6-6-6

[G-spotter]

50 bucks for someone making 500,000 a year means less than 50 cents to someone making 15,000 that has to feed their kids that night.

 

I got a $600 a year GST rebate when I made $15,000 a year.

 

In other words, Hey look, real numbers

 

Statistics Canada's low income cut-off (LICO)

 

The low income cut-off (LICO) is a measure developed by Statistics Canada to convey an income level at which a family may be in difficult economic circumstances because it has to spend a larger proportion of its income on necessities than does the average family of a similar size.

 

For example, the most recent base for the LICO is the 1992 FAMEX, which found that the average spent on food, shelter and clothing by all households was 43.6 percent of after-tax income.2 In this instance, the income at which a typical family spends 20 percentage points more – 63.6 percent – of its after-tax income on the three necessities is set as the LICO. In 1992, the income level at which a family of four living in a city of 30 000-99 999 people spent 63.6 percent of its after-tax income on food, shelter and clothing was approximately $21 300. This figure is set as the after-tax LICO for 1992.

 

Several LICOs are calculated in order to factor in differences in family sizes (as larger families need more income to meet their needs) and community sizes (to account for differences in the cost of living). The LICOs are updated annually using the CPI. It is worth noting that the relationship between spending and income is only used to produce the LICO threshold; low-income status is then determined by comparing the family's income to this threshold.

 

For example, using the above 1992 threshold for a family of four living in a city of 30 000-99 999, a family spending 90 percent of a $60 000 income on food, shelter and clothing would not be counted as low income (i.e. since the LICO is set at $21 300), whereas a family that spends 50 percent of a $20 000 income would be (Statistics Canada 2001, 9).

[JayB]

50 bucks for someone making 500,000 a year means less than 50 cents to someone making 15,000 that has to feed their kids that night.

 

I got a $600 a year GST rebate when I made $15,000 a year.

 

In other words, Hey look, real numbers

 

Statistics Canada's low income cut-off (LICO)

 

The low income cut-off (LICO) is a measure developed by Statistics Canada to convey an income level at which a family may be in difficult economic circumstances because it has to spend a larger proportion of its income on necessities than does the average family of a similar size.

 

For example, the most recent base for the LICO is the 1992 FAMEX, which found that the average spent on food, shelter and clothing by all households was 43.6 percent of after-tax income.2 In this instance, the income at which a typical family spends 20 percentage points more – 63.6 percent – of its after-tax income on the three necessities is set as the LICO. In 1992, the income level at which a family of four living in a city of 30 000-99 999 people spent 63.6 percent of its after-tax income on food, shelter and clothing was approximately $21 300. This figure is set as the after-tax LICO for 1992.

 

Several LICOs are calculated in order to factor in differences in family sizes (as larger families need more income to meet their needs) and community sizes (to account for differences in the cost of living). The LICOs are updated annually using the CPI. It is worth noting that the relationship between spending and income is only used to produce the LICO threshold; low-income status is then determined by comparing the family's income to this threshold.

 

For example, using the above 1992 threshold for a family of four living in a city of 30 000-99 999, a family spending 90 percent of a $60 000 income on food, shelter and clothing would not be counted as low income (i.e. since the LICO is set at $21 300), whereas a family that spends 50 percent of a $20 000 income would be (Statistics Canada 2001, 9).

 

You can make the kind of consumption taxes that Canada has as progressive as you want by funneling some of the money back to low-income people/households via transfer payments.

 

Consumption taxes are much better than income taxes if your goal is to promote savings, investment, and production instead of consumption.

 

Increasing consumption taxes and using transfer payments to mitigate the effect on those with low incomes, while lowering income and corporate taxes like Canada has done is smart. The US should consider doing something similar.

[kevbone]

And what about this sounds good?

Massive oil spill due to closing Energy Department, maybe toss a nuclear meltdown here and there, or reversing to the age of illiteracy due to dissolving Department of education? mmmmm..... good!

 

It is not the federal governments job to educate (show me where it states this in the constitution) It is up to the state......

[prole]

Have you considered...oh I don't know...Alabama? Oh boy, just think of all the other things we can leave up to bankrupt, crony-capitalist, racist, fundamentalist states to deal with!

[JayB]

Jay,

 

A couple points from a quick google search:

 

1) Calculated in real 2010 dollars, the 1968 minimum wage was the highest at $10.04. It's just over $7/hr now.

 

2) In 1968, the minimum wage was 90% of poverty. It's around 60% now.

