acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (06/25/85)
Sunday June 23 was tax freedom day for British Columbians. For the "average" Canadian tax freedom day falls on July 1st this year. Up until tax freedom day all the money you have earned has been used to pay taxes to the various levels of government. (They actually collect it over the whole year though :-) Far too often people just think that the only tax they pay is income tax and, for those people not in Alberta, provincial sales tax when in fact we are paying a lot more. When I think that ~50% of my income is used to finance the government's grandiose plans I don't think I am getting a very big bang for my buck. The federal government's insistence on borrowing ~1/3 more than it collects doesn't make me feel any better either. Some serious reorganization of government priorities is in order and the spineless tories, contrary to their election rhetoric, don't look like they are going to do it. Donald Acton
fred@mnetor.UUCP (06/28/85)
>. . . When I think that ~50% of my income >is used to finance the government's grandiose plans I don't think I am >getting a very big bang for my buck. The federal government's insistence >on borrowing ~1/3 more than it collects doesn't make me feel any better >either. Some serious reorganization of government priorities is in order >and the spineless tories, contrary to their election rhetoric, don't >look like they are going to do it. > > > Donald Acton I know what you mean! I feel the same way. The problem is, how do we cut the size of the civil service, and cut back on social programs without the people who do it getting turfed out at the next election. You saw what happened when a slight de-indexing of pensions was suggested. True it was a bad place to start, but by the time the bulk of the baby-boomers hit 65 there will be no funds for old age pensioners anyway. What we've seen is the first ripple in that wave. I joined the PCs last year and I'm trying to work for smaller government within that framework. It's a small contribution, but if others would do the same... One way would be to sell off crown corporations. A good start has been made, but I would continue with Petro-Can. The gov't should not be competing in an industry that it is supposed to regulate. It certainly should not be taxing it's private competition in order to do so! Cheers, Fred Williams
clarke@utcs.UUCP (06/28/85)
In article <1110@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > I know what you mean! I feel the same way. The problem is, how >do we cut the size of the civil service, and cut back on social >programs without the people who do it getting turfed out at the >next election. You saw what happened when a slight de-indexing >of pensions was suggested. True it was a bad place to start, but >by the time the bulk of the baby-boomers hit 65 there will be no >funds for old age pensioners anyway. What we've seen is the first >ripple in that wave. Does this mean -- as it appears to mean, though you may be overstating your views -- that you think pensions should be cut, and that it might as well be done now since you won't be able to collect yourself when you hit 65? (I'm assuming you're a boomer yourself, like me, since that's statistically likely.) Personally, I'd rather pay higher taxes now and for always, if the alternative is giving people inadequate pensions. The same goes for daycare, medical plans, unemployment insurance, .... There may be social programs that ought to be cut, but not -- as far as I'm concerned -- the most visible ones. > I joined the PCs last year and I'm trying to work for smaller >government within that framework. It's a small contribution, but >if others would do the same... > One way would be to sell off crown corporations. A good start >has been made, but I would continue with Petro-Can. The gov't >should not be competing in an industry that it is supposed to >regulate. It certainly should not be taxing it's private competition >in order to do so! > >Cheers, Fred Williams How about nationalizing the lot, and forgetting about regulating private companies? That seems logically just as valid as selling off Petro-Can, though of course there are practical difficulties, namely, money. But more seriously, I don't see what's wrong with the government's owning businesses, as long as they're not actually run by civil servants, which crown corporations aren't. As long as Petro-Can makes a profit, I'd rather it went to Ottawa than Delaware. Cheers yourself -- Jim Clarke
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/28/85)
> ... But more seriously, > I don't see what's wrong with the government's owning businesses, as long > as they're not actually run by civil servants, which crown corporations > aren't. ... Unfortunately, the owner of a business generally has some say in how it is run. So crown corporations ultimately *are* run by either civil servants or politicians, although day-to-day decision-making may well be in the hands of supposed businessmen. (Just how businesslike is it to know that the government isn't going to let you fail, no matter how inefficient you are? Or that your stock price is irrelevant, since the government isn't going to sell anyway?) I agree that it's better to see the money going to Ottawa than to Delaware, but it would be still better to see it going to Canadian private investors. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (06/28/85)
