Canuckistani

Denmakr

If you're out of a job, you're not paying tax on the income you're not earning, are you?

Food banks are way overstretched. And, if the parents are not functioning well, how does a food bank help a kid at school? Schools should have free breakfast and lunch programs serving nutritious food to anybody that wants it. If the kids with money want to go to McD's instead, up to them.

What environment do you have that's better? Do you know anything about the foster care system and the problems therein? You'd have to spend a lot more money to improve it, and it still wouldn't be the same as living with your family. Those loving couples just aren't out there. If the worst scenario is that mom and dad are addicted to opiates, if we had a proper drug strategy that provided more rehab and failing that drug maintenance, they could be a lot better parents than many type A people who just give their kids toys and no attention.

And what do hard line communist countries have to do with Canada? Your example about 60% has nothing to do with Canada. The govt isn't giving somebody earning 59k money because they are poor - they're taking taxes from them. The govt is giving them, and you, a whole bunch of services - health care, education, military, policing and the courts, roads and infrastructure (which has been allowed to crumble), food safety (which has been cut back) etc etc etc.

They try that periodically - doesn't work very well. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying don't count on it to lower your taxes much. The problem is how to even define efficiency in a govt - it's not a profit making enterprise. How do you define efficiency in many social services?

I'm sure they would. Can you point to a country where that is the case?

Your fat is somebody else's meat and bone. Govt also has cutbacks. They never seem to get it right, where they really do cut just inefficiencies. but then as I was saying, inefficiencies will be part of any large organization. And those inefficiencies don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the costs of the big programs we want, like health care and education.

I would say being in the top 5% qualifies as being rich. But that of course somebody that's super rich should pay a higher percentage of their income than somebody that just squeaked into the rich category. Or income tax brackets top out at 29% for income over 130,000. We need higher brackets for higher incomes.

There is a limit. Currently in Canada it's 29 percent on income over 139k. So on your 300k taxable (don't forget all your tax breaks) income you would be paying about 76k in taxes for an effective rate of 25%. That's too low.

As I said, I think a lot of that fat is what keeps the political bosses the bosses. We won't let them cut it because we like that fat. As for more efficient govt, govt doesn't seem that different than large corporations - they also have their inefficiencies. Just goes along with being a large organization.

huh?

That's right. Taking a hard look at what we spend money on is, then raising taxes to pay for the services we want. Health care and education are the big ones, the military takes a fair chunk. As we're seeing now that the govt cutbacks are starting to bite, there isn't nearly as much fat in the system as people think. Or, that fat is what keeps the govt in power and will never be cut, while meat and bone are. If we want a modern state with a mostly contented populace, good social mobility and a highly productive workforce, that costs and we've gotta cough up the bucks.

What do you mean punish? If you don't take tax money from those who make decent money, where will the money to run a modern state come from?

We can round and round on that. Bottom line is that poor people take out more in govt services than they contribute. That's how it's supposed to be, that's how income redistribution is supposed to work.

The primary beneficiary of the expansion of that welfare state was the middle class. And the problem, as you say, was that they listened to the siren song of the neo-cons who claimed you could cut taxes and increase govt revenues. Money for nothing and chicks for free. Since 90% of Canadians now want the same or expanded govt services, while only 46% are willing to pay more taxes for them, it seems this entitlement mindset crosses generations.

It's been tried. Social service agencies swing back and forth between removal and supporting kids in the parents' home. You're better off with the latter, unless the abuse is severe, and just providing supports to the family. Any number of foster kids will tell you that the real abuse started once they were in care, and being taken from your parents definitely leaves a scar.

Every working person pays EI and CPP - the regressive parts of the Income tax system. They pay all the other regressive taxes out there as well - HST, gas tax, property tax, etc. I think his precription for a 50% tax at 90k is way too extreme, but the top two quintiles definitely need to be paying more income tax.

What you say seems a bit extreme. The scenario you describe could have been just as possible before any rule changes. Not something I've ever heard about.

A seasonal worker in PEI - what job are they going to take in their off season, or what full time job is available to them? I don't think there are many available for them there.

I don't think their rules will accomplish much. At the same time, for a seasonal worker in Atlantic Canada, I don't think they will be impacted much either. Once their seasonal work ends, there won't be jobs just waiting for them instead of EI. If there are, then they should be forced to take those jobs, I agree with that. The having to take a job further away could cause real hardship. People without cars and good transit options would be hooped. Better would be for the govt to put money into matching employees and employers, assisting with re lo expenses and greatly expanding our training system so we create the skilled workers we need in Canada instead of always importing them while Canadians are underemployed.

The children of the depression created the most successful and egalitarian welfare states ever. They saw what deprivation caused, and wanted a better world for their children. Unfortunately those children took it all for granted and started listening to the neo-cons and their promise they could have it all for nothing. Who needs taxes. Yet 90% of Canadians want govt services to stay the same or increase, while only 46% are willing to pay more taxes for it. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.

all they are saying, is that after doing some problems that require analytical thinking, your religiosity goes down for a short period. But they recognize the importance of intuitive problem solving, which furthers religiosity. And no doubt they didn't have the sophistication to distinguish between spirituality and religion. So belief in say the Virgin birth might temporarily go down, but overall sense of transcendence not. Not sure if they tested any Buddhists, for instance. That's a very analytical religion that also makes room for the intuitive.

Charity. Same as is being proposed here. I prefer the state to do it in an organized fashion.

Guess we're both wrong: