Renegade

Personally I think the logic for seatbelt and helmet laws is on the same tenous grounds. If you concede that "My body, my choice isnt 100%". The you leave it to the government to draw the line of where "My body, my choice" applies. Is it at 1% or 99%? It that the situation you want to be in where it is left to legislator's whim to determine where "my body, my choice" applies? Of course some people will take additional risks when money is involved. Isn't that the whole point: to compensate them for the additioal risks that they take. Would a stunt performer performing a stunt which risks his life if there wern't adequate compensation involved? Of course some might just for the thrill, but undoubtly more do because of the monatary compensation. If we are ok for stunt peformers to risk bodily harm for pay, why should an organ donor be different? Whatever the donor willing accepts and the payee is willing to pay for. No different than any other property. You don't need to value the organ. Where there are willing participants in the transaction they will do so themselves. How does that problem change because the doner is getting compensated? If both organs were donated, would you not have a similar problem? That is your assumption but it is not completely true. Blood donation has been unpaid, yet we have had many cases of HIV and HepC contaminated blood in several countries. You still need the same level of screening. You can't rely on the fact that the donor is not getting paid to gurantee the quality of the donated organ. It is not conceptually any differnt than poorer people being more movitated to take dangerous jobs (such as joining the army, or working in the mines, etc) for pay. We allow them that choice because we have a free society. When each of us works for pay, I suppose we are being "used", just as the employer is being "used". It is not really any differnt with giving donors the choice to be paid. How much does it cost in lives to not have sufficient organs? A lot, I would imagine.

Pat, I think we can agree on the objectives. I think where you and others (including myself) diverge is in the interpretation of the objectives. The fact that you think that extortion can ever be "fair" shows how much we diverge in our definition of "fair".

I can see the logic that a baby cannot be considered property so a "sale" cannot be made, however I think that one's body parts do not fit that same category. What happened to the pro-choice logic of "My body, my choice"? Does the same logic not apply?

I would also ask that if receipient benefits from the organ, why shouldn't the donor?

You intermingle two issues. Who pays and who gets paid. That the donor gets paid doesn't imply that it is the donor paying. For example in a universal single-payer healthcare system, the state can pay whatever the mutually agreed cost to a compatible donor. The affordability to the recepient is not an issue.

There is nothing more personal than one's own organs. If there is anything we can claim ownership to it is our body. That government would prevent us the freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies is destestable. We prevent people from being free if we take away the choice on what they do with what they so clearly "own" and should have complete control over. It is presumptious to state that the government should dictate to anyone, including the poorest and most desperate, that it knows what is better for them than they do themselves. As long as a competent adult is making a decision, I don't see how it is taking "the maximum advantage of them". Is that your determining factor in determining what body parts are saleable or not?

So, Pat, you think that extortion can be done in a "fair and sustainable manner"?

By "social unrest" I assume you mean violence or the threat of violence. IOW, those who have earned are forced to redistribute their earnings under threat of violence. In English we call that "extortion".

OK now I know what you are referring to. Yes I am aware we do it. I don't agree with it however, but I can see that people with kids would because of course it is in their interest to do so. Yes, my opinion. (thats what the "IMO" stands for). Just as yours is your opinion and nothing more. The fact that other countries have tax policy which favours families is explained by the fact that people with families generally hold voting power and will favour any policy which benefits them. That they act in their self interest doesn't make it "right" To me it makes much more sense to do so then your expectation that others should subsidize your kids. I don't beleive that "government" should explain the objectves of tax policy. That should be something "we", the people decide, while bounded by our individual rights. IMO, wealth-redistribution should not be the objective of tax policy, nor should behaviour incentives. Raising money for services should.

I was refering to the "basic exemption" in response to you comment that the basic exemption was intended to cover basic food and shelter. The intent of the daycare expense has nothing to do with basic food and shelter. I'm not familiar with this credit. What is it called? Then IMO you and the other people who agree with you would be wrong. You brought them into this world Pat, you and your spouse DO bear sole responsiblity for the cost of feeding, clothing, and sheltering them. Any financial help you get should be at the discretion of the ones providing that help. BTW, do you have any evidence to support that most people agree with you view? OK, I was not aware your wife work. OK, you'll see an increase, but at least it will then be "fair". Of course not, nothing "fair" ever is. The only things ever implemented are proposals catering to special-interest groups such as the one you propose. It is all simply cloaked under the guise of "fairness". It would be stupid to create a seam in the income tax infrastructure where people are lumped into one of two classes "single" and "family" when in reality there are a huge variation in family makeup. Is a single person with one-kid "single" or "family"? Is a single-mother living at home with her parents part of their family? All it will do is shift tax burden onto singles and retired, however I think the retired have enough political lobby to ensure they aren't adversely affected. I guess that only leaves the singles to screw. If your proposal becomes law, my advice to singles is to shack up with poor friends and become a common-law family for tax purposes.

I'm disappointed in your responses Pat because you avoid answering the question directly. You have couched your answers in what "society recgonizes" or what other countries do, or what current tax code is. None of that is relevant to the question that I and others have asked. Do YOU think that other taxpayers should subsidize the cost of YOUR kids? and if so why. Since you have so much difficulty answering directly let me help you out be starting your answer: "Yes, I think..." or "No, I don't think...". If you want to take a stand, at least have the courage to answer directly.

Pat, even in the current system the basic exemption doesn't give you a larger exemption based upon the number of mouths you have to feed. There are some very specifc exceptions, such as spousal amount, or amount for eligible dependant, but in general the deduction you are allowed doesn't depend upon the number of dependants you have. Ask yourself if you go from 1 dependant to 20 does your basic exemption change? As far as your contention that "society" expects that people should be exempted to provide for spouse and dependants, I expect that most people haven't really though of the implications. I suspect if you asked people directly, are you willikng to subsidize the cost of other people's decision to take on dependants, you might get a different answer than you expect. What does that even mean? It is hard to avoid paying tax for what you use, when you are charged by use. Yes, because it is easy for them to do so this way. This supports what I have been saying. That what we have been left with is not a tax structure that is "fair", it is because it panders to special-interest and is collectable. ------------------------------------------ Pat, there are many, many, inconsistancies in the tax system. For example the child-care deduction, and moving deduction, are given on the principle that those cost are incured as nessary in order to generate income, however transportation costs to and from work are not deductable even though they are necessary to earn income. The basic exemption is supposed to exempt income for food and shelter, yet does not account for the fact that comparable shelter is far higher in Vancouver than in Moncton. You focus on simple one inconsistancy when to truly resolve the problem, the whole tax system should be reformed, rather than incemental changes you suggest. If you want consistancy between how benefits are assessed and how taxes are assessed, how about this: we combine incomes of spouses and then assess taxes on the same scale we do today. No option to file single, afterall with benefits assesments there is no such option. People with spouses with a 50/50 split in income would see a significant tax increase. People like you woudl see a small tax decrease, but at least you would have consistancy and you can stop complaining that you pay $7K more than your neighbour.

This is not a negotiation. I can't negotiate a principle. If I don't belive taxpayers should subsidize your kids but you do, explain why. You have avoided answering this question. It makes no differnce if you agree to limit the number of kids which you require taxpayers to subsidze, you are still asking taxpayers to subsidize some of your kids. Why? Sure it can. If the system moved away from generating revenue from income taxes and more towared use-based taxes, certainly large families such as yours would feel the impact. No I never said that and I never said that all services should be privately provided. What I said is that my definiton of fair I should pay for what I use. It doesn't mean I don't use those systems but that I would pay relative to use. I understand that it is not always practical to measure use, but to the greatest extent possible that shoud be the principle implemented. Sorry it doesn't sound a lot simpler then the current system. What gets implemented has very little to do with what you or I propose. Much has to do with demographics. I suspect with an aging population (who vote in greater numbers), you will see a lot more benefits catering toward them. If suddenly single households become the dominant voting block, you will see the policy shift again. Perhaps I'm cynical but whatever you and I posture as the "right" policy is irrelevant. It is whatever policy the caters to the groups which can generate the votes. Any "justification" provided around that policy is pure spin. Who knows, maybe we will maybe we won't. In any case whether adopted or not, it won't be because it is "fair"

"Ability to pay" is also one of the least measurable critieria and trying to measure it has led to the complicated tax system we have today. Does an adult child living at home and working full time, have a better "ability to pay" then someone else with the same income but rental, food, and student-loan costs? Of course he does, but the system in place can't measure that. The tax rules put in place in order to cater to "ability to pay" have led to progressive tax rates and a maze of deductions and lead to many, many situations where different incomes lead to different tax payments. You argue that a family where there is a working single-earner should pay the same tax as a family where the income is split 50-50 between spouses? How do you know that they have the same "ablity to pay"? Perhaps the cost of having 2 spouses working incurs additional costs such as 2 cars, additional costs for clothes, additional costs for daycare, which impact their "abilty to pay" . Perhaps the premium you pay as a single wage-earner over dual-income families is because your family has a larger "ability to pay" because you haven't incurred similar costs.

What some else does or doesn't do isn't justiticaiton. Being in the majority doesn't make you right, being in the minority doesn't make me wrong. When I say you provide no justification, I mean you have not provided a single explaination of why other taxpayer should support the kids you chose to have. It is irrelevant what any other person/socieity/country does. I am asking why YOU think it is right because that seems to be the basis of your argument. Not at all. It is much more likely whether right or wrong, merit or not, an opinion which is in the self-interest of whomever holds power it would make its way into policy. Hard to make an argument on what you'd wager but don't know and provide zero evidence of, don't you think? Only if everyone agrees on what "fair" means and agrees to put aside self-interest in order to adopt what is "fair". In most people support government policies which are in their self-interest and skew their definition of "fair" to coincide with their self-interest. My definition of "fair" is that you pay for the services you and your family consume. Is that yours? You seem to jump to the conclusion that I'm not a parent myself. You are wrong. I simply believe as a parent I've signed up for the financial responsiblity for my kids. My expection is the same for other parents including those who have a large number of kids. It's self-interest when it benefits you as well. You have always said that. You want the exemption to reflect the number of individuals in the familiy. If you want to ignore the number of individuals who contribute to the income, you should equally ignore the number of individuals when it comes to exemptions.

But even if payment for organs were permitted, looting corpses and forcing poor people to give organs would still be illegal. What do they do now? Do they starve? If they are starving is that preferable to having the ability to sell part of one's body?

Of course I do, as do you. However I have backed up my opinion with justificaiton. You have not, except to state that my opinion is in the minorty. Because I'm in the minority doesn't make me "wrong". Really I have no idea, and I don't see how you do either. In any case, what a primitive society would do is irrelevant. Many primiitve societies supported slavery, should we then take that as a endorsement that slavery is "right". If you think it is "fair" explain why directly. What any other country or society does is irrelevant. Actually I never said that your situation is the exception. Yes I understand that most people who are in your situation would favour taking the number of family members into consideration, not because it is "fair" but because it is in their self-interest to do so. You may be right. Most governments don't have the guts to make changes based upon principle, and most voting masses are easily convinced that what is in their self-interest is "fair". The contridicatory part of your proposal is that you on one hand you think income assessment should be based upon the family unit, yet on the other hand you propose the deductions should be based upon the individual.

Read full storyThere seems to be a large demand for organs required for transplant. There also seems to be resistance for giving financial incentives to donors to encourage donation. Why? Should the sale of any body part be prohibited? What about selling of hair to make wigs? What about selling of semen? What about blood donation?

*duplicate

"we" can fire some of these useless overpaid executives by buying enough shareholder equity to control the company. Go do so, then you can fire away at will.

Yes, they're here, you chose to have them, and YOU have to support them. So why do you feel that other taxpayers should share in the responsiblilty you undertook by providing a deduction which offloads some of that cost from you? IMV yes. You chose to have them, you should get to pay for them. Frankly I'm not an expert in what other countries tax regimes are doing nor is it relevant. Most democratic government create tax laws, not based upon what can be logically justified, but by what it takes to keep them in power and cater to their voting base. If you want to base your argument upon the basis of what is "fair", explain why it is "fair" that other taxpayers should pay for your kids, not what other countries do. There are several countries that have no income taxes at all, should I base an argument for no income tax in Canada simply because some other country does so? I think this is a fair ask, and I would generally agree subject to the caveats I have already pointed out.

So Pat, did the government or some other entitiy hoist those dependants on you and force that financial responsibility on you or did you choose to have dependants of your own free will?

No, even before there was pension splitting there was the "age amount" and "Pension income amount" (Schedule 1)

Yes that is the logical extension of taxing family income. The "Family" becomes the income earning unit not matter how large or small that family is. Of course with a flat-tax no exemption system, the distinction between taxing family income or individual income becomes moot. Yes virtually all deductions should be eliminated in the ideal world. They only serve to distort behaviour and complicate the tax system. Yes I agree, it will likely never happen because I said the government is motivated by pandering to gain votes, not by what makes sense. In many ways you don't have that now. Does someone living where housing cost are high get a tax break? Does someone with a high car pament qualify for a deduction? In fact it is the young who (in general) have the most difficulty making ends meet (because of mortgages, young kids, student loans, etc) yet it is the old that we give a tax break to. Why? votes. Personally, if we are going to tax income at all, it should be based upon ability to earn rather than ability to pay. The first is way more measurable than the latter, and trying to do the latter causes behaviour where income is disguised or hidden to avoid taxes.

Actually it is not called "equivalent-to-spouse" anymore. It is called "amount for eligible dependant" and that similar deduction is also available to families where it is predominantly one adult earning. So if you think that is sufficient, why are you advocating for income splitting? If it were up to me I'd get rid of the "amount for eligible dependant" or spousal amount. Also, the biggest "need" the government feels is to pander to its voting base, which is how we got this mess of a system to begin with, so forgive me if I am not moved by what the governmet "feels the need" for. Why should each family member get an exemption? Why should anyone get any exemption at all? You choose how big a family to have. Why should the rest of the taxpayers support your choices by providing you an exemption. I'd give you a low-rate flat tax, no exemption for size of family. Still want to sign up?