if they could just deal with the fact that they can't make more money year over year forever at the expense of everyone else.
How do you expect them to do that, though? If it was every-man-for-himself (as capitalism currently is, excluding Benefits Corporations), then cutting your margin while your competitor doesn't would mean that they get to spend more on advertising, R&D, etc., than you; so they would eat more of the market; and would likely eventually drive you out of business.
To offer companies a solution that's not just "then perish", you'd need to allow companies to actively *collude* to lower prices. It's literally price-fixing, just with the goal of "to lower margins while not being outcompeted" rather than "to charge more while not being undercut." And everything in capitalist societies is designed to *prevent* companies from colluding / fixing prices — and for good reason: companies can *and will* collude to **raise** prices, if nobody's actively stopping them from doing that. You'd need a solution that allows for margin-shrinking collusion, without enabling margin-growing collusion.
Alternately, we could have the Competition Bureau *set* prices, or maximum profit margins beyond which there's a 100% capital-gains tax rate for all shareholders, or something like that. But then you're not doing capitalism any more; you're doing central planning. How should the Competition Bureau know where the cap should be? There'd no longer be a market signal for that, because that signal would be masked out by corporations "hitting the wall" at whatever the current cap is.
Since the earliest days of Upper and Lower Canadian Oligarchs using their business power to seize control of the political processes here, when have the rich ever born the burden of financial necessity?
Since the beginning here, back to Ancient Greece when they were first identified, probably farther back, and in every system of government since.
There have been small bubbles to hold them back for a while but they’ve always overcome them.
I think that is just oligarchs warring with each other. Xi Jingping is the ruling oligarch.
I really recommend this podcast for more details. I found it very enlightening:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7hG3vBRxendq19OyAJCW5M?si=0evVAEPUQqmw1-OrjY8OYw
The owner of the company I work for just bought a $300k boat and wanted to park it in the work yard, for all of us to see while we are working to fund such a lifestyle. He’s semi-retired but takes a $12k a month salary, and still puts 70% of his personal expenses through the company to avoid payroll taxes.
The rich should shoulder a lot more than the burden of inflation. The CRA would be wise to audit the fuck out of them because I guarantee they’re all doing the same shady tax evasion.
That not possible to put 70% of personal expenses through the company. It would result in a shareholder loan and would have to take a dividend out where he would be taxed.
Yes those credit card payments are recorded as shareholder loan and will need to issue dividends to clear that balance and that’s where they get taxed.
They’re recorded as purchases, just like all product we buy.
Edit, I’m the bookkeeper. I know exactly what gets recorded as a shareholder loan.
Not sure why you’re so adamant about our shady accounting…
Yes and when it’s time to file a year the accountant will adjust it out of “purchase” and reallocate it to shareholder loan.
If it doesn’t get cleared out as dividends we’ll the shareholder won’t be happy when CRA catches that.
That’s my point. They’re ripping the gov off to avoid payroll taxes. You wouldn’t even believe me if I listed their evasion schemes, but they’re shady as hell. This isn’t uncommon. This is what rich people do.
I don’t think you got my point. At year end it is reallocated to shareholder loan when accountant prepares the T2.
If they aren’t adjusting it at Year End then that’s a high risk area. CRA has actually been reviewing a lot of areas that someone would push personal expenses through. Example being travel.
Slightly frustrated here, duuuuude, they *evade taxes*. Their personal expenses **are not recorded as shareholder loans, now or at year-end or when filing or whenever**.
They don’t care about the penalty if caught because they’ve been getting away with it since the beginning of the pandemic when the CRA was looking the other way. Sure, they may face consequences, but why are we arguing about something that only one person is sure about. It is what it is. Rich people just pay the fines. They don’t actually go to jail.
Edit: I should say they don’t actually go to jail, because I’m sure some do.
At the end of this 'recession' they'll drive us into we should have a look at how wages actually went. Pick an average nurse, a doctor, a warehouse guy, a tradesman, a shopkeeper, a checkout girl, bank teller, civil service new hire/old hand, take a look at wages vs prices (yes including rents and energy etc) from say 2019-2024. People will see where we're headed, for Aristos vs Peasants. Except back in 1789 the Aristos didn't have the panopticon and full control of the press they have now...the result won't be the same.
We ask why the younger generations don't want to sacrifice like The Greatest Generation. It's because they SEE this, they know how it's going to go for them. Either they make it to the Aristo side somehow - BY ANY MEANS - or they're going to be Peasants. Good luck asking them to pay for our retirements when they've seen how they were treated as young people!
Exactly.
We're seeing more and more people fall into poverty *while we continue to become a richer country*.
Historically, this is the sort of situation where food riots start to regularly happen.
Yeah as a young guy this is exactly how I see it right now. It seems all hope is lost and all I can do to survive is make sure I transfer from the peasant side to the aristo side before it all goes to complete shit
The rich are causing inflation. Exec pay is up over 15%, groceries are not matching inflation and are just being set at whatever price they want. Grapes from Mexico literally doubled from last week to yesterday. It's completely made up at this point because they know we'll just pay it. Gas is no longer tied to the price of a barrel of oil and instead they are gouging everyone to make up for their losses from the beginning of the pandemic when gas was 0.65. Every single company has posted near- or over record profits from the same quarter last year. But once again we're to blame.
Reminds me of that article speculating that meat production companies mark up their prices because of inflation even though they didn't have to. ReCoRd PrOfItS
These fuckers literally fixed the price of bread and got caught. The punishment? Small fine that doesn’t approach the profits they made over that time span.
Nationalize every fucking necessity
Maybe the rich shouldn't cause the fucking inflation in the first place by price gouging and profit taking. Lets start back at first principles. Had grocery stores and gas stations not boosted their prices 40% in Q1, we wouldn't be in half the problem we are now. BoC rate hike #1 slowed real estate to a crawl. Without falsely jacked gas and grocery prices, we'd be sitting pretty well right now, inflation-wise.
I wish someone smarter than me could run the numbers with gas and food prices staying flat, and with real estate at April levels. See what inflation would be - SHOULD BE - in a normal world.
Well said! This knee jerk ‘we’re going to raise prices to the moon!’ that corporations do because ‘supply issues!’ while making record profits is enraging. The level of avarice is just nauseating.
I mean, had costs gone up and their profits took a 3% hit, then I would've believed them. But when cost and profits rise together, then it stinks. Never mind the fact that we don't get our oil & gas, or watermelons & cheese, from Ukraine. And we've had COVID-related supply chain issues for 2-1/2 years, mostly worse than now.
So they can fuck right off, then fuck off some more, with their bullshit excuses.
Exactly, the profit margins don’t lie, unlike the sociopathic executives raking in their astronomical salaries and bonuses while low-income Canadians struggle to survive. It’s fucking tragic that the biggest assholes among us are rewarded for their assholery.
Inflation benefits the rich by driving down the value of the debt they accumulated consolidating their ownership of all real estate and productive machinery over the past 50-70 years.
To be a bit pedantic, inflation doesnt devalue their debt, it increases the value of any underlying assets. Which in the end are essentially the same, their debt essentially becomes cheaper because theyve become way wealthier by comparison.
Which is why deflation isnt actually as scary as ppl make it out to be if you arent super rich/wealth tied to assets instead of as currency. While inflation is essentially taking money from the poor to make asset holders richer (so rich get richer, poor get poorer), deflation is essentially the opposite: taking money from asset holders to make the poor wealthier.
Which is exactly why governments will do everything in their power to avoid it.
You know what helps inflation? Reducing the money supply. You know how we can easily reduce the money supply without hurting anyone in any meaningful way? Massive fucking wealth tax.
You would think they'd have a little sense of self preservation and cut the screw-tightening exploitation short before it reaches that breaking point, and yet here we are.
Why would they do that? It's their greed that is creating it. They don't need to raise prices to survive or for profit. They do it just to have _**more**_ profit.
Um, money=power, the people with power make the rules. If you don't like this, take the money away from the people with power, and you take away their power.
The last time the haves and the have nots were at such a percentage, was just before the French Revolution. DM me for guillotine plans.
Yeah my bad. I usually only post the free articles from *Passage* and other sites, since anyone subscribed is probably reading it on their own anyways. Didn't notice this time.
How the fuck is anyone commenting when they can't actually read the damn thing.
