Jack Layton

[cybercoma]

Why do my tax dollars have to subsidize churches and other religious institutions with tax breaks? Most of money collected by churches goes to supporting the churches and not charity.

Exactly, why does it?

[cybercoma]

Why does a religious person have to spend their tax dollars on ads targeting homosexuals about AIDS that are posted in universities all over Canada?

I agree that religious persons should not be subjected to this so-called abuse and my solution is to abolish religions. No religions, therefore no religious people, therefore no religious people being so-called abused.

The first step towards abolishing religions should be to immediately abolish tax free donation status for religions, and to abolish all religious schools. Why should my taxes be higher because of some religious nut getting a tax break? Who knows that religious nut could well turn out to be a suicide bomber.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religion is such a problem that it has become an international human right. I shouldn't even glorify this with a response.

[mirror]

Why does a religious person have to spend their tax dollars on ads targeting homosexuals about AIDS that are posted in universities all over Canada?

I agree that religious persons should not be subjected to this so-called abuse and my solution is to abolish religions. No religions, therefore no religious people, therefore no religious people being so-called abused.

The first step towards abolishing religions should be to immediately abolish tax free donation status for religions, and to abolish all religious schools. Why should my taxes be higher because of some religious nut getting a tax break? Who knows that religious nut could well turn out to be a suicide bomber.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religion is such a problem that it has become an international human right. I shouldn't even glorify this with a response.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try telling that to the people who live in the UK.

[cybercoma]

fanatics are not the religion they claim to represent. it is punishable by God to take another person's life. pretty straightforward, I don't see any black and white here.

[Sully]

In order to spend money they have to take money.  The sooner you understand the government takes your money and only gives a fraction of it back to you, the better off you'll be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Currently, the federal government takes your money, and gives you less than what you used to get for the same amount of money... Less health care, less social security, less assistance for education... less, less, less... If they were just trying to balance the books, I could understand their actions.

However, when most of the cutting of our personal benefits is to finance tax cuts for corporate Canada, it is harder to take. Especially, when corporate Canada's tax rates are 4% lower than for our neighbours to the south. It's not like they need to lower them any more to be competative.

Cybercoma, why don't you explain to me why we should have long waiting lists for surgery, poorer education system for our children, less social safety nets for when we need it... just so that corporate Canada can have even lower tax rates.... When they are already 4% lower than in the USA ????

Currently, we can afford to pay down our deficit, keep lower corporate taxes than the USA, without taking any more away from the citizens of Canada... In fact, we can affort to get back some more back of what we used to have...

Maybe, the sooner you (and your neo-con friends) understand that, the better off we all will be...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Sully]

Sorry bout the repost there peoples!!!!

However, when most of the cutting of our personal benefits is to finance tax cuts for corporate Canada, it is harder to take. Especially, when corporate Canada's tax rates are 4% lower than for our neighbours to the south. It's not like they need to lower them any more to be competative.

Ummmm does anyone understand economics, Corporations and Wealthy people hold a lot of power and also have a lot of CHOICES (MONEY TALKS). In today's COMPETITIVE world, countries compete for the brightest and the wealthiest in order to benefit that country and also it must provide a benefit to the wealthy individual/corporation. If there is no benefit to those who hold potential investment dollars, then those investment dollars move to jurisdictions where there is a benefit. If I can get a better deal in another politically stable country, thats where my money will go. That loss of investment dollars is lost for good and means less investment money for building capital, means higher unemployment. The effects of that loss of investment dollars is huge and involves a large ripple effect.

SO YES err we do need to keep them lower too remain competitive.

Cybercoma, why don't you explain to me why we should have long waiting lists for surgery, poorer education system for our children, less social safety nets for when we need it... just so that corporate Canada can have even lower tax rates.... When they are already 4% lower than in the USA ????

Well these problems have plagued Canada right across all provinces and political parties, even if we tripled the amount dollars thrown into health care, nothing will change, in a few years we would be complaining about the same issue. HEALTH CARE NEEDS AN OVERHAUL. There is more than enough money in the system, its the inefficient spending that causes the most stress on the system, just like there is more than enough money for the Feds to properly fund USEFUL public programs. Inefficient use of the public purse is what hurts the most.

Currently, we can afford to pay down our deficit, keep lower corporate taxes than the USA, without taking any more away from the citizens of Canada... In fact, we can affort to get back some more back of what we used to have...

Maybe, the sooner you (and your neo-con friends) understand that, the better off we all will be...

