Renegade

I'd like to do the math and have been trying for some time. As I've said before. I have yet to see numbers that add up which show an economic case. Show me these numbers you you alude to on the internet. The cites you posted do not show that. Yes I agree the cost should be factored in. That is "could" make the case, doesn't mean that it DOES make the case. What I'm looking for is some evidence is that it DOES make the case. OK, But isn't that what charities are for? You can express economically what YOU believe in by donating to the charities which are aligned to those beliefs.

Sorry, I'm not getting the relevance of this cite. That jailing people cost a lot. Sure I agree. That harsher sentences will result in more people in jail? Sure I agree. But how does it prove that giving people more money will reduce their crime enough to offset the additional cost? Assuming the numbers are accurate all it shows is that certain kinds of social benefits may be more cost effective than others. IE it seems to conclude that the cost of social spending on cheap or free housing is less that the cost of providing health and other social benefits down the road. It doesn't all all addresss your point of whether it is cost effective to spend on those social beneifts AT ALL. (ie how much would would we spend on other areas (eg policing) if we didnt spend on social spending at all).

Perhaps a better solution is not to let those who undertake responsibilies they cannot live up to, from doing so in the first place. Maybe, maybe not. I have yet to see a compelling economic argument which shows that giving money away to parents has a lower cost than enforcement. How much less crime does $4.4B/year buy?

Fundamental to this question is the issue of whether one believes that content of speeh can cause tangible harm. I can think of several cases where harm is indeed caused: - Libel - Threats to harm - Falsely yelling "fire" where it is likely to cause a stampede I also think that inciting people to violence falls into that same category. All of this behaviour should be penalized. Having said this, I don't believe hate speech should be prohibited, only to the extent that it incites violence.

It is always interesting to note if people's positions are based upon personal self-interest. You would seem to suggest that those who have been or are needy seniors would be motivated by self-interest in the position they hold. I'm not really following the point you are trying to make. Cost is generally a zero-sum game. If people aren't paying for themselves, someone else is paying for them. Lower taxes on wages and a tax structure which encourage savings are one mechanism which allow people to pay for themselves instead of having to depend upon others to meet their needs.

Personally I think this is a really bad idea. It further distorts what EI was originally set up to do. ie mitigate the risk of lapses in employment. If you think there ought to be another scheme which allows people to save from retirement, I'm all for it, however evidence shows that people don't fully use the mechanisms which are already available. If you want to institute a system which pays people back if they haven't collected during their working years, are you also willing to force people to pay back if they have collected too much? The system must economically balance or it leaves other taxpayers on the hook to make up the difference.

What is important is to allow people to save and pay for their retirement care while they work so that they are no a burden on society when they are seniors. Too many seniors do not save enough for their own retirement Giving tax breaks, on top of the breaks they aready get, misses the window.

It should not be society that places value on either sports cars nor children. That should be left to individuals to value. Some will value a car more than children, other will value the reverse. Government should not incent the choice in either direction through taxation policy. Finally we agree. Government has no business in the bedrooms of people. It should leave choices like whether to have kids up to the parents and not incent them either direcly nor indirectly.

If an individual contracts to get an expensive sports car and it lowers his ability to pay, should he expect a tax break? If an individual contracts to get a wife and kids and it lowers his ability to pay, should he expect a tax break? If you didin't answer the same way for each, why the difference?

Again, "ability to pay" is never measured it is only assumed. The government assumes a person with more income has more ability to pay. This is not necessarily true. A true "ability to pay" system would measure an individual's ACTUAL discretionary income not ASSUMED dicretionary income. Since "ability to pay" is in fact never measured I therefore maintain that that government collects taxes based upon what is easiest to collect and will cause the least political upheval. Fairness never comes into it. See that's the thing, when poor people want to protest they riot in the streets. When rich people want to protest they hire tax accountants to shelter as much income as they can, they hire political lobbyists and they fund the opposing political movements. Neither the protest of the poor nor that of the rich are particularily palatable to the government so they mostly will hit those who can protest the least. (ie the middle class) You seem to forget history and think the government can do so as well. Do you remember what happened when the government raised tobacco taxes so high that cigeratte smuggling was rampant? They were eventually forced to reduce the taxes to reduce the smuggling.

I think you miss the differentiation. It is easy for the government to collect income tax by forcing companies to collect on their behalf at source. Other sources of income aren't quite so easy as tax may be circumvented. (eg dividends, cap gain). The point is that government taxes income because it is easy to tax, not because it is "fair" to tax. Same holds for GST. It is collected because it is relatively easy to collect. Of course it is. None of the governent run programs (include) the taxation system are what they pretend to be. Exactly. So when the government advertises the tax system as a "fairness" system some people actually believe it. It is nothing more than a revenue generation system based upon what the government can collect. It is naive to demand that it be "fair" any more than anyone should demand that EI be "insurance"

Some people agree with you, some don't. As per your cite: It says nothing about that horizontal equity should be applied at the family level. The tax system is predicated on individual income and for the most part ignores the rest of the circumstance around his ability to pay. If the tax system is going to ignore the rest of an individual's circumstance, it should also disregard that individuals family status. That really depends on your perspective doesn't it. What does individuals in "similar cirumstances" mean since no two individuals have identical circumstances.

1. As you point out it is based upon a set of *** assumptions ***. Asssumptions which may or may not be true. 2. I believe that the justfication of "ability to pay" is a facade. It is more like "the ability to collect". It is easier to collect more from people who earn more without them causing the government grief, so it does. BTW, is EI a "benefit" or an insurance payout? If insurance companies worked on that principle they would only payout if they though the claimant needed the money.

I don't see that the tax system is based upon "ability to pay". It is based upon measured earnings with various measures thrown in there to incent behaviour. "Abiity to Pay" is never measured. For example does a newly graduated student who has $75000 in outstanding loans, renting in a high-cost location, and having high overall living cost, have the same ability to pay as someone retired and owning their own home, car and living in a low cost location (assuming they make the same income)? Obviously not. If your argument is centered around making the system more reflective of "ability to pay" then it is self-defeating. Afterall families with one working spouse (who would benifit the most), "choose" to have that spouse stay home and are likely to have a better "ability to pay" than a family where both adults are forced to work. The government has no need to post a sign. It should not be up to the government to support your kids. That buddy, is your job, afterall you choose to have them not the government.

I agree that there is inconsistancy between how benfiits are assigned based upon income, but so what? There are so many definitions of income which are used for various calculations (eg gross income, net income, family income, etc). The tax code is only consistent in its inconsistency. If it were up to me, beneifts would either be eliminated or made universal and independant of income and income would be taxed at a flat rate, making your whole proposal moot. BTW, you have used the word "fairness". As I asked previously,can you please define what you mean by "fairness".

Pat, there are close to an infininte variation in families and family situations. For example would you have a class of family for parents wth adult kids living at home? Would you have a class of family of people living together with extended family (parents, etc)? You are picking out one factor (ie family composure) in order to provide differentiated tax rates. There are many others which can also be targeted. For example should a family living in Vancouver pay the same taxes as a family living in rural New Brunswick?

Are you suggesting that a group should be targeted for increased taxation depending upon how little they complain? "fairer" for whom? Them, just because they would pay less tax? What is the definition of "fairness" that says that income-splitting is the answer.

If the principle you are proposing is to tax all families wth the same income the same amount of tax, then would you agree that both large and small families with the same income should be pay the same amount of taxes?

Can't really say. Some of it depends upon whether Mom and Dad are willing to give up some of the comforts they have been used to for themselves and their kids. Also I'm betting while Mothers are working more outside the home, I'm pretty sure that fathers are working less. The 40 hour work week is a relatively modern invention. You can bet when the typical occupation was farming, the fathers were working a lot longer than 40 hours a week.

"Punishment" is not a great word to use as it implies some moral judgement. "Economic disincentive" is a more accurate. Even a fine may have been an acceptable cost of doing business and is also a disincentive.

Probably very few because their expectations both for themselves and their kids are different. Many expect to send their kids to university today (and fund it). Cost they didn't have then. Same goes for clothes, phones, ipods, and whatever. A kid doesn't cost what he used to, and people don't want to give kids the kind of life they used to. It would be an interesting question to determine if given a low-middle income salary today, could you live the lifestyle of the 50s-60s in a similarly sized community (including a smaller house, single car, less toys, less social programs, etc). The price of some things have gone up, of others have gone down. I don't know of any study which make that comparison. Agreed. Possibly not, but it doesn't matter if they are richer. Their choice indicates a preference. That our values have changed? That we have more choices now? That we have different expectations? That we have become more selfish?

Do you have one to reference which shows a different result? Does not the fact that the amounts are in constant dollars reflect the impact of inflation on cost of living increases? And those of you who think that generating larger families is somehow beneficial to the future of this country should do so, and should do it on your own dime.

I agree that diagnostic software should be made available to anyone who wishes to license it. The implication of that however is that the manufacturer of the software can impose whatever license model he wants to on the mechanic. For example if he required a $100 license fee per vehicle to use the software it wouldn't necessarily make it cheaper to go to your local mechanic.

Of course the SCC doesn't disclose reasons why it agrees to hear the case, so we are left to speculate until the judgement is rendered. No doubt you support their decision to hear the case, as do I, because it would great to have a definative ruling which reinforces the employers ability to where and when to do business. I can't really see the decision going any other way.

1. Yes our living standard has increased. The paper confirms it. (how is ranking relevant? Do we get absolutely poorer because others get richer?) 2. No, I never said anything about the Americans. It is quite possible that their standard of living has increased more than ours. The original point put forward (was it by you?) was that people can't afford to have as many kids as they used to. Stats show otherwise. If they could afford them before, they are considerably better off financially now then they were before. The reason they don't have more kids is simple: its because they CHOOSE not to have more kids.