Politics in 2015

[Altair]

It just seems like harping if one keeps repeating variations of the same falsehood, which draws repeated condemnations.

Perhaps if you posted something different it would garner a different response?  :dunno:

i don't mind that you corrected, I welcomed it in fact.

But I did write more than just that paragraph, which you ignored. So was I right, wrong? How will I know if you don't enlighten me?

 

[Lumber]

i don't mind that you corrected, I welcomed it in fact.

But I did write more than just that paragraph, which you ignored. So was I right, wrong? How will I know if you don't enlighten me?

It just seems like harping if one keeps repeating variations of the same falsehood, which draws repeated condemnations.

Perhaps if you posted something different it would garner a different response?  :dunno:

:slapfight:

 

[c_canuk]

Its 55 extra for a lot of people who wouldn't have qualified for income splitting, like single parents.

single parents didn't benifit from the income splitting, they benifited from the UCCB changes, they also have a lot of other programs they can apply for that I don't have access to. We didn't have to take away from single income families to give to single parents. False equivalency.

As for those with kids, it's not like they will going without. With the new Liberal child benefit a lot of people making less than 200k a year will be walking away with more, tax free.

No they won't, they will recieve 1300 less this year from last. You are claiming that they are getting something back because you are comparing the new program to  no program. The old program exists. Ignoring it to make your numbers look good is false equivalency.

The basic truth is that less was taken from me last year under the conservative program than will be taken away by the liberals this year.

No matter how you try to spin it, the liberals are responsible for program changes that will take more from me. Taking more of my money then claiming they are giving me more is dishonest.

On top of that, ignoring the rest of my post that illustrates why it is good economic sense to let parents (single or otherwise) keep a few more dollars is also dishonest, and exactly what you are accusing others of above.

 

[Altair]

single parents didn't benifit from the income splitting, they benifited from the UCCB changes, they also have a lot of other programs they can apply for that I don't have access to. We didn't have to take away from single income families to give to single parents. False equivalency.


No they won't, they will recieve 1300 less this year from last. You are claiming that they are getting something back because you are comparing the new program to  no program. The old program exists. Ignoring it to make your numbers look good is false equivalency.

The basic truth is that less was taken from me last year under the conservative program than will be taken away by the liberals this year.

No matter how you try to spin it, the liberals are responsible for program changes that will take more from me. Taking more of my money then claiming they are giving me more is dishonest.

On top of that, ignoring the rest of my post that illustrates why it is good economic sense to let parents (single or otherwise) keep a few more dollars is also dishonest, and exactly what you are accusing others of above.

I never said that one had to take money away from one to give to the other.

I merely gave an example of one group who will benefit. I could have said single people for example.

As for the new canada child benefit  (https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/) I know many who will get a lot more. Especially those making less than 45k a year. Especially since it's tax free. As it shows in the link, CPC plan beside LPC plan, it shows that those with children will be getting more.

So with the liberal plan single income families with children will lose out on income splitting but get more CCB and lower taxes, while singles and will benefit from a tax break. Couples who earn similar amounts will benifit from both.

Will it help you specifically,  no, but it will help a large amount of Canadian families and single people.

 

[McG]

I love how you harp on where I am in fact wrong(even though I started off by saying I might be, skewer me anyways) and completely ignore the rest of my post.

When you reach conclusions from a position of ignorance and defend those conclusions with premises that are wrong, the n you should expect to have your false premises called out.  When you choose not to review your conclusion on learning of the factually erroneous foundations, then you leave yourself open to continued challenging on those points.

Its 55 extra for a lot of people who wouldn't have qualified for income splitting, like single parents.

If you go back up a few posts then you might notice that, while you were imagining income splitting had nothing to do with children, I suggested an option for the single parents.

How many here have calculated …

On the topic of math, let’s revisit this thought of yours:

• Why do .... couples who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people [where one person earns more]?

