GamePlayer wrote:The tragedy is that it's not all one-sided either. I believe both the government and the taxpayers play a key role in the worsening tax burden. I know in my own country the problematic tax system is both the result of corruption/bureaucratic inefficiencies and the result of people demanding the government maintain their their increasingly high needs.
I really do believe that social programs have their place, but they also must be managed by the strictest of standards and curtailed by funding caps. Otherwise they get way out of control. A sad reality of social programs is they also serve as political blackmail. Every time a politician is elected into office and suggests cutbacks to curtail government spending and reduce debt, the public outcry is almost deafening. People want their government out of debt and want their taxes reduced, but they are not willing to sacrifice to dig ourselves out from under the truly dire situation that previous generations have created.
Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.
What's truly frightening is municipal, provincial and federal debt burdens are now so high that the fiscal situation cannot be solved in a 4 year term. The province of Alberta, as an example, took 11 years to eliminate the provincial debt, a debt which it had lived with for over 35 years. Even if the people are willing to suffer cutbacks for 4 years, what are the odds that they will have the will to do so for another 7 years? They'll likely vilify the government and vote in another government that will give them their social programs back.
That's why I place such a high priority on debt elimination in government. If our government is in a strong fiscal state, they can cope with the ups and downs of the market far easier than under a debt burden. Imagine if we were out of debt. If Canada was hit by a recession, the government could kickstart the economy with tax breaks and even run spending deficits, knowing that they'd recover in a few years. We could even loan money to other countries in times of economic crisis if we were flush. But what can we do under the burden of a $650 billion debt?
We need to get our house in order before we can truly move forward and I suspect the US is in a very similar state.
Word.
I don't believe it's right to demonize the rich. I know they make good villains for the everyman, but honestly, there has to be a reward for getting ahead. Otherwise, what's the point?
Word again. I personally don't have a problem with those who make more having to support more of the burdon (who ends up with exactly what % is an agrument of degrees and cricumstance and I don't see the point of getting into it) but I really don't think it's necessary or intelligent to automatically insult those who have done well just because they have. People need to learn to sort out the evil ass companies (Shell, Coca-Cola) from the ones who've honestly never been out to hurt anyone and have just done well.
I'm not sure where the anti-capitalism came from in modern society, but I assume it's linked to the perception that evil corporations are raping our planet. Business is not the problem, it's our industry and policy. If we make the rules and enforce them, business will follow. Business is very capable of adapting and prospering in a fair system, we just have to make sure the system is built correctly and we just can't change the rules on business every 3-4 years. They need stability to grow and prosper.
Word again.
As for moving on, I am right there with you. The first chance someone offers pioneers the chance to go on a perilous colonization program, I'm there. I want off this fucking rock as soon as possible and I want it nuked once we leave. A nice fresh start for humanity
Word yet again, but I think we should skip the nukes and go for a viral wipeout. No need to drag the rest of the life on the planet down with us.
)
Where do you get your sunday booze then?! 
