Tough love for the old

[White Doors]

point I am making is go ahead and privatize I know how bad it will be, but i also have the years to prepare when cutts are made to health and social services or pensions don't pay the bills, people with Paruresis don't be coming to the rest of us to bail you out. People with Paruresis don't care about the future generations kids in school that will not be able to afford private healthcare, prime example is the USA the life expectancy is much lower than country's with healthcare if you break your leg whatever these kids will not be able to afford it. So i figure if the people with Paruresis want to screw these other people I refuse to help any of them out.

~fixed~

[TCCK]

Ya, you sound wise. I will follow you.

Good advice by the way. 'Older people are smarter, so you young people don't need to bother thinking about what you're doing, just vote as we do because we know better. And if you DO think about it, unless you reach the same conclusions as us, you're stupid'.

Lead the way bud.

Hey moron did I say "Just do what I do and do not do any research follow blindly"????

No moron if you read ALL my posts I clearly ask OVER AND OVER AND OVER for all of you to do hard research, don't blindly believe everything you read on the internet and even sometimes in the media as they are a corporate entity that drives fear mongering too. Find a book on the subject, read the news, do research into the history of this country into what really happened in the past politically. Libraries have all the information you need, I know it is slow and much harder to do that the precious internet but if you want to be truly informed with truth to make a proper decision not driven by fear mongering and lies then you will do it.

You can also talk to older people that have lives 40-50+ years or more and remember the history politically in this country to get so facts from them too. It is fun to sit down ith an older person and listen to interesting times like WW2, the great depression and times before all the modern immenities.

So I encourage you do not follow me blindly, DO THE RESEARCH into Canada's political history!!

[Kitch]

Hey moron did I say "Just do what I do and do not do any research follow blindly"????

No moron if you read ALL my posts I clearly ask OVER AND OVER AND OVER for all of you to do hard research, don't blindly believe everything you read on the internet and even sometimes in the media as they are a corporate entity that drives fear mongering too. Find a book on the subject, read the news, do research into the history of this country into what really happened in the past politically. Libraries have all the information you need, I know it is slow and much harder to do that the precious internet but if you want to be truly informed with truth to make a proper decision not driven by fear mongering and lies then you will do it.

You can also talk to older people that have lives 40-50+ years or more and remember the history politically in this country to get so facts from them too. It is fun to sit down ith an older person and listen to interesting times like WW2, the great depression and times before all the modern immenities.

So I encourage you do not follow me blindly, DO THE RESEARCH into Canada's political history!!

For starters, I'm not a moron.

I re-read your post and, well, you didn't say anything about research and DID just imply that we should trust our elders. But that doesn't matter now... I'm glad that you clarified.

The green party doesn't simply want people to hug trees and get high, though. That's misleading (I know it was a joke).

Thank you for your post. I'm glad that you said what you said... I'm not one for simply 'believing' things that are said, and as such, even if an older person gave me some wisdom, I'd reflect on it and perhaps do some research and make my own decision. Your message HERE, sir, is indeed what young people need to do. BUT, I would caution you and anyone who reads this to assume that just because something is written in a book it is legit and trustworthy. EVERYTHING has to be read critically, whether it's on some website or in a 600 page hard cover book.

[Renegade]

We need children. Whether you personally are fit to raise kids, or not. If everyone decided they would rather have their time free to play hockey and watch tv and whatnot, rather than raise kids, there'd be no next generation. We, as a society realize this, even if you do not. Those are the kids who are going to grow up to maintain the society you'll be living in as you get older. They'll be the cops, the firefighters, the doctors and lawyers and engineers. That's why, even if you don't have kids, you shouldn't bitch about paying for schooling.

And you have to live in the same society as those kids, which is why you shouldn't begrudge money to help raise them.

This logic makes no sense to me. We need the services kids will eventually provide. So what? There are a lot of services we need and we rely on the free market to provide those services. IOW, if the services like cops, firefighters, doctors are of value to us, we will incent them with high enough compensation that it will make sense for people to have kids to fill those professions. In any case, nature doesn't need us to help. Nature has provided sufficient incentives within the population to ensure people will have kids for some time to come. The population crisis we have today is proof of this and would have happened whether we incented people to have kids or not. People should not be incented by the rest of society to have kids. If they choose to have kids it should be a free choice and with that choice comes the responsibilty of supporting those kids.

[Kitch]

This logic makes no sense to me. We need the services kids will eventually provide. So what? There are a lot of services we need and we rely on the free market to provide those services. IOW, if the services like cops, firefighters, doctors are of value to us, we will incent them with high enough compensation that it will make sense for people to have kids to fill those professions. In any case, nature doesn't need us to help. Nature has provided sufficient incentives within the population to ensure people will have kids for some time to come. The population crisis we have today is proof of this and would have happened whether we incented people to have kids or not. People should not be incented by the rest of society to have kids. If they choose to have kids it should be a free choice and with that choice comes the responsibilty of supporting those kids.

The logic doesn't make sense to you because you don't seem to understand it. If nobody has children, the species doesn't perpetuate. This is not about the services that they could potentially provide... how can you look at children in such a utilitarian way? Say you own a business, and everybody decides not to have children. Who are you going to sell your products to?

I believe educating those kids should be the responsibility of society. How can I function as an individual if the people that I interact with are illiterate? I'll help pay for the education of others, no problem.

So by your logic, if we give incentive for people to become cops, then couples will be enticed to have kids? There are far too many assumptions for this to work... such as the assumption that parents determine the life choices of their kids... such as the assumption that IF parents did, somehow the number of cops wouldn't be too large to compensate.

I've tried, but I can't really understand when people don't want to be 'punished' for not having kids... presumably by paying taxes that go toward education. I really can't see that as being anything other than selfish. If some one out there wants to try and explain this to me in a way that DOESN'T indicate selfishness, I'm eagerly waiting.

[unspoken]

The logic doesn't make sense to you because you don't seem to understand it. If nobody has children, the species doesn't perpetuate. This is not about the services that they could potentially provide... how can you look at children in such a utilitarian way? Say you own a business, and everybody decides not to have children. Who are you going to sell your products to?

I believe educating those kids should be the responsibility of society. How can I function as an individual if the people that I interact with are illiterate? I'll help pay for the education of others, no problem.

So by your logic, if we give incentive for people to become cops, then couples will be enticed to have kids? There are far too many assumptions for this to work... such as the assumption that parents determine the life choices of their kids... such as the assumption that IF parents did, somehow the number of cops wouldn't be too large to compensate.

I've tried, but I can't really understand when people don't want to be 'punished' for not having kids... presumably by paying taxes that go toward education. I really can't see that as being anything other than selfish. If some one out there wants to try and explain this to me in a way that DOESN'T indicate selfishness, I'm eagerly waiting.

I'm not saying I'm 100% anti-kids when it comes to social spending, but there's a limit, and it's long been crossed. And now the Liberals and NDP want to stick rockets up the ass of where it is now and launch it to another galaxy.

I'll give you an example. I do tax returns for a friend of mine. This is a guy who, in the past few years, has made 10-15K more than me in gross salary per year. I'm unmarried and have no kids. He's married with 2 kids, wife doesn't work to be with the kids. Despite his income being larger, when all his kid-related deductions, he ends up paying less net tax than I do. The married parent in this situation pays less taxes, and uses the system at least 4 times as much in terms of spending. Explain to me how this is even remotely fair, or how this isn't a punishment for not having kids.

[Topaz]

Well, here's one old babyboomer that DOESN'T want private healthcare because I know that once you start paying privately, the rates go up and up and up! That's why so many US babyboomers are trying to come here. One woman said she rarther wait for an operation than have to come up with $100,000 or more! HMO's are in the busines to make money not to give the patient the BEST care!

[AngusThermopyle]

I'll give you an example. I do tax returns for a friend of mine. This is a guy who, in the past few years, has made 10-15K more than me in gross salary per year. I'm unmarried and have no kids. He's married with 2 kids, wife doesn't work to be with the kids. Despite his income being larger, when all his kid-related deductions, he ends up paying less net tax than I do. The married parent in this situation pays less taxes, and uses the system at least 4 times as much in terms of spending. Explain to me how this is even remotely fair, or how this isn't a punishment for not having kids.

This a point that I can sympathise with. I don't have children myself and have always paid more as a result.

What I find truly ironic is the fact that I'm classed as a baby boomer, one of those who have destroyed the future with my wanton excess and debauchery yet I pay more into the system than the Canadian average. So I'm codemned as a wastefull wastrel and have to pay more as a result of the fact that I'm a childless wastefull wastrel.

What I have learned over the years is quite simple. Don't worry about it, its not going to change and you won't be able to change it, so don't worry about it. Just do what you can to improve your life and do the all the things you really want to do. This is a really old subject, I remember talking about this with my friends back in the early eighties. Hasn't changed since then, not gonna change now.

[Kitch]

I'm not saying I'm 100% anti-kids when it comes to social spending, but there's a limit, and it's long been crossed. And now the Liberals and NDP want to stick rockets up the ass of where it is now and launch it to another galaxy.

I'll give you an example. I do tax returns for a friend of mine. This is a guy who, in the past few years, has made 10-15K more than me in gross salary per year. I'm unmarried and have no kids. He's married with 2 kids, wife doesn't work to be with the kids. Despite his income being larger, when all his kid-related deductions, he ends up paying less net tax than I do. The married parent in this situation pays less taxes, and uses the system at least 4 times as much in terms of spending. Explain to me how this is even remotely fair, or how this isn't a punishment for not having kids.

How much more, if you don't mind me asking, do you pay in tax? I'll assume that it's not a very large number.

His family, as you said, uses 4x the system that you use. So are you saying that he gets 400% more value for his taxes than you do? Well, there are some problems with that.

Presumably, his wife won't stay home once the kids start school. If that's so, she'll begin to work and pay taxes and so the 4:1 usage to tax payment ratio is reduced to 2:1. So really, your friend's family contributes less taxes than you from the time their first kid was born until the second starts school, but still gets double the value after that because the kids still use the system. Well, that's only until those kids grow up and begin to work and then they'll begin to contribute to the system. So your friend gets extra value for his tax dollars for a relatively short period of time (compared to the span of your lives) for creating future tax payers and members of society. In a sense, you give and take an equal amount throughout your life whereas he takes more for a few years but gives MUCH more over a longer period of time. Keep in mind that he has expenses that you don't because of this extra contribution that he's made to society. It's almost as though society has invested in him and his family.

I REALLY hate that it has to come down to a comparison of who contributes what and who takes what though. The dude is helping to perpetuate the species while you're not! And if anyone claims that it's still not fair, what about the people who created you, your friends, your customers, your employees? Are you not grateful to them? If not, you're nothing but selfish and there's no way around that.

[unspoken]

How much more, if you don't mind me asking, do you pay in tax? I'll assume that it's not a very large number.

I'd say on average $1000, depending on how much extra scratch I have to kick in to my RRSP.

