Charest v. the Taliban/Students

[bush_cheney2004]

Once again, the US.

Marshall Plan? That was, like, 60 years ago when the US was a player. Now I fear that the US is no longer a player; it has turned into Paris Hilton. It lives on its name.

It is still more of a "player" than Canada or Quebec.

But as I say, if you Americans want to be narcissists and talk about yourselves, take this outside. Start another thread.

That wouldn't help much....eventually you would boomerang right back to America and Americans. It is your fate.

[Michael Hardner]

There are simply not enough people working in the West to support the level of promised State subsidies/transfers. Or rather, as Greg Mankiw argues, we have extended State promises so far that the State can no longer offer the Dorian Gray Pill to all.

That article is talking about a hypothetical case.

I severely doubt that you have evidence to say there aren't enough people working to support state subsidies and transfers.

[August1991]

That article is talking about a hypothetical case.

I severely doubt that you have evidence to say there aren't enough people working to support state subsidies and transfers.

Michael, it is not a hypothetical case.

Young Quebec students want money to study. The professors want salaries. They want "money". These students/teachers expect food and real stuff.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, it is not a hypothetical case.

Did you read the article ? It's about a $150,000 pill that provides endless longevity.

Young Quebec students want money to study. The professors want salaries. They want "money". These students/teachers expect food and real stuff.

And how does this lead to your conclusion then ?

I'll repeat my challenge of your assertion again, if only to see if you address it this time:

I severely doubt that you have evidence to say there aren't enough people working to support state subsidies and transfers.

[August1991]

I severely doubt that you have evidence to say there aren't enough people working to support state subsidies and transfers.

I disagree.

When Quebec nurses/Ontario teachers start work at 25 and retire at age 55, the State has a problem.

If someone lives 90 years but works only 30 years, someone has to pay the other 60 years of life.

Simple mathematics says that our tax/pension system should take 66% from our pay - assuming that people today will have children, and these future children will pay taxes.

God knows.

Edited May 11, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree.

When Quebec nurses/Ontario teachers start work at 25 and retire at age 55, the State has a problem.

You have perfectly illustrated my point here.

This is a problem to you, not because of supply/demand or whether the numbers support it but rather because a 30-year career sounds too easy for you. Please understand that I'm not debating the specifics of the 30-year timeframe, or 40-year, or 50-year, but your method of proving it.

This is economics. GDP constantly improves, as does productivity as time goes on. One day, hundreds of years in the future, we'll hardly have to work at all.

If someone lives 90 years but works only 30 years, someone has to pay the other 60 years of life.

Simple mathematics says that our tax/pension system should take 66% from our pay - assuming that people today will have children, and these future children will pay taxes.

God knows.

I hope you're not trying to say this isn't 'fair' ? Haven't we (and you) already established here that economics is about what works, not what is fair ?

[August1991]

You have perfectly illustrated my point here.

This is a problem to you, not because of supply/demand or whether the numbers support it but rather because a 30-year career sounds too easy for you. Please understand that I'm not debating the specifics of the 30-year timeframe, or 40-year, or 50-year, but your method of proving it.

This is economics. GDP constantly improves, as does productivity as time goes on. One day, hundreds of years in the future, we'll hardly have to work at all.

Huh? Productivity? Government bureaucrats?

According to my mathematics, if someone lives for 90 years but only works for 30 years, then their salary should be taxed at 66%.

Unless of course the State becomes a Ponzi scheme. Welcome to the 21st century: The Social Democratic State Ponzi scheme. IOW, easy access to other people's money.

Edited May 12, 2012 by August1991

[CPCFTW]

Huh? Productivity? Government bureaucrats?

According to my mathematics, if someone lives for 90 years but only works for 30 years, then their salary should be taxed at 66%.

Unless of course the State becomes a Ponzi scheme. Welcome to the 21st century: The Social Democratic State Ponzi scheme. IOW, easy access to other people's money.

Not necessarily. If someone lives 90yrs, we can probably assume the first 20-25yrs they are being supported by their parents.

They may only need "full income" for the 25yrs that they support their own kids, but they work 30yrs. Then they may retire making 70% of "full income".

If this were the standard case, then a 35yr retirement would require 35x0.7 = 24.5yrs salary, or 24.5/65 = 37.6% tax.

Now the question is, do we want the state to take almost 40% of our income to ensure everyone retires comfortably? Does taxing at that level (keep in mind additional taxes would be required for other services) reduce the size of "the pie"? Do we want the state to tuck us in at night and sing us lullabies? Many people would say no, yes, no, and it certainly isn't fair for a "freedom loving" nation to impose such a heavy tax on people who do not support it.

One thing I will admit about conservatives is that we love our freedom. Freedom to succeed and freedom to fail come hand in hand.

[August1991]

A sustainable society can support a small group of trust fund kids. It cannot support billions.

I'm starting a new thread because the stupid titles on the other ones bug me.

No wonder.

jacee, like the daughter of Amir Khadir or the origins of GND (such a sobriquet!), however we slice this, you are a trust fund kid.

Edited June 9, 2012 by August1991