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

[jacee]

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.

Hmmm ... Can you clarify your sources for that statement, Argus?

Because I'm not seeing that in the budget figures:

Summary of federal spending for 2013-14.

Canada Health Transfer (11 cents)

Canada Revenue Agency (3 cents)

Crown corporations (3 cents)

National Defence (8 cents)

Other major transfers to other levels of government (6 cents)

Other operations (12 cents)

Employment Insurance benefits (6 cents)

Other transfer payments (13 cents)

Public debt charges (10 cents)

Public Safety (3 cents)

= 75 cents

Canada Social Transfer (5 cents)

Childrens benefits (5 cents)

Support to elderly (15 cents)

= 25 cents

https://www.fin.gc.ca/tax-impot/2014/html-eng.asp

.

Edited June 18, 2016 by jacee

[BC_chick]

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

Some interesting stats from the link earlier is quoted below. While it's true that the majority are not students, students do have the highest overall rate.

Also, it turns out most do live with family....

"Close to 60% of all minimum-wage workers lived with their parents or with another family member. Of this number, 55% were studying at least part time. Workers living with their parents or with another family member also had the highest rate of minimum-wage work (18%), three times higher than the overall rate. Students in this group have the highest rates with an incidence of minimum-wage work of 36% for full-time students and 16% for part-time students. For many of these workers, this situation allows them to complete their studies and gain job experience."

Edited June 18, 2016 by BC_chick

[Argus]

Hmmm ... Can you clarify your sources for that statement, Argus?

Because I'm not seeing that in the budget figures:

Summary of federal spending for 2013-14.

Canada Health Transfer (11 cents)

Canada Revenue Agency (3 cents)

Crown corporations (3 cents)

National Defence (8 cents)

Other major transfers to other levels of government (6 cents)

Other operations (12 cents)

Employment Insurance benefits (6 cents)

Other transfer payments (13 cents)

Public debt charges (10 cents)

Public Safety (3 cents)

= 75 cents

Canada Social Transfer (5 cents)

Childrens benefits (5 cents)

Support to elderly (15 cents)

= 25 cents

https://www.fin.gc.ca/tax-impot/2014/html-eng.asp

.

You can't break it down so loosely, nor does the government make it easy to see what money is actually being spent on.

For example, how much of the above is payments to the elderly, how much to natives, how much goes to the provinces for social welfare, how much for child care, how much for HST rebates. The biggest spending on the poor, of course, is from the income tax act which exempts them from paying income taxes. We generally call things like that tax breaks and assess the cost to the treasury when they apply to others, but we don't count up the cost of allowing 50% of the population to pay virtually no income tax while getting HST rebates.

[August1991]

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.

Slick, what gives you the right to decide at what age people should have whatever number of votes?

My idea in the OP is simpler: if 35% of voters pay no taxes, is it surprising that politicians in a democracy want to spend money? Moreover, such a society is not sustainable.

Slice/play this as you will, whether the government borrows or taxes, or balances its budget. In any given election, about 35% of voters favour more government spending since they know that they lose nothing: The politician is spending other people's money.

Edited June 18, 2016 by August1991

[August1991]

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.

Cybercoma, even someone earning $3000 a year should have a stake in the game. Heck, even someone receiving a disability pension should have to contribute.

The Negative Income Tax idea has a logical mathematical basis but it has no basis in behavioural economics. OTOH, our welfare system has seriously screwed up incentives.

Note to Jacee: It's a question of respect. IMHO, I am Canadian because I pay taxes here. It's not the flag, the passport, the anthem, Radio-Canada, language, or even where I live. It's taxes. I respect the Canadian State.

Edited June 18, 2016 by August1991

[August1991]

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.

WTF?

"The point of democracy is for the government to have consent of the governed."

Dead wrong.

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

Define one person, also seriously wrong.

=======

dre,

Our current political system, western States, call it what you will - is not sustainable.

When 35% of voters can spend other people's money, no democracy can survive.

[eyeball]

When 1 - 2% of the richest people have most of the power and wealth no civilization can or should survive.

[August1991]

When 1 - 2% of the richest people have most of the power and wealth no civilization can or should survive.

most of the power?

In Canada, our politicians are decided by democratic vote. And about 35% of voters pay no taxes.

Eyeball, you may believe that all poor people are stupid and ignorant and need help; I don't.

======

To use a term from the green/Eco world, this current system is simply not sustainable.

Edited June 18, 2016 by August1991

[dre]

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.

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.

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.

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

Without the state they would need a hell of a lot more than a few armed guards. And the richest people with the most armed guards would kill the other ones and take their stuff.

Or what happened in November?

You mean the election of another pro-business government that will maintain private property rights, and keep making it easier and easier for the wealthy to become wealthier?

What happened in Cuba was armed revolution, not a political force.

I meant Venezuala sorry.

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.

Got a cite for that?

