jacee Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) It is. The difference however is that the state provides so much to poorer people now than it did before. All paid for by other Canadians.Early immigrants to Canada got 160 acres of land. Just as some provinces are 'haves' and others 'have nots' so too are Canadians in terms of whether they are payers or takers. Thirty percent of the population are takers, paying zero income tax. Most of these refugees and family class immigrants will join this group.Not with the incomes you quoted: ... the easy way to pay no provincial or federal income taxes is just to earn less money than the minimum which is taxed in your country. In Canada, this would be about $9,850 (for someone living in Ontario according to Taxtips.ca), or $820 / month. Certainly you wont be living like a king, but I think itd be possible to live on this. ... One man whos living this lifestyle is Don Schrader. He felt strongly enough about not wanting to finance military conflict, that he has restricted his earning below an amount which would cause him to pay federal income tax (and lives the lifestyle this allows). He also drinks urine, so he might not be the ideal role model, but he does prove its possible. That's not how immigration works. Each area is given a certain quota, a certain number of immigrants. The numbers for Europe are very low, and could probably all be filled from any one of a dozen countries with ease.Perhaps the quotas are low because there isn't much demand from those countries. Yes, I have noted how many lefties hate Canada and Canadians. It's behind their reverence for the immigration system bringing foreigners here. . You are such an extremist, Argus.I buy veggies for soup at a local Portuguese market and fresh seafood from a Vietnamese market, both of which I walk by frequently ... so I'm a "leftie" who "hate Canada and Canadians". Hilarious. Do you even hear yourself ? . Edited March 14, 2016 by jacee
dre Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 You mean because he agrees with you? Apparently you don't know the difference between opinion and fact. Not a fan of reading huh? I never even expressed an opinion. I just listed some of the factors one would have to consider in a meaningful analysis of the economics of immigration. I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Early immigrants to Canada got 160 acres of land. Which cost the taxpayer nothing. Not with the incomes you quoted: ... the easy way to pay no provincial or federal income taxes is just to earn less money than the minimum which is taxed in your country. In Canada, this would be about $9,850 (for someone living in Ontario according to Taxtips.ca), The 30% of income earners who do not pay income taxes mostly make more than that. You forget that deductions will lower the tax owed by a considerable amount. If you have a non-working wife, and three children, for example, then you won't pay taxes even if you earn $30,000, or perhaps more. Perhaps the quotas are low because there isn't much demand from those countries. No, there is lots of demand. http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/canadian-working-holiday-visas-gone-in-12-minutes-1.2175404 The first round of this year’s quota of popular Canadian working holiday permits were snapped up in 12 minutes on Tuesday night. They were expected to go fast — last year’s first round lasted only seven. The source countries are mostly based on the fact that so many people from these countries have already immigrated to Canada. Their cousins, friends, relatives, etc back home, hear how good things are here and rush to apply as well. And since the quotas are large for say, Pakistan, then many continue to come in every year. It's one of our top source countries despite the relative lack of economic success of immigrants from that country. Meanwhile the quota for Ireland is extremely low. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Not a fan of reading huh? I never even expressed an opinion. I just listed some of the factors one would have to consider in a meaningful analysis of the economics of immigration. It's interesting you would follow up your first sentence with your second, as it makes it clear you didn't read the report. The economics of immigration were studied first by the Economic Council of Canada in 1985 when the Mulroney government asked it to consider the economics of tripling immigration intake. Their response was that when you add the economic benefits and then subtract the costs the question of tripling immigration would have to be decided on non-economic grounds, as there was no evidence to suggest it would meaningfully help our economy. The report points out, in fact, that economies of scale in the age of free trade does not require large population increases The idea that 'growth' is a natural improvement in anything but gross output was dismissed long ago. Do you want to live in Bangladesh? They have a very large population and it's growing quickly. What about Nigeria? Should we emulate that large population country? It's growing quickly, too, but the economic well-being of its individual members is not improving because of that. Can you demonstrate that Canadians, as individuals, have seen their economic well-being improved in any meaningful way in the last twenty years since Mulroney tripled immigration? Because the Fraser Institute study certainly demonstrates the harm, to the tune of over $20 billion per year in taxpayer dollars which could be spend on other things. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Cl Le Posted March 24, 2016 Report Posted March 24, 2016 Early immigrants to Canada got 160 acres of land. Not with the incomes you quoted: ... the easy way to pay no provincial or federal income taxes is just to earn less money than the minimum which is taxed in your country. In Canada, this would be about $9,850 (for someone living in Ontario according to Taxtips.ca), or $820 / month. Certainly you wont be living like a king, but I think itd be possible to live on this. ... One man whos living this lifestyle is Don Schrader. He felt strongly enough about not wanting to finance military conflict, that he has restricted his earning below an amount which would cause him to pay federal income tax (and lives the lifestyle this allows). He also drinks urine, so he might not be the ideal role model, but he does prove its possible. Perhaps the quotas are low because there isn't much demand from those countries. You are such an extremist, Argus. I buy veggies for soup at a local Portuguese market and fresh seafood from a Vietnamese market, both of which I walk by frequently ... so I'm a "leftie" who "hate Canada and Canadians". Hilarious. Do you even hear yourself ? . I have a few streets in Mollenbeek I want you to walk down , up for it ?
