Renegade

I've said before a "pay-by-use" system would be a more appropriate way to capture use of each of our use of public infrastructure. You would think that in Canada where there is high investment in "infrastructure" you would see a higher payback in income, however you seem to disregard the fact that the US, Hong Kong and other places provide less "infrastructure" yet many of the high-earning population earn more than the would in Canada. What people believe is very adaptable. People's expectations acclimatize to what they are used to. Prior to the 20th century when few social programs were in place, few people believed in them. Its not that people believe in them, it's that people are used to them. Absolutely, but since that is a self-imposed restriction, the people who are restricted by economic circumstance are free to change that circumstance and earn more. My party??? It is getting somewhat irritating that you are making statements on behalf of me which I have never said. I don't consider the conservative party my party and there are many of their policies I disagree with.

cm'on now, all you fat cats in alberta have piles of cash to share, don't ya?

Excellent!! I can't wait for the equalization payments to start flowing back to Ontario.

To justify that the money is not mine because it is forcebly taken at source is ludricous. So if your employer decided that he should withhold an additional 50%, does that action justify that it is now the employers money? Of course not. The fact is I earn it, not the public. The fact that it is deducted at source is nothing short of robbery. Even that robbery would be tolerable if the amount was minor, however it is not. Ever since the government introduced income tax and realized that it was an enforcable and lucrative mechanism to raise funds, the employed have had THEIR funds hijacked. The funding for that minimium standard should fall to charities, churches and other organizations which are funded via voluntary donations. If there isn't enough funding which can be provided by these organizations, then that would demonstrate that the public doesn't feel strongly enough that the poor should be supported beyond the level they have already contributed. I don't agree that the poor have a "right" to a minimium standard. Perhaps it's time for YOU to take a reading comprehension course. I have not called you are jelaous of the rich. I have stated that in reality, despite what rules are enacted, restrictions are not applicable to everyone. Let's remove the restrictions for everyone. I think it is foolish to elect politicians who are myoptic enough to think that there is only one solution to health care and that is increased funding. We can certainly better use the current system by implementing deductables, and givng people a better idea of how much their tax dollars go toward health care.

You're right there is income which is taxed preferentially such as capital gains, but conversely the higher incomes are taxed at a much higher rate. In addition the poor are given numerious benefits (eg Child Tax Benefit, OAS, etc). I have yet to see evidence that given all these both positive and negative influences on tax burden that overall the poor are paying their share. In my analysis, the middle-class and the employed wealthy are paying more than their share, and the self-employed, corporate, and the poor are paying less than their share. While I have my own perspective I am open to changing it based upon evidience I see. I am happy to read other perspectives even if I disagree. I may take up your suggestion to look at her book, despite the fact that I think her view is very biased. Insurance is only a "for profit" business when it is operated by a "for profit" entity. I think you misunderstand me if you think I advocate pay-as-you-go. I don't advocate paying for a health-care service (eg an operation) as you use it. That just doesn't make sense for health insurance any more than it makes sense for car insurance. I advocate paying a perodic payment of health insurance which is proportional to the risk of using the system. I would also advocate a deductable each time the system is used. I don't disagree with the statement that those who earn income should pay for the infrastructure that allows them to earn the income. What I dispute is that much of the infrastructure is not necessary to earn the income, as well, there is a "charging" for the infrastructure well beyond the cost of that infrastructure. That is why I would prefer a more line-of-sight relationship between the infrastructure used and the taxes used to pay for that infrastructure.

Then it would seem we differ in what we mean by carrying one's weight. Then I will rephrase my statement to be less ambiguious to you. The taxes the poor pay do not cover the cost of the services they consume. This isn't a moral condemnation of the poor. It is simply a fact. Frankly I don't know where you have derived that any human has the absolute natural right to equal care. For virtually all of history and today people have had unequal positions in life and unequal care. It is self-delusional to think that it will ever be otherwise. It is exactly NOT the human experience. The human experience and history is that there have always been wealthy and powerful who have had access to better services than others. There has always been an economic cost to treatment. We have come to a point where that cost has mounted considerably. Our expectations of health now are very different than if we lived 100 years ago. (Witness our changing life expectancy). I don't see it as a "right" for those who are poor to be entiled to an unlimited set of services funded by others at a growing and indefinate economic cost.

I comprehend just fine thank-you. I didn't say that you had contradictory statements but that the basis of your argument has shifted. Let me give you an example. Let's say it cost the government $10000 to provide health coverage on average for Mr. Smith. Let's say Mr. Smith is poor and "pays what he can", which is only $100 in taxes toward health coverage. Is Mr. Smith carrying his weight in this example despite "paying what he can?" In my view, he is not. BTW, what "murky moral waters" are you talking about? Maybe my comphrension would improve in direct proportion to the clarity of your writing.

