luckydog71 said:
Why should the owner of a property be restricted on what return they can get? I know Canada has strong socialist tendencies and if the Gov't of Canada wants to pay renters money to subsidize the rent they can not afford, go for it. I no longer pay Canadian taxes so what do I care.
Canada is very much a mixed economy with a particular balance of free enterprise and governmental programs. It stems from the societal attitude of Canada, compared to the USA. It is reflected in the Canada's first constitution, the British North America Act of 1867, where specific areas of authority and responsibility are spelled out for the federal and provincial jurisdictions. The federal jurisdiction is very broad and the provincial more defined. The important fact is that whatever is not spelled out, the residual powers, goes to the federal government. So the constitution reflected the attitude that Canada looks at the overall public good and well-being as being somewhat more important that that of the individual - it is the former that generally, with exceptions, takes precedence. It is interesting to note that this constitution was formulated many years after that of the USA, and presumably its deviation from many of the clauses in the American constitution was intentional.
The American constitution reflects the militant independence attitude of the original settlers who left Europe for personal, particularly religious, freedom. Here the States' jurisdiction is much broader than that of the federal government, which is more defined, and the residual power falls to the individual States rather than the central government. The USA looks at the rights of the individual being somewhat more important that than of the overall society, and the individual usually, with exceptions, takes precedence.
There are benefits of, and arguments for, both individualistic capitalism and a more socialist economic structure. To me, an enlightened capitalism has freedom and incentive, but with a human face that recognizes the inter-relatedness of all people, indeed all life, and provides a broad economic, education and health well-being for all. Extremes of wealth and poverty itself are abolished. The resultant population has extensive buying power, educated abilities, a healthy workforce, mental and emotional stability derived from the elimination of economic insecurity and great capacity for both individuals and society as a whole to achieve many things.
It is obvious that too-left socialist examples such as Sweden do not work, and that too-right capitalist examples such as the USA do not work. Canada, while having some imperfections of both socialism and capitalism, is, IMO, much better off as a country than both of these examples. So somewhere between the too-left and the too-right seems to work much better, if people can get their heads there.
