Oh Canada! Let's get rid of the income tax.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is a myth that the welfare state benefits the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people claim this, but Im curious how this statement (and the theory it is based on) reconciles with the observation that countries with the highest taxation have the lowest poverty rates.

For example, the 5 countries with the lowest poverty problems, as measured by the Human Poverty Index (they are the only ones with an HPI under 10), are:

1. Sweeden
2. Norway
3. Netherlands
4. Finland
5. Denmark

Have the following rankings worldwide in taxation/GDP:

Sweeden 1
Norway 4
Netherlands (data not available)
Finland 5
Denmark 2


I havent done the math explicity, but IF you did, you are going to find a significant negative correlation between tax rate and poverty in developed countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that these 5 countries are all located in the exact same part of the world and have virtually the same demographics, natural resources, high base level of education, etc, should make you wonder if there was not some factor at play here other than the level of taxation...

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that these 5 countries are all located in the exact same part of the world and have virtually the same demographics, natural resources, high base level of education, etc, should make you wonder if there was not some factor at play here other than the level of taxation...

[/ QUOTE ]

The correlation still holds when this isnt true.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
So, despite the fact that we are getting poorer, our poverty is going away?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about the current rate of change of poverty levels in Canada.

I simply said that, throughout the industrialized world, low poverty levels correlate with higher taxation


[ QUOTE ]
Strictly speaking, I do not believe poverty exists in Canada.

[/ QUOTE ]

then you certainly must not venture outdoors, at least in larger cities

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. It's based on the false assumption that anyone who makes less than $10,000 a year is in poverty. Poverty is not having any food and money; it's not taking the bus instead of having your own car.

[/ QUOTE ]


A) It was an example to illustrate that you didnt understand that GDP/c isnt a measure of poverty

B) You can pretend all you want, but there are set definitions of poverty lines. Whether or not this is a perect measure of poverty, it is the commonly assumed one

C) You erroneously assumed that simply because 50% of a population earns under 10,000 per year, that they all earn that much. The example I gave, of course, does not preclude 50% of the population living on $1/day.


[ QUOTE ]
empirical evidance is all bunk

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, if it doesnt fit your theory, throw it out!

[ QUOTE ]
if the government wanted to transfer wealth to the poor, instead of to themselves, there'd be a negative income tax instead of a welfare state

[/ QUOTE ]


The debate is about whether increased taxation helps reduce poverty. Not whether the government is doing it in the most efficient manner.


[ QUOTE ]
Instead of attempting to attract business through genuine opportunities (by lowering tax cuts and getting rid of regulations), the premier of my province gave away 500 million dollars to car companies so they'd build a few plants in my province. Does this spending help the poor?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you assuming that for taxation to have an overall decreasing effect on poverty, that all acts of government spending must help decrease poverty?

If so, its an incorrect assumption.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"The debate is about whether increased taxation helps reduce poverty. Not whether the government is doing it in the most efficient manner. "

If that is the "debate" than I win. Taxation never helps anything; so, I suppose your argument is that high levels of government spending eliminate poverty. This is an obviously foolish argument; would a country like Kenya benefit from high taxes and high government spending? Or would it benefit from accumulating capital and investment?

"

A) It was an example to illustrate that you didnt understand that GDP/c isnt a measure of poverty"

So you think when the GDP/c goes down, people get richer? I don't really follow what you're trying to say here...

"

B) You can pretend all you want, but there are set definitions of poverty lines. Whether or not this is a perect measure of poverty, it is the commonly assumed one"

Semantics.

"

C) You erroneously assumed that simply because 50% of a population earns under 10,000 per year, that they all earn that much. The example I gave, of course, does not preclude 50% of the population living on $1/day."

Well this has nothing to do with anything... but I didn't assume that at all.

"

Are you assuming that for taxation to have an overall decreasing effect on poverty, that all acts of government spending must help decrease poverty?"

You confuse the issue by saying taxation when you mean spending but what I am assuming is that government spending cannot help alleviate poverty, because it must first be a force for poverty by taxation or by printing money.

[CallMeIshmael]

OK, lets set terms straight.


Imagine a country with 1 million people.