You seem to treat the money in the public system as your trust account. It is not. The money each of us contribute is ours not the publics. We earn it, we should be allowed to spend it in ways which beneift each of us. There are many other necessary services in life which we allow people to purchase according to the ability to pay. Arent the wealthy able to purchase better food than the poor? Arent the wealthy able to purchase better housing than the poor? Arent the wealthy able to purchase better education than the poor? It would seem that we don't have a mental block against the wealthy paying to getter better service, however health care seems to be out of line in policy with these other services. In any case you should know that there is already mullti-tier health care in Canada. The truly wealthy can go to the US should they need to. Polititians and elite athletes seem to go to the front of the line anyway. The middle-class are gettting screwed in this deal by not having the same choices others do in a system which they provide the bulk of the funding for.

"Carrying their weight" means paying for the cost of the services they consume. Same criteria for rich, middleclass or poor. It makes no difference if they "give their all", my contention was that if they are not covering the cost of services they consume, then they are not carrying their weight. I see that you have gone from protesting that the poor are indeed carrying their weight and my statement was false, to now protesting that the poor are doing all they can.

Haven't I commented on tax reform? I guess you haven't read other threads. Tax Policy Let me quote from my previous statements: So it does seem even when I agree with you, you're still looking to quibble because you disagree with my position on other issues, and you insist on making assumptions on my position. Personally, yes I would prefer to pay for systems as I use them or based upon risk that I would use them. That is the principle of insurance, and if I had my way, health care would be structured as an insurance. I guess it is hard to read the sarcasm in my response. Of course I know you think we need more government. Of course I know you think we should remove any incentive to earn income by forcible redistribution of income. Guess what, such a system has never worked on a large scale.

Not at all. I despise corporate welfare as much as individual welfare. I don't have two sets of standards regardless of the dollar amount. If you can find one statement in any of my posts which suggest I don't mind corporate tax avoidance, I challenge you to show it. If not, back off accuations when you don't know my position. It probably wasn't you, it was eureka who suggested it. Of course I have used some our social programs, it has just never been worth anywhere near the tax dollars which are forcibly extorted from me to pay for those systems. Many others I have never used, nor forsee ever using. What's your point here, that if I minimially use one system that I should be forced to over pay for it all? Since you don't think much of government policy either, so I'm sure you would support me when I advocate that the government should minimize its interferrence in our lives.

Yet they still offer options on cars. Why? Perhaps your preference was the Ladas built by the USSR for its citizens with no options. Your right it was cheap. You profess the common good while happily trampling individual freedoms in the process. Yes I could go to the US but I would rather advocate change here. BTW, I am not advocating for a mirrror image of the US but at least they do respect the individual's right to choose. Yes I am advocating for more choice for people who can afford that choice. I hardly see it is at the expense of anyone else's choice. You have alreay admitted to being a tax-cheat. Your only excuse is that you rely on your accountant for tax advice. You can turn a blind eye to your accountant's tax antics if you want to, but that doesn't make you any less culpable. I'm going to prove to you you are a tax-evader: Here's a quote from Business and Professional Income Guide You have alredy admitted that your wife earns a salary paid by your company but does not work. THAT MAKES YOU A TAX-CHEAT. Given your demonstrated hypocracy it is hard to take your advocacy on changing the tax structure seriously.

Good idea. Now your on to something. Bernado orphanages?? What the heck is that?

CN is private.

Let's hope that the Supreme Court finally puts some sanity back into the system: Supreme Court to rule on child support

Again you seem to believe I am a proponent of corporate tax avoidance. I am not. So you may have one example, you may have a thousand, there is no need to convince me of this. At least you are honest enough to admit that the poor do not carry their weight. That was consistant with my original comment. Perhaps I'm more blunt in my comment than you, however it doesn't change the fact of the matter. You may be glad to live in a country which is socialists, however I resent being forced to pay for services which I don't benefit at all. BTW, its only corporate tax evasion if it is illegal. If it is legal it is called corporate tax avoidance.

The controversy about racial profiling is simply because it involves one of our hot-button sensitivities around race. If experience and intelligence observed that all terrorist were wearing gang colours, would we have an objection if they detained anyone with gang colours? Would that be discrimination? Our discomfort with racial profiling is not because it is not practical or that it doesn't make sense (because it does), it is because of the implications and where such a policy may lead.

This example does not support the case that the poor are paying their share. I have already stated that I support the view that there is an inequity between corporate and individual taxes which allows corporations and self-employed individuals dedcutions and deferral opportunities the indivdiual taxpayer does not have. I would support removing this inequity by either making those deductions and deferral opportunities available to all or to none. The middle-class and the rich individual taxpayer shoulder the bulk of the tax burden. Giving an example of a corporation which manages to avoid taxes in no way proves that the poor are paying their share. BTW, I read newspapers with many different biases, including the Toronto Star which is very left-leaning, so if you think I am getting a narrowly biased view of the world, you are incorrect.

Best: Hazel McCallion, City of Mississauga Mississauga Mayor McCallion:We run our city like a business 2nd Best: Mike Harris, Province of Ontario - He did what he said he would.

So mirror, in this thread Canada needs to rebuild its railway system you propose getting the trucks of the road, now you say CN should have its licence revoked. How exactly are you proposing that goods be shipped around Canada? Surely you are aware that CP and CN don't have access to the same rail lines and that CP doesn't have the capacity to handle all the goods which would need to be shipped. Have you even thought of the implications of your proposal?

If you look at it from the persepctive of the wealthy classes, the justification to pay for social services such as welfare, is to maintain the status quo and prevent social upheval and revolution. It is not really in their self-interest to pay any more than necessary to achieve that aim. You suggest that it "complacency" to suggest that it cannot happen. I'm not suggesting it is an absolute impossibility, however the chances of a revolution due to the lack of social benefits in our society are so negligible that they can be ignored. Yes I do agree that there are a small percentage of people who are so severely handicapped that they cannot better their position, however this is not true for the majority. There is always be a percentage of the population considered "poor". Until very recently, poverty was a relative measure, based upon the median income. That meant that no matter how rich a society got, there would always be poor. You say that there is no opportunity for many. I disagree. I would say there is very much opportunity for the majority and only a few are so hampered by their condition that they have no opportunity for self-betterment. Perhaps you and I disagree on the shackles which keep someone in poverty. For me, if someone abuses drugs or alcohol, that is a situation caused by their own actions and is within their control to resolve, so in my view they DO have opportunities for improving their position in society. It is hard for me to visualize situations outside of people severly disabled who cannot improve their situation.

Where did you get an idea like that? And yes it is bigoted if that position isn't based in fact. The fact that homosexuals have been and continue to be discrimminated against isn't in question. 1. It wasn't homosexuals lobby groups that pushed a law through parliment. The Supreme Court struck down the existing restrictive law. Even if no law was passed in parliment, homosexuals would be free to marry because the existing law was struck down. 2. It really doesn't matter if its 2%, 3% or 0.5% of the population when rights are violated. The charter gurantees righs of everyone so that the majority (even if they are 99.9%) of the population cannot override the rights of the minority. You're not making sense here. What do you mean by "use sexual orientation to gain power"? Men and women are distinct from each other. Does that mean that they shouldn't be equal just because they are distinct? You are free to have a straight pride parade. No one will try you, and if you generate enough interest lots of people (both gay and straight) may attend.

Then it's not much different than EI, right? Disabled doesn't mean unemployable. We shouldn't write them off, just because they have a disability. There will of course be some disabilities so severe that they preclude the person working in any capacity. The disabled do face much larger challenges than the reset of us, not just because of their disability, but also because of biases in society, so they are due special consideration.

eureka, this is one area I agree with you. In their own best interests the wealthy classe have motivation to provide social benefits for the poor. By doing so they will minimize revolution and violence and thus maintain the status quo. Hungry people will revolt easily. However there is a point of diminishing returns, at some point the level of benefits provided to the poorer classes does not substantially decrease the chance of revolution or violence, and as such there is no economic reason to increase benefits. In our society the chance of revolution is minimal given the level of benefits provided along with the opportunities to increase one's position. The incidence of people not meeting basic needs for food and shelter are few and far between in our society. When they are not met, many times it is not because of the lack of the level of benefits, it is for other factors. (Like mental health issues on the part of the reciepient, or the reciepent's addicitons)

eureka, I had read the Walmat thread already, further Walmart was one of the business cases I studied extensively in business school. I am very familar with its business model. In truth its business model is not much different that what many other retailers aspire to, however Walmart succeeds because it is ruthelessly efficient in cutting costs. I am swayed by evidence which is consistant with theories. I do not try to label myself, but I have found the right-wing economic theories to be consistant with the facts. If irrefuatable arguments are presented to the contrary I stand ready to change my position, however I have yet to see them. Personaly I don't see any moral justification why someone is more morally deserving of a job just because they reside domestically instead of offshore. I disagree that it does not help offshore resources. If you take the example of many computer industry functions which have been offshored to Bangalore, India. In this case, while those jobs have been lost domestically, the standard of living and income of those employed in Bangalore has increased dramatically. "immoral" and "unfair" are subjective terms. Does Bill Gates deserve his billions? Do professional athletes deserve millions in salary? You have made a personal and subjective judgment that the wealthy are paid unfairly high and the poor are paid unfairly low. I can similarly, subjectively have a different opinion. Of course I would be more than pleased if the poor were removed from poverty and were paying more of their share of the services they consume, but the onus is on them take the actions necessary to remove themselves out of poverty. You use the word "unconscionable". Again, this is subjective. Who are you to determine that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth? Look, I know a great many people who have started in life penniless, but have improved themselves, improved their skills, relocated, and sometimes even shared accomodation while they saved for the future. In almost all cases they made it out of poverty into middle-class existances. There were some who didn't make it out. For many of them the factors were within their control, but for one reason or another (addictions, lifestyle choices, lack of ambition) have not yet made it out of poverty. Doesn't matter to me whether to post a link or not. My belief is such information does not exist. It makes no sense to me that in one breath you say that this informaiton is posted frequently in newspaper archives, and in another breath you say you have no time to post it. It would really seem to me that if the information were so readily available as you claim, it should take no more than an matter of seconds to post a link, but I'm not holding my breath waiting.