Its great that the left wingers are all for the common man, its great that people still care. But I wish for the life of me that anyone who considers themselves left wing would have to attend mandatory first year university economics. Then finally the left wingers could join us right wingers back in reality and peace and happiness will be enjoyed by all.

[err]

The bloated wasteful government we have is not concerned with providing you with a social safety net (that you and charities could provide much more efficiently for you and your family), they're only concerned with providing themselves with as much as possible before they retire and live off your tax funded pensions for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cybercoma, you make some very dangerous assumptions. You suggest that we would be better off without our bloated wasteful government. Perhaps you and I could be financially ahead if we paid no taxes and just paid from our pockets for the benefits we receive from our current social safety net. But you also have to consider how got to our position of "financial independence". Because I don't know you personally, I'll assume that you are an educated person with a reasonable income (else you would be in a hypocritical position).

Did you educate yourself, or did our bloated governement help with that? Do you drive on roads to get to work (roads that our bloated government built and maintians). Do you have any electric/electronic implements of your trade (that run on electricity from the infrastructure built by our bloated governement)? Do you rely on medical assistance, or have you ever (using health care provided by our bloated government)? Do you use water in your house/work?? (water that comes in on the infrastructure built by our bloated governement).. If you answered NO to ALL of those questions, you are an incredible person (or a liar).

You could not have gotten where you are without programs and infrastructure supplied by that bloated goverment.... So now that you've gotten your help, and don't need them any more you want to take away the same benefits that helped you get where you are.... so other people can't live as well as you ????

Maybe you can show how the governement supports clubbing of baby seals, or have programs that promote treating homosexuals as equal so that you can convince people to have the government strip financing for those programs that got you where you are....

[mirror]

Sorry bout the repost there peoples!!!!

However, when most of the cutting of our personal benefits is to finance tax cuts for corporate Canada, it is harder to take. Especially, when corporate Canada's tax rates are 4% lower than for our neighbours to the south. It's not like they need to lower them any more to be competative.

Ummmm does anyone understand economics, Corporations and Wealthy people hold a lot of power and also have a lot of CHOICES (MONEY TALKS). In today's COMPETITIVE world, countries compete for the brightest and the wealthiest in order to benefit that country and also it must provide a benefit to the wealthy individual/corporation. If there is no benefit to those who hold potential investment dollars, then those investment dollars move to jurisdictions where there is a benefit. If I can get a better deal in another politically stable country, thats where my money will go. That loss of investment dollars is lost for good and means less investment money for building capital, means higher unemployment. The effects of that loss of investment dollars is huge and involves a large ripple effect.

SO YES err we do need to keep them lower too remain competitive.

Cybercoma, why don't you explain to me why we should have long waiting lists for surgery, poorer education system for our children, less social safety nets for when we need it... just so that corporate Canada can have even lower tax rates.... When they are already 4% lower than in the USA ????

Well these problems have plagued Canada right across all provinces and political parties, even if we tripled the amount dollars thrown into health care, nothing will change, in a few years we would be complaining about the same issue. HEALTH CARE NEEDS AN OVERHAUL. There is more than enough money in the system, its the inefficient spending that causes the most stress on the system, just like there is more than enough money for the Feds to properly fund USEFUL public programs. Inefficient use of the public purse is what hurts the most.

Currently, we can afford to pay down our deficit, keep lower corporate taxes than the USA, without taking any more away from the citizens of Canada... In fact, we can affort to get back some more back of what we used to have...

Maybe, the sooner you (and your neo-con friends) understand that, the better off we all will be...

Its great that the left wingers are all for the common man, its great that people still care. But I wish for the life of me that anyone who considers themselves left wing would have to attend mandatory first year university economics. Then finally the left wingers could join us right wingers back in reality and peace and happiness will be enjoyed by all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me tell you a story about first year economics.

David Suzuki when he was attending university enrolled in a first year economics class. During the first class he asked the instructor how corporations accounted for polluting the environment. The instructor being quite knowledgeable in economics said that corporations do not account for pollution in their financial statements. Suzuki withdrew from the class the next day as he did not want to waste his time on nonsense.

Nuff said.

[err]

However, when most of the cutting of our personal benefits is to finance tax cuts for corporate Canada, it is harder to take. Especially, when corporate Canada's tax rates are 4% lower than for our neighbours to the south. It's not like they need to lower them any more to be competative.

Ummmm does anyone understand economics, Corporations and Wealthy people hold a lot of power and also have a lot of CHOICES (MONEY TALKS). In today's COMPETITIVE world, countries compete for the brightest and the wealthiest in order to benefit that country and also it must provide a benefit to the wealthy individual/corporation. SO YES err we do need to keep them lower too remain competitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How much lower do you think we need to keep them than everybody elses, Mr. Economicus? Supposing Wallmart sold Economics text books for 2/3 of the price of any competitor. Do you think it would be sound economics for them to drop the price to say 1/2 of the price of the next competitor.... Probably not.

