Stop the madness...

[TheRater]

When was this - in the 1980's? Where are you going to find an "economy" room for $450/mth in Vancouver?

Edmonton, until/including 2003.

Are you suggesting that you never had sex before you could afford to have children?

Damn right I am. If you have sex, of any kind, you better know in advance and be able to take care of any resulting issues. Condom, vasectomy (and those are damn hard to get if you are under 25) and never, ever, be in an altered state on consciousness when having sex.

Who discussed that a new car and color TV were requirements for anyone?

I did, when you read my previous posts. From my experience they seem to be requirements for 99% of the population, REGARDLESS OF NEED OR ABILITY TO PAY FOR. I am not saying they actually are needed, I am saying that a lot of people who would be better served buying a smaller TV, or an older car, or doing without and paying debt, do not. That is in no way my fault, nor is it because they are 'poor' it because they do things like that they are 'poor' and if we went to your system, the same thing would STILL get said, that they are paying too much.

Now, I am going to step back a bit and explain something. Your whole idea is based on some imaginary 'feeling' that 'the wealthy' are somehow obtaining more benefit from our current system than are 'the poor' and that this in an inherent flaw in the system. Now, if you would go back and read your own posts, perhaps what I state below might come closer to stating the facts.

IN GENERAL ...

The wealthy, in our current system, are that way because, the system rewards those who work hard, save/invest and do not fall into the trap of debt.

That someone is 'poor' is then not a flaw of the system, but rather a flaw in the individual.

Now, before you get upset, remember that I said in general. For every 'true bad luck' case that you hold up as a reason the system fails people, I get to hold up an example of someone who the system rewarded. Luck plays an issue, but not so big as you mention.

As for the 'earned value' issue of use of social infrastructure, remember that these same systems are paid for in the majority by taxes, amd the ones who pay the most taxes are the ones who get the least personal use, per dollar of taxes, out of those systems. Overall, they may get more value by the secondary and tertiary use that you have outlined above, but it is still paid for.

- TR

 

[TheRater]

I'm sorry...the last time I checked the Crown owned all land in our country. When was the last time you (or your mortgage holder) paid the Crown to occupy the land that you reside on? How about the sidewalks that you walk along?

Not exactly true. The crown holds the vast majority of sub-surface mineral rights, and can, by exercise of eminent domain, buy the land from an individual or a business if it is determined to be in the need of the crown.

- TR

 

[TheRater]

One example as to how perverse this tax system based on income is - how come a business can write off the depreciation of its building and its expenses including interest, while the individual cannot do the same with their home? The business owner avoids paying INCOME taxes on the depreciation of an extremely valuable and wealth accumulating asset.

I do not disagree with you on this. However, it is limited to a set percentage, determined by type of asset, per year. Is it too much? Perhaps, but it is also a 'cost of doing business' and any individual can, with a small amount of effort, duplicate part of this for themselves.

- TR

 

[TheRater]

It is ABSOLUTELY TRUE - that is what "eminent domain" implies. Any land owner in this country does not actually own the land, but they own a bundle of rights to that land subject to Crown ownership.

Anyone who has taken a real estate course knows that. The Crown can expropriate land from anyone it wishes, and is not legally obliged to pay one penny to do so. In practice, however, that is not the case and the Crown will typically pay what it feels is an appropriate market value for it at its choosing. The landowner can make an argument - but ultimately the price is determined at the discretion of the Crown.

No. There is still freehold land, that was settled before the crown took over, and homestead rights. None of which you can acquire anymore, only inherit. I believe the exact meaning is that the crown holds the land in trust, not outright ownership. If I am wrong, though, please point me to the relevant statute so I can correct myself.

- TR

 

[TheRater]

Yes, you are right. And yes, this supports my argument.

OK, now my head hurts. You just agreed that the business owner (wealthy) pays more in part to support the social systems that he and his employees use, and this supports YOUR argument? Are we not at the same place now and just arguing semantics? User fee vs taxation?