His family, as you said, uses 4x the system that you use. So are you saying that he gets 400% more value for his taxes than you do? Well, there are some problems with that.

Presumably, his wife won't stay home once the kids start school. If that's so, she'll begin to work and pay taxes and so the 4:1 usage to tax payment ratio is reduced to 2:1. So really, your friend's family contributes less taxes than you from the time their first kid was born until the second starts school, but still gets double the value after that because the kids still use the system. Well, that's only until those kids grow up and begin to work and then they'll begin to contribute to the system. So your friend gets extra value for his tax dollars for a relatively short period of time (compared to the span of your lives) for creating future tax payers and members of society. In a sense, you give and take an equal amount throughout your life whereas he takes more for a few years but gives MUCH more over a longer period of time. Keep in mind that he has expenses that you don't because of this extra contribution that he's made to society. It's almost as though society has invested in him and his family.

A couple of errors in here.

First, I said at least 4x. Everything that I get, he gets for four. Plus he gets a bunch of things that I don't.

Second, your usage to payment ratio is based heavily on the assumption that if she rejoins the workforce, her income will equal ours. Not usually the case for anyone, man or woman, who has been out of the labour market for nearly a decade. Even if your assumption proves correct though, the ratio is still far larger than 2:1, as the kid-related tax incentives and social programs don't stop at age 6, they just change in scope.

And I am aware that he has extra expenses, but those are directly the cause of something that he and his wife CHOSE to do. I don't understand why so many people expect to reap all of the benefits of a choice they made, but then when it comes time for the downside, they just try to pass it off, and that it's passed off to third parties who had no choice in the matter. That's the base of my argument. I'm not so much anti-kid as I am pro informed, responsible choices where you accept both the positives and the negatives. There's very few people I can think of who are the latter, and using the excuse of kids is the most common one in the book. It's especially rich when it comes from people (not all are like this mind you) who are already living higher standards of living than those they are passing the burden onto and spend frivolously in an effort to keep up with the Jones'.

[Kitch]

I'd say on average $1000, depending on how much extra scratch I have to kick in to my RRSP.

A couple of errors in here.

First, I said at least 4x. Everything that I get, he gets for four. Plus he gets a bunch of things that I don't.

Second, your usage to payment ratio is based heavily on the assumption that if she rejoins the workforce, her income will equal ours. Not usually the case for anyone, man or woman, who has been out of the labour market for nearly a decade. Even if your assumption proves correct though, the ratio is still far larger than 2:1, as the kid-related tax incentives and social programs don't stop at age 6, they just change in scope.

And I am aware that he has extra expenses, but those are directly the cause of something that he and his wife CHOSE to do. I don't understand why so many people expect to reap all of the benefits of a choice they made, but then when it comes time for the downside, they just try to pass it off, and that it's passed off to third parties who had no choice in the matter. That's the base of my argument. I'm not so much anti-kid as I am pro informed, responsible choices where you accept both the positives and the negatives. There's very few people I can think of who are the latter, and using the excuse of kids is the most common one in the book. It's especially rich when it comes from people (not all are like this mind you) who are already living higher standards of living than those they are passing the burden onto and spend frivolously in an effort to keep up with the Jones'.

I THINK I know where you are coming from... although the purpose of my rough breakdown was not to show that there are equivalent contributions:usages between parents and non-parents. They're obviously not equivalent just as your ratio is not the same as other non-parents.

The point has more to do with things that aren't money. If everyone decided to not have kids... then what? Even if the majority of people decided not to have kids, then what? It'd be nice if our species carried on. Tax breaks are incentives for that purpose. Now, you rightly said that there are other incentives for people to have kids that are not tax related, but neglected to acknowledge that there are disadvantages that are not tax/money related. Having kids is a HUGE HUGE HUGE time commitment. It's a huge emotional commitment. It's just an enormous commitment. You have freedoms that your friend does not. He has benefits of having kids that you do not as well.

Benefits/detriments, monetary and otherwise, seem, to me, to be close enough to equal. People who have kids do a service to all of society above and beyond paying taxes that is very difficult to measure in value. But my point is, why do we have to measure that value?

[Renegade]

The logic doesn't make sense to you because you don't seem to understand it. If nobody has children, the species doesn't perpetuate. This is not about the services that they could potentially provide... how can you look at children in such a utilitarian way?

I look at children in a utilitarian way because the arugment made was for the utilitarian use of children. I don't believe the argument was made that somehow the human race is heading toward extension and so we should provide financial support to stave of extinction.

Say you own a business, and everybody decides not to have children. Who are you going to sell your products to?

In the unlikely case that this were true, I would sell to whatever market there was. Presumably the aging like myself or external markets.

I believe educating those kids should be the responsibility of society. How can I function as an individual if the people that I interact with are illiterate? I'll help pay for the education of others, no problem.

You have stated a personal opinion. Fine, the question is why I should share that opinion. I'd welcome facts to back your opinion.

So by your logic, if we give incentive for people to become cops, then couples will be enticed to have kids? There are far too many assumptions for this to work... such as the assumption that parents determine the life choices of their kids... such as the assumption that IF parents did, somehow the number of cops wouldn't be too large to compensate.

Not exactly. My assumption is that there are sufficient incentives already and even if there wern't and somehow there were a labour shortage there would be finanical incentives to address that. Here's the thing, a lot more than labour is required to run society and the economy. Capital, equipment, etc. We don't need to incent the creation of those, yet they appear because they are necessary and someone creates them to fullfil a need.

There are many examples of societies in the world which provide no additional incentive for having kids, and yet people have an abundance and sometimes an overabundance of kids. So the theory that somehow we would run out of labour because our population would disappear is pure conjecture. There is plenty of labour which could be imported if required.

I've tried, but I can't really understand when people don't want to be 'punished' for not having kids... presumably by paying taxes that go toward education. I really can't see that as being anything other than selfish. If some one out there wants to try and explain this to me in a way that DOESN'T indicate selfishness, I'm eagerly waiting.

Of course it is selfish. Selfish is another way of saying self-interest. The exact same thing holds true the other way. Parents who are looking for society to help support their kids are selfish and their argument that it is for the good of society is pure nonsense and a way to mask self-interest.

BTW, I am a parent, so I make these argumnents despite the fact that it is against my self interest to do so.

[AngusThermopyle]

Presumably, his wife won't stay home once the kids start school. If that's so, she'll begin to work and pay taxes and so the 4:1 usage to tax payment ratio is reduced to 2:1. So really, your friend's family contributes less taxes than you from the time their first kid was born until the second starts school, but still gets double the value after that because the kids still use the system. Well, that's only until those kids grow up and begin to work and then they'll begin to contribute to the system. So your friend gets extra value for his tax dollars for a relatively short period of time (compared to the span of your lives) for creating future tax payers and members of society. In a sense, you give and take an equal amount throughout your life whereas he takes more for a few years but gives MUCH more over a longer period of time. Keep in mind that he has expenses that you don't because of this extra contribution that he's made to society. It's almost as though society has invested in him and his family.

This is an entirely specious and fallacious line of reasoning.

First you start with an assumption, you have no way of accurately predicting what his wife will do, or anyones wife for that matter. Then you compound your error by stating that he will contribute more because the children will grow up, and assumedly pay taxes. He will not pay more. His grown children will pay their share, he won't pay it for them. Then you compound the error once again by stating he has contributed more to society. Wrong, he has had children, they will contribute to society, not him, beyond his own personel obligation anyway.

Are you really a teacher? If so I certainly hope you don't try to teach your students that such invalid arguements are logical and meaningfull because they just are not.

[Renegade]

It'd be nice if our species carried on. Tax breaks are incentives for that purpose.

Why is it " nice if our species carried on"? I'd argue that the human species has been the plague of the earth and is on a path to destroy it. If you look at it simply from a species perspective, I contend that the world is better off without us.

Please explain what tangible beneift I get by the species being around a few generations from now? If it is simply the warm and fuzzies, then from what I understand about your contention is that you want the rest of society to pay so that some of you feel the warm and fuzzies.

Benefits/detriments, monetary and otherwise, seem, to me, to be close enough to equal.

KItch, would you have kids if the monatary incentives wern't there?

People who have kids do a service to all of society above and beyond paying taxes that is very difficult to measure in value. But my point is, why do we have to measure that value?

How would you know if it is "close enough to equal" if you can't measure that value?

[Kitch]

This is an entirely specious and fallacious line of reasoning.

First you start with an assumption, you have no way of accurately predicting what his wife will do, or anyones wife for that matter. Then you compound your error by stating that he will contribute more because the children will grow up, and assumedly pay taxes. He will not pay more. His grown children will pay their share, he won't pay it for them. Then you compound the error once again by stating he has contributed more to society. Wrong, he has had children, they will contribute to society, not him, beyond his own personel obligation anyway.

Are you really a teacher? If so I certainly hope you don't try to teach your students that such invalid arguements are logical and meaningfull because they just are not.

For fuck sake!! I am so fucking sick of people taking shots because I'm a teacher. I make points that you don't agree with so... "I hope you don't teach that!"... you MUST be a Jack Layton supporter.. you MUST be a pussy ass liberal!

I was going to say that you made a lot of sense in your post before this one... and that I have a hard time disputing it. I still think that but FUCK!! My logic is NOT invalid. It's a different perspective. And I made and assumption about the guy's wife and STATED that it was an assumption that I was making! "IF THIS IS SO..." is what I said.

I KNOW that the Dad's personal contribution to taxes is not more over his lifetime. But he made a contribution of CREATING tax payers, who will also contribute to the economy. But the biggest contribution is to our species. I'll take your word that other places don't give such incentives to have children. And I won't disagree with you that they're not necessarily needed in order to perpetuate the species. (Nor will I disagree with you that we are the plague of the Earth... I agree wholeheartedly).

I will try to open up another line of reasoning though. The more time parents spend with their children the more... civilized like they are. (I say civilized like because I HATE giving a standard that people must live up to in order to be considered 'normal'). The tax incentives for families help parents raise children in such a way that they are less likely to end up being burdens on society rather than contributors.

Now, these lines of reasoning are easily disputed. NOT refuted, mind you. They're not infallible, nor are they fallacious. Simply a different perspective from yours. Because we can't easily measure a value to society of having kids (which I despise attempting anyway... just an opinion), we can't TRULY discuss whether people who don't have kids are being punished or not. All that we can do is make cases supporting each perspective and compare... but they're by no means absolute truths... on either side. So thank you for laying out your case in a coherent way. But get off your high horse for assuming that your perspective is a truth and mine is logical fallacy.

My opinion about society paying for education is, as you said, an opinion. What facts would you like to support MY OPINION!!! What sense does that make? I like bacon on my pizza... do you want facts to support that opinion? I already said that I happily pay for education of the masses because I benefit from interacting with an educated society rather than an illiterate, ignorant one (we can debate, although I don't think we'd disagree, about the literacy/awareness of society).