Cybercoma, why don't you explain to me why we should have long waiting lists for surgery, poorer education system for our children, less social safety nets for when we need it... just so that corporate Canada can have even lower tax rates.... When they are already 4% lower than in the USA ????

Well these problems have plagued Canada right across all provinces and political parties, even if we tripled the amount dollars thrown into health care, nothing will change, in a few years we would be complaining about the same issue. HEALTH CARE NEEDS AN OVERHAUL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you have been reading these newsgroups, you may have discovered that even the right-wing economists have stated that automotive manufacturers have a huge benefit in Canada already due to our economical health care system... The private system in the USA costs TWICE AS MUCH per capita. The overhaul that our system requires is a return to its previous level of funding (inflation adjusted).

Currently, we can afford to pay down our deficit, keep lower corporate taxes than the USA, without taking any more away from the citizens of Canada... In fact, we can affort to get back some more back of what we used to have...

Maybe, the sooner you (and your neo-con friends) understand that, the better off we all will be...

Its great that the left wingers are all for the common man, its great that people still care. But I wish for the life of me that anyone who considers themselves left wing would have to attend mandatory first year university economics. Then finally the left wingers could join us right wingers back in reality and peace and happiness will be enjoyed by all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you don't consider yourself a "COMMON MAN" because you have a pumped up, false sense of self importance, and feel you are better than the "common man".... because you have taken a first year economics class. It might be instructive for you to compare your net worth to that of the average, or slightly above average and see just how superior you are...

Personally, my income is considerably higher than the average, but I don't see myself as 'superior'. I appreciate the fact that I came from humble beginnings, paid my way through university, and now have a good position and income. I appreciate the fact that the infrastructure that supported my rise from poor financial circumstances, and hope that it remains there for other people. I would not presume to suggest that the government cut of opportunities for the 'common man' so that I could keep more of the money that I earn.

[mirror]

It is all about the greed factor, the rich against the poor. Strange isn't that people use the system to get themselves into a stronger financial position then want to deprive others of the same opportunity. Ideally governments are there to protect the less fortunate and to reditribute the wealth. However the system is perverted by secret corporate lobbyists who control governments and governments are now to a large extent for politicians, is who gets the next contract.

There are two things you can count on in this life, death and the rich complaining about paying taxes.

[Guest eureka]

Perhaps second year economics should be taught before first year. The "students" would get a glimpse of the real world before they are subjected to the rigid models of the first year.

[BHS]

cb

Please lose the personal slurs as our moderator has requested.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does a religious person have to spend their tax dollars on ads targeting homosexuals about AIDS that are posted in universities all over Canada?

I agree that religious persons should not be subjected to this so-called abuse and my solution is to abolish religions. No religions, therefore no religious people, therefore no religious people being so-called abused.

The first step towards abolishing religions should be to immediately abolish tax free donation status for religions, and to abolish all religious schools. Why should my taxes be higher because of some religious nut getting a tax break? Who knows that religious nut could well turn out to be a suicide bomber.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(Emphasis mine)

Do I need to state the obvious?

[Renegade]

Strange isn't that people use the system to get themselves into a stronger financial position then want to deprive others of the same opportunity.

The system wasn't free. Services provided were more than paid for by the taxes my parents paid on my behalf. What wasn't paid for by taxes was accrued as debt. That debt lives with us today and consumes a fair share of our taxes. Everyone should have the same opportunity, but everyone should contribute to the cost as they consume the services provided.

Ideally governments are there to protect the less fortunate and to reditribute the wealth.

Says who?

There are two things you can count on in this life, death and the rich complaining about paying taxes.

Probably, but that is probably because it is justified.

There is another thing you can count on. Freeloaders in soceity crying for more services for which they think others should pay.

[mirror]

This is so typical. Why not look up at the people at the top, the corporate welfare bums, that are getting away with massive tax breaks than a few people at the bottom of the ladder that need our help. Of couse this is the bully mentality to pick on the weakest people in society. Where's the courageous principled lifestyle in that?

[Renegade]

Why not look up at the people at the top, the corporate welfare bums, that are getting away with massive tax breaks than a few people at the bottom of the ladder that need our help.

Welfare is freeloading regardless of if it is done by corporate welfare bums or individual welfare bums. I have the same contempt for corporate freeloading as I do for individual freeloading. If people need help, that is the role of charities, not forcible income redistribution.