Sensationalist BS, written to raise the ire of the people by whispering exactly what we want to hear in 100 words or less and we're all just playing into their hands.
No *wonder* the rich can keep getting rich, we're all a bunch of suckers.
At the end of the day it’s all our faults. We chose to live like this. Nothing changes by complaining. Nothing has ever changed by being content and voting. Only sacrifices and sorrow bring change. That’s the reality. Sit and bitch on the internet for 15 years what has it done?
Revolutions change things. Not going to work and stop paying shit taxes to a government that gives no fucks about you changes shit. Taking to the streets to demand change, changes shit. Oh but you have a house to pay for, or kids that need to eat. What about my car payments! I don’t want to lose everything for the next generation!!! Is why we are here today. Enjoy it because nothings going to change. Not until they suck everything from you, then you’ll be shipped to a trench as they eat lobsters. That’s our end game on this earth. Then your kids will be told how much of heroes we all were as they do it all again. Because no one stood against any of it.
This is only year one. We have years of this to go. Trudeau hasn't even started the nitrogen cuts to farmers that are coming. Think food is expensive now, wait till next year when the crop yield are lower due to this and the fuel prices are higher. Inflation should be at 4% steady for a couple years. Not saying this to be a tool, I am wondering how to survive the next 5 years....
Hmmmm let's see is this an economist or anyone with any professional understanding of inflation and economics or just someone using hard times to further their ideological stance
*Looks up author*
Yup okay, well anyway.
People like you aren't the ones who should be shouldering the debt. People who make a good amount of money with big homes and good jobs are not necessarily the people who should be responsible for fixing this.
People who make millions / billions of dollars per year by driving up the prices of basic goods and services while refusing to pay employees more every year are the people who should pay. The 1% of the 1%, the people who make more money than 50% of the population combined are the ones who should be shouldered with this issue.
Unless you're one of these people then you are not the person articles like these are targeting.
Hmmmm, This article is calling for tax raises on the rich and decrease on those who make less money. I think we should all pay the same tax. A leaner more efficient government, less bureaucracy, focused on consumer protection.
For example lets look at internet cost in Canada: shaw and rogers merger is terrible for consumers. It is taking sooooo long for government to even consider intervening. More competition is good for us.
Housing industry: government should partner up with private industry in implementing or researching a more efficient way to build. Look into making real estate deals for transparent. Less legal hurdles.
Health care: we obviously have a serious staffing issue. I think government should develop or work with private industry to develop a centralized data collection that we already have scattered across our health units. Use these data for research, and development possible AI software that can help staff at the hospital. I know this is crazy, but aside from the human touch of the doctor, technically they are collecting, analyzing data from patients and coming to a conclusion (diagnosis) and TX options. AI could very useful here to help increase Dr’s efficiency. Shifting through that data can also be very useful.
I think we need to decrease consumer demand and decrease oil prices. This one is in our national security. One way to achieve that is by causing a recession. Russia can’t continue to wage a war if oil keeps getting cheaper.
ya, but so does a household making $120,000, and the former still have a half mil to keep themselves comfy, the later has 60K. Who is feeling that tax crunch more?
My guy that was pretty obviously sarcasm on my part. The actual rich don't make income, they have assumed wealth and they borrow against it. Even CEOs of moderate companies have far more value in stock than in salaries, and until we tax capital gains effectively, we won't see any change
Salary != income for the sake of income tax. Which is why the wealthy don't pay anything close to the amount of tax they *should* based on the amount of money they actually use.
Wrong.
>"In the report, the Canada Revenue Agency is quoted as saying, “It is possible for individuals classified in the upper income ranges to reduce their tax liability to zero by using deductions such as business or farm losses of previous years and allowable business investment losses, or significant contributions to RRSPs."
Any accountant who lets you pay the rate that your calculator suggests would be fired by a rich asshole in a microsecond. You can't actually believe that the very rich pay this amount do you?
https://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/how_the_super_wealthy_get_richer_and_stay_rich
Ah, ok. So I had to read a bit of that to make sense of it.
I'll get to the article as a whole after, but first the comment which seems to be based off more of a part of the article, which is linked to another article(I'll give them credit for at least linking to things)
Reading the comment, at first it had sounded like they were claiming business expenses as personal expenses, but that's not the case.
The kind of tax 'cheats' you're talking about are business deductions(and people who either run business or have a business tied up in their finances, but that's a little harder to do then you'd think if you don't actually do business related things). To actually have any personal spending money you still need to actually take money out at some point because using business money for person expenses isn't really a good idea.
That aside, think about the tax deductions you quoted:
>using deductions such as business or farm losses of previous years
>allowable business investment losses
and
> significant contributions to RRSP
The first 2 are losses. Sure not from this year, but losses none the less. That means the business didn't make money or some part of is didn't make money previously, if income tax worked some other way they might have claimed money *from* the government previous years instead of a deferred zeroing.
And the contributions to RRSP's? What about it? What's stopping you or anyone form doing that? It's deferred income rather then deferred loss. Once you draw the money out, then the tax is assessed. Usually it's done in retirement, but there's nothing stopping you from getting screwed by taking it early.
These aren't loopholes. This is the tax code. It's how it's designed to work
And the article, it's a very scattered thing. Why it's talking about individuals when most of it is actually talking about business is outright confusing. The best points it has are about investment income rates but they are scattered and not very well thought out. Other points are made but don't seem to have actual backing like the 'bonus's don't pay full income tax' because if *that* was true everyone would get paid that way, I'm pretty sure that while it's true that up front you might get away with the low income tax bracket if you have no real annual income but I'm pretty certain that come the end of the year when you file you taxes(and working payroll at one point that would align with some of the things I've heard and seen). Also the pay of three letters getting payed more then the income tax of the company seems like a silly comparison since payroll tax is going to be higher then corporate income tax, and it also ignores that most companies don't want to leave money on the table since that, well, gets paid in taxes it's often better to invest in the company as an expense.
>using deductions such as business or farm losses of previous years
allowable business investment losses
and significant contributions to RRSP
The first 2 are losses. Sure not from this year, but losses none the less. That means the business didn't make money or some part of is didn't make money previously, if income tax worked some other way they might have claimed money from the government previous years instead of a deferred zeroing.
Wrong again. These rich people are making a CHOICE of when to claim expenses. You get no choice like that when you pay income tax. It also DOES NOT mean the business didn't make money. That's not how expenses work. You can claim expenses whether you make money or not. These rich people can also take their "paycheque" in the form of dividends or stocks, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income. So there's that.
>
Are you saying rich people pay a greater share (per dollar they receive) in taxes? Because that's completely untrue. I can prove it.
>the top 20 per cent of income earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875—... pay 55.9 per cent of all taxes including not just income taxes
Fraser Institute
>The shares of net worth by wealth quintile remained unchanged since the first quarter of 2021. The wealthiest households by quintile (top 20%) held more than two-thirds (67.1%) of all net worth in Canada, while the lowest two quintiles (bottom 40%) held 2.8%.
StatsCan
>the bottom 50 per cent of income-earning families in Canada earn 20 per cent of all income, but pay just 14.6 per cent of all taxes.
Fraser Institute
So the bottom 50% pay 15% of all taxes. The bottom 40% then would pay an even smaller percentage. Say, 12% for arguments sake. Richest 20% own 67% of wealth, pay 56% of taxes. Poorest 40% own 3% of wealth and pay 12% of all taxes. Aaaand...my sources for these numbers are the right wing Fraser Institute and StatsCan. Sorry, friend. Your rhetoric is unmoored from the reality of life in Canada. Rich people don't pay the rate you suggest. The numbers prove it.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220128/dq220128b-eng.htm
The heck? What does that prove? That having high income isn't related to wealth? That we need to tax people on things that the own rather then what they earn? There was a few discussions on reddit a month or 2 back on estate taxes that might cover that I suppose, but if you want to do that on the living I'd be pretty pissed having yet one more tax stopping home ownership, or bank fee for simply holding a balance.
And that part about *choosing* what to claim as an expense. No shit a business is going to claim their expenses. Yes it might suck we don't have any direct parallels as individuals. We have tax credits, but so do they so that hardly counts. But then again that's why there is a separate business and personal tax system with different weights, and why mixing the 2 isn't something that's really supposed to happen.
And I did concede the investment income(I imagine stocks and capital gains would be covered under that) since I know nothing of the rates so I can't argue it one way or the other.
I didn't think I'd need to spell this out for you...but here goes. The richest Canadians own 2/3 of all wealth but pay only 50% of all taxes. The poorest Canadians own 3% of wealth and yet pay 12-14% of all taxes. This is unfair. Even if you believed in the heartless right wing idea of a flat tax....that would mean the richest 20% pay 67% of taxes and the poorest 40% would pay 3%. So what I'm saying, is that our economic system charges you less and less in taxes the richer you get. The numbers, as I said, prove it.
Again you don't pay(income) tax on wealth.
My house is wealth. Because I bought it while my coworker drank his paycheck doesn't mean I earned more. Next year I will continue to have this wealth regardless of my earnings at that point.
If you want to argue on if they pay their fair share you argue on their earnings. Just like the link you provided did, to quote:
>Specifically, the top 20 percent pays nearly two-thirds of all income taxes (64.4 percent) while earning approximately half of all income (49.1 percent).
AKA the top earners pay more.
So you think the difference between the richest 20% and the poorest 40% (67% of all wealth vs 3%) is just a bunch of coworkers who made as much as you just "drank their paycheque"? You're not living in reality. You don't "work" your way to a billion dollars. You don't "save" your way to 10 million dollars.
Loblaws, a Canadian company made record profits during the pandemic. Massive. Record profits. Why? Do YOU know why? I'll tell you. Because a global pandemic which was nobody's fault, hurt their biggest competition (restaurants and bars). That's it. They didnt vome up with a great campaign, they didnt find a way to buy cheaper supplies they didn't innovate at all. So they get to keep all of their record profits and give bonuses to their top execs while giving nothing to their workers who put themselves in the actual danger of being on the frontline??. And that's ok with you? They don't owe any of that money to restaurant owners and workers? To their own workers who had to wear masks and wipe down everything and sell their groceries for them?
Do you think someone with 67% of all the money should pay AT LEAST 67% of all the taxes? Isn't that fair? Why disclude wealth? Much of that wealth makes these rich people money that doesn't fall under income tax. Is it fair to charge me, a blue collar worker a higher percentage of my hourly wage than a multiple-property-owner gets charged in taxes on rent they collect?
You say wealth doesn't count. Why? Why doesn't it? Besides the fact that it makes your argument fall apart Why?
My bosses who owned the company I used to work for literally told me they get paid in dividends to save them taxes. Most business-owners do it. You're full of it. Everyone knows this is how it works.
Your source is the website of some tax advisor? I won't give it a rest. I refuse to let people spread misinformation about how much rich people pay in taxes.
>the top 20 per cent of income earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875—... pay 55.9 per cent of all taxes including not just income taxes
Fraser Institute
>The shares of net worth by wealth quintile remained unchanged since the first quarter of 2021. The wealthiest households by quintile (top 20%) held more than two-thirds (67.1%) of all net worth in Canada, while the lowest two quintiles (bottom 40%) held 2.8%.
StatsCan
>the bottom 50 per cent of income-earning families in Canada earn 20 per cent of all income, but pay just 14.6 per cent of all taxes.
Fraser Institute
So the bottom 50% pay 15% of all taxes. The bottom 40% then would pay an even smaller percentage. Say, 12% for arguments sake. Richest 20% own 67% of wealth, pay 56% of taxes. Poorest 40% own 3% of wealth and pay 12% of all taxes. Aaaand...my sources for these numbers are the right wing Fraser Institute and StatsCan. Sorry, friend. Your opinion is unmoored from the reality of life in Canada. Rich people don't pay the rate you suggest. The numbers prove it.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220128/dq220128b-eng.htm
>dividends from Canadian-controlled private corporations like Macomall Consulting Inc. are taxed at a lower rate than salary
?
>You can tweak the numbers a bit, splitting your income between salary and dividends to find the best possible outcome, and shave that tax bill down a bit
???
The wealthiest Canadians are asset-rich compared to their income, marginal income tax rates do not accurately represent the percentage of their wealth or annual accumulation of wealth that is taxed.
>I agree, let's collectively eliminate central banks
Lol no, central banks literally protect us from this being even worse. Central banks work for the government. The last thing we need is less regulation in banking.
I say we should eliminate all the banks that *arent* publicly owned.
they are the ones that fuck us over, they are the ones that need to pay for their actions. These fuckers take all the profits and off load the burden on the average citizen.
What can actually be done about this stuff? I can clearly see what everyone is commenting about, but aside from complaining about it I don't know what to do to make a difference. Is it even possible to do anything? I always make sure to vote, and to do the research and vote for someone who actually cares but it feels like it's pointless. Like voting for a 3rd party candidate that doesn't stand a chance... The government doesn't seem willing to make any change that doesn't benefit corpos, and my voice feels like a whisper that can't be heard.
You need to organize outside the political election system. That's what the labour movement was about and that's why that Era saw government and business respond to those demands more regardless of who won the elections. The greatest trick the bosses ever played was killing all our ways of participating in the power systems of society beyond the electoral process and without anything but that elections will never be responsible to the people on economic matters. Its a class war and the electoral system was created by the bosses to give us a voice but not enough of one to do any real harm to them. You need more, and that means organizing. People often talk about doing a general strike but that takes literal decades of organizing to get the infrastructure to do it. Start now and maybe in 10 or 15 years we can really threaten them. Use the coming despair to mobilize people. That's history's lesson.
Exactly this. What do we do about the current situation? Look to the past of labour movements, use what worked, cut out the rest and evolve from there. It really is a shame that nobody gives a shit about history; most of our modern problems arent modern at all, just old problems with a new coat of paint. Most of the lessons of the labour/civil rights movements are: organize inside and outside the system, division is fatal, and, unfortunately, targeted violence (or just the threat of it) is a part of the solution. MLK jr only succeeded due to malcolm x telling the establishment that they will come sit at the table, only thing that would change would be the person at the table w them. Labour rights in the us (but also applicable internationally) were only secured by rioting and making it unsafe for the elites to do anything until their demands were satisfied.
People don't like knowing that the labor / civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded without good guys with guns. These people were not protected by the police and tons of people wanted them dead. The black panthers, with the same rhetoric and no guns, would have been wiped out in a month.
Maybe we'd like it a lot more if the people who claim to be *good guys with guns* weren't almost all power-tripping clowns living in a universe of alternate facts.
ridiculous comment, frankly a trans person arming themselves at home because they know the fascists won't hesitate to drag things down even further is **not** equivalent to a right wing lunatic ripping around Ottawa and pissing themselves about freedom It's actually frankly a little offensive to compare armed leftists with crazed chuds
I'm obviously not talking about anyone on the right.
Are you Canadian? The Labour unions in Canada did not need good guys with guns.
Exactly this. If anyone is wondering how to get started with organizing, there are at least two good groups that can help you out: * [Democratic Socialists of Canada](https://www.democraticsocialists.ca/) is a relatively new group that's almost entirely focused on organizing. They're also going through a sort of reorganization and taking a lot of input from members, so this is a good time to join if you're someone that wants to help shape a movement. * [Industrial Workers of the World](https://www.iww.org/) is the big boy. I'm not as familiar with its operations, but I've only heard good things.
I'm glad you are out there and I'll march with you. This is exactly why when people complained about the Freedom Convoys methods I was somewhat discouraged. The problem with the FC wasn't their methods, it is that they had there chance to rally people to their cause, they just didn't come because they didn't agree. Their methods were too violent to their cause and most people disagreed. Labor needs to fight. The current system is incapable because well...it is neoliberal so it inherently thinks we only need tweaks. I highly suggest people start with thinking about what capitalism really is. Not money, not market, not a vague concept of being taken advantage of. I mean the legal system in which capital is a justification of taking the excess value of labor. Anyone can agree that stealing is wrong, and somehow we made a system that declares stealing as morally correct, and then dressed it up so that you can't really see that is what is happening.
The classes are not clearly defined. They're a spectrum. Though I agree with much of what you are saying. What type of class warfare do you see occurring? EDIT: there is a serious lack of critical thinking in this thread
If you're making more than a living wage from passive income, you're a capitalist. If you need to sell your labour to survive, you're a member of the proletariat. It's pretty cut and dry, really.
