More Conservative B.S. Exposed

[THELIBERAL]

Tax freedom day report by the Conservative think tank the Fraser Institute called preposterously exaggerated!!!!!

So what's friggen new!!!! EVERYTHING THE CONSERVATIVES RANT ABOUT IS WAY OVERBLOWN!!!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/06...1103235-cp.html

If the institute based its calculations on the average family's total income, Tax Freedom Day would have fallen on April 30 last year - 58 days earlier than the June 28 date calculated by the institute in 2004.

"The institute's calculations are preposterously exaggerated," says Brooks, who teaches tax law and policy at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

[I miss Reagan]

I'm glad you posted that article, even though I disagree with it, because it points out that there are different factors to take into account. As far as taxes are concerned, for me all that really matters is my personal experience. Compared to the taxes I paid when I worked in the US, I pay far more in taxes here. My take home pay was far better in the US. I don't really care what creative statistics you Libs come up with to try and convince me tax rates are similar, because they simply aren't. That's my personal experience and the experience of my counterparts living in the US. I have many friends and relatives who have the same experience as well.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'm glad you posted that article, even though I disagree with it, because it points out that there are different factors to take into account.  As far as taxes are concerned, for me all that really matters is my personal experience.  Compared to the taxes I paid when I worked in the US, I pay far more in taxes here.  My take home pay was far better in the US.  I don't really care what creative statistics you Libs come up with to try and convince me tax rates are similar, because they simply aren't.  That's my personal experience and the experience of my counterparts living in the US.  I have many friends and relatives who have the same experience as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously you find other values in Canada to keep you here. Your higher taxes pay for some of that value.

[I miss Reagan]

I'm glad you posted that article, even though I disagree with it, because it points out that there are different factors to take into account.  As far as taxes are concerned, for me all that really matters is my personal experience.  Compared to the taxes I paid when I worked in the US, I pay far more in taxes here.  My take home pay was far better in the US.  I don't really care what creative statistics you Libs come up with to try and convince me tax rates are similar, because they simply aren't.  That's my personal experience and the experience of my counterparts living in the US.  I have many friends and relatives who have the same experience as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously you find other values in Canada to keep you here. Your higher taxes pay for some of that value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya Sweal, I don't deny that. Thankyou for not pulling out the "why don't you leave then" garbage, BTW. I think the main thing is family for me. Health care doesn't play into it because we had better health care (no waiting etc.) in the US and the company paid for it. I like the fact that there aren't the gun problems and as much crime here. I like our appreciation for the environment. I love Alberta too. There are positives and negatives to both. I will probably head back down though.

[cybercoma]

I'm glad you posted that article, even though I disagree with it, because it points out that there are different factors to take into account.  As far as taxes are concerned, for me all that really matters is my personal experience.  Compared to the taxes I paid when I worked in the US, I pay far more in taxes here.  My take home pay was far better in the US.  I don't really care what creative statistics you Libs come up with to try and convince me tax rates are similar, because they simply aren't.  That's my personal experience and the experience of my counterparts living in the US.  I have many friends and relatives who have the same experience as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Living in Windsor I can completely agree with you on this one. There are many people that live here and work in Detroit and other parts of Southeastern Michigan. The fact remains that they take home more on their paychecks over there than they would over here. Of course, Americans don't get the healthcare coverage etc. that we get, but the extra money you bring home actually allows you to choose what coverage would be appropriate for your lifestyle.

[Technocrat]

It's the kind of statistical minutiae that would put even the most outraged taxpayer to sleep, but among warring economists, them's fightin' words

LOL thats the best line for a news article ever... EVER!

[Riverwind]

Fact remains that they take home more on their paychecks over there than they would over here.  Of course, Americans don't get the healthcare coverage etc. that we get, but the extra money you bring home actually allows you to choose what coverage would be appropriate for your lifestyle.

Some stats on taxation:

The percentage of gross earnings given up in tax, including any social security contributions. Calculated for a single worker without children, earning 100 % of the average wage. Data for 2001, and only for selected OECD countries.

20. Canada 30.2% 

21. United States 30.0% 

22. United Kingdom 29.7%

The difference between these figures and the ancedotal evidence provided in the thread is probably caused by:

1) Larger US salaries == Larger take home pay

2) Differences between taxation levels in different states

3) The effect of the home owner mortgage interest deduction.

