Jump to content

New luxury yacht tax in Canada


Recommended Posts

  • 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

2 hours ago, Panoramix said:

It is a classical example as this was the first modern asset bubble on a big scale.

Followed by other classics like the south sea bubble.

What makes tulip mania so fascinating is the relative sophistication of the financial markets in the netherlands at the time margined options contracts, market makers, and prohibition on short sales.  Some suggest regulatory ineptitude contributed to the implosion. In any case much of the outlines of many future disruptions were laid in Holland in the 1600s

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

You think Ish is your dad?

Oops! I didn’t mean it like that, though, I do respect him like one. 

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

Iagreed with you jaha

Sorry, missed that.

It's a bit of an annoyance for me, these people, because every so often they pop up on a metalworking forum I play on and talk about how they're going to build a lathe from scratch as part of their back to the land movement. Usually in the wilderness a long way from any decent resources.

Then someone asks how they plan to smelt the iron to do the castings and it rapidly goes downhill from there.

Their ignorance of the history of the industrial revolution is simply astonishing.

WRT the tax, as I said, they need to decide what they're trying to achieve. Tax revenue or depressing expensive boat sales. Because they're not going to raise the money that they think. It'd be interesting to see the modeling that they used to get their income estimates.

Whether or not prospective purchasers *can* afford to pay is completely irrelevant (assuming that they could find the extra $$$). It's whether they *choose* to pay that matters.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

WRT the tax, as I said, they need to decide what they're trying to achieve. Tax revenue or depressing expensive boat sales. Because they're not going to raise the money that they think. It'd be interesting to see the modeling that they used to get their income estimates.

I cynically note that the taxes on cigarettes are going up, and they will also  tax vape juice. 

Provincial tax, too https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/sask-adds-20-per-cent-retail-tax-for-vape-products-1.5376555

My local vape shop told me the juice manufacturers will have to take out a license of (IIRC, CDN $50,000)

$2,135,000,000 in revenue over five years says CTV

The yachties have more alternates for their pleasures than the working stiffs addicted to nicotine. 

So, a token tax on the 'rich', that will generate minimal revenue, but genuine revenue from the workers (who have far fewer 'choices').

Bleah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think this entire initiative is a trial balloon to get people worked up, so that when they actually introduce whatever it is they intended from the start, people will wipe their brow and say "whew, that's not so bad".  

I'm generally in favour of increasing taxes for the wealthy, but this is just a stupid idea that won't achieve what it is in intended to achieve, and it may lay waste to a few small businesses along the way.  

The national soaring association forum has a good conversation going about how people who want to buy gliders over 100K are planning to avoid the tax.  

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

You give Zonker a million dollars and he does something with it.

Yes. This.  We need to see this experiment in real life.

Time to put your money where your mouth is!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Yes. This.  We need to see this experiment in real life.

Time to put your money where your mouth is!

A million bucks isn't what it used to be.  Can't even buy a fixer-upper anywhere in Vancouver for that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah, favoring any and all taxes on the very wealthy makes you a commie. 

Makes total sense. 

4 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Ok. You showed your ultimate stripes. Communist dictator wannabe. Lolz.

 

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

Yes. This.  We need to see this experiment in real life.

Time to put your money where your mouth is!

Got a tatits jr car? Lmk!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

So yeah, favoring any and all taxes on the very wealthy makes you a commie. 

Makes total sense. 

 

It isnt a tax on the wealthy. He is a commie wannabe because he wants to play class warfare and dictate the terms. Duh.

The only tax on the wealthy is an income based tax. We have already discussed the problem of differential punitive consumpion taxes.

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

It isnt a tax on the wealthy. He is a commie wannabe because he wants to play class warfare and dictate the terms. Duh.

Quote

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6] As such, communism is a specific form of socialism.

Definition of communism taken out of Wikipedia...

I think they could add "slur word, used to poison the well when you run out of arguments on the internet"

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, danstanford said:

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. 

Which is precisely the argument AGAINST corporate taxes.
It government is commanding say 35% corporate tax rate in the US, but Ireland has its corporate ta rate set at 21%, all other things being equal, what must the US corporation do to compete with the Irish corporation?
Cut wages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2021 at 3:44 PM, Laker said:

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

Mr. Laker, yesterday I asked if you could give us your definition of "Equity".
I did not see a response.
Would you be so kind to furnish that?

