Does anybody else find it disturbing....

[135711]

my reponse was too long, but in essence: high tech cost probably 300,000 jobs and a couple of thousand small companies,

[pkt]

All,

I have a Power Point presentation done by the University of Milan re 'Why the US / George Dubya wanted to go to war".

One word sums it up:
OIL

Those who want it pls send me a PM.

PK

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
So... why are companies from the other countries in the "Coalition of the willing" kept out of the bidding process? Any reason that you can figure out, and be upfront about?

The official reason is that the bidding process required access to classified documents -- without access you didn't know enough to bid. To gain access required special clearances which were only given to US companies. The thing preventing other coalition force companies from bidding is these said clearances.

-B :)

[135711]

national security, well, difficult as it is to adjust to, that is part of the formula, we're apparently no-where near the one world concept. That, I think, was part of the problem, many people wanted to bring everything together, and others felt that there wasn't sufficient preparation for this to work, as you can see, security was breached and here's the result. I wonder what it will be like when the dust settles?

[pkt]

The orange level of security is creating some unintended victims:

This Canadian woman and her sick husband live in a farm abutting the Canada-US border. The only road to her farm goes through the border.

As a result of the heighten security level, visitors to her farm were arrested by the US-INS people and searched...

It became so ridiculous that she no longer gets her newspaper delivered to her farm.

She's trying to get her MP to get a solution to this problem.

Salom,

PK

[civiltech]

Originally posted by 135711
if i own a company....blood sweat and tears.....etc.

well, that's all well and good, but when your looking at 500 people in a auditorium and you're explaining to them that they just lost there jobs, you might feel differently. I don't think anyone feels resentment, we just understand what has happened, but have no real power to affect change.

the other part besides the horrible feeling thing,is that basically what happens is that the "owner" sells the company over during a hositle takeover, which is why having your company sell shares is dangerous, [estee lauder does not sell shares], hostile takeover will mean that the owner dissapears, a new CEO steps in, fires all upper management, hires cronies, puts in a new office, and the company builds up, until someone else steps in, from ranks of "Middle Management" [remember middle management? it dissapeared! why? because Upper Management didn't want to have to hang onto their desks while Middle Management Jockyed all day long for their job, so....Middle Management is out! out! out! out!.....with middle management out, then you have line staff; the line staff are secretaries - now called administrative assistants, and so forth, they finally realized the lost a big chuck of labor when they cut out nearly all middle management, and put robots to work, answering telephones, and routing calls, the former work of a good secretary. BTW: i was a union member for several years, they take more money from your paycheck and dissapear for lunch, if the unions were really effective, none of those people would be fired, many of them were union members, they would have gotten out there and yelled foul, striked, marched, and do what unions usually do, send out the bloodhounds. But in fact, nothing was done to protect those jobs, they let them go, with 'retirement packages'. It went on and on all through the 1980's and 1990's and here it's 2003, and they do basically the same. No one has learned one thing.

It is quite apparant you have worked for the government!! They are the only ones who "can" truly play by the rules as you briefly outlined in your post. That's because it's not their money they are playing with. Theres always funds for something. Funny how that works. I now work for the government as well. It is a sickness I suppose that people get working in the public sector: Believing the world owes them a living. That everyone should "play fair." That they are deserving of a job because...well I really don't know why. Oh well.

Those who have good experience, and education really don't worry about the job status. It's not long before they find another position. Unfortunately, the guy who made $20.00 / hour putting car parts together on an assembly line for twenty years and loses his job is in another position. One with no skills, no education, and most likely no job. Especially for $20.00/hour. I consider the Unions have brought this on themselves, but I guess that's another matter.


p.s.-I thought you were living off of dividends? And not a profit sharing advoate?

[pkt]

Aha, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here - by the name of civiltech - is a stereotypical Canadian of the rightist, pro-business, anti-government, anti-union persuasion. Sorry to out you,
civiltech.

Civiltech, there is a reason for government to exist. I liken society to a three-legged stool: individuals, business and government. Remove any one leg and the stool will fall over.

Some of the benefits we enjoy as Canadians are the results of big government, don't forget that.

PK

[civiltech]

Ahhhhhh.........PKT


Your anti-war stance on Iraq gave me such pleasure!

Now your wrecking it with your softened "lets give social spending a chance, even though it's never worked before" ganda!!!

Come to the dark side! you cannot resist the low taxes/high income, strong, powerful but small government! (That actually works for the people, by the people!!!)

[pkt]

civiltech,

I have here a Globe & Mail Business piece from 2003/03/10 titled, "Overtaxed? Don't move to the U.S." written by Bruce Little.

PK

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Co...n=Bruce_Little

Overtaxed? Don't move to the U.S.

BRUCE LITTLE -
Monday, March 10, 2003
Printer Friendly version

There was so much new spending in the latest federal budget that its tax cuts got little public attention, but the issue of making further reductions to personal income taxes has not gone away.

It took Finance Minister John Manley only a couple of days to remind everyone that further tax cuts are high on his agenda, especially the kind that would make them more competitive with tax rates in the United States.

But a new study by economist Andrew Jackson of the Canadian Labour Congress suggests that Canadian and U.S. taxes converged substantially in the 1990s and that Canadian workers -- both average wage earners and higher-paid employees -- are already on a par with their American counterparts.

For his data, Mr. Jackson looked at figures published for 1990 and 2000 published by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris.

Canada's total tax bill -- the levy by all levels of government -- changed little in the 1990s. It was 35.8 per cent of gross domestic product in 2000, essentially the same as the 1990 figure of 35.9 per cent.

But where Canada's tax load, relative to GDP, was 9.2 percentage points higher than that of the United States in 1990, it was only 6.2 points higher in 2000. That's because U.S. taxes climbed to 29.6 per cent of GDP in 2000 from 26.7 per cent a decade earlier.

The shift in personal income taxes was especially sharp. Personal taxes in 1990 came to 14.7 per cent of GDP in Canada, but only 10.1 per cent in the United States. By 2000, the Canadian tax bill had fallen to 13.2 per cent, while the U.S. bill had climbed to 12.6 per cent.

The income tax gap, a substantial 4.6 points in 1990, had almost disappeared.

The reason is that, in 1993, Washington added two new tax brackets of 36 per cent and 39.6 per cent to extract more revenue from high-income earners. Canada's highest federal rate throughout was 29 per cent.

While the personal income tax gap narrowed, other gaps widened slightly, because some of Canada's other taxes climbed more quickly than their U.S. counterparts.

For example, Canada's taxes on corporate profits climbed to 4 per cent of GDP from 2.5 per cent, while those in the United States rose to 2.5 per cent from 2.1 per cent. And while social security contributions in the United States remained steady at 6.9 per cent of GDP, Canadian contributions rose to 5.1 per cent from 4.4 per cent as Canada Pension Plan premiums increased.

Another OECD measure -- taxes as a share of wages -- brings some of the comparisons down to earth for most people. In 2000, the average Canadian worker paid 26.6 per cent of his or her gross wage in income taxes and social security contributions (this includes employment insurance as well as CPP premiums), a little more than the 25.6 per cent paid by the average American worker.

For someone doing even better -- with a wage two-thirds higher than the average, or about $60,000 annually -- a U.S. worker paid even more (31.8 per cent) than a Canadian (31.1 per cent).

Since both countries have cut taxes in the past three years, all these numbers will have changed since 2000, but more up-to-date comparisons are not yet available.

Still, the federal Finance Department is trumpeting the fact that company taxes in Canada are already lower than those in the United States -- 39.4 per cent of profit here compared with 40 per cent there.

By 2007, after Ottawa has phased out its capital tax (a cut announced in last month's budget that you might not have noticed), the Canadian rate will be down to 33.4 per cent.

Tax comparisons on personal income are notoriously tricky. There are so many variations -- by income and by province or state of residency -- that it's easy to find specific examples to support almost any argument you care to make.

Some states levy no income tax at all, while others have high rates and some cities even have income taxes.

The OECD figures are averages that smooth out the wide gaps among different jurisdictions, but since no one is average, those who fret about tax differentials probably won't be persuaded by Mr. Jackson's argument.

But as the next round of the tax debate unfolds, the broad picture that emerges from the OECD data is worth keeping in mind.
blittle@globeandmail.ca

© The Globe and Mail. Republished with permission. All Rights Reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or republished or redistributed without the prior written consent of the copyright holder.

Oops, I guess I'm infringing on Mr. Little's copyright.

PK

[pkt]

civiltech,

"lets give social spending a chance, even though it's never worked before" ganda!!!

In economics, the 'G' factor: government expenditure is a very potent tool for government to influence the direction of the country's economy.

If yu consider ANY government expenditure as social spending and propaganda then so be it.

Afterall, you're entitled to be wrong.

PK

[KShan5[PrFC]]

pkt, where is that article from?

[pkt]

That artcle was initally printed 2003/03/10 in the Globe and Mail, supposedly Canada's national newspaper of record, in the business sction, page B5.

It seems that Bruce Little got sponsored by Workopolis...

PK