Republican or Democrat?

[User Name]

It's actually funny reading this thread. The debate, whether you know it or not, has become a philosophical difference between Canadian beliefs and values and American ones.

I'm born Canadian, lived in Toronto for 24 years and became (what Canadians call "the brain drain), when I left to practice law in the US. While I lived in Canada, I would describe myself as a small "c" conservative (I say it like that because Canada has a party called the Conservative Party of Canada). In any event, I was the kid growing up in Canadian highschool arguing against the majority of my classmates for why Canada should be more like the USA.

Needless to say, that was NEVER a very popular position and you Yanks might be amazed how much negativity you can hear regarding the US in a Canadian highschool. In any event, that is neither here nor there... but I give as necessary info as to my background.

So, then I moved to New York City (one of the most liberal places in America) and I found myself, more liberal than most.

So, what was most interesting to me is how different our respective political systems are and our political spectrums. We have a party in Canada (the NDP) that you Yanks would call commies 100%. It actually give me a chucke.

What I also found (as is true with most things) is that the grass is always greener on the other side. Having lived in the US for 12 years (with my American wife and kids), I miss a lot about Canada.

I miss the cleanliness. I miss the lack of crime. I miss the HEALTHCARE. Yes, you heard it, I miss the healthcare.

My law firm pays for my family health care (PPO), which is about 15k per year. I have access to the best doctors in NYC and loved the maternity ward in the hospital where my kids were born. Having said all that, there is NOTHING better about the US healthcare system (in my experience) over the Canadian. If anything, I feel less secure in it (which is supported by substantial data), because IMHO, profit should NEVER be the primary motive when it comes to healthcare. Health should!

So (believe it or not), my wife just got approved as an immigrant to Canada and we've decided to move our family back to Toronto. Yes, I'm going to take a six figure pay cut. Yes, I'm going to pay about 10% more in income tax, but IMO, there are somethings you just can't put a price on.

I still love the US, but Canada is a better fit to me and my family.

[Lumadar]

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

Yes it is a myth. The difference is now that these guys make 10 or 100 times more than they did 25 years ago, and you can't fire them if they stink (see previously linked article). Rule of thumb years ago was the CEO made 20 times the average pay at the company, or 50 times the lowest pay, hence the President of the US making $400K. Try getting a CEO of a large company for even 10 times that amount.

Has their cost of living gone up 10 times? 100 times? I'll tell you what, I wish I was making 100 times what I was 25 years ago and couldn't get fired without a huge severance.




How about the company makes more money on an outsourced product so the CEO and his cronies make more in bonus? I think that's the real reason, no more union negotiation, no more environmental worries...and a fatter bottom line that the exec can take credit for, the future of his company or country be damned.

I couldn't agree more that the "big name" CEOs make too much money and the golden parachutes are out of control. However, that's en entirely different topic than this- that is, unless you think it is the role of the government to determine how much is "too much." Do you?

As for your second comment, which seemed more emotional than rational... you are right and you are wrong at the same time. Obviously, the better the company does the more the CEO makes, so yes it would behoove a CEO to outsource operations (sometimes, but not always, depends on the market and the product) but at the same time they are aligned with the company. Often times, even if you look at the CEOs bloated paycheck it is a drop in the bucket compared to the big picture of what the company is doing. So, to say the "only" or the "real" reason companies are out sourcing is to make the executives more money is NOT true as a whole. Legally the executives are bound to make decisions based on what is best for the shareholders, so that is why they HAVE to do what they do at that. That is the same reason that companies can justify paying one man X million dollars a year- under the presumption that overall it will benefit the shareholders most.

I'll stop now though, seeing as the economic concepts in even my last post were not even being addressed.

[Holden_C04]

Wow, very sensible post.

[Scottwax]

Originally Posted by Holden_C04

I knew someone would twist my words. When is the last time you saw a rich fella sweat other than at tennis? I mean come on, give me a break.

I see them all the time. One of my regulars has owned several companies and his last house was on 35 acres. Every time I went out on a weekend to detail his cars, he was out there on his Gator, work gloves on riding around his property fixing what needed fixing, mowing what needed mowing, etc.

My brother with the computer business is doing well (not quite rich yet) and he regularly works until 2-3 am and is up by 6 am. He does this at least 6 days a week. His efforts mean 14 additional people also have jobs with a growing company. He also served 4 years in the Marines.

Wealth has NOTHING to do with effort or labour.

In the vast majority of cases, you couldn't be more wrong.

I know a lot of poor people who work their butts off all their lives and don't have much to show for it.

In many instances, that is because of choices they've made in their lives. When I was a Jack in the Box manager, it stunned me my assistant managers had no desire to learn the job skills they'd need to advance to general manager. They flat out didn't want to work that hard and were willing to do just enough to keep their current jobs. They'd rather make $200-300 less per week than put in the effort to advance.

