Probably the latter.
But hey ! red wine i've got ....
red wine saturday afternoon
thought ya might, might maybe likely would
cheeers
We need to pay more taxes
- Thread starter whitedog
- Start date
thought ya might, might maybe likely would
cheeers
Which is why debt is bad for anyone and one of the reasons the fed and others refuse to raise interest rates because both consumers and government will be affected. Problem is, low interest rates encourage more debt making it less likely government will raise rates.
Here is the reality: In Ft. McMurray there are labourers who earn more than accountants and drivers who earn more than doctors. I just got back from Ft. Mac the other day and while there one of the rental managers told me how many are nervous about the falling price in oil because few if any have saved or properly invested their windfall. instead it goes to increased housing prices (because the market can afford it) pimped up trucks, drugs and expensive hookers and even though they make 4-10x the amount someone in a similar position elsewhere in Canada does, they have the same level or more of debt.
The government deals with tax revenue in a similar way in that it is almost never a revenue problem but almost always a spending problem.
Paul Martin when finance minister made a series of tax cuts because he recognised that Canada had hit a point where each increase in taxes actually reduced government revenues. There are a variety of reasons for this phenomenon such as driving the economy underground and of course, for every dollar you take out of the consumer's hand it circulates and stimulates the economy that much less. How far off that mark are we today? How high can taxes go before it impacts the economy and government revenues negatively?
We already pay close to half our income in taxes and contrary to your claim taxes are decreasing they are actually increasing:
Tax Freedom Day varies from province to province, depending on the taxation levels of provincial and local governments. Alberta continues to enjoy the earliest Tax Freedom Day on May 22, followed by Prince Edward Island on June 2 and New Brunswick on June 6. Manitoba’s Tax Freedom Day falls on June 7 followed by British Columbia (June 8), Ontario (June 10), Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia (June 12), and Quebec on June 17. Newfoundland and Labrador has the latest Tax Freedom Day, June 21.
All but three provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, BC, and Alberta) experience a later Tax Freedom Day in 2012 than in 2011. Quebec has the longest delay in Tax Freedom Day, with celebrations being postponed by four days this year.
Tax Freedom Day is June 11, one day later than last year as Canadians work longer to pay taxes | Fraser Institute
It is against the law for a Crown Corporation like Canada Post to continually run debt without trying to break even. In order to obey the law and live within their means and mandate (such as it costing the same to mail a letter across the country as across the street) CP has to negotiate employee salaries, moderate hiring, manage infrastructure budgets and do it all without cost to the taxpayer.
Now back in the good ole days of yearly Christmas postal strikes when you and I might be having this conversation through a series of mailed letters CP was pretty profitable and powerful but in the day and age of email, smart phones, internet etc, clearly even the unions saw the writing on the wall and nary a peep was heard when home delivery was cancelled because the postal service is in survival mode.
Of course, we could have a US style system with 6 day delivery but the USPS currently loses about 5 billion a year, is billions in debt and has more than 100 billion unfunded shortfall in it's worker pension fund that US taxpayers currently have to pick up. The alternative to you walking a few blocks to get your three bills you refuse to receive electronically is not worth it to the rest of us who have to pick up the tab.
I have to go but I promise to come back and answer this for you.
Quote: Originally Posted by whitedog
Really? Can we afford to send F18's around the world? Can we afford to give donations to other Countries, such as Ukraine? Can we afford to build access roads for oil and mining companies? Like why can we afford those things, but a direct service to Canadians, nope, can't afford that. Honestly.
So while I was piddling around the ranch this afternoon I was thinking how my well, water treatment equipment, pumps, waste water treatment plant and disposal field cost around $100,000.0. It costs me an additional several thousand a year in electricity and hydrogen peroxide to treat the high iron content water. In the city, your water and sewer is essentially free while my provincial taxes greatly subsidise it.
If you had to pay the true cost for your water and sewer it would probably jump up to at least $300.00 per month. Instead you probably pay somewhere around $50.00 and never think twice about the rural property owners who subsidise this water for you.
That in a nutshell is what happens in a country. Our government sets priorities and we all pay whether it benefits us directly or not. Cities are seen as important economic centres and the accompanying industry is vital to our collective prosperity and thus the government feels it is a fair trade off to subsidise municipal water facilities in order to have prosperous, clean and healthy communities. The government feels the same way when it subsidises roads for resource extraction etc.
But you shouldn't be trying to boil things down to say; why are we giving money to Africa when instead we should be pumping more into healthcare? Instead you should be asking why can't the healtchcare system operate efficiently on what it gets?
So while I was piddling around the ranch this afternoon I was thinking how my well, water treatment equipment, pumps, waste water treatment plant and disposal field cost around $100,000.0. It costs me an additional several thousand a year in electricity and hydrogen peroxide to treat the high iron content water. In the city, your water and sewer is essentially free while my provincial taxes greatly subsidise it.
If you had to pay the true cost for your water and sewer it would probably jump up to at least $300.00 per month. Instead you probably pay somewhere around $50.00 and never think twice about the rural property owners who subsidise this water for you.
That in a nutshell is what happens in a country. Our government sets priorities and we all pay whether it benefits us directly or not. Cities are seen as important economic centres and the accompanying industry is vital to our collective prosperity and thus the government feels it is a fair trade off to subsidise municipal water facilities in order to have prosperous, clean and healthy communities. The government feels the same way when it subsidises roads for resource extraction etc.
But you shouldn't be trying to boil things down to say; why are we giving money to Africa when instead we should be pumping more into healthcare? Instead you should be asking why can't the healtchcare system operate efficiently on what it gets?
We already pay something over 50% of gross income in taxes. That is truly gross. SO no we do NOT need more or higher taxes. What we need is control over expendatures, especially in the payroll area of all levels of government.
Quote: Originally Posted by whitedogReally? Can we afford to send F18's around the world? Can we afford to give donations to other Countries, such as Ukraine? Can we afford to build access roads for oil and mining companies? Like why can we afford those things, but a direct service to Canadians, nope, can't afford that. Honestly.
So while I was piddling around the ranch this afternoon I was thinking how my well, water treatment equipment, pumps, waste water treatment plant and disposal field cost around $100,000.0. It costs me an additional several thousand a year in electricity and hydrogen peroxide to treat the high iron content water. In the city, your water and sewer is essentially free while my provincial taxes greatly subsidise it.
If you had to pay the true cost for your water and sewer it would probably jump up to at least $300.00 per month. Instead you probably pay somewhere around $50.00 and never think twice about the rural property owners who subsidise this water for you.
That in a nutshell is what happens in a country. Our government sets priorities and we all pay whether it benefits us directly or not. Cities are seen as important economic centres and the accompanying industry is vital to our collective prosperity and thus the government feels it is a fair trade off to subsidise municipal water facilities in order to have prosperous, clean and healthy communities. The government feels the same way when it subsidises roads for resource extraction etc.
But you shouldn't be trying to boil things down to say; why are we giving money to Africa when instead we should be pumping more into healthcare? Instead you should be asking why can't the healtchcare system operate efficiently on what it gets?
Actually you have it backwards but it is a fairly common misconception.
The city dwellers subsidize the rural regions of Canada, always have and always will.
If you get to know any MLA’s well enough that they can speak frankly to you they will quickly confirm this fact.
Did you actually believe that the sparsely settled rural regions actually paid the entire price for all those scattered health clinics, schools, fire halls, as well as hockey and curling rinks they utilize?
They do not.
The cities get slightly less of the tax base per capita back and the rural ridings get back slightly more than they put in.
As to water and sewer, the city dwellers pay exactly what their water and sewer costs are as well as a nice little profit margin to the utility owners.
Obviously if you look at Palliser’s Triangle in Southern Alberta and the extensive water diversion and irrigation networks that have been funded by Alberta taxpayers the local farmers are being subsidized.
O&G companies are not subsidized by the taxpayer and nor are their lease roads paid for by the taxpayer.
O&G and mining companies may enjoy accelerated depreciation or write-downs of capital costs as well as reduced tax rates until some of their capital costs are clawed back.
The reasons are simple.
Say I decide to develop a small oil sands operation.
I buy up the land rights and build access roads.
Then I drill my twinned laterals or herringboned horizontals.
Then I put the steam to them as I complete and tie them in.
After three or four years of drilling, tie-ins and steaming I have spent say a couple of hundred million.
And not a drop of oil produced yet.
And my equipment is wearing out and needs to be maintained.
Plus payroll has to be made.
So the government allows me claw back some of my initial upfront costs by temporarily reducing my tax rate until oil production begins.
That is not a subsidy.
An example of a subsidy would be the announcement of Honda's 90 million auto line refurb in Ontario.
Wynne gave Honda 9 million or 10% of the refurb costs courtesy of the Ontario taxpayers.
That is a subsidy.
The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation
Comment Now Follow Comments
In this handout provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Monetary Fund Deputy Director Michael Keen presents the Fiscal Monitor Press Conference October 9, 2013 at the IMF Headquarters in Washington, DC. The report said that emerging-market governments were at economic risk. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.
Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me. The report itself says:
The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation
Comment Now Follow Comments
In this handout provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Monetary Fund Deputy Director Michael Keen presents the Fiscal Monitor Press Conference October 9, 2013 at the IMF Headquarters in Washington, DC. The report said that emerging-market governments were at economic risk. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.
Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me. The report itself says:
Comment Now Follow Comments
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.
Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me. The report itself says:
“The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). … The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)”
Note three takeaways. First, IMF economists know there are not enough rich people to fund today’s governments even if 100 percent of the assets of the 1 percent were eThe International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation - Forbes
The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation
Comment Now Follow Comments
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.
Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me. The report itself says:
“The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). … The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)”
Note three takeaways. First, IMF economists know there are not enough rich people to fund today’s governments even if 100 percent of the assets of the 1 percent were eThe International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation - Forbes
I pay the same provincial and federal taxes as anyone in Alberta but in my county we do not receive anywhere near the funding per capita that Edmonton or Calgary receive. Not even a quarter as much and that's including highway maintenance.
For my municipal taxes, I am responsible for sewer, water, and garbage services. There is no transit, there has never been mail delivery, no pavement within 3 miles, no parks or sidewalks or public art, libraries, theaters, ballet etc. There are no hydrants and the fire department is volunteer and 12 miles from me.
The only thing I get for my municipal tax dollars is the road plowed 3-5 days after a significant snowfall and a bylaw officer comes snooping around every so often looking to ticket for Canada Thistle. (Not illegal in the city I might add.)
All my phone calls are long distance including to my neighbours and I pay extra for the land line because it is rural. I pay roughly 30.00 per month more on my power bill indexed to inflation forever as part of the cost recovery/cash cow for rural electrification. I pay something similar to the gas coop. The cheapest internet I can get costs around $120.00 per month.
I am not in the middle of nowhere. I can be downtown Edmonton in about an hour.
Where you get the wonky idea that some urbanite is subsidizing me, always has and always will I'll never know but clearly you have no idea.
Wow. You really are off the mark. In Canada the average municipality cost recovers 70% and has the other 30% subsidised. It is continually in the news that from an environmental perspective Canada needs to start actually charging for the full cost for water and sewer in order to encourage reductions in usage. It is also constantly in the news how cities in Canada cannot afford to maintain let alone improve their collapsing infrastructure.
http://cwf.ca/pdf-docs/publications/Water_Backgrounder_7_Sept_2011.pdf
If you want to actually debate come back to me with some figures and links to support your comments instead of trying to pass off your beliefs as fact.
Canada's National Debt Clock : The Canadian Taxpayers Federation
this website says that Canada's debt is only 613 billion.
1 trillion is a +60% fudge factor, so is it ok to just laugh at this guy?
this website says that Canada's debt is only 613 billion.
1 trillion is a +60% fudge factor, so is it ok to just laugh at this guy?