Occupy Toronto - Protest

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

Social justice also does not explain this coverage by an OWS 'independent journalist'.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/john...t-barrick-gold

When the 1% like Peter Munk donate all over the place for a hospital and a university centre he is villified for doing so. If you read the line about his driver it is obvious that the implication is that he was in danger of some kind of harm if he did try to speak to the protestors. The line about his driver seems a flippant attitude towards that danger.

I belong to the CIC which is skewed as a right-wing think tank. Anybody who is at all familiar with their long and honourable history knows they are an organization that is centrist (on the liberal side if anything) and have a long history of trying to get Canadians to dialogue about foreign affairs. They have had events where the Cuban ambassador gave an address and water rights activists debated with Nestle Canada. http://cictoronto.ca/
There are a lot of career diplomats that also have some to speak to our group, they are far from right wing.

If a corporation is found to be doing something wrong that is used to label all corporations as greedy. However, when one human being does something criminal that does not mean all human beings are criminal. The same holds true for corporations.

[Bob Gillanders]

Distribution or wealth - US

I found this article interesting. In a survey of 5,500 Americans, they were asked what they felt was the actual division of wealth between the top and bottom fifths of the American population as well as what they felt was optimal.

The results were:
- the average American estimated that the top one-fifth of the U.S. controls about 59% of the country’s wealth
- On average, respondents said that the top one-fifth of the wealth hierarchy should own 32% of the country’s wealth and the bottom fifth should ideally own 11%

The actual stats for US and Sweden are:
- the current U.S. situation, top fifth controls 84% of all wealth, bottom fifth owns 0.1%
- the distribution in Sweden, top fifth owns 36% and the bottom fifth controls 11%.

Conclusion: The divide between rich and poor is much wider than most people realize. Most Americans would prefer a wealth distribution like that found in Sweden, a social democracy.
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/04/03...eft-and-right/

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

I found this article interesting. In a survey of 5,500 Americans, they were asked what they felt was the actual division of wealth between the top and bottom fifths of the American population as well as what they felt was optimal.

The results were:
- the average American estimated that the top one-fifth of the U.S. controls about 59% of the country’s wealth
- On average, respondents said that the top one-fifth of the wealth hierarchy should own 32% of the country’s wealth and the bottom fifth should ideally own 11%

The actual stats for US and Sweden are:
- the current U.S. situation, top fifth controls 84% of all wealth, bottom fifth owns 0.1%
- the distribution in Sweden, top fifth owns 36% and the bottom fifth controls 11%.

Conclusion: The divide between rich and poor is much wider than most people realize. Most Americans would prefer a wealth distribution like that found in Sweden, a social democracy.
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/04/03...eft-and-right/

The descriptions I have read of that paper are along the lines of "fundamentally flawed and intentionally biased"

But in any case, as much as it may be an interesting factoid, the opinion of the masses on what wealth distribution they would like does not have much bearing if any on the question of what wealth distribution should be.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

Sweden is a small nation with a population of less than 10 million. Approx. 15% live in Stockholm.

I think you'll find the reason the wealth in Sweden is concentrated on a larger proportion of the population is because after the high taxes on the rich were enacted so many left for places like London.

Lucky for Sweden the hockey players and curlers stayed.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

I found this article interesting. In a survey of 5,500 Americans, they were asked what they felt was the actual division of wealth between the top and bottom fifths of the American population as well as what they felt was optimal.

The results were:
- the average American estimated that the top one-fifth of the U.S. controls about 59% of the country’s wealth
- On average, respondents said that the top one-fifth of the wealth hierarchy should own 32% of the country’s wealth and the bottom fifth should ideally own 11%

The actual stats for US and Sweden are:
- the current U.S. situation, top fifth controls 84% of all wealth, bottom fifth owns 0.1%
- the distribution in Sweden, top fifth owns 36% and the bottom fifth controls 11%.

Conclusion: The divide between rich and poor is much wider than most people realize. Most Americans would prefer a wealth distribution like that found in Sweden, a social democracy.

America would not be a viable country on that wealth distribution though Canada could make a killing by inviting the top 1% here if the U.S. ever got that crazy. With continued global warming maybe the weather issue wouldn't prevent them wanting to call Canada home.

[Garvin Nunes]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

I've often wondered why some complain about disparity. Would disparity really be a problem if as the rich got richer the poor also got richer?

(And isn't this what happened during the Bill Clinton era?)

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

America would not be a viable country on that wealth distribution.......

Why?

Anyway, since everyone found my last post interesting, here is another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlYNm...eature=related

I think a return to a progressive tax system in the US would be helpful.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

I think a return to a progressive tax system in the US would be helpful.

the US currently HAS a progressive tax system - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...e_tax_2008.svg so again, your statement is nonsensical.

Just, apparently not progressive enough for you.

But in any case, why are you worried about the tax policy of some other country?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

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"?

You know it would be more helpful to counter the contention in some circles that the global warming hoax is just a socialist plot to subjugate capitalism if the greatest supporters of the AGW hoax on chesstalk would stop jumping on every socialist wagon that drives by .

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

the US currently HAS a progressive tax system

Progressive, really. How do you explain Mitt Romney's tax rate of 14%

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

Progressive, really. How do you explain Mitt Romney's tax rate of 14%

you are confusing tax rate on gross income with tax rate on income. So, your real beef is not that the US tax system is not progressive, it is. Your beef is that capital gains and dividends are taxed at a different rate than salaried income. Different problem altogether.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

you are confusing tax rate on gross income with tax rate on income. So, your real beef is not that the US tax system is not progressive, it is. Your beef is that capital gains and dividends are taxed at a different rate than salaried income. Different problem altogether.

The same is true in Canada. After I take all my deductions my gross tax rate is less than the stated rate, which is progressive. Also in Canada as in the USA dividends are taxed at a different rate to avoid double taxation. The tax on dividends takes into account that it is income from a corporation that was already taxed. A little hard for a corporation to pay a dividend unless it has made an after tax profit. Also Bob is a CMA so I'm pretty sure he's aware of all of this.

The bottom 10% are always going to be there. As a former OW caseworker I can certainly verify this. The point is what mobility there is between various income groups. I've had relatives in post war Europe who moved from absolute poverty and who without any state support became educated professionals. Actually the state was against them because their family had resisted the communists. So don't tell me it can't be done.

Adding taxes such that the governments ends up taking more than half my income is the best way to prevent people from improving their lot in life and getting wealthier so that they can even out the wealth disparity that does exist.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

you are confusing tax rate on gross income with tax rate on income. So, your real beef is not that the US tax system is not progressive, it is. Your beef is that capital gains and dividends are taxed at a different rate than salaried income. Different problem altogether.

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.

[Bob Armstrong]

Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Toronto - Goal?

I also am at this point, an " armchair " supporter of the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Toronto " movement " ( I think it definitely has enough content to be considered this, despite the plurality of views in the manifestations in different countries and cities ). And so I too am interested in the extent to which any particular ideology might be claiming the movement.

Jerry certainly states that in the OWS, there are some in Canada who want what they see as “ more progress “ than " modified capitalism ", the goal which Bob G and I see, from the outside, and from general media coverage. Jerry says some in the movenent want Canada to go from a capitalist state to a socialist one! Is a true socialist state the goal of the evolution sought by the OWS/OT movement? Or are we wanting a mixed capitalism/socialism? And if some want a true socialist state, what would Canada look like when the vestiges of capitalism had been exorcised? Who will own all property – the workers? The state? And would there be a difference between a “ socialist Canada “ and a “ Marxist Canada “ ( I don't use the term " communitst Canada " since communism has so often been reduced to a dictatorship in practice in the past )?

I myself have seen little coverage indicating the majority of the movement want this as a goal. I don't doubt Jerry's position, that they have an influential role in the leadership, and in developing tactics. But it is my view that they are deluding themselves, if they see themselves as bringing about some " Canadian revolution ".

What do others see as the " goal " of the OWS/OT movement?

I’m no political science student, and need help with these questions!

Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Distribution or wealth - US

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"?

You know it would be more helpful to counter the contention in some circles that the global warming hoax is just a socialist plot to subjugate capitalism if the greatest supporters of the AGW hoax on chesstalk would stop jumping on every socialist wagon that drives by .

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.