So, in the end, thank you for your perspective, and screw you for ridiculing me because I have a different view. When the hell would I ever engage in a conversation with my biology students about the economics of having children anyway??? Ad fucking hominem attacks... look the term up... are logical fallacies and do NOT support your argument. So don't accuse me of making illogical arguments before looking in the mirror bud.

It's funny, people expect so much of teachers (both in AND out of the classroom) yet hold us to such low esteem. Not you, personally, but generally this is what I've seen. It sucks.

[Kitch]

Sorry, I mixed up the posts from two different people. My apologies if I accused somebody of something that they didn't say.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Kitch

[Kitch]

Why is it " nice if our species carried on"? I'd argue that the human species has been the plague of the earth and is on a path to destroy it. If you look at it simply from a species perspective, I contend that the world is better off without us.

Please explain what tangible beneift I get by the species being around a few generations from now? If it is simply the warm and fuzzies, then from what I understand about your contention is that you want the rest of society to pay so that some of you feel the warm and fuzzies.

KItch, would you have kids if the monatary incentives wern't there?

How would you know if it is "close enough to equal" if you can't measure that value?

Good points. I would have kids without tax incentives... and you called me on a false statement. We can't measure the value and so I can't really claim them to be close enough to equal. I suck.

There is no benefit to you as an individual for perpetuating the species. This is going to fire us off on a new tangent. Perhaps it is about warm fuzzies, as you put it. But why do we, in every circumstance, have to consider self interest before interest of others? I don't think that we have to... in some cases, in my opinion, we're nickel and diming.

[AngusThermopyle]

I KNOW that the Dad's personal contribution to taxes is not more over his lifetime. But he made a contribution of CREATING tax payers, who will also contribute to the economy. But the biggest contribution is to our species. I'll take your word that other places don't give such incentives to have children. And I won't disagree with you that they're not necessarily needed in order to perpetuate the species. (Nor will I disagree with you that we are the plague of the Earth... I agree wholeheartedly).

Now now, temper temper.

What on earth are you going on about? No where have I even mentioned anything about perpetuation of the species.

Now to continue. It is not a simple matter of perspective. You made statements based on very broad assumptions and non factual suppositions, that is not perspective, it is simply invalid and illogical. As for the teacher thing, well I really do want to know if this is a technique you impart to your students, nothing more.

[Kitch]

Now now, temper temper.

What on earth are you going on about? No where have I even mentioned anything about perpetuation of the species.

Now to continue. It is not a simple matter of perspective. You made statements based on very broad assumptions and non factual suppositions, that is not perspective, it is simply invalid and illogical. As for the teacher thing, well I really do want to know if this is a technique you impart to your students, nothing more.

What technique??? Being illogical? Come on now. You need to read the conversation again... I just did and you made a pretty big logical error. I'll explain.

I apologized already for mixing your post up with another person's.

Again, I made an assumption about the guy's wife... and never pretended that it was the truth. It's the best case scenario for my assertion (would you expect me to argue weakly for my perspective?).

Let's look at the Dad and the non-dad. The Dad get's tax breaks, let's say, from the time the first kid is born to the time the second kid turns 18 (I could be wrong, but it's somewhere in that neighbourhood). He gets that break because he MADE FUTURE TAX PAYERS. And kids don't come out ready to pay taxes. They need to develop... which isn't all that effective without parents. So, he's getting a break that the non-dad isn't, but he's got detriments that the non-dad doesn't. Now, the mistake YOU made is to only compare the taxes paid by the dad vs. non-dad but why is it that you must include his family members in the consideration of usage of the system? EVERYONE was once a child, and thus didn't pay taxes until a certain time in their life. If you're going to stay with the individual in terms of tax paying you have to stay with the individual in terms of system usage. Otherwise, you could easily make the argument that a stay at home non-mom/dad utilizes the system but doesn't pay taxes. One contributor, two users. Non fair?

Really, your beef is about the, more or less, 20 years that a person gets some tax relief because of having kids. What happens when you retire? Are you going to collect old age pension? It's not a fund that you paid into over your life that stayed put... people used it when they retired. Those kids that other people are having will pay for non-dad's pension.

So it IS really about perspective. Either you consider self-interest before all or you don't.

And excuse me for getting angry over an unfair attack. But just for argument sake... let's say you thought I was a bad teacher. Would you have beef? Of course you would. Why? Because I'm educating the children in our society (on science, bud). Does this not imply that it is a benefit to you to have educated children entering society? Thus paying for public education is a self-interest? Thus people having kids is beneficial to society?

Reflect on your own logic... try to give up on the "poor me" attitude first. Things will look more clear.

[Slim MacSquinty]

What technique??? Being illogical? Come on now. You need to read the conversation again... I just did and you made a pretty big logical error. I'll explain.

I apologized already for mixing your post up with another person's.

Again, I made an assumption about the guy's wife... and never pretended that it was the truth. It's the best case scenario for my assertion (would you expect me to argue weakly for my perspective?).

Let's look at the Dad and the non-dad. The Dad get's tax breaks, let's say, from the time the first kid is born to the time the second kid turns 18 (I could be wrong, but it's somewhere in that neighbourhood). He gets that break because he MADE FUTURE TAX PAYERS. And kids don't come out ready to pay taxes. They need to develop... which isn't all that effective without parents. So, he's getting a break that the non-dad isn't, but he's got detriments that the non-dad doesn't. Now, the mistake YOU made is to only compare the taxes paid by the dad vs. non-dad but why is it that you must include his family members in the consideration of usage of the system? EVERYONE was once a child, and thus didn't pay taxes until a certain time in their life. If you're going to stay with the individual in terms of tax paying you have to stay with the individual in terms of system usage. Otherwise, you could easily make the argument that a stay at home non-mom/dad utilizes the system but doesn't pay taxes. One contributor, two users. Non fair?

Really, your beef is about the, more or less, 20 years that a person gets some tax relief because of having kids. What happens when you retire? Are you going to collect old age pension? It's not a fund that you paid into over your life that stayed put... people used it when they retired. Those kids that other people are having will pay for non-dad's pension.

So it IS really about perspective. Either you consider self-interest before all or you don't.

And excuse me for getting angry over an unfair attack. But just for argument sake... let's say you thought I was a bad teacher. Would you have beef? Of course you would. Why? Because I'm educating the children in our society (on science, bud). Does this not imply that it is a benefit to you to have educated children entering society? Thus paying for public education is a self-interest? Thus people having kids is beneficial to society?

Reflect on your own logic... try to give up on the "poor me" attitude first. Things will look more clear.

You've got it all wrong pal, where should I start?

First off, your logic is backwards, when Dad or non-Dad pays taxes their is no consideration of future tax payers, there is no trust fund set up it all comes from current accounts, meaning todays taxes pay todays expenses, and some of yesterdays given the debt. Old age pension that you mention was supposed to be a fund that you paid into all your life and when you retire you get it back in tiny increments, that arguement is completly off course. In addition childless tax payers not only do not get tax breaks they also get penalized significantly on their property taxes as over half goes to education boards, again your taxes are not a re-imbursement for education recieved as your parents taxes paid for you education, it was all current accounts and not deferred so your wrong. In fact the more kids you have the bigger advantage. Kids are expensive, and the government helps parents out, what you may notice being a teacher is that this backwards incentive means that people who are well educated, both parents working, getting ahead in the world types are having one or two at most (generally) the people who are pumping out the little ones are not necessarily the cream of the crop, sort of reverse darwinism someone said to me the other day.

This is the backwards incentives of socialism, let me give you another example, back in trudeaus days he was an advocate of nationalizing industries, so lets say the government nationalizes a big profitable business. In a normal business, the excess of cash over expenses is divided up in two ways, some is retained by the company to spend on new better equipment and processes, perhaps expanding the business. What's left is divided up amongst the shareholders as dividends, these dividends can be squirelled away but more often than not are invested in other businesses or just spent on goods and services thereby enlarging the economy. That same business if it were nationalized would be most motivated to take the profits and add them to general revenue of the government and give them away in social programs or worse. Even if they reduced taxes would they do the same good for the economy? I say no because they would be less likely to be re-invested in the business making it bigger and better. In addition nationalized businesses necessarily have to have the governments conscience, therefore they often make bad decisions and go real easy on their employees, how can they lay people off? So then tend over time to run themselves into the ground and in some cases instead of having profits, end up requiring subsudies.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Slim MacSquinty

[Renegade]

My opinion about society paying for education is, as you said, an opinion. What facts would you like to support MY OPINION!!! What sense does that make? I like bacon on my pizza... do you want facts to support that opinion? I already said that I happily pay for education of the masses because I benefit from interacting with an educated society rather than an illiterate, ignorant one (we can debate, although I don't think we'd disagree, about the literacy/awareness of society).

I'm presuming htis particular paragraph is directed at me. An opinion is only credible if it is supported by evidence and facts. I'm assuming that you came to your opinon through some rational conclusions and so I'm asking for how you did so. If as you say, your opinion is simply a preference like "bacon on my pizza", then it would seem reasonable to conclude that your opinion is based on nothing more than something that caters to your own self-interest. So if all you are looking is to state your opinion, have at it. If instead what you seek is to have a credible argument that your posiion is based upon evidence, provide the evidence.

I would have kids without tax incentives...

So would I. So would millions of other parents. Your position exemplifies my point. That many parents would have kids regardless and there is no threat to the human race dying out because of lack of tax incentives to have kids. So why incent behaviour which will happen anyway?

But why do we, in every circumstance, have to consider self interest before interest of others? I don't think that we have to... in some cases, in my opinion, we're nickel and diming.

The question at hand was whether others are being forced to subsidized parents or if the others recieve some value for providing that subsidy. As you have admitted there is little or no value to the individuals providing the subsidy. In my opinion it is fine to consider the interest of others when providing funding, but it should be the role of charities to do so. Each person at an individual level can decide which areas and how much he wishes to support the interest of others. Government taxation is a forced march support of others based upon whomever the government decides is worthy of that support based upon both rational and irrational criteria. It make much more sense that that choice be left individually to decide.

You think you should support schools? Fine, pull out your checkbook and make a donation, but why do you believe you should force others to do the same using the enforcement of government?

Whether it is "nickel and diming" is a matter of perspective. If it were truly nickels and dimes we were discussing than it would not even be worth the time to discuss it. What is the amount threshold before it is no longer "nickel and diming"; is it $1000, $10000, or $100000?

[Kitch]

I'm presuming htis particular paragraph is directed at me. An opinion is only credible if it is supported by evidence and facts. I'm assuming that you came to your opinon through some rational conclusions and so I'm asking for how you did so. If as you say, your opinion is simply a preference like "bacon on my pizza", then it would seem reasonable to conclude that your opinion is based on nothing more than something that caters to your own self-interest. So if all you are looking is to state your opinion, have at it. If instead what you seek is to have a credible argument that your posiion is based upon evidence, provide the evidence.

So would I. So would millions of other parents. Your position exemplifies my point. That many parents would have kids regardless and there is no threat to the human race dying out because of lack of tax incentives to have kids. So why incent behaviour which will happen anyway?