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

Which is precisely the argument AGAINST corporate taxes.
It government is commanding say 35% corporate tax rate in the US, but Ireland has its corporate ta rate set at 21%, all other things being equal, what must the US corporation do to compete with the Irish corporation?
Cut wages.

No, wrong. Pay workers enough so that no profit. Sheesh. Tax is on profit not revenue!

Oh. Yeah. I forgot. The corporation is a zombie venture capitsl overleversgef pos. Not an actual solid company

Neverminf. Csrry on the n.

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

Definition of communism taken out of Wikipedia...

I think they could add "slur word, used to poison the well when you run out of arguments on the internet"

What is the "dictatorship of the proletariat?" Classless my ass.

Why the FUCK are you quoting shamopedia?

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

No, wrong. Pay workers enough so that no profit. Sheesh. Tax is on profit not revenue!

Oh. Yeah. I forgot. The corporation is a zombie venture capitsl overleversgef pos. Not an actual solid company

Neverminf. Csrry on the n.

Fast, 

I completely understand your position and the way people tend to blame capitalism for many societal ills. If you will, please consider these three points: 

Corporations exist only to make profit. This profit might flow to sole owners, it might flow to shareholders (many of whom are pension funds), it might flow to executives in the form of bonusses. If the corporation existed to only pay wages nobody would invest in it and the corporation would certainly not invest in ways to make itself better. A great example is GE. At some point GE quit focusing on the manufacturing business units refusing to invest in new machines and facilities to the point that they will soon dwindle to nothing. 

Corporations, like governments, move in directions principally governed by you the consumer. If we want fancier trucks, smaller (or bigger) phones, or bigger tv's, that is exactly what they build. Focus then turns to how to make it fit your model of paying for it and the other competitors existing in the marketplace. They have learned that when faced with two reasonably similar products, you will buy the cheaper one with little regard for where it was made, how much the workers were paid, or how much the manufacturing scorched the earth. Sure there are exceptions like Rolex who raised their prices over the market but there are not many. 

I make decisions often during the year on salaries and benefits for my workers which strongly mirror those taken by boards deciding how much it will take to retain that CEO all the way through to how much to reward that shiny new hire that I want to inspire. In the same way that you balance decisions on mortgages or car loans I (and they) need to avoid situations that threaten the future health of the business. Please accept that if I could pay my people more and thereby attract the top talent and make their life more comfortable, I do. Boards don't pay top CEO's ridiculous salaries and bonusses because it is fun or helps their prestige, they pay them what they must to retain the talent they feel they need to flourish. For the record nobody that works for me gets anywhere near minimum wage and the wages and benefits I pay are near the top tier and therefore virtually all my people are long termers. If I raised their wages to the point that I wasn't making money I would close it down and go work for someone else with a lot less stress.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan I am not going to read all thay roght now, LOL.

I aint agaimst capitalism. But I AM cynical about unicorn chasers. Fuck em.

1 minute ago, danstanford said:

Fast, 

I completely understand your position and the way people tend to blame capitalism for many societal ills. If you will, please consider these three points: 

Corporations exist only to make profit. This profit might flow to sole owners, it might flow to shareholders (many of whom are pension funds), it might flow to executives in the form of bonusses. If the corporation existed to only pay wages nobody would invest in it and the corporation would certainly not invest in ways to make itself better. A great example is GE. At some point GE quit focusing on the manufacturing business units refusing to invest in new machines and facilities to the point that they will soon dwindle to nothing. 

Corporations, like governments, move in directions principally governed by you the consumer. If we want fancier trucks, smaller (or bigger) phones, or bigger tv's, that is exactly what they build. Focus then turns to how to make it fit your model of paying for it and the other competitors existing in the marketplace. They have learned that when faced with two reasonably similar products, you will buy the cheaper one with little regard for where it was made, how much the workers were paid, or how much the manufacturing scorched the earth. Sure there are exceptions like Rolex who raised their prices over the market but there are not many. 

I make decisions often during the year on salaries and benefits for my workers which strongly mirror those taken by boards deciding how much it will take to retain that CEO all the way through to how much to reward that shiny new hire that I want to inspire. In the same way that you balance decisions on mortgages or car loans I (and they) need to avoid situations that threaten the future health of the business. Please accept that if I could pay my people more and thereby attract the top talent and make their life more comfortable, I do. Boards don't pay top CEO's ridiculous salaries and bonusses because it is fun or helps their prestige, they pay them what they must to retain the talent they feel they need to flourish. For the record nobody that works for me gets anywhere near minimum wage and the wages and benefits I pay are near the top tier and therefore virtually all my people are long termers. If I raised their wages to the point that I wasn't making money I would close it down and go work for someone else with a lot less stress.  