That's a full course dinner.

Nope its table scraps. The full course dinner is what the middle and upper class get from the government. Trillions in low interest loans backed by the central banks, hundreds of billions in tax payer insured mortgages, government action to keep the value of their homes from tanking, the flogging of natural resources to companies they hold shares in for next to nothing, huge tax breaks on their investment incomes (in many cases they pay lower rates than someone doing physical labor for a living). Corporate subsidies that benefit shareholders.

[SpankyMcFarland]

This may be the future but for now thank goodness citizenship is the requirement. We are citizens first, not taxpayers or consumers.

[dre]

WTF?

"The point of democracy is for the government to have consent of the governed."

Dead wrong.

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

Define one person, also seriously wrong.

=======

No its not "dead wrong". Even just 10 minutes of research into the history of political philosophy and the problems democracy was meant to solve, and you save yourself a whole lot of wasted time.

Our current political system, western States, call it what you will - is not sustainable.

Its not the political system that's the problem, its the economic system. Once currency was decoupled completely from precious metals governments could now expand the money supply backed by nothing at all besides promissory notes. Every single country with a growing economy started spending more and went deep into debt. REGARDLESS of whether they had liberal or conservative governments, and no matter WHO people voted for. Governments with growing economies can write promissory notes in exchange for money to throw around, and foist the responsibility of honoring those promissory notes off onto future governments. THAT is the problem... and your ridiculous idea of apportioning votes based on taxation would not do a single thing to solve it.

Whats more is that in countries with relatively fast growing economies, the inflation that economists predicted would restrain that spending never really materialized... so governments set economic growth targets of 2%, inflation targets of 2%, and sold as many promissory notes as they could as long as they stayed near those targets... and they used the proceeds to help fund themselves and their programs.

It has nothing at all to do with poor people voting. Leftists in Canada have never even come close to winning an election in all of our nations history. And if you look at spending and debt in western countries there's absolutely no correlation to political party or ideology. The most conservative parties have run up as much debt as the most liberal ones.

You are utterly clueless...

When 35% of voters can spend other people's money, no democracy can survive.

Cool story bro! But they CANT. At the very most they could vote themselves FIRST SPEND of money generated by selling IOU's. But money doesnt disappear after its spent... it gets spend over and over again. Every penny in income assistance or social security winds up right back in the pockets of the middle and upper class, which is why its been so incredibly easy for them to grow their fortunes for the last 30 years and we have seen rapid concentration of wealth.

dre,

Our current political system, western States, call it what you will - is not sustainable.

When 35% of voters can spend other people's money, no democracy can survive.

Edited June 19, 2016 by dre

[Argus]

Without the state they would need a hell of a lot more than a few armed guards.

And who is talking about doing away with the state? And in any event, how often in history have the 'masses' successfully overthrown a well-entrenched, wealthy elite? And usually when it happens it's at the best of members of the elite themselves. The peasants don't revolt without a lot of rabble rousing from above.

Nope its table scraps. The full course dinner is what the middle and upper class get from the government. Trillions in low interest loans backed by the central banks, hundreds of billions in tax payer insured mortgages, government action to keep the value of their homes from tanking, the flogging of natural resources to companies they hold shares in for next to nothing, huge tax breaks on their investment incomes (in many cases they pay lower rates than someone doing physical labor for a living). Corporate subsidies that benefit shareholders.

This is all pretty nonsensical. Taxpayer's who need government insurance for their mortgage have to pay for it. Hell, in the US, the middle class gets to write off the interest on its mortgages! We get nothing like that in Canada. When government encourages business with loans or grants it's invariably in hopes the jobs and business activity result in more taxes.

If you're reasonably poor you get, as a start, free public health care, free education for your kids, money from the government to help look after your kids. If you're really poor you get free or nearly free housing, clothing allowances, appliances and welfare. If you work now and then, in some places, just for a few months, the government will pay you to sit on your ass for the rest of the year and do nothing.

Now in terms of middle class, you have to pay for your health care, for your kids educations, and for everything else from roads and bridges to police, fire protection, and all those bureaucrats who ensure your milk and meat are safe. You have to also pay for the health care and education of poor people's kids, pay extra to help them raise them, subsidize their homes, and then pay them to sit around doing nothing, along with making up the extra cost for all the services that the poor don't contribute to. All of that money comes off the salary you work every day for.

[Argus]

Its not the political system that's the problem, its the economic system. Once currency was decoupled completely from precious metals governments could now expand the money supply backed by nothing at all besides promissory notes. Every single country with a growing economy started spending more and went deep into debt. REGARDLESS of whether they had liberal or conservative governments, and no matter WHO people voted for.

And what did they spend all this money on? Why, suddenly we had generous public pensions, better, more universal public health care, more generous public welfare, including subsidized housing and public transit, baby bonuses, and all sorts of other goodies that I'm sure you fully support.