4) Differences in taxation at higher/lower income brackets.

Factors that also need to be included are the cost of real estate which I believe is higher in US in most places (this increases the cost of living so a higher take home pay does not mean as much).

Whenever I have looked at moving to the US, the big draw for me has always been the larger US dollar salaries for doing the same job. However, my understanding is my total tax paid as a pecentage of salary would be about the same.

[Argus]

I'm glad you posted that article, even though I disagree with it, because it points out that there are different factors to take into account.  As far as taxes are concerned, for me all that really matters is my personal experience.  Compared to the taxes I paid when I worked in the US, I pay far more in taxes here.  My take home pay was far better in the US.  I don't really care what creative statistics you Libs come up with to try and convince me tax rates are similar, because they simply aren't.  That's my personal experience and the experience of my counterparts living in the US.  I have many friends and relatives who have the same experience as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously you find other values in Canada to keep you here. Your higher taxes pay for some of that value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My tax dollars pay for fountains and museums in Shawinigan, for canoe museums and blonde joke books, for thousands of well-fed liberals to enjoy hugely paying jobs on boards and agnecies which require no work and for which they have no skills. My tax dollars pay for Liberals to fund movies and TV shows nobody watches, artists nobody likes, writers nobody reads. My tax dollars go to paying legions of bureacrats to push paper back and forth, to study the mating habits of seagulls and insects, to put little "Canada" word marks on hockey arenas, and to pay off Liberal bagmen. My tax dollars go to buying things the government doesn't need, at scandalous prices, from companies which donate money to Paul Martin. My tax dollars go to subsidising companies which contribute money to the Liberals, to subsiding companies willing to move from an opposition riding to a government riding. My tax dollars go to paying the living costs of foreigners I don't even want coming here, and the legal fees as they fight to remain. My tax dollars go to paying the air and hotel fare, not to mention the meals in 5 star restaurants, for masses of senior bureacrats, senators, MPs, cabinet ministers, their families and friends, and assorted hangers on, to holiday around the world enjoying themselves. My tax dollars go to helping prop up assorted corrupt dictators around the world, so they can use their own money to buy tanks and warships and develop nuclear weapons while still pouring hundreds of millions into their Swiss bank accounts.

Just to start.

[The Terrible Sweal]

...healthcare ... choose what coverage would be appropriate for your lifestyle.

I'm curious about conservatives when you say something like that ... do you yourself not hear the code-speaking doubletalk there, or do you think others can't hear the code-speaking doubletalk there?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Tax freedom day report by the Conservative think tank the Fraser Institute called preposterously exaggerated!!!!!

So what's friggen new!!!! EVERYTHING THE CONSERVATIVES RANT ABOUT IS WAY OVERBLOWN!!! 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/06...1103235-cp.html

If the institute based its calculations on the average family's total income, Tax Freedom Day would have fallen on April 30 last year - 58 days earlier than the June 28 date calculated by the institute in 2004.

"The institute's calculations are preposterously exaggerated," says Brooks, who teaches tax law and policy at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can tell you my tax freedom day falls alot later than April 30. ,Who cares about the "average". We should all look at our own situations and determine if we are getting value for the high taxes we pay.

I know for a fact that I'd rather pay $50-300 / month for health insurance and recieve immediate treatment than send thousands to Ottawa for our shoddy line-up health care system.

[cybercoma]

...healthcare ... choose what coverage would be appropriate for your lifestyle.

I'm curious about conservatives when you say something like that ... do you yourself not hear the code-speaking doubletalk there, or do you think others can't hear the code-speaking doubletalk there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What code-speaking doubletalk would you be referring to?

If I choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle that causes me to be sick all the time, I should have to live with the consequences of that...which includes paying more for healthcare.

As it stands today in Canada, my parents who use WAY more medical services than I do pay the exact same amount of money into healthcare as I do.

That's the fair and equal healthcare system I live under. Those who burden the system and use it the most, pay the exact same thing as those who use it the least.

[Argus]

As it stands today in Canada, my parents who use WAY more medical services than I do pay the exact same amount of money into healthcare as I do.

