• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

JaysCyYoung said:
The American justice has systemic flaws because half of their world-leading 2.3 million incarcerated population is imprisoned due to relatively petty drug offences.
Click to expand...

Harper is adjusting our system to match. Go read up on that new Omnibus bill he just forced through with his majority. He couldn't pass it with a minority, so he made sure to get it done this time. Now, you can get more jail time for smoking crack than for sodomizing a preteen.
But hey, all those new jails Stockwell Day wanted to build will be full again... so it's not all bad...
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
that is classic

the way the rich have convinced the poor in the US that raising taxes on the rich hurts the poor is amazing and should be taught the first day in any marketing course.
Click to expand...

It blows my mind when you hear people who make ~30k/year or less say that the rich don't need to pay more. The only logical explanation i can think of is that hey firmly believe that the American Dream is alive and well, that some day through hard work (which they don't seem to do very well), they'll become millionaires and at that time they don't want to pay high taxes.

However when you talk about the rich I think we need to clearly define what exactly constitutes 'rich'. The article I posted above that stated people over 100k should pay more than they currently do bothers me to a certain extent. I don't classify 100k/year to be rich, particularly since i made close to 100k/year last year and will probably be on the Sunshine list for 2012. And i can assure you, i'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
 
voyager said:
However when you talk about the rich I think we need to clearly define what exactly constitutes 'rich'. The article I posted above that stated people over 100k should pay more than they currently do bothers me to a certain extent. I don't classify 100k/year to be rich, particularly since i made close to 100k/year last year and will probably be on the Sunshine list for 2012. And i can assure you, i'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

But do you agree that someone making about 100k / year should pay more than someone getting about 30k / year?
 
blacksheep said:
But do you agree that someone making about 100k / year should pay more than someone getting about 30k / year?
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that statement, I just don't believe that should be punished for working hard. I don't know how much i paid in taxes last year, particularly when you factor in HST and other consumption taxes
 
voyager said:
It blows my mind when you hear people who make ~30k/year or less say that the rich don't need to pay more. The only logical explanation i can think of is that hey firmly believe that the American Dream is alive and well, that some day through hard work (which they don't seem to do very well), they'll become millionaires and at that time they don't want to pay high taxes.

However when you talk about the rich I think we need to clearly define what exactly constitutes 'rich'. The article I posted above that stated people over 100k should pay more than they currently do bothers me to a certain extent. I don't classify 100k/year to be rich, particularly since i made close to 100k/year last year and will probably be on the Sunshine list for 2012. And i can assure you, i'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

John Steinbeck quote....

Said many times but sums up your awesome point succinctly.

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Click to expand...
 
blacksheep said:
But do you agree that someone making about 100k / year should pay more than someone getting about 30k / year?
Click to expand...


Most people would agree with that and someone earing $100,000 does pay a higher percentage than someone earning $30,000. Someone earning $50,000 does too. What needs to be asked is how much more they should pay. 25% more? 45% more????
 
Love that Steinbeck quote, crazy how it was pointed out decades ago and yet is still true. I'll throw in a quote from "The Wire":

"Don't matter how many times you get burnt, you just keep doin' the same."
 
blacksheep said:
Harper is adjusting our system to match. Go read up on that new Omnibus bill he just forced through with his majority. He couldn't pass it with a minority, so he made sure to get it done this time. Now, you can get more jail time for smoking crack than for sodomizing a preteen.
But hey, all those new jails Stockwell Day wanted to build will be full again... so it's not all bad...
Click to expand...

Show where there is any mention in the bill for smoking crack or for using cocaine etc.


Increasing Penalties for Serious Drug Crime(former Bill S-10)

The Safe Streets and CommunitiesAct proposes amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would:
•provide mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, when such offences are carried out for organized crime purposes or if they involve targeting youth. Generally, the minimum penalty would apply where there is an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard.

These serious drug offences would include:
◦production;
◦trafficking;
◦possession for the purpose of trafficking;
◦importing and exporting; and
◦possession for the purpose of exporting.
•increase the maximum penalty for the production of drugs listed in Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, e.g. marijuana, from 7 to 14 years.

The aggravating factors involve offences committed:
◦for the benefit of organized crime;
◦involving use or threat of violence;
◦involving use or threat of use of weapons;
◦by someone who has been previously convicted (in the past 10 years) of a serious drug offence;
◦in a prison;
◦by abusing a position of authority or access to restricted areas;
◦in or near a school, in or near an area normally frequented by youth or in the presence of youth;
◦through involving a youth in the commission of the offence; and
◦in relation to a youth (e.g. selling to a youth).

The security, health and safety factors are:
◦the accused used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence;
◦the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;
◦the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; and
◦the accused placed or set a trap.
Click to expand...


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2011/doc_32637.html


ANNEX A
Proposed New Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Serious Drug Offences Schedule 1 drugs (cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc.)
Click to expand...


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2011/doc_32636.html
 
voyager said:
I completely agree with that statement, I just don't believe that should be punished for working hard. I don't know how much i paid in taxes last year, particularly when you factor in HST and other consumption taxes
Click to expand...

Well, to begin with, consumption taxes are never part of the income tax equation, though all of us taxpayers certainly do take that into account. It has a real affect on what we pay in total, but is irrelevant to why there is a difference in taxes paid by the different income levels.
And I particularly dislike the "punishment for hard work" defense. What hard work did the Koch brothers do? Have they ever even lifted a bag of dry cement in their lives? Ran a corporation? Please. Certainly there are those who worked hard for their fortunes, but by and large, many of those in the "sunshine list" are silver spoons. Even worse is the thinking that someone below you in the income scale wants to punish you for having a greater income. Nothing could be further from the truth. They're looking at their income tax rate, and checking yours, and realizing that in addition to a greater income, your rate was lower. The "punishment" is upon the mid to low incomes, not the high.
If anything, income taxes should be exactly like consumption taxes. If you can buy more, you pay more.
 
anne25 said:
Most people would agree with that and someone earing $100,000 does pay a higher percentage than someone earning $30,000. Someone earning $50,000 does too. What needs to be asked is how much more they should pay. 25% more? 45% more????
Click to expand...
It's pretty simple, actually. What percentage higher is your income? That's how much more you should pay.

Bleedsblue&white said:
Only because 10% of 100 000 is more than 10% of 30k (for example).
Click to expand...
But that assumes that the rate is even across the board, which is not. That's the whole reason why those who make less want the rich to pay more - because they're ALREADY paying less than the low-income earners.
Look at Romney's 13%. Look at Buffet and his secretary.
And it's no different in Canada, though the gap not quite as wide. Low income earners in Canada pay a greater percentage of their income to income taxes than do those in the 100k and up bracket. The biggest reason is better access to tax loopholes that the mid to low income earners have no access to.
Flat income tax rate, just like flat consumption tax rate. That's what we need. You make more? You pay more. No exceptions. It's not a "punishment for hard work." It's supporting the system that helped you get to your income level.

voyager said:
The aggravating factors list looks pretty vague and open to wide interpretation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Very wide interpretation.
My example was intentional. If you're caught smoking Crack Cocaine, that means you must have had to make that crack right there.
◦the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;
Click to expand...
... and suddenly, you're gone for seven years or more.
But James only gets two years... for multiple victims...
Harper's focus is totally off base.
 
I am saying it should be across the board, and then what they really, really need to look into is deductions. Getting out of the taxes due the country(any country) is IMO, something that will always hold a country back.
I'll even say we could survive some of the other manipulations that go on if the govt received the taxes due them.
Simplistic.
 
Bleedsblue&white said:
I am saying it should be across the board, and then what they really, really need to look into is deductions. Getting out of the taxes due the country(any country) is IMO, something that will always hold a country back.
I'll even say we could survive some of the other manipulations that go on if the govt received the taxes due them.
Simplistic.
Click to expand...

It is simplistic, but I do agree with the overall point of making them all the same percentage across the board.
 
It solves the whining about equality (from both sides lol) and if we can stop the billionaires from paying 0, things will get better quickly.
Once you hire the proper group to manage the funds...but that's another story.
 
blacksheep said:
Well, to begin with, consumption taxes are never part of the income tax equation, though all of us taxpayers certainly do take that into account. It has a real affect on what we pay in total, but is irrelevant to why there is a difference in taxes paid by the different income levels.
And I particularly dislike the "punishment for hard work" defense. What hard work did the Koch brothers do? Have they ever even lifted a bag of dry cement in their lives? Ran a corporation? Please. Certainly there are those who worked hard for their fortunes, but by and large, many of those in the "sunshine list" are silver spoons. Even worse is the thinking that someone below you in the income scale wants to punish you for having a greater income. Nothing could be further from the truth. They're looking at their income tax rate, and checking yours, and realizing that in addition to a greater income, your rate was lower. The "punishment" is upon the mid to low incomes, not the high.
If anything, income taxes should be exactly like consumption taxes. If you can buy more, you pay more.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about people who represent less than 1% of the entire population, the ones who make millions and through loopholes pay less than the average person. I'm talking about those who are attack anyone they perceive to be rich, which is anyone who makes more than they do. 100k isn't that much money, and it definitely does not qualify one as rich.

At what point does it become fair? What is fair in your mind? What percentage of my 91k and change should be taxed, so it would be fair for everyone? I'm curious to hear your answer.
 
voyager said:
I wasn't talking about people who represent less than 1% of the entire population, the ones who make millions and through loopholes pay less than the average person. I'm talking about those who are attack anyone they perceive to be rich, which is anyone who makes more than they do. 100k isn't that much money, and it definitely does not qualify one as rich.

At what point does it become fair? What is fair in your mind? What percentage of my 91k and change should be taxed, so it would be fair for everyone? I'm curious to hear your answer.
Click to expand...

I don't know where this magical defining line is between "rich" and not either. Nor do I care in this case.
I answered your question above. If I have to pay 25% of my income in taxes, than so should you. Doesn't matter if you make 30k; 80k; 150k or 3M / year.
So the answer is, it becomes "fair" when YOUR rate is the same as mine, regardless of income.
 
Exactly. Very wide interpretation.
My example was intentional. If you're caught smoking Crack Cocaine, that means you must have had to make that crack right there.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Much of the crack used has been purchased from dealers who have processed the cocaine into crack and the rocks sold to the end user

◦the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;
Click to expand...

constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children - seems pretty clear to me.
 
voyager said:
It blows my mind when you hear people who make ~30k/year or less say that the rich don't need to pay more. The only logical explanation i can think of is that hey firmly believe that the American Dream is alive and well, that some day through hard work (which they don't seem to do very well), they'll become millionaires and at that time they don't want to pay high taxes.

However when you talk about the rich I think we need to clearly define what exactly constitutes 'rich'. The article I posted above that stated people over 100k should pay more than they currently do bothers me to a certain extent. I don't classify 100k/year to be rich, particularly since i made close to 100k/year last year and will probably be on the Sunshine list for 2012. And i can assure you, i'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...
Public servants making 100k. ugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top