Taxes

[justcrowing]

Taxes! At first I thought this was funny... Then, I realized "How

True it is!!"

Tax his land,

Tax his wage,

Tax his bed in which he lays.

Tax his tractor,

Tax his mule,

Teach him taxes is the rule.

Tax his cow,

Tax his goat,

Tax his pants,

Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,

Tax his shirts,

Tax his work,

Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,

Tax his drink,

Tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his booze,

Tax his beers,

If he cries,

Tax his tears.

Tax his bills,

Tax his gas,

Tax his notes,

Tax his cash.

Tax him good and let him know

That after taxes, he has no dough.

If he hollers,

Tax him more,

Tax him 'til he's good and sore.

Tax his coffin,

Tax his grave,

Tax the sod in which he lays.

Put these words upon his tomb,

"Taxes drove me to my doom!"

And when he's gone,

We won't relax,

We'll still be after the inheritance TAX!!

Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

CDL License Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Dog License Tax

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel Permit Tax

Gasoline Tax

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax

Inventory Tax

Income Tax Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),

Income Tax Penalties (tax on top of tax),

Liquor Tax,

Luxury Tax,

Marriage License Tax,

Medicare Tax,

Property Tax,

Real Estate Tax,

Service charge taxes,

Social Security Tax,

Road Usage Tax (Truckers),

Sales Taxes,

Recreational Vehicle Tax,

School Tax,

State Income Tax,

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),

Telephone Federal Excise Tax,

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,

Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,

Telephone Usage Charge Tax,

Utility Tax,

Vehicle License Registration Tax,

Vehicle Sales Tax,

Watercraft Registration Tax,

Well Permit Tax,

Workers Compensation Tax.

COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and there was

prosperity, absolutely no national debt, the largest middle class in the

world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?????

[August1991]

Ah yes, 30 April.

You may say that it's unpleasant to pay taxes, but I could say that it's alot of fun to collect them. That is, it's fun to spend the money collected in taxes.

To speak only about taxes, and not speak about government spending, is like only pointing to a restaurant bill without noticing the people around the table who ate the meal. If there were no government spending, there would be no taxes.

It is elementary logic to consider the cause rather than the effect. Government spending is the cause, taxes are the effect.

[Wilber]

It is elementary logic to consider the cause rather than the effect. Government spending is the cause, taxes are the effect.

Spending up over 40% in the past four years I understand. Wish I could do that. Guess I am, on taxes.

[BubberMiley]

My tax bill was $42,000 this year, and it was worth every cent.

[geoffrey]

Ah yes, 30 April.

You may say that it's unpleasant to pay taxes, but I could say that it's alot of fun to collect them. That is, it's fun to spend the money collected in taxes.

To speak only about taxes, and not speak about government spending, is like only pointing to a restaurant bill without noticing the people around the table who ate the meal. If there was no government spending, there would be no taxes.

It is elementary logic to consider the cause rather than the effect. Government spending is the cause, taxes are the effect.

I, again, somewhat disagree. It's a tax and spend mentality that has caused the problem. You and I definitely agree that spending cutbacks is a solution, same page there.

But the whole attitude of if it moves, tax it, if it doesn't, tax it more is the problem. Governments with surpluses are those that tax too much, spending doesn't play into that.

Less spending, less surplus, less taxes, more money for Canadians. I'd be comfortable running on that platform as an independant... if I wasn't in Harper's riding (even though he doesn't live here).

[ClearWest]

It is elementary logic to consider the cause rather than the effect. Government spending is the cause, taxes are the effect.

Then let's cut back on the cause. We shouldn't have to provide people with health insurance, education, or pensions. It should be available for people to obtain on their own. We shouldn't have to subsidize artists and businesses that can't get by on their own. People can take care of themselves without a nanny state looking after them! It is possible! We need to wean ourselves off of the dependency that we have trapped ourselves in--and that is the dependency on socialism.

