Federal Budget 2007: More & Still More Government

[Saturn]

In third world countries everyone thinks like this, yet they have the highest birthrates on the planet.

wrong, in undeveloped countries it is economically beneficial to have children to help out with the farming, fishing etc.

Ya, it would be if they didn't eat.

[White Doors]

In third world countries everyone thinks like this, yet they have the highest birthrates on the planet.

wrong, in undeveloped countries it is economically beneficial to have children to help out with the farming, fishing etc.

Ya, it would be if they didn't eat.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

[PolyNewbie]

We are right into the neoliberal agenda, more police, more security and more dependence on government.

Thats why the colleges and universities are expanding their programs in security, police & serveillance.

Machine tools are leaving the shores. We are losing the machines that make the machines that make the machines in the de industrialize process. The population loses the ability to create wealth.

Alex Jones has an excellent guest on today explaining that they are doing the exact same thing as was done in Stalinist Russia.

Soon the sycophant fascists will be tattling on their neighbors for watching or saying the wrong things and collecting rewards until someone tattles on them.

[jdobbin]

Well you seem to disagree.

Here is a link backing up my claim.

http://notapundit.wordpress.com/2007/02/05...mily-formation/

Ehrlich and Kim estimate that Social Security taxes account for more than one-quarter of the decline in U.S. fertility rates since 1950. For countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as a whole, Social Security taxes account for almost half the drop in fertility rates, the authors say

As a result, payroll taxes “diminish the incentive of individual workers to bear and invest in children, save for retirement, or generally form families altogether, because they lower the private rewards from family investments relative to alternative individual pursuits,” they say.

Higher taxes “could actually exacerbate the downward trends in key demographic variables, even if it could alleviate the financial burden on (pay-as-you-go) systems in the short run,” Ehrlich and Kim say in their paper

I would have thought it common sense that the more disposable income a family has the more likely they are to have more than one child, but I guess not...

You know I still don't see the hard evidence linking the two together. I see the words "estimate", "could actually."

The amount of children being born has been in steady decline since the the beginning of urbanization.

Some countries like Hong Kong with extremely low tax structures have few children than the U.S. does. What would account for that? Generous benefits? Hardly.

[White Doors]

Some countries like Hong Kong with extremely low tax structures have few children than the U.S. does. What would account for that? Generous benefits? Hardly

maybe the high cost of living there?

are you being obtuse on purpose?

[jdobbin]

maybe the high cost of living there?

are you being obtuse on purpose?

Why do you always act belligerent?

If that is true, why does New York have a higher fertility rate and higher cost of living compared to Hong Kong?

http://www.mercerhr.com/summary.jhtml?idContent=1142150

[Catchme]

Look, you might be able to point out taxation is lower and fertility rates are higher in the U.S. but it doesn't link the two together. It doesn't.

You are making connection with no evidence to back it up. Why is the fertility rate higher? Is it because of religion? Is it because of GDP? Is it because of taxation? Is it because of healthcare? There are so many factors.

What you have is a hypothesis. It isn't a fact.

There is a link between taxes and fertility and that link is intelligence+education. There is a strong causal relationship between smarts and fertility and a strong relationship going both ways between smarts and taxes. Pardon my lack of PC but what WD is saying is that reducing taxes will cause people to lose their brains which in turn will cause them to procreate more. While policy can make the population less smart overall, this will take decades to achieve. Dropping taxes to 0 in the EU will not cause birthrates there to increase to third world levels - not in my lifetime anyway.

Exactly saturn,

[Wilber]

Some countries like Hong Kong with extremely low tax structures have few children than the U.S. does. What would account for that? Generous benefits? Hardly.

I think it is still illegal to have more than one kid in China. Could be wrong though.

[jdobbin]

I think it is still illegal to have more than one kid in China. Could be wrong though.

The law does not apply to the Special Economic zone.

Nor would it explain why the colony had a lower birthrate when it was in British hands.

[jdobbin]

Well you seem to disagree.

Here is a link backing up my claim.

http://notapundit.wordpress.com/2007/02/05...mily-formation/

Assuming we did go with your paper here about why the U.S. has a higher fertility rate, we could say that the higher fertility rate is the result of borrowed time.

In other words, the shortfall in Social Security and yearly deficits means that there is a large tax load being pushed off into the future. Canada has dealt with both Canada Pension and the deficit and it is reflected in today's budgets.

So will Canada have the higher fertility rate when the bill comes in in the United States according to your link?

[Pat Coghlan]

If anyone thinks that families got a break with this budget, they are dreaming in Technicolor. Just like the $100 per month for children under age six was for day care, when in fact it wasn't even enough for beer and popcorn. Families now know how much of the $100 was an actual benefit after filling out their income tax and having to pay most of that money back to the "new" government. This budget is nothing but horse pucks.

The taxable aspect aside, the $100/month wasn't even that. The top-up for children under-7 was also removed from CTB payments. Result:

Nominal value (before tax) was $100/month

Taxes removed at least 1/4 of this amount

Another big chunk was lost to to reduced CTB for under-7 children

[Pat Coghlan]

I would have thought it common sense that the more disposable income a family has the more likely they are to have more than one child, but I guess not...

It is families with an at-home parent who are able to have higher number of children.

This budget does nothing to encourage this practice, ergo, the birthrate will not change.

[MBD]

of course it will help on the birthrate, because you save more money on your taxes on each child, than you get money of the childcare program.

[jdobbin]

of course it will help on the birthrate, because you save more money on your taxes on each child, than you get money of the childcare program.

Do you make the decision to have children based on how much tax credit you get on each child? At $300 a pop, would you have five on them?

[Argus]

Absolutely. Would we have this budget if the Tories had a majority? Not a chance.

So what you are saying in short is that Canadians don't really want a Conservative government... So the Conservatives offer a Liberalesque budget....

I think Canadians like a lot of the things the Conservatives stand for, and

if they thought about it, and it was explained to them, they'd like a lot more - provided it wasn't the CBC doing the explaining. But I also think a lot of Canadians have become seduced by the idea that the government is there to solve all problems, no matter the cost, to right all wrongs, and to make everyone happy. And the media is certainly a part and parcel of this. They are adamantly against tax cuts and can be counted on to run one sad story after another if money hadn't gone to education, to the disabled, to families, etc. etc. The media sees its job as pointing out ever ill in society, making people feel bad about it, and then confronting the government about why it hasn't solved that ill. Decades of this have had their affect. Needless to say, a small c conservative government budget would take a lot, a LOT of heat from them. And the Tories don't have the popularity right now to sustain that. Nor would they be able to pass a small c conservative budget.

[Argus]

proven to be false.

The USA has the only self sustaining birth rate in the G8. Coincidentally, they are also the lowest taxed.

Citation?

I don't have a citation, but he is correct. However, I don't believe taxes have anything to do with it. The US's higher birth rate, as opposed to Europe, is related more to issues like more room/cheaper housing, more - MUCH more religion, and societal expectations.

[jdobbin]

I don't have a citation, but he is correct. However, I don't believe taxes have anything to do with it. The US's higher birth rate, as opposed to Europe, is related more to issues like more room/cheaper housing, more - MUCH more religion, and societal expectations.

I don't know about cheaper housing but certainly there is a lot of different factors that lead to higher fertility rates.

It isn't all about taxation.

[Argus]

I don't have a citation, but he is correct. However, I don't believe taxes have anything to do with it. The US's higher birth rate, as opposed to Europe, is related more to issues like more room/cheaper housing, more - MUCH more religion, and societal expectations.

I don't know about cheaper housing but certainly there is a lot of different factors that lead to higher fertility rates.

It isn't all about taxation.

No, but you can play with taxation and with social policy spending to encourage higher fertility rates. France's continues to nudge up. It's getting closer to that in the US now. I believe it's now 1.95, whereas Canada's is at 1.5 and falling.

[jdobbin]

No, but you can play with taxation and with social policy spending to encourage higher fertility rates. France's continues to nudge up. It's getting closer to that in the US now. I believe it's now 1.95, whereas Canada's is at 1.5 and falling.

Every country is different. I'd be curious to the breakdown of who is having children in France and what reasons they give for the increase.

France is certainly more heavily taxed. I don't know that even with tax incentives that it matches the U.S. The question is whether it is the social policy that is doing it. Could it be that immigrants have higher amounts of children?

Until someone does more definitive work on the subject, it is speculation as to why children get born in increasing or decreasing numbers.

I don't know that Harper has even indicated that increasing fertility is a goal of Canada.

[Pat Coghlan]

Every country is different. I'd be curious to the breakdown of who is having children in France and what reasons they give for the increase.

France is certainly more heavily taxed. I don't know that even with tax incentives that it matches the U.S. The question is whether it is the social policy that is doing it. Could it be that immigrants have higher amounts of children?

Until someone does more definitive work on the subject, it is speculation as to why children get born in increasing or decreasing numbers.

I don't know that Harper has even indicated that increasing fertility is a goal of Canada.

Taxes on larger families are much lower in France because of how they are calculated, namely [family income]/[# family members].

For example, a family of 5 with an income of $100,000 is taxed as 5 individuals, each with $20,000 of income. This results in most of the family's income being taxed in the lowest tax brackets, similar to the pension-splitting scheme we now have in Canada.

[jdobbin]

Taxes on larger families are much lower in France because of how they are calculated, namely [family income]/[# family members].

For example, a family of 5 with an income of $100,000 is taxed as 5 individuals, each with $20,000 of income. This results in most of the family's income being taxed in the lowest tax brackets, similar to the pension-splitting scheme we now have in Canada.

But are those taxes lower than the U.S. rates for a family?

And are those lower tax rates supported by other child friendly measures?

http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/article8370,8370.html

[Pat Coghlan]

Taxes on larger families are much lower in France because of how they are calculated, namely [family income]/[# family members].

For example, a family of 5 with an income of $100,000 is taxed as 5 individuals, each with $20,000 of income. This results in most of the family's income being taxed in the lowest tax brackets, similar to the pension-splitting scheme we now have in Canada.

But are those taxes lower than the U.S. rates for a family?

And are those lower tax rates supported by other child friendly measures?

http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/article8370,8370.html

I think the school system starts at age 2 (free?), but I maintain that you need a parent in the home in order to be able to manage 3+ kids.

BTW, in France it is the Muslims that have the highest birthrate (and an at-home parent, usually).

[jdobbin]

I think the school system starts at age 2 (free?), but I maintain that you need a parent in the home in order to be able to manage 3+ kids.

BTW, in France it is the Muslims that have the highest birthrate (and an at-home parent, usually).

And yet France has one of the highest levels of working women in Europe. It is so hard to actually peg why exact reasons for fertility rates.

[Big Blue Machine]

Of course there's more government... it's an election budget.

[jdobbin]

Of course there's more government... it's an election budget.

It's always election time somewhere. That's like taking a drink because it is happy hour some place on earth.