 

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

Which is precisely the argument AGAINST corporate taxes.
It government is commanding say 35% corporate tax rate in the US, but Ireland has its corporate ta rate set at 21%, all other things being equal, what must the US corporation do to compete with the Irish corporation?
Cut wages.

No

They must incorporate in Ireland.

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

What is the "dictatorship of the proletariat?" Classless my ass.

Why the FUCK are you quoting shamopedia?

According to Marxist theories, that's an intermediate state between capitalism and communism.

You guys should study the ills of the 20th century to make sure that they don't repeat themselves!

Despite its ills as far I can see Wikipedia is more accurate than the non-sense in this thread on communism. I know that truth is now becoming out of fashion but IMO knowing a little bit of history would be useful to avoid falling in the same traps as our grandparents. Right now, I see a lot of populist shit going on ... buyers beware!

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

According to Marxist theories, that's an intermediate state between capitalism and communism.

You guys should study the ills of the 20th century to make sure that they don't repeat themselves!

Despite its ills as far I can see Wikipedia is more accurate than the non-sense in this thread on communism. I know that truth is now becoming out of fashion but IMO knowing a little bit of history would be useful to avoid falling in the same traps as our grandparents. Right now, I see a lot of populist shit going on ... buyers beware!

Pano, I think you may be experiencing a culture clash here. Much of the time you operate in French which benefits from l’Academi francaise who ensure words mean what they mean, Although you French could benefit from the rigour of Quebec, as I child I was shocked to hear “stop” regularly used in France after we had managed to eliminate that evil Anglo word from our road signs.

Words in English are defined by usage and the role of dictionaries is to try to keep up with usage rather than to constrain or enforce usage. This drift in meaning seems particularly rapid in American political discourse. Communism (with help from luminaries like Senator McCarthy) shifted from a description of a set of beliefs or theories to a simple summation of all that is evil in the world. The same way liberal has come to mean social democrat a significant drift from its earlier meanings.

In dealing with English speakers it is pointless to argue the meaning of a word. If your opponent simply says it often enough the wrong way it becomes the right way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more than that. And thank you for your polite explanation to Mixy.

The "intermediate" condition is nonetheless a dictatorship. The 20th century already showed us what actuallyvhappens...

Defending Marxism is as bad as defending slavery.

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

Communism (with help from luminaries like Senator McCarthy) shifted from a description of a set of beliefs or theories to a simple summation of all that is evil in the world. The same way liberal has come to mean social democrat a significant drift from its earlier meanings.

In dealing with English speakers it is pointless to argue the meaning of a word. If your opponent simply says it often enough the wrong way it becomes the right way.

Communist/ism and Marxist/ism now mean "Things I don't like".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see how punitive policies work, look at aviation in Europe. They very clearly see General Aviation as a nuisance to be stamped out or at least severely curtailed if they can't kill it outright. It isn't ANYTHING to do with raising revenue, it is about making people not want to do something.
Same with the boat tax, if you think millionaires have too much money - tax it. The boat tax won't get their money, they'll do something else or register their boats somewhere else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of equity

 

1a: justice according to natural law or rightspecifically : freedom from bias or favoritism
b: something that is equitable
2a: the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it
b: the common stock of a corporation
c: a risk interest or ownership right in property
d: a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity
3a: a system of law originating in the English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statute law and are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law
b: trial or remedial justice under or by the rules and doctrines of equity
c: a body of legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a narrow rigid system of law
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Communist/ism and Marxist/ism now mean "Things I don't like".

Currently, "Marxism" in the USA seems to be anything that is left of Mussolini.

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

Boards don't pay top CEO's ridiculous salaries and bonusses because it is fun or helps their prestige, they pay them what they must to retain the talent they feel they need to flourish

I have trouble with this narrative.

Because it pre-supposes the talent pool of good CEOs is so small that only enormous salaries will keep them from moving on.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/ceos-see-pay-grow-1000percent-and-now-make-278-times-the-average-worker.html

"In terms of pay, benefits and the value of stock options when they are exercised, total CEO compensation growth was 1,007.5% from 1978 to 2018. That compares with a wage increase of just 11.9% for what the liberal-leaning institute terms “average workers.” Using another measure of compensation, which takes into account the realized value of the options when they were granted, the CEO comp growth still stood at 940.3%"

Has the level of skills of CEOs and productivity they bring to a company risen 1000% since 1978?

