Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

You're attitude at first was taxes we're always good, and the majority always supported them.

I used examples to show you how that is not necessarily the case.

So now we're at the point of 'what real harm are the stupid unpopular taxes anyway.'

OK, you seem to want to stay with the immigrant example so let's stay there.

You're point now is:



So we're coming out of Conservative rule and their upper level supporters liked themselves some cheap labor, so immigration increased.

Now it's the Progressive arm of the Liberal party running things and they have all kinds of reasons to increase immigration.

1) Justin likes to dress up like a Muslim and campaign in extremist mosques. He wants to pander to the immigrant vote. Communities like Islamic ones vote in blocs.

2) When you want a lot of money to fund collectivist programs it becomes a pyramid scheme and you need more and more bodies at the bottoms to feed the fat grabbing fingers at the top.

3) The general globalist agenda is to move towards open borders. Trudeau is Canada's Merkel.

Lately immigration has been increasing more than incrementally. Conservative estimates from the RCMP say illegals have been pouring in at just one particular crossing at a rate of at least 3000 a month this summer.

That's just at one crossing! Border jumping is an epidemic across the country. They come to lodge refugee claims. As refugee claimants they are eligible for all benefits tax paying Canadians are receiving for at least one and one half years while their claims are being processed.

In some parts of Europe they are discovering that as they open their borders to less skilled people and have less control over who comes in, it becomes a greater strain on the system than it is a benefit. Fewer are working. More are drawing benefits. They're taking out more out than what they're bringing in. The pyramid is about to collapse.

Trudeau is moving in the European direction.

So that's just the immigration example. Are you ready to move on to, say Carbon taxing?

Wasteful, unnecessary spending increases incrementally and tax strain increases on the average taxpayer along with it. They don't need a study to show them that. They're living it.

   

Okay, just reading the summaries, I have a few questions:

-How much of the "income" calculated took into account various cash transfers (e.g. Old Age Security) and tax credits (e.g. tax credits for families) that countless Canadians benefit from every day?

-How much of the economic spinoff from government spending that can find its way back into citizens' pockets was taken into account? Tax credits for film production lead to increased work for technical staff. Money spent on the court system allows entrepreneurs and others to resolve their disputes more quickly. Farm subsidies can support smaller producers and family farms. Government spending on rural Internet improves the quality of life for people living in those regions. Subsidies for oil and gas companies such as royalty rebates and incentives create more oilpatch jobs than the market might by itself, and help smaller producers establish themselves. Government healthcare spending saves people from having to spend as much of their incomes on medical bills, and lets them contribute to the economy despite their ailments, all while relieving Canadian employers of having to subsidize health care costs the way they do in the U.S.

-With businesses being as profitable as they have often been, how often are business tax cuts passed on to the consumer, as opposed to using the tax savings to create more shareholder value and share buyback? What kind of studies have there been for that?

-Does private spending on education as part of the Consumer Price Index take into account the fact that so much of the money government takes goes to public education, including support for private institutions? I pay for that education through school taxes even though I don't have any kids, but I don't mind because the kids I am paying to educate now will be using the skills they gain from education to get jobs and pay taxes for my pension and healthcare when I get old.

This is the issue I have with Fraser Institute studies-they never seem to take into account the ways that government spending is actually important for the functioning of many parts of the economy, including the ones I've listed above. And this is nothing new in Canada or even other parts of the world, given the importance of government-built railroads in tying Canada together, the U.S. government's support for the space race that gave rise to technology like the Internet.

Is there wasteful public spending? Sure there is-living in St. Albert, I know all about it at the municipal level. But the accountability of the private sector doesn't always hang together when CEOs who cause a company to self-destruct and make thousands of workers lose their jobs and even in some cases their pensions suffer little to no consequence, sometimes cashing in multimillion-dollar stock options and severance packages.

   

Excellent!

   

In a second I'm going to see if I can +5 you for the rest of this post and that's why I'm narrowing my comment to just this point.

Government spending subsidizes aspects of the economy that may not prosper or that may not even exist without these subsidies.

The tax credit for film is no different than the subsidies for light rail in GTA. The fact of the matter is that without the subsidies for these two things you folks would not have light rail and you would not have foreign (face it: American) film companies coming to Canada for the 'cheaper' production costs.

