CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13536

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:18 am
 


newz wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:

Well I don’t know how old you are but the whole concept of consistently balancing the budget only became popular in the Ronald Reagan years. And it’s not average citizens who have been pushing the balanced budget agenda it been the business lobby and anti-government righties.

I give you someone who has never heard of Andrew Jackson.
Yeesh!


Andrew Jackson only managed to pay off the debt exactly one time, in 1835, through a bunch of one-time land sales during a real estate bubble, and enacting draconian spending cuts, including vetoing all spending on highways which he called unconstitutional. It triggered a massive recession and America immediately went back into deficit and has had debt ever since.

Also in 1835 America was an agrarian society with most citizens being peasant farmers or poor labourers. It was not a superpower or more advanced than other western countries of its time or even China and Japan, it was the massive government spending of the ensuing decades that would cause America to surpass other nations.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13536

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:45 am
 


[quote
Winnipegger wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
if the government has run a defecit, it means they spent money that taxpayers DIDNT pay for; If the taxpayers had paid for it, there would be no deficit.

Wrong. Deficit means the government spends more money than it has. Debt is the accumulation of deficits. Who do you think will pay for that debt? Taxpayers always pay.


You don’t understand. Defecit means government spent money in the current year that it didn’t collect from taxpayers in the current year. Since the money is spent in the Canadian economy definition it means in the current year Canadians received more from the government than they paid to the government.

Future taxpayers pay the debt service costs but in the long term there are always more taxpayers in the future and a larger economy to be taxed than today, so future growth pays for those costs

Also as I mentioned the people who the debt service costs are paid to are also Canadians -anyone with a pension or RRSP or any other investment vehicle us the ultimate beneficiary.

Quote:
BeaverFever wrote:
Ok so you just regurgitated a bunch of irrelevant stuff but seriously wars don’t make money they COST money.


Sorry you're having difficulty understanding. Before World War 1, European wars were always run for profit. The winner would sack and pillage cities/towns/villages of the loser. They would take anything valuable: gold, art, anything they could sell. They would ensure the winner took enough money to pay for the war, plus profit to pay the winner's government debt. Often some of the loot would be distributed among citizens of the winner to pacify the masses. NAZIs did this in World War 2, the public didn't get any of the money, but the NAZI government sure did.

You asked why the "West" has been so successful. These are the reasons. Not pretty. To succeed ethically takes a lot more work. Stealing from others may appear to be a short-cut, but also realize those who live by the sword, die by the sword.


I don’t know where you get that ideas but looting has never paid for war, let alone made it a profitable enterprise. Full stop. The spoils of looting mostly went to to the soldiers who did the looting anyway. Wars cost government money and the profits mostly accrued to private citizens

Imperialism, OTOH, did redistribute wealth to western nations and that’s part of the story but America is not a superpower because it could get bananas from cuba at slave labor prices. And again no empire ever balanced its books during war or conquest. The war/conquest cost the government money and the resources captured provided returns mostly to the private sector over time, growing the tax base ...a perfect example of government debt growing the economy. Troops looting villages certainly has nothing to do with why the US developed an interstate highway system or why computers or medical technologies were invented and why the average citizen changed from being a peasant farmer to a middle class urban professional .


Last edited by BeaverFever on Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1733
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:34 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Defecit means government spent money in the current year that it didn’t collect from taxpayers in the current year.

So you're saying future generations pay for benefits you get today. Past generations did that, which is why we have the mess we're in.

You realize income tax was created as a temporary tax for World War 1. It wasn't even for WW2, just WW1. We still have that "temporary" tax. If we didn't have government debt, we could afford to abolish federal personal income tax. We would still have all other deductions from your paycheque, but federal income tax would be gone and your paycheque would be that much bigger. Balancing the federal budget would require raising GST back to 7%, and corporate income tax back to 19%. The US just cut their federal corporate income tax from 35% to 21%. If we set Canadian federal corporate income tax to 19%, it would still be lower than American. And freeze corporate income tax for small corporations at 11%, which is what it was last election day. That's what Stephen Harper called "Small Business Tax". And shift tax on dividends from personal income tax to corporate, just to ensure dividends stay taxed. And GST credit would have to be abolished the same day as federal personal income tax. But the biggest catch of all is federal debt has to be eliminated to afford abolishing federal personal income tax. There, that's how to balance the without it.

Every time anyone (politician or you) argues how great and wonderful deficits are, they're actually saying they want to keep income tax. You want to treat citizens as livestock, as cattle to be harvested. Think about that next time you get a paycheque.

BeaverFever wrote:
I don’t know where you get that ideas but looting has never paid for war, let alone made it a profitable enterprise. Full stop.

