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.
What do others see as the " goal " of the OWS/OT movement?
Similar to the "goal" of the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots and every other riot in recent history: anarchy. The socialists are trying to use OWS for their own ends and want what they can't achieve at the ballot box.
WRT socialism: watch the accelerating decline of Europe and learn. Watch the ascent of China and learn.
There are laws that deal with wearing a mask while committing a crime. The authorities need to enforce them. We can be free of these idiots for five years at a time.
Roger, I am not confused. You have made my point for me, capital gains income receives favourable tax treatment. And who earns capital gains? Mostly the rich, not so much the poor. IMHO, all income should be taxed equally and at more progressive rates than we have now.
if you are not confused, why are you making factually false statements? [that the US tax system is not progressive?] It's not like it's hard to make the factually true statement that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate and you think that's wrong.
And that follows your statement that you don't want to replace capitalism with socialism but you want our present system replaced with socialism.
You may think you are not confused, but when it comes to my understanding what you want, I'm certainly confused.
Roger, I am not confused. You have made my point for me, capital gains income receives favourable tax treatment. And who earns capital gains? Mostly the rich, not so much the poor. IMHO, all income should be taxed equally and at more progressive rates than we have now.
Careful Bob in trying to soak the 1% you are in risk of using a fire hose and soaking at least the 50% middle class. Everyone benefits from the captial gains rate. The middle class especially. There are a lot of teachers, doctors, lawyers, social workers, auto workers, plumbers, contractors etc. - all part of the 99% who are invested in real estate property couting on the capital gains rate to benefit them. Also invested in the stock market.
Has anyone ever defined the 99%. My understanding is that it is anyone who makes less than $500000 per year, which is a heck of a lot of people. Imagine going through years of school or learning a trade just to have Bob G at the end demanding you be taxed to the max because you are part of the 1%. If you are talking about the poor you are no longer talking about the 99%. It seems more like you are talking about the 10% versus the 89% versus the 1%.
Rates are either progressive or they are not. Define more progressive? Is that like a little bit pregnant versus more pregnant?
The tax surtax that Horwath insisted on and that McGuinty to his credit insured will be used to pay the debt directly rather than fritter away on programs as Horwath wanted is the right way to go. At just over $3000 for a $500000 annual income it is not enough to change anyone's behaviour really but is certainly a significant amount to reduce debt by.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 7th May, 2012, 03:49 PM.
Some portion of the bottom 10% (i.e. that portion which hasn't been forced to live on the streets yet, or which hasn't been otherwise marginalized to an essentially zero-income position) offers consumption, to help (albeit in a small way) keep the purses of the wealthy replenished. Some portion of the bottom 10% also offers tax revenues, often in amounts that are disproportionately high relative to their incomes.
Why is it that you reactionaries keep bringing up 'Atlas Shrugged'? It's been a long time since I read this book (grade 10? ... 47 years or so ago so perhaps my memory is failing me), but I don't see a solid fit between Rand's elite and today's '1%'. No doubt there's some overlap, but Rand's elite included people from all walks of society - train conductors, carpenters, administrative clerks, etc., in addition to some wealthy and powerful people. They were people who believed in the integrity of work; the integrity and necessity of providing something of value for a fair return. In particular, I recall a train conductor who was appalled by the laxness of his employer and colleagues with respect to maintaining operations on an on-time basis. In short, Rand's elite was comprised of economic builders of all types and from all levels, not economic buggers and thieves.
The bottom 10% are net recipients of tax dollars, which as we all know come from all of us. They are on OWs. The bit of earnings they have are usually tax free due to personal exemptions. Their main complaint is that they would like more tax dollars. For which they do have something of a case because OW is low.
They are also net recipients of tax dollars via non-profit agencies such as legal aid clinics and other agencies. They are also recipients of fundraising dollars.
The purses of the other 89% would be more enriched if their taxes did not go to OW and if they did not have cause to make donations to charity.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 7th May, 2012, 03:50 PM.