Your costs are not cheaper than those in the USA, they're significantly higher. But the tax credit subsidizes foreign film activity and somehow this makes sense to you folks.

Wouldn't it make even more sense to reduce taxes across the board so Canadian companies in all sectors would benefit from the same advantages as the film industry?

And then you'd save money on the administrative overhead for the subsidies.

I say all of this because government spending comes from two sources:

1. Canadians who have to take an economic hit so someone else doesn't have to.

2. Borrowing from unborn Canadians.

It isn't manna from Heaven.

   

Sorry.

.

   

It might, but at the same time the government revenue we lose from those tax cuts might end up costing us dearly in many other areas that we expect the government to act on, most notably health care and education. With a small population and a large territory, infrastructure to link the entire country together isn't cheap either, particularly when you need to support more outlying communities (Newfoundlanders are familiar with relocation controversies, for instance) and in some cases, as with the oil industry, those subsidies actually lead to more companies and jobs being created than the market would by itself. If we lose those, we risk losing the tax generated from those jobs, too.

   

The "average taxpayer" is not under increased strain. Full stop. Current Tax bracket rates are lower, not higher, than in recent decades.

The only fat grabbing fingers are those that belong to pro-pollution, anti-regulation "investor class" of executives and major shareholders, who derive all or most of their wealth from investing instead of employment income, and who rely on dupes like you to advance their agenda of turning the rest of society into their serfs

   

Should I mention my plan to dramatically cut taxes? That's what I started with on CanadaKA. I've posted updates, I could post again.

Healthcare is not the reason. Ontario, Alberta, BC, and Quebec all have a health insurance premium. The Canadian federal government contributes 4.0% of GDP to healthcare, but the US federal government spends 3.6% of GDP on Medicare + 3.0% on Medicaid, total 6.6% of GDP. My argument is Canada needs to dramatically cut taxes, but healthcare is not the culprit.

I lived in Toronto from July 1987 through July 1990. At that time the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) was paid 1/3 to employees, 2/3 by employer. They had a problem, a growing number of employers charged employees both. That was illegal, but employers threatened to fire anyone who turned them in. Even stating that threat was illegal, but an increasing number got away with it. The NDP got elected in 1990, the only time in Ontario, they changed it to a payroll tax. So employers paid everything; that'll learn 'em! When the provincial Liberals got back in they brought back a premium. They kept the payroll tax, made that the employer's portion. One union tried to claim employers have to pay the premium, but the court upheld the new law that said the new premium was entirely paid by employees. So now once again it's paid 1/3 by employees, 2/3 by employer.

Current Ontario healthcare premium (only the portion paid by employees)
Annual Income ... Monthly Premium
up to $20,000: free
$25,000..$36,000: $25
$38,500..$48,000: $37.50
$48,600..$72,000: $50
$72,600..$200,000: $62.50
$200,600 and over: $75
Between each bracket are multiple steps to transition from one premium to the next.

Again, Ontario payroll tax is set up so employers pay double that. And most married couples in Canada both work, if they do then both pay.

   

The entire headline of this post is misleading: Taxes vs the Necessities of Life
I defy anyone to present a single instance of where anyone in Canada is denied or prevented any 'necessities of life' because of their taxes.

   

In Ontario, the "healthcare premium" isn't really a premium though. It doesn't cover the costs of healthcare, the amount of "premium" charged by it isn't in any way determined by the cost of healthcare, and the revenue isn't even specifically earmarked for healthcare, its just general revenue.


On what basis do you believe "Canada needs to dramatically cut taxes"?

   

The goal of The Fraser Institute is to distract the silly folks away from what really matters and to keep them occupied discussing shit that make no difference.
It is a shining success!! You all are taking the bait!

--

On what basis do you believe "Canada needs to collect taxes at all" given that the money is printed out of thin air??!?!???
Until you tards answer that question, you are all falling/shilling for distraction.

   

It is not printed out of thin air. If you don't understand that, perhaps you're the "tard".

   

.

   

Well he nailed the Fraser Institute thing but even though money is a completely imaginary concept, there is a slight method to the madness.
Look at how in spite of the comparative disparity and turmoil in the USA over the years everyone's worked their best to imagine the Cdn $ was worth a lot less and keep that trading advantage.

   

From the Original Post...

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next