In the upcoming Provincial election.....

Forum Sponsor
jc100 said:
Any suggestion that corporate welfare benefits the country is laughable.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I work in a corporation (a small one, but a corporation nevertheless). Our customers are other corporations. Chances are, most of the people reading this are working for corporations, too. You cannot have a functioning national economy without having companies (most of which are corporations) that employ people.

We need corporations to do well in order to have proper employment ... but that doesn't necessarily mean giving away handouts to them.
 
ike said:
The other side to the voting story is to vote against the party whose platform you dislike the most - you cast your vote in favour of the party who is most likely to prevail over the party you dislike.
Click to expand...

I've had little choice but to do this very thing, for quite a while, and this time won't be any different.

What am I going to do? Well, McSquinty needs a time-out, and hell will freeze over before I ever vote NDP, and the logic described above makes it pointless to vote for any of the fringe parties, and that leaves but one choice. That doesn't mean I like it or agree with everything they propose.
 
Brian P said:
I've had little choice but to do this very thing, for quite a while, and this time won't be any different.

What am I going to do? Well, McSquinty needs a time-out, and hell will freeze over before I ever vote NDP, and the logic described above makes it pointless to vote for any of the fringe parties, and that leaves but one choice. That doesn't mean I like it or agree with everything they propose.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm..... interesting! Maybe in your case, a declined vote would be the best thing then (if for no other reason than it will result in one less vote for the architect of the "common sense revolution" lo those many years ago.)

I'm just kidding - but it does illustrate the uselessness of the declined vote. When voting, it appears that sometimes one must consider all the platforms and support the lesser of all evils. I'm sure that when it comes down to the wire, you will grit your teeth and do what you know in your gut is the right thing (or at least - the less wrong thing!)
 
Last edited:
Brian P said:
Hmmm. I work in a corporation (a small one, but a corporation nevertheless). Our customers are other corporations. Chances are, most of the people reading this are working for corporations, too. You cannot have a functioning national economy without having companies (most of which are corporations) that employ people.

We need corporations to do well in order to have proper employment ... but that doesn't necessarily mean giving away handouts to them.
Click to expand...

Massive corporate welfare hasn't really worked very well the last few years has it? There's incentives which are good and then there's outright greed. I'm talking about the latter. You only have to look at the difference between the salary of the lowest paid worker in a corporation and the highest to see what's been happening for the last decade or so. All corporate welfare has been doing is making this divide much greater and creating a massive disconnect between workers on the floor and those in the boardroom. I cannot see how any one person in a company is worth a salary of 80 million or whatever the guy at GEC gets.
 
How exactly does CEO pay rate tie into corporate welfare...
 
The problem is that a good CEO is hard to find, and the free market is at work. Underpay your CEO and they'll go elsewhere and you'll be stuck with the (lower-paid) CEO that you deserve. Overpay your CEO and it impacts the bottom line. If the government gets involved via salary caps, etc., then it distorts things even further. Alan Mulally deserves what he's paid for keeping Ford Motor Co out of bankruptcy through 2008 - 2009 recession/depression. GE did not go through bankruptcy, either (disclaimer, I bought some GE at around $10 and sold it a while later at $16 back then, thank you very much).

Granted, there are some CEO's who were well paid for destroying the companies that were paying them. Granted, it's repugnant that the government had to get involved in some of these rescue situations. But, I shudder to think what would have happened had those "too big to fail" corporations simply been allowed to collapse. The US government had a role in creating the environment that led to many of those collapses by having policies in place that encouraged (or at least, did not punish) excessive risk-taking, so they're not innocent in all this ... And no, we're not out of the woods yet; far from it ...
 
Brian P said:
The problem is that a good CEO is hard to find, and the free market is at work. Underpay your CEO and they'll go elsewhere and you'll be stuck with the (lower-paid) CEO that you deserve. Overpay your CEO and it impacts the bottom line. If the government gets involved via salary caps, etc., then it distorts things even further. Alan Mulally deserves what he's paid for keeping Ford Motor Co out of bankruptcy through 2008 - 2009 recession/depression. GE did not go through bankruptcy, either (disclaimer, I bought some GE at around $10 and sold it a while later at $16 back then, thank you very much).

Granted, there are some CEO's who were well paid for destroying the companies that were paying them. Granted, it's repugnant that the government had to get involved in some of these rescue situations. But, I shudder to think what would have happened had those "too big to fail" corporations simply been allowed to collapse. The US government had a role in creating the environment that led to many of those collapses by having policies in place that encouraged (or at least, did not punish) excessive risk-taking, so they're not innocent in all this ... And no, we're not out of the woods yet; far from it ...
Click to expand...

I still fail to see how one person is worth that much to be honest and excessive risk taking was rampant in a culture where there seemed to be no penalty for failure, bonuses were paid, and expected regardless. Lol...GE may not have gone bankrupt..but then again perhaps the US would have been in a slightly better shape if companies like GE paid the taxes they were supposed to pay.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
More in the US, than here, where higher-ups in some of the bailed out institutions gave themselves both raises, and bonuses, after receiving 'rescue' funds.
Click to expand...

I am aware that the Pay of CEOs in Bailed out companies rose along with CEO pay of non bailed out companies, and that many bonuses continued to be paid out to employees of bailed out companies.

However, there is no causation effect, as implied by the post I responded to, between corporate welfare and CEO pay, those 2 things are pretty much unrelated. Corporate welfare did NOT cause a rise in CEO pay.

In my view, that post was an example of a general anti corporate rant that didn't make a lot of sense.

Corporate Welfare
CEO pay
Tax Loopholes for corporations

These are products of the legal landscape that we have allowed them to function in. The idea that an imaginary entity run by human beings, and accountable to human beings is somehow an immoral and destructive force inherantly is completely without basis. Corporations act the way they do because they have to to survive. They are accountable to the millions of regular people like you and me that invest in these companies through pensions, rrsp, mutual funds, or simply direct ownership of stock.

For indivduals, It is perfectly acceptable to structure one's affairs in a way that allows you to pay less tax. Yes its better to hold your US investments in your RRSP than your TFSA because you dont' pay the withholding tax. is it "immoral" for an indivdual to do that? No, its not. Courts have held over and over again that it is the taxpayer's right to basically rely on the structure of their transactions to pay as little tax as possible. And Courts will not impose an obligation on the taxpayer to take courses of action that result in more tax payable. If the government doesn't like it, they can change the law. So Yes. GE doesn't pay US domestic tax. Thats not because GE Is immoral... its because the US government lets them. They are taxes, not donations, not charity. You pay what you owe in accordance with the law and not a penny more.
 
Last edited:
Well I guess your statement would make sense if corporations weren't held to different legal standards than individuals. The truth is that many big businesses conduct themselves in a way which is contrary to the belief that they are necessary for a capitalist society to exist. The myth that they create jobs locally is deflated when several corporations decide that offshore manufacturing is the way to go, the myth that they benefit society is deflated when they actively work hard and lobby hard to avoid paying taxes which would benefit said society. The myth that lowering corporate taxes somehow improves the business arena is deflated by the fact that lower taxes on corporations have been in place for the past several years while the world went into financial meltdown. If the simple aim is to make money then yes corporations are often very successful. However, I'm a socialist and I believe that this is not the sole aim that companies should have when it comes to their integration in a civilised society. I'd like to think that companies in North America might behave slightly different to a company in Russia or Nigeria but quite often they are indistinguishable from one another.

No one has answered my question by the way.....what person is worth a salary of ten million dollars or more?
 
ike said:
A better approach might be to pick a party with which you agree with most of their policies and get to work. Volunteer at the campaign office, pound the streets canvassing, whatever! Get involved! Someday, the change you wanted might just happen. Along the way, whether your candidate wins or loses, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you tried your best to work in a positive way toward making our country a better place.

Doing what you are proposing is much like acting like a spoiled child - pouting because you didn't get your way. Boohoo.
Click to expand...

Wow... What a steaming pile of drivel this is.
Personally, I can't stand any of the politicians that are running.
Last election I voted for the "Pirate Party". Seriously. Their entire platform is built on internet rights and how everyone should be able to use it without incredulous fees.

Politicians are a bunch of liars and crooks. Why on earth would anyone waste their time slinging and believing in another person's lies and half-truths?

Personally, I believe there should be a law that FORCES a party to follow their campaign platform. In every election the winning party has promised something grand and wonderful, only to about face it and do the opposite (think McGuinty - promised no tax increase, and what did he do? Think HST for a start).

If the party leader and the entire "ruling" cabinet do the opposite of a promise or fail to institute it, jail time is in order. They've committed fraud on the entire nation or province.
 
Last edited:
jc100, do you work for a corporation ... or at least, a private business?

Do you want the head honcho's job, including all its responsibilities? Answer honestly. You're not allowed to have the salary if you're not taking the responsibility. A lot of those guys have next to no private lives. They spend a lot of time traveling, they are responsible for making decisions in which millions or billions of dollars and in many cases countless jobs are at stake. They have to answer to the shareholders, the board of directors, the regulatory authorities, and the employees. Often they're the public figurehead. Often they can't just do as they please, because of security concerns.

Do you really want to deal with all that? I sure don't.

If the compensation isn't big enough, no one else will, either. The compensation has to be big enough to attract someone competent to the position.

Regarding sending jobs offshore ... a lot of that is the sense of entitlement that North American workers have gotten used to. There is a fair argument that unions, in their fight for disproportionately larger wages and retirement plans and benefits and silly competitiveness-killing work rules, bear a significant responsibility for the motivation to send manufacturing elsewhere. Consumers on the lookout for the cheapest possible price for everything that they buy, bear a responsibility, too.

For what it's worth ... I don't shop at Walmart.
 
Bigevildoer said:
Wow... What a steaming pile of drivel this is.
Personally, I can't stand any of the politicians that are running.
Last election I voted for the "Pirate Party". Seriously. Their entire platform is built on internet rights and how everyone should be able to use it without incredulous fees.

Politicians are a bunch of liars and crooks. Why on earth would anyone waste their time slinging and believing in another person's lies and half-truths?

Personally, I believe there should be a law that FORCES a party to follow their campaign platform. In every election the winning party has promised something grand and wonderful, only to about face it and do the opposite (think McGuinty - promised no tax increase, and what did he do? Think HST for a start).

If the party leader and the entire "ruling" cabinet do the opposite of a promise or fail to institute it, jail time is in order. They've committed fraud on the entire nation or province.
Click to expand...

The expression that you're looking for is "recall legislation", and currently BC is the only Canadian Province to have it. The problem is that politicians would have to be the ones to pass it and what are the odds that they will, if they are the ones who would be on the receiving end of it?
 
jc100 said:
Well I guess your statement would make sense if corporations weren't held to different legal standards than individuals. The truth is that many big businesses conduct themselves in a way which is contrary to the belief that they are necessary for a capitalist society to exist. The myth that they create jobs locally is deflated when several corporations decide that offshore manufacturing is the way to go, the myth that they benefit society is deflated when they actively work hard and lobby hard to avoid paying taxes which would benefit said society. The myth that lowering corporate taxes somehow improves the business arena is deflated by the fact that lower taxes on corporations have been in place for the past several years while the world went into financial meltdown. If the simple aim is to make money then yes corporations are often very successful. However, I'm a socialist and I believe that this is not the sole aim that companies should have when it comes to their integration in a civilised society. I'd like to think that companies in North America might behave slightly different to a company in Russia or Nigeria but quite often they are indistinguishable from one another.

No one has answered my question by the way.....what person is worth a salary of ten million dollars or more?
Click to expand...

Well. your ideological point is clear, but you really have very little knowledge of corporate governance.
 
OpenGambit said:
Well. your ideological point is clear, but you really have very little knowledge of corporate governance.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think I do and without blinkers it seems.

As for working for a corporation...I guess in a way I do currently in terms of structure and I have worked for and with massive corporations before. Would I do the top job? Absolutely. Does the CEO of these companies work harder than say the majority of his workers? I doubt that, the work ethic in North America actually seems pretty high and thus if a CEO is going to work harder than one of his hardest working (but much lower paid) workers then there's going to be a requirement for more than 24h in a day. I'm not saying a CEO should be paid a pittance, I'm just wondering why the gap between workers pay and CEO/management pay has become so large over the years...check the figures, see what the ratio was 20 years ago?
 
Oh...and Brian P..I do agree with you that the unions have done themselves no favours when it comes to the offshore production thing but I still think that there's a role to play for the corporations (and shareholders) in deciding whether a smaller profit is an acceptable price for a greater social benefit.
 
McGuinty just sunk himself

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...o-women-seniors-new-canadians/article2153430/

The latest platform includes a promise to provide a tax credit on the first $10,000 of costs associated with hiring new immigrants

niiiiice......I guess all those unemployed Ontario folks and the hoards of graduates looking for work are gonna like the incentive that throws them to the back of the line

this is Dolton's version of Tory's idiotic Faith Based Education sham that cost the PCs last time
 
I would have thought that McGuinty sunk himself, the moment that he opened his mouth to make another promise, but apparently Ontario voters don't learn from their mistakes.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom