Taxes

[Renegade]

Excellent post, Renegade.

Thanks BHS. Haven't seen you posting for a while, so if you've been away, welcome back.

[rbacon]

Equalization is basic communism, and you are seeing the collapse of Canadian style communism..Started by Trudeau 40 years ago..It has taken awhile to catch up but the end is near...Canadians need smaller government.. Smaller government equals lower taxes equals the ability to take care of yourself... Taxes have risen over %1500 since the 1960's... Taxes today consume more of the working class budget than food, shelter, clothing and transportation combined.. Forty percent of the workers in Canada work for some level of government or another.. We need smaller government.. We need to slash government programs and we need deep and sustained tax cuts... Ottawa now operates some 1600 programs all funded by the taxpayer... Most of these programs are in Provincial Jurisdiction causing an increased tax burden through overlap..Canadians are over regulated... In Canada today the taxpayer suffers under a burden of over 550,000 PAGES of laws rules and regulations.. That is a stack of paper over 10 stories high.. That eats up wealth and taxdollars.. That paper has to be maintained by fat cat civil servants at union scale.. As to thinking that you can seize Alberta assets to maintain socialism in the east.. What are you smoking? Alberta is the only thing keeping you alive in the east.. The demand for machinery and material from the east is raising the standard of living all over Canada. The Loonie has become a Petrodollar thanks to Alberta.. The TSE would be flat right now except for Alberta.. And equalization is negotiated every 4 years maybe Albertans will decide to opt out of that too.. Ralph the Liberal just got the boot here in Alberta. Hopefully Ted Morton will take over and start shedding Ottawa programs like CPP and U/I... Alberta could boot out the RCMP, start collecting our own taxes and dole the money out to Ottawa exactly as the BNA says... Be careful what you wish for..

[BubberMiley]

Ever try a paragraph return?

[Riverwind]

Ever try a paragraph return?

New lines must be a communist technology.....

[rbacon]

Why should I are you a school teacher? That's the problem with Canadians.. They are getting screwed and they like it... 90% of Canadians are gutless sheep who have no problem with Big brother changing their diapers for them... That is why when your wives complain that they have no money instead of demanding that the government lower taxes so you can take care of your family better... You demand more government programs... Last year in the MSM it was reported that some 850,000 working Canadian families now use food banks each month to stretch their paycheques... Canadians pay more in taxes than they do for food, shelter and clothing the necessities of life and still they mewl and baaa like sheep for more government, programs. And the government obliges and confiscates more of your property... Cut taxes deeply cut government, cut spending cut programs and lay off or fire as many government workers as possible... Get Ottawa out of Provincial Jurisdiction which will cut taxes...

[geoffrey]

Why should I are you a school teacher?

Because your posts are incoherent otherwise and no one is likely to read anything formatted in such a way.

[ClearWest]

Why should I are you a school teacher?

Because your posts are incoherent otherwise and no one is likely to read anything formatted in such a way.

Other than that, I heartily agree with you, Rbacon. I assume you're a Libertarian? That is the steps that I would want the government to take as well. Downsize. Stop expanding your empire and your monopoly over our lives.

What started with collectively paying for basic infrastructure became collectively paying for education. Soon we were collectively paying for healthcare (thanks, Mr Douglas), collectively paying for media (CBC), collectively paying for car insurance. And now the future is that we will be collectively paying for daycare, real estate, groceries--and everything we do will be through the government.

In the USSR it happened with a revolution. In Canada it is happening piece by piece.

I think it can be done differently. Voluntarily.

[Riverwind]

I think it can be done differently. Voluntarily.

I have never understood the absolute hatred of gov't that comes from some people. Gov't exists in every society today because it is the most effective way to organize a large society of human beings. We have arrived at this point through a process of darwinian evolution over thousands of years. If it was possible to do it another way we would see many examples of successful societies using that 'other way' to organize their affairs.

That said, gov't, like any other large institution, tends to have a life of its own and starts doing things that it should not be doing. So periodic house cleanings are required. That is perhaps the biggest virtue of the democratic system because it provides an efficient way to do these housecleanings.

However, a housecleaning does not mean radical reform. I think we are pretty close to the ideal mix between gov't and private sector in Canada. The most burning is issue I see is the need to get rid of overlapping gov't juristications. I don't particularily care which level of gov't provides a most services - as long as it is only one level.

I also think we need to gov't to focus on being a insurance provider rather than a service delivery organization. I don't see the need to have gov't run hospitals provided the gov't underwrites the cost of the basic health insurance.

[Renegade]

That said, gov't, like any other large institution, tends to have a life of its own and starts doing things that it should not be doing. So periodic house cleanings are required. That is perhaps the biggest virtue of the democratic system because it provides an efficient way to do these housecleanings.

However, a housecleaning does not mean radical reform.

I would dispute that simple housecleaning is enough. An election is an effiective way to change the personel involved but doesn't change the structure or power. Sometimes a more radical approach is required. Suppose we wanted to eliminate the senate, or change the federal/provincial power balance. It is not very easy in our current democratic system.

[shoop]

Those things shouldn't be easy. Neither should changing the constitution.

If they really need to be changed there should be not only the political will for change, but also agreement on what would better take its place. Unfortunately, we don't have that agreement yet, on Senate reform for example, so the change is not forthcoming.

I would dispute that simple housecleaning is enough. An election is an effiective way to change the personel involved but doesn't change the structure or power. Sometimes a more radical approach is required. Suppose we wanted to eliminate the senate, or change the federal/provincial power balance. It is not very easy in our current democratic system.

[ClearWest]

I have never understood the absolute hatred of gov't that comes from some people. Gov't exists in every society today because it is the most effective way to organize a large society of human beings. We have arrived at this point through a process of darwinian evolution over thousands of years. If it was possible to do it another way we would see many examples of successful societies using that 'other way' to organize their affairs.

I don't hate government. I just think they should ask my personal opinion about whether or not I want to be a part of their system, rather than asking the majority whether or not I should be a part of their system. Democracy VS Libertarianism.

Within Libertarianism, people can still govern themselves. They can still be governed if that's how they choose to live their lives. They just can't force others to be governed. That's what I mean by voluntarily, you can be governed if you want to be.

That said, gov't, like any other large institution, tends to have a life of its own and starts doing things that it should not be doing. So periodic house cleanings are required. That is perhaps the biggest virtue of the democratic system because it provides an efficient way to do these housecleanings.

It's an even better virtue within Libertarianism. Because in Democracy there can still be a minority who disagrees with a decision, but they're forced to go along with it. In Libertarianism, everyone can go their own way as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. (Life, Liberty, and Property)

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." (No, I'm not implying violent rebellion, I'm implying standing up for your liberty)

However, a housecleaning does not mean radical reform. I think we are pretty close to the ideal mix between gov't and private sector in Canada.

But it's a constant tug-of-war between privatization and socialism. My fear is that socialism will win, and we'll soon find ourselves the pawns in Jack Layton's fantasy revival of the soviet socialist republic.

I also think we need to gov't to focus on being a insurance provider rather than a service delivery organization. I don't see the need to have gov't run hospitals provided the gov't underwrites the cost of the basic health insurance.

I agree with your premise, but I would also take it a step further, because I see a problem with the government using OUR money to pay for our insurance. Or worse yet, using someone else's money to pay for our insurance. Let's let buying insurance be up to the individual.

[BubberMiley]

In Winnipeg, if we didn't have a strong government to organize a major public works project like the Red River Floodway, the city would have been flooded several times at a cost of billions of dollars. There is no way to finance a project like that in the private realm, and it has been a blessing that we had the foresight to tax and spend to protect ourselves and future generations.

[Riverwind]

In Winnipeg, if we didn't have a strong government to organize a major public works project like the Red River Floodway, the city would have been flooded several times at a cost of billions of dollars. There is no way to finance a project like that in the private realm, and it has been a blessing that we had the foresight to tax and spend to protect ourselves and future generations.

