Study: Reduce the welfare state, not immigration

[PoliticalNick]

I'd like to see a system where I chose where my taxes were spent. If I feel R&D in Canada needs more money than being alotted I'd rather invest in that than funding for stadiums.

We'd see a different country that might actually work instead of jerking off the dog to feed the cat.

I do agree with this to a point. There are certain social programs that should always be fully funded and mandatory (healthcare, education, police/fire) but after that it should be voluntary and self directed. I for one would support R&D over arts anyday.

 

[petros]

R&D is one of Canada's biggest failures. When it comes to innovation we suck.

 

[Unforgiven]

I'd like to see a system where I chose where my taxes were spent. If I feel R&D in Canada needs more money than being alotted I'd rather invest in that than funding for stadiums.

We'd see a different country that might actually work instead of jerking off the dog to feed the cat.

I don't think you understand this pet ownership business all that well Petros.

 

[captain morgan]

We don't need to become a communist country in order to hold a minimum standard of living. People who have something to live for are more productive than those who have nothing to lose. As well the more people working the broader the tax base and in the long run, lower taxes.

What you've described in earlier rants is that people that have accumulated wealth are bad and should be punished financially in order to provide low income earners something to live for.

You know, there is another ideology that can be applied here as well, one that forces people that are able to assume full responsibility for their own lives rather than invoking complete dependence on the State for every aspect of their very existence.

Most people living above the 200k income line don't give a damn about those less fortunate than themselves. They care far more for a tax write off than doing good for someone.

You say 'most' people in the 200k range feel this way. Obviously it would be impossible to expect that you could personally garner the opinions of 100% in this group.. So, by 'most', would you say that it was 60% or 70% of the people that you spoke with? Can you give me a better idea?

It's the government that should supply the social safety net, not the middle class.

Maybe you didn't get the memo regarding where gvt gets their money.. You really ought to look into that.

Why can't we bridle capitalism to do both, provide incentive to get rich and provide a bottom line that no one is allowed to sink below?

You mean bridle capitalism even more. Really man, don't delude yourself into thinking that capitalism goes unchecked in this country. As mentioned earlier, the top 10% income earners contribute the majority of money into the tax system (even after the deductions that you don't understand).

It's not like that is impossible or will stop everyone from working. Punishing the poor and crazy and disabled hasn't seemed to work.

You'll pay special attention to my earlier comment that recognized that 'those that are capable' be the ones that have their benefits questioned... Those with mental health issues, physical limitations, chronic illness, etc. should be exempted from this program of limited benefits. Ultimately, the aforementioned group is a small minority of the low income population that is in question.

17% means a lot more to someone making 30,000 than it does to someone making 2,000,000. Understand?

The maximum personal income tax rate is in Quebec (due to the large provincial component) which is 51% or 52%.... That's a pretty big number as well.... That also means a lot to the person that is paying that bill.

 

[PoliticalNick]

the top 10% income earners contribute the majority of money into the tax system.

You are delusional aren't you???? The top 10% of earners actually contribute less than 10% of the govt revenues, they do however contribute a lot more to financial advisors and tax accountants and investment brokers to ensure they pay a lot less than their fair share.

If you want to look at the issue from a real perspective look at what percentage of income goes into total taxation and govt fees. For example the fee in BC for DL renewal is $75 regardless of whether you make $100/wk or $100,000/week, same theory applies to sales taxes, medical premiums and user fees. Like I said before the middle class and working poor pay a much higher percentage of their income to the govt, lets just even that out.

 

[captain morgan]

You are delusional aren't you???? The top 10% of earners actually contribute less than 10% of the govt revenues, they do however contribute a lot more to financial advisors and tax accountants and investment brokers to ensure they pay a lot less than their fair share.

If you want to look at the issue from a real perspective look at what percentage of income goes into total taxation and govt fees. For example the fee in BC for DL renewal is $75 regardless of whether you make $100/wk or $100,000/week, same theory applies to sales taxes, medical premiums and user fees. Like I said before the middle class and working poor pay a much higher percentage of their income to the govt, lets just even that out.

Yawn... Get back to me Nick when you have something to offer that is based in reality

 

[Bar Sinister]

You forgot to mention the other socially progressive European countries like Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland... Got any clue as to what they all have in common?

Just as you have conveniently overlooked an even more glaring example of disparity in the case of the United States, a country where the average executive now earns about 200 times that of the average wage earner and where 10% of the population now owns about 70% of the wealth. In fact the US is a shining example of where the policies of the Fraser Institute lead. BTW just a few years ago Ireland was hailed as a prime example of the sort of economic planning favoured by the Fraser Institute. I wonder what went wrong?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Yawn... Get back to me Nick when you have something to offer that is based in reality

So I suppose this study is not real....

Canada’s rich not contributing fair share in taxes: study TORONTO – More than a decade’s worth of tax cuts have disproportionately lined the pockets of Canada’s most affluent families, says a new tax study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA). The study finds the top 1 percent of families in 2005 paid a lower total tax rate than the bottom 10 percent ...

I suppose this one that says all the morons who help the rich avoid taxes could add $10 billlion a year or more to the tax revenues by paying their fair share is false too...

Fairer taxes on finance could generate $10 billion annually: study OTTAWA—Canada’s financial sector has been the greatest beneficiary of recent corporate income tax cuts, says ... Toby Sanger, says Canada should join other countries in introducing fairer taxes on the financial ... tax rates since 2000 have provided a benefit to the finance and insurance industry worth approximately ...
News Release - April 26, 2011


And Harper wasn't lying to us with his economic stimulus by making corporation richer and more profitable would create jobs...

Corporate tax cuts not delivering on job creation and found those companies—Canada's largest corporations—are making 50% more profit and paying 20% less tax ... in the economy as a whole. In essence, the largest beneficiaries of corporate tax cuts are dragging down Canadian employment growth. If those 198 companies paid the same tax rate as they had in 2000, federal ...
Update - April 6, 2011


So you go ahead and live in your little imaginary world where the rich pay all the taxes and making rich corporations richer creates tons of good jobs, fractional reserve banking doesn't exist, and there isn't a socio-economic war against the impoverished. Keep your eyes closed and dream your little dream.

The facts are that the rich and corporations keep getting to pay lower and lower taxes while goverment services and programs to the needy are cut and fees for eveything go up.

Now if we got rid of all the deductions and taxed all gross income evenly you would be correct in your claim about who pays the most but when you consider the net taxable income of Canda's highest earners it tells a very different story.

 

[captain morgan]

So I suppose this study is not real.....

Ohhhh.. A study!

I noticed that these "studies" from the CCPA were extremely careful not to quote the actual percentage rates paid by the upper income earners, only to make a reference to the discount/drop that they received... That doesn't mean a whole lot when the high income earners are paying more than triple the percentage of the lowest income bracket (exluding below poverty line).

Tell ya what Nick, why don't you post the actual rates that are paid at each income level and then get back to me. In fact, go that extra mile and post the actual dollar amounts that are contributed through income taxes at each tax rate level.

I know that you'll deflect the conversation from this request of mine as it takes all the wind out of your sails, but nice try anyways.

Lastly, the references to "equality" always is good for a chuckle... You want equality, then invoke one tax rate with a consumption tax, or better yet, one set fee assessed to everyone that uses the facilities/services made available by gvt - everyone that uses the services pays an equal amount - how much more fair can you get?

Ultimately, that would represent equality, but I'm guessing that in your utopian, socialist society - some people are just a little more equal than others.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Tell ya what Nick, why don't you post the actual rates that are paid at each income level and then get back to me. In fact, go that extra mile and post the actual dollar amounts that are contributed through income taxes at each tax rate level.

Go ahead and post em if you got em, or would that blow your right wing self-centered arguments apart??

Lastly, the references to "equality" always is good for a chuckle... You want equality, then invoke one tax rate with a consumption tax, or better yet, one set fee assessed to everyone that uses the facilities/services made available by gvt - everyone that uses the services pays an equal amount - how much more fair can you get?

If you knew anything other than your own personal desires you would know that a flat tax and flat fee are considered to be regressive policy, they punish those at the bottom, I am sure you are all over that considering what I have seen from you. I have never seen a report or study that doesn't say that progressive taxation is the fairest policy, those with more ability to pay have to pay more. If you have something besides your own belief in looking out for yourself and forgetting about others please feel to post it up.

Ultimately, that would represent equality, but I'm guessing that in your utopian, socialist society - some people are just a little more equal than others.

Once again, look into progressive vs regressive tax structures and when you understand them make an informed decision. I am pretty sure you would jump for the regressive structure as it allows the rich to be richer while making the poor poorer.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Ohhhh.. A study!

I noticed that these "studies" from the CCPA were extremely careful not to quote the actual percentage rates paid by the upper income earners, only to make a reference to the discount/drop that they received... That doesn't mean a whole lot when the high income earners are paying more than triple the percentage of the lowest income bracket (exluding below poverty line).

Tell ya what Nick, why don't you post the actual rates that are paid at each income level and then get back to me. In fact, go that extra mile and post the actual dollar amounts that are contributed through income taxes at each tax rate level.

I know that you'll deflect the conversation from this request of mine as it takes all the wind out of your sails, but nice try anyways.

Lastly, the references to "equality" always is good for a chuckle... You want equality, then invoke one tax rate with a consumption tax, or better yet, one set fee assessed to everyone that uses the facilities/services made available by gvt - everyone that uses the services pays an equal amount - how much more fair can you get?

Ultimately, that would represent equality, but I'm guessing that in your utopian, socialist society - some people are just a little more equal than others.

Equal taxation of the sort you advocate has been tried in the past. Prior to the 20th century most nations used a sort of user-pay system. It was highly unsuccessful in providing quality education for the masses, not was it particularly successful in allowing public access to many other institutions. As usual this did not have any real impact on the wealthy who simply used the system to hire cheap labour for their servants and workers and who availed themselves of whatever they required. This resulted in a fabulous lifestyle for the top 10% or so of the population and left everyone else fighting for what was left.

As you point out in so-called Utopian societies some people do tend to end up being a little more equal than others. This tends to be especially true of unregulated capitalist or aristocratic societies - hence the existence of elites like the Vanderbuilts and Rockefellers in the USA, and the hereditary aristocracies in places like Russia and Austria-Hungary.

Almost certainly if what you advocate was introduced in Canada it would have the same result. In fact to a certain extent it is already here with the ultra-rich enjoying benefits the average Canadian can only imagine. The problem is that following the recommendations of right wing shills like the Fraser Institute would simply lead to an even more extreme situation with the gap between the top income earners and those at the bottom becoming even wider. If you truly believe in a workable capitalist system then there has to be more of an effort to distribute the wealth that such a system creates rather than channeling into the pockets of a tiny wealthy elite.

 

[petros]

Apparently the Assiniboine Valley needs some work. So? We'll need how many spades to how many wheel barrows for Canada's unemployed?

Compared to the Three Gorges Dam this would be a cakewalk even for fat lazy Canadians.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Apparently the Assiniboine Valley needs some work. So? We'll need how many spades to how many wheel barrows for Canada's unemployed?

Compared to the Three Gorges Dam this would be a cakewalk even for fat lazy Canadians.

Nice idea. It might even cover all 3-4 million of them for a few months but who pays and what about when its finished. Giving someone a temporary job at the expense of the taxpayer is counter-productive to the economy and leaves them all unemployed again when its done.