I would say No. When CEO compensation is now at about 250X their average worker then the system if fucked up. How many of us would be happy with earning 10 or 20M for our extraordinary skills at running a big company?

image.png.318e4f08ed1dc6749934f8643274e6b2.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You just have to look at the ridiculous amount of money they pay failed CEO's to go away. Then another company hires that "vision and expertise" and they get fucked over too. Nope, not buying it. The only reason CEO's make ludicrous amounts of money is they sit on each others' board of directors and trade favours.

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

Definition of equity

 

1a: justice according to natural law or rightspecifically : freedom from bias or favoritism
b: something that is equitable
2a: the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it
b: the common stock of a corporation
c: a risk interest or ownership right in property
d: a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity
3a: a system of law originating in the English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statute law and are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law
b: trial or remedial justice under or by the rules and doctrines of equity
c: a body of legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a narrow rigid system of law
 

I asked for that in your own words so we could understand what it is you wish to see happen.
What does "equity" look like and how would you see it implemented?

Gotta splice some line, check back in later.

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

I have trouble with this narrative.

Because it pre-supposes the talent pool of good CEOs is so small that only enormous salaries will keep them from moving on.

 

Zonker, I didn't say it worked, I was just referring to why it happens. I sat on a board of a college where we had this exact problem. Virtually none of us thought the candidates were worth what we knew we had to pay them, but if we didn't someone else would. The net result was that we paid the successful candidate more than we wanted to and hated every moment of it believing that paying a poorer candidate less money would be more expensive in the long run. He made somewhere between 3 and 8 times what anyone on the board made in their daily lives. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Currently, "Marxism" in the USA seems to be anything that is left of Mussolini.

I cant upvote so I have to reply that I damaged my keybosrd eith tea and oretzels thanksbto you

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

The only tax on the wealthy is an income based tax. We have already discussed the problem of differential punitive consumpion taxes.

Respectfully, you don't know much. 

A number of countries already have taxes on wealth (assets). Property taxes in the US and elsewhere are also taxes on wealth. 

It makes more sense to tax wealth than income - to encourage the wealthy to put their money to work. 

As you also assiduously avoid the oligarchy problem - into which Piketty and others delve. 

And what taxes are NOT punitive in some sense - stop taxing my smokes !! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

The only reason CEO's make ludicrous amounts of money is they sit on each others' board of directors and trade favours.

Not just Ceo's. In general we are being transformed into "winner take all" societies. 

In major league baseball, 100 players now rake in half the money. 

Same with law, medicine - you name it. 

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

Respectfully, you don't know much. 

A number of countries already have taxes on wealth (assets). Property taxes in the US and elsewhere are also taxes on wealth. 

It makes more sense to tax wealth than income - to encourage the wealthy to put their money to work. 

As you also assiduously avoid the oligarchy problem - into which Piketty and others delve. 

And what taxes are NOT punitive in some sense - stop taxing my smokes !! 

Smokes taxes are "vice" taxes which arguably, suddenly dlapping 10 to 20% onto yacht id, too.

It certsinly aint for revenue.

It certainly aint for wealth. No, it is not a property tax (but for yachts that adds up worse...see CT.

Why is it you refuse to ackowlde the economic damage thus kind of taxation creates?

It is astounding to me. Utterly reckless behavior by political buffoons.

Balance the fucking budget, and tax evenly across property types.

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

Respectfully, you don't know much. 

A number of countries already have taxes on wealth (assets). Property taxes in the US and elsewhere are also taxes on wealth. 

It makes more sense to tax wealth than income - to encourage the wealthy to put their money to work. 

As you also assiduously avoid the oligarchy problem - into which Piketty and others delve. 

And what taxes are NOT punitive in some sense - stop taxing my smokes !! 

Tax all wealth or all property then.

If I buy an airplane, should I be punished compared to someone who buys a Winnebago? Why? Because it is cool to look like you are picking on "rich" people and more voters have Winnebagos? Because you can't fly an airplane and want to make sure I can't either? Because you don't like airplanes and want to get rid of them?

I am actually doing an airplane delivery soon and none of the various regular working people that will get some money out of the 3,000 mile delivery would be getting a cent if there was some bullshit tax on airplanes, there isn't a chance in hell the buyer would have paid it, he would have found something else to do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Tax all wealth or all property then.

Sounds good to me, but please do not ignore the oligarchy problem. 

All those airplane handlers deserve M4A 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Luxury taxes are voluntary taxes, triggered by an easily avoidable event. Most wealthy people got there by being smart, and smart people don't like being played for suckers. That these taxes generally fail  to raise anywhere near the predicted revenue should surprise no one.

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

Sounds good to me, but please do not ignore the oligarchy problem. 

All those airplane handlers deserve M4A 

Yes they do, but throwing them out of work won't help them either. Even Medicare isn't totally free.

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

 

Luxury taxes are voluntary taxes, triggered by an easily avoidable event. Most wealthy people got there by being smart, and smart people don't like being played for suckers. That these taxes generally fail  to raise anywhere near the predicted revenue should surprise no one.

Some of them are utter morons, but they have smart people on staff to do their thinking for them :rolleyes:

I once almost got sued because a yacht owner thought the generator switch WAS the generator and I was pulling a scam to charge $12,000 for it. I had to get his captain to come to the yard and explain the various parts :lol:

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

And what taxes are NOT punitive in some sense - stop taxing my smokes !! 

As a consumer, only a nicotine addict would continue to pay the ridiculous amount of money for the product, no matter the cost, which is heavily taxed to help defray “medical costs” associated with the use of product. I say addict, because the only reason ANYONE smokes or chews tobacco is because of the nicotine addiction and dependency. Unless the consumer can find a method to break the addiction, they will continue to spend a disproportionate amount of income feeding an addiction and profiting tobacco corporations and the government, wait for it,  because the government allows the production and worldwide distribution of their product, knowing it’s a worthless and dangerous product. 
 

With a 20% tax on a luxury item that has no addictive ingredients, the “wealthy” are saying “Quit taxing the disposable income I have earned one way or another and am not compelled to spend through addiction. If you do, I may put the hundreds of thousands of dollars into the economy through a large retail purchase of a yacht, which is already taxed for any size or price point and benefit everyone, myself included. Luckily it’s not a decision based on addiction.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

With a 20% tax on a luxury item that has no addictive ingredients

Ya lost me when you wrote that sailing is not an addiction. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense to me and a college professor will never understand because they have been taught to regurgitate what they heard( not learned) from their predecessors to secure their career jobs, retain tenure and then force others to regurgitate their views to succeed in class and onto doctorate school. 

I’d like to see professors with their heads on the chopping blocks just like politicians come Election Day. I’d vote out about 90% liberal professors if I could. Then universities could again begin to teach and not instruct. 
 

 

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

Ya lost me when you wrote that sailing is not an addiction. 

Lol. I didn’t say that, though. The purchase of a boat is based on “more” than just an addiction, whereas tobacco is a one trick pony, with only the brand of tobacco being up for negotiation.

Edited by Sail4beer
Says a guy with 10 boats...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you are an authoritarian wanna-be to me. 

I've heard your Elk repeatedly declare that they want to purge progressive judges & legal folks, politicians, military, academics - anyone who stands up to them. 

That is exactly the strategy used by Erdogan, Mussilini, your man Adolph, and many more. 

Fine company you keep. 

5 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

I’d like to see professors with their heads on the chopping blocks just like politicians come Election Day. I’d vote out about 90% liberal professors if I could. Then universities could again begin to teach and not instruct.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nahh, not me. The fun professors liked to ask my opinion after they got all the responses they wanted to hear. I just spoke the truth. I still feel that President Reagan did the right thing when he bombed Quadaffi. Back in the 80’s the professor agreed and every other student thought it was horrible. I was the long haired, ripped jeans student in the group. I don’t have to  usually conform to be right!

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

Not just Ceo's. In general we are being transformed into "winner take all" societies. 

In major league baseball, 100 players now rake in half the money. 

Same with law, medicine - you name it. 

I’m not a consumer of franchise sport and they may make a disproportionate amount of money. Take the big money away and there is no professional sport. 
 

Father is an attorney and he isn’t the top 100, but he’s wealthy now at 90 and worked his ass off for it. But, fuck it, tax him, he has more money than a professor who can’t afford a brand new yacht. Professor’s salary prevented him when he was younger and now doesn’t want to blow his pension on a quickly depreciating product.
 

