Tuesday, December 07, 2010
First: BC Rail ...
BC Mary comment: This is my absolute favourite Letter-to-the-Editor on the occasion of the Carole James resignation, quoted from The Progressive Mind ... HERE.
CBC News - British Columbia - James resigns as B.C. NDP leader
I don’t care what ‘party’ you represent, you get my vote if you swear on your mother’s grave (or grandmother’s) that you will
-call a BC Rail inquiry
-rescind the ROR contracts
-refuse oil super tankers on our coasts and in our ports
-stop the coal truck super highway through Burns Bog and over ALR
-take back our crown land from Western Forest Products and companies
-reposition and remove Foreign Fish Farms away from wild migration routes
-cancel FFF permits when they expire and don’t issue new ones
-return HST taxation to corporations
-make banks pay their fair share of taxes
-not renew RCMP contract for twenty years
-restore BC Utilities Commission to it’s proper purpose
-return BC Hydro to solvency
-remove the ’shadow’ tolls on the S2S and the Bennett bridge
-change the name of the Bennett bridge to WAC Bennett bridge
-turn back BC Ferries to a Crown corporation
-remove Anne McKenzie from the bench
-have the law society censure Bill Berardino
-make the proper authorities prosecute Gordon Campbell and his henchmen for their influence peddling and bribe taking.
That will do for a start.
Here, courtesy of The Globe and Mail, are the 6 New Democrat contenders who would like to become the new premier of B.C.:
"-change the name of the Bennett bridge to WAC Bennett bridge"
What exactley is a "fair share"?
As a bank they have to pay normal corporate taxes. Why should they have to "pay more"?
Just what kind of guarantee?
How about a pre-nuptial agreement between the Leader of the BC Liberal Party and the BC Supreme Court
Give an idiot enough rope and they hang themselves. How's it hanging?
In the article you presented, it clearly states:.
"According to the Socred finance minister, the phase-out applied to all companies operating in B.C. "except major banks which have their headquarters outside the province".
In other words, Rick, banks would have to pay taxes that other companies operating in BC wouldn't.
So Rick, somehow, in your twisted mind, that's fair.
I think Rick, that you should pay Ontario sales taxes on all BC purchases + the BC HST, I think that would be fair to Rick because Rick benefits from Ontario and hence should pay his fair share of Ontario's taxes.
What Rick? That sounds stupid? Now you know how you sound!
Thanks for the article Rick; everyone should read it. It fully shows that every government since the NDP instituted the tax has screwed the banks over by making them pay a tax that other companies don't.
So you agree with me that for the Banks to pay "their fair share" would mean they wouldn't have to pay that tax that only financial institutions pay. Unless your definition of fair is discriminatory, unlevel, biased, skewed or uneven.
It is obviously unfair that say the Royal Bank pays the tax but other major corporations (perhaps Walmart?) doesn't.
That's the only conclusion I can draw from the article. It is clear the tax is discriminatory against financial institutions. To argue otherwise would be foolish.
Perhaps you should rephrase the statement:
"- Banks should continue to pay their excessively unfair share of taxes;"
Then at least the nuance would be correct.
Fair warning: remove the insults against another commenter or your next comments will be deleted. No need for it.
Sorry for the first post; after reading the "crap" comment I became a victim of Newton's Third Law. I actually suspected that the first post would have been moderated away so I wrote the second one. Kudo's to you though for allowing "Freedom of Expression". I will temper my comments in the future.
The only way to get at the truth is to elect the NDP.
"The modern conservative is engaged,
in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification
____John Kenneth Galbraith
You think you are making sense and being logical with:
"So you agree with me that for the Banks to pay "their fair share" would mean they wouldn't have to pay that tax that only financial institutions pay. Unless your definition of fair is discriminatory, unlevel, biased, skewed or uneven."
However you miss the point, or more accurately, you miss a lot of points.
For starters banks enjoy shared monopoly position thanks to their charters and their role in money creation and control of credit. Canadian banks are particularly protected from much competition compared to financial institutions in the US and other countries.
If you've been paying attention you may have noticed that the Canadian Banks issue humongous profit statements, often of a billion or more QUARTERLY, no matter how strong or weak the economy - and this is before Carole Taylor gave them the added profits in return for position on one of their boards. Just like a sharp bookie, the banks win on all bets, well except when their own greed leads them to take outrageous risks with other people's money!
Of course these banks, benefiting from their own personal form of socialism (and protection from any real competition) continue to provide less jobs, handle less actual money and continue to extort the public with outrageous service charges and reward their executives with totally unjustifiable salaries, bonuses and stock options. The basically usurious and deceptive credit card interest rates make them basically a licensed legal loan shark.
Though the Canadian banks are so fat and well looked after they haven't haven't had to yet, mostly due to sensible regulation that the HarpoCons hadn't gotten around to gutting yet, most North American and European banks, having almost destroyed the economy of the planet, see nothing inconsistent with becoming Billion or Trillion dollar welfare cases at the expense of the same taxpayers that they are kicking out of their homes for fear of "moral hazard" that apparently doesn't apply to them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with taxing different activities at different rates or with different taxes based on the social value, advantages granted by government, ability to pay and damage those activities (and the costs to society - generally the taxpayer) may cause to society or the environment.
I'm willing to bet that you don't think that's the same thing. Your right. Banks actually compete against each other for my services whereas there is absolutely no competition in BCGEU jobs.