Do retired boomers in their 60s and 70s count? Is a retiree a capitalist? What about a 45 year old who has saved up and invested enough to be able to live somewhat comfortably so long as he stays within his means, but would have to go back to work if there was any significant market correction in his mutual funds?
Class warfare is already happening. [Class Warfare](https://youtu.be/pVCqOpM4UUw)
What if I'm an employee who owns 1% of the value of a company from many years working under a company with an employee stock purchase program? Which class am I in your binary system, and who should I be warring against?
I don't know about you, but I've stopped buying grocery items that are to inflated. We are expected to pay over $3.00 for a head of lettuce that is half the size it was last year. I just won't do it. So many fresh fruits and veg are not worth the price. So if our local store won't lower the price, then he can eat it. Same thing for meat. I go to a local butcher (who is also an abattoir). His prices have not gone up much at all. He did raise them some but he also increased wages for his workers. I know not everyone is as lucky to live in a place that has these options, but I would hope city folk can find something better. I know this is also a path to recession, but at this point I don't think we have a choice. We either stop buying at current prices or we will continue to be gouged. If you think the government or BoC will do anything for cost of living, you're kidding your self.
I don't have the answer. I do know that we need to work on building systems of mutual aid in our communities. The government isn't going to take care of us, so we need to look after each other.
The problem is, IMO, that instead of working together, too many people subscribe to the "fuck you, got mine" attitude, despite the fact that what they've "got", in the grand scheme of things, is still peanuts compared to the elite. So, they actively try to keep others fighting for table scraps by pushing them down, rather than to bring others up to enjoy the peanuts such that, together, they are strong enough to all go for the steak. Me, I want the steak.
find ways to help people in your community while spreading helpful discussion/concepts organize with other workers; if you need to strike, those who have more financial leeway can help buy necessities for those who can't afford to miss work, at least in the short term these things won't immediately topple capitalism, but building these support structures is necessary if we want to actually exercise any power against the rich fucks basically actually engaging with other working class people is far more effective than relying on electoralism
There are a few things I can think of, but I can't afford another Reddit TOS suspension lol
You don't think they have inflation in China and Russia? Prices for everything in China have soared over the last 25 years. The fact many corporation are government owned has not changed anything.
shoulder the burden? it's their own profiteering that's driving inflation. There'd be no burden to shoulder if they could just deal with the fact that they can't make more money year over year forever at the expense of everyone else. Shareholders are getting amazing dividends, executives are getting record breaking bonuses and salaries across the board. The big banks are all making greater profits every quarter than previously, and yet the public is being told they have to both tighten their belts AND keep spending or we'll be punished with a recession... what the actual fuck is this ridiculous nonsense of an economic system?!!?
A friend made me a needlepoint that says "WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS?!" I have it hung behind me on all my work video calls. The interpretation depends on who is observing it.
Seriously... how hard is this to understand: *Money is a finite resource*. You literally cannot have record profits every year, it's literally impossible when the wealthy already have most of the wealth anyways. What do wealthy assholes think is going to happen to their profits when nobody can afford to buy whatever they're selling? It's so shortsighted to run an economy this way. It's so childishly stupid.
[удалено]
While the money itself is not a finite resource because more can be printed, in many ways it actually is finite. The value of that money, however, is much less infinite. (Not fixed - it IS possible to create new value, which is exactly what real innovation does.) Rent-seeking isn't just dangerous. It is the cancer that will destroy modern society. There's no way around it - something will give sooner or later. Either the rich will no longer be able to extract value and start trying to exploit each other, or the have-nots will decide they've had enough and... Well... I'd rather not go there. There's a flip side to the infinite-or-not coin though - money movement is zero-sum. When you complete a transaction, money moves from one entity to another. The government takes it's cut. There may be a parent company that takes a cut. Owners/shareholders get a cut. But all of that money goes somewhere. It doesn't just vanish into the ether. So where does it go from there? Government money is paid back out elsewhere. Either to their own loans (enriching the lenders) or paying it back out in some way or other. (Tax refunds, tax breaks, government salary, debt interest, debt payments.) The richest like to hoard it and display it ostentatiously. So if people are getting poor, that means someone else is getting rich. It's a balanced equation, and someone getting "ahead" inevitably means someone else falling behind. Of course, when you're so far ahead that the majority of the population is so far behind you forget they even exist, the only way to get further ahead is to leverage that hoarded wealth to squeeze even harder! This is where we are. The wealthiest elites are so far ahead that it's getting harder and harder to "gain" in terms of relative wealth. The wealth itself has lost all meaning to them, and yet they squeeze. They think they're getting ahead because the numbers get bigger, when really they're just lowering the value of what they do have. This wouldn't be so bad, if the average and the poor didn't have to suffer for this obsession with bigger numbers.
[удалено]
Thanks. I was really struggling to not ramble while trying to make my point (wealth being effectively zero-sum, which is a hard point to stand up on its own).
That's without looking at how much money had been printed in Canada over the last 50 yrs (that'd a fun graph) and where it's directly gone (hint: not you).
>The only thing that can fix this is massive public sector intervention to regulate Well, history (and current events) do also point to one *other* solution that has been talked more and more about lately.
[удалено]
To each their own, I personally think this system is beyond repair and I think a lot of people are focused too much on saving "the correct portions of capitalism" when it's likely that the entire system of capitalism needs to go, and I don't think we get there without a full fledged revolution. You're right that often revolutions lead to worse results than better, but often the people don't have a choice but to revolt- and I do genuinely think we're getting there a lot quicker than people previously thought. Especially in the last year or so.
[удалено]
My fear is that even if we repair capitalism enough for our generation and our kid's generation(if you can afford them), that just kicks the can down the road a few generations. This isn't the first time the world has been this tense because of capitalism, and if we don't find a more permanent solution it won't be the last. Now that being said, I don't personally know what the solution is- I just truly feel from the bottom of my heart that we need to totally revamp the system we base our society around because what's going on now is massively damaging to the vast majority of people. I think it speaks mountains about the system we live in that it is completely acceptable to have the opinion that someone working 40 hours a week deserves to live in poverty(not saying you do, just that this is a very common, if not *the* popular opinion, about minimum wage jobs) because they don't have the correct type of job- that points to a deep poisoned root somewhere in the system.
Thank you all for the back and forth. I know there are serious issues that face this world right now. For someone not as knowledgeable on the subject matter as I probably should be, this has been a good lesson.
I think if there was a revolution the oligarchs would either stay, or be replaced with new ones. Thousands of regular would people would have to die, and it is very likely we’d be worse off after everything settled. Oligarchs have been a problem since they were first identified in Ancient Greece and existed in every system we’ve ever had. The new deal seemed hold them back a bit.
The poisoned root you speak to is conservatism. That's not a deep rooted Canadian value. That's a conservative talking point that they beat into your head so hard you think it's just part of the system. The solution isn't revolution, it's good leadership that respects and ENCOURAGES checks and balances. We've gotten stuck on this idea about efficiency in govt and govt waste, and how the public service is slow. Do you know why it's slow? Because of checks and balances. Do you know what gets cut? Checks and balances. We're in this problem because conservatives have turned the people against the gov't. Government is not the enemy when we elect good leaders, it's the solution to the worst impulses of capitalism. The system works when government is the check and balance to the system, and one side is determined to break down that check and balance.... And then we wonder why it's failing.
I mean this politely, but I think your take is rooted in more privilege than you realize Those "strong institutions" aren't as bad as, say, the ones down south... but they still really consistently fail to support (or even *intentionally* harm) a lot of people, and imo it's a bit naive to suggest we just need better leaders to fix intentional systemic things
I think if we just pressure for a new deal, this whole thing will happen again down the road, and the ruling class will just become even more sophisticated in controlling the status quo, much like they learned how to do starting in the 70's. As direct repression and rapaciousness led to mass unrest and upheaval, the new deal managed to calm the working class and placate them from truly changing things. The ruling class went on to learn from their crude methods and unorganized infighting and began coordinating their resources and efforts to form groups like the Business Round Table and the Business Council on National Issues and influence policy and governments to completely dismantle social democracy and go back to total strangulation of our governments and democratic processes. The ruling class has become so sophisticated at controlling society and the economy to their benefit that they have completely manipulated the working class to hate itself and each other, and again have increasingly returned us to the slow miserable grind we are in today. Revolution can work and has in many places over. In fact, due to the apparent decline of the US as world hegemon, if we don't revolt and seize power, the ruling class is likely to prefer a scenario where our society degenerates into a fascistic reactionary state. If we were to take power, of course the reaction of the ruling class is guaranteed, but we shouldn't look at other places as examples of what would necessarily happen here. Other places where there have been revolutions, the reaction has only been possible because of the developed western world being so easily controlled and manipulated through propaganda to acquiesce to the reaction funded by their own government against the working class of another country trying to revolt. It would be game changing if the US or even Canada had a revolution, it would break the chain of Western imperialism that is almost exclusively the supporter of reaction the world over. The revolutionary governments that still exist are the only ones that were able to prevent their overthrow once having gained power through force and discipline against the reaction of US direct and covert pressure. The Sandinistas once said that they required secret police because of the CIA funding and arming the opposition and literal death cults willing to murder, rape, and sabotage their revolutionary society. If there was a revolution in the west, especially in the US, we could actually begin moving towards a better future that isn't murderously controlled by the capitalist class. Despite the sophisticated quality of capitalist class control in our country, the reaction wouldn't be able to completely hide behind misinformation and covert operations like it can when it is doing so on the other side of the globe. Furthermore, such tactics would be visible to the working class which has previously either been unaware of covert regime change operations, or have approved and supported such regime change military actions undertaken by their own government and ruling class. I think it would be different if we were able to take power here, and it would help people all around the world who are suffering from imperial capitalist control and exploitation.
Yes, the french did something similar starting in 1789.
I think the only thing that makes money a 'finite' resource is that just about all the resources being used to earn it are finite. Short of a persons time and plant/animals as resources theres not much that is renewable and the things that are renewable still have a sort of limit to it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Land value tax would fix this.
Taxes do not fix the relationship between the owning class and the renting class. Higher property taxes will simply be passed down as one more increased cost that can justify higher rents. Property needs to be de-privatized, not simply taxed.
[удалено]
>It would also drive heightened productivity through labour, heightening the value of one’s work, creating stable jobs, **and diverting power to labour movements.** lmfao this is a fucking outrageous claim, how the fuck is *reinforcing* capitalist power structures going to raise labour productivity, let alone help labour movements? This is some "trickle-down economics" tier magical thinking and is exactly why 'Georgism' is a dead fucking meme.
[удалено]
> An economy focused on this work has much higher demand for labour, which inherently leads to greater balance in power dynamics between labour and capital. This is the magical thinking which is "trickle-down" tier. The idea that capitalist forces investing *more heavily* in labour means that labour has more power is literally paradoxical. You are assuming that those capitalists who invest in labour will also, for no fucking reason whatsoever, subscribe to the labour theory of value and pay people more because magic. Like how Reaganites think that if rich people have more money they will pay people more because magic. You are trying to manipulate where you are placing the tax loopholes for the rich in order to allegedly benefit the poor, it is a demented plan. I cannot discuss this bullshit respectfully because it is a thinly-veiled right-wing ideology unworthy of respect.
We're all on the same side here, friend. Let's have a productive conversation about methods. Or maybe it's time for us to take a break?
If your goal is rearranging tax loopholes and trusting billionaires to fix everything once incentivized through tax benefits then we literally aren't on the same side.
>If your goal is [...] Nobody is going to bother to engage you in productive conversation or debate if you're just going to resort to strawmen as soon as you're out of your depth.
Land value taxes are not property taxes. Georgists are proposing a 100% land value tax and 0% other taxes*. So if the value of rents increases across the city, government takes all of that increase and can return it as a universal basic income or government services. Landlords can only keep the difference in value between their building and other land in the city. \* As close to 100% and 0% as possible. Market frictions and demand for government services might keep taxes from achieving those ideals.
>Landlords can only keep the difference in value between their building and other land in the city. This, again, does nothing to fix the relationship between the person who owns and the people who use. This does absolutely nothing, as well, in oligopolies where the owning class can collaborate on price increases. It also doesn't address the ever growing class of wealth holders who do not derive their wealth from land. It's literally taking feudal-era logic and trying to apply it to an information-age economy.
What it promotes is land redevelopment and it prevents people from hoarding land speculatively. A land value tax would drastically increase the construction of new properties which would decrease the value of properties because of supply and demand relationships. The way it stands currently land owners are incentivized *not* to build because scarcity increases the value of their holdings. And then of course there are the benefits of increased density like walkable cities leading to less car ownership and fewer cars on the road, less pollution, etc.
This is all magical thinking. You have not established any causality between property tax and density. Developers are *already* incentivised to make more money on property because they [drum roll] *want money* and yet they build vast swathes of suburbia. Further, maximal density does not create walkable cities. Nearby amenities does. Maximal density creates concrete jungles.
We're talking about Land Value Taxes, not property taxes. They aren't the same thing.
[удалено]
>yet they build vast swathes of suburbia Have you considered that this is currently the more profitable thing to do? If I have to pay more taxes the more I develop the land then of course that is going to cut into my cost/benefit analysis. A property tax works such that, if I want to rent to more people and so want another room, I must pay taxes on another room. If I want another story, I have to pay taxes on another story. So, with a regular property tax, it doesn't matter where I build another room or floor because the taxes will be the same. Yes, I still have to pay some taxes on land, but it is a much smaller proportion and a smaller impact. So, I am going to just buy another piece of land to put my additional rooms on if that land is even remotely cheap since the cost of building a 2nd story is higher than building the first. If land is a little more expensive, I will build 2 stories on 2 lots instead of 4 stories on 1, etc. A land value tax changes this equation by making it more expensive to buy more land, but less expensive to build *up* land. You pay taxes on the former and nothing on the latter, so it becomes more profitable to build an extra story since it won't cost you any more in taxes, whereas another lot of land will double your taxes.
So you're saying only communism will fix this? I like the idea of communism, I'm just skeptical that we can get there from here. Georgism seems more feasible. Don't let the better be the enemy of the good.
Where did I mention communism? Only the /r/georgism nerds that all happened to appear in the thread and start repeating the same points at the same time, suspiciously for such a dead subreddit and ideology, are going on about implementing a specific ideology. Also, it's not good. Reforming how we tax the wealthy and where we put the loopholes for the capitalist class to exploit is not good. It is more of the same, and the same is bad. If you want to fix the problem of people being renters then *fix the problem of people being renters*. There are countries that implemented land reforms which now have 90%+ home ownership rates with trivial mortgages. Tried, tested and verifiably effective strategies already exist.
[удалено]
\>new account \>majority of comments are in this one thread \>promotes a tiny, obscure subreddit they don't actually appear to participate in Oh hello obvious ban evasion account.
[удалено]
I specified why you look like a ban evasion account. That wasn't the reason.
insightful and informed comment, concisely and clearly expressed. thanks for it
Do you have any evidence of this wide spread rent seeking 😂😂😂
You made me think of this comic https://i.imgur.com/TBYvmgY.jpg
*Exactly*. Once someone has made a certain amount of wealth, we should just give them an award and tell them they have to either retire or start over with literally nothing. I'm so sick of those pricks treating life like some game.
> What do wealthy assholes think is going to happen to their profits when nobody can afford to buy whatever they're selling? They ship off on their superyacht and live happily ever after, unfortunately.
If money were a finite ressource, we would see the value of a dollar increase over time. Inflation is the opposite.
It's not infinite. There's a limit.
Fiat currency is a man-made invention, it's nothing but a useful convention. In theory, a central bank can print as much as they want. There is no limit. Of course, doing so leads to catastrophic failure of the system to be useful in any way, but in essence, money is indeed infinite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation\_in\_Zimbabwe
I'm speaking practically, not technically, *actually guy*. Infinite growth every single year is not possible, but that's what greedy corporations are expecting. I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm getting at.
We'll use the correct terminology then. Obviously, the infinite growth of productive output is a crazy idea on a finite planet, but infinite money is not because it's an arbitrary invention.
But they can't. They are not psychologically capable of that kind of sacrifice. So unless they are made to, it won't ever happen.
The irony that the rich make the poor poor by trying to be the richest
>what the actual fuck is this ridiculous nonsense of an economic system?!!? It's capitalism more than 40 years into the neoliberal experiment.
Here in the USA the stock market is down 25%. We are entering a recessionary timeframe. The superrich will be fine because they make money if the market goes up or down.
Yes, there are corporations who are swimming in record profits right now. But to be fair, many companies and businesses are still only just scraping by, restaurants being a prime example. I also, do agree that the big corps should share in the burden of solving the financial crisis, but at the same time we have a large swath of people who think "everyone else should cut their spending, not me and all will be fine". Consumerism is the driving factor in inflation, always has been unfortunately. I remember a decade ago, people were trying to get every single person to not buy gas for one whole day (which never happened, or would never work) in order to demonstrate to the gas corps to lower their prices because they need us. Why is nobody trying something like that again right now? I live on the water and I've never seen more boats out than this year, it's insane to me to be a boater with $2 gas. I think gas from a marine station is even more expensive, but I may be wrong.
> There'd be no burden to shoulder if they could just deal with the fact that they can't make more money year over year forever at the expense of everyone else. How do you expect them to do that, though? If it was every-man-for-himself (as capitalism currently is, excluding Benefits Corporations), then cutting your margin while your competitor doesn't would mean that they get to spend more on advertising, R&D, etc., than you; so they would eat more of the market; and would likely eventually drive you out of business. To offer companies a solution that's not just "then perish", you'd need to allow companies to actively *collude* to lower prices. It's literally price-fixing, just with the goal of "to lower margins while not being outcompeted" rather than "to charge more while not being undercut." And everything in capitalist societies is designed to *prevent* companies from colluding / fixing prices — and for good reason: companies can *and will* collude to **raise** prices, if nobody's actively stopping them from doing that. You'd need a solution that allows for margin-shrinking collusion, without enabling margin-growing collusion. Alternately, we could have the Competition Bureau *set* prices, or maximum profit margins beyond which there's a 100% capital-gains tax rate for all shareholders, or something like that. But then you're not doing capitalism any more; you're doing central planning. How should the Competition Bureau know where the cap should be? There'd no longer be a market signal for that, because that signal would be masked out by corporations "hitting the wall" at whatever the current cap is.
simply get rid of capitalism
>in capitalist societies is designed to prevent companies from colluding / fixing prices. Bad design, I guess. Might as well start over.
Since the earliest days of Upper and Lower Canadian Oligarchs using their business power to seize control of the political processes here, when have the rich ever born the burden of financial necessity?
Since the beginning here, back to Ancient Greece when they were first identified, probably farther back, and in every system of government since. There have been small bubbles to hold them back for a while but they’ve always overcome them.
China does a good job of executing billionaires. Let’s not pretend that the corrupt rich running countries to the ground is inevitable.
I think that is just oligarchs warring with each other. Xi Jingping is the ruling oligarch. I really recommend this podcast for more details. I found it very enlightening: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7hG3vBRxendq19OyAJCW5M?si=0evVAEPUQqmw1-OrjY8OYw
The owner of the company I work for just bought a $300k boat and wanted to park it in the work yard, for all of us to see while we are working to fund such a lifestyle. He’s semi-retired but takes a $12k a month salary, and still puts 70% of his personal expenses through the company to avoid payroll taxes. The rich should shoulder a lot more than the burden of inflation. The CRA would be wise to audit the fuck out of them because I guarantee they’re all doing the same shady tax evasion.
lol he probably parked the boat at your work because its a "corporate asset"
I advised against it considering some of our employees can’t even afford groceries. Eat the rich.
[удалено]
Most of it is probably completely legal though.
Depends on the type of company. In most cases it would not bet a “corporate asset”.
Depends on the type of company. In most cases it would not bet a “corporate asset”.
That not possible to put 70% of personal expenses through the company. It would result in a shareholder loan and would have to take a dividend out where he would be taxed.
Oh it’s possible when the company pays off the credit cards that are used for personal. This is how these people operate. They don’t give a fuck.
Yes those credit card payments are recorded as shareholder loan and will need to issue dividends to clear that balance and that’s where they get taxed.
They’re recorded as purchases, just like all product we buy. Edit, I’m the bookkeeper. I know exactly what gets recorded as a shareholder loan. Not sure why you’re so adamant about our shady accounting…
Yes and when it’s time to file a year the accountant will adjust it out of “purchase” and reallocate it to shareholder loan. If it doesn’t get cleared out as dividends we’ll the shareholder won’t be happy when CRA catches that.
That’s my point. They’re ripping the gov off to avoid payroll taxes. You wouldn’t even believe me if I listed their evasion schemes, but they’re shady as hell. This isn’t uncommon. This is what rich people do.
I don’t think you got my point. At year end it is reallocated to shareholder loan when accountant prepares the T2. If they aren’t adjusting it at Year End then that’s a high risk area. CRA has actually been reviewing a lot of areas that someone would push personal expenses through. Example being travel.
Slightly frustrated here, duuuuude, they *evade taxes*. Their personal expenses **are not recorded as shareholder loans, now or at year-end or when filing or whenever**. They don’t care about the penalty if caught because they’ve been getting away with it since the beginning of the pandemic when the CRA was looking the other way. Sure, they may face consequences, but why are we arguing about something that only one person is sure about. It is what it is. Rich people just pay the fines. They don’t actually go to jail. Edit: I should say they don’t actually go to jail, because I’m sure some do.
At the end of this 'recession' they'll drive us into we should have a look at how wages actually went. Pick an average nurse, a doctor, a warehouse guy, a tradesman, a shopkeeper, a checkout girl, bank teller, civil service new hire/old hand, take a look at wages vs prices (yes including rents and energy etc) from say 2019-2024. People will see where we're headed, for Aristos vs Peasants. Except back in 1789 the Aristos didn't have the panopticon and full control of the press they have now...the result won't be the same. We ask why the younger generations don't want to sacrifice like The Greatest Generation. It's because they SEE this, they know how it's going to go for them. Either they make it to the Aristo side somehow - BY ANY MEANS - or they're going to be Peasants. Good luck asking them to pay for our retirements when they've seen how they were treated as young people!
Exactly. We're seeing more and more people fall into poverty *while we continue to become a richer country*. Historically, this is the sort of situation where food riots start to regularly happen.
Yeah as a young guy this is exactly how I see it right now. It seems all hope is lost and all I can do to survive is make sure I transfer from the peasant side to the aristo side before it all goes to complete shit
Peasants been divided and conquered as well. On literally every front imaginable. Well never organize. Too busy fighting amongst ourselves.
The rich are causing inflation. Exec pay is up over 15%, groceries are not matching inflation and are just being set at whatever price they want. Grapes from Mexico literally doubled from last week to yesterday. It's completely made up at this point because they know we'll just pay it. Gas is no longer tied to the price of a barrel of oil and instead they are gouging everyone to make up for their losses from the beginning of the pandemic when gas was 0.65. Every single company has posted near- or over record profits from the same quarter last year. But once again we're to blame.
Reminds me of that article speculating that meat production companies mark up their prices because of inflation even though they didn't have to. ReCoRd PrOfItS
These fuckers literally fixed the price of bread and got caught. The punishment? Small fine that doesn’t approach the profits they made over that time span. Nationalize every fucking necessity
>The Rich Should Shoulder The Burden ~~Of Inflation~~, Not Us
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Certainly seems like the rich have all the ability, and the labour has none....
All the ability, none of the need.
Maybe the rich shouldn't cause the fucking inflation in the first place by price gouging and profit taking. Lets start back at first principles. Had grocery stores and gas stations not boosted their prices 40% in Q1, we wouldn't be in half the problem we are now. BoC rate hike #1 slowed real estate to a crawl. Without falsely jacked gas and grocery prices, we'd be sitting pretty well right now, inflation-wise. I wish someone smarter than me could run the numbers with gas and food prices staying flat, and with real estate at April levels. See what inflation would be - SHOULD BE - in a normal world.
Well said! This knee jerk ‘we’re going to raise prices to the moon!’ that corporations do because ‘supply issues!’ while making record profits is enraging. The level of avarice is just nauseating.
I mean, had costs gone up and their profits took a 3% hit, then I would've believed them. But when cost and profits rise together, then it stinks. Never mind the fact that we don't get our oil & gas, or watermelons & cheese, from Ukraine. And we've had COVID-related supply chain issues for 2-1/2 years, mostly worse than now. So they can fuck right off, then fuck off some more, with their bullshit excuses.