That's the fair and equal healthcare system I live under.  Those who burden the system and use it the most, pay the exact same thing as those who use it the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't see where you're going with this example. Do you want people who suffer from illnesses to have to pay exorbitant amounts into medicare? Should someone suffering from cancer have to sell their house to help pay for the treatment? This is one of the worst elements of the American system, and not one I want to immitate.

That being said, I find such things as the blanket prescription coverage of all seniors to be something which should be changed. I freely acknowledge the value of paying for seniors' prescriptions given that many of them use so many the cost would be exorbitant. But why is it my uncle (pretty spry and healthy, who has a hell of a lot more money than I do, can go and get a prescription for nothing while I have to pay for mine? Because he's a senior? Oh. Sorry. Doesn't wash. We need some kind of means test which measures a senior's ability to pay against the prescription bills he'd have to pay for. That would save the system untold millions.

[JerrySeinfeld]

As it stands today in Canada, my parents who use WAY more medical services than I do pay the exact same amount of money into healthcare as I do.

That's the fair and equal healthcare system I live under.  Those who burden the system and use it the most, pay the exact same thing as those who use it the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't see where you're going with this example. Do you want people who suffer from illnesses to have to pay exorbitant amounts into medicare? Should someone suffering from cancer have to sell their house to help pay for the treatment? This is one of the worst elements of the American system, and not one I want to immitate.

That being said, I find such things as the blanket prescription coverage of all seniors to be something which should be changed. I freely acknowledge the value of paying for seniors' prescriptions given that many of them use so many the cost would be exorbitant. But why is it my uncle (pretty spry and healthy, who has a hell of a lot more money than I do, can go and get a prescription for nothing while I have to pay for mine? Because he's a senior? Oh. Sorry. Doesn't wash. We need some kind of means test which measures a senior's ability to pay against the prescription bills he'd have to pay for. That would save the system untold millions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, I swear it you are the most sensible person on this blog.

You are the true definition of the "muddling through conservative" which is what I aspire to. Andrew Coyne comes to mind. The beauty of this type of conservatism is that we take issues one at a time. Drop the ideology...what makes sense is what matters, not where you place yourself on the spectrum.

Canadians, more so than americans, tend to be obsessed with ideology. Instead of attacking issues on a logical "what makes sense here" basis,, Canadians tend to look at issues and decide whether or not their ideology agrees or disagrees.

Perhaps it's our educational system. I know that in Alberta our Social Studies high school courses teach people about ideology and the diploma exams force students to take a position on "socialism versus capitalism:...maybe that's why people in Canada seem so obsessed with taking sides...just a thought

[cybercoma]

As it stands today in Canada, my parents who use WAY more medical services than I do pay the exact same amount of money into healthcare as I do.

That's the fair and equal healthcare system I live under.  Those who burden the system and use it the most, pay the exact same thing as those who use it the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't see where you're going with this example. Do you want people who suffer from illnesses to have to pay exorbitant amounts into medicare? Should someone suffering from cancer have to sell their house to help pay for the treatment? This is one of the worst elements of the American system, and not one I want to immitate.

That being said, I find such things as the blanket prescription coverage of all seniors to be something which should be changed. I freely acknowledge the value of paying for seniors' prescriptions given that many of them use so many the cost would be exorbitant. But why is it my uncle (pretty spry and healthy, who has a hell of a lot more money than I do, can go and get a prescription for nothing while I have to pay for mine? Because he's a senior? Oh. Sorry. Doesn't wash. We need some kind of means test which measures a senior's ability to pay against the prescription bills he'd have to pay for. That would save the system untold millions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, we shouldn't have an American system. We should continue to have public coverage as well as private coverage. I pay a minimal amount into public coverage for necessities and my employer (or myself through discretion) should pay a sum into a private plan that suits my lifestyle. People should take more responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

[Guest eureka]

Keep muddlong through, Jerry. How many deaths fromsubstandard coverage and unequal access are you prepared to tolerate before you get to your goal? Would it not be better to arrive at a peoper conclusion and appl it than to muddle along?

Means testing! That is what Harper stands for. He wrote in the statement that I keep referring to but that you right wingers don't want to know about.