500,000 make 1 million / year.
500,000 make 1 dollar / year

GDP/c ~= 500,000/person/year



Now, hypothetically, a coercive force comes in, and coercively coerces the 500,000 people who make 1million each to give half of their money to a person who makes 1$.

But then, the force coerces everyone to give them 300,000.



So now, everyone has 200,000 at the end of the year, regardless of their original salary. (assume for the sake of argument that these dollars represent roughly their value in the US)


Which situation has higher poverty?

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
In 1968, Canada was second only to the United States among the G7 economies in per-capita income. Now Canada is 18th amongst the 27-member OECD--behind Italy and even Ireland--a country with ten percent of Canada's population."

[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY?

[GoodCallYouWin]

CallMeIshmael :

Imagine an alternate scenario. Imagine someone makes an argument to abolish the income tax... and then someone starts talking crazy talk about some society where everyone gets paid a dollar...

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
CallMeIshmael :

Imagine an alternate scenario. Imagine someone makes an argument to abolish the income tax... and then someone starts talking crazy talk about some society where everyone gets paid a dollar...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't back out GCYW, he's right you know.

You've shifted the goal posts. It's common in these AC debates now, people thinking you get all or nothing when in reality things are on a sliding scale.

GDP and poverty aren't related in the examples CMI is giving, and I think you know that. Governments help redistribute wealth to ease poverty. Is it fair, not really. Does it help growth, certainly not. But does it ease poverty, yes.

Give and take, just like always.

Cody

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
If that is the "debate" than I win

[/ QUOTE ]

Asserting your way to victory

and

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation never helps anything

[/ QUOTE ]

assuming your conclusions in one sentence. Awesome!


[ QUOTE ]
I suppose your argument is that high levels of government spending eliminate poverty

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont recall saying eleminate. Alleviate, perhaps.

[ QUOTE ]
So you think when the GDP/c goes down, people get richer?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I was trying to illustrate that GDP/c can go down while poverty also goes down.

But, since you believe Canada has no people who live in poverty, and common usage of the term 'live in poverty' leads people to conclude otherwise, you seem to have made up some other definition for the term. Im curious as to what it is.

(just to backup my claim that I am no alone in thinking poverty exists: http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2000/up/, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features...rty/index.html, http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/ccsd/00000323.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
Semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you brush something off as semantics, when we are trying to come to a definition of a key term. Yes. This is semantics. Literally.


[ QUOTE ]
C) You erroneously assumed that simply because 50% of a population earns under 10,000 per year, that they all earn that much. The example I gave, of course, does not preclude 50% of the population living on $1/day."

Well this has nothing to do with anything... but I didn't assume that at all.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, you did.


I presented a hypothetical country, in which half of the population earned less than 10,000 per year. And I claimed that because of this, the country had a poverty problem.

You replied with, Not really. It's based on the false assumption that anyone who makes less than $10,000 a year is in poverty. Poverty is not having any food and money; it's not taking the bus instead of having your own car.

This statement is not valid if one assumes that the half of the population that makes less than 10,000 per year all makes exactly $1/day. Because, if that were true, they would be living within your definition of poverty (specifically, I make the commonsense assumption that one who makes $1/day cannot afford to feed themselves). And thus, the country WOULD have a poverty problem (assuming that a country in which %50 percent of the people live in poverty has a poverty problem, again, commonsensical).

Thus, you made the assumption. But, it appears, a good chunk of people on here are unable to identify assumptions, so, you're not alone.


[ QUOTE ]
Imagine an alternate scenario. Imagine someone makes an argument to abolish the income tax... and then someone starts talking crazy talk about some society where everyone gets paid a dollar...

[/ QUOTE ]


Imagine a third scenario where someone uses a hypothetical to try to get someone else to define key terms in a debate, but that someone else keeps ignoring on topic discussion in favour of tangents, since its clear that his argumentation skills are poor.


Anyway, can you please

A) give your definition of poverty.

B) answer this: is it possible for someone to live in a wealthy country, yet make so little money that they are considered to 'live in poverty'? For example, do homeless peope live in poverty?

[Cancuk]

[ QUOTE ]
Now Canada is 18th amongst the 27-member OECD--behind Italy and even Ireland--a country with ten percent of Canada's population."

[/ QUOTE ]

?