 

You say only 3% of jobs are minimum wage. True. But what percent of jobs are up to $10.04 an hour?

 

I think historically-speaking, if you let the market dictate wage with no oversight you will have abuses - what some here call "slave labor". You also have folks who are gonna be better off doing something besides work. And why is it that so many illegals come here to work at jobs that supposedly nobody else wants? We've allowed ourselves to go backwards from where we once were, IMO.

 

And yes, we can disagree w/o calling eachother regressive corporate shills, neanderthals, or claiming the other does not believe what they say because they supposedly watch Fox news, read Ayn Rand, and voted for 40+ years of regressive red-baiting Bush-Reagan deregulatory unfettered baron capitalism.

 

 

I'm all for higher wages, but it's worth remembering that if you want to raise the real value everyone's wage to a minumum of ~$10 per hour, you have to raise the real value of everyone's output to $10 per hour + payroll tax (~15%). If you want employers to provide benefits, that number goes up to something closer to $15-20 per hour.

 

Without increasing output - employers will lose money on every employee with a marginal productivity lower than the total cost of employing them. It's not clear that it's possible for all employers to either improve their production enough, or to raise their prices enough to do this.

 

With regards to migrant workers - I think that farmers have successfully lobbied for special exemptions that mean that they don't have to compete with other business for labor.

 

In a normal business when labor prices increase but prices don't, there's a huge incentive to substitute capital for labor. No one would make any money selling wheat harvested by hand, but you can make a ton of money selling wheat harvested by a combine that's thousands of times more efficient.

 

Instead of a shortage of people willing to work for what farmers are willing to pay promoting 1) mechanized harvest or 2) shifting production to places where people are willing to work for prices that farmers can afford to pay we've discouraged mechanization and capital investment and brought in people who are willing to work for prices that farmers can afford to pay.

 

If farmers had to compete in the same labor market as everyone else, we'd have relatively well paid people operating and servicing mechanical harvesting equipment in the orchards, or lots of orchards relocating to Mexico. Much better all around IMO.

 

http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/harvest/

 

 

[kevbone]

Have you considered...oh I don't know...Alabama? Oh boy, just think of all the other things we can leave up to bankrupt, crony-capitalist, racist, fundamentalist states to deal with!

 

I hate to say this....but if you don't like Alabama and its laws then move.

[prole]

I hate to say this....but if you don't like Alabama and its laws then move.

 

You "hate to say it"? No, I don't think you do. I think people that say this kind of thing usually get a bit of an adrenaline rush, a little aggro-boost that comes from the reptilian part of the brain that irrational, anti-modern movements like fascism promote and feed on when critical thinking skills fall below a certain threshold. Good luck with that.

[G-spotter]

Have you considered...oh I don't know...Alabama? Oh boy, just think of all the other things we can leave up to bankrupt, crony-capitalist, racist, fundamentalist states to deal with!

 

I hate to say this....but if you don't like Alabama and its laws then move.

 

I notice you don't even consider "work to change them" as an option. Not sure if that's because you believe laws are unchangeable or because you're just too dumb to think of that option.

Edited October 17, 2011 by G-spotter

[rob]

Kevbone would have supported slavery in the 19th century. After all, the constitution didn't say anything about it, so it's up to the states!!!

 

Don't like it? Move!

[kevbone]

I hate to say this....but if you don't like Alabama and its laws then move.

 

You "hate to say it"? No, I don't think you do. I think people that say this kind of thing usually get a bit of an adrenaline rush, a little aggro-boost that comes from the reptilian part of the brain that irrational, anti-modern movements like fascism promote and feed on when critical thinking skills fall below a certain threshold. Good luck with that.

 

 

Where do you live bro? What state? What country? I live in Washington myself and am not going to try to govern or tell Alabama how to govern themselves. It is up to the people of Alabama to elect people who will better represent them.

[kevbone]

Have you considered...oh I don't know...Alabama? Oh boy, just think of all the other things we can leave up to bankrupt, crony-capitalist, racist, fundamentalist states to deal with!

 

I hate to say this....but if you don't like Alabama and its laws then move.

 

I notice you don't even consider "work to change them" as an option. Not sure if that's because you believe laws are unchangeable or because you're just too dumb to think of that option.

 

God damn....you are right Dru...I am just to dumb to think of that option.

 

I would think that is the obvious choice.

[kevbone]

[prole]

Where do you live bro? What state? What country? I live in Washington myself and am not going to try to govern or tell Alabama how to govern themselves. It is up to the people of Alabama to elect people who will better represent them.

 

How far are you willing to take this argument, just so we know?

[rob]

I think he believes every state should actually be a separate country.

[G-spotter]

I live in Canada myself but I tell the government of Saudi Arabia I think they should let chicks drive and stuff.

[rob]

I live in Canada myself but I tell the government of Saudi Arabia I think they should let chicks drive and stuff.

 

Don't like it? Don't live there!!!

[kevbone]

Where do you live bro? What state? What country? I live in Washington myself and am not going to try to govern or tell Alabama how to govern themselves. It is up to the people of Alabama to elect people who will better represent them.

 

How far are you willing to take this argument, just so we know?

 

right back at ya brother man........

[rob]

Where do you live bro? What state? What country? I live in Washington myself and am not going to try to govern or tell Alabama how to govern themselves. It is up to the people of Alabama to elect people who will better represent them.

 

How far are you willing to take this argument, just so we know?

 

right back at ya brother man........

 

that doesn't even make sense

[kevbone]

 

How far are you willing to take this argument, just so we know?

 

right back at ya brother man........

 

that doesn't even make sense

 

Neither does the majority of your posts....but they are entertaining.

[j_b]

Alabama brings back slavery for Latinos

 

Here's how: pass a draconian immigration law, lock up 'illegals' in private prisons, then get the new inmates to work in the fields

 

Link

[rob]

Alabama brings back slavery for Latinos

 

Here's how: pass a draconian immigration law, lock up 'illegals' in private prisons, then get the new inmates to work in the fields

 

Link

 

Don't like it??? MOVE!

[G-spotter]

Texas conservatives say imprisoning criminals is expensive and does not reduce crime:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/17/pol-vp-milewski-texas-crime.html

[prole]

Apparently even $9.99 is too complicated for some of conservatism's leading lights. MAH PLAN'S MORE SIMPLER!!

 

Texas Gov. Rick Perry to call for a flat tax

By KASIE HUNT - Associated Press | AP – 8 hrs ago

 

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Working to distinguish himself from rival Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday that he wants to scrap America's current tax laws and impose a flat tax.

 

Perry told the Western Republican Leadership Conference he plans to explain the tax proposal when he unveils his broad economic plan in a speech next week.

 

He called the plan "an economic growth package that will create jobs, create growth and create investor confidence in America again."

 

"It starts with scrapping the three million words of the current tax code, and starting over with something much simpler: a flat tax," Perry said.

 

"I want to make the tax code so simple that even Timothy Geithner can file his taxes on time," he joked, referring to the Treasury Secretary and his late payment of $34,000 in payroll taxes last decade.

 

Perry's proposal is dramatically different from Romney's tax plan. Romney would lower the corporate tax rate and lower taxes on savings and investment income. He says his long term goal is to "pursue a flatter, fairer, simpler structure."

 

A flat tax applies the same tax rate to income at every level. The current tax code is progressive, taxing higher incomes at higher rates and lower incomes at lower rates.

 

Critics across the political spectrum complain that the current tax code is too complex and riddled with loopholes that allow specific groups to pay less. Many conservatives argue a flat tax would be simpler and fairer because everyone would be taxed at the same rate. Liberals and many moderates say a flat tax would make the tax system more regressive, giving big tax breaks to the wealthy while making low- and middle-income families pay more.

 

Perry didn't provide any more details for his flat tax proposal. In his book, "Fed Up!" he suggests the flat tax as a possible policy prescription but doesn't elaborate.

 

"One option would be to totally scrap the current tax code in favor of a flat tax, and thereby make taxation much simpler, easier to follow and harder to manipulate," Perry writes in his book. "Another option would be to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (which authorizes the taxation of income) altogether, and then pursue an alternative model of taxation such as a national sales tax or the Fair Tax."

[prole]

[video:youtube]

[murraysovereign]

You also don't pay GST on items like bred, cheese or milk, right?

 

Wrong

 

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/gst-tps/gnrl/txbl/xmptgds-eng.html

 

You don't pay GST on medical services only because the government is paying for these so ultimately it would be taxing itself.

 

Actually, he's right, and you're wrong. Under the GST or HST, taxes aren't collected on sales of basic groceries. You linked the list of "exempt" items, but groceries aren't exempt, they're "zero-rated" meaning they're taxed, but at a rate of - wait for it - 0%

 

You should have looked here: Zero-rated (0%) goods and services

Edited October 20, 2011 by murraysovereign