Winnipeg | Canada's Diversity Gardens

[optimusREIM]

Because they'll leave

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by pspeid

What about fair taxation where the wealthy don't get to hide their wealth offshore and we all kick in fairly for the services we use?

The wealthy already pay a hugely disproportionate share of Canadian taxes.

[bomberjet]

Top personal income tax rate in Manitoba/Canada is 50.4%. So they keep half of every million they make, which is pretty darn good. But you can see why tax avoidance maneuvers among the rich, through charities, offshores, etc, are very popular. They're losing millions to taxes every year.

This is where it's the governments responsibility to ensure loopholes are closed and people are paying the taxes they're supposed to. But becomes muddied when it's the rich who are in government, or lobbying the government.

In the recent spat of US politics tax rates of 70%, 90% were being thrown about. Tax rates of 70% have been in place before and the world did not come crashing down. Of course the rich do not like it.

[EdwardTH]

The park is fine as-is. Entry to the park is free. The trails, fields, & picnic spots are free. The nature playground is free. The sculpture garden and English gardens are free. The toboggan hill and skating trail are free. Concerts at the Lyric are free. What's the problem? Do you expect them to start handing out free meals at the restaurants as well?

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

The park is fine as-is. Entry to the park is free. The trails, fields, & picnic spots are free. The nature playground is free. The sculpture garden and English gardens are free. The toboggan hill and skating trail are free. Concerts at the Lyric are free. What's the problem? Do you expect them to start handing out free meals at the restaurants as well?

Agreed. For those that are complaining about the rich, they sure do seem to have a sense of entitlement of their own.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by buzzg

When you were a kid, did the zoo look anything like it does today? Were the animals actually properly taken care of and given reasonable living conditions, instead of living in concrete boxes and tiny fenced-in cages? Were the exhibits and a amenities of the high quality many (definitely not all) of them are today? The costs (even inflation-adjusted) of taking care of animals in humane ways have gone up considerably, especially in the last 10-20 years, as we as a society treat animals better. To me, it's horrifying that APZ still has monkeys in the same facility they've used for decades – it's so depressing going in there. On the inside, sometimes you have 10 animals sharing the same 15x15 cage with a single fake tree, and plants painted on the walls. I'd rather they shut down the monkey exhibit than continue to operate the current one.

No the zoo wasn’t what it is today. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed to the standards that were acceptable at the time. I’m sure the old bear enclosures were designed to meet the standards of the day, times change. Regardless of that, I find it interesting that at one time, the citizens of this city felt it was a right that every citizen should be able to access and enjoy the zoo. It was as much a part of the park as the English gardens. Imagine paying to get into those? At one time the elite felt it necessary to provide amenities for everyone. What changed?

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

The park is fine as-is. Entry to the park is free. The trails, fields, & picnic spots are free. The nature playground is free. The sculpture garden and English gardens are free. The toboggan hill and skating trail are free. Concerts at the Lyric are free. What's the problem? Do you expect them to start handing out free meals at the restaurants as well?

Lol. Sounds like something Marie Antoinette would have said. Maybe a cake-eating station?

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by headhorse

why not just tax wealthy people more?

Don't fret, comrade. Once the revolution takes place and we collectivize the means of production, every citizen will be allocated 4 zoo entry rations per year.

[trueviking]

How would the city tax rich people more?

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Hecate

No the zoo wasn’t what it is today. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed to the standards that were acceptable at the time. I’m sure the old bear enclosures were designed to meet the standards of the day, times change. Regardless of that, I find it interesting that at one time, the citizens of this city felt it was a right that every citizen should be able to access and enjoy the zoo. It was as much a part of the park as the English gardens. Imagine paying to get into those? At one time the elite felt it necessary to provide amenities for everyone. What changed?

I think that's been answered already. In order of importance:

1) The city's footprint sprawled out much faster than population growth for decades leaving us with far more pipes and roads to maintain

2) Police & Fire fighter salaries grew much faster than inflation for decades taking money away from other departments.

3) Zoo standards changed for the better making it more expensive to run a zoo.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by trueviking

How would the city tax rich people more?

Well they already tax certain rich more based on assessed property values. They would have to increase the tax rate for higher valued homes. That's if they're even allowed to disproportionately tax higher valued homes over and above a rate based on property assessment.

