stubblejumper

Once again ,yes,they do or really 3 tiered. The absolute poor and elderly get MedicAid, a state run health insurance plan. The employed and wealthy can afford private health insurance but the one's in the middle part timer,contracts,etc. Do not have any coverage. Australia has a large shortage of medical practioners in the public sector and some areas have no representation.Why? 30% of medical employees serve 10% of the population in the private sector. Causing massive shortages in the public. Is this what is called choice for all or just the rich ?

What would you propose to change it ? Are you a republican(small r) ?

Then what is MedicAid then ? State run health insurance for the poor. sounds like 2 tier to me.

It sound like for liberty would prefer to live in Zimbabwae. Just look at any third world country, no social safety net, lots of charties and emmense poverty. Is that what you want Canada to become ? If you like, I am more then able to take my familyand a gun(or 2) claim some land and subsist from hunting and farming. Just like they did 100 years ago. But honestly, I like my house,central heat,TV,PC,Car,etc. I really don't want to live in the old west or mad max. And that's the soceity that would eventually exist. Humans react very selfishly when the chips are on the table and its a free for all. That's why we have come up with 1000s of years of rules. I hope that helps. If not read some books , right or left wing but history,Dickens,Shakespeare,Rousseau,Hobbes,Locke,Smith,etc.. Learn about the human condition. Come back and then tell us what you think.

Speaking on insurance companies. What do you think the cost to our healthcare system is for insurance claim referrals for physio,massage,chiro,etc. I bet it makes up at least 5-10% per annum.

Like I said it will be the current Lt Gov of Ontario. He's aboriginal and from Ontario. Sews up some political loose ends.

Allot of foreign companies are moving to countries with public healthcare,especially US based ones. Because in the US,they must supply their employess with med insurance amongst other things. Which in Con think is akin to a payroll tax. It is cheaper to operate here with no insurance costs then in the USA. No what do cons say about corp taxes being the only competitive advantage we have. I would say somewhere there is a cost eff. rateing on tax vs cost vs health care, etc. Maybe corporate tax cuts are not the answer or if they are then maybe we should charge them a premium for health services.50% cost share,still cheaper then America.

So is every Natural gas company and power companies infrastructure. Those things wouldn't have been built,out west, if not for the governments of the time. They had the foresight to see that no private company was going to run these industries here but now that the infrastructure is there , it is more cost effective for these companies.Do they owe the tax payer? How is the tax payer different from a share holder? Is profit not a private tax? How does private business finance their projects ?

How do you explain the Crown Corp in Man and Sask that turn profits,charge the lowest fees and are innovative ? Government ownership can work in a non-competitive enviroment or competitive. SaskTel no longers has a monopoly yet still dominates the market from ISP ,Mobile,Cable TV to home phones. A competitive well run crown corporation is well suited for the free market and will always supply the cheapest and best product.Due to the fact that profits are not its main goal and any profits made are used to reduce the tax burden.Win-Win.

No, a locally run small business should be nearly tax exempt. Multi-nationals that take profit and resources out of Canada should have to pay more.

I would say that certain items are not taxable(essentials,utilities,etc.), you could have a $100,000 threshold for houses and $15,000 for a car. Also I would add/deduct several thousand to it dependent on fuel consumption and pollution levels. But that family buying the $25k car does every 5 years or so, while the $1000 bottle of wine gets bought regularly. This would be more of a luxury tax then a GST or VAT.

Like I said use the median income level for all individuals in Canada. This can be raised or lowered but yes homeowners are subsidised for 1 house. Small business is the engine that drives our economy. Isn't that right ? Not at all. Something like 0-$100-1% .... $1,000,000<- 25% All tiers and specifics should be polished for accuracy but the jist of it is that the bank president should pay more,especially if his lifestyle is exceedingly extravagant.

Good response,leads me right into some of my ideas. Corporate/Personal Tax Framework Personal exemption Indiv-$20k Corp-$500k or Deductions for expenses Mortage/Rent- max $500 per month Utilities-max $500 per month Groceries-max $1k/mth etc. **- Limits to be set at median standard of living. Capital Tax Indiv- 5% on net worth(eg. house,car,etc.) Housing deduction of $50k * with personal exemption Corp.- 10% Operating deduction of $1M* with corp. exemption Revenue Tax- with individual exemption Indiv- $20,001-$50,000 - 25% $50,001-$80,000- 30% $80,001-$120,000-35% $120,001 < - 40% Corp. $500,001-$750,000 - 35% $750,001-$1,000,000- 40% $1,000,000-$1,500,000-45% $1,500,001< - 50% Net Revenue Tax- with expense deductions 0-1,000- 5% 1,001-5,000-10% 5,001-10,000-15% 10,001-30,000-20% 30,001-50,000-25% 50,001-75,000-30% 75,001-100,000-35% 100,001-150k- 40% 150,001-200k-45% 200,001< - 50% So Joe and wife that earns $55,000 a year. Own a house worth $100,000, a car at $15,000 and other misc holdings of $10,000. Would get taxed either After exception- $15,000 (taxable @ 25%)=$3750 Capital of $125,000 , $75k taxable at 5%= $3750 Total Tax bill- $7,500- Real cost- 13.6% or Median income = $25,000 per year Taxable income - $5,000 @ 10%= $500 Capital Tax- $125,000 @ 5%= $6,250 Total Tax bill- $6750- Real cost- 12.3% But if Joe and wife make $150k and own property of $350,000 Total w exemption= $53,500-Real cost- 35.6% Total w. expense ded.= $57,500-Real cost- 38.3% I think either way more greatly reflects one's ability to pay, over in above the cost of living(comfortably). Median income is probably higher. Also GST should be a graduated tax from 1-25% dependent on cost of item. Just some ideas.

I heard on the radio today that the current Lt. Gov of Ontario is the front runner, he is of first nations descent. Ralston-Saul is her husband and one of this countries greatest minds.Read one of his many books.

What was the overall increase in population,businesses,etc.? When Mulroney finished what was the rate ? Yes the government can influence a economy greatly. The liberals managed to but this countries fiscal house in order, somewhat.Cuts,tax hikes,interest rates,etc. The NDP also cleaned up Sask after the tories nearly bankrupted it ,with massive spending and corruption. Now that's irony. NDP fiscally more responsible then the tories.

Economic Left/Right: -6.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90 Those that make me a commie ? Some of the questions I could have answer agree or disagree, should have been a 5th choice.I am sure that would have swung my score. Example: It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. Well yes, some but the even close to the majority or even a large portion. So I agree but not strongly.There are probably 5 I could have swung on.

I live out west. My opinion is that this attitude has to do with envy and wee bit to do with the NEP. The Texas of Canada wasn't interested in sharing it's riches with the poor farmers,factory workers,etc. If the NEP had stayed, my guess is we would have alot more oil reserves and it owuld be less costly. But then AB wouldn't be so damn rich!!

Of course, he would be. Jesus taught acceptance and compassion. He who is without sin may cast the first stone.

Please give me your thoughts. I have entered as a guest to read it looks interesting but out of character people seem to get quite nasty. Comments? Should I join

I wouldn't call them the silent majority from what I have seen and read. I would say they are the Loud Minority.

Has far as Europe goes, I have lived in the UK. For those that can't afford the £100+ per month for private insurance. Are forced to wait in longer lines then previous due to a shortage of dr., especially speacialist. There are even some specialaties that you can't access through public system. Now the NHS is talking about paying private hosptials to take up the slack. By the way £100 is about 12.5% of min wage earners gross salary.

Grocery store analogy. What would happen is that pretty soon, no cashier in there right mind will work for a non surcharge till. So they either get a till or move to another store where they can and pretty soon you run out of cashiers(since they have to go to school for 8-10 years) and there is a finite amount. Even if you get immigrants from SA or India. Now the single mom making minimum wage has to buy 10% less groceries to feed her kids with.

How about the fact that Australia's health care system,public, does not have any specaialists in a number of fields. Therefore you either have to pay for private care or suffer. I think the example I read was orthos. This is what happens to public care when private is allowed at the same time.

This may be why nothing ever gets done because people are more interested in being critical of someone's ideas instead of coming up with there own alternatives. Yes there are difficulties , with any system. Sure I may have made mistakes in my research into it. BUT at least i have the nerve and ability to put my ideas forward. Why don't you guys , instead of constantly regurgatating stats and quoteing others , come up with an IDEA. If you know what that is ?

Let's start by saying that I never asked for a debate on the possibilty or probability of senate reform. It was meant to get constructive discussion on the make up, politically, of an elected senate. The way I imagine it would be most likely the current make up which is a good starting place. The US doesn't give the senators ridings the whole state votes for the candidate of there choice. That is how I got the numbers. I would guess that they would all be elected at the same time so 1st 1-24 (depending on province)past the post. I would make some 2 years intial so that the general pop can vote for 1/3 every 2 years. Others 4 and 6 year terms. One could make the top 1/3-6 year-then middle 1/3-4 year and bottom 3rd -2 year then 6 year from then on. As far as the territories, most elected upper houses do not grant voting reps to the senate for territories . But that seemed un-Canadian. I am not advocating senate reform. Just trying to get some discussion on what it may look like .