Jump to content

New luxury yacht tax in Canada


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zonker said:

My Vancity "high interest savings account" is now paying 0.05%. 

I still have some 5 year term deposits paying 3% this year and 4% next year. 

I do think the luxury taxes area bit silly, and agree they won't raise much revenue. The tax on cars over 100K is perhaps aimed at the Vancouver market. People were (are?) regularly buying luxury cars with cash. Then they sell them onwards or sell them to someone in China. Result - they get a cheque from the buyer that shows up in their account as "sale of car". Nice clean money... Mayber the gov wanted a piece of the action.

I don't think they are there to raise revenue.  The only real collateral damage I am worried about are operations like Jespersen's.  On the other hand, they haven't done much new construction lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 674
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You do not have a clue WTF you are talking about. I was in the business back then and it resulted in the layoff of 3/4s of the blue collar working people at our shop and many others. The rich people g

But no one will pay it. No one did last time. This would just be the "hide your boat in Annapolis or Miami" law. Every rich(ish) person I know would be more than happy to pay someone $149,999.99

Cross border personality disorder. Damned contagious, I tell you.

Posted Images

4 hours ago, no shoes said:

Hilarious. I never pay MSRP because I pay in full in advance. 

Yeah, and really stick it to the dealer for $495 to handle the admin and register the boat. I'm sure the chick in the back likes doing it for free. 

Is this how you support small business? 

You really think the "chick in the back" doesn't get paid in those situations?  I have some nice land in south Florida to sell you.  

Did they actually register the boat with Transport Canada for you?  Or did you have to register it yourself?  I don't think it is even possible for a dealer to register a boat with TC - I think the owner has to do it.  So what are they "registering?".   I think it is a bonus in their bank accounts.  

Sorry, but only suckers pay "admin" fees.  OTOH, it sounds like your dealer is bending over backwards to make this work for you, so let's call it a "tip".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

You really think the "chick in the back" doesn't get paid in those situations?  I have some nice land in south Florida to sell you.  

Did they actually register the boat with Transport Canada for you?  Or did you have to register it yourself?  I don't think it is even possible for a dealer to register a boat with TC - I think the owner has to do it.  So what are they "registering?".   I think it is a bonus in their bank accounts.  

Sorry, but only suckers pay "admin" fees.  

Well, if she’s part of the ownership, (which she is because it’s a family operation) she’s doing it for free.  Honestly, $495 on a $60,000 purchase is not a big deal. I think of it as a tip for the great service they have provided us (you do tip for good service don’t you?) and especially because he could end up storing it for the entire winter given the current border crossing, quarantine, and now travel restrictions in Canada. It would cost more than that for the deposit on a storage unit big enough in Vancouver. 
But, based on your reaction to $495, I think you would balk at a 37% tax and walk. 
Also, I’m sure your threat to walk out on the deal would not work here. It’s a 7 month wait for a new one. I had to scramble for a production spot so I could get it just in time for winter. New boats like this are selling fast because there is little used inventory and now, the rush to get the contracts signed before the end of the year because of this new tax. Do you know how much a Boston Whaler 310 Conquest is? A lot and would be subject to this tax. 
I might be a sucker, but I’ve got a brand new, taxes paid, paid for boat coming in September. 
And this tax will be good for me. If in 2042 I want to sell this boat, my only competitor will be new 2042 Montauks because the boating business is going to tank for about 20 years if you implement this already proven to be terrible idea. 
Anyway. I appreciate the discussion. I got mine and paid my taxes. Buy some vaccine hoser. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laker said:

I fully support the tax. 

I don't think they are there to raise revenue.  

These two thoughts don’t align. 
 

So why are the luxury taxes there if not to raise revenue?

Prevent new boat sales?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, no shoes said:

These two thoughts don’t align. 
 

So why are the luxury taxes there if not to raise revenue?

Prevent new boat sales?  

Social engineering. Reverse penis envy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All you rich boat buying USAians can stop worrying. Joe's got you covered:

"President Joe Biden will propose almost doubling the capital gains tax rate for wealthy individuals to 39.6% to help pay for a raft of social spending that addresses long-standing inequality, according to people familiar with the proposal."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-22/biden-to-propose-capital-gains-tax-as-high-as-43-4-for-wealthy

So if you derive much of your income from investments and if your income is high, that sweet ~20% rate changes to match income derived from wages. "The new marginal 39.6% rate would be an increase from the current base rate of 20%, the people said on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public."

Warren Buffett was one who advocated for this sort of change. He didn't think his tax rate should be lower than his assistant, just because he made most of his income from dividends and his assistant worked for a salary.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, no shoes said:

These two thoughts don’t align. 
 

So why are the luxury taxes there if not to raise revenue?

Prevent new boat sales?  

I believe they know quite well that it would hit the industry for expensive boats.  Now why would they want to do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zonker said:

All you rich boat buying USAians can stop worrying. Joe's got you covered:

"President Joe Biden will propose almost doubling the capital gains tax rate for wealthy individuals to 39.6% to help pay for a raft of social spending that addresses long-standing inequality, according to people familiar with the proposal."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-22/biden-to-propose-capital-gains-tax-as-high-as-43-4-for-wealthy

So if you derive much of your income from investments and if your income is high, that sweet ~20% rate changes to match income derived from wages. "The new marginal 39.6% rate would be an increase from the current base rate of 20%, the people said on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public."

Warren Buffett was one who advocated for this sort of change. He didn't think his tax rate should be lower than his assistant, just because he made most of his income from dividends and his assistant worked for a salary.

 

Hey, they can all move to Somalia....

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Did they actually register the boat with Transport Canada for you?  Or did you have to register it yourself?  I don't think it is even possible for a dealer to register a boat with TC - I think the owner has to do it.  So what are they "registering?". 

How dare you not drift the thread ?? 

But in actuality, interesting comments from downtown Canada. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zonker said:

All you rich boat buying USAians can stop worrying. Joe's got you covered:

"President Joe Biden will propose almost doubling the capital gains tax rate for wealthy individuals to 39.6% to help pay for a raft of social spending that addresses long-standing inequality, according to people familiar with the proposal."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-22/biden-to-propose-capital-gains-tax-as-high-as-43-4-for-wealthy

So if you derive much of your income from investments and if your income is high, that sweet ~20% rate changes to match income derived from wages. "The new marginal 39.6% rate would be an increase from the current base rate of 20%, the people said on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public."

Warren Buffett was one who advocated for this sort of change. He didn't think his tax rate should be lower than his assistant, just because he made most of his income from dividends and his assistant worked for a salary.

 

And you really think the uber rich won't use tax shelters to preclude this?  Cmon, you aren't that naive are you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bgytr said:

And you really think the uber rich won't use tax shelters to preclude this?  Cmon, you aren't that naive are you?

Yes... which is why there are talks with the EU to make this harder! Tax shelters are having an easy life but as the world needs funds to pay for the COVID mess, life is about to become harder for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Yes... which is why there are talks with the EU to make this harder! Tax shelters are having an easy life but as the world needs funds to pay for the COVID mess, life is about to become harder for them.