In article <720@utcs.UUCP> clarke@utcs.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >. . .that you think pensions should be cut, and that it might as well >be done now since you won't be able to collect yourself when you hit 65? >(I'm assuming you're a boomer yourself, like me, since that's statistically >likely.) Personally, I'd rather pay higher taxes now and for always, if >the alternative is giving people inadequate pensions. > The same goes for daycare, medical plans, unemployment insurance, .... >There may be social programs that ought to be cut, but not -- as far as I'm >concerned -- the most visible ones. > No I'm not in favour of pensions being cut. By the way, I'm 35 years old. Both my parents collect their pensions and we're all glad that they do. My comments were not favouring the cutting of pensions, but rather more along the lines of, "look-out here it comes!" I think some socialist type programs we are using are in fact quite beneficial: medicare, for instance. Although I'd like to see a small amount deductible to limit the abuse. Some doctors are now only interested in seing how many cards they can process in a working day. Hold those flames, Doc! I'm not necessarily blaming the medical profession. I am well aware that doctors did not ask for this system. > >How about nationalizing the lot, and forgetting about regulating private >companies? That seems logically just as valid as selling off Petro-Can, >though of course there are practical difficulties, namely, money. But more >seriously, I don't see what's wrong with the government's owning businesses, >as long as they're not actually run by civil servants, which crown corporations >aren't. As long as Petro-Can makes a profit, I'd rather it went to Ottawa >than Delaware. > >Cheers yourself -- Jim Clarke Governments always seem to have trouble making a profit. It is too easy to simply "bail-out" anyone in trouble, or keep an outright subsidy feeding the crown corp. as is the case for Petro-Can. I believe free enterprise is the best way to run a country!!! We have drifted a long way from that in Canada, thanks to Pierre Trudeau. If we had free trade with the US, for instance, sure, it would put some pressure on our markets, but the competition would insure better products for the consumer. Protectionist policies, or socialist policies usually lead to lower standards of living because it is an attempt to enforce false economies. The supply & demand law is ignored and the effect is inflation, and poor quality products. I believe no changes should be implemented overnight. This affects stability, and few people trust an unstable economy, but if we gradually allow private enterprise to recover, we will have a booming economy by the time the next election rolls around. These views are my own and do not represent those of the PCs or my employer, necessarily. Cheers, Fred Williams
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (07/07/85)
Fred, I can't see what's wrong with the government taxing
oil companies and owning and running an oil company on the other
hand. As long as it doesn't play favorites with handouts and
taxbreaks the other oil companies don't suffer unfairly. On
the otherhand, if there's a profit, then it could help reduce
the deficit. I *like* the idea of the government earning an
honest living in the free market rather than taxing us to death!
It also debunks the rediculous myth that government is necessarily
not as good as "privately" owned industry. Governments are made
up of people just like "private" industry. Unfortunately, they
don't seem to do much better than other people running companies,
but then they really aren't all that much worse.
I also like the use of lotteries to raise money, just as a
point of interest. I just wish they'd use the money for mor
fundamental needs than they currently use it for. I wouldn't
even mind seeing them running bazzars and selling baked goods!
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomurafred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (07/08/85)
In article <695@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura|Barrister Jimomura Solicitor|Toronto) writes: > > Fred, I can't see what's wrong with the government taxing >oil companies and owning and running an oil company on the other >hand. As long as it doesn't play favorites with handouts and >taxbreaks the other oil companies don't suffer unfairly. On >the otherhand, if there's a profit, then it could help reduce >the deficit. I *like* the idea of the government earning an >honest living in the free market rather than taxing us to death! >It also debunks the rediculous myth that government is necessarily >not as good as "privately" owned industry. Governments are made >up of people just like "private" industry. Unfortunately, they >don't seem to do much better than other people running companies, >but then they really aren't all that much worse. > With all due respect, HORSEFEATHERS! > I also like the use of lotteries to raise money, just as a >point of interest. I just wish they'd use the money for mor >fundamental needs than they currently use it for. I wouldn't >even mind seeing them running bazzars and selling baked goods! >James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto >ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura I think lotteries are immoral. Cheers, Fred Williams
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (07/11/85)
Fred, what do you mean by "horsefeathers"?
If you're going to point out those stats you
put up above, then you've missed my point. All
they prove is that when the government gets
involved in business, but with goals other than
simply maximizing immediate profit, then by
golly, they don't maximize profits! Brilliant!
This is also done in 'private enterprise'
situations. In my 'business' I don't always
go for maximum immediate profit either.
As for lotteries being immoral, suit yourself.
I won't argue morality. Purely out of personal
interest, what is the basis for your version of
morality. I have no intention of arguing it's
validity. It's your business.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura