Canadian Republicanism

[TheKwas]

Also, I would prefer taking the brightest and best over taking the rich and powerful.

 

That said, I'm in favour of a system of student loans that are complete interest free and easy to get rather than straight-out free education.

[Matt]

I. Just. Said. Let's. Make. It. Free. I. Didn't. Say. Make. It. Harder. To. Get. In.

 

Stupid.

 

"But how do we do that?"

 

How do you think, TAX THE RICH THROUGH THE FUCKING EAR.

Taxing the rich will in turn make it more difficult for students to live. They control the cost of goods and/or services, who do you think is going to pay the tax at the end of the day? Also why are you so adament on punishing people who were successful at business? They probably struggled too to get to the point they are at. While I would like to see them give it back, I do not think there is a way to force them too. They control the cost of goods and/or services again. Students have to live off of those goods and services too. An increase in price can make their lives just as difficult as before. This can also cause layoffs which would hurt other peoples lives as well. It also leaves less money to help more people who have since been affected.

[ecnarf]

I really find it hard to believe that taxing rich people will result in higher prices for goods.

 

Face it, when someone earns 10 million dollars a year, getting taxed plus/minus a few thousand or even ten thousand dollars doesn't even register on the radar.

[Matt]

Actually it does, one of the causes of the Depression was less money coming in meaning that the prices of goods and services was raised but wages were not increased. This left people with less buying power resulting in lay offs. The lay offs left people with less buying power resulting with less buying power. This was not the only cause of the depression, but it was one of them. Losing money is noticable, even to a rich person. In theory it is a good idea to raise taxes but in reality it is not. Even if the manufacturer does not raise the cost of the goods and/or services they provide, these days it is easy to move to another country and start manufacturing there which leaves many people without jobs. Which also leaves the buying public with less buying dollars, which again can have the same results.

[Bizud]

So what's the answer then, Matt? Keep business happy at the expense of society? You're right that nowadays, if business isn't happy it can go somewhere else, and this can have a detrimental effect on an economy for sure. The correct solution, then, isn't to just accept that business runs the show, find the policy which will please them the most, and hope some of the wealth we bestow on them (the worker being the source of all wealth) will trickle back to us (where it belongs anyway), but to reduce the dependence of society on business for the delivery of goods and services.

 

OH NO, NOT COMMUNISM?!??!?!!

Edited April 16, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

We should not force people to conform to our belief that they should give back. I agree they should, but I disagree that we should force them too because I believe it would be un-successful in Canada. As I have said business can close up shop if they want to go away which leaves workers un-employed. Creating crown corporations has been rather un-successful. Sooner or later crown corporations would fail because they are generating less or no profit and losing sums of money far greater. Taking on more debt is only a short term solution, that money has to be paid back some time in the future or securing ways of bringing more money in will prove to be difficult. Other provinces, countries... will not want to deal with us if we are not paying back our debts to them, people do expect to be paid back at some point. Generating more business means we can tax them at the current rate and spend it towards doing more for the people with the money we have, money has to come from somewhere no matter what, we should only spend what we have because if not, there is less left for future generations. We have to worry about the present and the future while building a stong economy so they can have more money not less.

[Bizud]

We shouldn't "force people to pay" for things that we all need? So then people who can afford their own health care and private education for their kids shouldn't have to pay to support medicare or the school system? People who don't drive should have that portion that deals with paying for the roads deducted from their taxes? Maybe we should just make it so all taxes are optional! Why not, eh? It would be wrong to force people to pay, right? I can only imagine where your silly ideas would take us.

 

You're right, business can close up shop and leave us screwed if our policies are not to their liking; you just don't seem to have a problem with that. You don't find that a little unfair? You don't think that gives them considerably more political power than you or me? I recognize it, and recognize the importance of reducing the power of business. Crown corporations are one way that's done. Labour laws (minimum wage laws, anti-scab laws) are another.

 

And yeah, I realize the importance of paying down debt; that's one reason I support the NDP, who have a better record than Liberals and Conservatives in terms of balanced budgets, as mentioned earlier.

[Matt]

I do not think taxes should be optional, what I meant is we should not force them to pay more than they do now. Actually I believe the Liberals have a better record on balancing the budget, as far as I am concerned the Conservatives are more like the Reform/Alliance, so I do not think we can judge for sure yet. We have a poor track record on crown corporations so we should not be so quick to want to form them. As far as raising the minimum wage, as it is now, small business can some what afford the cost of it, but at the same time raising it can hurt their chances to becoming more successful.

