Federal Vote Reform? You vote according to taxes...

[cybercoma]

Logically this statement must be false because if the taxes/fees paid by poor people really exceeded the net cash transfers from government that would mean that government support programs are completely ineffective. If you limit the question to GST paid vs GST rebate then it is also not likely that any poor person would pay more in GST than they receive in rebate given the fact that items like food and rent are excluded. The only way someone could pay more if they hide income or are not paying for their own rent or food expenses.

Logically the programs are subsidized by those who pay more taxes. The rebate reduces the poor's overall tax burden but doesn't come anywhere near eliminating it. Not to mention that anyone making more than $12,000ish a year does pay income tax. Edited June 15, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

No doubt. But there remains the issue of what happens as a growing percentage of the electorate can feel free to vote for any amount of government largess with the confidence that they will not be responsible for paying for it.

The Atlantic provinces are an excellent guide. You have four welfare provinces filled with people constantly looking for handouts, run by incompetent governments steering their provinces towards bankruptcy, going 100% for the politicians who promised them the most goodies. These people had zero interest in parties which promised to hold the line on taxes or balance the budget. Why would they care about such things? They wanted more spending on themselves, and that's why they voted Liberal.

What on earth are you talking about? You're entirely clueless about Maritime politics if you think people haven't voted for austerity. Every single party in NB talks about austerity, including the NDP. Nobody is more aware of the fiscal challenges here than we are. But thanks for your completely uninformed prescriptions from Ottawa. And it's particularly rich coming from a guy whose wealth was earned largely off taxpayers' backs as a civil servant. Yet now you want to complain about tax burdens. Funny that. Edited June 15, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

The rebate reduces the poor's overall tax burden but doesn't come anywhere near eliminating it.

100% of the income earned by a percentage of the population comes from government programs. It is numerically impossible for these people to pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Edited June 15, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So soldiers disabled in battle shouldn't have a vote? Pensioners? What about people like Argus who made hundreds of thousands each year from the government or cops or teachers or doctors?

Edited June 15, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

So soldiers disabled in battle shouldn't have a vote? Pensioners? What about people like Argus who made hundreds of thousands each year from the government or cops or teachers or doctors?

If you read the thread you would see I disagree with op premise. I was also disagreeing with your claim that the poor receive less in benefits than they pay in taxes.

[Smallc]

Logically the programs are subsidized by those who pay more taxes. The rebate reduces the poor's overall tax burden but doesn't come anywhere near eliminating it. Not to mention that anyone making more than $12,000ish a year does pay income tax.

I don't see how that's possible. Those on social assistance get about ~$70 back per quarter. They'd have to spend $5600 on taxable products to spend that in GST.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Smallc

[eyeball]

So soldiers disabled in battle shouldn't have a vote? Pensioners? What about people like Argus who made hundreds of thousands each year from the government or cops or teachers or doctors?

What will prevent Argus' betters from desiring a commensurate increase in the amount influence they have for the very same reason Argus does and why wouldn't they be just as entitled to it?

[cybercoma]

If you read the thread you would see I disagree with op premise. I was also disagreeing with your claim that the poor receive less in benefits than they pay in taxes.

I didn't say that. Someone claimed they get GST checks. That certainly doesn't cover all the GST, excise taxes, and government fees people pay. You're also concerned with government benefits, but what about government employees like Argus? He has made hundreds of thousands a year in taxpauers' money.

[cybercoma]

I don't see how that's possible. Those on social assistance get about ~$70 back per quarter. They'd have to spend $5600 on taxable products to spend that in GST.

Check your math again. $70 is $1000 of spending worth of GST. Is it tough to understand how someone even earning min wage would spend more than $4000 a year on taxable items?

[Bonam]

Check your math again. $70 is $1000 of spending worth of GST. Is it tough to understand how someone even earning min wage would spend more than $4000 a year on taxable items?

The gst is 5%, not 7%. I know people want to pretend the Harper years never happened but...

5600/year is how much someone needs to spend on taxable items to exceed the 70/quarter refund just like smallc said. And someone earning minimum wage is unlikely to spend that as most of the basics are not subject to gst.

[?Impact]

$70 is $1000 of spending worth of GST.

That is $70 per quarter. Smallc had the math right on this one. GST is 5% of $5600 or $280 which is equal to 4 quarters at $70.

[Guest]

That's how my friend's condo association works. Indeed, her condo vote is based on how much she pays in condo fees.

If someone pays no taxes, why should that person have the right to vote? That's an invitation to use "other people's money".

If we're posting inflammatory, asinine ideas, I'd rather go with vote power being determined by age.

18-24, little life experience and they're generally idiots - 1 vote

25-30, more educated, more experience, more responsiblity - 3 votes

31 - 45, prime years and still long life ahead - 5 votes

46 - 60, post prime and in decline but wise and still some life left - 3 votes

61 - 75, running out of time, typically selfish and cynical, won't experience the consequences of political actions - 2 votes

75+ - out of touch, hampering progress, will be long dead before the chickens come home to roost. - minus 1 vote to any candidate they choose.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Guest

[Bonam]

Maybe everyone should be allotted 10 voting shares when they turn 18, and then they can be allowed to buy and sell them in a free marketplace. So those that are poor can sell their voting shares for quick cash, and those that are rich can buy up the voting shares so that they can have a greater say in the political process.

How much would a voting share go for in such a system, I wonder?

If the country's GDP is ~$2 trillion, and there are a total of ~300 million voting shares, and the country's shares sell at a P/E of ~15 like a typical large company, then each share would be worth $100k. The poor would be able to sell a few of their shares and enter the middle class. And the government could create this huge opportunity for poor people without spending any government money... it would be a completely market driven massive wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.

