Jump to content

Renegade

Member
  • Posts

    3,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Renegade

  1. Sure. So what? There is no issue where a minimium wage job is occupied by a worker who then transitions to a higher wage job. Students do it all the time. The issue is only with workers who do not transition. My contention is that where workers do not transition to a higher wage, they need to look at themselves at what changes they need to make in order to generate higher wages and not look to government to impose it for them.
  2. If you agree with me, then you agree that getting a higher wage is largely up to the worker.
  3. The reason "It is not an option", is because the worker doesn't have other choices and thus lacks negotiating power. The answer is to give themselves more choices. Either by acquiring more skills, working other locations, different hours, etc, a worker can give himself more leverage to negotiate a better wage or change occupation to one that does pay a higher wage. There is no reality where economics does not apply.
  4. You are simply imposing your own morality onto the government. The government has no legal obligation to live up to promises it made, let alone any legal obligation previous governments made. Here is one example: Breach of contract TORONTO - On Monday, the Ontario Superior Court and Canadian voters will witness legal history. For the first time, taxpayer protection legislation and a politician's election promise will come before a Canadian court of law. The case is that of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) and John Williamson, and Greg Sorbara, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario government. The submission is available here: Factum of the Applicants Unfortunately for your argument, the court found in favour of the government. You have claimed that it is "fraud", "illegal" and a "criminal offense". For it to be a "criminal offense" a criminal law needs to have been broken. Please cite which law has been broken? Please cite some cases where people have been charged under this law. William, even your own link doesn't support your position. From the definition you provided: In law, misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony, a crime punishable by a prison sentence. For it to be misappropriation funds need to be used for personal use or "unauthorized purpose". Since the parliment passes a budget, whatever passes in the budget becomes authorized and thus is not misappropriation. There is no legal requirement that the budget contain provisions for promises made to the public. In short the only financial "contract" between the government and the people is the budget, and the duration of the contract is usually one year. After that a new "contract" is set in place. If you don't like it, your only recourse is to elect another government.
  5. Quite right. Most people would rather live in the present and wear blinders to consequences they would rather not face. Sooner or later they will have no choice but to face those consequences.
  6. While it would be wonderful if the government signed contracts which they are forced to live up to, the reality is that they do not. The government can (and has) changed EI at its whim. The government can (and has) changed CPP at its whim. It can and does change tax policy at its whim. You may call it fraud and deception, but really you have no recourse short of revolution. Unfortunately there are very little constraints on what a government can or cannot do with money they raise even if you don't like it. That may be precisely the reason why we have gotten into some of the fiscal issues we find ourselves in. How do you determine what is owed to them?
  7. Call it "taxes" doesn't make it any less of a premium. It is irrelevant what it is intended as. It is an insurance system because it has the characteristics of insurance. You can pretend it is not as much as you like. OAS was created as a universal program too. That too changed. Thanks Your claim doesn't make it so. I have showed you the definition of insurance. You don't demonstrate one iota of evidence to contradict that it is insurance. Regardless of whether we agree that it is an insurance plan or not, my point is it should be run more like insurance. BTW, even the goverment calls it insurance: Canada's national health insurance program, often referred to as "Medicare", is designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services, on a prepaid basis. Canada's Health Care System (Medicare) Multiple parties have a say and play "God". The patient must consent to the procedure and thus plays "God" The doctor must consent to perform the procedure and thus plays "God" The taxpaper must agree to fund the procedure and thus plays "God" A medical procedure should only be peformed with the consent of all three parties.
  8. You are misinterpreting the definition of a fallacious argument. Look it up. Fallacy.. In addition my argument is not a false continum, as I do not state that a suitable line of decision cannot exist because of the continuum of possibilities. What I state is the line must exist somewhere between what we agree are resonable decisions and the extreme cases I have described. My question to you is where do YOU draw the line? And I'd argue that as many procedures become cheaper, many more will emerge which are very expensive. Your argument that the cost of medical procedures goes down is partially true, but it is more than offset by the insatiable appitite for more and more complex procedures and drugs which escalate the price of medical care. Over time the cost of medical care has gone up with time, not down, because the standard has constantly gone up. You have come around to what I propose. Yes it seems reasonable that medical procedures like vaccinations are provided for because the benefit is more than worth the cost. This is exactly what I am suggesting. Medical procedures need to be qulified to determine if the benefits are worth the cost. In some cases a specfic procedure may make sense in the case of one individual but not for another. No but it is one measure. Effecitveness is another. The proof is in the outcome. Our system has been in place for many years, yet medical costs keep esclating. Leaving it to doctors and patients alone is not sufficient to contain costs. The demographic shift will only amplify this problem.
  9. So then all debating is where to draw the line, not that a line must be drawn. I question whether today it is really simply up to the doctor and patient. If I'm the 97 year old patient and I want to live a few more months, is that my decision alone? If it is up to me and the doctor, and I want the procedure done despite the cost, can by doctor deny me coverage? To answer your quetion, I'm not sure where the line is, but it is clear for me, that lines shoudl be drawn which are simply the rules of the system. A system which leaves coverage decisions to indivuals who have not finanical stake in the outcome, simply is a receipe for finanical disaster. This dilemma will only get worse as more and more expensive procedures become available due to the advancement of medical technology. Let's say it becomes possible for indivuals to live to 200 years due to medical technology advances, however at a tremendous finanical cost, do you ignore the cost in providing the service? Yes indeed, I can see that it is possible that some of these will indeed be denied coverage. Again it would require exaustive analysis to determine where the line is and what is affordable and what is not. ----------------------- The real problem is that a sustainable system requires hard choices. People are so horrified that they need to make the choices that they refuse to make any choices. The ultimate consequence is that the system will collapse and they will no longer need to make choices because they will have none.
  10. You seem to believe that the only criteria for a program is need. What happens once the need exceeds the capacity of the providers to pay? What then? A healthcare system which provides unlimited healthcare based soley upon what a population "needs" without any regard to what the capacity of the system to pay for those needs is a system bound for disaster. That is exactly where our system is headed.
  11. Right. This is no different conceptually than what happens today. Would you deny a 97 year-old man a multi-million dollar operation which could potentially prolong his life a few months? If so, why?
  12. Who says I look no farther than federal programs? Some of the suggestions are made are for changes to provincial programs. Sure the impact varies from province to province. I'm fine with it, just as there are variations between healthcare programs from province to province. The problem of demongraphics is common to all provinces and the impact will be felt by all provinces. It is not like all the seniors only live in one province and the other provinces then have to carry the load. Even basic tenants are subject to change. There is no need to deny coverage to high risk, it simply needs to be priced according. If a person is of such high risk that they cannot pay the corresponding premium, one way to handle it is to put a cap on premiums (either as a percentage of income or at a dollar amount). For those high risk individuals who cannot pay their premium, coverage can be limited to more basic care. Healthcare coverage is an insurance program because it has many of the characteristics of a insurance program. The definition of Insurance is Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium, and can be thought of as a guaranteed and known small loss to prevent a large, possibly devastating loss.. In the Canadian system the risk is borne by the government, premiums are paid by the taxpayer, and Canadian residents are the benificiaries, nonetheless, it is an insurance system. Very few individuals are high enough risk that you cannot cover them. At some point if you have too many people who are high enough risk, then yes you indeed may need to deny coverage. Of course it would lower immediate revenues. The situation is not yet dire. It will be dire in the future. By forgoing some revenue now the government would hope to prevent an even worse situation in the future.
  13. Not sure I understand. What a government promises to pay for is not an indefinite contract. As much as I don't like it, they can change policies at any time. Again, I'm confused as to what you mean. Not at all. The seniors should hear and be aware of the impact that they cause. Based upon what, do you conclude is that this is the "only working answer" Not really. It is only if you consider clawback of benefits which only seniors are entitled to, as a tax rate increase. If you remove the benefits to begin with, you will not have a situation where "tax rates actually increase in retirement"
  14. Yes they are income related but not at the same income levels as wefare. If a society determines a minimium level which is required for survival, (ie the level provided by welfare benefits), why should there be a different level provided based upon age. I do not distinguish between provincial or federal programs as demographic shifts will inevitably impact the budgets of both. If more load is transfered to the province, they have the same choice as a federal govenment: raise taxes or incur debt. The net result is the same on the taxpayer regardless of which government does it. Capping benefits, means either putting a limit on the dollar amount of the expenditure, or alternatively restricting or eliminating access to certain types of treatments. Deductables will certainly discourage some people from seeking treatment who will claim that they cannot afford it, but ultimately it is likely one of the most important expenditures. If a person has any discretionary funds, then that amount is availalbe to pay deductables. You determine risk the same way risk is determined in any insurance system. You isolate significant risk factors and you categorize people on how they match those risk factors. Personally I don't distinguish risk due to "fault" or not, meaning someone who is at higher risk, pays more regardless if he has made specfic choices which has resulted in that risk. Whether this is private or public, depends upon your definition. I define a system which the government is the sole administrator, a public one. I am simply proposing how it can manage such a system. I can't see that a a valid argument. The nature of insurance programs (which in essence healthcare is), is that you may never claim but still pay a premium. Further, those older folks had access to care, all those years. What they paid for and recieved was access to care, regardless of whether or not they actually consumed the care. You don't get to bank your previously paid premium payments. With logic of this type you can also conclude that seniors owe more on government debt as they were around for decades when govenments incurred that debt. Personally I find it abhorent that the goverenment should have to force people to save for their own retirement, but as long as do-gooders are going to force the responsible to shoulder the cost of the irresponsible, I'd rather force the irresponsible to shoulder the cost of paying for themselves.
  15. There is a demographic shift which has long been predictable, however it is clear that government policies are ill-prepared to deal with this shift. Aging workforce to drive up debt: Report Here is a link to the actual report: Fiscal Sustainability Report What should the government do? My suggestions: Increase the retirement age. Eliminate Old Age Security (OAS) and related benefits – the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and Spousal Allowance (SA); These programs are simply welfare systems and benefits should be folded into the existing welfare system. Cap healthare benefits,eliminate some coverage, and require payments of deductables. Require payment of healthcare premiums, proportonate to risk. (eg the older you get, the more you pay) Increase the contribution amounts required for public and private pensions.
  16. In aggreate you are probably right. But in aggreation you lose some relevant details. It may make a huge differnce to my kids, and consequently to me, if I leave the money to them as inheritance rather than pay it all in taxes, even though you are correct that both in essence are a transfer from me to the next generation.
  17. Well, one big difference is that with saving, you still have the option to spend it during your lifetime, with taxes you do not. IOW, the difference is in who controls the funds.
  18. That would suggest that there is something wrong in a system that motivates a political party to act against the long term interest of the country.
  19. Just as RW suggested, collapse the pyramid. The earlier the better. Would you let a financial pyramid continue?
  20. ToadBrother, perhaps you can explain why population growth is necessary. Certainly stadard of living increases can be genrated through productivity increases even with declining or stable populations.
  21. Michael, I'd like to understand why you have immediately drawn the conclusion that economic growth equates to population growth. Economic growth is also driven productivity increases. If our GDP grew by 50% but required a doubling of the population to do so, would that be better economically than a GDP growth of 10% with a stable population?
  22. August, Michael, by now you should see the futility of a discussion with ww. He is neither capable of properly articulating his position, nor is he cabable of seeing the analogies relevant to his position. His only response is to repeat his inconsistent position ad nausem. If I were you I'd save the effort of a pointless discussion.
  23. Given your other statements, this is complete nonsense. I'm inclined to agree with the other posters, your position is so absurd, it is not worth the effort to respond.
  24. What exactly makes that GDP "rightfully" Canada's? Just because you don't like where a company spends its funds, doesn't imply you should have the right to dictate how those funds should be spent. Why? Just because you say so? If you expect that you should have your own choices on where to spend your funds, why shouldn't companies have that same choice? How exactly do you define a company as "canadian"? Because it is HQ in canada? Because they employ canadians? Because it is owned by canadians? How? It would seem to be you are advocating for policies that if applied on an individual-level instead of a company-level, would be called racism. You claim that it is "valid", but what does that mean? Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. You have not address any points on how the currency control would work. Do you even have one example of a country implementing the kind of currrency control you are talking about without having a totalatiarian government? Your posts are filled with hyperbole. Canada isn't being "cheated". Companies have the free choice to spend where they decide it is most effective. You seem to have a sense of entitlement that companies owe you something and are obligated to spend in Canada. The kind of forced society you seem to advocate is appalling in its lack of regard for freedom. BTW, you claim that the "US has employing this strategy for years" but yet in your opening post you state "its time Canada and the US wake up and do something about this scourage". How well has it worked in the US? Wow, what a sense of entitlement. Instead of whinging about how you are hard done by because company's are making choices you are not happy with, go form your own company, hire canadian if you so wish. Ultimately the reason so many companies outsource is because it offers them competitive advantage. The only reason China holds US dollars is because they choose to do so. They are not idiots and it is not because they are forced to do so. If they decide to change their currency of choice, there is very little the US can do about it and it will fall in value. In the countries which outsourcing takes place, the Canadian dollar is even less relevant than the US dollar. There is no way you or the Canadian government has of forcing them to hold CAD. Your proposition is nonsense. Collecting taxes seems to be only a small part of your program driven by a sense of entitlement on what companies "owe" you.
×
×
  • Create New...