...
The purses of the other 89% would be more enriched if their taxes did not go to OW and if they did not have cause to make donations to charity.
You say that the 89% (why not 90%?) would be better off economically if there was no impoverished and marginalized economic underclass relying for its existence on the incomes of the 89% (taxes or donations). What has happened to the impoverished underclass in your scenario?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
But then the economic underclass would still exist (for a period of time) and the costs to the 89% caused by rioting could be substantial. Also, the health and clean up costs associated with these people eventually starving to death on the streets could be substantial. I actually thought Zeljko had something more humane in mind (e.g. a full-employment economy) and was wondering what it was. :)
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
The bottom 10% don't offer anyone jobs. The top 1% do.
A more progressive tax system in the US would be very helpful to US competitors. The top 1% is quite mobile. Didn't you ever read Ayn Rand's, "Atlas Shrugged"?
There is an increasing gap between the wealthy and poorest Canadians. Market income for the poorest 10% of Canadians fell by 45% between 1980 and 2000 while market income for the richest 10% rose by 18%.
There has been no increase in jobs created by the increased income of the past 20 years, there is no statisictical proof that tax cuts to the rich creates jobs, it's mythology.
Ayn Rand writes fiction and is not highly valued by economists. Although, it also could also be said that Karl Marx's Capital theory, based on the economies of that era, and is fiction-like, yet has followers today.
The bottom 10% are net recipients of tax dollars, which as we all know come from all of us. They are on OWs. The bit of earnings they have are usually tax free due to personal exemptions. Their main complaint is that they would like more tax dollars. For which they do have something of a case because OW is low.
They are also net recipients of tax dollars via non-profit agencies such as legal aid clinics and other agencies. They are also recipients of fundraising dollars.
The purses of the other 89% would be more enriched if their taxes did not go to OW and if they did not have cause to make donations to charity.
I would add that those poor with mental health and drug-addiction behaviour take up a big chunk of policing, security and medical costs.
Who are the poor 10%? In March 2005 there were 1,679,800 people (that includes dependents) receiving welfare in Canada, around 5% of the population. Over 30% of the population don't work: 14.4% over 65, 16.4% under 16. A full-time minimum wage earning would make something like $18,000, so the bottom 10% earning under $6,000 are part-time workers, probably a large number of single mothers. Jobs like baby-sitting, crossing guard, newspaper delivery, Xmas retail help?
In 2007 an income of $181,000 was sufficient to put someone among the 237,000 people in the top 1% of the taxfiler population.
In 2000, the top 10% of income earners had a disposable income of approximately $97,000. That’s 16 times more than the average of $5,900 earned by the bottom 10% of income earners.
The gap grows bigger when you look at the top 5% and bottom 5% of Canadian families. In 2000, the average disposable income of the top 5% of families was $121,260. The average disposable income of the bottom 5% of families was $3,104.2
Between 1992 and 2004, constant-dollar income for people in the top 20% of the taxfiler population rose substantially, and the gains got bigger the higher up the income distribution. However, individuals in the rest of the population generally saw little improvement in constant-dollar income.
In 1992, Canadians in the top 5% of the taxfiler population accounted for about 21% of total income. By 2004, they accounted for 25% of total income.
In 2004, the top 5% of the taxfiler population received 25% of income and paid 36% of taxes. In contrast, the bottom 95% of the taxfiler population received 75% of income and paid 64% of taxes.
For high-income Canadian taxfilers, effective tax rates were about 30%, compared with roughly 12% for non-high-income filers.
You show that part of the bottom 10% are on welfare - they constitute 5 %.
If a senior has no CPP, what amount do they have a year - from OAS, the OAS Supplement, and the provincial supplement ( in Ontario, I think it is GAINS )? Seems to me they may also be a significant part of the bottom 10%, because I imagine poor seniors income total is not any better than welfare.
And you mentioned those earning under $ 6,000 per year - what cut off is that?