The question at hand was whether others are being forced to subsidized parents or if the others recieve some value for providing that subsidy. As you have admitted there is little or no value to the individuals providing the subsidy. In my opinion it is fine to consider the interest of others when providing funding, but it should be the role of charities to do so. Each person at an individual level can decide which areas and how much he wishes to support the interest of others. Government taxation is a forced march support of others based upon whomever the government decides is worthy of that support based upon both rational and irrational criteria. It make much more sense that that choice be left individually to decide.

You think you should support schools? Fine, pull out your checkbook and make a donation, but why do you believe you should force others to do the same using the enforcement of government?

Whether it is "nickel and diming" is a matter of perspective. If it were truly nickels and dimes we were discussing than it would not even be worth the time to discuss it. What is the amount threshold before it is no longer "nickel and diming"; is it $1000, $10000, or $100000?

First... "I believe educating those kids should be the responsibility of society. How can I function as an individual if the people that I interact with are illiterate? I'll help pay for the education of others, no problem."

This is what I said originally. What evidence could support that I believe this? If I had said YOU should believe it too, then it'd be prudent for me to give reasons why. But to simply say that I believe in something is not to make any assertions about anyone other than myself. So... proving that I like bacon on my pizza doesn't really matter.

This whole discussion, really, is about the lower taxes that a working parent pays over a portion of their child's life, and whether or not that is fair. I BELIEVE that the incentives the government gives are not to prevent dying off of the population, but to encourage growth of the population. Particularly in earlier times. But today, it seems, that immigration is seen as another viable way to increase the population. We're not small, but, compared to the size of Canada, our population is far from dense. Wouldn't there be desirable effects from having larger, more dense population centres? I don't really know (or care), I'm just attempting to identify the governments' reasoning. But, you're not wrong. People will have kids regardless.

The issue we have with each other's perspectives is that you think people who have kids should pay for the services provided for those kids and others who don't should be able to choose. Well... take a look at that bolded sentence of yours up there... I didn't say that there is little/no value to the non-parents!! On the contrary I tried to explain the value while admitting that it is VERY difficult (if possible at all) to assign a number value. Non-parents do indeed benefit from, for example, the education of the children belonging to other people! How can you not see this? You come into contact with people you're not related to everyday! You can thank their education for their (relative) ability to interact with you. Or, you could thank their parents. Either way, those parents did a service for you.

Now, I am by no means trying to make an assertion about an absolute truth. I know that neither of us can really determine a value, or lack thereof, of 'other's kids'. So, as I said before, it's a matter of perspective which is indeed up for discussion. I can't refute a lot of the things that have been said (I can dispute, though)... the well thought out, intelligent things (that's not a shot at you). But I also can't ignore that it seems that some people can't accept any argument contrary to their own because everything that they... think... is shaded by this 'self-interest' initiative. And if people try to make sense of arguments FOR paying for public education, it's very difficult if they don't set aside their negative gut feelings about letting go of their hard earned money.

[Renegade]

First... "I believe educating those kids should be the responsibility of society. How can I function as an individual if the people that I interact with are illiterate? I'll help pay for the education of others, no problem."

This is what I said originally. What evidence could support that I believe this? If I had said YOU should believe it too, then it'd be prudent for me to give reasons why. But to simply say that I believe in something is not to make any assertions about anyone other than myself. So... proving that I like bacon on my pizza doesn't really matter.

Sorry but you misunderstand. I accept you belive this. I ask for evidence of why you have come to that conclusion. If you don't have any reasons for coming to that conclusion other than your life outlook, that is fine.

This whole discussion, really, is about the lower taxes that a working parent pays over a portion of their child's life, and whether or not that is fair. I BELIEVE that the incentives the government gives are not to prevent dying off of the population, but to encourage growth of the population. Particularly in earlier times. But today, it seems, that immigration is seen as another viable way to increase the population. We're not small, but, compared to the size of Canada, our population is far from dense. Wouldn't there be desirable effects from having larger, more dense population centres? I don't really know (or care), I'm just attempting to identify the governments' reasoning.

But you should care. Certainly I do. I don't happen to belive population growth is a good thing. While Canada may be vast there are large tracts which are virtually uninhabitable, further it is pretty much certain that population growth would not occur in the vast empty tracts in Canada but rather in the already overcrowded cities, further increasing pressure on the environment and scarce resources. So what you and the government are promoting with these subsidies are a detrement to society.

The issue we have with each other's perspectives is that you think people who have kids should pay for the services provided for those kids and others who don't should be able to choose. Well... take a look at that bolded sentence of yours up there... I didn't say that there is little/no value to the non-parents!! On the contrary I tried to explain the value while admitting that it is VERY difficult (if possible at all) to assign a number value. Non-parents do indeed benefit from, for example, the education of the children belonging to other people! How can you not see this? You come into contact with people you're not related to everyday! You can thank their education for their (relative) ability to interact with you. Or, you could thank their parents. Either way, those parents did a service for you.

It may be of value to you but it is of very little value to me. I have lived in places where the bulk of the population was largely uneducated and I can tell you that the quality of my interactions was just as great there. I'm really trying to understand what value you get from your interactions with someone else being educated instead of being uneducated. To me it is somewhat like my neighbour painting his house and then sending me a bill because when I look at it, it is no longer the eyesore it once was. Yes everyone should be educated, but that responsibility is a parental one to undertake and fund and if they don't wish to undertake that responsiblity they are free not to be parents.

But I also can't ignore that it seems that some people can't accept any argument contrary to their own because everything that they... think... is shaded by this 'self-interest' initiative. And if people try to make sense of arguments FOR paying for public education, it's very difficult if they don't set aside their negative gut feelings about letting go of their hard earned money.

Do you not see that when parents argue that kids education should be socially funded they too are arguing in their own self-interest and are likely clouded by that perspective.

That is precisely why I asked for evidence and facts to support your perspective. Opinion is clouded by self-interest, facts are not.

[Kitch]

Sorry but you misunderstand. I accept you belive this. I ask for evidence of why you have come to that conclusion. If you don't have any reasons for coming to that conclusion other than your life outlook, that is fine.

But you should care. Certainly I do. I don't happen to belive population growth is a good thing. While Canada may be vast there are large tracts which are virtually uninhabitable, further it is pretty much certain that population growth would not occur in the vast empty tracts in Canada but rather in the already overcrowded cities, further increasing pressure on the environment and scarce resources. So what you and the government are promoting with these subsidies are a detrement to society.

It may be of value to you but it is of very little value to me. I have lived in places where the bulk of the population was largely uneducated and I can tell you that the quality of my interactions was just as great there. I'm really trying to understand what value you get from your interactions with someone else being educated instead of being uneducated. To me it is somewhat like my neighbour painting his house and then sending me a bill because when I look at it, it is no longer the eyesore it once was. Yes everyone should be educated, but that responsibility is a parental one to undertake and fund and if they don't wish to undertake that responsiblity they are free not to be parents.

Do you not see that when parents argue that kids education should be socially funded they too are arguing in their own self-interest and are likely clouded by that perspective.

That is precisely why I asked for evidence and facts to support your perspective. Opinion is clouded by self-interest, facts are not.

You're right, and I apologize. Parents do argue from self-interest. But I'm arguing from the perspective that I think it's fair that everyone is responsible for paying for education and giving parents a break for the work that they do and the time that they take in their lives to produce children because I DO feel that this is a valuable contribution.

My opinion about supporting education is a lot more... involved than just making interactions between citizens 'better'. People who don't have children benefit from the education of doctors that take care of the non-parents later in their lives. As they benefit from the lawyers, construction workers, farmers, engineers, all the occupations you can think of. Obviously all of those have varying degrees of formal 'education'. You benefit from the decisions that people make even when you're not involved in the decision making process. Electing a government, for example. The more educated a society is the better off everyone in that society is. I can't support that claim with evidence... that is, indeed, simply an outlook on life.

You said it PERFECTLY! "It may be of value to you but it is of no value to me". We simply have different perspectives. I see it as valuable, you don't. You can't refute my argument, I can't refute yours. In other words, neither of us is wrong because there is no wrong answer. There's only preference. And, if the majority of people have the same preference as me, then this policy should remain. (That's not to say that it's known whether or not the majority of the population has the same opinion as me).

OK, I think this is ALL about opinion, you do not. So, show me some evidence that it is of NO value to you that children who are not yours are educated with your money. Your interactions with people in countries where people are generally uneducated is not evidence, it's a subjective anecdote. Besides, I bet that you would have benefited from the education system there had you fallen ill and required medical attention there.

[Renegade]

My opinion about supporting education is a lot more... involved than just making interactions between citizens 'better'. People who don't have children benefit from the education of doctors that take care of the non-parents later in their lives. As they benefit from the lawyers, construction workers, farmers, engineers, all the occupations you can think of. Obviously all of those have varying degrees of formal 'education'. You benefit from the decisions that people make even when you're not involved in the decision making process. Electing a government, for example. The more educated a society is the better off everyone in that society is. I can't support that claim with evidence... that is, indeed, simply an outlook on life.

There is a perfect way of "charging" people for the benefit they receive through another's education. That perfect way is through the cost paid for that interaction. For example if I benefit from a lawyer's education then I pay the price when I pay for the lawyer's services. If I didn't pay upfront for his education then the incremental cost woudl be added to the cost he charges me. Similarly if the garbage collection guy provides the same service regardless of if he is or isn't educated, why would I pay an incremental cost to that service. That way instead of paying upfront people pay exactly the value they get in the education as it is built into the service provided.

You said it PERFECTLY! "It may be of value to you but it is of no value to me". We simply have different perspectives. I see it as valuable, you don't. You can't refute my argument, I can't refute yours. In other words, neither of us is wrong because there is no wrong answer. There's only preference. And, if the majority of people have the same preference as me, then this policy should remain. (That's not to say that it's known whether or not the majority of the population has the same opinion as me).

The difference Kitch, is that you seek via majority use of force to impose that value on everyone even if they don't value the service. If you simply left it to each individual to pay as they saw value, it wouldn't be a forced imposition of your preference over mine.

So the difference between my view is that I don't seek to impose it on you by majority rule. I want you to have a choice, something you would deny me.

OK, I think this is ALL about opinion, you do not. So, show me some evidence that it is of NO value to you that children who are not yours are educated with your money. Your interactions with people in countries where people are generally uneducated is not evidence, it's a subjective anecdote. Besides, I bet that you would have benefited from the education system there had you fallen ill and required medical attention there.

Again, it is not a binary determination. What I'm suggesting is that there should not be a presumption of value. A presumption of value occurs when the education is paid for up front. If better education provides better service, then charge for that service and people who see value in that service will pay for it. There is no better evidence of where you see value in education than in difference in starting salaries between people who have simply a high-school education and those who have not. If there is not significant difference in wage rates then that effectively shows that the people buying the service assign it no value.