Okay, so after being corrected in my math by both my room mate and my son, doing some more searching for figures I come up with this...$2,400,000,000 (contributed by Tonington) spent to care for roughly 200,000 people works out to be 120,000 per head approximately. Even if the percentage of poor in NS today has increased over 2009 figures of census findings regarding the population and the percentage of poor this is ridiculous. At roughly $5600 per head as per tax collected at the federal level and the cost of living given out in monthly payments of roughly $900 a month...the total cost of care for an individual runs at $16,400.00. Round it up to cover unconsidered costs to roughly $25,000 a year, subtract that from the $120,000 represented in the fund...something is wrong ( with more than just my math giggle)
No, the $2.3 billion figure includes loss of income, which isn't really a cost that is paid for, but rather a cost that is lost by an economy that isn't performing. It's an assumption that those in poverty could all have well paying jobs, perhaps they used a median income. It's not clear how they estimated that figure.
Okay, That so totally changes everything. Thanks for teaching as opposed to ranting. I am beginning to love this conversation.Complicated is an understatement.So they did the same thing in a way that I just did and made an assumption on costexcept I failed to understand how a part of that cost is calculated from a loss.
So if you take the rough figure represented by actual cost per person and subtract it from the figure calculated with the loss you get the real cost...I wonder how much of the balance of the 2.4 after the real cost is actually representative of that loss. Somewhere there should be a paper that explains how they figure this out. That would be a good thing to know.
I can understand how in today's environment the only way we know how to move forward is to create jobs. It has only been recently that any real social discussion or acknowledgement of what the world will be like when we need to have 7 billion jobs as opposed to 3. I also understand that most of those conversations go round and round because no one has an answer to the problem. But then how could a person come up with a solution to a problem that contains over a billion dollars of fictitious debt ie: the 2.4 billion cost of taking care of our poor that involves massive charges for nothing given the real cost is only in the millions. Nothing being underproduction.
To me then, it is almost like sensationalism...that article I referenced made a mole hill out of nothing and given that the real cost of caring for the poor does actually fall in the millions and opposed to the billions which represents a miniscule portion of the GDP in NS...
Sensationalism in both the article and in our government, exaggeration on a grande scale. This I can believe. And, actually at the end of the day to try and fund a few million as opposed to a few billion through taxes in such a way as to bring lo9ng term stability in both the value of our dollar and our standard of living should be easier.
Okay, I can concede quite easily that it will take a concerted effort to fund certain fields such as research and agriculture in terms of job production and stability but not without an equal effort to reduce the need for jobs in other areas. It will definitely be a fine balance between the 2. And, we actually over produce on a disgusting scale to provide the amount of jobs we already do.
One thing I am fairly certain of, the figures of consumer demand are as off as our figures that represent currency velocity. Because we are so wasteful, just look at our landfills, real consumer demand gets inflated as does currency velocity due to multiple redundant purchases which ultimately end up in the garbage before its due date. Real consumer demand should reflect a base line set of purchases expected in an average persons lifetime based on a given standard of living. This situation has been created from the mentality that the only way to do the business of living comes from the standpoint that everyone must work.
Again, I do honestly think the only way to change in meaningful ways for long term stability involves better spending and reduced need for jobs. It starts with real figures for budgetary needs and real consumer demand.
Here is another article to help put some figures on the table...accuracy?
CBC wrong about Nova Scotia having "highest taxes in Canada" | Reality Bites
James Sawler, who teaches economics at Mount Saint Vincent University, agrees that on a per capita basis, Nova Scotia does not have the highest taxes. He also points out in an email forwarded to The Coast that “the need for adequate health, education and social programs does not depend on GDP. Given that our GDP is smaller, if NS is to provide programs comparable to other provinces, we may need to tax a greater percentage of GDP.”
Given the nominal amount tax collected as a percentage of GDP I would have to agree with raising taxes. If we are to offer comparable programs or new and different programs our tax base needs to increase. Primarily from simplifying the process of social spending.