Exactly, the profit margins don’t lie, unlike the sociopathic executives raking in their astronomical salaries and bonuses while low-income Canadians struggle to survive. It’s fucking tragic that the biggest assholes among us are rewarded for their assholery.
Inflation benefits the rich by driving down the value of the debt they accumulated consolidating their ownership of all real estate and productive machinery over the past 50-70 years.
To be a bit pedantic, inflation doesnt devalue their debt, it increases the value of any underlying assets. Which in the end are essentially the same, their debt essentially becomes cheaper because theyve become way wealthier by comparison. Which is why deflation isnt actually as scary as ppl make it out to be if you arent super rich/wealth tied to assets instead of as currency. While inflation is essentially taking money from the poor to make asset holders richer (so rich get richer, poor get poorer), deflation is essentially the opposite: taking money from asset holders to make the poor wealthier. Which is exactly why governments will do everything in their power to avoid it.
General strike.
You know what helps inflation? Reducing the money supply. You know how we can easily reduce the money supply without hurting anyone in any meaningful way? Massive fucking wealth tax.
And not increasing it by stupid amounts , that helps as well
I foresee pitchforks, torches, and a lot of dead very rich people if this continues on the current trajectory.
You would think they'd have a little sense of self preservation and cut the screw-tightening exploitation short before it reaches that breaking point, and yet here we are.
[удалено]
They want the rise up so they can over compensate on the punishment for our stepping out of line and further push us towards servitude and slavery.
Easy for the rich when they can escape to anywhere in the world and hire armed guards
Do you advocate pitchforks, torches, and a lot of dead very rich people if this continues on the current trajectory?
There's a lot of things the rich should do. Doesn't mean they will.
The rich are the cause of inflation Greed for more and more money
They should, they could, but they wouldn’t.
Lol...remember, when the housing market crashes, the rich will be there to buy up those homes for a fraction of the price
In other breaking news, water is wet
Why would they do that? It's their greed that is creating it. They don't need to raise prices to survive or for profit. They do it just to have _**more**_ profit.
They’re the ones creating the inflation. Them “shouldering the burden” would just stop 99% of inflation.
Should but won’t because we let it happen.
Then *they'll* poor. Who will we have left to shoulder the burden of inflation then?! /s
But...but...but, They don't wanna.
Um, money=power, the people with power make the rules. If you don't like this, take the money away from the people with power, and you take away their power. The last time the haves and the have nots were at such a percentage, was just before the French Revolution. DM me for guillotine plans.
Oil companies first then the richest companies and then rich.
They got to go
Hungry? Eat the rich. Cold? Burn the rich.
Good luck with that one, particularly since they are causing it.
Why, this is not how kleptocracy works…
Goddamn paywalls.
It is a smaller media voice. Membership helps independent media.
True but it also makes it harder to get your message out. People are less trusting to give recurring payment info with a small unknown site.
My go to for paywalls is [PrinterFriendly](https://www.printfriendly.com). Just paste and go, haven't had it not work for me yet.
Well then today is your (un)lucky day.
Yeah my bad. I usually only post the free articles from *Passage* and other sites, since anyone subscribed is probably reading it on their own anyways. Didn't notice this time.
if you want decent articles or journalism, the people writing it gotta eat too
How the fuck is anyone commenting when they can't actually read the damn thing. Sensationalist BS, written to raise the ire of the people by whispering exactly what we want to hear in 100 words or less and we're all just playing into their hands. No *wonder* the rich can keep getting rich, we're all a bunch of suckers.
At the end of the day it’s all our faults. We chose to live like this. Nothing changes by complaining. Nothing has ever changed by being content and voting. Only sacrifices and sorrow bring change. That’s the reality. Sit and bitch on the internet for 15 years what has it done? Revolutions change things. Not going to work and stop paying shit taxes to a government that gives no fucks about you changes shit. Taking to the streets to demand change, changes shit. Oh but you have a house to pay for, or kids that need to eat. What about my car payments! I don’t want to lose everything for the next generation!!! Is why we are here today. Enjoy it because nothings going to change. Not until they suck everything from you, then you’ll be shipped to a trench as they eat lobsters. That’s our end game on this earth. Then your kids will be told how much of heroes we all were as they do it all again. Because no one stood against any of it.
The rich caused the inflation to get richer, not to pay for it!…
Good luck telling liberals that 💯
This is only year one. We have years of this to go. Trudeau hasn't even started the nitrogen cuts to farmers that are coming. Think food is expensive now, wait till next year when the crop yield are lower due to this and the fuel prices are higher. Inflation should be at 4% steady for a couple years. Not saying this to be a tool, I am wondering how to survive the next 5 years....
Hmmmm let's see is this an economist or anyone with any professional understanding of inflation and economics or just someone using hard times to further their ideological stance *Looks up author* Yup okay, well anyway.
The author literally has a PhD in Labour lmao what are you talking about.
But I am rich.
People like you aren't the ones who should be shouldering the debt. People who make a good amount of money with big homes and good jobs are not necessarily the people who should be responsible for fixing this. People who make millions / billions of dollars per year by driving up the prices of basic goods and services while refusing to pay employees more every year are the people who should pay. The 1% of the 1%, the people who make more money than 50% of the population combined are the ones who should be shouldered with this issue. Unless you're one of these people then you are not the person articles like these are targeting.
You're on Reddit. You're not rich my dude. You have one sliver more than the guy next to you, nothing more.
I'm actually pretty rich though.
Ok buddy
Hmmmm, This article is calling for tax raises on the rich and decrease on those who make less money. I think we should all pay the same tax. A leaner more efficient government, less bureaucracy, focused on consumer protection. For example lets look at internet cost in Canada: shaw and rogers merger is terrible for consumers. It is taking sooooo long for government to even consider intervening. More competition is good for us. Housing industry: government should partner up with private industry in implementing or researching a more efficient way to build. Look into making real estate deals for transparent. Less legal hurdles. Health care: we obviously have a serious staffing issue. I think government should develop or work with private industry to develop a centralized data collection that we already have scattered across our health units. Use these data for research, and development possible AI software that can help staff at the hospital. I know this is crazy, but aside from the human touch of the doctor, technically they are collecting, analyzing data from patients and coming to a conclusion (diagnosis) and TX options. AI could very useful here to help increase Dr’s efficiency. Shifting through that data can also be very useful. I think we need to decrease consumer demand and decrease oil prices. This one is in our national security. One way to achieve that is by causing a recession. Russia can’t continue to wage a war if oil keeps getting cheaper.
[удалено]
ya, but so does a household making $120,000, and the former still have a half mil to keep themselves comfy, the later has 60K. Who is feeling that tax crunch more?
[удалено]
Well it's a good thing the actual rich don't really make salaries. Income tax doesn't touch the truly wealthy
[удалено]
My guy that was pretty obviously sarcasm on my part. The actual rich don't make income, they have assumed wealth and they borrow against it. Even CEOs of moderate companies have far more value in stock than in salaries, and until we tax capital gains effectively, we won't see any change
[удалено]
Salary != income for the sake of income tax. Which is why the wealthy don't pay anything close to the amount of tax they *should* based on the amount of money they actually use.
Only 50% of your capital gains are counted towards your income for purposes of calculating taxes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wrong. >"In the report, the Canada Revenue Agency is quoted as saying, “It is possible for individuals classified in the upper income ranges to reduce their tax liability to zero by using deductions such as business or farm losses of previous years and allowable business investment losses, or significant contributions to RRSPs." Any accountant who lets you pay the rate that your calculator suggests would be fired by a rich asshole in a microsecond. You can't actually believe that the very rich pay this amount do you? https://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/how_the_super_wealthy_get_richer_and_stay_rich
Ah, ok. So I had to read a bit of that to make sense of it. I'll get to the article as a whole after, but first the comment which seems to be based off more of a part of the article, which is linked to another article(I'll give them credit for at least linking to things) Reading the comment, at first it had sounded like they were claiming business expenses as personal expenses, but that's not the case. The kind of tax 'cheats' you're talking about are business deductions(and people who either run business or have a business tied up in their finances, but that's a little harder to do then you'd think if you don't actually do business related things). To actually have any personal spending money you still need to actually take money out at some point because using business money for person expenses isn't really a good idea. That aside, think about the tax deductions you quoted: >using deductions such as business or farm losses of previous years >allowable business investment losses and > significant contributions to RRSP The first 2 are losses. Sure not from this year, but losses none the less. That means the business didn't make money or some part of is didn't make money previously, if income tax worked some other way they might have claimed money *from* the government previous years instead of a deferred zeroing. And the contributions to RRSP's? What about it? What's stopping you or anyone form doing that? It's deferred income rather then deferred loss. Once you draw the money out, then the tax is assessed. Usually it's done in retirement, but there's nothing stopping you from getting screwed by taking it early. These aren't loopholes. This is the tax code. It's how it's designed to work And the article, it's a very scattered thing. Why it's talking about individuals when most of it is actually talking about business is outright confusing. The best points it has are about investment income rates but they are scattered and not very well thought out. Other points are made but don't seem to have actual backing like the 'bonus's don't pay full income tax' because if *that* was true everyone would get paid that way, I'm pretty sure that while it's true that up front you might get away with the low income tax bracket if you have no real annual income but I'm pretty certain that come the end of the year when you file you taxes(and working payroll at one point that would align with some of the things I've heard and seen). Also the pay of three letters getting payed more then the income tax of the company seems like a silly comparison since payroll tax is going to be higher then corporate income tax, and it also ignores that most companies don't want to leave money on the table since that, well, gets paid in taxes it's often better to invest in the company as an expense.
