Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Infanteer]

Consumption taxes are a more effective way to tax wealth (and wealthy people) - buy expensive stuff, pay more taxes.  If a person makes money and stores it in a bank/investment, then everyone is benefitting from additional money supply.  That being said, consumption taxes are (and should be) equal; I don't pay double the GST on my second Ferrari.  Nor should I.  Nor should I pay extra income tax on income that some people seem to think is in excess.

Edit:  Clarity.

 

[mariomike]

I vaguely remember reading about how income taxes came about in the states. Something about people agreeing to tax the rich to pay for WWI or WWII.

The "Share Our Wealth" plan in the U.S. goes back to 1934.
"Huey Long: Share the Wealth; Every man a King; Income Redistribution; Tax the Rich":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYOHDM7SN5U&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long#Share_Our_Wealth

Highlight mine.

 

[cavalryman]

The main problem with a "progressive" income tax system such as is prevalent in most democracies (other than being crass socialism, a.k.a. the politics of envy in action), is that governments of whatever stripe have been using fiscal policy to effect social engineering - and conservatives are far from immune.  Through deductions, exemptions, surtaxes, etc, governments try to modify the behaviour of taxpayers to conform to their views of the world (including the view that the party in power should be relected).  Going to the fairest tax system, i.e. a flat tax for everyone with no deductions or exemptions, would mean governments lose a powerful means to control people, and the envious lose their means of socking it to those who through hard work and effort have made themselves wealthier.  Never mind that study after study has shown that a flat tax would at worst be revenue neutral and most likely increase tax revenues as well as reduce government operating expenditures through the virtual elimination of the Canada Revene Agency and its 40,000 well-paid staff.

 

[Infanteer]

Revenue Canada seems like a good place to start reducing government when you consider that most of that organization is dedicated to maintaining a self-inflicted wound of a cumbersome tax system.  I remember a proposal by an organization (CTF?) for a single, brochure sized income tax return, but I can't find it.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is probably anathema coming from a resident of Alberta but I would just as soon have an HST imposed out here IF the trade-off were the elimination of the Income Tax in its entirety.  I wouldn't even mind if the rationale for the tax were carbon credits (buy gas = buy carbon, dispose of fecal matter = sell carbon to the municipality).

The convenience of not having to fill out a tax form at all would sell it to me.  As for the disadvantaged.... those that don't meet a certain income standard.... they could apply for a review of their case to see if they merit a top up.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I wouldn't even mind if the rationale for the tax were carbon credits (buy gas = buy carbon, dispose of fecal matter = sell carbon to the municipality).

I could care less if taxation was based on carbon as opposed to a measure of income as opposed to sales.  Unlike Jack's rantings, a carbon tax has to replace existing taxes not supplement them.  The loony left is looking for a solution to the missing money tree and they see it in a carbon tax.

 

[Kirkhill]

I could care less if taxation was based on carbon as opposed to a measure of income as opposed to sales.  Unlike Jack's rantings, a carbon tax has to replace existing taxes not supplement them.  The loony left is looking for a solution to the missing money tree and they see it in a carbon tax.

Agreed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Taxing people based on assets held isn't practical.  Some people accumulate assets because they spend very little.  I don't think very highly of a double jeopardy system: tax your income, and then tax it again if you don't spend it.

 

[ModlrMike]

Two enduring truisms of socialism:

Eventually you run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher

You can only steal a man's property once.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the NDP, its constitution and internal party tensions:

Resolutions of the New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus
To be tabled at the New Democratic Party Convention in Vancouver June 17-19, 2011