How did government get by before their was public income taxes? They simply taxed business, but then, there wasn't a lot of government back then. Government didn't do a whole lot. I strongly doubt you're an advocate of going back to those days.

[?Impact]

Every penny in income assistance or social security winds up right back in the pockets of the middle and upper class, which is why its been so incredibly easy for them to grow their fortunes for the last 30 years and we have seen rapid concentration of wealth.

Excellent point, bears repeating.

[Argus]

Excellent point, bears repeating.

Even if not true?

[dre]

Even if not true?

But it IS true. The poor save nothing, and they only get first spend on that money. A bunch of it will end up as profit for whoever owns the building they rent, a bunch of it will end up as profit for shareholders of the chain they buy groceries from, etc. And it will swirl around in the economy until somebody somewhere uses it to pay off debt at a commercial bank.

One of two things will happen. 1. The public debt will be offset by a corresponding private debt being extinguished. Or 2. The money supply will grow and most likely the economy.

That's why spending of this type is such good economic stimulus. Moody's did a study where they looked at every stimulus option including corporate tax cuts, tax rebates for business, etc. It found that the most effective delivery methods for stimulus were food stamps, and ei benefits. For the exact reason I mentioned.

[?Impact]

Even if not true?

So what is your theory? Those are social assistance are the accumulators of wealth. Homeless Joe has this big mattress under the bridge stuffed full of cash?

[eyeball]

If you work now and then, in some places, just for a few months, the government will pay you to sit on your ass for the rest of the year and do nothing.

Or, if you're a seasonal employer who only needs a temporary workforce the government will maintain it for you for you so you don't have to pay to train a new one every season.

[Argus]

But it IS true. The poor save nothing, and they only get first spend on that money. A bunch of it will end up as profit for whoever owns the building they rent, a bunch of it will end up as profit for shareholders of the chain they buy groceries from, etc. And it will swirl around in the economy until somebody somewhere uses it to pay off debt at a commercial bank.

How is that any different than anyone else?

That's why spending of this type is such good economic stimulus.

I think you've lost track of what this topic is actually about. The topic suggests that it is unhealthy for a democracy for half or nearly half the voters to be able to influence government spending without having to contribute anything to it. It is, in effect, representation without taxation. It is likely to produce voters who will always vote for whatever party offers the most expensive programs, and against any party which wants to balance the books, especially if that means cutbacks of any sort. Or is it your position that the more money we spend on the 'poor' which according to the definition of our tax code is approximately 50% of the population, the better off our economy will be?

[Argus]

So what is your theory? Those are social assistance are the accumulators of wealth. Homeless Joe has this big mattress under the bridge stuffed full of cash?

There is no government money. All money belongs to those who work for it. In this era of lower corporate taxes that increasingly means the middle class. Any money the government gives to the poor it has to first take away from the middle class. The idea that this is good for the economy is simply silly, especially given the general inefficiency of government which means they're going to scoop off a very large chunk of the money they're transferring.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

There is no government money. All money belongs to those who work for it.

Deluded into thinking that money has intrinsic value. Money is an artificial creation - period.

[Guest]

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

It's not a direct causal relationship, but there is a strong correlation.

Age and experience tend to go hand in hand but studies also show the same for age and fear, age and cynicism, age and selfishness. The trend towards self centered, anxiousness coupled with a declining interest in environmental, economic and social conditions beyond the near term can really offset some of that acquired wisdom.

[Argus]

It's not a direct causal relationship, but there is a strong correlation.

Age and experience tend to go hand in hand but studies also show the same for age and fear, age and cynicism, age and selfishness. The trend towards self centered, anxiousness coupled with a declining interest in environmental, economic and social conditions beyond the near term can really offset some of that acquired wisdom.

By "fear and cynicism" you're referring to the absence of the kind of empty-headed, pie-in-the-sky naivete the young tend to be filled with, right? And by 'selfishness' you're referring to the fact that older people tend to be less delighted at the thought of government throwing lavish amounts of money around because, unlike the young, they realize where it comes from, and have the experience within their lives of what happens when government gets too deep into debt.

[Argus]

Deluded into thinking that money has intrinsic value. Money is an artificial creation - period.

So is a car, and I can buy one with money.

[Guest]

Slick, what gives you the right to decide at what age people should have whatever number of votes?

I'm not sure. What gives you the right to further enforce a class system by erasing democratic participation for lower SES individuals?

My idea in the OP is simpler: if 35% of voters pay no taxes, is it surprising that politicians in a democracy want to spend money? Moreover, such a society is not sustainable.

Agreed. The widening income gap due to our trade practices that have been responsible for reallocating middle class wealth, protections and benefits, to the upper class are not at all sustainable. Yet, you propose a voting system that would remove the little bit of political power the victims of our economic policies possess? I'd say your trickle down democracy idea is about as useful as the economic variety.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Guest