You're wrong. Read history.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20742
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:15 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Winnipegger wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
if the government has run a defecit, it means they spent money that taxpayers DIDNT pay for; If the taxpayers had paid for it, there would be no deficit.


Wrong. Deficit means the government spends more money than it has. Debt is the accumulation of deficits. Who do you think will pay for that debt? Taxpayers always pay.


You don’t understand. Defecit means government spent money in the current year that it didn’t collect from taxpayers in the current year. Since the money is spent in the Canadian economy definition it means in the current year Canadians received more from the government than they paid to the government.

Future taxpayers pay the debt service costs but in the long term there are always more taxpayers in the future and a larger economy to be taxed than today, so future growth pays for those costs.


You're both right in a way. Deficits are caused when a government spends more than the revenue it generates in a year, and that creates debt. It's just like when you buy a huge TV and rack up your bill by $2000, but only pay earn $1500/month. You can't pay it all off, so you've created a deficit in your spending and added to debt to your bottom line. Eventually though, you pay off the TV and your debt is eliminated, assuming of course you haven't bought more stuff and added to your debt.

Deficits aren't all that bad as long as you can make the interest payments on your debt, especially when the deficit spending is for assets that will generate additional wealth down the road, like roads, rail lines, energy projects, etc. But when you use it for tax cuts or social programs, that deficit spending is less likely to help grow your economy long term.

The problem in the 1990s was that the interest payments were so high that the federal government was in serious danger of defaulting on its payments and causing an economic crisis not unlike the one Mexico had in 1982, or the one the Asian economies went through in 1997-98.



BeaverFever wrote:
I don’t know where you get that ideas but looting has never paid for war, let alone made it a profitable enterprise. Full stop. The spoils of looting mostly went to to the soldiers who did the looting anyway. Wars cost government money and the profits mostly accrued to private citizens.


Looting your foes has been used throughout history to generate wealth for the victor, whether it was from looted from short term wealth like gold from captured cities or defeated soldiers, or from stealing economic output (mines, farms, etc) which generated additional taxes and made the King (and by extension, the country) wealthier in the long term.

16th century Spain was a prime example of looting foes that generated massive amounts of wealth, both for the Crown (who automatically got a 'Royal Fifth') and for the conquistadors (private citizens). The problem was it generated too much wealth and caused hyper inflation which ruined their economy for generations.

Others like The Netherlands, Portugal, France and England tried to do the same, but generally weren't lucky enough to find natives with huge amounts of gold and silver like the Spanish did. They went the merchantile route and generated huge amounts of wealth from cash crops like tobacco, sugar, etc. that were grown on slave planations throughout their empires. But there is no doubt that the explosion in European wealth wasn't generated from their conquests around the world.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7953
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:19 pm
 


Is his "very cast in stone" like my "ironclad desire" to go on a diet and lost weight?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13536

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:32 pm
 


Winnipegger wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
Defecit means government spent money in the current year that it didn’t collect from taxpayers in the current year.

So you're saying future generations pay for benefits you get today. Past generations did that, which is why we have the mess we're in.


Future generations also get those benefits. Babies don’t build the hospitals they’re born in, the generations before them did. Babies don’t have to rediscover electricity or re-invent the internet the generations before them did. The Wealth is passed down from generation to generation giving each new generation a greater advantage than the one before it. The future generations will prosper in ways we can’t even imagine from technologies and infrastructure the current generation builds today. And most of that is built with government funding in one way or another.

And What mess? We’re not in any mess that’s the whole argument. We’re the most prosperous and advanced civilization in history. We’re far more advanced than the countries that never had debt ...who are those countries by the way?

You should ar least have the honesty to admit tuat what you’re proposing is an UNPROVEN THEORY since we have no examples from history of any advanced economy ever consistently running balanced budgets.

Quote:
You realize income tax was created as a temporary tax for World War 1. It wasn't even for WW2, just WW1.


1) Taxes were not invented for WW1. I mean Benjamin Franklin’s quote that “nothing is certain but death and taxes” is from the 18th century. And the American revolution was sparked by a British tax on tea. All kinds of taxes on commerce, teade and property existed.

2) INCOME TAX didn’t exist because up until the late 1800s, early 1900s, most people didn’t earn income or even keep money, they were farmers who grew their own food, built their own barns, made their own clothes and bartered for the things they couldn’t produce themselves. Very few people worked for money - wage labourers were frowned upon as being something like servants, as “real men” owned land and were self sufficient. Even most labourers worked for barter, apprenticeship, or room and board rather than income. In the big cities there were factory workers and other labourers earning very small wages but they were initially the minority. As more people switched to earned income the more

3) In the days before income taxes there were few public schools or hospitals, no public sanitation, childhood deaths due to simple illnesses were common. There were few public services and corruption was widespread even expected. Most of the population was poor and dirty and they could expect nothing but the same for their children and future generations. Why you would compare that time to today is beyond me. Clearly you don’t know history.

