Census Data

[Saturn]

I don't see how 1.5 can result in growth unless immigration is factored in as it takes 2 kids per couple just to replace the parents.

It takes 2 kids to replace the parents but the parents don't just die as soon as the kids are born. You typically have 3 to 4 overlapping generations, and lifespans are getting longer thus increasing the number of overlapping generations. Also, any population boom will have an augmenting effect 2-3 generations later. Because of the babyboom of the 50s and 60s, our population is still naturally growing even though women currently have only 1.5 children on average.

[Saturn]

If you want to encourage more employers to rural areas, send out manufacturing out there and drop the taxes.

Hehe! Ok, comrade. We'll put it in the next 5-year plan.

[blueblood]

If you want to encourage more employers to rural areas, send out manufacturing out there and drop the taxes.

Hehe! Ok, comrade. We'll put it in the next 5-year plan.

I wouldn't say the gov't make manufacturing go there, by send out I meant drop taxes on businesses, etc.

Being called comrade by someone who is a die hard defender of state run child care is quite funny. .

Lots of small scale manufacturing start ups couldn't get started because of oppressive tax rates. What's wrong with rural Canada having manufacturing? Does it go against your plan?

[guyser]

Does it not strike you that what you are describing is a pyramid scheme, and one which is not indefinately sustainable? Not only that, an increasing population base consumes resources and increases environmental impact. The standard of living is only sustained by the retirement community based upon taxes generated by the working population. Perhaps the solution is for the group approaching retirement and at the top of the pyramid to get used to a more realistic standard of living.

It may very well be a pyramid. But what option do we have? As the pop ages, it means (1) less people to do jobs that need done (2) less tax income for an expanding retired force (3) less tax icome for a Govt

If you have a large mfg'ing plant, and half your workers want to retire in the next 5 years, how do you plan on replacing them?

What does " retirement and ....top of the pyramid to get used to a more realistic standard of living" mean?

[blueblood]

Does it not strike you that what you are describing is a pyramid scheme, and one which is not indefinately sustainable? Not only that, an increasing population base consumes resources and increases environmental impact. The standard of living is only sustained by the retirement community based upon taxes generated by the working population. Perhaps the solution is for the group approaching retirement and at the top of the pyramid to get used to a more realistic standard of living.

It may very well be a pyramid. But what option do we have? As the pop ages, it means (1) less people to do jobs that need done (2) less tax income for an expanding retired force (3) less tax icome for a Govt

If you have a large mfg'ing plant, and half your workers want to retire in the next 5 years, how do you plan on replacing them?

What does " retirement and ....top of the pyramid to get used to a more realistic standard of living" mean?

That's a good point, allow me to play devil's advocate though. Our country has high unemployment in some parts of the country, they can pick up some slack. Maybe the population aging is a good thing as the federal gov't would have to look at their programs and make some cuts to accomodate them. Which is another reason why I think having nationalised daycare isn't a good idea as we might not be able to afford it. Another problem is that when the seniors die off, what will the people who look after them do for work?

Smart economics will get us out of this mess and I'm sure there is a plan already in place. More people also mean more expenses. I can see our country becoming much more efficient in order to deal with the retiring population.

Mind you i am not really expansionist minded though and that bias shows.

[guyser]

I wouldn't say the gov't make manufacturing go there, by send out I meant drop taxes on businesses, etc.

Being called comrade by someone who is a die hard defender of state run child care is quite funny. .

Lots of small scale manufacturing start ups couldn't get started because of oppressive tax rates. What's wrong with rural Canada having manufacturing? Does it go against your plan?

Nothing wrong with rural CDA mfg'ing. Nothing at all.

But the relief in tax rates is more than consumed by higher cost for ..waste...water...trucking/transport..inventory/stock....know what I mean?

It is just so competitive in this world, having small or medium mfg in rural areas just doesnt cut it. Now some industries can because the raw material may be located nearby thus negating the above.

[Argus]

Or we could encourage a more self-sustaining birth rate through family friendly tax policies.

I agree, our immigration, per capita, is too high.

Canada does need a larger population though. For such a huge country we need the tax base in order to properly take care of it.