- TR

 

[wilde]

One example as to how perverse this tax system based on income is - how come a business can write off the depreciation of its building and its expenses including interest, while the individual cannot do the same with their home? The business owner avoids paying INCOME taxes on the depreciation of an extremely valuable and wealth accumulating asset.

For Christ sake, if you can't grasp the difference between PERSONAL and BUSINESS expense, please stop talking about what's fair or not. Tell me, are you one of those crack pots that refuse to file a tax return because of (insert one of many number of pathetic reasons here)?

.

 

[wilde]

b) why is it that a business expense, such as a building, be treated any differently than a personal expense, such as a building?

Because in business there is no personal expense and if there is, are not deductible. Personal expense meaning expenses that have nothing to do with the business such as a 4 week vacation for the owner's family. Do you know any accounting, go read the chapter on the matching principle.


.

 

[TheRater]

Thus, in a strict legal sense, land ownership is vested in the Crown, with private individuals only holding certain rights granted at the discretion of the Crown.

This is not ownership as you and I understand it. For every decision the crown (read level of government) makes with regard to this land, they *MUST* declare this by statute/act. The way you and I own land is something very different. We can pick up and sell it to anyone who meets the criteria that we set, most often this being cost. Yes, I acknowledge that the crown controls the land, but they do not actually own it. You and I (and our fellow citizens) own it and we delegate control of it to the crown. And yes I know it is semantics.

- TR

 

[TheRater]

The whole income tax system is a convaluted, perverted system and should be thrown out into the trash.

OMG WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!

- TR

 

[wilde]

I understand the law. You don't seem to understand that I am arguing that I don't agree with it.

Why on earth should a business be exempt from taxation on assets that individuals aren't exempt from?

The whole income tax system is a convaluted, perverted system and should be thrown out into the trash.

I know you don't agree with it but what you are proposing is a system that in theory is fair but in reality will be even more arbitary than the one we have now. Your system is based on the theme of user pay based on some form of depreication and/or replacement cost factor which are full of assumptions. Well, assumptions in these situations are almost always wrong. So until you come up with something that works in reality, you have two choices. You can leave this country and find yourself a country with an imrokharrd approved tax system (good luck with that). Or you can pay your taxes, then whine and bitch like everyone else.

.

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

Holy shit, has this thread ever gone offtrack! Although that's likely a good thing, since the original subject was utter BS to begin with.

...you have two choices. You can leave this country and find yourself a country with an imrokharrd approved tax system (good luck with that). Or you can pay your taxes, then whine and bitch like everyone else.

There is a 3rd choice, actually. You could find a job where you make a few hundred dollars an hour and pay taxes on nothing, such as...um...uh...such as...er...help me out here...it's on the tip of my tongue...

 

[bartendr]

That particular low income housing was not one of the nicest places that someone could pick (it's nickname was "the zoo"). Chances are that most the people who lived there were folks who chose it as a last resort. That means that not 1 of those people had enough money for any luxuries, which in this case home insurance would be.

Actually,I work right there,my parking lot was roped off by the cops,80% off my regs are from that complex and have very good incomes(tradesmen and cityworkers) many of them are not 'hard-up'.

and there is good reason that we all refer to it as the 'zoo'!

 

[shapeshifter]

YESSS!

The Saturday Night Fights!

On tonights roster we have jjinvan in the blue corner wearing his hospital scrubs.... In the red corner we have IMROCKHARD wearing nothing but an enormous erection!

This is going to be a battle of Perbgantuan Proportions!

jjinvan is well known for his ability to outlast his opponent in the long haul with shear will and determination to have the last word! will that work against the ROCK? who's secret weapon is his lightning fast uppercut to the scrotum!?

Stay Tuned Folks! There's been plenty of prefight jive talk and dissing....one thing for sure it won't be boring!!

*Rocky music playing in background*

 

[shapeshifter]

How the hell did you know that's what I was wearing?!?!

Just a lucky guess!

 

[TheRater]

Necessities of life, and helping those that cannot help themselves (children, disabled, elderly, welfare) - no. They need to be subsidized.

