Your Personal Platform

[Riverwind]

And we’ll be able to collect even more than they do because we’ll send out slips to each house, not demanding, but requesting a tax pledge.

The vast majority of people will pledge a fraction of what they pay now - that is the nature of human greed. A few people will be generous but the system you propose rewards the greedy people because it is voluntary - that in turn will reduce the incentive for the generous people to give because they believe others are getting a free ride.

Plus we won’t need nearly as much revenue because we’re going to make so many cuts—and we’re really going to concentrate our services for better efficiency and lower cost.

Pure fantasy. Some gov't money is wasted but the sums of money involved are small compared to the total amount that govt does. The majority of tax collected goes to providing important services to people doing everything from providing health insurance to inspecting meat packing plants to running jails. If cutting spending was so easy the politicians would have already done it.

As for education, no I don’t think that there should be any kind of government standard forced upon everyone. There can be a market standard, which will develop naturally depending on what jobs are in demand.

The societies that are wealthy today are those societies which provided mandatory free public education. Free education essential to creating wealth. Eliminate that and we will end up with a society that looks a lot like India or Africa with a few rich people and legions of poor that are barely able to survive.

There are studies that back up the connection between free primary education and the weath of a society but I don't have time to go look for them.

[ClearWest]

The vast majority of people will pledge a fraction of what they pay now - that is the nature of human greed. A few people will be generous but the system you propose rewards the greedy people because it is voluntary - that in turn will reduce the incentive for the generous people to give because they believe others are getting a free ride.

Do blood donors care how much blood others are giving in contrast to them? No, they give because they care. If people really care about government, they will support it.

Some gov't money is wasted but the sums of money involved are small compared to the total amount that govt does. The majority of tax collected goes to providing important services to people doing everything from providing health insurance to inspecting meat packing plants to running jails. If cutting spending was so easy the politicians would have already done it.

Yes, but they haven't considered doing things through the private sector. Everything is so centralized--they need to change their idealogy before real change in efficiency is going to happen. They need to realize that they can't control everything.

The societies that are wealthy today are those societies which provided mandatory free public education. Free education essential to creating wealth. Eliminate that and we will end up with a society that looks a lot like India or Africa with a few rich people and legions of poor that are barely able to survive.

There are studies that back up the connection between free primary education and the weath of a society but I don't have time to go look for them.

True, and I think that major companies and charities will see this, and they will step forward to provide free education for those that need it. Even the rich don't want others to be poor--because they need people who can afford to buy their products and pay for their services. Money has to keep circulating--and people understand that more than they used to--Except for the fact that they don't teach economics in public school! Again, they're causing their own problems!

[Michael Hardner]

Clear:

From my limited knowledge of what happened at that time, I know that the banking system was unstable and there were many failures, which lost many ordinary people their savings. The Federal Reserve System changed that.

[Riverwind]

Do blood donors care how much blood others are giving in contrast to them? No, they give because they care. If people really care about government, they will support it.

Blood donations are easy - you lose nothing but a little bit of time. Money is different. People will give out of altruism but people also get really resentful of they feel others do not contribute their fair share. In a purely voluntary system there would be a large number of people that will give next to nothing because they believe other people will pick up the slack. This, in turn, will cause the people who pay to reduce their contributions until the system collapses or mandatory contributions (i.e. taxes) are re-introduced.

The system you propose is unstable. It is like balancing a coin on its edge - something that is possible but would fall over at the slightest disturbance.

Yes, but they haven't considered doing things through the private sector. Everything is so centralized--they need to change their idealogy before real change in efficiency is going to happen. They need to realize that they can't control everything.

Everything is not centralized. The biggest components of gov't spending: health, schools, roads and sewers and policing are managed locally. Roads and policing are also paid for locally. Health and education are paid for centrally because not every area has the wealth to pay for services themselves.

Privatization is not a magic wand - it might save 10-20% in some cases but would end up costing people more in other cases. At the end of the day people will be paying more in various user fees than they pay in taxes today and many people would go without because they can't afford to pay. I don't see this as an improvement.

