"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."

And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will, then, be a toad."
- Stephen Crane -

Canadians OK with higher taxes to fight inequality

Canadians are willing to pay more taxes to help close the growing income gap and want corporations to pay higher tax rates too, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

The survey of 2000 Canadians, commissioned by the left-leaning Broadbent Institute, found that 23 per cent are “very willing” and 41 per cent are “somewhat willing” to pay slightly more tax in order to protect social programs such as health care, post-secondary education and pensions.

The Broadbent Institute, named after the NDP’s former leader Ed Broadbent, argues that protecting social programs would help reduce income inequality.

Liberal and NDP voters are the most supportive of this proposal, the results showed, but 58 per cent of Conservative voters are also in favour of it.

“This attitude toward paying slightly higher taxes is reflected equally in high-income and middle income Canadian households. It’s only their governments who are offside,” the report, the first from the newly established think tank, said.

The phone survey was conducted between March 6 and March 18. The results are considered accurate to within 2.2 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

A majority of Canadians – even wealthy ones – are behind the idea of raising income taxes on people who earn more than $250,000 and more than $500,000. The poll found 83 per cent are in favour of that idea.

And 73 per cent agree with raising corporate taxes back up to 2008 levels. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has steadily lowered the rates since taking office in 2006, arguing the tax breaks help corporations create more jobs. The NDP and Liberals are opposed to the lower rates, saying they haven’t helped create new jobs and that corporations are just sitting on higher profits.

The survey, conducted by Environics Research Group, found that a majority of Conservative voters support higher corporate taxes.

It also shows that 69 per cent of Canadians support the introduction of an inheritance tax on any estate valued at more than $5 million.

The Broadbent Institute says the poll shows that the problem of income inequality is not an ideological one and that even the wealthy agree that they should play their part in addressing it.

It calls on governments to match public opinion and take action to reduce income inequality.

The survey showed that 77 per cent of respondents agree that widening income gaps are a big problem for Canada that will have long-term consequences and 71 per cent agreed that income inequality undermines Canadian values.

I would laugh, but this isn’t funny anymore.

This is hilarious. 

When the government promises to give X amount of money for Y reason:

Yea, no kidding. Bribing me with my own money. Thanks, that’s really kind of you.

European Union continues its move to control sovereign nations in Europe

As the European Union (EU) and European Central Bank (ECB) continue to work to impose austerity and taxation on its own members to help pay for the massive debt and liquidity crisis created by themselves, a startling new turn of events is leading the EU authority to try to impose dominion over a nation that is not even under the EU organization.

On November 28th, the monetary capital of the EU out of Brussels has placed intense pressure on the neutral state of Switzerland to begin increasing taxes on businesses to keep their own member nations from fleeing the insufferable economic strictures laid upon them, and to keep those businesses from moving to the tax friendlier environment of Switzerland.

[…]

The desperation of the EU to keep control over the system, and businesses that support the authority’s central bank through massive taxation and regulation is quite similar to what has taken place in the United States over the past several years.  Corporate headquarters have moved offshore to friendlier tax havens such as Ireland and of course, Switzerland, and now many European companies are doing the same to avoid the draconian tax structure of the EU.

There is always a fine line between good taxation policies that benefit the needs of a nation’s citizens and government.  That line however can become skewed as politicians and crony capitalists seek to use these policies to gain political power, or economic largesse.  The European Union for decades since its creation has sought to expand its political dominance over member nations, and grow its authority beyond the economic charter it was first created with.  It is slowly accomplishing this with the installment of central bankers into positions of leadership in both Greece and Italy after the deposing of their elected Presidents in the past two months.

The chessboard is expanding for the European Union, and they are now attempting to impose their will upon nations that are not even a part of their organization.  The continued pressure the EU is imposing on the neutral state of Switzerland to increase taxation on EU member businesses that move their headquarters there for the purposes of avoiding the draconian taxes of the union itself, shows just how far the Union is going to consolidate complete control over the sovereign nations and businesses which constitute the fragile union at a time of massive economic strife and crisis.

The European Union is a sham. 

“Oh, well if you hate taxes then you should stop doing this, this, that, that, this and that and that and this………”

Gladly.

As soon as you refund all of my money and don’t take it from me anymore. Thanks. 

Politicians might lie, but math never does. 

Sometimes I watch political debates and I can’t believe what I hear.

It’s all about “How much should we raise taxes? When should we raise them? Why is raising taxes more beneficial than not raising taxes? Blabbity blah blah.”

Since when is the subject of theft and burglary up for debate? 

The Constitution of No Authority (excerpt):

By: Lysander Spooner, 1870

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.

In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:

Go to A……… B………, and say to him that “the government” has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his, that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of “the government,” and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band). If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards, charge him (in one of our courts) with murder, convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country,” cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done, that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.

It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to support “the government,” it needs no further argument to show.

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

The solution is simple enough on the tax side, at least on paper, Mr. Hufbauer suggested. The country must expand the tax base on individuals and businesses, eliminate many tax breaks, introduce a national value-added tax, raise fuel taxes and impose “user fees” on a whole range of things, including parks, highways, airports, smoking and drinking.

On the corporate side, Mr. Hufbauer pointed out that U.S. tax rates are high by international standards, but special corporate entities created by Congress dramatically shrinks the corporate tax base. While business taxes average 22 per cent of GDP in the OECD, the ratio is just 13 per cent in the U.S.

The Republicans have put themselves in a box. Carefully crafted tax increases offer a relatively easy way out that could mitigate the economic damage caused by draconian spending cuts and reverse income inequality between rich and poor. But the tax option has become a political stumbling block in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives (as are deep spending cuts in the Democratic-held Senate).

“It goes back about 20 years. The Republicans have signed on to this ‘no-taxes, ever’ pledge since Bush, the father, was president, and now this is being tested,” explained Chuck Marr, director of tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington and a former economic adviser to Bill Clinton and former Democratic Senate majority leader Tom Daschle.

Bipartisan efforts to break the impasse, both inside and outside Congress, have reached the same conclusion – that higher taxes must be a major part of the solution, he pointed out. A commission headed by Democrat Alice Rivlin and Republican Pete Dominici, for example, came up with a plan that would shrink the debt through a balance of spending cuts and higher tax revenue. Among the highlights: a simpler tax system, a broader base, a phase-out of most tax breaks and a national 6.5-per-cent debt reduction sales tax.


Everything about this entire article is a facepalm moment. 


Theme