Of couse this is the bully mentality to pick on the weakest people in society. Where's the courageous principled lifestyle in that?

I'm not sure what is bullying about a principle which says that people are responsible for paying their own way in society.

[mirror]

Income redistribution by our governments is the Canadian way. Charities are a cop out and are just another tool for the rich to oppress the poor. And studies have shown that left to their own the rich do not support charity as much as the poor. That is why we need governments to enforce the redistribution. In Canada we don't value people only by their bank accounts. And I don't believe you when you say you as concerned about the rich abusing the system as much as the poor, as all you do is attack the poor. As I said bullys attack the weak. Think about that.

[Renegade]

Income redistribution by our governments is the Canadian way.

C'mon now, is that the best you can do for an argument for income redistribution? I'm not even sure what "the Canadian way" is. We all have different backgrounds and different viewpoints. This forum is existance of diverse viewpoints. I hardly see how can take your view point and lay claim to it as "the Canadian way"

Charities are a cop out and are just another tool for the rich to oppress the poor.

Yes I can see how it is really oppressive for those who are rich it to give their time and money to others. I can see how the poor feel really opressed when they accept something which has been donated to them

studies have shown that left to their own the rich do not support charity as much as the poor. That is why we need governments to enforce the redistribution.

So what if they don't. That's what personal choice is. They support to their own level of concience. Enforced redistribution (which is what the government does) is no different than robbery, regardless of the fact that the robber (the government) redistributes the gains to another party.

In Canada we don't value people only by their bank accounts.

I'm really not sure how you can speak for all of Canada. Each person in Canada values people differently. I don't value people by their bank account, and I have made no valuation judgments on anyone rich or poor. Its certain actions which I abhor (such as freeloading)

I don't believe you when you say you as concerned about the rich abusing the system as much as the poor, as all you do is attack the poor.

I can't really help what you believe. I have advocated certain priciples which I believe. I don't discriminate by who is negatively affected by those principles whether rich or poor, individual or corporate. Maybe with time you will believe that I don't have a double-standard in this regard.

[mirror]

In Canada we have an abundance of all material things and yet we still have poverty. If you truly wanted a fair system, not exploitive of the poor as it is now, read this:

The Repair of Taxation

This explains quite clearly what Canada's taxation problems are, why the system is so unfair to the poor and even the middle class, and how to fix the system.

[Sully]

Let me tell you a story about first year economics.

David Suzuki when he was attending university enrolled in a first year economics class. During the first class he asked the instructor how corporations accounted for polluting the environment. The instructor being quite knowledgeable in economics said that corporations do not account for pollution in their financial statements. Suzuki withdrew from the class the next day as he did not want to waste his time on nonsense.

Nuff said.

Well I guess if David said that, I better try convince my MP and MLA to cut off all wasteful government spending at University Economics Depts. throughout the country. Think of all that money that can be diverted to environmental causes. YAY!!!

How much lower do you think we need to keep them than everybody elses, Mr. Economicus? Supposing Wallmart sold Economics text books for 2/3 of the price of any competitor. Do you think it would be sound economics for them to drop the price to say 1/2 of the price of the next competitor.... Probably not.

Well if I could pull a point out of this paragraph, I would sincerely try to answer you.

Oh BTW private corporate/consumer dealings (MICRO) have nothing to do with the public policy issues imposed by govt. (MACRO) that we are talking about. Also, Wal-Mart can sell text books at whatever price THEY CHOOSE (if its profitable they will sell it), this is a simple concept, right?????

Maybe you don't consider yourself a "COMMON MAN" because you have a pumped up, false sense of self importance, and feel you are better than the "common man".... because you have taken a first year economics class. It might be instructive for you to compare your net worth to that of the average, or slightly above average and see just how superior you are...

Nope I am a "common man", not rich by any means. I will work for everything I get and hopefully one day I'll get to the point where I want to be.

You thinking I am somehow superior to others is obiviously an issue you have to deal with, take your time.

Personally, my income is considerably higher than the average, but I don't see myself as 'superior'. I appreciate the fact that I came from humble beginnings, paid my way through university, and now have a good position and income. I appreciate the fact that the infrastructure that supported my rise from poor financial circumstances, and hope that it remains there for other people. I would not presume to suggest that the government cut of opportunities for the 'common man' so that I could keep more of the money that I earn.

Well humble and wealthy, great combo.

What opportunities are being cut in your opinion, define them!!!

I never expect more out others than I expect from myself. I went through University, paying all of it by myself, so what !!!! I do not need to let others know that. People who work hard always work hard and rise to the top or die trying.

And I am all for the government dipping its hand into my pocket as LITTLE as possible. I can spend MY MONEY better than they can!!!!

[Melanie_]

People who work hard always work hard and rise to the top or die trying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This may be true, I wouldn't dispute it. But circumstances come up where even the hardest working person is in need of the social safety net Canada provides. People are involved in accidents, they get sick, they are laid off when their company downsizes, they need to spend time with a dying parent, their fields flood and the entire summer's crops are ruined, etc. These people are not lazy, or trying to sponge off the rest of us. I don't begrudge my taxes, and willingly pay into our social safety net with the assurance that, if I ever needed it, it would be there for me as well; I have no interest in dying trying.

[Renegade]

In Canada we have an abundance of all material things and yet we still have poverty. If you truly wanted a fair system, not exploitive of the poor as it is now, read this:

The Repair of Taxation

This explains quite clearly what Canada's taxation problems are, why the system is so unfair to the poor and even the middle class, and how to fix the system.

Responded in a new thread:

Tax Policy Thread

[Renegade]

People are involved in accidents, they get sick, they are laid off when their company downsizes, they need to spend time with a dying parent, their fields flood and the entire summer's crops are ruined, etc. These people are not lazy, or trying to sponge off the rest of us. I don't begrudge my taxes, and willingly pay into our social safety net with the assurance that, if I ever needed it, it would be there for me as well;

Melanie,

There is no question that bad things sometimes happen to good people and any of us would want a safety net should the need arise, but the system as structured promotes abuse and a sense of entitlement. Those of us who sparsely use the system subsidize those who abuse it.

I know of people who structure their employment habits around EI rules. They work long enough to qualify, then claim benefits till they run out, then restart the cycle. They see no problem with their behaviour. For them they are living by the system's rules. If their premiums were based upon their propensity to use (or abuse) the system, that behaviour would soon change.

Examples of similar behaviour can be found in healthcare, welfare etc.

You may be fine to pay through taxes for the social safety net, but for me, I'm tired of subsidizing freeloaders and deadbeats, and I'm not getting fair value out of it.

[mirror]

I think you are living in the past. My understanding is that Canada's employment rate has dropped to somewhere close to 6% the lowest it has been for 30 years, so to suggest there are a whole lot of people ripping off the EI system is nonsense.

If you have proof that someone is abusing the system such as some on WCB who is able to work and you have seen the person working, get out your video camera, tape the person working, and send it on to WCB with the details. They will investigate.

I am getting really tired of you dumping on poor people. Go after the corporate executive crooks if you are so concerned. There certainly are lots of them. The ex president of World Com created what was it, a $30 billion dollar fraud. All the unemployeed people in Canada could not create that much fraud in their entire lifetime.

[Renegade]

I think you are living in the past. My understanding is that Canada's employment rate has dropped to somewhere close to 6% the lowest it has been for 30 years, so to suggest there are a whole lot of people ripping off the EI system is nonsense.

Our unemployment rate has dropped, but my contribution rate hasn't changed, has yours? I have no idea how many people are ripping off EI. How can you be ripping of the system if you follow the rules which are laid down? The rules have been tightned on EI to the point where fewer and fewer working people are eligible. IMO, EI doesnt provde fair value, and if given a choice I would withdraw from it.

I am getting really tired of you dumping on poor people. Go after the corporate executive crooks if you are so concerned. There certainly are lots of them. The ex president of World Com created what was it, a $30 billion dollar fraud. All the unemployeed people in Canada could not create that much fraud in their entire lifetime.

Corporate executives who perpetrate fraud should be jailed and be forced to renumerate, but that's not really the issue we're discussing here.. I woudl be happy to discuss that in a different thread. I'm not dumping on poor people. There are plenty of self-reliant, hard-working poor people I know who I have nothing but admiration for. There is no shortage of companies taking free handouts (eg Bombardier) and they are freeloaders a much as individuals who do so.

[BHS]

Agreed, the Worldcom example doesn't belong in this discussion. The people who lost money in Worldcom were investors who knowingly opted to take a risk. Government programs are manditory. EI is nothing but a tax, as far as my finances are concerned. I applied for EI once but after a month of jumping through hoops I didn't receive a nickel. I doubt I'll ever apply again, because I generally have a new job lined up before I leave my current one. There were construction workers in my resume class who had been there a dozen times, and had no interest in looking for work. My EI payments subsidize their wages during layoffs, and I guarantee they make more money doing that than I do.