Another thing I find quite disturbing is that there is this pervasive idea that "the bank" is this evil thing, owned by "the rich" who care little about the "little people". Whereas I am willing to bet that the Banks are proportionally owned by the greatest percentage of people in this country than any other entity. That is to say that a great majority of Canadians have a financial ownership interest in the Banks and any excess taxes the Banks pay is proportioned out to the citizen owner anyways. Before you say "that ain't so"; try finding a mutual fund, or ETF, that doesn't have a Canadian Bank in it's portfolio in one way, shape, or other.
(to understand the BC Government play Grand Theft Auto).
And just because Banks can perform a useful function doesn't mean they are not out of control with criminality and greed currently. Guns can help a person eat or they can kill people - in self defense or for unjustified aggression!
Thanks for the space Mary, I did email Krog about trying to make sure no evidence would be destroyed in the BCRail farce but he is apparently missing in action. I also emailed Cameron Ward to see if there could be an injunction filed to prevent the same until there has been a public enquiry, alas ditto.
Your latter statement has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The question being raised is do Banks pay there fair share of taxes and/or the banks being unfairly treated by paying more taxes than other large companies that operate in BC. Your banal comments on greed, criminality and gun control just exemplifies that you're not following the conversation. Blame your teachers; I would!
You remind me of the ideologues on the US Supreme Court, the Scalito-Roberts faction that recently decided that the first amendment doesn't just apply to free speech for humans, but to corporations and by default MONEY!
Many of the current economic problems with inequal distribution of wealth and media concentration can be traced to the fact that under the current legal matrix - derived from bought and paid for flawed decisions - corporations (and by default MONEY) are accorded all of the rights of individuals yet have myriad legal rabbit holes that allow them to avoid the responsibility for their actions that people have to also accept.
If I were to be caught draining a skidder's crankcase oil into a stream I would be fined at the least if not jailed - yet Exxon other than costs they couldn't avoid during the Exxon Valdez intitial clean-up have still never paid a dime of the original BILLION dollar settlement finding against them. Today the damages have been greatly reduced yet Exxon continues to appeal and appeal - no one other than the captain, who wasn't even on the bridge at the time it ran aground has faced any sanctions of any kind. Yet those whose livelihoods were destroyed by the carelessness are still paying the price. All the more reason to stifle the Enbridge Pipeline now before 200 supertankers a year are crossing the Hecate Strait and going in and out of Kitimat. Not to mention the inevitability of multiple events along the pipeline itself that would make events near Kalamazoo this summer seem like me changing the oil in my skidder into the creek.
Society (read government) has the right to tax, charge royalties etc. on various activities at different rates, based on the value, contributions, desirability etc. of the activity to society as a whole. Even Warren Buffet thinks it grossly unfair that his effing secretary pays a higher marginal rate on her income than he, one of the richest men on the planet is expected to pay.
You are the one whose teachers have failed you in allowing you to become some kind of absolutist who apparently can't engage in critical thinking enough to even differentiate between an legacy DOS based game and real life.
Perhaps banks should pay no taxes, after all they are the backbone of civilization according to you. Perhaps if my house is burglarized the police should pay as much attention to apprehending the perps as they do to trying to catch bank robbers - though of course they might not even show up to take a report at my house if no one was injured. BTW, perhaps you didn't notice but the enormous profits that banks, especially Canadian banks report quarterly come AFTER taxes - and in any business, taxes are a business expense - unlike the taxes I pay for the privilege of living and/or simply dying.
Everytime you people bring up an insanely pedestrian point I counter it by your own logic to show how silly it is. Then in your defence, you deflect or defer to something that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Momma must be proud of little Johnny's debating skills.
I'm sure you will counter with another inane point completely off the topic like, money buys guns, or that oil is the cause of species extinction, or that corporations don't pay MSP premiums. I don't really care anymore. You and your group of "Yes Men" can continue on your own.
Good luck in your life's endeavours. I'm sure you do very well for yourself and will continue to do so. I personally think you should run for public office; you have all the makings of a successful candidate :)
The fact is corporations large and small are treated differently by government and taxation policy for various and often justified reasons. Indeed some corporations, in certain businesses as well as garnering certain tax advantages are actually subsidized, like Agri-Business, gas exploration in BC and Big Oil in general.
You are a bigger idiot than you already appear if you are unwilling to admit that the right, limited to the very few with the charter, to PRINT effing money out of thin air and then profit from its use, isn't a really special PRIVILEGE. If banks are asked to contribute to the society that provides the security within which they operate a little more than someone who actually produces something, especially in a field that involves actual RISK, that isn't a problem to any sensible person with a sense of fairness.
BTW I haven't heard of any coddled big Canadian Banks going bankrupt lately, due to unfair taxation or any other reason. I have noticed banks closing branches and reducing services to their customers in the less profitable regions though and raising the costs of those services to those to whom they provide them. Also I would like to repeat that they are also licensed to commit usary with their credit card con games -charging up to almost 30% interest in some cases in an environment where if interest rates were any lower lenders would have to pay people to borrow! When you or I lend money to the bank (ie make a deposit) we get what 1% or so?
YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Guys like this will drink this less tax is better kool-aid until they explode.
Fair warning. This blog isn't set up to provide citizens with a place where they can hurt one another.
Next batch gets deleted.
This blog -- just to remind us all -- is about BC Rail. And about preserving and protecting such public assets from piracy.
Links to this post: