We have no social safety net.
Unlike today's entitled, you and I don't have the bank of Mom & Dad to bail us out in tough times.
We make it or break it. That's the way it should be. Assume responsibilities for your own failures and successes.

 

Wow, you know how much they get paid?!? Crap, time for a new accounting system...

 

I think he was referring to professionals like lawyers and doctors who are now allowed to incorporate to avoid tax by paying dividends to their children and having their wives as a partner in the business. The small business tax exemption wasn't really meant to help this type of person. Keep in mind that a child with no income can draw as much as 40K dividend per year tax free and then give the money back to dad.

Small business tax was designed for retention of retained earnings to grow the business, not to avoid tax on your living expenses. At least this is my understanding.

 

Dumb and or selfish and cause problems.

 

There is tax on the profit before the dividend is paid so there is some tax collected

 

The safety net that he meant I think is the welfare system, paid for by all taxpayers, including successful business owners.

 

Here's what I said guys. What I mean are safety nets that are there to catch failing business owners, not existing ones, encouraging people to take risks with the knowledge that they will not be completely ****ed and basically a slave to creditors for the rest of their lives.

What is the incentive to take risks and be an entrepreneur if there is not a social safety net to catch you if you fail? The vast majority of entrepreneurs fail and it's because of our existing safety nets and bankruptcy laws that people even try at all. Why not go further? Again, check out countries like Denmark which has a very healthy GDP in spite of basically being a welfare state. Maybe there's something to it?

Bankruptcy: While painful, allows debt relief and is sometimes a better option than trying to continue to make payments. This is an inherently SOCIALIST concept versus free market of making people pay indefinitely for their debts.

Safety nets: Currently, free healthcare, welfare, tax credits for the very poor.

As I said, and later on JimV8 brought up as well, I also advocate a Guaranteed Living Income which is a very socialist idea that would encourage risk taking and entrepreneurship because the risk taker has a fallback of a guaranteed income even in failure. Most people do have ambition and want to make something of their lives and do something that contributes to the community, or they want more money to supplement better lifestyles than what a basic income would provide. Of course there are the few who would take advantage of the system, but you should not shape the policy of an entire economy around fear of a few freeloaders. Overall there could be a net benefit to this policy but more data needs to be collected as there were only a few pilot 6 year projects done in the 70s that were encouraging in that medical costs fell, school graduation rates increased, labour participation was barely impacted (mostly by women who elected to stay home to raise kids; is that such a bad thing?) but since they were not permanent projects, some argued that people knew they were incentivized to keep their jobs for when the basic income project ended. Really, support for this comes down to whether you are a pessimist who believes most people are inherently freeloading slobs, or whether you are an optimist who believes that your fellow countrymen share your ambition to do something great but are just too afraid to take the risks in our current economic system. I know I fall in the latter category, but I would like more data to back up my assertion.

 

Well, what is the incentive to take risks and be an entrepreneur if you have to pay over 50% of your income in taxes, as you advocate?

What is the incentive to take risks and be an entrepreneur if your heirs have to pay estate taxes on money you have earned and already paid taxes on, as you advocate?

You don't seem to recognize that capital is mobile, and high taxes stifle innovation and economic growth by discouraging entrepreneurship.

Bankruptcy is not a socialist institution. It predates Marx by far. It's a way for creditors to recover at least part of their capital from insolvent debtors. It's not designed for debt relief of bankrupt individuals, although in modern times it has evolved more in the direction of rehabilitation to allow insolvent businesses to continue operating. You have an extremely over-inclusive definition of what constitutes a socialist idea. I'm pretty sure you haven't read Marx. Come to think of it, you come across like a guy who read Piketty's book, swallowed the whole thing as if it was Gospel, and didn't get the news update that the guy fudged his data.

The fact that you repeatedly refer to health care in Canada as "free" demonstrates your lack of understanding of basic economics and suggests that you probably don't pay much tax (which would also explain why you're so eager to raise taxes for those of us who already do). Your previous assertion that inherited wealth (which is not income) is the primary source of income equality further demonstrates your superficial grasp of the topic.

 

Much reduced. As soon as JT was elected I said to myself I have no incentive to stick my neck and grow and expand my business if the gov is just going to take >50% of my personal income after paying major property taxes, skyrocketing hydro costs, gov fees, business taxes and permits etc. etc. I get paid last yet my home and everything I own is on the hook if we fail.
I'm just going to enjoy life some more and pay down debt.

V996 why do you think society (somebody else) owes you or anyone anything? Why don't you start your own business if you think things are so unequal?
Most wealthy people are self-made. They don't inherit big $.
It's completely obvious you have no idea what you are talking about or the risks, stress, time commitments, employee issues (we've experienced fraud, theft, lazyness, entitlement, assault etc.) and sacrifices business owners make to become successful. It takes years, even decades, of unwavering commitment, effort and optimism. And the odds are not stacked in your favor.

There is income and wealth inequality. There is also work ethic and education inequality. Why should successful productive members of society pay to insulate people from their own lazyness, refusal to take risks or poor choices? We have people in this country who refuse to work certain jobs, even well paying jobs, as it is beneath them or not 9-5 Monday to Friday. Tens of thousands of well paying jobs go unfilled. I'd hire 2 or 3 certified RV master techs (not unskilled hacks) tomorrow if I could. The pay is quite good. Yet the jobs have been available for years.

People sabotage themselves and their future. If people don't invest in themselves to become a better contributing member (read more valuable and worthy of additional compensation) of an organization why should an employer?

 

Comment of the year!!!

 

like it or not, we are all in this together. Thats how this (and most civil) societies operate.
Have to help increase the quality of life for everyone, even if they are inept and/or lazy.

move to china if you feel otherwise.

 

Or start a republican party ..

 

Just read through this thread... some good laughs and a lot of head shaking whenever I saw a post by V996. Who donated your cars to you?

Also, just going to leave this here:

 

God you Canadians even argue politics politely!
This thread is the most civil thing I have ever read from two groups of people on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Well done, you could teach us Americans a few things!

 

Funny. Its true though, we need to grow some hair. I'll start.

Hey, you capitalism-hating socioislamofascist liberal morons, if you're going to burn our flag, wrap yourself in it first. You terrorist-coddling nitwits, you better work harder, 25000 Syrians will depend on you.

Better?