Even the rich don't want others to be poor--because they need people who can afford to buy their products and pay for their services.

I can give you hundreds of examples of societies (past and present) where the rich do not give a damn about the poor and are perfectly happy to trade goods between themselves and build walls and jails to keep the poor away. However, you seem to think that humans will suddenly become saints.

Communism was social system that depended on people volunteering to contribute their labour for the common good. This system failed miserably because humans are naturally selfish creatures who will look after themselves first and justify (in their own mind at least) why their actions are reasonable. The system you propose is flawed for the same reasons.

[Hicksey]

Do blood donors care how much blood others are giving in contrast to them? No, they give because they care. If people really care about government, they will support it.

Blood donations are easy - you lose nothing but a little bit of time. Money is different. People will give out of altruism but people also get really resentful of they feel others do not contribute their fair share. In a purely voluntary system there would be a large number of people that will give next to nothing because they believe other people will pick up the slack. This, in turn, will cause the people who pay to reduce their contributions until the system collapses or mandatory contributions (i.e. taxes) are re-introduced.

The system you propose is unstable. It is like balancing a coin on its edge - something that is possible but would fall over at the slightest disturbance.

Yes, but they haven't considered doing things through the private sector. Everything is so centralized--they need to change their idealogy before real change in efficiency is going to happen. They need to realize that they can't control everything.

Everything is not centralized. The biggest components of gov't spending: health, schools, roads and sewers and policing are managed locally. Roads and policing are also paid for locally. Health and education are paid for centrally because not every area has the wealth to pay for services themselves.

Privatization is not a magic wand - it might save 10-20% in some cases but would end up costing people more in other cases. At the end of the day people will be paying more in various user fees than they pay in taxes today and many people would go without because they can't afford to pay. I don't see this as an improvement.

Even the rich don't want others to be poor--because they need people who can afford to buy their products and pay for their services.

I can give you hundreds of examples of societies (past and present) where the rich do not give a damn about the poor and are perfectly happy to trade goods between themselves and build walls and jails to keep the poor away. However, you seem to think that humans will suddenly become saints.

Communism was social system that depended on people volunteering to contribute their labour for the common good. This system failed miserably because humans are naturally selfish creatures who will look after themselves first and justify (in their own mind at least) why their actions are reasonable. The system you propose is flawed for the same reasons.

You make some very good points. Even someone as distrustful as I am can see that no matter how romantic that idea sounds it can never work in practice. I'm not really in favor of our socialist system, but since it isn't going away I'd like to see it run much more efficient and fairly than it is now.

So grudgingly I admit that if we are to continue down this path ...

There needs to be a central power, but it cannot be as powerful as it is now. Certain things need to be centrally funded, others do not. No government (federal, provincial or municipal) should be able to tax for services they do not provide. Before new programs are to be added at taxpayer expense they must first be approved by a simply majority of voters by ballot, after thery have been apprised of the short and long term objectives of the program, the funding required and how that will affect government spending and their taxes. They're spending our money, new large expenditures should require our consent.

[Riverwind]

No government (federal, provincial or municipal) should be able to tax for services they do not provide.

I think this is key flaw in our system today -> the accountability loop is broken because the people elected to spend the money are not the people required to raise the taxes to pay for it. I think there is some role for higher levels of gov't as the main tax collector because it is more efficient (think of the costs required to collect sales or income tax by municipal gov'ts). However, a centralized tax collection system should work more like an outsourcing company instead of a sugar daddy (i.e. it works like a contractor doing a job for the gov't that actually spend the money and should not be using it as a way to grant favours).

[Hicksey]

No government (federal, provincial or municipal) should be able to tax for services they do not provide.

I think this is key flaw in our system today -> the accountability loop is broken because the people elected to spend the money are not the people required to raise the taxes to pay for it. I think there is some role for higher levels of gov't as the main tax collector because it is more efficient (think of the costs required to collect sales or income tax by municipal gov'ts). However, a centralized tax collection system should work more like an outsourcing company instead of a sugar daddy (i.e. it works like a contractor doing a job for the gov't that actually spend the money and should not be using it as a way to grant favours).

I certainly agree that that is a main problem with our system, but I disagree that the federal government is any more efficient at doing it. I seriously doubt collection of GST revenues is any less inefficient than that of PST. The only place I would let the federal government rule over the provinces is possibly in income tax collection. In my ideal world taxation would only be on goods purchased and the whole income tax system as we see it would disappear. In this system my demand might be closer to achievable. Unlike our current system the monies should not be held hostage by the federal government. Those monies should be given directly to each province minus the cost of collection.

[Renegade]

There needs to be a central power, but it cannot be as powerful as it is now. Certain things need to be centrally funded, others do not. No government (federal, provincial or municipal) should be able to tax for services they do not provide. Before new programs are to be added at taxpayer expense they must first be approved by a simply majority of voters by ballot, after thery have been apprised of the short and long term objectives of the program, the funding required and how that will affect government spending and their taxes. They're spending our money, new large expenditures should require our consent.

I would extend this further. Even if they provide the services which are approved, to the greatest extent possible, the government should fund the services based upon the level of benefit received.

[Montgomery Burns]

This is a fun thread. A few things that come to mind:

-Your tax policy

Raise the Social Security age limit; Canadians live much longer these days with an average life expectancy of 84 yrs for females and 77 yrs for males.

A flat tax.

-Your foreign policy

A moral stance in the fight this generation's enemy--Islamic extremism, and backing it up with conviction. Like Harper and MacKay are doing now.

-Your policy on social issues (ie. Marriage, Drugs, etc)

A law or something in the Charter defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Don't legalize drugs. Don't criminalize someone caught with a few grams of marijuana. It's unfair.

Also Term limits. I like the US style of 8 years maximum for President. I believe the longer you are in power (eg, Chretien's Liberals), the worse you preform. How many administrations have a better 2nd term than their first one?

Get out of Kyoto. It's deeply flawed. The USA's greenhouse gas emissions rose half of Canada's during the last 15 years. If the US can do it on their own, then so can Canada...and it won't cripple our economy.

[ClearWest]

Blood donations are easy - you lose nothing but a little bit of time. Money is different. People will give out of altruism but people also get really resentful of they feel others do not contribute their fair share. In a purely voluntary system there would be a large number of people that will give next to nothing because they believe other people will pick up the slack. This, in turn, will cause the people who pay to reduce their contributions until the system collapses or mandatory contributions (i.e. taxes) are re-introduced.

I totally disagree. People complain today because they are forced to pay more taxes than the Jones family down the street, and receive the same services. Keep in mind that the main service we're trying to fund here is Military. If people believe in defending their country, they won't care how much the neighbours are paying--They're going to contribute. Perhaps the only flaw in this argument is that I'm putting too much faith in patriotism, or in people's willingness to help. But I believe that it can be done. If people don't care, then why do we have government in the first place?

Everything is not centralized. The biggest components of gov't spending: health, schools, roads and sewers and policing are managed locally. Roads and policing are also paid for locally. Health and education are paid for centrally because not every area has the wealth to pay for services themselves.

Good point, and I'm glad that things like this are done locally. Now let's fund them voluntarily and/or privately. I also think that health and education can work just as well locally, and by donation for the people who cannot afford it. Rather than through taxation in a one-size-fits-all school program that is designed to mould our kids someone else's liking. We will have more of a say because we will be closer to the people who are in charge in a less-centralized system.

I can give you hundreds of examples of societies (past and present) where the rich do not give a damn about the poor and are perfectly happy to trade goods between themselves and build walls and jails to keep the poor away.

You are most likely referring to times such as the monarchies/oligarchies/aristocracies throughout Europe's history. But times have changed, at least in modern North American society--as well as in many places throughout the world. We have changed mostly in the fact that we have a very prominent and competitive system of capitalism today, in which most industries rely on lower to middle class consumers in order to survive. McDonalds, for instance, does not cater to the rich. And yet it is rich itself. Companies like this wouldn't think of 'keeping the poor away', and there are many more like it.