taxme Posted April 2, 2016 Author Report Posted April 2, 2016 You would have to look at the methodology employed by the study to know if its conclusions are worth anything. If all it did was look at immigration related government expenditures VS taxes collected from immigrants, then its entirely useless and misses the point. Immigration is what keeps our population growing, and population growth is what keeps the services sector growing and that services sector accounts for most of our GDP. Population growth keeps the banking, real-estate, construction, and retail sectors afloat and growing. Even poor uneducated workers need homes, food, roads to drive on, and businesses to shop at, and providing these things to ourselves makes up most of the Canadian economy. You've developed a strong opinion on this without looking at the whole picture. Exactly what the immigration lobby wants you to believe. Immigration on a massive scale like we have seen going on in Canada for decades now has cost our country billions in lost tax dollars. The refugee fiasco is a prime example. Where are refugees a benefit to Canada? We don't need more immigration, we need less. Less people around means less money to be spent on services. Makes sense to me. But common sense and logic is not needed or wanted in the Canada of today. What we seem to be always getting is more emotionalism, and massive third world immigration that is costing the Canadian taxpayer's billions of their tax dollars every year. There are some who benefit from immigration. But there are more who lose. And I for one feel that massive immigration is a disaster, not a blessing. Just my humble opinion of course.
Army Guy Posted April 3, 2016 Report Posted April 3, 2016 You would have to look at the methodology employed by the study to know if its conclusions are worth anything. If all it did was look at immigration related government expenditures VS taxes collected from immigrants, then its entirely useless and misses the point. Immigration is what keeps our population growing, and population growth is what keeps the services sector growing and that services sector accounts for most of our GDP. Population growth keeps the banking, real-estate, construction, and retail sectors afloat and growing. Even poor uneducated workers need homes, food, roads to drive on, and businesses to shop at, and providing these things to ourselves makes up most of the Canadian economy. You've developed a strong opinion on this without looking at the whole picture. You your self have said it is all about the bottom dollar, and when taking a look at Immigration one has to add all the + and - up and decide from there. while the expansion of our population does have some pluses you forgot to add in all the negatives, such real estate prices which continue to raise due to inflated demand, not to mention local taxers such as land taxes school taxes all continue to grow as our population grows...all out of our pockets.....not to mention all the other services we need to pay for policing, and fire....not to mention hospital and medical coverage, all of it is increasing....You also forgot to mention who pays for all these new roads and the infra structure needed to service it allwe do through raised taxes....this country already has over a 100 bil in infra structure deficits just to repair what we have already in place. Immigration is only one option, what could we do with the 20 plus bil we spend dragging new people here, this may be off the wall but why not offer major tax breaks to families that have 2 or more children.....may be encourage them to have more.....or maybe catch up on that infra structure deficits we already have.....putting more Canadians to work... I know it is a crazy idea.... We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
dre Posted April 3, 2016 Report Posted April 3, 2016 Immigration is only one option, what could we do with the 20 plus bil we spend dragging new people here, this may be off the wall but why not offer major tax breaks to families that have 2 or more children.....may be encourage them to have more.....or maybe catch up on that infra structure deficits we already have.....putting more Canadians to work... I know it is a crazy idea.... Yup that IS the other option... Create incentives to drive up the birth rate. I don't have a problem with exploring that idea. But the same people that complain about immigration will complain about that as well. I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted April 4, 2016 Report Posted April 4, 2016 But the same people that complain about immigration will complain about that as well. Nope.
dre Posted April 4, 2016 Report Posted April 4, 2016 Nope. Yup. Granted there are exceptions, but for the most part the people ranting about immigrants would howl from the rooftops about this being another new entitlement. I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted April 4, 2016 Report Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) Yup that IS the other option... Create incentives to drive up the birth rate. I don't have a problem with exploring that idea. But the same people that complain about immigration will complain about that as well. Nope. I have previously advocated this. Edited April 4, 2016 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
taxme Posted April 4, 2016 Author Report Posted April 4, 2016 You your self have said it is all about the bottom dollar, and when taking a look at Immigration one has to add all the + and - up and decide from there. while the expansion of our population does have some pluses you forgot to add in all the negatives, such real estate prices which continue to raise due to inflated demand, not to mention local taxers such as land taxes school taxes all continue to grow as our population grows...all out of our pockets.....not to mention all the other services we need to pay for policing, and fire....not to mention hospital and medical coverage, all of it is increasing....You also forgot to mention who pays for all these new roads and the infra structure needed to service it allwe do through raised taxes....this country already has over a 100 bil in infra structure deficits just to repair what we have already in place. Immigration is only one option, what could we do with the 20 plus bil we spend dragging new people here, this may be off the wall but why not offer major tax breaks to families that have 2 or more children.....may be encourage them to have more.....or maybe catch up on that infra structure deficits we already have.....putting more Canadians to work... I know it is a crazy idea.... You make to much common sense in what you just posted. Unfortunately, our politicians lack that common sense or logic. They either all live on emotion or they listen to certain special interest groups who stand to make money from flooding this country with hundreds of thousands new citizen's. It is so true that the more people a country brings in the more it is going to cost. I am not saying that I am totally against all immigration, but what I am against is the numbers. It's massive, to say the least. And yes, instead of all this massive immigration, why not give incentives to our own people to have more children. The money spent on that initiative to me would be money better spent than constantly trying to load up this country with new immigrants, like tax dollars being blown on refugees that offer nothing for Canada except more tax dollars to keep them alive and well. Some say they won't cost Canadian taxpayer's all that much. I say nonsense. Canadians never are able to recoup what they have lost with refugees or illegals.
dre Posted April 4, 2016 Report Posted April 4, 2016 Nope. I have previously advocated this. But its "wealth distribution" that would "steal" money from some people and give it to other people, with a "gun to peoples heads"... The programs that would make it more attractive to have children are all these socialist entitle programs people cry about. Day care programs, maternity leave assistance, universal post secondary, etc etc. Its god damn socialism man! I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Topaz Posted April 4, 2016 Report Posted April 4, 2016 In certain areas of Canada, homes priced between 150,-350,000. are going like hot cakes and in some instances, there are price wars. I've heard some of it is people from TO. are moving out and retiring to the deep south of the province and some it is for the refugees.
Argus Posted April 4, 2016 Report Posted April 4, 2016 But its "wealth distribution" that would "steal" money from some people and give it to other people, with a "gun to peoples heads"... I'm not, as I've said before, opposed to the government putting money into the hands of the poor. What I'm opposed to is providing them with disincentives to work. If you're poor you should keep striving to change that. if the government makes it reasonably comfortable then a certain percentage of people will simply sit back and accept that. Not only is that bad for the economy, and bad for the budget, but barring some kind of disability, they don't damn well deserve it. The programs that would make it more attractive to have children are all these socialist entitle programs people cry about. Day care programs, maternity leave assistance, universal post secondary, etc etc. I never met a young mother who wanted day care as opposed to being able to spend more time with her baby. The Nordic countries have excellent day care but it hasn't raised their birth rates. I never met one who factored the cost of university into their decision as to whether to become a parent or not. I'm all for more maternity leave, though, and monthly child benefit cheques. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted April 5, 2016 Report Posted April 5, 2016 I'm not, as I've said before, opposed to the government putting money into the hands of the poor. What I'm opposed to is providing them with disincentives to work. If you're poor you should keep striving to change that. if the government makes it reasonably comfortable then a certain percentage of people will simply sit back and accept that. Not only is that bad for the economy, and bad for the budget, but barring some kind of disability, they don't damn well deserve it. Methinks this is the real sticking point. They damn well deserve as much as the people you've decided to compare them with I should think, and for the very same reason, take Norway for example and the communism socialism born of the nationalized communist nature of their natural resource management - and the largest sovereign capital fund on the planet - $855 billion (US). Damn, how did those commies manage to make us look like such stingy hard-assed losers? A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted April 5, 2016 Report Posted April 5, 2016 Met a Syrian refugee the other day. He was deaf. Seemed like a huge security risk.
dre Posted April 5, 2016 Report Posted April 5, 2016 Met a Syrian refugee the other day. He was deaf. Seemed like a huge security risk. Extra dangerous... when we told him he wasn't allowed to blow stuff up, he wouldn't have heard us I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted April 5, 2016 Report Posted April 5, 2016 He'll just be sucking at the public teat for his health care and interpreter costs. [/Argus]
Big Guy Posted May 7, 2016 Report Posted May 7, 2016 Maybe not all Syrian refugees are money sucking, selfish, terrorist supporting infiltrators: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/we-understand-what-theyre-feeling-syrian-refugees-in-calgary-step-up-to-help-fort-mcmurray-fire-evacuees And maybe the racists and bigots got it wrong. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted May 7, 2016 Report Posted May 7, 2016 Maybe not all Syrian refugees are money sucking, selfish, terrorist supporting infiltrators: I don't believe I ever saw or heard or read anyone taking that position. In fact, the only time I ever heard such suggestions were from sneering leftists who didn't have the ability to discuss the refugee situation intelligently and simply resorted to cliche'd insults towards everyone who disagreed with them. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
scribblet Posted May 8, 2016 Report Posted May 8, 2016 I don't believe I ever saw or heard or read anyone taking that position. In fact, the only time I ever heard such suggestions were from sneering leftists who didn't have the ability to discuss the refugee situation intelligently and simply resorted to cliche'd insults towards everyone who disagreed with them. Exactly. One wonders if they are actually stating their inner feelings while imputing them (feelings) onto others. Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
PIK Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 All the government sponsored Syrians are now hanging out at the food banks. Hard to get work when you cant speak either language. They really screwed the pooch on this one. And it seems the vetting process was poor. Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smallc Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 All the government sponsored Syrians are now hanging out at the food banks. All of them?
scribblet Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 All of them? Most of them in Ottawa... Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Recommended Posts