You say that the 89% (why not 90%?) would be better off economically if there was no impoverished and marginalized economic underclass relying for its existence on the incomes of the 89% (taxes or donations). What has happened to the impoverished underclass in your scenario?
89% is the famous 99% minus your 10%. I'm not including the 1% in this discussion. To emphasize that it's all of our tax dollars and donations that this concerns.
In my scenario a majority of the underclass have found meaningful work that makes them self-sufficient. That may not seem possible to you but OWs cases and the unemployment rate do vary quite a bit so it is certainly possible to make significant in-roads into the 10%.
A better educational system that offers serious trades training for example would go a long way towards this. Right now apprenticeships are difficult because it's very hard to find a placement to complete the hands on portion. I say trades training because many of my former OWs clients are not high school age and have given up on the idea of just sitting in a classroom.
In Hamilton a number of secondary schools all over the city are being considered for closure. The reason is that the province is forcing this because the students are about half of what the school can handle. This would leave a large swath of Hamilton without a highschool. I say keep them open and use the smaller class size to improve student/teacher interaction. Interestingly enough the separate school board does not have this occupany issue. So it appears we have been funding the separate school board with public money only to starve the public, non-religious school boards of students.
Canada has some major problems - the way we treat foreign trained professionals, our lack of real apprenticeship training and the high drop out rates in our schools.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 8th May, 2012, 02:03 AM.
No, don't mind at all obviously. I thought your definition of rioting did not include rioting for a just cause. According to your previous definition you would call that an uprising or a spring? Mostly they don't riot. Mostly they commit crimes to supplement their income. Drug dealing is popular as is robbery and theft.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 8th May, 2012, 02:05 AM.
You show that part of the bottom 10% are on welfare - they constitute 5 %.
If a senior has no CPP, what amount do they have a year - from OAS, the OAS Supplement, and the provincial supplement ( in Ontario, I think it is GAINS )? Seems to me they may also be a significant part of the bottom 10%, because I imagine poor seniors income total is not any better than welfare.
And you mentioned those earning under $ 6,000 per year - what cut off is that?
Bob A
A senior in your scenario Bob would automatically upon turning 65 receive ODSP if their total entitlements were less than the ODSP amount. If they have no CPP it means they may have been on ODSP all along or OW for several years. At OW we used to automatically transfer those cases over to the ODSP office. So the change to OAS at 67 has the potential to cost the provinces a great deal of tax funds.
No CPP basically means no work history over a certain period of time. Thus receiving an ODSP top up it would mean their income is higher than OW. They would also receive a subsidy if they had to stay in a care home of some type. Either a second level lodging home with some independence or a nursing home requiring more care.
Canada also has OAS agreements with a number of countries whereby someone who has not been in Canada long can receive OAS here if they have also been in the other country. I'm hoping to use this fact if I want to relocate to one of these other countries in my old age.
We also need to remember in deciding how many of the 10% are on OW that in addition to 5% on OW there is probably another 2% on ODSP. I don't count those in my scenario because if you have a disability that is obvious. Although I will say the province does nothing about able bodied spouses of ODSP recipients. In some cases they are needed to assist the disabled spouse, but not in a significant number of cases due to the nature of the disability.
You also should remember that those on OW can have earnings too, that is the best way they can improve their income. In Ontario the formula is 50% of income is deducted. Of course the most popular question from OW recipients was 'How much can I work', meaning not how much can I work but how much can I work and still receive that all important OW payment each month. So my guess is they turn down shifts if they feel that this would put them in 'danger' of not getting OW that month.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 8th May, 2012, 02:21 AM.
And you mentioned those earning under $ 6,000 per year - what cut off is that?
Bob A
In 2000 $5,900 was the average of the bottom 10%, not the cutoff (stats Canada). Maybe $9,000 today. These would all be part-time and seasonal workers like college students, actors, musicians, fine art painters and not the lumpen proletariet. Those getting welfare family benefits and disability are way above the bottom 10%
.
Tweet
Comment