But keep going on about people with money, just remember this, there’s is a minimum you have to pay the IRS based on your income. You are allowed to pay more and even gift the IRS money, so why don’t you just start forking over the bucks and show us the way, AJ. I’m sure that you want to help incentivize the working class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

But keep going on about people with money,

How about if you stop making stuff up ?? 

I have nothing whatsoever against people with money - know some, sail with some, and hang out with some. 

And I could afford a bigger boat, but I'll pass on that since I have noticed that the larger the boat, the less often it gets off the dock. I sailed 50 days last year and hope to exceed that this year - if it ever warms up. 

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

Tax all wealth or all property then.

If I buy an airplane, should I be punished compared to someone who buys a Winnebago? Why? Because it is cool to look like you are picking on "rich" people and more voters have Winnebagos? Because you can't fly an airplane and want to make sure I can't either? Because you don't like airplanes and want to get rid of them?

I am actually doing an airplane delivery soon and none of the various regular working people that will get some money out of the 3,000 mile delivery would be getting a cent if there was some bullshit tax on airplanes, there isn't a chance in hell the buyer would have paid it, he would have found something else to do.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

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

How about if you stop making stuff up ?? 

I have nothing whatsoever against people with money - know some, sail with some, and hang out with some. 

And I could afford a bigger boat, but I'll pass on that since I have noticed that the larger the boat, the less often it gets off the dock. I sailed 50 days last year and hope to exceed that this year - if it ever warms up. 

One of the saddest things is the high percentage of empty vacation homes at some resorts.  The people that own them are so busy making more money to be able to afford them that they don't have time to enjoy them.  

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

One of the saddest things is the high percentage of empty vacation homes at some resorts.  The people that own them are so busy making more money to be able to afford them that they don't have time to enjoy them.  

Same with Big Ass boats. 

But we durst not tax them !!

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

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Lovin that idea!

I know how to fly airplanes and I need one! Bring it on :D

* somewhere in hell Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are at the bar downing a warm one and biatching up a storm about how their ideas were so freaking good until people screwed them up with their damned human nature.

If you pay people the same regardless, they'll do jack-shit. If you let people game the system to get it all and keep it, they will.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you paid me anywhere near what people make to do shit work for 40 hours a week plus benefits, I’d be on welfare instead. I feel for the workers, since I am a worker myself.  Hard work and a vision makes hard cash.
I still haven’t accepted any “stimulus” checks since they started handing them out either.

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

Not just Ceo's. In general we are being transformed into "winner take all" societies. 

In major league baseball, 100 players now rake in half the money. 

Same with law, medicine - you name it. 

I think this is most prevalent in pro sports where at least part of it is from team owners using their ego and pride to decide how much to overpay to get the star they want. The value equation is skewed here because the market for these stars is being set by billionaires as the consumers. 

Balancing this is the fact that a significant portion of the gate and a much higher portion of the merchandise is driven by the stars. Most of us without season's tickets will go to a game because Sidney Crosby or Lebron is playing that night and it is those kinds of jerseys you see at the event. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KC375 said:

Pano, I think you may be experiencing a culture clash here. Much of the time you operate in French which benefits from l’Academi francaise who ensure words mean what they mean, Although you French could benefit from the rigour of Quebec, as I child I was shocked to hear “stop” regularly used in France after we had managed to eliminate that evil Anglo word from our road signs.

Words in English are defined by usage and the role of dictionaries is to try to keep up with usage rather than to constrain or enforce usage. This drift in meaning seems particularly rapid in American political discourse. Communism (with help from luminaries like Senator McCarthy) shifted from a description of a set of beliefs or theories to a simple summation of all that is evil in the world. The same way liberal has come to mean social democrat a significant drift from its earlier meanings.

In dealing with English speakers it is pointless to argue the meaning of a word. If your opponent simply says it often enough the wrong way it becomes the right way.

Yes but shouting "communism" is just a lazy fallacy. They are accusing you of something that only exist in their imagination. It is a stupid as shouting Nazi to somebody who's right of centre. And anyway, centre does not mean anything as in France I am right of centre, In the UK centre left and in the US a "commie" as if my position can only defined by a slur world.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fastyacht said:

It is more than that. And thank you for your polite explanation to Mixy.

The "intermediate" condition is nonetheless a dictatorship. The 20th century already showed us what actuallyvhappens...

Defending Marxism is as bad as defending slavery.

Nobody's  been defending Marxism... You just been calling people "commies".