If your "tax freedom day" comes later than that for others, you should be glad to share a little of your good fortune with those who are not overpaid. I thought your pharasaical attitude was long banished from society except for those apologies for human beings who form the Reform base of the CPC.

[JerrySeinfeld]

As it stands today in Canada, my parents who use WAY more medical services than I do pay the exact same amount of money into healthcare as I do.

That's the fair and equal healthcare system I live under.  Those who burden the system and use it the most, pay the exact same thing as those who use it the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't see where you're going with this example. Do you want people who suffer from illnesses to have to pay exorbitant amounts into medicare? Should someone suffering from cancer have to sell their house to help pay for the treatment? This is one of the worst elements of the American system, and not one I want to immitate.

That being said, I find such things as the blanket prescription coverage of all seniors to be something which should be changed. I freely acknowledge the value of paying for seniors' prescriptions given that many of them use so many the cost would be exorbitant. But why is it my uncle (pretty spry and healthy, who has a hell of a lot more money than I do, can go and get a prescription for nothing while I have to pay for mine? Because he's a senior? Oh. Sorry. Doesn't wash. We need some kind of means test which measures a senior's ability to pay against the prescription bills he'd have to pay for. That would save the system untold millions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, we shouldn't have an American system. We should continue to have public coverage as well as private coverage. I pay a minimal amount into public coverage for necessities and my employer (or myself through discretion) should pay a sum into a private plan that suits my lifestyle. People should take more responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hear hear!!! I thought you were a lefty eureka?

[Guest eureka]

Getting punch drunk as well as muddled, Jerry! I didn't post that.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Getting punch drunk as well as muddled, Jerry! I didn't post that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

tru dat.

[Argus]

Keep muddlong through, Jerry. How many deaths fromsubstandard coverage and unequal access are you prepared to tolerate before you get to your goal? Would it not be better to arrive at a peoper conclusion and appl it than to muddle along?

How many are dying now so that Paul Martin can wrap himself in the flag of public health care every election and the let the system rot thereafter?

Means testing! That is what Harper stands for. He wrote in the statement that I keep referring to but that you right wingers don't want to know about.

What's wrong with means testing? Too sensible for you? Why do you feel millionaires should get free prescriptions while the working poor have to pay for theirs?

[mcqueen625]

Obviously you find other values in Canada to keep you here. Your higher taxes pay for some of that value.

Those higher taxes enables the Liberal's to defraud the Canadian public by handing money off to their friend's in the advertising businesses in both Quebec and Ontario. I believe that Martin and team are scared to death of Harper, thus the attempts to demonize Harper at every turn.

Articles I have read on the issue of a mixed system show that personnel and resources are drained from a public system to support a private system, and in that scenario the only one's that benefit are those with the financial resources to pay for those services. Waiting lists have not been shown to shorten in the public system, the only improvements occur in the for-profit facilities. In the U.S.A. how many people without health care have suffered due to lack of healthcare coverage? The same thing could very well be on it's way to Canada.

If Martin and the Liberal's are such defender's of the Canada Health Act, why is it that they are allowing the Supreme Court ruling regarding private care in Quebec to stand? Why is it that he and his family is attended to at a private clinic, while at the same time accuses Harper of attempting to destroy Medicare? My speculation is that this ruling will eventually spread right across this country through similar challenges, and since Martin himself has said that he could think of no situation where he would institute the not-withstanding-clause, and in his opinion; " the Supreme Court IS THE FINAL WORD IN THIS COUNTRY," that says it all. He will then be able to sit back in his ivory tower and claim that the devil (Supreme Court) made him do it, ( it being allowing private, for profit health care to take over our health care system in Canada).

Martin, I have no doubt has many corporate friend's in the health care businesses that have been lobbying fast and hard to reap the profits of the Canadian healthcare system, and the only thing standing it their way up to this point is the Canada Health Act. With the help of Paul's and Jean's appointees in the the Supreme Court the dismantling of that Act is well on it's to being dismantled, and Martin and team cannot be held accountable because, the devil made it happen.

Liberal's can't have it both ways, either the Party defends and supports a one tier health care system or a private one, you can't agrue from both sides of the fence as they seem to be trying to do. I believe that Martin is scared to death of Harper and is desperate to hold onto power by any means, so he goes out of his way to shoot down everything Harper says and stands for then goes ahead and copies Harper's agenda. The reality is that the Liberal's are nothing but a pack of liars and thieves, while the accusations against the Conservatives are only conjectures since they have not had a chance to prove those conjectures true or false.