Being a member of 'children, elderly, ... , welfare' are not automatically grounds for subsidies. Having those benefits for all children and the elderly protects those who are not able to pay for them.

You are getting way off the base is your assumption that being a member of one of these groups automatically makes you deserving of those benefits, especially those who 'qualify' for welfare.

If you, personally, are not and have not been willing to shoulder your part of the social contract, and instead want to be supported by everyone else who works, then I do not think you should get welfare in the form of money. Your kids/elderly parents can get care, but you should not get a single dollar in cash benefits. School credits for you to upgrade your education so you can work, sure. Grocery (and only grocery) credits for food, sure.

All I am seeing is more of 'rich pay' wrapped up in the same old words.

Answer me this question.

Knowing how hard it is to start up and make successful a business of any kind, why should anyone bother to start one only to be penalized more that just taxes? Your way, to shift more of the tax burden onto the middle and upper class (using your definition) will result in more and more business leaving the country and less and less income for the government, who will STILL have to maintain probably 80% of those social institutions.

And I STILL have not heard a rational explanation for why people who EARN more should pay more, proportionately, than anyone else. Other than yet another form of 'its not fair! (To me and I want mine!)'

- TR

 

[OTBn]

Competitive forces from where?

I have a 3 month wait list for 'urgent' cases and a 9 month wait list for 'less urgent' stuff.

I wish I had more competition

Maybe you already touched on the following... I just don't have the time/inclination to wade on through this whole thread... a significant part of your competition, trained at the Canadian taxpayers expense, often up and leaves for the $greener$ pastures of the good ole U.S.A. Some eventually return, many don't. Just free-market economics at play?

 

[OTBn]

By the way, the current 'flow' of doctors between canada and the US is northward for BC.

Ok - would it be a reach to suggest specialists need to commit to "x" years of practice in Canada... before they have an option to pursue those $greener$ opportunities in the U.S.?


In any case I came upon a Kaiser Foundation chart that shows exactly what you earlier described (I can't recall which thread) about 20% of users accounting for 80% of medical care dollars... or some such figure. Granted it's the U.S. and KF has a vested interest in Health Spending Accounts; however, on a most general level the KF chart aligns with your comment - if I had a Canadian reference I would offer it. The KF chart/description didn't elaborate on the financial status/capabilities of the 20% users.

From "my distant perhaps too simplistic perspective" I'm highly skeptical on why the medical profession can't manage this better. I have difficulty believing that a significant part of that 80% usage can't be "turned back" by the front-line doctors. I'm talking about the chronic abusers not the poor/disadvantaged whose health is suspect to begin with...

 

[wolverine]

Just a slight tangent back on topic to donor fatigue:
Every Christmas there are charity organizations who essentially compete to provide the same things and then they wonder why they don't meet their donation targets. Here in Edmonton we have Santa's Anonymous and Toys for Tots (both donate toys for underprivileged kids), and Christmas Bureau and the Food Bank (holiday meals for the poor). If you are a donor you are likely going to choose one or the other. But this duplication and competition for the same goals and donations seems ridiculous to me.

 

[OTBn]

Thanks for the comments/insight - I've got to log off as church comes early this morning I'll try to get back to this thread before it drops too far down

 

[TheRater]

How is that? All I've said is that those that use our resources and burden our services ought to pay for them.

I don't say "tax the rich". What I do theorize, however, is that many of our wealthy take advantage of the systems in place off the backs of everyone else.

If a business cannot stand alone - then let them leave. If that business cannot profit on its own, then those dollars that would typically have been used as a subsidy will be spent or invested elsewhere which will generate revenue and profit elsewhere. It doesn't disappear - which is the myth perpetuated by the industries that benefit from these subsidies.

I still do not see where a user pay system would do anything more than force the 'rich' to pay more than they already do. Right now, a business owner has to 'subsidize' his employees to allow them to use the social systems (transport) in order to come to work. If he does not, he does not get, or loses, those workers. The workers then pay on part of that cost in the form of taxes. The employer also pays higher per capita in the form of higher personal and business taxes, even after accounting for deductions such as asset depreciation.

- TR