I could call you a fascist but that would not make you a fascist!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KC375 said:

Pano, I think you may be experiencing a culture clash here. Much of the time you operate in French which benefits from l’Academi francaise who ensure words mean what they mean, Although you French could benefit from the rigour of Quebec, as I child I was shocked to hear “stop” regularly used in France after we had managed to eliminate that evil Anglo word from our road signs.

Words in English are defined by usage and the role of dictionaries is to try to keep up with usage rather than to constrain or enforce usage. This drift in meaning seems particularly rapid in American political discourse. Communism (with help from luminaries like Senator McCarthy) shifted from a description of a set of beliefs or theories to a simple summation of all that is evil in the world. The same way liberal has come to mean social democrat a significant drift from its earlier meanings.

In dealing with English speakers it is pointless to argue the meaning of a word. If your opponent simply says it often enough the wrong way it becomes the right way.

Yes and no.

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

Nobody's  been defending Marxism... You just been calling people "commies".

I could call you a fascist but that would not make you a fascist!

 

52 minutes ago, Laker said:

Is "communist" just another name for poopy-face? Just about as specific.

ugh.

Is equity just another word for redistributionism. That is the question sir or ma'am.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fufkin said:

Yes and no.

Are those two of three alternatives? Or are they mute or moot

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

 

ugh.

Is equity just another word for redistributionism...

Or is it an aspect of common law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We may never know with the goal posts being moved so much.
I’m out of bait  for this pond so I’ll be pulling in the line and taking the pole elsewhere to see if there’s any good trolling...

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

 

ugh.

Is equity just another word for redistributionism. That is the question sir or ma'am.

Yes, justice always pisses off someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rain Man said:

One of the saddest things is the high percentage of empty vacation homes at some resorts.  The people that own them are so busy making more money to be able to afford them that they don't have time to enjoy them.  

So what?  If that's what people want to do with THEIR money and assets, that is THEIR fucking business.

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

 It is a stupid as shouting Nazi to somebody who's right of centre.

Ha ha ha. The irony of that observation in a thread where AJ is posting is quite delicious...

FKT

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

Equal pay for equal work is a substance of equity.  

Fair enough, is that affected by geography or local cost of living?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to have been put in the seat of becoming the equity champion.  

This is from George Washington University

While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people.

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.  

In the illustration below, two individuals have unequal access to a system — in this case, the tree that provides fruit. With equal support from evenly distributed tools, their access to the fruit still remains unequal. The equitable solution, however, allocates the exact resources that each person needs to access the fruit, leading to positive outcomes for both individuals. 

While the tree appears to be a naturally occurring system, it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs. 

https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

 

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

 You just been calling people "commies".

For the US Reich, M4A and a living wage are totally commie, 

and a fast track on the road to serfdom. 

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

I seem to have been put in the seat of becoming the equity champion.  

This is from George Washington University

While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people.

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.  

In the illustration below, two individuals have unequal access to a system — in this case, the tree that provides fruit. With equal support from evenly distributed tools, their access to the fruit still remains unequal. The equitable solution, however, allocates the exact resources that each person needs to access the fruit, leading to positive outcomes for both individuals. 

While the tree appears to be a naturally occurring system, it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs. 

https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

 

Glad I didn't send my kids to George Washington U.  Communist bullshit.

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

Glad I didn't send my kids to George Washington U.  Communist bullshit.

Wow, such an open mind.... So you want your kids to learn just about things you approve, that sounds like education in North Korea!

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

Glad I didn't send my kids to George Washington U.  Communist bullshit.

So it really is true.  The word "communist" has been co-opted by the RWNJ's to mean "everything that disagrees with what I think."

I'm starting to understand the rantings on the front page of Gab now.  And here I thought that the RWNJ's actually believed the Democrats were communists.    

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

For the US Reich, M4A and a living wage are totally commie, 

and a fast track on the road to serfdom. 

Funny thing, prior to Obamacare and to a lesser extent since, I've regarded your corporate provision of health insurance as akin to peonage, because people had to think very carefully about changing jobs if they or any member of their family, at present covered, had any sort of ongoing condition. Because changing jobs and therefore health insurance triggered the exclusion of pre-existing conditions.

This is something those of us living in socialist utopias don't even give a second thought to.

As for a living wage, I've had that argument with an economist, who claims that there is no such thing.

Which suffices to demonstrate how little connection economic theory has to reality.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating the discussion and diatribes triggered by a mooted Canadian tax.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites