- 0 Posts
- 15 Comments
Yeah, the definition of “Productive” is all sorts of wacky when you consider that, by the numbers, the people doing high-frequency stock trading are some of the most “productive” people on the planet, because they manage to hoard so much money to themselves.
Meanwhile, the people actually providing goods and services that make people’s lives better and create new things, those people are “unproductive”, because they don’t get filthy rich off their honest work.
The real reason we are not “productive” is that foreign investors are paying us to do the hard work of extracting resources (lumber, ore), or generating new research (we have MANY top universities), but then demanding that the money made from refining those resources or selling those idea goes to them, in other nations (typically the US or China)
Actually, in most cases having fewer police on the streets leads to LESS petty crime.
This is because cops tend to spook people, so everyone (including the innocent, law abiding citizens) will leave areas that are patrolled.
This creates the ideal scenario for crime: there are few/no witnesses around for a while after the cops come by.
In pretty much every case I am aware of where cops go on strike and stop doing regular beat patrols, crime goes DOWN.
Given how many politicians have advanced law or business degrees, it’s not crazy that they could earn more by turning to private industry.
Hell, one of the fastest ways to qualify for a six-figure job is to run for political office, fail, and use that experience to get a job with a lobbying or PR firm.
Exactly, articles like this are just confusing the meaning of class.
What makes you a member of “the working class” is that you are forced to sell your labour to survive. Fullstop. A tradesperson, and a lawyer, and a burgerflipper are all in the same class from that point of view.
As soon as your accumulated capital becomes large enough that you earn your income only as a result of your capital, then you are no longer working class, and that’s when your interests diverge from the average worker and average homebuyer or renter.
A landlord with no other job, the major shareholders of a profitable business, a wealthy heir, those people make their money by siphoning value off of other people’s work without actually needing to spend their time on work.
Long story short: I have no problem with a 50 year old plumber with a large family who legitimately uses that 4500 sqft house.
My issue is with Karen who used dad’s money to buy 8 properties to airBnB them and insists she get special treatment because her business risks didn’t pan out.
This is just the neoliberal way, we’re decades deep into the idea that all solutions to any problem must involve directing public funds into private hands, usually those of the wealthy.
At this point, the concept of allowing public-sector employees to use publicly-owned equipment to take publicly-owned materials and provide necessary services for the public who vote for and fund the government is tantamount to heresy. In their minds, money should only go one way, from the government, to a select few private hands. We have at least three generations of bureaucrats and politicians whose minds are so warped by this practice that they cannot conceive of any way to help people or really implement any policy without giving some private business a chance to run a profit off of it.
Think about it, try to come up with anything government has directly built since 1990. Not talking about subcontracted, or with “funding provided as a private/public partnership”, that the government has directly built and run. Used to be that the government would actually employ people to do things like GO Transit, or Ontario Place, or the LCBO, but that era is long, long passed.
Now do the reverse, think about all the things that used to be publicly owned but have now been given away to some billionaire. Air Canada, Petro Canada, Potash Corp, Highway 407, Telus, Hydro One. The list is huge, and a lot of these are very profitable. Imagine if we still owned them? Imagine what we could do re: climate change if we still owned Petro Canada and Hydro One? Or what our internet services might look like if we owned Telus? We gave away billions of dollars of value and significant strategic assets, mortgaging our future.
In addition to the direct costs of all the money that could have been put back into the budget (or the cost savings provided to the average taxpayer by not requiring that these companies take massive profit margins), we are also losing government capabilities: think about all the people, all the equipment, all the buildings and services that used to be directly delivered but now are parasitized by rent-seeking private companies looking to extract as much value as they can from us before we die. Think about old-age homes, hospital services, corporate landlords that hold the lease on former government buildings, contractors paid instead of municipal works departments.
The government won’t act because it would mean admitting that the neoliberal ideology that’s made a small number of people very rich was wrong.
This video covers the UK, but it’s all similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58t-YH7DURk
Absolutely ridiculous. Why are we punishing people who are trying hard to conserve their resources and use less energy? The carbon tax is revenue neutral, if you burn less than the average person you are BETTER OFF with a higher tax. This is a GOOD tax for the poor, and the cons are using this wedge to hurt them
See, that’s the thing. The 10 factors in the ranking include 1) Entrepreneurship, 2) “Open for Business”, 3) “Movers”, 4) Power, and 5) “Agility”, or a place that is ‘efficient in its actions, adopt and accept modern solutions’
So, like, half the factors are “how badly do you screw the environment and average non-capital-class citizen”
And in case you think I might be wrong about what they mean by “Movers”, the top 5 are the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and India.
Of COURSE our country, which is composed a bunch of oil, gas, and mining corps in a trenchcoat shaking hands with a couple of oligipolistic banks and telecoms will score well.
That’s the thing about allowing democracy to decide what is subsidized: Everyone votes for the way things currently are, so the biggest employers and most profitable firms keep getting bigger, while the genuine startups and experimental new things are screwed over because very few people currently make a living off of them.
And in fact, increasing the tax on profits makes it much, much more valuable to reinvest in the business.
Like, lets say your business is expecting a net profit of $200K after a year. You can either choose to reinvest that into the business to buy new equipment and hire new staff, or you can record that as profit, pay the taxes, and then put the after tax dollars money directly into your and your investors pockets.
With our current corporate tax rate of 15%, it’s really tempting to just pay the 30K in taxes and personally keep $170k as take-home, which gets taxed at a MUCH lower rate than regular income, rather than keep it in the business. $30K as a fee to keep $170K in personal income is pretty cheap.
However, if taking money our of the business was much more expensive, say 45% or something comparable to the marginal personal income tax rate for a working professional, then maybe as a business owner you might think that paying $90K to keep $110K is not as good a deal, and so you will think about whether there are other opportunities WITHIN the business you could invest in, putting those profits towards new equipment or training, rather than losing 45% of it to taxes just to add a small amount to your own pocket.