[rjstaaf]

I know a lot of poor people who work their butts off all their lives and don't have much to show for it.

Originally Posted by Scottwax

In many instances, that is because of choices they've made in their lives. When I was a Jack in the Box manager, it stunned me my assistant managers had no desire to learn the job skills they'd need to advance to general manager. They flat out didn't want to work that hard and were willing to do just enough to keep their current jobs. They'd rather make $200-300 less per week than put in the effort to advance.

I think we need to be careful though about generalizing here and using stereotypes of those unfortunately at the bottom of the economic scale. I don't know the statistics of the number of those that are just plain lazy, living off the system or those that are there due to circumstances out of their control and I don't think anyone else here does either but there seem to be a lot of people here painting with an awfully wide brush...

[TH0001]

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

Just out of curiosity, your clients bragged to you about their net worth? And if you have clients that are billionaires, will it threaten their lifestyle to have an 11.5% tax increase? No one has ever suggested that any of these "wealthy" people have their lives confiscated and thrown in the trash. I think what is being asked is that because their ability to pay is higher, that they should pay a larger percentage than those whose ability to pay is lower.

None of my clients have really bragged about how much they where worth...

If they paid 11.5% extra of course it would effect there lifes, that is 11.5 percent more of their money they earned that government is redistrubiting to people who haven't. That is completely not fair.

Not only would effect their lives, but would likely cause them to make "budget" cuts that would effect those who work for them, which could include me. The uber rich already provide most of the taxes in the US, so lets just bleed them some right?

Earlier in this thread or in the other thread you championed the use of scholarships, grants, etc. for people to improve themselves. These kinds of aid are not available to wealthy people--why? Because their ability to pay is much larger than someone with a lower income.

I believe at some point that there needs to be an equal opportunity for people to get education. While most people in urban-inner city areas don't care as much for eduction, the same type of education needs to be made avialable to them. If they choose not to use it or take advantage of it, nothing should be done past that point.

I do think scholorships are a good thing (I never champoined there use, only mentioned they exist). I don't like that they rationed out on economic status, racial background, etc... Everybody should have an opportunity for quality education at an early age (regardless of age, race, etc) and scholarships should be awarded to those with high academic achievement. I know personally, that I feel it is unfair that I was not able to get certain scholorships because I am white. My wife and I are still paying off her student loans that if she came from a poorer background (her parents never gave her anything) or she was a different race she wouldn't have to pay.

Perhaps in your locale the rich people are nouveau, but up here in the northeast, there is plenty of old money, acquired by inheritance or privilege (and plenty of those poor Wall Street workers who are sweating bullets that their $25 million bonus is going to be cut to $5 million). After all, W. went to Harvard, what were his chances of going there without his father's legacy? McCain was 894 in his class of 899 at the Naval Academy, which he freely admits...do you think his father and grandfather being admirals helped keep him from getting booted out?

There are a lot of rich people for a lot of different reasons. However I don't really care how people got there money (with in reason of course). If someobodies dad worked his butt to the bone and sacraficed to get ahead so his kids don't have to work, I'm cool with that. If somebody is born into priveledge because his father sacraficed for that dream, then cool and good for them.

We will never agree because I strongly think the whole emotinal logic of "they have more then I do so they will feel it less" is horrid. At the end of the day it is wealth redistribution and it is fundmentaly wrong in my opinion. I don't mind paying taxes and I wouldn't mind paying more (if I knew what it was going too). I don't feel because somebody is more successful then me that I need to rely on them to pick up more of the share. I am willing to do my part and not look to others to do it for me.

[dalethompson]

I never thought such a heated yet healthy debate would take place on a auto detailing forum but it is... bizarre but refreshing.

Let's face it, there's no perfect political system, party or platform anywhere in the world (including Canada). In fact, there's an federal election in the next few weeks here in Canada and I could neither care less or even want to discuss what the issues are. Frankly, I've grown bored of the whole political process... red, blue, orange or green, it doesn't matter what the parties colours are, they all look the same to me.

I could go on for pages about how, to an outsider, the political process looks in the U.S. right now. Alas, it's an issue best saved for another forum as I don't want to ruffle any feathers. I will point out that myself, Holden and the lawyer from NY (who's moving back to Canada) aren't bashing the U.S. or it's citizen's, rather, we're giving you an un-askewed opinion of how it looks to someone who hasn't been made to be either a republican or democrat all their lives. Arguments and opinions aside, you gotta admit it's a healthy debate and as much as you probably get peed off by reading pro-liberal or pro-conservative points (depending on who you support), it's good for a nation to come to a proverbial crossroads when change is needed.

As for the healthcare system, well, I will just end off saying I'm healthy, happy and taken care of. Yes, I pay lots in taxes but I will never go without adequate healthcare for my adult life. I wouldn't trade that in for anything in the world and I hope my country will pass this on to my kids and their kids too

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by TH0001

We will never agree because I strongly think the whole emotinal logic of "they have more then I do so they will feel it less" is horrid. At the end of the day it is wealth redistribution and it is fundmentaly wrong in my opinion. I don't mind paying taxes and I wouldn't mind paying more (if I knew what it was going too). I don't feel because somebody is more successful then me that I need to rely on them to pick up more of the share. I am willing to do my part and not look to others to do it for me.

I agree that we should agree to disagree. Let me leave you with this--you have children. I expect that you care for them, that you sacrifice for them. I expect that you may also exhibit empathy for children in general, and that if you saw another child who was being mistreated, or whose parents didn't have the wherewithal that you do, you might help that child. Perhaps that child might be your child's friend. Perhaps if that child's parents couldn't afford give him some of the experiences that you give to your child, you might invite your child's friend to go to the zoo with you, and pay his way, so that he could enjoy the zoo, also, because you have the ability to pay his zoo ticket and his lunch. Or maybe not, maybe you would just say that that child should fend for himself, that if he can't do it on his own, screw him, or that he's just out of luck if his parents can't afford that. Hey, he's 8 years old, if he wants to go to the zoo he should just get a job!

I really can't see how you can say you are willing to pay more taxes but it's wrong to make other people pay more taxes. Perhaps some of the billionaires would like to pay more taxes as well, to help us with this deficit/debt and some other problems. As one of the candidates says, we need to aspire to things greater than our own self-interest.

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by rjstaaf

I think we need to be careful though about generalizing here and using stereotypes of those unfortunately at the bottom of the economic scale. I don't know the statistics of the number of those that are just plain lazy, living off the system or those that are there due to circumstances out of their control and I don't think anyone else here does either but there seem to be a lot of people here painting with an awfully wide brush...

To paraphrase a great quote "...of a day when people will be judged not by their socioeconomic strata, but by the content of their character..."

[Jakerooni]

There's a huuuge difference between a child that is underprivleged in life and an adult that can stand on their own two feet.. I grew up about as poor as anyone could imagine. My parents we're lucky to break $20,000 a year. My mom got food stamps I think... Not really sure.. I basically raised my sisters and brother. I had my first son when I was only 17 and still in high school. Guess what though. I graduated with a 3.95 GPA had 2 jobs paid my own way through college.. Became an engineer for GM. Fell on bad times. But I've never accepted any hand outs. Even with the push from everyone to get on the welfare just until things got a little better. I've always said "screw that" I'm my own man and I'll do whatever it takes. So make no doubt there's a huge difference between poor lazy people that refuse to do anything for themselves and people having a rough patch or two...I wouldn't expect anyone to pay my way through life.... Even if they did have the means to help me out. Don;t compare a child to a lazy *** adult that can;t get off their butt to do something with their own lives.

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by Jakerooni

There's a huuuge difference between a child that is underprivleged in life and an adult that can stand on their own two feet.. I grew up about as poor as anyone could imagine. My parents we're lucky to break $20,000 a year. My mom got food stamps I think... Not really sure.. I basically raised my sisters and brother. I had my first son when I was only 17 and still in high school. Guess what though. I graduated with a 3.95 GPA had 2 jobs paid my own way through college.. Became an engineer for GM. Fell on bad times. But I've never accepted any hand outs. Even with the push from everyone to get on the welfare just until things got a little better. I've always said "screw that" I'm my own man and I'll do whatever it takes. So make no doubt there's a huge difference between poor lazy people that refuse to do anything for themselves and people having a rough patch or two...I wouldn't expect anyone to pay my way through life.... Even if they did have the means to help me out. Don;t compare a child to a lazy *** adult that can;t get off their butt to do something with their own lives.

I was trying to emphasize what some might call "Christian values"; the idea of helping the less fortunate. I'm not sure how flipping the Bush tax cuts from the upper class to the middle/lower class gets equated with welfare or food stamps, because it's certainly not.

[Scottwax]

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

I was trying to emphasize what some might call "Christian values"; the idea of helping the less fortunate. I'm not sure how flipping the Bush tax cuts from the upper class to the middle/lower class gets equated with welfare or food stamps, because it's certainly not.

Christian values do not stipulate the government be in the benevolence business but that people should be on their own. That being said, I have no problems with assistance programs like day care, transportation vouchers, etc to help move people from welfare to working for a living. I just don't think that government assistance should be a way of life.