Canada & Conservatism

[Dilip Panjwani]

...if you have profited most from the society developed by all, then you should contribute back the most.


Bob A (Supporter of Canadian Progressive Taxation)

Let us delve deeper into the above statement:
The first question is, why is it that only some, and not all, have profited proportionately to their efforts? We know that there are ups and downs in everyone's fortunes for no fault of their own, but these are generally temporary, and should not affect the majority for a life-time! So, is there something wrong in our society which prevents all hard and smart working people from remaining well supported by their own hard and smart work over a life-time? It seems that the underlying problem in our society is that we have given a lot of power to our politicians, forgetting that power corrupts, and these corrupted politicians have made a myriad of unnecessary regulations, which in fact prevents the rigorous enforcement of the simple Natural Law, or provide easy access of capital to all, as well as disillusions people away from being charitable.
Therefore, is it not better to correct that fault in our society (which could include having safeguards for misfortunes, which includes easy access to capital and a charitable network for the orphaned/disabled, which has existed in all healthy civilizations in the form of the extended family and 'village'), and ensure that no one can harm anyone else except in fair competition, rather than resort to another wrong of 'stealing' from the wealthy, forgetting that two wrongs do not make a right, and forgetting that many of the wealthy have become so not because of, but despite the society they live and work in and therefore do not owe to the society any progressive direct taxation... get it, Bob A?

[Bob Gillanders]

Canadian Taxation



It is what is called "progressive". The more income you earn in a year, the higher rate of tax on your earnings you pay. The reason is that if you have profited most from the society developed by all, then you should contribute back the most.

Do CT'ers (regardless of your country of residence) also object to this law passed by the majority of Canadians, and left in place for eons (Like Vlad [Post # 11], Dilip [Post # 13] and Tom [Post # 14], who argue it is "legal theft")?

If so, do you have any reason beyond that given by Vlad, Dilip and Tom.

Bob A (Supporter of Canadian Progressive Taxation)

Thanks Bob A. Good post. Progressive taxation is the best way to go.

It seems that Dilip feels that if he can just state his position just one more time, that we'll all agree.
Sorry Dilip, still not buying it. There is an obvious flaw in your argument. I'll leave it to you to discover it yourself. :)

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob, I appreciate your support for progressive taxation as a principle, but I take issue with how you align this with Marxism, a philosophy that goes far beyond tax policy. Marx explicitly called for the abolishment of private property—a stance incompatible with the fundamental principles of a free and democratic society.

Democracy is not merely about majority rule. In Canada, the Charter of Rights, and in the United States, the Constitution, exist precisely to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. These documents ensure that no government, no matter how popular, can infringe on fundamental freedoms—be it through authoritarian overreach or policies that disregard individual rights.

Your assertion that your brand of Marxism differs from historical examples, such as the USSR, is contradicted by your support for regimes like Venezuela under Maduro. The international community widely rejects Maduro's leadership because of his systematic erosion of democracy, including the suppression of free and fair elections. His actions demonstrate that Marxist rhetoric often leads to the same oppressive outcomes we’ve seen in past regimes.

Moreover, your occasional alignment with the Marxist-Leninist Party on Facebook undermines your claim of being distinct from traditional Marxist doctrine. Advocacy for specific causes may seem harmless, but supporting groups with such ideologies send a clear message about your broader political stance. Actions often speak louder than words.

The progressive taxation system you support can coexist with democratic principles, but it is entirely separate from Marxism. If you want to advocate for progressive policies, perhaps it's time to reconsider labeling yourself as a Marxist, as the term carries implications far beyond what you seem to intend.

---

[Bob Gillanders]

If you want to advocate for progressive policies, perhaps it's time to reconsider labeling yourself as a Marxist, as the term carries implications far beyond what you seem to intend.

Bob A, Sid's suggestion is worth considering. The Marxist brand has just too much baggage attached to it, justified or not.

[Dilip Panjwani]

There is an obvious flaw in your argument. I'll leave it to you to discover it yourself. :)

Ha! That is another way of saying I do not know what is the flaw, but I am stubborn enough to stick with my point even though there may may be a valid argument against it!!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob, I appreciate your support for progressive taxation as a principle, but I take issue with how you align this with Marxism, a philosophy that goes far beyond tax policy. Marx explicitly called for the abolishment of private property—a stance incompatible with the fundamental principles of a free and democratic society.

Democracy is not merely about majority rule. In Canada, the Charter of Rights, and in the United States, the Constitution, exist precisely to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. These documents ensure that no government, no matter how popular, can infringe on fundamental freedoms—be it through authoritarian overreach or policies that disregard individual rights.

Your assertion that your brand of Marxism differs from historical examples, such as the USSR, is contradicted by your support for regimes like Venezuela under Maduro. The international community widely rejects Maduro's leadership because of his systematic erosion of democracy, including the suppression of free and fair elections. His actions demonstrate that Marxist rhetoric often leads to the same oppressive outcomes we’ve seen in past regimes.

Moreover, your occasional alignment with the Marxist-Leninist Party on Facebook undermines your claim of being distinct from traditional Marxist doctrine. Advocacy for specific causes may seem harmless, but supporting groups with such ideologies send a clear message about your broader political stance. Actions often speak louder than words.

The progressive taxation system you support can coexist with democratic principles, but it is entirely separate from Marxism. If you want to advocate for progressive policies, perhaps it's time to reconsider labeling yourself as a Marxist, as the term carries implications far beyond what you seem to intend.

---

I guess what you are saying is that sensible progressive taxation, like indirect taxation (which the wealthy end up paying more according to what they spend) is a reasonable principle, but Marxists take it to an entirely absurd level, like huge progressive direct taxation in order to support everyone, including those who do not choose to work hard and smart...

[Tom O'Donnell]

Socialism works well in small groups. Families are inherently socialistic. So are small, tight-knit communities like the Amish. When you know the people you are dealing with well, you have expectations and you can tell if they are doing the best they can, given their circumstances. At larger levels, you cannot have any such knowledge. People correctly suspect that there are lazy people out there who will take and take and not think twice about it. They will never give back and this is sometimes ingrained to such a level it becomes multi-generational. Without government doling out free money, such people would be forced to contribute. Something like UBI would only exacerbate the problem of such people, imo, and increase their number.

[Dilip Panjwani]

...there are lazy people out there who will take and take and not think twice about it. They will never give back and this is sometimes ingrained to such a level it becomes multi-generational.

Yes, and hence it begins at a very young age, with guidance (or lack of) from their parents... do they slog hard and smart to enable them to earn better as adults or do they rather just concentrate on having non-productive fun..

[Vlad Drkulec]

Some problems? Venezuela is full of problems, thanks to its Marxism, which is nothing but utter nonsense, for all the reasons you have been repeatedly given, and have no sensible argument against any of those facts, but in your stubbornness, just choose to ignore them, and continue to have blind faith in your DM!

Venezuela was one of the wealthiest countries in South America prior to their revolution which involved expropriating wealth and property and giving it to the people, who then ran it into the ground. People like Elon Musk are a gift from God. Society and its wealth are diminished if you steal from him or people like him.

[Dilip Panjwani]

In Canada, the Charter of Rights, and in the United States, the Constitution, exist precisely to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. These documents ensure that no government, no matter how popular, can infringe on fundamental freedoms—be it through authoritarian overreach or policies that disregard individual rights.

---

And yet authoritarian overreach commonly occurs, whether it be infringement on property rights (as Tom pointed out) by progressive direct taxation or those instances where the authoritarian government threatens to use the 'notwithstanding' clause...

[Bob Armstrong]

I think the contributions on the topic of what is Democratic Marxism, what is Democratic Socialism, rights protection from the majority, and progressive taxation have been most thoughtful.

I will take some time, as asked, to consider the points raised, and try to deal with each of them, one at a time.

Give me some time to do this.

It is becoming a truly "collective" thread: all are inputting; all are benefitting. And I won't say that this only happens under Democratic Marxism .

Bob A (Very, very open-minded!)

[Dilip Panjwani]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/la...cbo=v2-MDUnv26

[Pargat Perrer]

Socialism works well in small groups. Families are inherently socialistic. So are small, tight-knit communities like the Amish. When you know the people you are dealing with well, you have expectations and you can tell if they are doing the best they can, given their circumstances. At larger levels, you cannot have any such knowledge. People correctly suspect that there are lazy people out there who will take and take and not think twice about it. They will never give back and this is sometimes ingrained to such a level it becomes multi-generational. Without government doling out free money, such people would be forced to contribute. Something like UBI would only exacerbate the problem of such people, imo, and increase their number.

I like this post because it recognizes that socialism can work when the parties are well known to each other. So Tom, what then do you think about Bob A's idea of circles within circles, in which everything derives down to the local level and reputations of the locality can actually be communicated to higher levels?

Interesting about the Amish. If we took religion totally out of it, could the Amish idea of hard work and dedication of everyone work in Bob A's model of DM? Yes, there are always people who want to be lazy, but the Amish handle this by (I think) having some sort of ... I can't think of the word in English. It means to make the person an outcast. They would be out on their own, not welcome in the Amish community.

And if we talk about lazy people, we must also talk about the Capitalist equivalent ... the domineering property owners who use their property rights (expounded on by Sid in this thread) to keep everyone below them oppressed via high rents and usage costs. If we are going to remove lazy people from the community, maybe we also need to remove these bad actor land owners and give their land back to the community for betterment of the whole society. This could not be done arbitrarily, it must have safeguards, but it seems as necessary as the measures against lazy people.

[Pargat Perrer]

Yes, and hence it begins at a very young age, with guidance (or lack of) from their parents... do they slog hard and smart to enable them to earn better as adults or do they rather just concentrate on having non-productive fun..

The problem of society members deciding to have "non-productive fun" is as old as civilization itself. You only need to read the Old Testament of the Bible to understand this.

It is all part of the karmic cycle of civilization. It cannot be prevented. It is part of human nature.

Perhaps Dilip the clue that Bob G. wants you to recognize has to do with human nature. You have zero understanding of human nature. You rant about those who become non-productive and totally IGNORE those who become GREEDY.

Both laziness and greed are part and parcel of human nature and cannot be stopped. This is why civilizations rise and fall.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.
If someone is greedy without harming anyone else, you cannot rob him, though you would certainly pity him for wasting his life to accumulate what is not needed! Society is not harmed by greed which does not harm anyone else, but society is certainly harmed by Marxist principles which resort to robbing the rich to reward the lazy...