[pspeid]

The "tax" conversation always ends up being one of ethics, and I am as guilty of that as anyone. For some people the very idea of taxation is vehement, no matter what the money may be used for. To others the mere acquisition of wealth indicates a level of selfishness that they seem to find repulsive. The truth, as I see it, is that some people are simply better at growing wealth than others. Should these people be "punished" for utilizing their skills? Probably not, but my personal ethics tell me that "to whom much is given, much is expected". If one is able to grow and acquire vast amounts of wealth, I personally feel one should look for ways to use it to benefit their community and the people who live in it (IMO I would include the Richardsons, etc. in this category). Then again, you have people who acquire and hoard their wealth with no thoughts other than to buy one more house they will rarely use or one more car they will rarely drive. Are these people benefitting the community in which they have made their wealth? Should they be expected to?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by pspeid

The "tax" conversation always ends up being one of ethics, and I am as guilty of that as anyone. For some people the very idea of taxation is vehement, no matter what the money may be used for. To others the mere acquisition of wealth indicates a level of selfishness that they seem to find repulsive. The truth, as I see it, is that some people are simply better at growing wealth than others. Should these people be "punished" for utilizing their skills? Probably not, but my personal ethics tell me that "to whom much is given, much is expected". If one is able to grow and acquire vast amounts of wealth, I personally feel one should look for ways to use it to benefit their community and the people who live in it (IMO I would include the Richardsons, etc. in this category). Then again, you have people who acquire and hoard their wealth with no thoughts other than to buy one more house they will rarely use or one more car they will rarely drive. Are these people benefitting the community in which they have made their wealth? Should they be expected to?

Well should we be able to tell people how good they're allowed to be at making money? Like in a society of free individuals, which I think is or at least should be the standard, is it ethical to tell people how they're allowed to trade and how good they can be at it?

[headhorse]

^ telling people how good they're allowed to be at making money is literally the foundations of capitalism (the wage system). the other foundation is the theft of that profit by capitalists.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by trueviking

How would the city tax rich people more?

prop tax, business tax, toll roads especially in new communities. i guarantee the city can find all the wealthy people and find ways to take back their wealth

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by pspeid

The "tax" conversation always ends up being one of ethics, and I am as guilty of that as anyone. For some people the very idea of taxation is vehement, no matter what the money may be used for. To others the mere acquisition of wealth indicates a level of selfishness that they seem to find repulsive. The truth, as I see it, is that some people are simply better at growing wealth than others. Should these people be "punished" for utilizing their skills? Probably not, but my personal ethics tell me that "to whom much is given, much is expected". If one is able to grow and acquire vast amounts of wealth, I personally feel one should look for ways to use it to benefit their community and the people who live in it (IMO I would include the Richardsons, etc. in this category). Then again, you have people who acquire and hoard their wealth with no thoughts other than to buy one more house they will rarely use or one more car they will rarely drive. Are these people benefitting the community in which they have made their wealth? Should they be expected to?

most wealth is inherited, including the richardsons. all they did for their wealth was be born and then sit back while it creates more. this is good:

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Because they'll leave

natural resources and human labour are the source of all wealth, how are they going to make money if they leave all of that?

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

Lol. Sounds like something Marie Antoinette would have said. Maybe a cake-eating station?

Well, let the revolution begin! As someone mentioned, a lot of money went into transforming the zoo, and now the arboretum, into amazing attractions. I daresay if we still had the zoo of the 1960s as you describe it, admission would be free. All museums, and the zoo, have free days so everyone can access, and there are also different rates geared to different groups, such as students. For others, paying a nominal fee to experience whatever is own offer is a reasonable expectation in order to have these kind of facilities. Do you think these places make money? They wouldn't exist otherwise.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by Ando

Well, let the revolution begin! As someone mentioned, a lot of money went into transforming the zoo, and now the arboretum, into amazing attractions. I daresay if we still had the zoo of the 1960s as you describe it, admission would be free. All museums, and the zoo, have free days so everyone can access, and there are also different rates geared to different groups, such as students. For others, paying a nominal fee to experience whatever is own offer is a reasonable expectation in order to have these kind of facilities. Do you think these places make money? They wouldn't exist otherwise.

Public schools don’t make money. They exist.

[Ando]

That’s not a good analogy since public education is a requirement up to a certain level. Higher education you have to pay something toward if you attend. Attending museums or conservatories is not mandatory but it’s reasonable for people to contribute something for superior facilities, as long as allowance is made for more disadvantaged groups to attend. I don’t know where this magical Tacheland is where everything has free admission.