Horsehockey.  You think Biden won't have his pet shelters for himself and the other uber rich cronies?  The tax code is something like 7000 pages of tax shelters.  The lobbying from the rich to get their loopholes will be in the billions of dollars and the corrupt lot in Congress will of course cave to the money.  There will be loopholes, and the rich will pay a lower rate than the average joe, it's an absolute certainty.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-20190129-story.html

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2021 at 12:52 AM, Rain Man said:

A better question:  what kind of loser can't afford to both own a boat AND pay high taxes?

What kind of a loser chooses to succumb to entitled parasites? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bgytr said:

Horsehockey.  You think Biden won't have his pet shelters for himself and the other uber rich cronies?  The tax code is something like 7000 pages of tax shelters.  The lobbying from the rich to get their loopholes will be in the billions of dollars and the corrupt lot in Congress will of course cave to the money.  There will be loopholes, and the rich will pay a lower rate than the average joe, it's an absolute certainty.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-20190129-story.html

 

paywall. you have to tell us what it saya

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panoramix said:

Yes... which is why there are talks with the EU to make this harder! Tax shelters are having an easy life but as the world needs funds to pay for the COVID mess, life is about to become harder for them.

Ugh.
Pay for this, pay for that, pay for the other things.
There is always another "crisis" that needs to be paid for..... and there will always be.

The problem is we never actually fix anything. We just come up with more ways to tax and more things to pay for. The concept of fiscal responsibility all but a memory. Having a balanced budget a pipedream.

Ask yourself who benefits from this. ask yourself why our political elite are the only ones able to afford a better life. Ask yourself why the average person finds it harder and harder to live a comfortable life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2021 at 7:40 PM, Borracho said:

Politics and policy are not science. You cannot model it with grade school maths.

"If Trumpism can cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations by X, why not cut them to zero?"

Good question. Why not cut corporate taxes to zero?
Let me ask you this, who actually pays corporate taxes.
I'll give you a hint, corporations get their monies for sales and service.
So tell us again who actually pays for corporate taxes?
Take your time. We can wait for you to figure it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2021 at 9:08 PM, Laker said:

It is exactly like it goes under a mattress.  What does it do but sit there.  Someone might pay more for it later, but that is a reflection of the capital that is doing the actual work.  It is dead in that the value it represents is not available for use by someone financing a robot for instance.

Your assertion the "market forces are the solution" applies only to two of the four catagories of market.  A pure free market in frozen peas is a different market from mining uranium.  The value of true free market items is generally less than that of other markets.  Soy beans for instance, although a price taker, do not exist in a free market.  Supply and demand are not the straight lines loved of Economics 101 and are very different for the different types of market.

You seem to be hung up on an economic sector of the low wage people that certainly does not have the same impact as the middle class.  As far as I am concerned, your approach is not analytical, but based on the 1950s Max Weber Protestant values approach to the markets.  

Hold on there cowboy. How does the money go under the mattress.
The playing card may go in a safe deposit, but the money does not.

Again, the problem with the unskilled and semi-skilled earning low wages is a function of one thing and one thing alone. Too many unskilled and semi-skilled workers.
You can address that in a number of ways. Improved skill sets or smaller pool of unskilled wage earners.

And if the markets are flooded with peas or soy, of course they are gonna command less monies.
If you need highly skilled workers to mine uranium, of course you will have to pay for such workers.
I sit here amazed. I really do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2021 at 8:16 PM, fastyacht said:

This is why for many years I have felt that corporations who have fully emplyed employess who qualify and receive welfare--those companies shoule experience a claw-back on theirt tax bills. Simple really.

Interesting.
Pardon, but isn't that a band aid of sorts?
Why charge back the employer, is it their fault that their employees seek public assistance?
Understanding that you will pose YES as the answer because if not for the low wages the employee would not seek public assistance....... BUT is it actually the corporation's fault that government keeps expanding the entitlement pool?

Seems to me, as an overview, government asks for more and more taxes in an ever growing thirst for revenue. In doing so, more and more people need public assistance. It is a vicious cycle and not one by accident IMHO.

That said, I would rather see public assistance severely limited. If folks cannot afford to work for X-corporation, X-corporation will need to pay more in wages to attract workers. 
I also think as a function of public assistance, it needs to both sunset and afford a provision to increase skillsets so that a participant can become self-sufficient.

Carry on though, we are mostly on the same page.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, quod umbra said:


That said, I would rather see public assistance severely limited. If folks cannot afford to work for X-corporation, X-corporation will need to pay more in wages to attract workers. 
 

The market sets the prices for the goods in the end. You are the market. Someone can ask whatever they want for a good and the market will decide if that is the best deal for them. 

If X corporation cannot get workers for the wages they can pay and start to pay more the acid test becomes the day you and I look at the products and decide if we will buy the product from X-corporation or from Y-corporation who has lower priced products. If we choose Y-corporation products then X-corporation will not actually be paying higher wages, they will be paying no wages. 

Of course there are other elements in the value equation than price but there are also other elements in what the employees are worth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with low wage workers in America is that incentives that the government creates to provide job opportunities for these people end up pricing them out of the market.

Employers will be willing to hire overqualified people at a low wage as compared to under qualified. It’s been this way since the mid 60’s with equal rights and a federal minimum wage. Almost 60 years of forcing employers to provide more than they want for less than they receive in return for the low wage, semi to unskilled labor. 
 

I have not received a paycheck as an employee since a contractor job 19 years ago at a Seaport Museum. I learned as a young person that the meager money I earned per hour was in direct correlation to my real world experience and value to my employers. I also noted that as a laborer, the more experience I got, the pay was not increased. I needed a solution.
 

So, I did what anyone with a college degree in business would and start my own businesses. I was able to find employees that I wanted to hire based on skills and paid them accordingly. I never had to hire minimum wage workers. At that same time, the luxury tax came out and there was a flood of skilled labor that entered the market(construction) when our local boatyards went under, thereby saturating our local economy with a newly displaced group, desperate for work. They could outbid my companies to make sure they put food on the table for their families. I understood and got out of the business altogether. 
 

I did find my calling in an industry that always has a need for a skilled craftsmen and I have been a “marine artisan” for the past number of decades. The nature of the work and lack of competition makes my life stable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Interesting.
Pardon, but isn't that a band aid of sorts?
Why charge back the employer, is it their fault that their employees seek public assistance?
Understanding that you will pose YES as the answer because if not for the low wages the employee would not seek public assistance....... BUT is it actually the corporation's fault that government keeps expanding the entitlement pool?

Seems to me, as an overview, government asks for more and more taxes in an ever growing thirst for revenue. In doing so, more and more people need public assistance. It is a vicious cycle and not one by accident IMHO.

That said, I would rather see public assistance severely limited. If folks cannot afford to work for X-corporation, X-corporation will need to pay more in wages to attract workers. 
I also think as a function of public assistance, it needs to both sunset and afford a provision to increase skillsets so that a participant can become self-sufficient.

Carry on though, we are mostly on the same page.

My thoughts on this hardened in 2004. I discovered that in Greenwich, CT, there were Section 8 houses with over $2000/month coverage of rent. Why? Well, so that workers could be close to their wealthy employers! All on the Taxpayer's tab!

So your points are valid. But the real problem is The Game. The moment you have welfare, you also have an attempt to game the system. Arguably, the big guys are better at the game than the little guy--the structure of the welfare always has to suit their needs first -- they give to the political warchests...

....am I saying that the government is corrupt? Well, how did Biden become a Millionaire, anyway? ... book deals ... https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31265187/joe-biden-net-worth/

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Laker said:

I believe they know quite well that it would hit the industry for expensive boats.  Now why would they want to do that?

I don’t mean to keep engaging you and quoting you but you say some weird stuff. 

A government subsidies behavior it wants and taxes behavior it doesn’t want. So I guess, they want to stop expensive boat sales. 
 

and Zonker, everyone here knew that it would have been better for our wallets to re elect Trump, but we wanted a better world and are willing to pay for it. Taxes will go up. I bet we end up with a corporate tax rate around  28% and that personal rate also around there as well. And it will still not be enough because as far as governments go (all of them) it’s never enough. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason this thread even exists is because of the utter insanity of the apparent truth of the matter, as phrased by Shoeless: "So I guess, they want to top expensive boat sales."

It is a preposterous yet apparently true situation in Canada right now. Utterly without any merit. Shocking and upsetting to sailors that our sport be treated as if it were a disease requiring vice taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

paywall. you have to tell us what it saya

 

Headline...  LA Times 30 Jan 2019.

How a 91% rate sparked the golden age of tax avoidance in 1950s Hollywood.

 

After Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) raised the idea of a marginal tax rate of 70% on income over $10 million, the progressive wing of the Twittersphere began pointing out that in the 1950s and early 1960s, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%.

The progressives’ point was that, despite this seemingly onerous level of taxation, the 1950s were a golden age for the U.S. economy, and the rich did just fine, thank you very much. According to records compiled by the Tax Foundation, a single person making $16,000 in 1955 — that’s $150,000 in today’s dollars — had a marginal tax rate of 50%; compensation of $50,000 ($470,000 today) moved you into the 75% tax bracket; and an income of $200,000 ($1.9 million today) put you in the 91% tax bracket. (Married couples filing jointly hit the 91% mark at $400,000.)

That meant that the federal government took 91 cents of every dollar over $200,000. When you added it all up, someone in 1955 who made $1 million a year paid over $800,000 in taxes.

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the tax code was full of loopholes that individuals could take advantage of. One favorite was buying rental properties. In 1954, Congress passed a law allowing for accelerated depreciation on any income-producing real estate — meaning wealthy taxpayers could deduct from their income tax a percentage of the value of the property each year. What made it even better was that, more often than not, the property appreciated in value, even as the government provided its generous depreciation schedule. The tax break was used not only by actors making millions but also by lawyers and doctors making $50,000 or $60,000 a year.

Another common practice was to push income generated in Year 1 into Years 2, 3, 4 and beyond. In 1957, for instance, William Holden was signed by Columbia Pictures to act in “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” The company agreed to give the 39-year-old actor 10% of the gross profits. To keep his taxes down, Holden insisted that Columbia pay him no more than $50,000 a year. The movie, of course, was a huge hit, with domestic box-office receipts exceeding $27 million ($241 million in 2019 dollars).

It might seem that Columbia got the better end of the deal, because Holden would be long dead by the time the money was finally paid out (also, inflation would erode the value of his take). But if Holden had taken his $2.7 million in one lump sum, he would have wound up putting less than $300,000 in his pocket, thanks to the 91% marginal tax rate. By taking $50,000 a year, Holden greatly increased his chances of being able to take home significantly more.

 

There were two other tax loopholes favored by actors and other entertainers — loopholes that were largely out of reach for the merely well-to-do. The first was the oil depletion allowance. The second was the collapsible corporation.

The oil depletion allowance was created by Congress in 1926. Meant to give incentives to drill for oil, it reduced the taxable income generated by an oil well by 27.5%. It was, writes Yuxun Willie Tan in the Iowa Historical Review, “the biggest tax loophole in U.S. history.”

Among the first Hollywood stars to understand the tax benefits of the oil depletion allowance were Crosby and Hope. Writes Tan: “They each paid $40,000 to Monty Moncrief (a successful Texas oilman as well as their golfing partner) for a 25% share in a West Texas venture.” Tan continues:

“For this particular venture, both stars earned $5,000,000 each on their initial $40,000 investment. When the depletion allowance was taken into account, $1,375,000 of the $5,000,000 was tax-free. Other Hollywood stars who experienced similar successes in the oil business included Jimmy Stewart, Gene Autry, Don Ameche and Frank Sinatra, who fittingly titled his first oil well ‘Crooner No. 1.’ ”

And if your well turned up dry? That wasn’t so terrible; you could deduct the loss from your taxes. As one oil expert put it at the time, “If you are in the 90% tax bracket, you are risking only 10 cents on the dollar spent on unsuccessful ventures.” In effect, Hollywood was providing the capital that oilmen needed to drill wells. “When you see a group of movie people talking on a set, you don’t know whether they’re discussing an oil well or a movie,” one oilman said in 1949.

The collapsible corporation was the other tax loophole Hollywood stars relied on. Whenever they made a movie, they would set up a corporation and have the movie producer pay their compensation to the corporation, out of which they would take a small salary and pay all their expenses. Why? Because the corporate tax rate was around 50% rather than 90%. After the star’s fee had been paid out, the corporation would go out of business.

Once again, Crosby was a trailblazer, setting up his first collapsible corporation in 1937. Soon enough, every star in Hollywood was following suit. Sinatra gave his corporations British-sounding names, like Essex, Bristol, Kent and Canterbury. Some stars would sell stock in their corporation to the movie company, so they could take their fee in the form of capital gains, which had a maximum tax rate of only 25%. At one point, the IRS sued Groucho Marx and his producing partner, arguing that the $1 million they received from NBC, which aired their show, “You Bet Your Life,” should be categorized as income, not capital gains. Luckily for Groucho, the courts disagreed.

In the mid-1950s, Congress did pass a law aimed at putting a stop to the use of collapsible corporations. But the law itself had a loophole: If 25% of the corporation’s income came from a different industry, then it was legit. You can guess what the stars did. They merged their oil business and their movie business into one corporation.

It is true that the U.S. economy did extremely well during the two decades when the marginal tax rate was 90% or above. But it’s not right to say the high tax rates didn’t have an effect on economic behavior. They certainly did. When I asked Gary Giddins, Bing Crosby’s great biographer, whether the high marginal tax rate affected Crosby, he wrote back in an email:

“In about 1942, Crosby received a mandate to live on a mere $25,000.” That’s half a million in today’s money. “He was earning close to a million, yet always had to hustle to pay his taxes. This fact encouraged him to perform hundreds of troop shows, here and abroad, and to turn down all paid concert appearances, as the money would only go to the government anyway. His accountant told him he was relieved that he decided not to divorce his wife, because it would have put him in a financial bind.”

I’m not saying we couldn’t do with more taxes on the rich. But let’s be careful. When Bing Crosby won’t give a concert, it’s safe to say the marginal tax rate is too high.

.....

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Good question. Why not cut corporate taxes to zero?
Let me ask you this, who actually pays corporate taxes.
I'll give you a hint, corporations get their monies for sales and service.
So tell us again who actually pays for corporate taxes?
Take your time. We can wait for you to figure it out.