Quote:
If we didn't have government debt, we could afford to abolish federal personal income tax.
. What the

That makes absolutely no sense. You do know that payments on federal debt are less than 8 cents of every tax dollar collected right? The federal budget is around $311Billion and debt payments are around $24 billion. Income Tax alone generted $128 billion


Quote:
The US just cut their federal corporate income tax from 35% to 21%.
. And they’re nowhere near a balanced budget. USA runs the biggest deficits of all and they alwt have! And thes Trump tax cuts made it even bigger!

Quote:
Every time anyone (politician or you) argues how great and wonderful deficits are, they're actually saying they want to keep income tax. You want to treat citizens as livestock, as cattle to be harvested. Think about that next time you get a paycheque.


You fundamentally don’t understand taxes or how government works. So to summarize

1) Yes we need income tax, it’s what pays for most public services I pay my taxes happily so as not to have Canada become in a shitty third world country

2) Debt payments are a fraction of the budget. It’s not why we have taxes. Not even close. Defecits are expenditures NOT collected from tax. Instead of running a deficit and borrowing the money the government could instead raise taxes for that year to cover any outstanding payments and balance the budget. Instead it runs a defensive so that Canadians pay smaller amounts over time Do you understand now? It’s called the time value of money and it’s a basic financial concept.

Quote:
BeaverFever wrote:
I don’t know where you get that ideas but looting has never paid for war, let alone made it a profitable enterprise. Full stop.

You're wrong. Read history.

I read quite a bit of history, I suspect you dont. . After all, third world countries are always going to war how come that hasn’t made them wealthy? And first world countries have never prospered more than when they discovered peace.


Last edited by BeaverFever on Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 27544
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:43 pm
 


Folks glorify the past when their future dries up.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13536

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:20 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:

You're both right in a way. Deficits are caused when a government spends more than the revenue it generates in a year, and that creates debt. It's just like when you buy a huge TV and rack up your bill by $2000, but only pay earn $1500/month. You can't pay it all off, so you've created a deficit in your spending and added to debt to your bottom line. Eventually though, you pay off the TV and your debt is eliminated, assuming of course you haven't bought more stuff and added to your debt.

Deficits aren't all that bad as long as you can make the interest payments on your debt, especially when the deficit spending is for assets that will generate additional wealth down the road, like roads, rail lines, energy projects, etc. But when you use it for tax cuts or social programs, that deficit spending is less likely to help grow your economy long term.


I don’t know that “social programs” necessarily less likely to grow the economy, Those programs help keep people out of poverty and the recipients spend their money in the economy like anyone else.

Quote:
The problem in the 1990s was that the interest payments were so high that the federal government was in serious danger of defaulting on its payments and causing an economic crisis not unlike the one Mexico had in 1982, or the one the Asian economies went through in 1997-98.
I know that was the consensus view of the Very Serious People at the time but some of the economic theories behind that thinking have since moderated in recent years and austerity is now more frowned upon by some of the Very Serious People. At the time, interest rates were far higher than they were now and we had recently experienced the worst recession since the Great Depression in the early 90s. People including supposed experts didn’t know what to expect from the new Reagan-Thatcher economic model (trickle- down theory) and screwy economic conditions that had already produced 3 big recessions in the previous 10 years



Quote:
BeaverFever wrote:
I don’t know where you get that ideas but looting has never paid for war, let alone made it a profitable enterprise. Full stop. The spoils of looting mostly went to to the soldiers who did the looting anyway. Wars cost government money and the profits mostly accrued to private citizens.


Looting your foes has been used throughout history to generate wealth for the victor, whether it was from looted from short term wealth like gold from captured cities or defeated soldiers, or from stealing economic output (mines, farms, etc) which generated additional taxes and made the King (and by extension, the country) wealthier in the long term.

16th century Spain was a prime example of looting foes that generated massive amounts of wealth, both for the Crown (who automatically got a 'Royal Fifth') and for the conquistadors (private citizens). The problem was it generated too much wealth and caused hyper inflation which ruined their economy for generations.

Others like The Netherlands, Portugal, France and England tried to do the same, but generally weren't lucky enough to find natives with huge amounts of gold and silver like the Spanish did. They went the merchantile route and generated huge amounts of wealth from cash crops like tobacco, sugar, etc. that were grown on slave planations throughout their empires. But there is no doubt that the explosion in European wealth wasn't generated from their conquests around the world.



Looting is not new but it doesn’t pay for wars. Seizing resources is imperialism but the great changes in society and the creation of the middle class didn’t come from imperialism they came from investment in universities, schools, infrastructure etc.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.