Share
Email this to your friends.
Feedback
We'd love to hear your opinion. Your comments won't be posted on the website.
Read More
Hasty Conservative EI Changes Underline Need for Greater Clarity »
May 24, 2012
OTTAWA— Liberal Human Resources & Skills Development and Labour critic Rodger Cuzner made the following [...]
spRED Tour: Mark Eyking in Southern Ontario »
May 24, 2012
Sydney-Victoria MP Mark Eyking toured various communities in southern Ontario as part of Liberals’ spRED [...]
Liberals Call for Fair By-election in Etobicoke Centre »
May 24, 2012
OTTAWA— Former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj today challenged Prime Minister Harper to call a by-election [...]
@ Don. Thanks for commenting on my post below.
I do not see how the Conservatives can attack “Universal Prosperity” without implying there must be poor people among wealthy.
I too agree that graduated taxes are both necessary and legitimate. Moreover, graduated taxes are completely consistent with the history of human economic behavior … (1) Throughout history there have been many levies on goods and services that only wealthy people purchase. (2) Graduated taxes have essentially the same economic effect as price differentiation, which has been practiced in all economies including barter economies. It may be hard to convince people that graduated taxes are natural to economics, but they are.
I think there is a fundamental philosophical difference between “Shared Prosperity” and “Universal Prosperity.” (Pragmatically, it is important to human behavior, although it may sound like vacuous philosophy.)
(1) The concept of “Shared Prosperity” imposes the moral requirement to help others. Charity is a good thing, but charity is a highly variable quantity in people and it is questionable whether or not it is an individual’s Duty.
(2) To contribute to “Universal Prosperity”, however, is an individual’s Duty. Here is why … Property is meaningless without society. Because the value of property is imparted by society, society has a claim in that measure which maintains its value. (Economically speaking “Universal Prosperity” is Keynesian, and pragmatic; i.e., the value of property depends upon consumer spending; therefore, it is in the best interest of those with property to pay decent wages and contribute to social programs that maintain consumer spending.)
I admit, all of the above, is simply stated … “People should willing volunteer to contribute when it is in their own best interest to do so; but, it is really difficult to compel them to charity”.
Does the distinction get votes? I think it does.
While most of what you say I support, I think the conservatives have made it clear that they think that they are here to protect the rich and make them richer, and that if the rich are doing well they will take care of the poor, for example they reduced the corporate taxation thinking the corporations would hire more people take better care of their employees.
Well they did and did not. The top management got large increases, salaries of normal workers stayed the same ie fell behind, and companies reported new found profits, but mostly from cost cutting, layoffs, and not from supporting their employees.
On Saturday, January 14th at 8:00 am Don Tapscott delivered his KEYNOTE SPEECH to the Delegates assembled in ‘Canada Hall’ at ‘Ottawa-2012′ – our Biennial Convention. (Unfortunately, I missed that speech.)
While many were there and many more heard Don via the internet and by replaying it here, I suspect that many Liberals across the country have not listened to his message.
I strongly urge ALL of you to listen (or re-listen) to this truly ‘game changing’ presentation.
Here > http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/keynote-speeches-ottawa-2012/
For those who don’t the time …
___________________________________________________________
Here is the CHALLENGE that Don put to us (starting @ the 44 minute mark):
“The body politic is deeply, deeply broken … Many of our Political Institutions are elite, they’re cozy and they’re an old, Industrial Age model.”
How could we change that?
Why doesn’t the Liberal Party do what a good government aught to do and open up and engage the rest of the world? …
The right question is, how can we change our fundamental modus operandi to engage Canada, and engage the world to decide what’s the right point of view? Engage the country to decide who our leader should be.
You do that and you’ll change Canadian politics for ever.”
___________________________________________________________
Don put our challenge squarely in front of us. What we do with it is up to us. I’m on side.
Are you?
With regard to corporate taxes, one would assume that the number of labour dollars paid by individual corporations relative to their profit will differ. More simply, some corporations provide more jobs than others. Therefore one would think that their individual tax rate should take that into account.
Perhaps corporations who make no profit but employ a lot of people should get subsidies. Perhaps subsidies could be combined with raising the minimum wage.
Perhaps the amount of tax paid by their employees should be one of the factors taken into the mix.
The basic problem with capitalism these days is that fewer and fewer people can produce more and more goods and yet everybody is supposed to be a producer (that is, work to get income). Once we understand and admit that fact, we can start to work on new solutions.
I can see the technicality between shared and universal, it may be interpreted that when one pays taxes he is sharing his prosperity, and when a certain class of people who earn all or most of their income in any area, where they have to pay less on their income then the hourly wage earner, one could say they are not partaking in the universal prosperity and shared prosperity alike.
No matter which term is used I am sure Mr. Harper will attach the same connotation to it. I believe that all should pay their tax on an escalating scale as income increases up to a maximum and that there should be no loopholes at all and the tax code very simple. I also believe that everyone should be able to pay into CPP as they wish up to a maximum, so I can choose to save for retirement or enjoy my income now and pay the consequences later for not saving. Low income pensioners would need a supplement, but I think the cut off could be somewhat lower then the $68000 it is now. We share the prosperity when we take the OAS and GIS. Now that we are in debt, Mr Harper is looking for ways to not share the prosperity that does not exist, but then again with him he is sharing the prosperity with the big corporations via tax cuts.
Is he going to take from the real needy or only from the ones at the top of the OAS benefit plan?
When I pay my taxes I am sharing my prosperity so that we can have some universal prosperity. I think the conservatives plan to share my prosperity more so that others do not have to share theirs,and so that the amount of universal prosperity is less.
I strenuously object to the WORDING “Shared Prosperity.” The appropriate phrase for the Liberal Party is “Universal Prosperity.”
Liberalism is about Human Rights. No liberal philosopher or liberal economist has advocated “Shared Prosperity”. From the outset of empirical analyses of human rights, John Locke declared human rights to be “Life, Liberty and Property” (or so paraphrased). Property, as a human right is inclusive, not exclusive. In other words, a person who is impoverished and homeless is denied their right to property (among other rights denied such as health, dignity, opportunity.) “Universal Prosperity” is consistent and necessary to human rights.
The Social Contract requires a person contribute to society to preserve the value of property and human rights. Property has no value without society (property is a meaningless without society). Therefore, it is the duty of an individual to contribute property to society, in the amount necessary to maintain the value of property in society; and also in support of human rights. (In plain language, levies are justified because society would not function without them.)
Notwithstanding, the duty of an individual to contribute to society; the Social Contract cannot impose limits to wealth, or compel a person to Share Prosperity, beyond their duty to preserve value and human rights. Liberals advocate social programs for ethical reasons … to preserve universal health, dignity and opportunity for all individuals. Also, economically speaking, social programs are economic stabilization programs. “Universal Prosperity” supports the value property.
The Conservative will attempt to label as left wing, socialist, a phrase like “Shared Prosperity” (the phrase could be characterized as higher taxes … give to the poor.) Whereas, “Universal Prosperity” conveys the commitment of the Liberal Party to health, dignity, and opportunity; and also conveys the Liberal support for a competitive market economy.