[Doc]

Bizud, you obviously don't live in Alberta where the provincial government has cleared it's debt. I'm aware of the cost of this, ie. sacrificing money to education and health care, and I'm no fan of the conservative government, but one has to realize what this means.

 

Matt, do you feel that raising the minimum wage hurts small business then? I'm all for it, especially here. I worked minimum wage in high school, and I found it tough to do anything with the money that I made, and I lived at home. I couldn't imagine what having a family and earning minimum wage would mean. Better pay for your workers, if all sides agree that it's fair, really does mean better productivity, hence the greater likelihood of success.

 

BTW, I skipped all but the first and last pages, what happened to the debate over the queen?

 

D

[Bizud]

Actually, I do realize the importance of reducing debt, which is why I will again cast my vote for the party with the best track record in that area - the NDP.

[Matt]

The N.D.P. has a worse track record than the B.C. Liberals.

 

Also the minimum wage can be raised at the cost of inflation, because the problem is anything higher would cause a problem for businesses. However, even raising the minimum wage can cause problems for smaller businesses who are trying to develop a business too. So it is still not as easy as raising the minimum wage.

Edited April 18, 2005 by Matt

[Doc]

If a business can open with a good plan, and expect that the minimum wage CAN increase, then there should be no reason why the business can't be successful. An outrageous increase in the minimum wage would certainly lead to trouble for msome small businesses, however, moderate increases over a decent length of time shouldn't effect a large portion of a small company's business.

 

Also, just to clarify for myself, you say 'anything higher would cause a problem for businesses.' ???? Anythign higher then what, precisely?

 

Oh, and no argument on the NDP/BC Liberal thing ;)

 

D

[Matt]

I meant anything than the rate of inflation would probably be too much. Also even companies with a good business plan can fail, depends on the product, and luck even to some extent.

[ecnarf]

Actually it does, one of the causes of the Depression was less money coming in meaning that the prices of goods and services was raised but wages were not increased. This left people with less buying power resulting in lay offs. The lay offs left people with less buying power resulting with less buying power. This was not the only cause of the depression, but it was one of them. Losing money is noticable, even to a rich person. In theory it is a good idea to raise taxes but in reality it is not. Even if the manufacturer does not raise the cost of the goods and/or services they provide, these days it is easy to move to another country and start manufacturing there which leaves many people without jobs. Which also leaves the buying public with less buying dollars, which again can have the same results.

The Causes for the depression?

 

Try over-manufacturing without a solid product base.

 

Or founding our economy on a few simple resources which came in stiff competition with other countries.

 

Look, when you buy something at at store for, say, 19.95, and the clerk just ran out of nickels, she can't change you back for the 20 you just gave her. Do you sit there and demand your nickel, or do you just not care and get on with your life?

 

You get on with your life. I just can't believe that CEO's of companies are going to go around raising the prices of their products because they're being taxed more. For one thing, the entire board of directors would have to approve first. This would essentially be economic suicide - why would anyone want to keep buying products from one company when they could easily buy one from another for 10 dollars less? It's simple logic. Just because CEO's aren't able to roll around in just a few extra hundred dollar bills doesn't mean they're going to throw a hissy fit and raise the prices of their products.

 

You know why?

 

Because raising prices of products doesn't increase the salaries of that CEO or executive. If they want their money so badly, they would give themselves a raise. Companies are already making millions of dollars of profit per year - why on earth would they want to reduce that by raising the price of their products, while not even touching their annual salary?

 

Your logic is so backwards. If CEO's start getting taxed more, they're just going to pay themselves more if they care so much about their money. It's as simiple as that.

[Matt]

That money has to come from somewhere, and they will raise the price to do it. And actually had the Businesses raised the employees wages at the rate of the rising costs, they would have been able to avoid the depression. Also, all the businesses would raise their price making it unlikely the consumer could pay less. Also, a CEO giving themselves a raise does not work quite so well because they want to keep the company making about the same earnings relatively so that the stock price stays the same.

[Bizud]

It will either come out of the prices of their goods/services (in which case people will go to their competitor and it won't matter), the wages of their employees (which is what unions and labour legislation, like minimum wage, are for), or out of their profit margins.