Maybe you could also make it so that people could lease out their shares for a fixed term, generating a passive guaranteed income...

I think my idea just solved all the Western world's problems. Am I a genius, or what?

Edited June 16, 2016 by Bonam

[Guest]

God damn it, Bonam! You're a god damn genius! This is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard. You must have a goddamn I.Q. of 160. You are goddamn gifted, Private Bonam.

Seriously though, you may have solved our problems. I feel that I can really profit from buying and selling votes. Stockpile them just after an election and then resell just prior to the next. Brilliant.

On a side note did you choose that name because of a famous drummer? That would be more fun than the Latin word.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Guest

[Bonam]

Seriously though, you may have solved our problems. I feel that I can really profit from buying and selling votes. Stockpile them just after an election and then resell just prior to the next. Brilliant.

Well, except that everyone would have the understanding that the value of shares is highest right before an election and lowest right after, so opportunities for arbitrage in this way would be limited. The difference in price right after and right before elections would likely stabilize at what one would expect given a reasonable rate of return on a relatively safe investment, so a few % / year, which would likely make swing trading of these voting shares relatively unappealing. Although, economic downturns may cause some people to sell off some of their shares to compensate for job loss or declining home values, so clever traders could still profit from trading these shares in the right situations (but this is just like any other shares - if you are smart enough to buy them during recessions you make out like a bandit).

[cybercoma]

The gst is 5%, not 7%. I know people want to pretend the Harper years never happened but...

5600/year is how much someone needs to spend on taxable items to exceed the 70/quarter refund just like smallc said. And someone earning minimum wage is unlikely to spend that as most of the basics are not subject to gst.

My bad, it's 7% in NB. Regardless, $5600 a year is not a lot of money when nearly everything you buy is taxed. Edited June 16, 2016 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

The gst is 5%, not 7%. I know people want to pretend the Harper years never happened but...

5600/year is how much someone needs to spend on taxable items to exceed the 70/quarter refund just like smallc said. And someone earning minimum wage is unlikely to spend that as most of the basics are not subject to gst.

And, if you make ~$20K per year, you get about $100 back per quarter. It starts to decline somewhere after that. Edited June 16, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

My bad, it's 7% in NB. Regardless, $5600 a year is not a lot of money when nearly everything you buy is taxed.

Standard grocery items largely aren't taxed though. That's the bulk of purchases. The $220 per month that people on social assistance are living on doesn't allow them to spend even close to what the rebate covers.

[cybercoma]

Standard grocery items largely aren't taxed though. That's the bulk of purchases. The $220 per month that people on social assistance are living on doesn't allow them to spend even close to what the rebate covers.

So you're reserving this discussion to people who make less than $3000 a year? How many people is that?

[cybercoma]

And seriously, if someone makes $3000 a year, are we seriously arguing that they should be taxed? Good luck finding accommodations in that let alone paying for anything else you need like food and clothing.

[Smallc]

So you're reserving this discussion to people who make less than $3000 a year? How many people is that?

First, I'm not arguing they should taxed. Second, the amount goes up as you make more money until you're above the poverty line. Someone making 20,000 will have to spend in excess of 8,000 on taxable items before they're paying anything.

I'm not arguing anything to do with this topic - I'm simply saying that it's wrong to say that poor people pay GST in any meaningful way.

[Bonam]

So you're reserving this discussion to people who make less than $3000 a year? How many people is that?

And seriously, if someone makes $3000 a year, are we seriously arguing that they should be taxed? Good luck finding accommodations in that let alone paying for anything else you need like food and clothing.

What the heck are you even talking about? Someone making an $11 minimum wage in a full time job in Canada earns $22880 per year. That person is eligible for $421 in federal GST credits, meaning they must spend $8420 on taxable items in order to not come out paying net negative GST tax.

But amounts paid for housing (whether rent or mortgage) are not taxed, and likely comprise at least half the expenses of a minimum wage earner, let's say $11000. Basic groceries, likely to make up most of a minimum wage earner's $5000/year or so food bill are not subject to GST. Any health expenses they may have are not subject to GST, and neither are education expenses, child care services, legal services, or financial services. Any money they manage to save, whether in RRSPs, TFSAs, or just in a savings account is also not subject to GST.

So after paying for all of the above non-taxable items, just how much is a minimum wage earner likely to spend on GST taxable items? Maybe $2-3k per year or so, maybe close to $5k if they happen to mostly buy food that is subject to GST and spend less on housing but more on goods and services, but certainly nowhere close to $8420. Meaning the $421 federal refund they receive per year is far in excess of the GST that they pay. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but trying to deny the reality of the numbers does not help any argument.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Bonam

[Smallc]

What the heck are you even talking about?

That's my fault - I was referring in the post he was respond to, to those in our society that receive the lowest income (those on social assistance that receive around $220 per month, depending on the province). They get GST credits as if they were spending $5600 per year on taxable items, far in excess of even what they're being provided by the government for basic needs.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

I'm not arguing anything to do with this topic - I'm simply saying that it's wrong to say that poor people pay GST in any meaningful way.

What's a meaningful way? Show me evidence here because I'm skeptical that their GST returns cover any substantial portion of the GST they pay. When I was a student working a part-time job, I barely scraped by and the GST cheques were a drop in the bucket. So I'm going to need to see appropriate stats, instead of us both speculating back and forth.

[Smallc]

It's not speculation.

If you look at what Bonam posted above, someone making around $22K and getting the maximum benefit back is going to need to spend $8500 of their after tax and deduction income on GST. When I have time I can run some numbers.