1. Enhance the Canada Pension Plan
2. Out of Libya
3. Nationalize U.S. Steel
4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands
5. Institute Proportional Representation Within the NDP
6. Make Mother Earth a Legal Entity
7. Legalize Cannabis
8. Out of NATO and Out of Afghanistan
9. Out of Haiti
10. Boycott Israel
11. Nationalize the Auto Industry
12. Nationalize Big Banks and Insurance Companies
13. Nationalize Big Oil and Gas
14. No Coalition with Liberals, BQ or Greens (or any other Business oriented party)
15. More policy discussions at conventions
16. Enforcement of NDP policies on NDP governments
17. End One Member One Vote decision making
18. Nationalize Telecommunications
19. Stop enforcing immigration laws
20. Out of NAFTA, FTAA, FTA, GATS and WTO
21. Excuse Student Debt
22. Raise the Minimum Wage to $17/hr
23. Build Social Housing
24. Repeal the Clarity Act
25. Share the work and shorten the work week to 32 hours
26. Extend the Right to Strike
27. Strengthen Affiliations of NDP with Unions
28. 25% of Public Funding to go to Ridings to support grassroots activity
29. Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez’s Venezuela and Morales’s Bolivia
31. Focus on Food Safety to justify government activity
32. Social ownership (Nationalization) of banking, manufacturing, communications, energy, health
care, insurance, medical drugs, natural resources, and mass transportation
33. Social ownership (Nationalization) of primary industries such as forestry, mining, and fishing
34. Incorporate Gender Identity in the Human Rights Act.


Should be a fascinating Convention - assuming the press is invited.

Whose side are you on Jack?

 

[PuckChaser]

That agenda isn't left of centre or even left wing... its out in left field. People voted for these crackpots?!

 

[Redeye]

That agenda isn't left of centre or even left wing... its out in left field. People voted for these crackpots?!

That's one caucus within the party, I doubt most regular members (much less most of their candidates) would agree with any of that nonsense.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to my last - and regrouping

Carrots

1 Enhance the Canada Pension Plan
21. Excuse Student Debt
22. Raise the Minimum Wage to $17/hr
25. Share the work and shorten the work week to 32 hours
23. Build Social Housing
31. Focus on Food Safety to justify government activity
34. Incorporate Gender Identity in the Human Rights Act.
19. Stop enforcing immigration laws
24. Repeal the Clarity Act
7. Legalize Cannabis

International Relations

2 Out of Libya
8. Out of NATO and Out of Afghanistan
9. Out of Haiti
20. Out of NAFTA, FTAA, FTA, GATS and WTO
10. Boycott Israel
29. Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez’s Venezuela and Morales’s Bolivia
6. Make Mother Earth a Legal Entity



The Economy

4.Close the Alberta Tar Sands
3 Nationalize U.S. Steel
11. Nationalize the Auto Industry
12. Nationalize Big Banks and Insurance Companies
13. Nationalize Big Oil and Gas
18. Nationalize Telecommunications
32. Social ownership (Nationalization) of banking, manufacturing, communications, energy, health
care, insurance, medical drugs, natural resources, and mass transportation
33. Social ownership (Nationalization) of primary industries such as forestry, mining, and fishing

Organizing

28. 25% of Public Funding to go to Ridings to support grassroots activity
27. Strengthen Affiliations of NDP with Unions
26. Extend the Right to Strike
14. No Coalition with Liberals, BQ or Greens (or any other Business oriented party)

Democracy

5. Institute Proportional Representation Within the NDP
15. More policy discussions at conventions
16. Enforcement of NDP policies on NDP governments
17. End One Member One Vote decision making

And let us keep in mind that the sponsors of these resolutions also believe this:

Class Politics

The NDP must also commit itself to becoming a party that represents and leads the self-organized fight for the interests of wage earners, the unemployed, self-employed people and family farmers. These popular sectors encompass the overwhelming majority of Canada's population. Excluded are only the owners of industrial and finance capital, their political and administrative managers, and the enforcers of their rule. The notion of a party that represents and seeks to govern in the interests of "all the people" is not only wrong in principle, but is in fact quite impossible. This is because the interests of workers and small farmers can never be reconciled with the interests of the owners of Capital.