I warned you that your grade school maths and playground logic are insufficient:

Good question. Why not cut personal taxes to zero?
Let me ask you this, who actually pays personal taxes.
I'll give you a hint, people get their monies from corporate payrolls.
So tell us again who actually pays for personal taxes?
Take your time. We can wait for you to figure it out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

My thoughts on this hardened in 2004. I discovered that in Greenwich, CT, there were Section 8 houses with over $2000/month coverage of rent. Why? Well, so that workers could be close to their wealthy employers! All on the Taxpayer's tab!

So your points are valid. But the real problem is The Game. The moment you have welfare, you also have an attempt to game the system. Arguably, the big guys are better at the game than the little guy--the structure of the welfare always has to suit their needs first -- they give to the political warchests...

....am I saying that the government is corrupt? Well, how did Biden become a Millionaire, anyway? ... book deals ... https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31265187/joe-biden-net-worth/

On argument from my young man.
I always thought that about Nixon, his other baggage aside, when it was reported he had Swiss bank accounts. The question was why? How did aperson "committed" to publicservice getso damn rich?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Hold on there cowboy. How does the money go under the mattress.
The playing card may go in a safe deposit, but the money does not.

Again, the problem with the unskilled and semi-skilled earning low wages is a function of one thing and one thing alone. Too many unskilled and semi-skilled workers.
You can address that in a number of ways. Improved skill sets or smaller pool of unskilled wage earners.

And if the markets are flooded with peas or soy, of course they are gonna command less monies.
If you need highly skilled workers to mine uranium, of course you will have to pay for such workers.
I sit here amazed. I really do.

The effect of money is not just the amount.  It is the velocity.  Grab a textbook. Money effect = Amount  x Velocity.  Given from first principles.  The playing card just sits in a safe deposit box shaped mattress.

You have unfortunately joined the concepts of value and pay.  Skills are an interesting concept when you have the ability of a PhD to cut grass for a living.  Or a foreign trained engineer to drive a cab.  You could probably be taught to hang drywall fairly quickly, which is a high paying job.  At least around here.

Peas and soy are such different markets.  Peas are consumed for eating in a North American context.  It is not regulated.  It works in as pure a free market as you can find here.  Pretty linear for supply and demand.  Soy is for export and making things like plastics.  It is by no means a free market.  It has a lot of political input and is produced to a great degree by agri-business. Its supply/demand curve is very strange.  At some point it almost gets to the point of being a Geffen good, that unicorn that people look for where the price increases as the production increases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

SNIP

The effect of money is not just the amount.  It is the velocity.  Grab a textbook. Money effect = Amount  x Velocity.  Given from first principles.

SNIP

...that unicorn that people look for where the price increases as the production increases.

Which is how the Federal Reserve plays with the money supply and deceives itself into believing it can "engineer" prosperity through monetary policy--right up until it can't (2008...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Which is how the Federal Reserve plays with the money supply and deceives itself into believing it can "engineer" prosperity through monetary policy--right up until it can't (2008...)

Money velocity is very hard to "engineer" vs the amount.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Borracho said:

I warned you that your grade school maths and playground logic are insufficient:

Good question. Why not cut personal taxes to zero?
Let me ask you this, who actually pays personal taxes.
I'll give you a hint, people get their monies from corporate payrolls.
So tell us again who actually pays for personal taxes?
Take your time. We can wait for you to figure it out.

Ummmm, are you insane? But of course with MMT, you have a point, why should anyone need to pay taxes when fiat will do the trick!
I think it would be great if we could greatly reduce government because governments are mostly useless.
That said, corporate taxes are consumer taxes. They exist only so those in government can play a class warfare game. "Those corporations MUST PAY." But it isn't the corporations that pay. It is the consumer. So what is corporate tax? It is nothing more than politicians playing the less thoughtful (to put it nicely), into believing that "those mean corporations" are fookin you. The reality, it is politicians who have their hand in you pocket by proxy.
If you are not capable of understanding that, I feel awfully sorry for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My baseball cards and gold coins are dead economy to some. They are future investments tied up in a physical asset. 
 Interesting that the value of the coins as bullion have become greater than the initial purchase price and the collector’s value. The cards are worth way more than the price paid and some are gaining in value at exponential rates. 

Economy is what you choose to value as important in your life. I watched a YouTube video last night of an Irish PHD who decided to spend no money and live off the land for a year. The first 6 weeks were hard but now he’s several years into the study and finds that anything other than food and shelter are worthless to him. Anything that we are talking about has been eliminated in his life and he is doing just fine.

Tax the rich and they won’t quit the grid, they will change how they can be abused by it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Laker said:

The effect of money is not just the amount.  It is the velocity.  Grab a textbook. Money effect = Amount  x Velocity.  Given from first principles.  The playing card just sits in a safe deposit box shaped mattress.

You have unfortunately joined the concepts of value and pay.  Skills are an interesting concept when you have the ability of a PhD to cut grass for a living.  Or a foreign trained engineer to drive a cab.  You could probably be taught to hang drywall fairly quickly, which is a high paying job.  At least around here.

Peas and soy are such different markets.  Peas are consumed for eating in a North American context.  It is not regulated.  It works in as pure a free market as you can find here.  Pretty linear for supply and demand.  Soy is for export and making things like plastics.  It is by no means a free market.  It has a lot of political input and is produced to a great degree by agri-business. Its supply/demand curve is very strange.  At some point it almost gets to the point of being a Geffen good, that unicorn that people look for where the price increases as the production increases.

This is why I didn’t go to college. That and it was hard to find a parking space. 
You seem really smart and clearly are an educated person. But you’re not so good at explaining things simply. 
Can you explain, if I buy a million dollars baseball card, that is, I give Zonker, a million dollars and he does whatever he wants with it say, expands his Naval Architecture practice and hires two new staff, and I keep my card for 10 years and sell it for $2.5 million dollars, pay my tax on it how that’s a bad thing for you?  
 

Especially, if I buy a boat with my post tax dollars and pay PST and GST. Why would you want to discourage that by imposing a luxury tax of 20%?

Real question. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

The only reason this thread even exists is because of the utter insanity of the apparent truth of the matter, as phrased by Shoeless: "So I guess, they want to top expensive boat sales."

It is a preposterous yet apparently true situation in Canada right now. Utterly without any merit. Shocking and upsetting to sailors that our sport be treated as if it were a disease requiring vice taxes.

 

4 minutes ago, no shoes said:

This is why I didn’t go to college. That and it was hard to find a parking space. 
You seem really smart and clearly are an educated person. But you’re not so good at explaining things simply. 
Can you explain, if I buy a million dollars baseball card, that is, I give Zonker, a million dollars and he does whatever he wants with it say, expands his Naval Architecture practice and hires two new staff, and I keep my card for 10 years and sell it for $2.5 million dollars, pay my tax on it how that’s a bad thing for you?  
 

Especially, if I buy a boat with my post tax dollars and pay PST and GST. Why would you want to discourage that by imposing a luxury tax of 20%?

Real question. 

There was a time when striving to become comfortable or even rich was a laudable goal, applauded accomplishment.
Class warfare has changed that. Class envy dictates that the well off are not setting a good example but in fact are defined as evil. That those less successful are the victims of the successful.
It follows that once you get the populous to believe this, confiscation of wealth comes easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Laker said:

Money velocity is very hard to "engineer" vs the amount.  

