If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
A sliding sales tax would be reasonable. So, for example, if I buy an apple the tax is very low (say 1%), an apple pie somewhat higher (say 10%) and an Apple IPod much higher still (say 30%).
I've got one of them IPods. I also have an IPad and one of them Blueberry Playbooks. Watching the World Chess Championship on the IPad is neat. I turn down the volume so I don't have to listen to the resident dummies and their mindless commentary. Speak of pablum for the masses. Give us a break!!
Probably I already pay around 50% in taxes on it. The 13% sales tax plus whatever taxes are paid on the individual components which go into the the devices. Things like Ad Volerem taxes.
Probably Bob pays more tax than I do. I have a feeling he's not hurting for a buck.
1. Capital gains are taxed because they are profits that you have made on your investments ---- when you sell an investment for $20 more than what you bought it for this is a type of income and should therefore be taxed. I don't understand why Tom thinks this is not income and should as a result be exempt.
2. Dissolving capital gains taxes will further income inequality. People making $30,000 are not profiting heavily from capital gains because they cannot afford investments . People making $500,000 however profit immensely from capital gains.
3. Funding everything on sales tax alone is ridiculous. A person earning $500,000 per year is not spending all $500,000 on goods and services in the economy. A person can only own so many yachts, houses, cars etc.... At a certain point the income is taken out of circulation and just sits in a bank account and accomplishes very little.
I would really like to see the math on this because under the current system this individual's income taxes are approximately: 0.15*43561 + 0.22 * 43561 + 0.26*47931 + 364946 * 0.29 = 6534 + 9583 + 12462 + 104834 = 134413 (you can check the Canadian Income tax Act if you would like to verify the numbers) ---- yeah, I don't think you will be able to compensate for $130,000 in taxes (this number is high because I have not included possible tax credits and deductions).
4. Last, this video explains very well how bad the wealth inequality problem has become in the U.S. I understand that Canada is not as bad as the U.S. but this is where we are headed.
There's a big union presence in Canada. They negotiate the wages and benefits. I think on the basis of equal pay for work of equal value, whatever that is. If wealth inequality is so large why do the unions and workers accept such low wages? Is it a ratify now and cry later policy?
Regarding your tax calculations, I don't know. Each Canadian province has its own provincial tax rate.
1. Because the investor does not benefit from the money until he spends the money. If I give you a billion dollars but you cannot spend it on anything nor spend the proceeds from the investment on anything you get zero benefit.
2. My wife and I collectively make a pretty modest income, call it 40K per year. Over the five years we have been married our capital gains are almost as much (roughly 80%) of our pre-tax income from our jobs. I am sure we are not alone in this.
3. If someone makes 500K per year and they don't spend it they do not benefit from their earnings. One only benefits from income when one spends it. Why else do people want raises? So it can sit in the bank forever? If Joe Smith puts money in the bank it doesn't just sit there. It gets loaned out to Fred Doe. Fred buys a house with Joe's money. How does Joe benefit from Fred's house purchase?
4. I live in a town with many poor people. They make obvious, awful financial decisions. They smoke. They drink. They have premium cable packages and watch it on their bigscreen TVs. You can toss more money at them and their decisions will not be any better. Seventy percent of Canadian families own houses. Relatively few own stocks. They think that their particleboard house on a small plot of land that looks like every other house on every other plot of land is a safe investment so they toss every penny they have, and many they don't, into buying as much house as they can. Meanwhile owning shares of the companies that actually make things that they use everyday is considered too risky for them. Mind-boggling.
As long as Canada is populated by people who are horrible with money you are going to have poor people. No amount of theft of wealth by force is going to change that.
1. Capital gains are taxed because they are profits that you have made on your investments ---- when you sell an investment for $20 more than what you bought it for this is a type of income and should therefore be taxed. I don't understand why Tom thinks this is not income and should as a result be exempt.
2. Dissolving capital gains taxes will further income inequality. People making $30,000 are not profiting heavily from capital gains because they cannot afford investments . People making $500,000 however profit immensely from capital gains.