More importantly, the floodway could have never been built if the gov't did't have the power to force farmers to sell the land required.

[geoffrey]

Libertarianism has a major flaw. Would you be ok with opting out of using all roads, sewers, electricity lines, ect. if you weren't pleased with buying in?

People that can buy-in to the programs they like and opt out of the others really have having their cake and eatting it too. It's a ridiculous concept. Rule of law and government is neccessary in a civilised nation, you can't just opt out of society and still expect to live in it.

Now about government downsizing and all that... I support. I'm a libertarian up until the point where it starts getting extremist, I view them in the same light at communist folks... completely unrealistic and irrational.

[ClearWest]

In Winnipeg, if we didn't have a strong government to organize a major public works project like the Red River Floodway, the city would have been flooded several times at a cost of billions of dollars. There is no way to finance a project like that in the private realm, and it has been a blessing that we had the foresight to tax and spend to protect ourselves and future generations.

In that case, in a Libertarian society. You would raise awareness throughout the city, and get people to sign on to support your cause. If people really care they will try to help out. If people don't care, then is it really a democracy? Or are we just being ruled by the beurocrats who know what's best for us.

People that can buy-in to the programs they like and opt out of the others really have having their cake and eatting it too. It's a ridiculous concept. Rule of law and government is neccessary in a civilised nation, you can't just opt out of society and still expect to live in it.

Libertarianism doesn't mean everyone is going to be a recluse. It does mean, however, that people will be able to choose where they spend their money--rather than that decision being made for them.

[Riverwind]

If people don't care, then is it really a democracy? Or are we just being ruled by the beurocrats who know what's best for us.

I hire specialists to do all sorts of jobs that require skills and knowledge that I don't have the time to acquire. Nor do I have the time to micromanage them and second guess everything they do. I see no difference between that and hiring qualified bucreaucrats to make decisions about public infrastructure. In both cases, periodic performance reviews are all that is necessary.

[Canuck E Stan]

It does mean, however, that people will be able to choose where they spend their money--rather than that decision being made for them.

And what happens when everyone wants to spend their money on the same issue? What happens to the issues that get left behind without any financial support? What happens to those that need help in other areas when there is no help from others or money for their causes?

[ClearWest]

I hire specialists to do all sorts of jobs that require skills and knowledge that I don't have the time to acquire. Nor do I have the time to micromanage them and second guess everything they do. I see no difference between that and hiring qualified bucreaucrats to make decisions about public infrastructure. In both cases, periodic performance reviews are all that is necessary.

The difference is that with a specialist, you usually appoint them. Or at least give them your consent. With beurocrats, they are usually either voted in by a majority (not necessarily you giving your consent. Although I do applaud the democratic system for trying to be fair, it is not always fair to the 1 of 3 that didn't want that particular beurocrat to do his work).

Performance reviews done by who? Another government beurocrat I suppose.

And what happens when everyone wants to spend their money on the same issue? What happens to the issues that get left behind without any financial support? What happens to those that need help in other areas when there is no help from others or money for their causes?

Good questions, and you're right to explore them--When everyone wants to spend their money on the same issue, then voila! You have voluntary cooperation, and you're likely to get a lot of stuff done with everybody feeling good about it.

The issues that get left behind without any financial support; If people aren't contributing then they seem to have higher priorities than the cause--That's not to say that I don't disagree with the people who put themselves before others. I just don't feel that government should be in any position to set someone else's priorities.

There is always help for those that need it-- And I think that a world where people help each other voluntarily rather than out of obligation will be a much friendlier and charitable world. Many disagree with me--we've had this debate before on the forums. People do care--That's obvious will all the people out there trying to raise awareness for their cause. And all the people making contributions to help with that cause.

Instead of taking these causes to government--take these causes to the people directly! It takes governments years to finally realize that there's a problem, and then when they decide to try and solve it, they end up making it worse. The best way to go is to solve problems by voluntary means, talking to people, informing them, helping people on your own time.