In two households earning $180k each, there is one family where the income is split evenly at $90K between each parent and the other family where the income is carried entirely by one parent.  Guess which family pays more taxes?  It is not the couple who earn similar amounts that “subsidizes” the other.

 

[Altair]

When you reach conclusions from a position of ignorance and defend those conclusions with premises that are wrong, the n you should expect to have your false premises called out.  When you choose not to review your conclusion on learning of the factually erroneous foundations, then you leave yourself open to continued challenging on those points.
If you go back up a few posts then you might notice that, while you were imagining income splitting had nothing to do with children, I suggested an option for the single parents.
On the topic of math, let’s revisit this thought of yours:In two households earning $180k each, there is one family where the income is split evenly at $90K between each parent and the other family where the income is carried entirely by one parent.  Guess which family pays more taxes?  It is not the couple who earn similar amounts that “subsidizes” the other.

I will always welcome corrects if what I'm saying is incorrect. I welcome them and appreciate the more accurate information.

Very good. The fact that no party, including the CPC had recommended that makes the point rather moot though.  I'm talking about policies proposed by the actual parties, not good ideas that should be implemented but never would be.

True, however my point was that couple who earn similar amounts would not benefit from income splitting whereas now they will benefit from a tax cut, and increased CCB. Although maybe not the family earnings 180k a year.anything less that 150k probably.

 

[PuckChaser]

How many here have calculated their new child benefits payments into the tax cut vs income splitting math?

The Liberals never really provided full costing, or a calculator on how much each person would get. Smoke and mirrors I guess. I did find this calculator: http://lepinski.net/lib-childcare-calc/, based on math from a news article. The Liberals want to pay me $12500 a year, tax free, for my kids. That's a monthly mortgage payment in some areas of Canada. My concern here is less about the money I'm going to get, but how fast it will bankrupt the country. If 100,000 families have 3 kids under 6 like me, that's $1.24B a year, and I'm middle of the road. There was also no mention of capping the amount of children claimable (like welfare does). So if I crank out 6 kids, and decide to live on welfare, the Liberal goverment is going to pay me $38,400 a year tax free. Where is the incentive to work? Where do we get this money? Remember Harper apparently completely screwed the finances of the country, so there's no money left. Do we just throw entitlements on top of entitlements until we turn into the UAE, where we have to import workers to do all of our jobs, because the government will just pay us to sit on our ass?

You're completely crazy if you think Trudeau's Child Care Benefit will A. Ever see the light of day, B. Won't bankrupt the country in 2 years. Trudeau's going to pay your mortgage if you have kids. I also have a bridge to sell you.

 

[McG]

True, however my point was that couple who earn similar amounts would not benefit from income splitting whereas now ...

You said "Why do .... couples who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people [where one person earns more]?"  That is not a suggestion that one household does not benefit, that is a suggestion that one household (the one actually paying less taxes without income splitting) is carrying a burden for the other household (the one actually paying more taxes without income spliting) when both households earn the same and would pay the same tax under income splitting.  With the math done correctly, how do you answer your own question as applied to a tax system without income splitting?

Why do .... [married] couples who earn dissimilar amounts need to subsidize married couples who earn similar amounts?

 

[jollyjacktar]

It just seems like harping if one keeps repeating variations of the same falsehood, which draws repeated condemnations.

Perhaps if you posted something different it would garner a different response?  :dunno:

My wife has a saying about an old Polish proverb.  "If one man calls you an Ass, you can ignore him.  If more than one call you an Ass, you better buy a saddle"

Of course, Asses usually don't listen anyhow.

 

[Kirkhill]

I see everyone is enjoying themselves over here.  [

 

[Good2Golf]

This isn't about you.

Why do single people and couple who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people?

Probably for the same reason that people who earn more must subsidize those who earn less.

 

[ballz]

Letting families with kids keep the money they earned is subsiding them?

Yes, it most certainly is. The tax burden is raised on those that do not fit this description. Income splitting is the government actively supporting certain lifestyle choices over others. It is that simple.

Now everybody is happy.

No, no they are not. Why should someone who chooses to be single have a higher tax burden? When did the government become the authority to decide which lifestyles are worthy of being subsidized and which ones should have to pay a higher portion of their income for the others?

Going back again.  Before laying claim to other people's money

You have it very backwards. Income splitting is a family with kids laying claim to the money paid by others to the government to procure services.

Your example of income splitting is ridiculous. I made just under $80,000/year and benefitted from income splitting. So I, middle class person, should be punished? Why does it matter if the cut doesn't help everyone equally? No tax cut does.

I like how you think making you pay the same amount of taxes as someone else that makes 80,000 is a "punishment." How quickly do we become entitled....

You are right, none of these targeted tax cuts benefit everyone equally, that is what matters, and that is why they should be done away with. It is not the government's role to pick and choose which lifestyles it supports and which ones it doesn't.

The fairer solution is a flat tax. Would that help everyone equally? No. But that's because our current system helps some people out unequally and a flat tax would be moving much more towards "fair."

Why ?  Because as Orwellian as it sound it is in the states best interest to encourage people to have children to keep the population stable or growing.  And it is in the states best interest to provide as good of a QOL as is possible for those children.

I know creepy eh.  Get married, have a kid and you get the benefit(s) but piss off if you're jealous because you don't.

This is statement is a result of many many years of our society losing its way... You happily accept the government making these decisions and forcing it upon others, simply because you agree with them *in this instance.* Will you be so happy to "piss off" when the state is making decisions that are "in its best interest" that affect you negatively? Will you be so ready to yield to "the state's" higher knowledge?

Probably for the same reason that people who earn more must subsidize those who earn less.

And what reason is that?

 

[PuckChaser]

And what reason is that?

Because as a society, we tend to believe (in varying levels), that we are only as strong as our weakest members.

The "I shouldn't have to pay for your kids" line is rich, because those DINKs that end up in old-age homes and using the healthcare system are being solely subsidized by someone else's kids. Having kids creates tax payers in the future, to further the tax base and ensure there's workers to keep the economy going.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Why should someone who chooses to be single have a higher tax burden?

Because he is unlikely to choose to go without health and assisted living care in his declining years, and that care will have to be provided by someone, and the providers will only be available if someone has borne the cost of bearing and raising them.

Taxes are the price we pay for services.  Subsidies to people who raise children are the price we pay to have a future generation to provide some of those services.

[Missed reading PC's post, which made the point.]

 

[ballz]

Because as a society, we tend to believe (in varying levels), that we are only as strong as our weakest members.

The "I shouldn't have to pay for your kids" line is rich, because those DINKs that end up in old-age homes and using the healthcare system are being solely subsidized by someone else's kids. Having kids creates tax payers in the future, to further the tax base and ensure there's workers to keep the economy going.

>Why should someone who chooses to be single have a higher tax burden?

Because he is unlikely to choose to go without health and assisted living care in his declining years, and that care will have to be provided by someone, and the providers will only be available if someone has borne the cost of bearing and raising them.

What a wonderful system that's been set up. Society has basically made anything but public healthcare illegal, yet one is chastised once forced to us it. Not to mention I would have thought someone who pays ~50% of their income for 49 years would have paid enough into it to live out his remaining 20. If not, perhaps his money would have been better invested somewhere else. If only he weren't forced to donate all his money to big government, perhaps he could have done so.

And how did people ever manage to have children from 1700 - 1910 when we experienced the great economic growth in human history without using the government to take other people's money to help raise their kids?

Taxes are the price we pay for services.

That's funny, I thought we paid money for services.

Subsidies to people who raise children are the price we pay to have a future generation to provide some of those services.

This whole idea is ludicrous and a very new concept. If we lived within our means, we wouldn't be relying upon future generations to support us. The government created this entire scenario, and yet you all have so much faith that the government has the solution to it despite its poor track record.

Because as a society, we tend to believe (in varying levels), that we are only as strong as our weakest members.

I believe we have a moral obligation to help those weakest members. I do not believe the government does and I certainly don't believe its moral for me to force that moral obligation upon you. If I can't do it voluntarily, why would I expect it to be moral to make you do it involuntarily?

FWIW, I intend to have kids within 10 years. I just don't see how you all owe me anything for voluntarily making that decision. Yes, I know kids cost more money, yes, I know they will eat up a lot of my time, yes, it will be very challenging. It's not government subsidies that makes me want kids and without government subsidies I am not going to not have kids.

 

[Good2Golf]

Quote from: Good2Golf on Today at 20:34:47
Probably for the same reason that people who earn more must subsidize those who earn less.

And what reason is that?

Because the Government says so.

 

[PuckChaser]

Its not about owing anyone anything. Its about using incentives to encourage behaviour that benefits society. You're looking at it from a glass half empty "Why do I have to pay for you", when most look at it as "If I pay for you, does it make us stronger".

 

[ballz]

Its not about owing anyone anything. Its about using incentives to encourage behaviour that benefits society. You're looking at it from a glass half empty "Why do I have to pay for you", when most look at it as "If I pay for you, does it make us stronger".

Nope. I am looking at it from a "most individuals can decide what's best for themselves" perspective and most people look at it from a "the government knows what's best."

I do not agree *at all* with the *government* playing an active role in providing incentives for people to behave a certain way. That is not the proper role of the government. You (and by extension, the government) don't know what benefits society most. You *believe* x, y, or z does. Your belief does not give you the moral grounds to use other people's money.

If you believe so sincerely that the greater good is in encouraging more people to have children, and that the best way to make that happen is to create incentives, then go donate to a private charity that does that and if one doesn't exist, perhaps you should start one (and I do not say that in a hostile manner... I mean that sincerely).

 

[PuckChaser]

There's a reason there's no Libertarian governments around the world. Their economies would collapse and if you thought we had an issue with the 1%ers now...

Even with massive incentives, rich people don't donate to charity. In fact, if there was that much money flowing into charities, you'd start seeing massive CEO salaries and money not going where its needed. You follow the Rousseau philosophies of Civilization = bad, Human Nature = good. I think time and time again, we have huge examples where Human Nature = Bad, and needs civilization to bring them back from killing each other.

 

[ballz]

There's a reason there's no Libertarian governments around the world. Their economies would collapse and if you thought we had an issue with the 1%ers now...

History suggests otherwise. The American economy from 1700 - 1910 was largely unregulated with open borders. It was the greatest expansion of productivity ever. Money deflated every year for 200 years, because each year they became much more efficient at producing than they were the last year, so you could buy more with less money. Deflation is a sign of a strong economy and something we haven't experienced since. Income disparities (not that those are actually a problem, but since you seem to think they are) were not nearly as wide as they are now.

Things really took a turn for the worse when the government got involved. We've had numerous crashes since then and inflation has evaporated the value out of everything. Those harmed the worse by inflation are the poor and middle class. Despite all the government involvement since 1910, over 100 years of government solutions and "expertise" and people looking out for the "greater good," they still haven't been able to recreate that kind of economic performance.

The Swiss have no public healthcare, no minimum wage, no standing army, some of the lowest taxes in the world, and a high level of unequal wealth distribution. Yet they are probably the most stable and prosperous economy in the world right now. They also finished 3rd on the UN Human Development Index list.

I think time and time again, we have huge examples where Human Nature = Bad, and needs civilization to bring them back from killing each other.

Like where? What brought us "responsible" government? It sure wasn't authoritarians. Throughout the course of human history, humans realized more and more the need to constrain the government's powers through constitutions, because each and every time the same result happened... the government grows out of control and ends up being a bigger problem than anything else. Unfortunately, no one has written a constitution well enough yet to keep government constrained, although the Swiss seem to have done it pretty well this time around.