A smart economist would want to keep money flowing--to all people, rich and poor alike. That's the only way his products are going to keep moving. Many private companies have alread contributed greatly to their communities. This is done partly for their own benefit of course, for good publicity. But the fact remains that it benefits all people. Not just the rich.

Another thing is that today we do not exclude anyone from the economic pie--If you want to get rich, you can. Whether you're black or white or from beverly hills or from the slums. Everyone has an equal chance of putting on a happy face, getting a job, making and saving money, and then going to school, and then getting an even better job and making even more money. There are too many rags to riches stories for me to doubt that true capitalism works, and that there's plenty of money out there for those who are willing to seek it.

However, you seem to think that humans will suddenly become saints.

In the competitive world we live in today, you pretty much have to be a saint. It's all about the customer courtesy.

Communism was social system that depended on people volunteering to contribute their labour for the common good. This system failed miserably because humans are naturally selfish creatures who will look after themselves first and justify (in their own mind at least) why their actions are reasonable. The system you propose is flawed for the same reasons.

I disagree-- It's true that in order for communism to work there has to be some cooperation, but that didn't happen because they had a government that tried to force their cooperation. In my idealogy people are expected to cooperate, not out of force, but out of a need to survive as individuals. If people choose not to cooperate, it will be their own natural demise. Communism worked to serve the group, and as a group they failed. Libertarianism works to serve the individual--whether that individual will succeed or fail--that's up to them. But, like I say, they won't be without voluntary help.

[Riverwind]

ClearWest,

1) In our society the majority of people choose a lifestyle that consumes most of the income they earn. That is why so many people have problems putting money away for retirement. Even if we assume that people will actually end up with more money in their pocket (something I dispute), you will find that people will spend that extra money on themselves first paying for things that they believe they need such as bigger house or a better car. Making voluntary donations will be very low on their priority list.

2) People in North America are already guilty of ignoring the poor. Look at the inner cities in the US. Look at the wall being built across the US-Mexico border. Businesses don't give a damn about these poor people because they have no money. So your logic that the capitalist system will encourage businesses to invest in the poor is flat out wrong. The multinational drug companies are perhaps the best example of this. These companies spend all of their money researching lifestyle drugs like Viagra that they can sell to rich people. They see no money in developing drugs to combat diseases that affect poor people like malaria despite the fact that these diseases kill millions of potential customers every year.

3) Our system already allows school boards to set up different kinds of schools to meet local needs - my local school board offers at least three different types of elementary and high school programs. So I don't see that there is any problem that needs solving in this case.

[Montgomery Burns]

Riverwind:

They see no money in developing drugs to combat diseases that affect poor people like malaria...

It was you leftists that got DDT banned.

[Riverwind]

It was you leftists that got DDT banned.

You really need to get over this obession with a world divided between rightist and leftists. Most people's opinions are too complex to be placed on a 2 dimensional axis.

[ClearWest]

1) In our society the majority of people choose a lifestyle that consumes most of the income they earn. That is why so many people have problems putting money away for retirement. Even if we assume that people will actually end up with more money in their pocket (something I dispute), you will find that people will spend that extra money on themselves first paying for things that they believe they need such as bigger house or a better car. Making voluntary donations will be very low on their priority list.

I agree--You make a good point. And it's very unfortunate. But that doesn't mean that government should manage people's money for them. About the retirement thing, people will go through private companies for their retirement plans. If they don't, well, that's a poor economic decision on their part and they will see the consequences of that. Governments shouldn't try to remove consequences from poor decisions.

As for the donations--People already donate to charities as it is right now even with high taxation. With more money to spend, hopefully, they will donate more. But, as you said, and I agree--It doesn't always work that way. However, the government will do all we can to encourage people to donate voluntarily, just as government today encourages people to quit smoking. That's the only fair way to do it without force.

2) People in North America are already guilty of ignoring the poor. Look at the inner cities in the US. Look at the wall being built across the US-Mexico border. Businesses don't give a damn about these poor people because they have no money. So your logic that the capitalist system will encourage businesses to invest in the poor is flat out wrong. The multinational drug companies are perhaps the best example of this. These companies spend all of their money researching lifestyle drugs like Viagra that they can sell to rich people. They see no money in developing drugs to combat diseases that affect poor people like malaria despite the fact that these diseases kill millions of potential customers every year.

Drug companies in this case are out to make a profit, which is understandable. There will be other groups which will seek help for fighting diseases such as malaria, without incentive for profit. I'm not saying I expect every transnational corporation to be generous and giving--However, we see that most do help. I would rather have a hospital funded partially in donations from Pepsi than a hospital funded by taking citizen's money without their consent.

3) Our system already allows school boards to set up different kinds of schools to meet local needs - my local school board offers at least three different types of elementary and high school programs. So I don't see that there is any problem that needs solving in this case.

That's very true in my area as well. What I meant by 'one-size-fits-all' is that the curriculum is generally the same for every student province-wide. Everyone is required to learn whatever the government thinks they should learn. In a way it's like a command economy, only the commodity that is being directed is human labour. And again, the main problem here is the funded-by-taxation bit.

Under my system, people would observe the demands of the market, and at their own assessment of their personal aptitude, and then decide what they need to learn, and what they want to become. With no influence from any entity, no matter how democratic it may be. Then they would choose a school and pay for their own education. (Those who cannot afford to pay can go to a private group for a loan or for a donation).

Leo Tolstoy once said: "Who has the right to educate?" His answer was: "Nobody." He felt that whoever had the right to educate had the power to mould and shape the minds of future generations. It should be up to the individual to decide his or her own education. And for the very young, it should be the parent's responsibility.

[Riverwind]

However, the government will do all we can to encourage people to donate voluntarily, just as government today encourages people to quit smoking. That's the only fair way to do it without force.

You have a strange definition of fair. From my perspective (and the perspective of a lot of other people) the only fair system is a system that ensures everyone contribute towards things which are best financed collectively. A system that allows selfish people to evade their responsibility to society is extremely unfair.

I would rather have a hospital funded partially in donations from Pepsi than a hospital funded by taking citizen's money without their consent.

I don't trust companies to look after the public interest because companies have only one purpose: make a profit. Would a hospital funded by Pepsi be allowed to conduct research into the effect of soda on childhood obesity? I doubt it. There are always conflicts of interest when companies get involved in charitable tasks which is why we cannot have a system that is totally dependent on corporate donations.

BTW. Everyone consents to pay taxes when they choose to reside in the territory controlled by the gov't that levies the taxes. If someone does not wish pay the taxes they always have the option of moving somewhere else.

What I meant by 'one-size-fits-all' is that the curriculum is generally the same for every student province-wide. Everyone is required to learn whatever the government thinks they should learn.

So? School does not consume 24 hours a day. If someone wishes to learn other material they have plenty of time to do so. Societies with free universal education are wealthier so it is not in the long term interest of society to allow people to grow up without basic skills.

I see school as the minimum education requirement for my kids and have them involved in a number of other activities to make sure they learn the things that I feel are important. In other words, I don't see any need to discard the system we have already because I already have all of the options I need available.

[Michael Hardner]

Governments shouldn't try to remove consequences from poor decisions.

Government shouldn't do this at all ?

I disagree. I'd rather have legislation protecting the stupid than have to see them rotting on the street as the result of their stupidity.

I would rather have a hospital funded partially in donations from Pepsi than a hospital funded by taking citizen's money without their consent.

It sounds good, but it's not practical. The mostly private system in the US costs much more and covers less services.

[ClearWest]

From my perspective (and the perspective of a lot of other people) the only fair system is a system that ensures everyone contribute towards things which are best financed collectively. A system that allows selfish people to evade their responsibility to society is extremely unfair.

The thing is that people have different ideas of what the 'responsibility to society' ought to be. Some feel that you should fight to protect your country, so they introduce the draft. Some people feel that you should contribute to the public school system, so they introduce taxes. Faschism and Socialism right there. Then within those there are subcategories--Like what we are seeing within our own socialist system. Some people feel that we should all collectively contribute to keep a museum running that can't afford to survive on a commercial basis. Others don't.

Whose idea of responsibility to society are we following? The most fair way is to let people individually decide their responsibility to society. That's why I don't believe in democracy--"Majority rules", everyone else has to conform.

BTW. Everyone consents to pay taxes when they choose to reside in the territory controlled by the gov't that levies the taxes. If someone does not wish pay the taxes they always have the option of moving somewhere else.

I was born here--I didn't have a choice over that. And looking at the map right now it doesn't look like there is an appropriately privatized society for me to move to. That's why I'm supporting libertarianism within Canada--Hoping that it might some day become the type of country where people have the no-strings-attatched right to life, liberty, and property--and with a non-intrusive government which fights to sustain those rights.

Until then I will continue to abide by the law, and yes, pay taxes. I'm not a rebel, but I am an individual, and I hope to be treated that way. I don't want the group to be responsible for me, and I don't want to have to be responsible for the group. That's fine that you believe in socialism--I believe in helping people too--but I don't want my life/liberty/property taken from me in order to provide for the group. I want my contributions to be voluntary. If I want to die for my country (or some other entity), I will. If I want to sacrifice some of my paycheck to help someone in need, I will. "But I will not be constrained..."

[Riverwind]

Whose idea of responsibility to society are we following? The most fair way is to let people individually decide their responsibility to society. That's why I don't believe in democracy--"Majority rules", everyone else has to conform.

Let's say you lived on a street that needed major repairs (i.e. a sinkhole made the street unusable). Let's assume that everyone on that street contributed to the cost of repairs except you. In your system, your neighbors would be compelled to let yet you use the road even though you did not pay for its repair because every individual has the right to refuse to contribute if they don't want to. What happens of the neighbors then put a blockade on the road to stop you from using the road. What next? Would the police have to be called in to force your neighbors to let you be a freeloader? The system you propose is just as cohersive as the system we have now. The only difference in your system, the power of the state is used to protect the most selfish people in society. That is why I beleive such a system is unstable and would be quickly replaced with the system we have now.

[Hicksey]

The biggest obstacle to the program of voluntary donations to the government is that you would have to erase from everyone's memory all the corruption and stealing that has gone on. As jaded as Canadians of just about every political stripe are, the reality is that many would refuse to donate or donate very little.

It can't be done. As romantic as the idea seems to me I just don't see it being possible at all. Even if people would eventually come around what does the government do for funding in the meantime? Go trillions into debt?

[ClearWest]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, guys.

Under usual circumstances, people living on the same street with the same problem would be willing to cooperate and contribute without hesitation--but I do agree that cases like that would come up. They could always take it to court, and then it's the judge's decision. Some may feel that because he benefitted from the work, he should pay part of the pricetag. But I'm sticking to the principle of non-force--because most groups or governments take it much further than a sinkhole needing fixing. Then they'll go on to things like the art gallery needs funding, everyone pitch in. Well, what if someone doesn't want to help out the art gallery?

And that's a good point, Hicksey--it would take a while to get going. The process would be a very slow one indeed, especially seeing as how the Libertarian Party probably won't have even one seat until many years in the future. It would be a gradual process of privatization and tax cutting.

[Riverwind]

Some may feel that because he benefitted from the work, he should pay part of the pricetag. But I'm sticking to the principle of non-force--because most groups or governments take it much further than a sinkhole needing fixing.

Can't you see the complete contradiction in your own arguments? One minute you say contributions should be non forced and the next minute you say contributions should be forced if a judges decides someone benefits unfairly. The system you propose would be an absolute nightmare with people constantly squabbling in court over whether someone is paying their fair say towards common infrastructure.

My feeling is every system will have some element of unfairness and we have to live with it. The system that we have now may not be perfectly fair to everyone but it manages to make to best compromise between fairness and a society that functions effectively.