 

[petros]

Nice idea. It might even cover all 3-4 million of them for a few months but who pays and what about when its finished. Giving someone a temporary job at the expense of the taxpayer is counter-productive to the economy and leaves them all unemployed again when its done.

They used to do it all the time in the early 80's to get people back on pogey. I remember teams of guys sweeping streets by hand back in the day.

Harper has been making big pushes for 'Labour Mobility". If things don't improve it's probably going to happen again sooner than later.

 

[PoliticalNick]

They used to do it all the time in the early 80's to get people back on pogey. I remember teams of guys sweeping streets by hand back in the day.

Harper has been making big pushes for 'Labour Mobility". If things don't improve it's probably going to happen again sooner than later.

But its not a solution. First the cost of the labour far exceeds the tax revenues generated, then you have a bunch of people collecting benefits that hardly paid anything in. It is such a net-negative to the actual economy it isn't funny.

 

[cranky]

Nice idea. It might even cover all 3-4 million of them for a few months but who pays and what about when its finished. Giving someone a temporary job at the expense of the taxpayer is counter-productive to the economy and leaves them all unemployed again when its done.

Just curious, do you think building the hoover dam was counter productive for the usa?

 

[petros]

But its not a solution. First the cost of the labour far exceeds the tax revenues generated, then you have a bunch of people collecting benefits that hardly paid anything in. It is such a net-negative to the actual economy it isn't funny.

When it comes to spade and wheelbarrow work to put food in bellies and to qualify people for more trainnig who otherwise wouldn't be able to has to be done from time to time. The programs give people skills which it is something that Mr Harper calls "Investing in Human Capital" and the cost is spread out across the nation instead of the hardest hit provinces bearing the immediate cost in welfare payments and having to beg the feds.

Look into what the govt is working on when it comes to "labour mobility and "human capital" as part of NAFTA/EUFTA/SPP.

I never knew Conservative could be so passionate about Socialism. Harper Marx and Jack Lenin will be like two peas in a Socialist commune.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Just curious, do you think building the hoover dam was counter productive for the usa?

It has some pros and some cons. It fed a bunch of people at the time but it also permanently changed the course and flow of the Colorado river and the New Deal still hasn't been fully paid for.

When it comes to spade and wheelbarrow work to put food in bellies and to qualify people for more trainnig who otherwise wouldn't be able to has to be done from time to time. The programs give people skills which it is something that Mr Harper calls "Investing in Human Capital" and the cost is spread out across the nation instead of the hardest hit provinces bearing the immediate cost in welfare payments and having to beg the feds.

Look into what the govt is working on when it comes to "labour mobility and "human capital" as part of NAFTA/EUFTA/SPP.

I never knew Conservative could be so passionate about Socialism. Harper Marx and Jack Lenin will be like two peas in a Socialist commune.

How much training do you need to be a ditch digger? Is there a lot of call for them? Why not just make post-secondary education free to our citizens and skip the need for make-work projects to secure sponsorship.

NAFTA/EUFTA/SPP don't do anything but drive wages down. They are far from being socialist in any way. If it were up to me we would stop negotiating on new free trade deals and cancel all the old ones. They are pure oligarchical capitalism.

 

[petros]

Ditch digging gets you pogey to go to pre-employment tech school with or moolah for university.


It's called Human Capital Investment because humans are afterall just a resource to be exploited.

1 Introduction - Cities and Growth: In Situ Versus Migratory Human Capital Growth

 

[TenPenny]

i've never understood why our society has something against programs like this. Everyone claims that there are tons of people on welfare and unemployment who 'want to work', yet everyone rails against the idea of actually putting people to work, doing something that needs doing.

Sure, it might not be as efficient as hiring a contractor to do it. But we're paying these people to DO NOTHING. Why not pay them to do something? And yes, it might be 'beneath them' to do these tasks, but isn't it better to do something, than to do nothing?