Should we rework the equalization payments for the provinces?

[Paradox]

If fishing, PEI's former source of income, is dead, the economic basis of the province is dead.

It matters not. The people of the province still deserve equitable standards of social and public services.

I can see no reason why the Parliament of Canada would cut off a province and its people from the support of the country. This is not about some provinces winning and others losing, it is about ensuring basic standards of services and care for Canadians on a national basis.

[jbg]

It matters not. The people of the province still deserve equitable standards of social and public services.

I can see no reason why the Parliament of Canada would cut off a province and its people from the support of the country. This is not about some provinces winning and others losing, it is about ensuring basic standards of services and care for Canadians on a national basis.

Doesn't that prevent or discourage population shifts to areas that need more people or workers?

[Signals.Cpl]

It matters not. The people of the province still deserve equitable standards of social and public services.

What happens when one of the "have not" provinces provides better services than the have provinces? A province that receives equalization payments only to provide higher level of services should stop receiving the equalization payment because its surpassed the equitable standard enjoyed by the other services?

[shortlived]

I could just imagine Quebec voting for that one.

Watch everyone from 25-40 drop off and the program becomes unsustainably expensive.

PS there was a backdrop to the program that everyone pays for basic coverage for those in poverty. If everyone drops off, so what, they are still paying for the poor. if you aren't in poverty you have money. aren't getting a good deal, you'll die anyway the only difference Is you are leaving everyone else with debt and interest.

that's why there is a death tax if you don't pay off your personal share of the debt to on a per capita basis (with hardship considerations for next of kin)

If they want a private plan give them a private plan. The baseline is that we need to both raise people out of poverty by employing them so they can pay their own way, as well as insure they are taken care of for health and safety considerations while in poverty, provided they oblige the work program. Part of being a humane society is not leaving people on the curb to resort to crime and torment.

Yes people can pay for the 10-20% who cannot pay first by taxing the medical industry and secondarily having people pay a medical poverty tax for people who are taking part in the work program or who are medically incapable of participating in the work program.

The fee would be split between the family portion and the social portion, with the medical industry required to pay a medical charity portion for medical imports and medical services and production for domestic use. but only direct cost of medicare, an option for private insurance, and it totally scrapped from income taxes and general revenue and transfers.

Medicare needs to have insurance considerations for lifestyle as a prompt for people not to neglect their health, and to see the cost of health, but it isn't program or no program it is private insurance or pubic insurance to choose between, either that or risksing no coverage, which technically is not an advantage, I don't like mandatory anything but technically speaking I think a court order should be required to exempt oneself from insurance, a little like car insurance. I don't think it should be needed but people should be able to demonstrate they have the assets to pay in absence of an insurance plan a certain amount of savings, owning a house stock etc.. to allow them to be exempt, and a deposit that is automatically applied to health insurance on prearrangement in event of financial asset limit loss.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

Where should all that money from the Ungava Peninsula go?

If I'm not mistaken there is already a treaty between the 'Inuit' inualivut or what have you and the province of Quebec there as far as I am aware arrangements between the federal government Quebec and Ungava Inuit corporation that oversees commerce in the area.

What money are you talking about?

It might be ethical to provide benefits to inuit who contest the treaty with a portion of any crown proceeds provided they do not partake in ungava group's programs.

and/or provide a per capita land title allotment from lands taken from the treaty on an individual basis matched with traditional land use, and hunting rights to the totality of the land. the question was about money, but money is just paper, it isn't land, and it isn't goods, 5$ here is 2$ there, its not the same.

A million dollars in a remote location doesn't buy you as much as a million dollars in a city.

When a carton of milk is $10 and a pack of icecream is $20, it is just a whole different economy. People who don't agree to the treaty need to be taken care of and their portion of the land given back to them legally. This majority binds stuff or the cheif binds is totally contradictory to modern contract law. Although I think we all have equal entitlement to land, I think we should agree mutually on destructive land uses.

Expropriation of land for non public health and safety concerns is morally wrong.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived

[jbg]

What money are you talking about?

I was kidding.

[cybercoma]

What happens when one of the "have not" provinces provides better services than the have provinces? A province that receives equalization payments only to provide higher level of services should stop receiving the equalization payment because its surpassed the equitable standard enjoyed by the other services?

Do you understand the funding formula? If a have-not province is providing better service than a have province, you should be looking at your legislative assembly and demanding to know why they suck.

[Signals.Cpl]

Do you understand the funding formula? If a have-not province is providing better service than a have province, you should be looking at your legislative assembly and demanding to know why they suck.

The whole equalization payment process should bring a "have not" province to an acceptable standard and once it becomes apparent that the standard has been met and in fact surpassed the province does not remain a have not province.

Certain "have not provinces" provide higher level of services to their population than "have" provinces thus defeating the entire purpose of the equalization payment... I can think of a few places where the equalization payments could be invested to serve a more productive purpose than allow "have not" provinces to exceed the services rendered on the backs of the people of other provinces.

[westguy]

It's sheer lunacy. certain provinces (and you know who i am talking about) are eternal "have - not" provinces and are eternal welfare

[jbg]

It's sheer lunacy. certain provinces (and you know who i am talking about) are eternal "have - not" provinces and are eternal welfare

Especially the ones that chase out business by forcing them to conduct their affairs in a language spoken by a few and diminishing number of people in the world?

[cybercoma]

The whole equalization payment process should bring a "have not" province to an acceptable standard and once it becomes apparent that the standard has been met and in fact surpassed the province does not remain a have not province.

Certain "have not provinces" provide higher level of services to their population than "have" provinces thus defeating the entire purpose of the equalization payment... I can think of a few places where the equalization payments could be invested to serve a more productive purpose than allow "have not" provinces to exceed the services rendered on the backs of the people of other provinces.

So you don't understand how it works. Good to know.

[Signals.Cpl]

So you don't understand how it works. Good to know.

Are you trying the same trick as the Syria thread? Doesn't work too well don't you think?

[hitops]

Equalization payments are a drag on the economy, and an incredibly inefficient way to distribute resources. Natural resources like tar sands oil profits should rightly go in part to national coffers and all Canadian should benefit. But they should be distributed according to population, not some arbitrary marker of 'need'. In a properly functioning market, when there is a have-not area, people move from that area to 'have' areas where there is more work or where they can get better access to whatever else they are after. That is the efficient way to allocate human capital. It is just a money sink to subsidize people to live where they live. Natural incentives that drive them to move to somewhere move viable for their needs, should be allowed to function. This ESPECIALLY applicable to people's living in the north.

It makes no sense to force other people to pay for some people's desire to live a certain less viable place just because they want to. We all make choices, certain people's choices and their consequences should be treated in a special way compared to others. Get rid of these payments.

Edited March 9, 2013 by hitops

[jbg]

Natural resources like tar sands oil profits should rightly go in part to national coffers and all Canadian should benefit.

But under the BNA don't those go to the provinces?