And that's a good point, Hicksey--it would take a while to get going. The process would be a very slow one indeed, especially seeing as how the Libertarian Party probably won't have even one seat until many years in the future. It would be a gradual process of privatization and tax cutting.

If you look at the US you find a lot of people that pay lip service to the idea of smaller gov't and lower taxes, however, when it comes time to actually cut programs you often that see people are not willing to pay the price. Most people are happy with the system the way it is and will never be that interested in major structural changes.

[ClearWest]

Can't you see the complete contradiction in your own arguments? One minute you say contributions should be non forced and the next minute you say contributions should be forced if a judges decides someone benefits unfairly.

Perhaps I should have left out the judge bit--I was attempting to be sympathetic to your proposed scenario. Notice that after I said a judge might try to do that I said that I would disagree with it--based on the principle of non-force. I guess I didn't make that clear.

If you look at the US you find a lot of people that pay lip service to the idea of smaller gov't and lower taxes, however, when it comes time to actually cut programs you often that see people are not willing to pay the price. Most people are happy with the system the way it is and will never be that interested in major structural changes.

A lot of people on welfare like welfare. A lot of wolves like to eat sheep. That doesn't mean it's right to take from one to feed the other. I hope people will begin to realize that, so that one day it will be possible to make a major structural change. People will one day realize that they are individuals who have merely been enslaved by a forced collectivity. If people choose to live collectively, so be it. Just give them the choice.

A wise man once said, in dispute of marxism, "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained". (This is also currently my signature, but in case it has changed, I decided to post it here).

No one but me should decide where my money goes--even if it's no skin off my back to chip in a couple of dollars. If I want you to use my money, I'll give it to you.

[Mimas]

Privatize everything, so Income taxes would not be needed. GST gone.

Id rather pay $200 to a see a doctor then see 40% of my paycheck go to taxes, that help f'in bums and teenage mothers.

You should form your opinions based on facts rather than prejudices.

40% of your income doesn't go to bums, it goes towards the commonwealth that decides the best way to spend it. You should do your part within that framework and inform yourself if you're unhappy with how it works.

Bums are lazy when it comes to working, ignoramuses are lazy when it comes to thinking.

Don't you dare preach to me Commie, I know how you left leaning assholes think. You want the governement to take your money and decide what to do with it!!! thats bullshit. Thats communism in a nutshell, and I for one say "screw that"

I quote the voice of metal, Ronnie James Dio: "The stronger the government gets, the weaker the people get. You let them take one penny, the wolves return for more. If you let a man set fire to your home, would u lead him to your neighbour? Stop telling me how it should be, I already see what it is"

Now thats poetry!!

Ok, "smarty". Why don't you take that big mouth of yours to Africa (third world that is) to see how well things work when there are no taxes. Strangely enough, the higher taxes are the better off and the more developed a country is and the lower the taxes-the shittier the country. You may think you already see what it is, but the reality is that you can't see further away from right under your ignorant nose.

[Mimas]

I would eliminate corporate welfare and limit personal welfare to 10 months a year.

Corporate Welfare

The market will take up the slack if we let a company go do and we'll end up with several stronger smaller companies for it. We'll save billions even after the unemployment payments.

Personal Weflare

Welfare has become a vocation in this country and it sickens me to death. As such I would make only 10 months of assitance available per calendar year. There is plenty of seasonal work in this country, there's no excuse an able bodied person can't work for two months a year. Those that cannot work do not belong on welfare and should be on either temporary or permanent disability. To encourage people to work, recipients would no longer be penalized the next month for making more money than they were due to receive this month. You make it, you keep it. We want people to reap the benefits of working and see how much better off they can be.

This program would eliminate about 13% of the budget and wouldn't hurt a soul.

If you are to take away Personal Welfare, why don't you take away Old Age Security? OAS is close to $6,000 of tax free cash that seniors get just for being 65 or older. Personal welfare costs approx $3 billion nationwide, while OAS costs about $20 billion or 7 times as much. Why the hell am I paying taxes so that some snowbird with income higher than my own, can spend my taxes in a foreign country? At least welfare recipients spend it here.