Economists calculate hidden price of tax relief
commanderkai @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:10 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
commanderkai commanderkai:
I don't think anybody, not even libertarians argue this. Most people want lower taxes and smaller government because the government is spending way too much money on basically nothing. Sure taxes improve quality of life with services, they also create waste and non essential waste programs, like artist welfare.
What an amazing non argument. Pray tell, anything else you want to add? Maybe...
Or
Sheesh, maybe you could start with one of these...
hurley_108 @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:19 am
![[boff]](./images/smilies/boff.gif "From Behind!")
fifeboy @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:21 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
Not entirely sure.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/arch ... c5234.html
This suggests its under 45% for the average. It shows that as a % based we are spending much more then 1961. It doesn't however say if we get more provided services then in 1961.
I have always been bemused by my brother in law, an American, who rails on and on about how his taxes are lower than mine. He, of course, claims I pay well over 50% in taxes, but fails to see his monthly health care premiums, private security company, water company bill and the cost of the Glock he carries concealed under his jacket as being taxes. He sees them as choices.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/arch ... c5234.html
This suggests its under 45% for the average. It shows that as a % based we are spending much more then 1961. It doesn't however say if we get more provided services then in 1961.
bootlegga @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:29 am
Pseudonym Pseudonym:
No reasonable person will contend that government has legitimate functions which it must fund with taxes in some form, but when I see a pair of economists claiming that government is getting us a better deal on some services than we could get ourselves, I am extremely sceptical. It does not follow the accepted laws of economics and common sense.
If I have to choose between Canadian style government funded services and US pay-as-you-go style services, I'll choose Canadian every time.
Once again, I'll note the basic differences in American and Canadian society. In the US, it's essentially every person for themselves, while here we tend to be more focussed on society as a whole.
fifeboy fifeboy:
I have always been bemused by my brother in law, an American, who rails on and on about how his taxes are lower than mine. He, of course, claims I pay well over 50% in taxes, but fails to see his monthly health care premiums, private security company, water company bill and the cost of the Glock he carries concealed under his jacket as being taxes. He sees them as choices.
My sentiments exactly. BTW, let's not forget substantially higher post-secondary tuition either.
Pseudonym @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:48 am
Just to be clear, I was speaking as a matter of philosophy of government, not in particular about US or Canadian-styled governments.
From what I have skimmed from the methodology of the study thus far, I don't really see it explaining anything about getting a "better deal". I have the impression that it is speaking merely in terms of redistribution of wealth by showing how most families get proportionally back more in expenditures than they pay in taxes. That is not indicative that you may be getting a better deal than otherwise. If anyone reads it more indepth, I would like to hear more about their explanation of how they determine the value that each family gets back and how they determine what each family pays (as in, do they factor in all taxes, income-based and otherwise).
Zipperfish @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:59 am
Different strokes for different folks. What amzes me is how the propaganda works so well ijn teh Us and Canada. The vast majority of the populaiton of each country is convinced that their system is the superior one.
I'm gald I'm not a victim of state propaganda and can say with perfect objectvitiy that the Canadian way is far superior. 
bootlegga @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:14 am
Pseudonym Pseudonym:
Just to be clear, I was speaking as a matter of philosophy of government, not in particular about US or Canadian-styled governments.
From what I have skimmed from the methodology of the study thus far, I don't really see it explaining anything about getting a "better deal". I have the impression that it is speaking merely in terms of redistribution of wealth by showing how most families get proportionally back more in expenditures than they pay in taxes. That is not indicative that you may be getting a better deal than otherwise. If anyone reads it more indepth, I would like to hear more about their explanation of how they determine the value that each family gets back and how they determine what each family pays (as in, do they factor in all taxes, income-based and otherwise).
From what I have skimmed from the methodology of the study thus far, I don't really see it explaining anything about getting a "better deal". I have the impression that it is speaking merely in terms of redistribution of wealth by showing how most families get proportionally back more in expenditures than they pay in taxes. That is not indicative that you may be getting a better deal than otherwise. If anyone reads it more indepth, I would like to hear more about their explanation of how they determine the value that each family gets back and how they determine what each family pays (as in, do they factor in all taxes, income-based and otherwise).
To me, it's not about a 'better deal', it's about equality and everyone getting treated the same.
If Americans want everyone to choose what they can pay for, then fine. If Americans are comfortable with two classes of medical care (the one that exists for the top 40% or so, and the other 'public' one that helps everyone who can't afford the best private insurance and care, then so be it.
I willingly pay higher taxes to be comfortable knowing that if a disaster happens to my family, I will get the same care as most everyone else (I'm not talking about the ultra-wealthy top 1% in either country), no matter where my benefits are from. I also take comfort in knowing that I won't have to go into bankruptcy if a loved one develops cancer or a brain tumour. Similarly, I'm sure many Americans pay higher taxes than those of other nations to maintain their very powerful military.
sandorski @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:33 pm
It is quite clear that some servces are much better offered by Government. Only Ideologues object.
Proculation @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:00 pm
sandorski sandorski:
It is quite clear that some servces are much better offered by Government. Only Ideologues object.
Like what ? It may give a more fair service for everyone but the services are certainly not better.
fifeboy @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:23 pm
Proculation Proculation:
sandorski sandorski:
It is quite clear that some servces are much better offered by Government. Only Ideologues object.
Like what ? It may give a more fair service for everyone but the services are certainly not better.
Pseudonym @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:51 pm
Establishing equality as an objective moral good can lead to tricky philosophical ground if you carry it out to its fullest extent. You cannot treat everyone in exactly the same manner because not everyone acts in the same way.
fifeboy @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:13 pm
Pseudonym Pseudonym:
Establishing equality as an objective moral good can lead to tricky philosophical ground if you carry it out to its fullest extent. You cannot treat everyone in exactly the same manner because not everyone acts in the same way.
Why thank you for that. Indeed, treating everyone exactlythe same. Yeah, that's what I meant.
Pseudonym @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:20 pm
You generally stated that more fair = better. I was indicating that such is not necessarily the case.
Proculation @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:24 pm
Like I stated in another thread, if fair is better than we need a Flat Tax: a unique marginal tax rate for everybody.
Kerozine @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:49 pm
As the old saying goes: 'penny wise, pound foolish'.