3. Funding everything on sales tax alone is ridiculous. A person earning $500,000 per year is not spending all $500,000 on goods and services in the economy. A person can only own so many yachts, houses, cars etc.... At a certain point the income is taken out of circulation and just sits in a bank account and accomplishes very little.
I would really like to see the math on this because under the current system this individual's income taxes are approximately: 0.15*43561 + 0.22 * 43561 + 0.26*47931 + 364946 * 0.29 = 6534 + 9583 + 12462 + 104834 = 134413 (you can check the Canadian Income tax Act if you would like to verify the numbers) ---- yeah, I don't think you will be able to compensate for $130,000 in taxes (this number is high because I have not included possible tax credits and deductions).
4. Last, this video explains very well how bad the wealth inequality problem has become in the U.S. I understand that Canada is not as bad as the U.S. but this is where we are headed.
I voted to do nothing. I would do something, however. I would eliminate income taxes and capital gains taxes and replace all of them with sales taxes. A person derives no benefit from having currency until they spend it; others derive benefit from borrowing the currency and using it for consumption, investment, etc. If I earn money, put it in the bank, then you borrow it and buy a car with it, who benefited? By taxing production we penalize production. No, that's stupid, instead penalize consumption.
A sliding sales tax would be reasonable. So, for example, if I buy an apple the tax is very low (say 1%), an apple pie somewhat higher (say 10%) and an Apple IPod much higher still (say 30%). Since super-rich people are going to have more money to spend, and are more likely to spend it on things like yachts and luxury cars, then tax those things much higher (even 50% or more).
Tom, the problem with your sales tax idea is implementation and enforcement. Taxing only sales encourages an underground economy, even a barter system. There's a lot of "stuff" sitting around in people's homes and basements, even in company warehouses. Having those companies and individuals trade existing inventory is going to seriously dampen manufacturing job creation. Better (economically speaking) to keep that inventory static and encourage new production. Although a government can strategically decide to encourage a service economy, in which a growing barter system would be somewhat ok. People will always need jobs and income, we'll never have a pure barter economy, and those jobs would have to become service jobs if manufacturing is drying up.
The bigger problem is the underground economy. The government will have to spend a lot of money monitoring all sales. Your privacy as to what you do with your money will be gone -- you will have to report every expenditure, and investigators will look into your bank accounts to see if anything is amiss. Maybe this would actually encourage Bitcoin...
Also, from a more philosophical viewpoint, isn't income really sales? Someone pays you money, and instead of goods they get a service from you. Isn't that actually consumption? It's money changing hands, and it's far easier for the government to regulate, because they set the rules for company operation. You would be hard-pressed to form a company and pay employees without going through the regular government channels. And the income tax comes right off the top -- the payee never get his or her hands on the money to avoid taxation somehow.
The income tax system is all about control. To revolt against excessive income taxes, you'd really have to have everyone involved: the companies would have to all stop witholding the taxes and give you your net pay, and you'd then have to refuse to give any of it to the government. It really can't happen. But a revolt against sales taxes: underground economy. Much harder to stop, and not everyone has to be doing it, and the government can never quite get a handle on it. It could even become a vicious circle: raise sales taxes to compensate for underground economy, and the underground economy gets bigger and harder to stop.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The simplest way of dealing with the underground economy is to have all monetary transactions done by a credit or debit card.
And the barter system can only form a minuscule part of the economy.
For those not from the center of the Universe (Toronto - lol), this matter of income inequality has become an issue in a local Toronto Federal by-election. In particular, star NDP candidate Linda McQuaig has made income inequality a kind of focus of her campaign with emphasis on creating quality jobs, etc. This is already very unusual in Canada; most politicians steer clear of treating such issues really seriously. McQuaig has written a great deal about the issue besides being an award winning investigative journalist. She's a nice contrast to another politician in Toronto who is less known for intellectual awards and more known for his crack cocaine usage, drunken stupors, and other idiocy that has made him, Toronto, and Canada the subject of noisy ridicule around the Globe.