[margrace]

It does mean, however, that people will be able to choose where they spend their money--rather than that decision being made for them.

And what happens when everyone wants to spend their money on the same issue? What happens to the issues that get left behind without any financial support? What happens to those that need help in other areas when there is no help from others or money for their causes?

Sitting in our home in the mid north of Ontario, we see no reason to spend the massive amount of money in Southern Ontario to pave good farmland so silly people in love with their cars can drive them without the grid lock.

However is that a viable concern, we don't have to go to Toronto to work each day.

[Riverwind]

Sitting in our home in the mid north of Ontario, we see no reason to spend the massive amount of money in Southern Ontario to pave good farmland so silly people in love with their cars can drive them without the grid lock.

Maybe because the wealth generated by economic activity in Toronto pays for most of the government services that you do use.

[Renegade]

Libertarianism has a major flaw. Would you be ok with opting out of using all roads, sewers, electricity lines, ect. if you weren't pleased with buying in?

Absolutely you should be able to opt out. Isn't that what toll roads are? If you opt out of paying you opt out of using. Similarly for the infrastructure such as sewers, electricity etc. Even with private infrastructure such as telephone lines or internet you can opt out of the service.

If more services were structured along a pay-for-use model, it allows society to allocate cost to those who actually benefit from the infrastructure.

[Renegade]

Sitting in our home in the mid north of Ontario, we see no reason to spend the massive amount of money in Southern Ontario to pave good farmland so silly people in love with their cars can drive them without the grid lock.

However is that a viable concern, we don't have to go to Toronto to work each day.

Interesting how some of the same posters who expect Southen Ontario to fund their OAS and healthcare, are the ones who don't want to fund the roads in Southern Ontario when they don't use them.

[Renegade]

Those things shouldn't be easy. Neither should changing the constitution.

If they really need to be changed there should be not only the political will for change, but also agreement on what would better take its place. Unfortunately, we don't have that agreement yet, on Senate reform for example, so the change is not forthcoming.

We will never have that agreement IMV. Any change will have winners and losers. As long as it requires unanimity or near-unanimity, a province's self-interest will always trump the overall good. So whether it be senate reform or equalization, despite those being flawed they are too hard to change if even a minority of provinces object.

[BHS]

Libertarianism has a major flaw. Would you be ok with opting out of using all roads, sewers, electricity lines, ect. if you weren't pleased with buying in?

Absolutely you should be able to opt out. Isn't that what toll roads are? If you opt out of paying you opt out of using. Similarly for the infrastructure such as sewers, electricity etc. Even with private infrastructure such as telephone lines or internet you can opt out of the service.

If more services were structured along a pay-for-use model, it allows society to allocate cost to those who actually benefit from the infrastructure.

I couldn't quite follow what you meant by the sentence "Similarly...electricity etc." so forgive me if I'm reiterating your point.

Where I live, both water and sewer services are already pay-per-use. Water is metered - the consumer pays by the gallon. Then your four month water bill is doubled to cover the cost of maintaining sewers, based on the idea that the water that goes into your house has to come back out and the most likely egress is the big stinky drain.

I think geoffrey is confusing mono infrastructure with monopoly service provision. After all, there is only one phone line, gas line, sewer line, electricty line, water line, cable line etc. going into the average home. But as you've pointed out, most of that infrastructure can be currently be passed from competing provider to competing provider based on consumer demand. And there's no reason why those things that the government still monopolizes couldn't be treated the same way. Where I live garbage collection and landfill is carried out by a private company under contract with the city. Water and sewage could be too, except the city actually does a pretty good job of providing those services. I'm not complaining.

[Riverwind]

Water and sewage could be too, except the city actually does a pretty good job of providing those services. I'm not complaining.

A for profit company has no incentive to reduce consumption because more consumption means more 'sales'. Fresh water will be a incredibly valuable resource in the future which, unlike oil, cannot be replaced by alternate sources so it makes sense to have it managed by a non-profit organization which can make decisions based on what is good for society as a whole instead of what is good for stock holders