Actually no... when money reaches the pockets of people who actually need it, they spend it and velocity is high! When people who don't actually need it get some income, they might spend it in a yacht or something but most of the time they will store it somehow so it will be lost to society!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Actually no... when money reaches the pockets of people who actually need it, they spend it and velocity is high! When people who don't actually need it get some income, they might spend it in a yacht or something but most of the time they will store it somehow so it will be lost to society!

It is interesting that on first glance the French economy should be a basket case, but it is not. The French are such good savers that the amount of controlled (not sitting in mattresses) capital is large.  The French economists are very good at controlling the velocity due to the amount sitting in bank accounts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

My baseball cards and gold coins are dead economy to some. They are future investments tied up in a physical asset. 
 Interesting that the value of the coins as bullion have become greater than the initial purchase price and the collector’s value. The cards are worth way more than the price paid and some are gaining in value at exponential rates. 

Economy is what you choose to value as important in your life. I watched a YouTube video last night of an Irish PHD who decided to spend no money and live off the land for a year. The first 6 weeks were hard but now he’s several years into the study and finds that anything other than food and shelter are worthless to him. Anything that we are talking about has been eliminated in his life and he is doing just fine.

Tax the rich and they won’t quit the grid, they will change how they can be abused by it.

The hygienes are a valid concept. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Good question. Why not cut corporate taxes to zero?
...

To reduce tax leakage.

As long as a corporation I own  pays a lower tax rate than I do I have an incentive to run activities through that corporation rather than through my personal account.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Actually no... when money reaches the pockets of people who actually need it, they spend it and velocity is high! When people who don't actually need it get some income, they might spend it in a yacht or something but most of the time they will store it somehow so it will be lost to society!

And thus the challenge of the Laffer curve - it's not that reganomics had no theory - it's just that the theory did not hold up to reality

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

 

There was a time when striving to become comfortable or even rich was a laudable goal, applauded accomplishment.
Class warfare has changed that. Class envy dictates that the well off are not setting a good example but in fact are defined as evil. That those less successful are the victims of the successful.
It follows that once you get the populous to believe this, confiscation of wealth comes easy.

Is not "class warfare", as you define it, a function of inequity?  You may have seen an increase in "class warfare" from the 60s and 70s where there was a lot less inequity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Ummmm, are you insane? But of course with MMT, you have a point, why should anyone need to pay taxes when fiat will do the trick!
I think it would be great if we could greatly reduce government because governments are mostly useless.
That said, corporate taxes are consumer taxes. They exist only so those in government can play a class warfare game. "Those corporations MUST PAY." But it isn't the corporations that pay. It is the consumer. So what is corporate tax? It is nothing more than politicians playing the less thoughtful (to put it nicely), into believing that "those mean corporations" are fookin you. The reality, it is politicians who have their hand in you pocket by proxy.
If you are not capable of understanding that, I feel awfully sorry for you.

I wouldn't know if I were insane. But I am not taking your word for it. You are correct that I do not understand your logic, your maths, or your social philosophy. You do not appear to be thinking clearly. Your ideas lack depth. Perhaps you need to take a few steps back. Study the bigger picture of society, government, taxation, revenue, politicians, democracy, corporations, people, etc. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Borracho said:

I wouldn't know if I were insane. But I am not taking your word for it. You are correct that I do not understand your logic, your maths, or your social philosophy. You do not appear to be thinking clearly. Your ideas lack depth. Perhaps you need to take a few steps back. Study the bigger picture of society, government, taxation, revenue, politicians, democracy, corporations, people, etc. 

 

Once you conclude that "In government we trust", everything else is then viewed through that lens.

My social philosophy is really quite simple. Rather than treating half of society as losers and thus need government to aid them financially, I favor treating folks as having good potentials and we should work to helping the less fortunate achieve The American Dream.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Laker said:

Is not "class warfare", as you define it, a function of inequity?  You may have seen an increase in "class warfare" from the 60s and 70s where there was a lot less inequity.

Inequity is the leverage of class warfare. Political elite use that to further the culture of victimhood.
Rather then telling folks they have less because someone else is exploiting them, how about we work on seeing that folks have the skills to live better lives?

I know, I know, backwards thinking on my part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, no shoes said:

This is why I didn’t go to college. That and it was hard to find a parking space. 
You seem really smart and clearly are an educated person. But you’re not so good at explaining things simply. 
Can you explain, if I buy a million dollars baseball card, that is, I give Zonker, a million dollars and he does whatever he wants with it say, expands his Naval Architecture practice and hires two new staff, and I keep my card for 10 years and sell it for $2.5 million dollars, pay my tax on it how that’s a bad thing for you?  
 

Especially, if I buy a boat with my post tax dollars and pay PST and GST. Why would you want to discourage that by imposing a luxury tax of 20%?

Real question. 

You give Zonker a million dollars and he does something with it.  Your baseball card then becomes dead capital.  If you were the only one doing it, you would be viewed as Horation Alger and patted on the back.  You are not the only one doing it.  At this point the amount of dead capital exceeds the amount of working capital.  This truly puts us into a tail wagging the dog scenario.  Money that could go into wages, financing the common good, social process now sits in a mattress.  Again, OK if you were the only one.  However, 2008 has shown what happens with this reverse "inflation". What is your reaction if there were not the ability of Zonker's efforts to maintain you and the value of the card dropped to say 10K?  Zonker and his ilk must be supported and they are not.

Now look to a Canadian example?  How many yards do they have that produce yachts above $250,000 value? Not many.  Can that segment afford to change production to yachts produced at $249,00.  Yes, I believed they were asked.  So as part of creating a culture based on capping consumption with an out of control housing market, it may be valid.  Either way, it doesn't have a great effect on the Canadian industry.  The billionaire buys from Amiels or Feadship, neither of which operate in Canada.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Inequity is the leverage of class warfare. Political elite use that to further the culture of victimhood.
Rather then telling folks they have less because someone else is exploiting them, how about we work on seeing that folks have the skills to live better lives?

I know, I know, backwards thinking on my part.

Skills for better lives?  You are going to teach coding to everyone?  Inequity is not value based, it is based on price, which is a political process.  Downtown hotels do not pay enough money for their staff to live anywhere close to them.  They exploit the common good by relying on public transportation to deliver their staff who cannot afford to use their car, or even have a car, to come to work.  We subsidize downtown hotels.  I realize they pay taxes, but not at the rate where they can have their own transportation system.  What skills can we give to the workers at the downtown hotels that will change the life of a chambermaid?  One may learn coding only to be replaced by another chambermaid.  Cultures of victimhood are not confined to the poor.  Look at Matt Gaetz.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Really? Federal Funds Rate...

Americans are not good enough savers for the Fed to control velocity.  It is much easier to control amount.  Yes the Federal Funds Rate is a factor, but if it were the only one, why was quantitive easing required?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Laker said:

Americans are not good enough savers for the Fed to control velocity.  It is much easier to control amount.  Yes the Federal Funds Rate is a factor, but if it were the only one, why was quantitive easing required?

Quantitative easing was all about pushing asset values back up, and weakening the instantaneously over-strong dollar. On that fateful day in the fall of 2008, I was watching Forex and other stuff in real time. The dollar gained on the Euro almost 2:1  over previous as I remember it!

The crash in asset values hit the creditors. "no, we can't have that!" Once people start walking away from mortgages it becomes a creditor defaulting problem--in other words the "stakeholders" (the Owners of Things). The 'stabilisation' of the economy is a code word for this. Once the debtors are no longer paid enough in count of dollars, to pay their loans off, the whole system collapses. PRINT PRINT PRINT! the Fed does--but doesn't say that--at least not in easy to understand terms for the ordinary guys. Those ordinaries got crushed when that day happened, and then--they pulled it out (what was left) and put it in CASH! As the printing presses were running! They god crushed--TWICE!  Because they didn't know about money-printing and asset valuation and international trade and all that stuff that ultimately directly affects what their investments are worth...

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Laker said:

Is not "class warfare", as you define it, a function of inequity?  You may have seen an increase in "class warfare" from the 60s and 70s where there was a lot less inequity.

What's wrong with class warfare anyway?  Isn't that how economic inequality is addressed in the absence of government policy to reduce it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

It is interesting that on first glance the French economy should be a basket case, but it is not. The French are such good savers that the amount of controlled (not sitting in mattresses) capital is large.  The French economists are very good at controlling the velocity due to the amount sitting in bank accounts.

It is a cultural thing, we were a Catholic country and we see debt with suspicion.

With high taxes, lot of interventions have been tried and when the state gives money to lower classes, the money gets multiplied thanks to velocity. This is less true now as it tends to evaporate too quickly toward China.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Quantitative easing was all about pushing asset values back up, and weakening the instantaneously over-strong dollar. On that fateful day in the fall of 2008, I was watching Forex and other stuff in real time. The dollar gained on the Euro almost 2:1  over previous as I remember it!

The crash in asset values hit the creditors. "no, we can't have that!" Once people start walking away from mortgages it becomes a creditor defaulting problem--in other words the "stakeholders" (the Owners of Things). The 'stabilisation' of the economy is a code word for this. Once the debtors are no longer paid enough in count of dollars, to pay their loans off, the whole system collapses. PRINT PRINT PRINT! the Fed does--but doesn't say that--at least not in easy to understand terms for the ordinary guys. Those ordinaries got crushed when that day happened, and then--they pulled it out (what was left) and put it in CASH! As the printing presses were running! They god crushed--TWICE!  Because they didn't know about money-printing and asset valuation and international trade and all that stuff that ultimately directly affects what their investments are worth...

Some of us are waiting nervously for the great unwind...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Whatever happened to the word, "inequality" anyway?

Equality would place the position and remuneration of a doctor next to that of a warehouse worker.  The warehouse worker expects to make less than the doctor.  He/she accepts that inequality.  That is why the term inequity is used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Some of us are waiting nervously for the great unwind...

 

I have only watched up to the "our federal bank is in a deeply troubled condition" but I will say that this whole run up of the stock market--again! Is all the same thing all over again!  Yes, the "unwind" is a real problem.

Problem is, nobody actually knows what it wil look like (but if you guess correctly, you too can become a billionaire in only a few days, some time in the next few years)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

Equality would place the position and remuneration of a doctor next to that of a warehouse worker.  The warehouse worker expects to make less than the doctor.  He/she accepts that inequality.  That is why the term inequity is used.

"Lack of justice" then?

Really?

I thought we were talking econ--not justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fastyacht said:

"Lack of justice" then?

Really?

I thought we were talking econ--not justice.

To which I bring the "parable of the mexican fisherman"  where the fisherman has a good life and the MBA says why not work hard, catch more fish and create a corporation so you can afford the good life you would return to?  This is economics. Nothing to do with justice.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

To which I bring the "parable of the mexican fisherman"  where the fisherman has a good life and the MBA says why not work hard, catch more fish and create a corporation so you can afford the good life you would return to?  This is economics. Nothing to do with justice.  

So then you are using the wrong word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

So then you are using the wrong word.

The Mexican fisherman does not have economic equality with the MBA but does have equity in that he chooses to live the life that fulfils him.  Social injustice is when he is treated differently from the MBA in terms of rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Laker said:

You give Zonker a million dollars and he does something with it.  Your baseball card then becomes dead capital.  If you were the only one doing it, you would be viewed as Horation Alger and patted on the back.  You are not the only one doing it.  At this point the amount of dead capital exceeds the amount of working capital.  This truly puts us into a tail wagging the dog scenario.  Money that could go into wages, financing the common good, social process now sits in a mattress.  Again, OK if you were the only one.  However, 2008 has shown what happens with this reverse "inflation". What is your reaction if there were not the ability of Zonker's efforts to maintain you and the value of the card dropped to say 10K?  Zonker and his ilk must be supported and they are not.

Now look to a Canadian example?  How many yards do they have that produce yachts above $250,000 value? Not many.  Can that segment afford to change production to yachts produced at $249,00.  Yes, I believed they were asked.  So as part of creating a culture based on capping consumption with an out of control housing market, it may be valid.  Either way, it doesn't have a great effect on the Canadian industry.  The billionaire buys from Amiels or Feadship, neither of which operate in Canada.

 

Great job simplifying Professor. Making the subject matter complicated so you can sound smart  

I might need to stay after class.


How exactly, is my paid for baseball card hurting the economy? It’s money is out there, Zonker has created jobs with it. Those people are paying taxes. He’s buying new software or pencils or whatever. 
I paid my tax on the money to buy it, and tax on the gain. the Government wins at every turn. If you discourage this I might keep my money in a CD or whatever, take no risk and just try to keep up with inflation and you get no taxes. 
 

Also, I don’t understand your Canadian example. Are you saying the new Fleming 65 that Is for sale in Coal Harbor would not be subject to this luxury tax because a Canadian yard did not build it? It would not apply to an over $250,000 Boston Whaler because it’s built of Florida? 
 

Also, I’m assuming I’m talking to boat owners who pay PST/GST and property tax each year. Is that a wrong assumption? 
 

I assume El Borracho, has found a way to not be in the US with his boat on tax day. Smart? Or tax dodger?  You decide. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Laker said:

Equality would place the position and remuneration of a doctor next to that of a warehouse worker.  The warehouse worker expects to make less than the doctor.  He/she accepts that inequality.  That is why the term inequity is used.

If you leave education out of the equation, there is inequality. The doctor went to school with the warehouse worker and should have an equal opportunity to make it as a success. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, no shoes said:

I assume El Borracho, has found a way to not be in the US with his boat on tax day. Smart? Or tax dodger?  You decide. 

You assume wrong. Why the personal attack? Borracho pays California property tax on the yacht. I pay other taxes to the US, several US states, and the Philippines. No special shelters. Without complaint, too. 

Politically, I don’t believe taxes should be used for social engineering. Or especially focused on one group vs. being more general. Thus the luxury tax seems wrong and unfair. (Owning a private home seems a luxury.) Relative smaller taxes applied indiscriminately, i.e. without crafty exemptions, seem better to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Borracho said:

You assume wrong. Why the personal attack? Borracho pays California property tax on the yacht. I pay other taxes to the US, several US states, and the Philippines. No special shelters. Without complaint, too. 

Politically, I don’t believe taxes should be used for social engineering. Or especially focused on one group vs. being more general. Thus the luxury tax seems wrong and unfair. (Owning a private home seems a luxury.) Relative smaller taxes applied indiscriminately, i.e. without crafty exemptions, seem better to me.

Sorry, not meant to be a personal attack. I just know your boat is a traveling yacht and it’s a loophole that lots of traveling boats do. My apologies. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

Skills for better lives?  You are going to teach coding to everyone?  Inequity is not value based, it is based on price, which is a political process.  Downtown hotels do not pay enough money for their staff to live anywhere close to them.  They exploit the common good by relying on public transportation to deliver their staff who cannot afford to use their car, or even have a car, to come to work.  We subsidize downtown hotels.  I realize they pay taxes, but not at the rate where they can have their own transportation system.  What skills can we give to the workers at the downtown hotels that will change the life of a chambermaid?  One may learn coding only to be replaced by another chambermaid.  Cultures of victimhood are not confined to the poor.  Look at Matt Gaetz.

Not sure what you mean by citing Matt Gaetz....

So for starters I would suggest that the only reason those hotel workers work in the hotels is because their skillset only allows for that. I would also suggest that they travel to where the hotels are because..... well that is where they can find employment.
To suggest that public transportation exists to service those hotels by supplying workers, rather than provide a means of travel to those unskilled or semi-skilled to earn a living. Albeit a meager living. Is obscenely ass backwards.

But what really strikes me about your comment is this. You snarkly throw out coding (a tip of the hat to Braindead Biden) as something unattainable by 'mere' hotel workers.  Why such disdain and contempt for working class people? Are they not good enough to learn better skills? Or is it that we subsidize their lack of skills rather than incentivize their ability to obtain skills that would allow them to earn a better living? (My vote goes to making success accessible and obtainable)
Every time a person or group of people are painted or framed as a victim, we destroy them a little bit more each time. This has been going on in America for decades now and we are starting to reap the rewards of the constant message of, "It's not your fault. You are a victim of corporations and the rich. Vote for me and I will make them pay". 
So while some have rode that into office and a successful political career, the carnage is half a nation that believes it is true. That they are truly inferior and thus only government can fix their abysmal lives.

I personally find that so very sad...... and we have a whole political system now based on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

You give Zonker a million dollars and he does something with it.  Your baseball card then becomes dead capital.  If you were the only one doing it, you would be viewed as Horation Alger and patted on the back.  You are not the only one doing it.  At this point the amount of dead capital exceeds the amount of working capital.  This truly puts us into a tail wagging the dog scenario.  Money that could go into wages, financing the common good, social process now sits in a mattress.  Again, OK if you were the only one.  However, 2008 has shown what happens with this reverse "inflation". What is your reaction if there were not the ability of Zonker's efforts to maintain you and the value of the card dropped to say 10K?  Zonker and his ilk must be supported and they are not.

Now look to a Canadian example?  How many yards do they have that produce yachts above $250,000 value? Not many.  Can that segment afford to change production to yachts produced at $249,00.  Yes, I believed they were asked.  So as part of creating a culture based on capping consumption with an out of control housing market, it may be valid.  Either way, it doesn't have a great effect on the Canadian industry.  The billionaire buys from Amiels or Feadship, neither of which operate in Canada.

 

And this right here is the fallacy of the socialist/communist mindset.  The communist: "the NERVE of private citizens or companies having private property- it must be stopped!  Especially when we in government can take it and do with what WE want, to serve ourselves in government!"

Don't think for one minute that those in government are acting in the public good- they are people just as much as anyone in the private sector, and act for themselves first.

Kelo v. New London, 2005.  Fuggers in govt. took someone's house to build a friggin shopping center.  The land confiscated is still empty.  But you can bet your grandma's a** that those principals in govt who pushed this confiscation got their payoff.

The nerve that some poor woman would actually wanna live in her house and prevent others in govt from taking the value and using how THEY wanted to.. the NERVE.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bgytr said:

Don't think for one minute that those in government are acting in the public good- they are people just as much as anyone in the private sector, and act for themselves first.

Certainly, that is true of governments of the Reich. 

And the good ol' libertard solution is to abolish gummint altogether. 

Good luck with your privatized water/sewer, fire, police, libraries, streets & sidewalks, and more. 

The Right, not believing the slightest in the "public good", thinks that everyone else is like them. 

We are not.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Certainly, that is true of governments of the Reich. 

And the good ol' libertard solution is to abolish gummint altogether. 

Good luck with your privatized water/sewer, fire, police, libraries, streets & sidewalks, and more. 

The Right, not believing the slightest in the "public good", thinks that everyone else is like them. 

We are not.  

What a load of crap.
Why is it the left always rolls out that old saw that any cuts to government or revenue stream will result in essential services?
How about we cut out the f'in' waste and pork and BS and get back to government for the people?
And it isn't the right that is the problem. It is big government that is the problem. All about control the purse strings and you control the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Not sure what you mean by citing Matt Gaetz....

So for starters I would suggest that the only reason those hotel workers work in the hotels is because their skillset only allows for that. I would also suggest that they travel to where the hotels are because..... well that is where they can find employment.
To suggest that public transportation exists to service those hotels by supplying workers, rather than provide a means of travel to those unskilled or semi-skilled to earn a living. Albeit a meager living. Is obscenely ass backwards.

But what really strikes me about your comment is this. You snarkly throw out coding (a tip of the hat to Braindead Biden) as something unattainable by 'mere' hotel workers.  Why such disdain and contempt for working class people? Are they not good enough to learn better skills? Or is it that we subsidize their lack of skills rather than incentivize their ability to obtain skills that would allow them to earn a better living? (My vote goes to making success accessible and obtainable)
Every time a person or group of people are painted or framed as a victim, we destroy them a little bit more each time. This has been going on in America for decades now and we are starting to reap the rewards of the constant message of, "It's not your fault. You are a victim of corporations and the rich. Vote for me and I will make them pay". 
So while some have rode that into office and a successful political career, the carnage is half a nation that believes it is true. That they are truly inferior and thus only government can fix their abysmal lives.

I personally find that so very sad...... and we have a whole political system now based on that.

Have you not listened to Matt "Poor Me" Gaetz playing the victim?  The mindset transcends the spectrum.

So here I am a newly graduated Batchelor of Hotel Management.  I am not paid enough to live downtown in the hotel that I help manage nor can I afford to park my car.  I am my father's pride and joy at doing well in high school.  I can get further skills if it would do me some good.  Am I a "mere" hotel worker?  Public transportation does not exist only for me, for others also.  Still I am paid more here at the Hilton than the local motel.  Still, public transportation subsidizes my employment.

In some ways I apologize for the "teaching everyone to code" comment.  It has been used in so many contexts in the stuff I read.  It is not that they cannot learn to code, it is that society has no need for everyone to code.   They are in no ways victims.  Structure has determined a culture that places value on price.  AJ had an excellent video that he posted upon this very topic.  The value of a minister of religion is low because they are not paid much, at least in my world.  It still takes a Master of Divinity degree.  I am sure that the minister is not viewed as a victim.  This is where the concept of equity and Mexican Fisherman enters the equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

What a load of crap.
Why is it the left always rolls out that old saw that any cuts to government or revenue stream will result in essential services?
How about we cut out the f'in' waste and pork and BS and get back to government for the people?
And it isn't the right that is the problem. It is big government that is the problem. All about control the purse strings and you control the people.