[Riverwind]

We shouldn't have to provide people with health insurance, education, or pensions. It should be available for people to obtain on their own.

We used to have a society where everyone was left to fend for themselves. Charles Dickens has written many books that describe what that kind of society looks like. These social programs exist because we, as a society, have decided that we don't like the Dickensian society.

We need to wean ourselves off of the dependency that we have trapped ourselves in--and that is the dependency on socialism.

What dependency? The standard of living in our society has never been higher. Innovation and entrepreneurship are alive and well. I think we have found the right balance between socialism and a free market. As they say: 'if it ain't broke don't fix it".

[geoffrey]

We shouldn't have to provide people with health insurance, education, or pensions. It should be available for people to obtain on their own.

We used to have a society where everyone was left to fend for themselves. Charles Dickens has written many books that describe what that kind of society looks like. These social programs exist because we, as a society, have decided that we don't like the Dickensian society.

We need to wean ourselves off of the dependency that we have trapped ourselves in--and that is the dependency on socialism.

What dependency? The standard of living in our society has never been higher. Innovation and entrepreneurship are alive and well. I think we have found the right balance between socialism and a free market. As they say: 'if it ain't broke don't fix it".

It's horribly broken.

Unemployment is higher than ever (as a trend in recent times, not currently due to Alberta oil wealth importing Maritimers), especially in Atlantic Canada. We aren't talking about social Darwinism, hardly anyone would be as bold to call late-1940's Canada an awful place to live. People got by, the did what they needed to do. Now a days, at the first sign of trouble, people give up and resign themselves to a life of welfare.

And most of all in the 1940's they didn't expect the government to have a handful of cash at the first run of bad luck.

Now I think there is a legitimate economic argument to public insurance, in cases of health care and unemployment. But it needs to be insurance, not delivery (in health). The government should never directly provide marketable services.

I know many of you would love to go back to Trudeau days, where he attempted to nationalise the oil industry. Just keep in mind what that did to Canada. If it happens again, there is enough moola in Alberta this time that it won't be firewalls we are talking about, it will be seperation.

The government has no business in most things that it is in. Basic services that cannot be provided by a market solution are all that should be nationalised. Like Canada Post, like welfare for people with genuine physical problems. Not oil, not forestry, not health care.

There is no problem having a co-operative insurance system provided by the government so no one gets left behind by health care. All leftover monies would be returned to the taxpayer. But it wouldn't be provided by a tax funded system, but a payee system.

Tax and spend is the worst mentality for the way to run a countries finances. Hopefully the CPC will run a short deficit, one that can easily be covered by some minor program cuts. And believe me, there is alot of pork barrel programs that can get the boot.

[BubberMiley]

People can take care of themselves without a nanny state looking after them! It is possible!

Quote from a person who can take care of himself. Lose half your body in a car accident tomorrow, and you'll be crying that the nanny state will ensure you are poor for the rest of your life.

[scribblet]

People can take care of themselves without a nanny state looking after them! It is possible!

Quote from a person who can take care of himself. Lose half your body in a car accident tomorrow, and you'll be crying that the nanny state will ensure you are poor for the rest of your life.

There has to be a social safety net, but there is a difference between that and being in a permanent welfare state. People need a hand up, not a hand out.

[BubberMiley]

There has to be a social safety net, but there is a difference between that and being in a permanent welfare state. People need a hand up, not a hand out.

What's the difference? If someone can't work for whatever reason (mentally or physically disabled), I can't think of a more permanent situation than that.

[Renegade]

People can take care of themselves without a nanny state looking after them! It is possible!

Quote from a person who can take care of himself. Lose half your body in a car accident tomorrow, and you'll be crying that the nanny state will ensure you are poor for the rest of your life.

If it were a risk that I were to lose half my body in an accident tomorrow, do I not have some responsibility to purchase disability insurance to cover my future financial obligations?

[geoffrey]

People can take care of themselves without a nanny state looking after them! It is possible!

Quote from a person who can take care of himself. Lose half your body in a car accident tomorrow, and you'll be crying that the nanny state will ensure you are poor for the rest of your life.

If it were a risk that I were to lose half my body in an accident tomorrow, do I not have some responsibility to purchase disability insurance to cover my future financial obligations?

Insurance, insurance, insurance. If you want to survive well, buy it.

That's like those people that claim they need financial help when they don't insure their houses and then they burn down. Too bad, we should leave those types on the streets. House insurance is like $20 a month. Full health coverage is no more than $100 per person per month.

Would you drive your car without insuring it? Why would you live without insuring yourself? Do you feel your car is more important than your life/wellbeing?

Silly people that don't buy it.

[Riverwind]

If it were a risk that I were to lose half my body in an accident tomorrow, do I not have some responsibility to purchase disability insurance to cover my future financial obligations?

Sure - but insurance companies won't sell disability insurance to most people (or at least charge huge sums that most people cannot pay). This means that it makes sense to have government programs to help the disabled.

[Renegade]

If it were a risk that I were to lose half my body in an accident tomorrow, do I not have some responsibility to purchase disability insurance to cover my future financial obligations?

Sure - but insurance companies won't sell disability insurance to most people (or at least charge huge sums that most people cannot pay). This means that it makes sense to have government programs to help the disabled.

Government's don't truly cover the risk of disability in the same way insurance does so its not like the government is providing an insurance for people who can't otherwise get disability insurance. If we want to compel people to live up to financial obligations so they dont' become a burden on society, then disabilty insurance should be mandatory. Many workplaces do make it mandatory, however this isn't done at a societal level.

BTW, why do you think that insurance companies won't sell disability insurance to most people? That hasn't been my experience. I think they won't sell to a small minority who are high risk.

[rogue state]

geoffrey.

do you think can ever be a seperation from a nuclear armed Ontario, deep in the American heartland?

and the other countries won't accept a seperation of a province from Canada, because they all have similar problems with their provinces, rich provinces that want to separate from mother country.

[Riverwind]

BTW, why do you think that insurance companies won't sell disability insurance to most people? That hasn't been my experience. I think they won't sell to a small minority who are high risk.

It does not take much to be classed as 'high risk' - I know someone who was turned down because he admitted he was a downhill skier.

The problem with private insurance is there is no accountability - insurance companies are free to deny converage to anyone and are not legally obligated to justify that denial. Furthermore, once you get turned down by one company you will likely get turned down by all others because they share information.

There was a case in Ontario where an insurance company made accused a couple of burning down their own place despite the fact there was no evidence. The couple took the insurance company to court and won. However, now they cannot get insurance from any company. There are hundreds of similar stories which basically tell me that private insurance companies cannot trusted as the only means to protect people from risk - the gov't does have a role.

[BubberMiley]

Insurance companies are only out to make a profit. If someone, say, has a chronic or previous condition, they're never going to get insurance to cover it. THere are thousands of people with mental and physical disabilities who would be out rotting and spreading disease in the streets (and lowering your precious property values) if not for our social safety net. Canada has thrived because of the social and economic stability our government provides and, for that, I'm happy to pay my taxes.

[geoffrey]

geoffrey.

do you think can ever be a seperation from a nuclear armed Ontario, deep in the American heartland?

and the other countries won't accept a seperation of a province from Canada, because they all have similar problems with their provinces, rich provinces that want to separate from mother country.

Yes, Canada is such a loose federation already, I can't see why we can't go our own way. With NAFTA (besides softwood apparently) trade wouldn't be much different... and we have the money that can do it unlike Quebec. The US would love us to go, dealing with Alberta is much easier than dealing with Ottawa. We already have an Alberta embassy in Washington because of how much Ottawa has failed in representing us before.

Let's keep it on topic though. My comment on another NEP sending Alberta running was a minor part of this discussion, so lets get back on topic. I'll discuss Alberta nationalism anytime when its on topic and that's not this thread.

[Renegade]

BTW, why do you think that insurance companies won't sell disability insurance to most people? That hasn't been my experience. I think they won't sell to a small minority who are high risk.

It does not take much to be classed as 'high risk' - I know someone who was turned down because he admitted he was a downhill skier.

The problem with private insurance is there is no accountability - insurance companies are free to deny converage to anyone and are not legally obligated to justify that denial. Furthermore, once you get turned down by one company you will likely get turned down by all others because they share information.

There was a case in Ontario where an insurance company made accused a couple of burning down their own place despite the fact there was no evidence. The couple took the insurance company to court and won. However, now they cannot get insurance from any company. There are hundreds of similar stories which basically tell me that private insurance companies cannot trusted as the only means to protect people from risk - the gov't does have a role.

I can see that there are defficiencies with private insurance companies providing such coverage in the current regulatory environment, however, I dont' think that justifies throwing out the model. Either the laws and regulations can be changed to address the deficiencies you have pointed out, or the government itself can be an insurance provider for those who can't get insurance otherwise.

My point is that we are not following an insurance model for something which in my view is clearly insurance.

[Renegade]

Insurance companies are only out to make a profit.

Of course they are. That is stating the obvious. Insurance companies are no different than other companies which provide for us a valuable service for which we are willing to pay. A competitive environment is requred to ensure that there is a balance between cost to the consumer and the desire to make a profit. Not really much different in insurance than other industries.

If someone, say, has a chronic or previous condition, they're never going to get insurance to cover it. THere are thousands of people with mental and physical disabilities who would be out rotting and spreading disease in the streets (and lowering your precious property values) if not for our social safety net. Canada has thrived because of the social and economic stability our government provides and, for that, I'm happy to pay my taxes.

I don't thinik you are talking about insurance anymore. You are taking about charity. In the case you state, if someone has a chronic or previous condition and can't afford the cost of their disibility, then if falls to the charity of society to provide for them.

On a world scale many other countries have thrived (eg US, Hong Kong), without providing the same level of social services as Canadal, so if you want me to accept your supposition that Canada has thrived because of the social programs it provides, you need to provide some evidence.

[ClearWest]

Insurance companies are only out to make a profit.

So are grocery stores. But they both provide a service, and yes they should be profitting from it. Profit is the motivation for providing goods and services. If people want to provide goods and services out of the goodness of their hearts, then by all means, start a charity. Or donate to one. I would applaud your generosity. And you know what, I bet you could probably make much more of a difference if you were charitable directly rather than giving your money to the beurocrats in Ottawa to take care of the issues that are important to you. Concerned about the homeless? Make a contribution to an organization who is out to make a difference for the homeless. Don't pass legislation that says everyone must pay for the homeless.

If you're concerned that there are no charities that address your concern, then think about all the concerns that the government doesn't address. Or think about all the concerns that they handle poorly. Or think about their means of handling the concerns... Taxation. Governments shouldn't be charities. Not unless they're willing to be voluntary and optional.

[Riverwind]

Make a contribution to an organization who is out to make a difference for the homeless. Don't pass legislation that says everyone must pay for the homeless.

Everyone benefits from charity so it is not in society's interest to let the greedy and self aborbed segment of the population get way without paying their share.

[Renegade]

Make a contribution to an organization who is out to make a difference for the homeless. Don't pass legislation that says everyone must pay for the homeless.

Every benefits from charity so it is not in societies interest to let the greedy and self aborbed segment of the population get way without paying their share.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "Every[one] beneifts". How does everyone benefit? People who donate to charity because it makes them feel good. The recepients obviously benefit. Outside that, how does everyone else benefit?

[Riverwind]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "Every[one] beneifts". How does everyone benefit? People who donate to charity because it makes them feel good. The recepients obviously benefit. Outside that, how does everyone else benefit?

People in deperate circumstances do deperate things. With no access to charity the crime rate will go up as will the cost of policing and prisons.