By the way, if you live in Toronto Center, E-day is November 25. That's next Monday.
McQuaig has made some remarks on her website regarding income inequality (which follow) and why she thinks it's a bad thing. She also claims that her Liberal rival in Toronto Center, Chrystia Freeland, "doesn’t even really identify rising inequality as a problem," and therefore offers no solutions. The Conservatives look to be in 3rd place in this constituency, although they have won in the past.
Originally posted by Linda McQuaig
In my career as a journalist and author, I’ve consistently made the case that the growing gap between the super rich and the rest of us is not inevitable. Rather it is the result of right-wing economic policies put in place by Conservative and Liberal governments over the past thirty years. These policies include social spending cuts, privatization, deregulation, attacks on labour, and tax cuts for the wealthy.
This is what some have called "austerity" for shorthand.
Originally posted by Linda McQuaig
Today’s high level of inequality is destructive to our society; it diminishes opportunity, destroys our social fabric and undermines our democracy. To restore greater equality, I have advocated strengthening our social supports, rebuilding public programs, restoring labour rights, and creating a more progressive tax system.
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has of course done the opposite. It has increased the income gap by attacking labour, restricting access to employment insurance and pushing wages down by bringing in tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers rather than training unemployed Canadians.
I've also found some other, recent sources on this issue of income inequality. I will have a look and try to summarize the findings in another post on this thread.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Tuesday, 19th November, 2013, 02:15 PM.
Reason: add stuff, ya know?
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
A person should figure out how much they should be paid and then not work for less. If you figure you should get 1 million a year in compensation for your efforts hold out until you get it. You don't have to work if you don't want to work.
I don't know if any of those kind of jobs are unionized.
Here's the writeup for a plant closure. Do you think those people care more about losing their jobs or how much the guy who runs their company makes? For the company the nice part is it's easy to get rid of union workers on a closure. The severance payments are likely outlined in the contract with the union. The company will likely take a one time write down on discontinued operations and simply carry on.
One of those who owns the company is giving much of his wealth to charity when he dies. I call that covering all the bases and buying his way into heaven, if it exists.
Regarding your comments on what's happening to Mayor Ford, I call the council the Committee on Un-Canadian Activities. Deplorable.
Were you this happy when McCarthy and his House Committee on Un-American Activities were holding kangaroo courts looking for Communists and their sympathizers?
Probably you like it better when it's right wingers getting "theirs".
A person should figure out how much they should be paid and then not work for less. If you figure you should get 1 million a year in compensation for your efforts hold out until you get it. You don't have to work if you don't want to work.
I don't view income inequality as (primarily) a psychological or motivational issue. Social and tax policy is on a higher level so as not to miss the forest for the trees.
Mind you, if one shares the solipsistic views of someone like the late Lady Margaret Thatcher, in which it is denied that society even exists, then whatever is good for me is grand and everyone else can drop dead. Which, of course, is what would happen in the imaginary world in which everyone "holds out" for a cool million. I don't know who would work for the well off factory owner in such a scenario. "Temporary" foreign workers, maybe?
Good luck defending the embattled Mayor of Toronto. The fake underdog is now a real underdog. So far he's not performing well under stress and has had to be relieved of many of his duties, and much of his pay, by his colleagues on Council. I think we have a thread completely devoted to the subject. Feel free to lavish heaps of praise on the downtrodden hero. This thread, I understand, is about income inequality ... a subject about which Rob Ford doesn't have much to contribute. Imagine that.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Tuesday, 19th November, 2013, 05:28 PM.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
I don't view income inequality as (primarily) a psychological or motivational issue. Social and tax policy is on a higher level so as not to miss the forest for the trees.
That company wasn't missed on taxes by the levels of government. I read an article where the mayor was quoted as saying they paid 1 million in taxes. They also used a lot of water and electricity. We all know what's happening to electricity prices in this province.