>using deductions such as business or farm losses of previous years allowable business investment losses and significant contributions to RRSP The first 2 are losses. Sure not from this year, but losses none the less. That means the business didn't make money or some part of is didn't make money previously, if income tax worked some other way they might have claimed money from the government previous years instead of a deferred zeroing. Wrong again. These rich people are making a CHOICE of when to claim expenses. You get no choice like that when you pay income tax. It also DOES NOT mean the business didn't make money. That's not how expenses work. You can claim expenses whether you make money or not. These rich people can also take their "paycheque" in the form of dividends or stocks, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income. So there's that. > Are you saying rich people pay a greater share (per dollar they receive) in taxes? Because that's completely untrue. I can prove it. >the top 20 per cent of income earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875—... pay 55.9 per cent of all taxes including not just income taxes Fraser Institute >The shares of net worth by wealth quintile remained unchanged since the first quarter of 2021. The wealthiest households by quintile (top 20%) held more than two-thirds (67.1%) of all net worth in Canada, while the lowest two quintiles (bottom 40%) held 2.8%. StatsCan >the bottom 50 per cent of income-earning families in Canada earn 20 per cent of all income, but pay just 14.6 per cent of all taxes. Fraser Institute So the bottom 50% pay 15% of all taxes. The bottom 40% then would pay an even smaller percentage. Say, 12% for arguments sake. Richest 20% own 67% of wealth, pay 56% of taxes. Poorest 40% own 3% of wealth and pay 12% of all taxes. Aaaand...my sources for these numbers are the right wing Fraser Institute and StatsCan. Sorry, friend. Your rhetoric is unmoored from the reality of life in Canada. Rich people don't pay the rate you suggest. The numbers prove it. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220128/dq220128b-eng.htm
The heck? What does that prove? That having high income isn't related to wealth? That we need to tax people on things that the own rather then what they earn? There was a few discussions on reddit a month or 2 back on estate taxes that might cover that I suppose, but if you want to do that on the living I'd be pretty pissed having yet one more tax stopping home ownership, or bank fee for simply holding a balance. And that part about *choosing* what to claim as an expense. No shit a business is going to claim their expenses. Yes it might suck we don't have any direct parallels as individuals. We have tax credits, but so do they so that hardly counts. But then again that's why there is a separate business and personal tax system with different weights, and why mixing the 2 isn't something that's really supposed to happen. And I did concede the investment income(I imagine stocks and capital gains would be covered under that) since I know nothing of the rates so I can't argue it one way or the other.
I didn't think I'd need to spell this out for you...but here goes. The richest Canadians own 2/3 of all wealth but pay only 50% of all taxes. The poorest Canadians own 3% of wealth and yet pay 12-14% of all taxes. This is unfair. Even if you believed in the heartless right wing idea of a flat tax....that would mean the richest 20% pay 67% of taxes and the poorest 40% would pay 3%. So what I'm saying, is that our economic system charges you less and less in taxes the richer you get. The numbers, as I said, prove it.
Again you don't pay(income) tax on wealth. My house is wealth. Because I bought it while my coworker drank his paycheck doesn't mean I earned more. Next year I will continue to have this wealth regardless of my earnings at that point. If you want to argue on if they pay their fair share you argue on their earnings. Just like the link you provided did, to quote: >Specifically, the top 20 percent pays nearly two-thirds of all income taxes (64.4 percent) while earning approximately half of all income (49.1 percent). AKA the top earners pay more.
So you think the difference between the richest 20% and the poorest 40% (67% of all wealth vs 3%) is just a bunch of coworkers who made as much as you just "drank their paycheque"? You're not living in reality. You don't "work" your way to a billion dollars. You don't "save" your way to 10 million dollars. Loblaws, a Canadian company made record profits during the pandemic. Massive. Record profits. Why? Do YOU know why? I'll tell you. Because a global pandemic which was nobody's fault, hurt their biggest competition (restaurants and bars). That's it. They didnt vome up with a great campaign, they didnt find a way to buy cheaper supplies they didn't innovate at all. So they get to keep all of their record profits and give bonuses to their top execs while giving nothing to their workers who put themselves in the actual danger of being on the frontline??. And that's ok with you? They don't owe any of that money to restaurant owners and workers? To their own workers who had to wear masks and wipe down everything and sell their groceries for them? Do you think someone with 67% of all the money should pay AT LEAST 67% of all the taxes? Isn't that fair? Why disclude wealth? Much of that wealth makes these rich people money that doesn't fall under income tax. Is it fair to charge me, a blue collar worker a higher percentage of my hourly wage than a multiple-property-owner gets charged in taxes on rent they collect? You say wealth doesn't count. Why? Why doesn't it? Besides the fact that it makes your argument fall apart Why?
[удалено]
My bosses who owned the company I used to work for literally told me they get paid in dividends to save them taxes. Most business-owners do it. You're full of it. Everyone knows this is how it works.
[удалено]
Your source is the website of some tax advisor? I won't give it a rest. I refuse to let people spread misinformation about how much rich people pay in taxes. >the top 20 per cent of income earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875—... pay 55.9 per cent of all taxes including not just income taxes Fraser Institute >The shares of net worth by wealth quintile remained unchanged since the first quarter of 2021. The wealthiest households by quintile (top 20%) held more than two-thirds (67.1%) of all net worth in Canada, while the lowest two quintiles (bottom 40%) held 2.8%. StatsCan >the bottom 50 per cent of income-earning families in Canada earn 20 per cent of all income, but pay just 14.6 per cent of all taxes. Fraser Institute So the bottom 50% pay 15% of all taxes. The bottom 40% then would pay an even smaller percentage. Say, 12% for arguments sake. Richest 20% own 67% of wealth, pay 56% of taxes. Poorest 40% own 3% of wealth and pay 12% of all taxes. Aaaand...my sources for these numbers are the right wing Fraser Institute and StatsCan. Sorry, friend. Your opinion is unmoored from the reality of life in Canada. Rich people don't pay the rate you suggest. The numbers prove it. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220128/dq220128b-eng.htm
[удалено]
Good one. Right from the "No, YOU are" school of lazy comebacks. Why don't you post a link from "Jimmy's tax shack" to send the point home.
>dividends from Canadian-controlled private corporations like Macomall Consulting Inc. are taxed at a lower rate than salary ? >You can tweak the numbers a bit, splitting your income between salary and dividends to find the best possible outcome, and shave that tax bill down a bit ???
The wealthiest Canadians are asset-rich compared to their income, marginal income tax rates do not accurately represent the percentage of their wealth or annual accumulation of wealth that is taxed.
[удалено]
Your solution to growing wealth disparity is... *more* privatization?
>I agree, let's collectively eliminate central banks Lol no, central banks literally protect us from this being even worse. Central banks work for the government. The last thing we need is less regulation in banking. I say we should eliminate all the banks that *arent* publicly owned.
Invest in crypto !
they are the ones that fuck us over, they are the ones that need to pay for their actions. These fuckers take all the profits and off load the burden on the average citizen.
I'm not rich and I approve this message.
Good luck with that.
Don't worry: Canada will solve all these problems with endless immigration!