Do you have any evidence on which to base that opinion? For it appears to me that Canadians were in every concievable economic measure, better off when we had a population of 20 million than we do now.

[Argus]

Or we could encourage a more self-sustaining birth rate through family friendly tax policies.

I agree, our immigration, per capita, is too high.

Canada does need a larger population though. For such a huge country we need the tax base in order to properly take care of it.

Using the tax system to encourage people to have children has not worked all that well in the nations that have tried it. It is poor policy.

Canada isn't going to suddenly go back to three or four children per family.

Tax policy alone, no, but a basket of policies to encourage young couples and make it easier to care for children has had a strong affect in some European countries.

[Argus]

I have asked before, and no one has ever provided a satisfactory answer as to why we need growth, as to how Canada is better off with 33 million than it was with 20 million, or how it will be better off with 40 million. There seems to be an absolute presumption that Canada needs to have ever more people. But no one seems to know why.

We need growth to continue the standard of living this country has, and to keep on improving it. We have a large group of people rapidly approaching retirement age, or dropping dead. As it is now, our birth rate cannot sustain that.And as the demographic gets older, then we would be in a net deficit.

This is not sustained by any demographic data I have come across. Quite the contrary, in fact. I have seen authorities in this area dismiss this argument out of hand. The actual age of immigrants is not that much different than the average age of Canadian born.

[blueblood]

I wouldn't say the gov't make manufacturing go there, by send out I meant drop taxes on businesses, etc.

Being called comrade by someone who is a die hard defender of state run child care is quite funny. .

Lots of small scale manufacturing start ups couldn't get started because of oppressive tax rates. What's wrong with rural Canada having manufacturing? Does it go against your plan?

Nothing wrong with rural CDA mfg'ing. Nothing at all.

But the relief in tax rates is more than consumed by higher cost for ..waste...water...trucking/transport..inventory/stock....know what I mean?

It is just so competitive in this world, having small or medium mfg in rural areas just doesnt cut it. Now some industries can because the raw material may be located nearby thus negating the above.

having it too centralised can cost money too, look at the auto industry, look how much it costs to send cars out west.

I was suggesting that industries move closer to raw material the whole time. does it make sense to refine oil in Southern Ontario handling it twice, or to refine it in Alberta and deliver it straight to the pumps?

[guyser]

having it too centralised can cost money too, look at the auto industry, look how much it costs to send cars out west.

Actually it is cheaper for the auto industry to ship the finished car out west than your alternative. The cost to ship the parts would eat that at twice the amount.

Magna is in S Ont and they supply a huge % of a cars bits and pieces. To ship it out west or east and then ship back the car is too cost consuming.

This is the reason that in S ONt there is Honda, Toyota, Ford , GM Chrysler .

[Saturn]

Tax policy alone, no, but a basket of policies to encourage young couples and make it easier to care for children has had a strong affect in some European countries.

Hehe! All European countries have much lower birthrates than Canada does (with the exception of Albania). Apparently that "basket" didn't work out very well. But no surprise you'd come up with something that doesn't produce any results.

[Saturn]

Do you have any evidence on which to base that opinion? For it appears to me that Canadians were in every concievable economic measure, better off when we had a population of 20 million than we do now.

You are hallucinating again. Using every conceivable economic measure Canadians are much better off now than in the 60s.

[Renegade]

It may very well be a pyramid. But what option do we have?

If you concede that it is a pyramid, you should also realize that at some point all pyramids collapse. The sooner we deal with this situation and make it a sustainable scheme the better rather than perpetuating the pyramid.

As the pop ages, it means

(1) less people to do jobs that need done

(2) less tax income for an expanding retired force

(3) less tax icome for a Govt

All three issues can be easily addressed by reducing the incentive to retire early or even retire at 65. Some of this will be done naturally as a labour shortage will also lead to increased wages and thus incent them to stay in the workforce longer. The government can also reduce the rich benefits afforded retirees, and further incent them to continue working longer.

If you have a large mfg'ing plant, and half your workers want to retire in the next 5 years, how do you plan on replacing them?

Bribe them to stay working longer or import workers or move the plant.

What does " retirement and ....top of the pyramid to get used to a more realistic standard of living" mean?

The whole pyramid scheme depends upon having an ever larger base of workers to support a smaller number of retirees. Since that larger worker base eventually retires, the problem perpetuates.

You wouldn't need this large base of workers if essentially workers paid for their own retirement benefits, instead of expecting the next working generation to pay for them. RRSPs is one example of a program which workers pay for their own retirement. CPP and healthcare are examples of programs which depend upon an ever larger contribution base to sustain programs. Implemeting sustainable programs mean benefits will have to be cut especially for the non-working population. That is what I mean by a more realistic standard of living.

Some retireees like to justify the benefits they collect (such as medicare, OAS, etc) on the basis that they contributed their whole lives. This is not really true. Most are collecting benefits far beyond their contributions. If they collected relative to what they contributed, they would be collecting far less and would not need to depend upon a larger contribution base to support them.

[blueblood]

having it too centralised can cost money too, look at the auto industry, look how much it costs to send cars out west.

Actually it is cheaper for the auto industry to ship the finished car out west than your alternative. The cost to ship the parts would eat that at twice the amount.

Magna is in S Ont and they supply a huge % of a cars bits and pieces. To ship it out west or east and then ship back the car is too cost consuming.

This is the reason that in S ONt there is Honda, Toyota, Ford , GM Chrysler .

Whoops forgot about the parts for a second. That part makes more sense. I would have contradicted myself in my previous post.

[Saturn]

Whoops forgot about the parts for a second. That part makes more sense. I would have contradicted myself in my previous post.

You did indeed. The point here is that it's far more cost effective and less risky to set up a larger business in a larger urban area than in a rural area. That's why there is more and more urbanization happening - it's the smart thing for business to do and taxes have nothing to do with it - for one you have to be profitable to pay income taxes. To be profitable, you have to set up in a city and in area with a lot of expertise in what you do. If you want to build cars, you'll set up shop in southern Ontario, planes - in Southern Quebec, computers and software - in Silicon Valley. Your software company won't do well in rural Saskatchewan and your auto parts company won't do well in Labrador.

[jdobbin]

Tax policy alone, no, but a basket of policies to encourage young couples and make it easier to care for children has had a strong affect in some European countries.

More daycare spaces?

[Saturn]

You wouldn't need this large base of workers if essentially workers paid for their own retirement benefits, instead of expecting the next working generation to pay for them. RRSPs is one example of a program which workers pay for their own retirement. CPP and healthcare are examples of programs which depend upon an ever larger contribution base to sustain programs. Implemeting sustainable programs mean benefits will have to be cut especially for the non-working population. That is what I mean by a more realistic standard of living.

The problem with this is that retirees are much more likely to vote and to be very vocal about their standard of living (they have plenty of time to make noise). Obviously the pyramid is unsustainable but they have too much power to get what they want. Although they receive a greatly preferential treatment, they keep getting more and more perks and it's only going to get worse as seniors balloon from 10 to 20% of the population in a decade.

[guyser]

Some retireees like to justify the benefits they collect (such as medicare, OAS, etc) on the basis that they contributed their whole lives. This is not really true. Most are collecting benefits far beyond their contributions. If they collected relative to what they contributed, they would be collecting far less and would not need to depend upon a larger contribution base to support them.

Frankly I have no idea what you assert is correct or not.

I do know, from experience , is that plenty of retirees do not collect what is rightfully theirs as it seems (again IMO) this current set of retirees have saved more than the next group coming up.

Not to even mention the clawbacks that they get from income investment.

I know my mother and some of her friends are loathe to take what may be coming to them. And in fact I know that healthwise , my mom would have saved many thousands of dollars if she applied for senior benefits for her eye operations and subsequent treatment.

Her reply to my query as to why she doesn't? She said she can afford to pay it , the next guy may not and to deny someone else the treatment due to her using an "available space" she would not do it (just for the record as it seems confusing--she was in on a n experimental eye treatment programme for macular degeneration-she did not "have to " pay, but did)

As for collecting "far beyond" their contributions , how can you say that? Have they not paid into this their whole lives?

[Renegade]

As for collecting "far beyond" their contributions , how can you say that? Have they not paid into this their whole lives?

If you take medicare as an example a quick estimate will show you that this is true. I'm doing some of these numbers by memory, and currently don't have the cite, however if you think any of these numbers are unreasonable please say so.

The average cost of providing medicare to someone over 65 is $10,000/year

The average lifespan is 78 years

The average working individual earns $33000/year

The average worker works for 30 years

The average taxes that individual pays is 25% of income

The provincial government spends approximately 33% of its budget on healthcare.

The provincial government collects 40% of taxes paid

Based upon these you can see that the average senior consumes:

10,000 * 13 = $130,000 of healthcare.

On average they contributed $33000 * .25 * .33 * .4 * 30 = $32,620 toward healthcare

So you can see that even if you don't include the healthcare they consumed in their working lives, they contributed nowhere near what they consume.

Even your assertion that you need a growing working population in order to support the standard of living is proof. If every individual contributed as much as they consumed (on average) why would you need a constantly increasing contribution base? You only need such a base when individually we consume more than we contribute.

[Renegade]

The problem with this is that retirees are much more likely to vote and to be very vocal about their standard of living (they have plenty of time to make noise). Obviously the pyramid is unsustainable but they have too much power to get what they want. Although they receive a greatly preferential treatment, they keep getting more and more perks and it's only going to get worse as seniors balloon from 10 to 20% of the population in a decade.

Exactly! So let's call this myth of "needing" population growth out for what it is. It is a pyramid scheme, where those on the top who benefit most, demand that it continue, so that they can continue to reap the beneifts regardless of the long term consequences.

[guyser]

If you take medicare as an example a quick estimate will show you that this is true. I'm doing some of these numbers by memory, and currently don't have the cite, however if you think any of these numbers are unreasonable please say so.

The average cost of providing medicare to someone over 65 is $10,000/year

The average lifespan is 78 years

The average working individual earns $33000/year

The average worker works for 30 years

The average taxes that individual pays is 25% of income

The provincial government spends approximately 33% of its budget on healthcare.

The provincial government collects 40% of taxes paid

Based upon these you can see that the average senior consumes:

10,000 * 13 = $130,000 of healthcare.

On average they contributed $33000 * .25 * .33 * .4 * 30 = $32,620 toward healthcare

So you can see that even if you don't include the healthcare they consumed in their working lives, they contributed nowhere near what they consume.

I wont argue the numbers. I will assume they are close to correct.

What is not accounted for in your example is that not every senior will get sick. Health in this country is treated much like insurance. We all pay into it, regardless of what we pull out.

Look at your last car accident and the costs associated with that. As an Insurance broker I can certainly tell you that one never pays in what they get out in the case of a bad accident.

This is really no different.

[guyser]

Exactly! So let's call this myth of "needing" population growth out for what it is. It is a pyramid scheme, where those on the top who benefit most, demand that it continue, so that they can continue to reap the beneifts regardless of the long term consequences.

That ignores the reasoning that as we age we are not working as much, if at all. Somebody has to fill in the blanks.

You dont plan on retiring?

[Saturn]

As for collecting "far beyond" their contributions , how can you say that? Have they not paid into this their whole lives?

Yes, they paid into the CPP 1% of their incomes their whole lives (up to a certain limit) (plus 1% from the employer) in order to receive 25% of their incomes (up to that limit) after retirement. Where can one get such a sweet deal - pay in 2% for 30 years and get 25% for 15 years. Consequently, workers are currently paying 5% of their incomes (plus 5% from the employer) to pay for those seniors' pensions. Yes, they paid into it their whole lives - but only about a third of what they should have paid. I consider that "far beyond" their contributions.

[guyser]

Yes, they paid into the CPP 1% of their incomes their whole lives (up to a certain limit) (plus 1% from the employer) in order to receive 25% of their incomes (up to that limit) after retirement. Where can one get such a sweet deal - pay in 2% for 30 years and get 25% for 15 years. Consequently, workers are currently paying 5% of their incomes (plus 5% from the employer) to pay for those seniors' pensions. Yes, they paid into it their whole lives - but only about a third of what they should have paid. I consider that "far beyond" their contributions.

Would that not be considered retroactive analysis ?