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

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you going to replace the Income Tax with? If nothing, which of these programs do you want to get rid of?

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms
Bureau of Arms Control
Bureau of Engraving & Printing
Bureau of the Census
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board (USCSB)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Defense Information Systems Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Defense Security Service
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Drug Enforcement Administration
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Farm Credit Administration (FCA)
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Election Commission (FEC)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB)
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Reserve System
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Food & Drug Administration
General Accounting Office (GAO)

General Services Administration (GSA)
Ginnie Mae
Immigration & Naturalization Services
Internal Revenue Services (IRS)
International Bank for Reconstruction & Development
International Labor Organization
International Monetary Fund
International Trade Commission (USITC)
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA)
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
National Bioethics Advisory Commission
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Imagery & Mapping Agency
National Institute of Justice
National Institute of Mental Health
National Institute of Standards & Technology
National Institutes of Health
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Park Service
National Science Foundation (NSF)
National Security Agency (NSA)
National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC)
National Telecommunications Information Administration
National Transportation Safety Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Patent & Trademark Office
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
Postal Rate Commission
Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)
Securities Investor Protection Corp.
Selective Service System (SSS)
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Smithsonian Institution
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Trade and Development Agency
U.S. Customs Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Government Printing Office
U.S. Institute of Peace
U.S. Marshals Service
U.S. Treasury
United States Postal Service (USPS)

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like a good start.

[MrMon]

The vast majority of government spending is tied up in defense, Social Security, Medicare, and debt service payments. Everything else is pretty much noise, eliminating any of them wouldn't add up to much. And good luck on eliminating any of the Big 4.

So much time wasted tilting at windmills...

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like a good start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I might keep the post office.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that Canada's per capita income is dropping compared to other top countries and I think it's pretty clear the leftist policies of my government are to blame, as in the last 40 years we have seen a phenomenal expanse of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that many of the countries ahead of you in per capita income are even more leftist.

[Coco]

[ QUOTE ]
boc : I like ron paul's advice. Don't start with the programs, start with the departments. Department of education, department of homeland security, department of education.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the department of education?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that Canada's per capita income is dropping compared to other top countries and I think it's pretty clear the leftist policies of my government are to blame, as in the last 40 years we have seen a phenomenal expanse of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this distinguishes Canada in what way?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ 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.


I mean, I think taxation is bad because it hinders progress, but I do think it helps poverty.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"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."

Well I'm not sure about your statistics, but let's stick to the example given, Canada. Since the aggressive institution of the welfare state, per capita incomes have decreased rapidly.

Let's look at another vaunted example of yours and other welfare state apologists : sweden.
http://www.mises.org/story/2259

"Until the second half of the 19th century, Sweden was fairly poor. But far-reaching free market reforms in the 1860s allowed Sweden to benefit from the spreading Industrial Revolution.

And so, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Sweden saw its economy rapidly industrializing, driven by the many Swedish inventors and entrepreneurs.
"

"But between 1950 and 1976, Sweden experienced an expansion in government spending unprecedented during a period of peace, with government spending to GDP rising from about 20% in 1950 to more than 50% in 1975. Virtually every year, taxes were increased while the welfare state expanded relentlessly, both in the form of a sharp increase in the number of government employees and ever more transfer payment benefits.

During the first 20 years, this relentless government expansion took place seemingly without ill effect, as Sweden benefited from rapid global growth — although Sweden's growth had already started to slip in relative terms, from well above average to just average. This changed in the 1970s after Olof Palme, from the left wing of the Social Democratic party became Prime Minister. Palme stepped up the socialist transformation in Sweden, rapidly increasing anti-business regulations and sharply increased payroll taxes."

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about your statistics

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/4/37504406.pdf

http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statisti...ents/hpi_2.pdf


[ QUOTE ]
Since the aggressive institution of the welfare state, per capita incomes have decreased rapidly.

[/ QUOTE ]



I dont think you quite understand what poverty is.


The facts provided showed that that taxation seems to lessen a nations Poverty Index (the formula for which can be found at its Wiki entry), and the counter argument you presents deals with GDP.

You seem to fail to realize that GDP/c, although likely correlated with poverty, isnt, itself, a measure of poverty.


For example, imagine a country of 1 million people, half of whom earn in excess of $250,000 USD per year while the other half earns less than $10,000 USD. This country has an enormous GDP/c, yet still suffers severe poverty problems.


I would not agrue that increased taxation hinders GDP/c, since I agree it does. But your claim was that increased taxation didnt help the poor, which I disagree with, and have presented emperical evidence to backup, and to which you've not yet responded with an on topic retort.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"The facts provided showed that that taxation seems to lessen a nations Poverty Index (the formula for which can be found at its Wiki entry), and the counter argument you presents deals with GDP."

So, despite the fact that we are getting poorer, our poverty is going away? Sure that makes sense... in socialist appeasing fairy land. You know regulations in Canada cost us 22 billion a year alone? And that figure is from a government beaurocracy... so who knows what the real figure is.

"

You seem to fail to realize that GDP/c, although likely correlated with poverty, isnt, itself, a measure of poverty.
"

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

"
For example, imagine a country of 1 million people, half of whom earn in excess of $250,000 USD per year while the other half earns less than $10,000 USD. This country has an enormous GDP/c, yet still suffers severe poverty problems.
"

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.

"
I would not agrue that increased taxation hinders GDP/c, since I agree it does. But your claim was that increased taxation didnt help the poor, which I disagree with, and have presented emperical evidence to backup, and to which you've not yet responded with an on topic retort. "

Hurting the rich != helping the poor, empirical evidance is all bunk and 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.

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? Not really, any of the benefits from the "jobs created" are of course tragically outweighed by the fact our government STOLE 500 million dollars to "create" these jobs. Higher taxes equals more money wasted, it's got no appreciable benefit on the poor; rather the poor often end up bearing the burden of increased spending through higher unemployment, less buying power for their wages and fewer choices in terms of employment.