So much for a right to peace, justice and good governance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Certainly, that is true of governments of the Reich. 

And the good ol' libertard solution is to abolish gummint altogether. 

Good luck with your privatized water/sewer, fire, police, libraries, streets & sidewalks, and more. 

The Right, not believing the slightest in the "public good", thinks that everyone else is like them. 

We are not.  

 

9 minutes ago, Monkey said:

This could actually be a fascinating topic. Any chance BJ wants to weigh in on how he dodged the taxes on his boat?  

Do note that Stevens, Kennedy, RPG, Souter and Bryer voted to give New London eminent domain for the purposes of private development by Pfizer (which never happened due to business cycle. The land is vacant to this day. )

Who stood up for the small guy in this case? Yep. O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

Life is complicated, ain't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, no shoes said:

Great job simplifying Professor. Making the subject matter complicated so you can sound smart  

I might need to stay after class.


How exactly, is my paid for baseball card hurting the economy? It’s money is out there, Zonker has created jobs with it. Those people are paying taxes. He’s buying new software or pencils or whatever. 
I paid my tax on the money to buy it, and tax on the gain. the Government wins at every turn. If you discourage this I might keep my money in a CD or whatever, take no risk and just try to keep up with inflation and you get no taxes. 
 

Also, I don’t understand your Canadian example. Are you saying the new Fleming 65 that Is for sale in Coal Harbor would not be subject to this luxury tax because a Canadian yard did not build it? It would not apply to an over $250,000 Boston Whaler because it’s built of Florida? 
 

Also, I’m assuming I’m talking to boat owners who pay PST/GST and property tax each year. Is that a wrong assumption? 
 

I assume El Borracho, has found a way to not be in the US with his boat on tax day. Smart? Or tax dodger?  You decide. 

The Fleming 65 at Coal Harbour would just not get bought.

As I stated your baseball card would not be hurting the economy if it were the only one.  People would admire you for being rich.  The issue is when the amount of dead, unused capital exceeds the amount of working capital by the amount that it does.  If you put your money into a CD, the money is used to finance that automatic watering system that increases the yield on the hop farm that creates the IPA that you love to drink.  If it sits in the baseball card, it has no value of its own.  It relies on the value created by the hop farm to give it substance.  Capital gains tax takes care of the increase in value when you sell the card, but it still has zero velocity when you owned it.

The problem is not you.  It is millions like you.  The value of the plate I buy from Walmart is the same as the Louis XIV porcelain.  They are both used to serve my food, but their price is totally different.  When this misalignment of value and price goes across a whole economy, there is damage.  The classic example were tulips in Holland in the 1630s.  Tulipmania.  The nation became obsessed with tulips and they became way overpriced.  It took a few wars to work it out after the fall.  Collector cars are a good example these days but I am sure you can think of others.  It is just that the example shown by Tulipmania was so blatant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

The Fleming 65 at Coal Harbour would just not get bought.

As I stated your baseball card would not be hurting the economy if it were the only one.  People would admire you for being rich.  The issue is when the amount of dead, unused capital exceeds the amount of working capital by the amount that it does.  If you put your money into a CD, the money is used to finance that automatic watering system that increases the yield on the hop farm that creates the IPA that you love to drink.  If it sits in the baseball card, it has no value of its own.  It relies on the value created by the hop farm to give it substance.  Capital gains tax takes care of the increase in value when you sell the card, but it still has zero velocity when you owned it.

The problem is not you.  It is millions like you.  The value of the plate I buy from Walmart is the same as the Louis XIV porcelain.  They are both used to serve my food, but their price is totally different.  When this misalignment of value and price goes across a whole economy, there is damage.  The classic example were tulips in Holland in the 1630s.  Tulipmania.  The nation became obsessed with tulips and they became way overpriced.  It took a few wars to work it out after the fall.  Collector cars are a good example these days but I am sure you can think of others.  It is just that the example shown by Tulipmania was so blatant.

Correct.  Everyone should only be allowed to live in a one room highrise hovel lined with padding provided by the govt. Communist utopia.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bgytr said:

Correct.  Everyone should only be allowed to live in a one room highrise hovel lined with padding provided by the govt. Communist utopia.

He should move to Grosz Klein. He'd love it there. At least he'd have government healthcare, German efficiency, and plenty of opportunity to take in the history of communism in Europe.

And he could take the train to work at the Intercity Hotel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tulip debacle is one of my favourite tales that few know. It is a test when there is a bubble. "I smell tulips."  If you get a quizzical expression from the realtor, you know he is a dolt; if she smiles knowingly, well, interesting--a realtor with a sense of history.

However, the "velocity of money" argument is, while narratively convincing ("he kept that card for 50 years!) it is nonetheless flawed. For one thing, the higher the value goes into something like that, the more rapidly the turnover. So the money *does* move. Secondly, and most importantly, who gets to make the rules? Ah, of course. Our elected government: "These things should be devalued; these other things should be encouraged." So in other words, luxury taxes...

Ugh. What a dystopian approach to life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bgytr said:

Correct.  Everyone should only be allowed to live in a one room highrise hovel lined with padding provided by the govt. Communist utopia.

We come back to the hygienes and the Mexican Fisherman.  Everyone does, however, have the right to food and shelter in the present society where providing these is not a burden.  Economics is the management of scarcity.  There is a scarcity of Ferraris.  There is not a scarcity of food.  The only reason there is, is that we chose it to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Laker said:

This is where the concept of equity ......

All the other "Yahoo News" subjects aside, how about we work on the essence of the above statement.

Kindly define for us, hopefully in your own words, what you consider to be equity as in the case of this usage?
Would you be so good to indulge us please.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

Have you not listened to Matt "Poor Me" Gaetz playing the victim?  The mindset transcends the spectrum.

So here I am a newly graduated Batchelor of Hotel Management.  I am not paid enough to live downtown in the hotel that I help manage nor can I afford to park my car.  I am my father's pride and joy at doing well in high school.  I can get further skills if it would do me some good.  Am I a "mere" hotel worker?  Public transportation does not exist only for me, for others also.  Still I am paid more here at the Hilton than the local motel.  Still, public transportation subsidizes my employment.

In some ways I apologize for the "teaching everyone to code" comment.  It has been used in so many contexts in the stuff I read.  It is not that they cannot learn to code, it is that society has no need for everyone to code.   They are in no ways victims.  Structure has determined a culture that places value on price.  AJ had an excellent video that he posted upon this very topic.  The value of a minister of religion is low because they are not paid much, at least in my world.  It still takes a Master of Divinity degree.  I am sure that the minister is not viewed as a victim.  This is where the concept of equity and Mexican Fisherman enters the equation.

AJs video reference is moronic.  Not one shred of evidence or data was presented. Just some guy yakking about his opinions on economics- kinda like this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Laker said:

The Fleming 65 at Coal Harbour would just not get bought.

Please explain why this a good thing?

When an American spells it harbour it’s douchy. I give up on the baseball card. 
 
Tulips in Holland? Ahhh okay. I’m so glad I didn’t waste time listing to Academics and went sailing instead. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites