Comment 70044

By Laura, Advocacy Hamilton (anonymous) | Posted September 24, 2011 at 14:27:32 in reply to Comment 70038

The reason why it is 2.33 as opposed to 1.6 of infrastructure, or the .29 of tax cuts is because of the relative wealth of the recipient.

To answer your concern more directly the greater the wealth, say average 'middle to upper class' consumer is that they will be more likely to spend it in foreign countries or on non-domestic cars, etc. These activities bleed money out of our economy onto global markets. The other premise in play is that the more disposable income you have the likelihood it is not in circulation locally, i.e. hold money in banks, stocks, RRSPs etc. For further info on how that is verified, you'd have to contact Dr. Kubursi. I do know his modeling is used by our government and internationally and widely accepted. Sorry, I cannot be more specific.

This isn't a solution to all poverty nor total economic stability. We are, for better or worse, a global economy but I do truly believe we ignore community economic development at our peril.

I am always amazed at Scandinavian countries who are taxed heavily yet seem to have an average of personal wealth at a higher level than we do. Their top one percent still rivals others internationally. That would be a hard sell here and I won't even bother trying.

Side note to the comment above yours... Fair wages also plays a major role, it's just not the topic of this article.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds