| |
to taraf
Re: [Rant] Taxation of Health Benefits!I hate to say this, but this is where dictatorships like China and Russia are better, they can plan for the future and not worry about appeasing the populace every few years. |
|
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON |
taraf
Member
2017-Feb-15 1:17 pm
said by bobnoxe:I hate to say this, but this is where dictatorships like China and Russia are better, they can plan for the future and not worry about appeasing the populace every few years. One of the few advantages of a monarchy. And also one of the main reasons I'm opposed to abolishing the Senate. They're there to be a sober second thought, and to be able to quash polulist idealogues without fear of getting reelected. A strong senate doing its job in a non-partisan way could have stopped a lot of the bad decisions that've been made the last few years. |
|
 AR
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON |
to bobnoxe
What are you saying? Taxation without representation? Have a government that cash grabs but now it doesn't have to pretend we have a say in the matter?  |
|
| |
I'm pointing out that governments that are not democracies can plan their economy much better than one that looks to get re-elected every 4 yrs.
With such a short window, you do what you can to appease your supporters , and damn the rest (ie Harper's boutique tax cuts). |
|
 ·TELUS
 ·Shaw
2 edits |
to bobnoxe
said by bobnoxe:I hate to say this, but this is where dictatorships like China and Russia are better, they can plan for the future and not worry about appeasing the populace every few years. I agree. Not that dictatorships are good, but that elections prevent our leadership from creating long term plans. IE the population hump has never been a secret. We've known for decades that we were going to inverse the relationship between tax paying workers and the number of retired people. No government (except maybe Cretien when they revamped CPP) has done anything about it. Why? The only real solution would of been to raise taxes and create a contingency fund so that the money would be there when the Boomers need it. I would imagine any tax increase to fund something like this would of been met with contempt. No one wants to increase tax and then face an election. Mulroney didn't last too long after he introduced the GST I agree with your argument, that went you need to fight for your job every 4 years, your time horizon for leadership tends to give you a very short point of view. |
|
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON |
taraf
Member
2017-Feb-15 2:56 pm
said by zod5000:The only real solution I would of seen would of been to raise taxes and create a contingency fund so that the money would be there when the Boomers need it. Well... that's one of the reasons we allow in so many refugees and immigrants. As one of my friends who works for Stats Can told me: if people want to stop letting them in, they need to fuck more. We simply aren't having enough babies to be able to support the aging population, and statistically, most of the immigrants and refugees we let in become contributing members of society pretty quickly. In other words, those brown people your parents and grandparents are complaining about taking over the country? That's the tax base that's going to allow them to retire. We still need to raise taxes, but immigration policy is offsetting the lion's share of the increased cost - much of which is already hitting public coffers and will only get worse over the next 20 years. Sadly, folks don't tend to consider the long view (and as easy as it would be to complain that boomers screwed my generation over, it'd be a bit hypocritical - my own generation has the nickname "generation me" for a reason) |
|
AR
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON |
to zod5000
Nobody wants to increase tax because they know they can't defend tax hikes when weighed against all sorts of waste and discretionary spending. Dictatorships don't need to justify nothing - they can grab as much and built a 24k solid gold palace for the bureaucrats if they wish to for all this taxing and spending without accountability they do. Or DB pension plans while others have nothing....but I digress. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic
|
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON |
taraf to AR
Member
2017-Feb-15 3:27 pm
to AR
Re: [Rant] Taxation of Health Benefits!said by AR:Nobody wants to increase tax because they know they can't defend tax hikes when weighed against all sorts of waste and discretionary spending. I don't think you realize how little of the budget is actually discretionary. |
|
AR
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON |
Refugees? Foreign aid? Bridges to nowhere? |
|
| |
Don't forget fake Lakes. |
|
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON |
taraf to AR
Member
2017-Feb-15 3:55 pm
to AR
You totally missed that part about increasing the tax base, didn't you? Very small portion of our GDP, and something we're obligated by multiple international agreements and treaties to give. Even if they cut off the entire $5.8 billion, it wouldn't make the deficit disappear, to say nothing of the net cost to our economy in the form of sanctions that'd kick in. said by AR:Bridges to nowhere? The US government cancelled that project. Are you proposing that we should stop trying to trade with them? Or would you prefer that the existing bridge in the US in Windsor be allowed to crumble/fall apart? Either would be a very bad idea for our economy. said by bobnoxe:Don't forget fake Lakes. You got me on that one. That was a total waste of money. That the current administration had nothing to do with.... I'm not in favour of giving the grits carte blanche. Actually, I'm really upset and incensed by a few of their broken promises. But judge them by their own faults, not by the problems caused by their predecessors. |
|
| |
to zod5000
said by zod5000:I would imagine any tax increase to fund something like this would of been met with contempt. A big part of the problem is the elephant south of us, and it has nothing to do with the current administration. For them all taxes are bad period. That thought process comes up here, people see Americans pay less taxes, but don't take into account the social services we have that , they don't have (and it may get worse) that need to be paid for. |
|
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON |
taraf
Member
2017-Feb-15 4:01 pm
said by bobnoxe:A big part of the problem is the elephant south of us, and it has nothing to do with the current administration. For them all taxes are bad period. That thought process comes up here, people see Americans pay less taxes, but don't take into account the social services we have that , they don't have (and it may get worse) that need to be paid for. Very true. We have a much lower cost of living in this country, thanks to all those social services that people want to cut. I pay less per year in medical expenses than the average American pays per month, and my wife's a transplant patient, for example... |
|
MichelR
join:2011-07-03
Trois-Rivieres, QC |
to bobnoxe
I've driven through some U.S. towns that looked like they'd been bombed. I thought I had seen some bad roads going up north to visit family in Quebec, but in some Indiana and Illinois towns I was dodging craters. And the towns looked shady as hell.
But hey, at least their taxes are low.
Speaking of which... Just received a bill for the first half of my property taxes. I need a telethon. |
|
AR
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON |
That situation you described is not because of low taxes, it is because of low incomes. They don't have a protectionist economy like Canada.
Compare SF and NYC to Montreal and Toronto. |
|
·TELUS
·Shaw
|
to bobnoxe
said by bobnoxe:said by zod5000:I would imagine any tax increase to fund something like this would of been met with contempt. A big part of the problem is the elephant south of us, and it has nothing to do with the current administration. For them all taxes are bad period. That thought process comes up here, people see Americans pay less taxes, but don't take into account the social services we have that , they don't have (and it may get worse) that need to be paid for. I'm not even sure that's true anymore. I was visiting a friend and Chicago. It actually seemed like taxes in Chicago were more than here. Especially property tax. It was almost 4 times what I pay here in BC. When you think about it the US has many of the programs we do except fully funded public health care. What we put into health care, they put into in the military... it ends up being a wash. |
|
 digitalfuturSees More Than Shown
Premium Member
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON |
to bobnoxe
Leaving the human rights abuses aside, the economic record of autocracies and dictatorships is abysmal. Because there is no peaceful mechanism to remove the government in power, it, over time, abuses its absolute power absolutely.
People can't create wealth if they're living in fear. |
|
 El QuintronFully Magnetized
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna
|
to AR
said by AR:Or DB pension plans while others have nothing....but I digress. You like the kind Mining and energy companies offer? Maybe we should take these plans away for these people and offer them to people with lower or insufficient pensions. Sounds a lot like socialism to me.  |
|
AR
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON |
to taraf
To pay taxes, they need jobs and skills. Jobs where they earn enough to pay tax. Skills where they can earn more. Otherwise you just brought in people who will now have to be paid welfare or they're perfectly willing to wage war on you because that's the environment they come from and you don't.
As to foreign aid, consider me a foreigner and pay me! Or better pay the CRA so they can hire more people and pay me the $10k they owe me because T1 Adjustments are taking them 9 months!
|
|
| AR |
to El Quintron
I think pensions are great for everyone - how do we all get one? |
|
El QuintronFully Magnetized
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna |
If you can stand to work for an employer that offers one then you're golden. |
|
AR
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON |
My current employer used to offer it way back. The people who joined back 20-30 years ago are now retiring with pensions. Private sector.
But no more. |
|
El QuintronFully Magnetized
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna ·Bell Fibe Internet
|
Banks, insurance, mining, energy, defense, all still offer them. The question is if you want to take them. It was mandatory at one employer I was at so I didn't have much choice, but I made sure I could take the commuted at retirement rather than rely on them to invest it for me.
Unfortunately like any other office job that offer DB pensions, it was extremely risk-averse, and monotonous and I can't recall if I made it past the 6 month mark.
EQ |
|
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON |
taraf
Member
2017-Feb-16 12:20 pm
said by El Quintron:Unfortunately like any other office job that offer DB pensions, it was extremely risk-averse, and monotonous and I can't recall if I made it past the 6 month mark. DB is another victim of an aging population - it only makes sense, economically, if you have a large enough work force to support the retirees. A lot of employers have DC plans with contribution matching, but it's the best you can hope for, at least for the next few decades. Sucks. I missed the DB plan with my current employer by a few months - they removed it from the contract the year I got the job. |
|
·TELUS
·Shaw
|
zod5000
Member
2017-Feb-16 12:28 pm
said by taraf:DB is another victim of an aging population - it only makes sense, economically, if you have a large enough work force to support the retirees. I would disagree with that statement. Theoretically DB plans should have no funding issues, if they are planned right. IE the employer and employee contributions should be high enough that it becomes sustainable. There should be automatic mechanisms to ensure the math the still works out. IE if expected earning on investments drops from 5% to 3%, it should flag a need to increase contributions to cover the shortfall. If a DB plan is underfunded and relying on the next generation to make up the shortfall, than it's a poorly run DB plan. edit: I think one of the big problems that happened with DB plans, is that employers used very optimistic investment growth rates, which left them woefully underfunded. Had they had automatic systems built in (and used more realistic growth expectations) they probably would of been find. Instead employers find themselves on the hook for the billion dollar shortfalls. In addition many originated from unions, and the contracts might stipulate maximum employee contributions which doesn't give the employer the flexibility to increase them as needed. |
|
| |
bobnoxe
Member
2017-Feb-16 12:37 pm
Not to mention at certain times there was a surplus in the fund, and employers helped themselves to it
Just read what's going on in Ontario wrt to pensions. |
|
·
·