[Matt]

The competitor will most likely rise the price too, it's more likely to be put into the cost of the goods or services. Companies prefer to keep generating more money, not less. Also their main competitors are also big businesses so they are most likely going to raise their prices leaving people with little other choice. At one point there will also be layoffs to cover the companies losses. Which means more people are out of work. Small business cannot make products cheaper either because they are not able to purchase in bulk to be able to receive the products cheaper.

[Bizud]

When big business conspires to raise prices to thwart attempts at "them commies grabbin' our money," it's time for price controls. Truthfully, though, there's no need for that, because other countries have proven that big business can be made to pay more in taxes without shifting that burden back onto the consumer.

[Doc]

The competitor will most likely rise the price too

Gee sounds like all of the gasoline suppliers. Ever notice that everyone's price goes up the same amount at the exact same time? Lame

 

Bizud, I'm interested to know what countries you're talking about...

 

Examples?

 

D

[Bizud]

Sure, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, Denmark, and even Britain.

[ecnarf]

The competitor will most likely rise the price too, it's more likely to be put into the cost of the goods or services. Companies prefer to keep generating more money, not less. Also their main competitors are also big businesses so they are most likely going to raise their prices leaving people with little other choice. At one point there will also be layoffs to cover the companies losses. Which means more people are out of work. Small business cannot make products cheaper either because they are not able to purchase in bulk to be able to receive the products cheaper.

Boy, I'd hate to wonder what economics course you've been taking.

 

Let's say that there's Company A and Company B. Company A is a well-established business. Company B is a new start-up, just up the street from company A, and they both sell the exact same stuff.

 

Company A, because it has been in business for longer and has managed to pay off its small business loans, is able to purchase more from the manufacturer, and negotiate a savings on that product because they're buying more - because they're spending less money buying, they can afford to sell for less, meaning that they are selling more products, and making more profit.

 

Company B, however, is a new business, and its owner still has to pay off their small business loan, a heavy financial burden - this means that they have a smaller operating budget, and can't afford to buy more products from the manufacturer, and aren't able to negotiate a discount. What does this mean? It means that they have to sell their products for more money in order to make enough profit to pay off their small business loan. Because of the higher prices, they sell considerably less than Company A, making less profit.

 

Now, under your logic, Company A would raise its prices to that of Company B. I don't understand why. The lower prices give Company A a decisive edge over Company B - people want to spend less money, so they go to Company A. Company A spends less on importing their product, so they can afford to sell their product for less.

 

Now, if they were to raise their prices to the same level as Company B, what have they done? They have essentially destroyed their competitive edge, and people now have no reason to buy from Company A. So, let's say that Company A and Company B now have an equal volume of sales. Company A is making more profit on a per-purchase basis, but because their sales have decreased, their overall profit actually drops off from before.

 

So, do you want to explain to me why (according to your recent posts) you think that Company A would raise its prices to the same level as Company B?

[Matt]

People only have so many dollars to spend. By raising the price of goods to the level of company B they can now afford to buy less not more.

 

Also smaller business can be as successful as the major companies, such as "WesJet" which has built itself into a major competitor on the airline market (in Canada) over the last decade. They did it by not taking on debt and finding many other cost saving measures to be able to reduce the price passing the savings onto consumers. Part of building a successful business is finding a market in which you can compete successfully in.

 

Also Doc, OPEC decides how much the cost of oil is spent at and that's why everyone pays the same amount to purchase it. Thus all companies can afford to charge the same amount.

[ecnarf]

People only have so many dollars to spend. By raising the price of goods to the level of company B they can now afford to buy less not more.

 

Also smaller business can be as successful as the major companies, such as "WesJet" which has built itself into a major competitor on the airline market (in Canada) over the last decade. They did it by not taking on debt and finding many other cost saving measures to be able to reduce the price passing the savings onto consumers. Part of building a successful business is finding a market in which you can compete successfully in.

 

Also Doc, OPEC decides how much the cost of oil is spent at and that's why everyone pays the same amount to purchase it. Thus all companies can afford to charge the same amount.

You're avoiding the point of the argument.

 

My argument was that there is no way why Company A would raise its prices when it is making a tidy profit over Company B.

 

Your previous posts were using the logic that Company A would raise its prices to the point of Company B, for some reason or another.

[Matt]

That is the idea of the tax raises with the Federal NDP actually to help bring small businesses to the level of larger corporations to make it so they are about even price wise.