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

Smallc · June 16, 2016

Now - if we look at the average household expenditures in Canada and extrapolate it to a person making 22,000 per year, dividing it by 3.67, we find that 7500 of what they are buying is not going to be taxed. If you add that to the money that is being covered by their GST rebate (8500) you come to $16000. After tax and deductions in Mantioba they'll be living on $19000. We know that the non taxable expenses - groceries, health, and housing are most crucial and eat up a larger percentage of the budget, but leaving that aside, using these numbers they'll be paying about $150 on $3000 of spending.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil130a-eng.htm

Edited June 16, 2016 by Smallc

Smeelious · June 16, 2016

Somehow this free-market voting scheme of Bonam's is appealing.

Argus · June 16, 2016

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.

So... wisdom doesn't come from age and experience. It comes from agreeing with Slick...

cybercoma · June 17, 2016

After tax

So they are paying taxes, on top of the GST imbalance that I mentioned. You mention groceries being tax free when it's well known that lower income people are much more likely to eat processed and pre-packaged foods, as well as fast food, which are all taxed. Not everything on the grocery store shelves is tax free. Moreover, extrapolating down to someone making $22,000 per year doesn't work because how someone making $22k spends their money and how someone making $70k spends their money can be vastly different, as they're living vastly different lifestyles. It just doesn't work.

In any case, you've already mentioned that there are several ways in which they do indeed pay taxes and you've noted that they don't in fact get ALL of their GST back. Argus likes to whine about "freeloaders" who don't pay taxes without having any idea really of who those people are. That's the point. Almost everyone pays taxes. If it's not income and consumption taxes, there's government fees and excise taxes on things. The people who don't pay taxes are typically disabled or have little to no income. That's not even touching the myth that people on reserves don't pay taxes and we all know how Argus feels about them "good for nothing Indians."

Smallc · June 17, 2016

I never claimed that they don't pay taxes, just that they don't pay GST in any meaningful way. I also don't hold myself responsible for their food choices though.

Smallc · June 17, 2016

On the other hand, a low income family certainly doesn't pay taxes, and I wouldn't argue that they should.

Archduke al-Qaddafi · June 17, 2016

it's well known that lower income people are much more likely to eat processed and pre-packaged foods, as well as fast food, which are all taxed. ."

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The poor are also more likely to smoke and drink excessively, but that isn't our problem and shouldn't be considered in this discussion. Especially when we are talking about the unemployed, if they are going to waste their handouts on beer, cigarettes, and frozen pizzas I am glad that we have excise taxes in place to claw back some of that money. It does not make them "taxpayers" in any meaningful way.

cybercoma · June 17, 2016

It has to do with what taxes they pay. If people are going to claim they don't pay taxes, then they should back it up with any sort of official report or statistics on the matter. There's taxes on almost everything and I'm skeptical that the rebate covers it. You'll notice Smallc keeps hedging by saying "in any meaningful way." That's because he's pretty sure they do pay taxes, so he has to then say that their taxes aren't as meaningful as other people's taxes.

dre · June 17, 2016

This whole thread is ridiculous.

The point of democracy is for the government to have consent of the governed. Just a tiny bit of reading on the history of political systems and how they emerged would save you all some time.

One Person = One Vote is essential to maintaining political stability.

And besides that, the current system gives the wealthy exactly what they want anyways. We have had a string of pro-business governments that have preserved private property rights, and created a system where its incredibly easy for someone with wealth to get more.

dre · June 17, 2016

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?

Your idea would lead to pure socialism... Not sure how en-genius that is

BC_chick · June 17, 2016

Bonam, someone making $11/hr is not very likely to be living in a $900 apartment (as per your post) and paying for childcare and food. They're likely living at home with their parents and spending the majority of their income on things like electronics and going out.

A low-income family using the services you mention (childcare, groceries etc) is likely making closer to $15/hr ($31k/yr). Heck, even my housekeeper charges $20/hr.

I think that's who the GST credit is for.

BTW, legal services and financial services do have GST.

Smallc · June 17, 2016

It has to do with what taxes they pay. If people are going to claim they don't pay taxes, then they should back it up with any sort of official report or statistics on the matter. There's taxes on almost everything and I'm skeptical that the rebate covers it. You'll notice Smallc keeps hedging by saying "in any meaningful way." That's because he's pretty sure they do pay taxes, so he has to then say that their taxes aren't as meaningful as other people's taxes.

No, I'm saying that they don't pay much GST, and that the rebate takes care of most of what they would pay.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Smallc

Moonbox · June 17, 2016

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.

Way late, but I had to say that's really funny. There's a sort of common sense to it as well!

Smeelious · June 17, 2016

Bonam, someone making $11/hr is not very likely to be living in a $900 apartment (as per your post) and paying for childcare and food. They're likely living at home with their parents and spending the majority of their income on things like electronics and going out.

A low-income family using the services you mention (childcare, groceries etc) is likely making closer to $15/hr ($31k/yr). Heck, even my housekeeper charges $20/hr.

I think that's who the GST credit is for.

BTW, legal services and financial services do have GST.

Aside from the whole GST thing being somewhat off topic...The average age of someone making minimum wage is increasing.

I'm looking though numbers now. In 2010 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/topics-sujets/minimumwage-salaireminimum/minimumwage-salaireminimum-2009-eng.htm) 39% of minimum wage workers were 25-54. As of 2014 that number is ~50%. the 18-24 year old % dropped from 61% to 41%.

It's hard to argue that it's just people living in their parents basement. Also interesting to note that women are more likely to make minimum wage than men. I guess that also means, that based on the actual thread topic that women should probably get less of a vote....

BC_chick · June 17, 2016

It's hard to argue that it's just people living in their parents basement. Also interesting to note that women are more likely to make minimum wage than men. I guess that also means, that based on the actual thread topic that women should probably get less of a vote....

That's fine, I considered changing the wording to living with parents or roomates.

My point was that I don't agree with the rent allocation portion of someone making minimum wage ($900/month on minimum wage). They are likely to live in a way that would give them more disposable income that Bonam was suggesting.

Hence, more money on GST that he was suggesting.

BC_chick · June 17, 2016

Agreed though that it's off topic, I just had to disagree when I looked at the numbers. <_<

Argus · June 17, 2016

This whole thread is ridiculous.

The point of democracy is for the government to have consent of the governed. Just a tiny bit of reading on the history of political systems and how they emerged would save you all some time.

One Person = One Vote is essential to maintaining political stability.

And besides that, the current system gives the wealthy exactly what they want anyways. We have had a string of pro-business governments that have preserved private property rights, and created a system where its incredibly easy for someone with wealth to get more.

And yet it will become increasingly less politically stable if those who pay all the bills see those who consume all the taxes able to get politicians to take ever more from them while so many contribute little or nothing. And we're not speaking of the wealthy here, but the middle class who pay so many of the bills yet, unlike the wealthy, have no more influence over policy makers than the poor.

dre · June 17, 2016

And yet it will become increasingly less politically stable if those who pay all the bills see those who consume all the taxes able to get politicians to take ever more from them while so many contribute little or nothing. And we're not speaking of the wealthy here, but the middle class who pay so many of the bills yet, unlike the wealthy, have no more influence over policy makers than the poor.

That's all a completely false pretense. First of all the people with all the income already have way more political influence than the poor. Programs to assist the poor are simply the implementation of a social contract between haves and have not's. The wealthy agreed to throw them table scraps in exchange for governments that do almost nothing besides cater to wealth.

The social safety net you're complaining about is actually there to protect private property rights.

The wealthy are the primary benefactors of all these policies... Which is why we have government policies that have made it easier for the wealthy to get wealthier than ever before. The wealthy benefit from our political society WAY more than anybody else.

Argus · June 17, 2016

That's all a completely false pretense. First of all the people with all the income already have way more political influence than the poor. Programs to assist the poor are simply the implementation of a social contract between haves and have not's. The wealthy agreed to throw them table scraps in exchange for governments that do almost nothing besides cater to wealth.

Table scraps? Most of the budget goes to the poor. What we're not paying for interest on the debt we're running up - to pay for the poor.

The social safety net you're complaining about is actually there to protect private property rights.

How do you figure that? Seems to me we had private property protection before we had welfare, pogey and pensions.

The wealthy are the primary benefactors of all these policies... Which is why we have government policies that have made it easier for the wealthy to get wealthier than ever before. The wealthy benefit from our political society WAY more than anybody else.

The wealthy don't need the government for anything. And the middle class just needs the government to stop taking their money and giving it to other people who didn't work for it.

dre · June 17, 2016

The wealthy don't need the government for anything. And the middle class just needs the government to stop taking their money and giving it to other people who didn't work for it.

Wrong. The wealthy need the government way more than anyone else. They have both the most to gain, and most to lose. A guy with a bicycle could care less whether you build a bridge or a highway but a industrialist that profits from the operation of a large fleet sure as hell does. And someone with no property doesn't need the courts, police, and military to protect it. All those institutions are about private property rights, so the people benefiting from them are the ones with all the property. Without the government you would probably have no property at all because a tougher, meaner, or richer dude would just bitch-slap your ass and take it.

And the social safety net protects property rights by maintaining a baseline standard of life to prevent a large and activist underclass from becoming a major political force and electing real wealth distributors like what happened in Cuba with the election of Chavez.

"You let us build a society that's focused on growing our wealth... and in exchange you get to have our table scraps."

cybercoma · June 18, 2016

Bonam, someone making $11/hr is not very likely to be living in a $900 apartment (as per your post) and paying for childcare and food. They're likely living at home with their parents and spending the majority of their income on things like electronics and going out.

That's a bit of a myth too. The majority of minimum wage earners are not actually young students.

cybercoma · June 18, 2016

That's fine, I considered changing the wording to living with parents or roomates.

My point was that I don't agree with the rent allocation portion of someone making minimum wage ($900/month on minimum wage). They are likely to live in a way that would give them more disposable income that Bonam was suggesting.

Hence, more money on GST that he was suggesting.

This is true. The majority of minimum wage earners live with roommates and split rents.

cybercoma · June 18, 2016

And yet it will become increasingly less politically stable if those who pay all the bills see those who consume all the taxes able to get politicians to take ever more from them while so many contribute little or nothing. And we're not speaking of the wealthy here, but the middle class who pay so many of the bills yet, unlike the wealthy, have no more influence over policy makers than the poor.

The people who pay the majority of taxes get plenty for their money. For instance, their heads are still on their shoulders and not in the guillotine.

Argus · June 18, 2016

Wrong. The wealthy need the government way more than anyone else. They have both the most to gain, and most to lose. A guy with a bicycle could care less whether you build a bridge or a highway but a industrialist that profits from the operation of a large fleet sure as hell does.

It seems to me that the middle class sure as hell needs highways and roads, too. The rich guy might lose some profits but he's not going to wind up unemployed because he can't get to and from work.

And someone with no property doesn't need the courts, police, and military to protect it.

Rich people have armed guards to protect themselves and their property. The middle class are the people who need the police.

And the social safety net protects property rights by maintaining a baseline standard of life to prevent a large and activist underclass from becoming a major political force and electing real wealth distributors like what happened in Cuba with the election of Chavez.

Or what happened in November?

What happened in Cuba was armed revolution, not a political force. And that tends not to work where there is a large and prosperous middle class. What Canada needs to do is protect the middle class and encourage others to work hard in order to join it, not take money from the middle class in order to subsidize their laziness and lack of efforts.

"You let us build a society that's focused on growing our wealth... and in exchange you get to have our table scraps."

Right, except that, as I said earlier and which you ignored, most of the money collected from the middle class by the government is actually going into the pockets of other people in the form of welfare, unemployment, child care benefits, pensions and the like, not to build any sort of infrastructure. That's not table scraps. That's a full course dinner.