Democracy seems to be a relative term for these democrats.

And Redeye - this caucus within the NDP is no less inconsequential to NDP policy than social conservatives are to Conservative party policy.

The Rose in Fist insignia is the registered trademark of the Socialist International which elects many goverments which actively campaign on just these issues and win elections and set policy.

 

[Dissident]

Fair enough, if that is the Socialist side of the caucus, what about the rest of the NDP? What is their agenda?

I wouldn't mind us disengaging from Libya. Aside from that most of those talking points are completely retarded.

 

[Kirkhill]

And for more consideration:

The Declaration of Principles of the Socialist International (Stockholm 1989)

And the leadership:

PRESIDIUM of the SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL

PRESIDENT

George A. Papandreou (Greece)

Curious that the leader is the first of the PIIGS.

 

[Redeye]

And Redeye - this caucus within the NDP is no less inconsequential to NDP policy than social connservatives are to Conservative party policy.

Let's hope both remain politically utterly irrelevant.

 

[Gimpy]

The Rose in Fist insignia is the regiseterd trademark of the Socialist International which elects many goverments which actively campaign on just these issues and win elections and set policy.

What does that have to do with anything? Would you mind showing me some of these governments that are part of Socialist International that have implemented any of the more radical elements of the NDP Socialist's platform?

Also, how do you know about the levels of influence that the NDP Socialist holds in the party? Do you have any sources on that?

 

[Kirkhill]

What does that have to do with anything? Would you mind showing me some of these governments that are part of Socialist International that have implemented any of the more radical elements of the NDP Socialist Party's platform?

Gimpy:

Kindly define which of the above proposals you find acceptable, which you find radical and which you find more radical and I shall do my best to oblige.  I don't think it would take more than a couple of hours of Googling to supply you with the answers.

 

[Gimpy]

Gimpy:

Kindly define which of the above proposals you find acceptable, which you find radical and which you find more radical and I shall do my best to oblige.  I don't think it would take more than a couple of hours of Googling to supply you with the answers.

Alright, obviously this is personal ideals, but I'll put them in point for point the ones I believe are radical.

4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands
6. Make Mother Earth a legal entity
8. Out of NATO (note: not out of Afghanistan though)
9. Out of Haiti
10. Boycott Israel
20. Out of NAFTA, etc.
25. Share the work and shorten the work week
29. Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez's Venezula and Morale's Bolivia

Overall I believe the majority of the radical elements of their platform falls under the international relations portion of their platform. These are the things I don't believe are prevalent in Socialist International government's IR strategy because they aren't realistic. But on the rest of the platform I find nothing is inherently radical or ridiculous. There are definitely things there that are most likely un-doable, but not necessarily radical. Anyways, radical is a perception and the things that are radical to one are not radical to others.

 

[Kirkhill]

Entirely agree that radicalism is in the eye of the beholder.

With respect to your list of radical solutions -

Do I really need to go point by point to find governments that:

29. (Show) Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez's Venezula and Morale's Bolivia

or governments that are:

8. Out of NATO
9. Out of Haiti

25. Share the work and shorten the work week is French Government policy and has been since the late 1990s

20. Out of NAFTA - hard to get an outside example as there are only three members - but other SI governments have withdrawn from equivalent organizations like EFTA.

4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands - equally hard to find an external reference as this is obviously an internal resource.  However I would argue that the Europeans, French and German, who fought three wars over possession of the coal fields of the lower Rhine, did the equivalent by, in the terms of the Northern Ireland peace agreement, putting their coal reserves "beyond use" thereby precipitating their current energy crises.

Coincidentally those same coal fields are likely to be reopened as sources of deep shale gas..... hence the environmental movement's agitation.  See, historically the labour movement could rely on the widows of dead miners for inspiration.....unfortunately for them extracting shale gas is unlikely to produce the same crop of corpses.

And as to Mother Earth?  I give you this....