[mcqueen625]

As it stands today in Canada, my parents who use WAY more medical services than I do pay the exact same amount of money into healthcare as I do.

You know that's the same crap I heard from a young person I worked with regarding the company's participation into a Long Term Disability Insurance. It was at a meeting for the employees to vote ton participate or not, since it would involve everyone's to be involved in order for the insuranc ecompany to offer the policy. His comment went something like, "I am young and healthy and I don't see why I have to pay into something I will never use." That was the young invincible person talking. A few shot years later after I myself suffered a heart attack and was classed as permanently disabled, and started drawing the Long Term Disability, this person was involved in an accident and he too wound up on disability. He now thinks that his opinion back then was very short-sighted.

A person can be in the best of health today, live a healthy lifestyle as you put it, but sometimes accident's happen or genetic predispositions kick in and you too might wind up in the same boat as your parent's. Don't forget one thing, once you have a pre-existing condition these insurance plans no longer want anything to do with you, because what they really want are only healthy people who are not going to put in a claim. Their hope is that instead of suffering a dibilitating ailment, you just drop dead, thus ending their obligation as far as paying disability benefits are concerned. Many company sponsored plans like Blue Cross inquire as to pre-existing health concerns on the initial application, if there are any, coverage is denied to that employee. Where does this leave those who for whatever reason are not considered insurable by the private health insurance providers, or do you really care? If you have such low regard for the poor choices your parent's made regarding lifestyle, I would question how much compassion you would have for anyone else.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Keep muddlong through, Jerry. How many deaths fromsubstandard coverage and unequal access are you prepared to tolerate before you get to your goal? Would it not be better to arrive at a peoper conclusion and appl it than to muddle along?

Means testing! That is what Harper stands for. He wrote in the statement that I keep referring to but that you right wingers don't want to know about.

If your "tax freedom day" comes later than that for others, you should be glad to share a little of your good fortune with those who are not overpaid. I thought your pharasaical attitude was long banished from society except for those apologies for human beings who form the Reform base of the CPC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All this mythology about people "dying on gurneys due to lack of coverage" bullshit about private care is absurd. The US with it's private system: it's against the law not to treat someone even if they don't have coverage. If someone shows up and needs care with no coverage, a private hospital will treat them until they are stabilized, then move them to another public hospital that will take them. This is the WORST case scenario. You know, it's funny when Americans are polled on whether they'd like to keep their current system or have a universal system like ours, they overwhelmingly support keeping their current system. Now if that system is such a nightmare, then why would this be the case?

Not that's I'd like to mirror their system, but this mythology about people dying in the streets because of private care are a load of crap. If anything, people under our current system are dying on waiting lists.

[THELIBERAL]

RE:: Compared to the taxes I paid when I worked in the US, I pay far more in taxes here.

And what did you pay for healthcare insurance in the U.S.A.?

And why are you still here if things were SO MUCH better in the U.S.A.?

[Guest eureka]

People in the US, Jerry, have been educated from the cradle to fear the nightmare of "Socialism." I wpuld wager that very few Americans know what we know and that the US healthcare system ranks 37th, in the world. That is worse than some of the developing countries.

No wonder they respond the way they do to polls. McCarthyism is actually alive and well. It just takes a more insidious form.

Certainly everyone there has to be treated "in an emergency" but not otherwise. People can and do die slowly from many ailments without care until it is too late. The question then is how are they treated and the answer, as you will find if you read reports on American healthcare, is not very well It mat also require them to spend the rest of their lives paying for what they received.

[newbie]

You know, it's funny when Americans are polled on whether they'd like to keep their current system or have a universal system like ours, they overwhelmingly support keeping their current system.  Now if that system is such a nightmare, then why would this be the case?

Not that's I'd like to mirror their system, but this  mythology about people dying in the streets because of private care are a load of crap. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They probably never polled those folks who are bankrupt from medical bills. They may not be dying in the streets, but they're paying dearly for medical care. Not everyone has insurance down there, and the many that do still pay plenty over and above what their insurance covers for basic medical care.