Mind you, if one shares the solipsistic views of someone like the late Lady Margaret Thatcher, in which it is denied that society even exists, then whatever is good for me is grand and everyone else can drop dead. Which, of course, is what would happen in the imaginary world in which everyone "holds out" for a cool million. I don't know who would work for the well off factory owner in such a scenario. "Temporary" foreign workers, maybe?
All the industry and manufacturing that's closing in this country and you can't figure out who will do the work. The people who live in the nations where they move those jobs. Good thing I'm retired. So many of the plants I used to service are no longer in business.
Good luck defending the embattled Mayor of Toronto. The fake underdog is now a real underdog. So far he's not performing well under stress and has had to be relieved of many of his duties, and much of his pay, by his colleagues on Council.
I'm not defending the mayor. I'm defending the democratic process. Something people who advocate totalitarian governments don't seem to understand. We get little enough democracy in this country and then we get an unelected premier who looks to be scared silly to go to the people for her own mandate.
In this area we have a councilor who has been in conflict with others on the council for the last 35 or so years. I think he might have lost twice in that time. All the other times we elected him. He's the only one who's still remaining from the original group. It's not up to the council who we elect. It's up to them to work with him. Something the Toronto council should be told by what passes for our premier.
We once elected a school girl as our school trustee. During the day she sat in school and at meetings she decided the policy. It was our choice and none of the provinces business because she was qualified. The way it was done is the ballot called for voting for 2 people for school trustee. So I plunked my vote. That means voting for only one person so someone else would not get the extra vote added to their total. Works like a charm. So simple is beating ranked ballots. After the election the local paper said they didn't know if people realized they were electing two school trustees because so many ballots were only marked for one person.
I hope NDP candidate Linda McQuaig can win the by-election in Toronto Centre. She has written some excellent books on the issue of income and wealth inequality. Her presence in the House of Commons would surely bring this important issue to the floor for debate. An intelligent policy debate in parliament would certainly be a nice change. :)
I hope NDP candidate Linda McQuaig can win the by-election in Toronto Centre. She has written some excellent books on the issue of income and wealth inequality. Her presence in the House of Commons would surely bring this important issue to the floor for debate. An intelligent policy debate in parliament would certainly be a nice change. :)
I'm not defending the mayor. I'm defending the democratic process. Something people who advocate totalitarian governments don't seem to understand.
The democratic process has to include a means to recall a holder of public office when they've failed in their duties. Or are unable to continue. Or are making a laughing stock of the city. etc. The City of/Metropolitan Toronto Act has no means, other than arrest, or another election, to replace someone who falls into those sorts of groups. So a way has to be found to make a change. Rob Ford was not elected dictator of Toronto. That's not democracy either.
What's more important? One holder of public office or the running of the 4th largest city in North America?
We have a serious problem with the constitutional status of municipal government in Canada, something that the late Jack Layton and others drew attention to, and the right to recall ought to be something easier/more common than it is, but those changes have to come from levels of government that, right now, are more interested in off-loading their costs onto municipal bodies than in strengthening democracy in Canada. In this case, the Premier of Ontario won't make a move unless she can get the Opposition Parties to sign on so that they can take part of any blame if there are negative consequences down the road.
And they're probably looking for ways to hang her out to dry. It's a dirty game.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
What's more important? One holder of public office or the running of the 4th largest city in North America?
It's whoever the voters elect to do the job.
Even you can understand that being the 4th largest city in North American means Ford was the choice of a larger number of voters than someone in a small city. He got close to 50% of the vote. Left the others in his smoke. Ford didn't just win. He smoked the opposition.
In case you hadn't noticed, the city council gave him a North American audience and with his personality he can carry it off for the next year.
Taxes are so high that I vote for municipal politicians who can keep them down. I don't care about their personal life. I vote for the person I think will look after my interests. If you want to be a slave to an ideology that's your business but don't expect much sympathy from me.
Taxes are so high that I vote for municipal politicians who can keep them down. I don't care about their personal life. I vote for the person I think will look after my interests. If you want to be a slave to an ideology that's your business but don't expect much sympathy from me.
OK, but if he invades Poland, don't say I didn't warn you...
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Tweet
Comment