I am all for people choosing to vote based on how they think the money should be spent. It’s those who never want to pay taxes that annoy me.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
Honestly, I think there are a couple of problems here.
One is some taxes that don't increase with inflation.
Which means, of course, they represent constant (at best) or declining revenue, relative to costs, over time.
Governments often have to specifically increase those taxes, in order to just to tread water.
But when they 'increase them' they get called out for a cash grab.
You might think a simple lesson here would be to modify the structure of most (or all) taxes so they keep pace with inflation.
Change the gas tax from cents per litre to a % just like sales tax.
Do the same for 'sin taxes' on alcohol and tobacco.
Index government fees on forms, just like you do (or should) gov't benefits.
This would reduce the reflex anti-tax sentiment occurs when a budget passes with 'x' tax increases.
***
While I don't agree w/people being reflexively anti-tax; I also recognize that there has been a determined tax shift over the last 2 decades from business to individuals.
You would imagine people on the 'left' would be alarmed by this; but in point of fact, the Wynne Liberals continued the tradition in recently lowering small business tax to only 2.5% of profits.
It does dawn on 'average' people, every so often, that they are being taken. That they get to pay more of the bill, only so others that are better off can pay less.
I'm a champion of more and better government services. I have no objection to personally paying more tax to do so.
But I understand what gets under the skin of some others who may not have the policy expertise to be able to point at exactly what bothers them.....
But they know that Nestle is charged less than 0.1 c per L of ground water it takes, when it sells a bottle of same for $2 or more.
They also know that Nestle pays lower corporate income tax (rate) than they do, in many cases, even before loopholes (ahem deductions).
Now let's be clear, the PCs are not likely to change that. But they can and will exploit the perception (and reality) that the Liberals are doing that.
****
The other thing is, and I say this as someone who often posts w/an academic/lawyer-ly prose that accounts for nuance and doesn't get me caught making a definitive statement when I'm not sure; is that Wynne (and she's by no means the first or only) speaks the same way.
It puts off a certain listener/reader as evasive, equivocal, wishy-washy and a way to avoid taking responsibility for decisions.
Its not that Dougie is any more likely to keep his promises, but he sounds much clearer on what he will or won't do. That really appeals to many who just want an up/down, yes/no this is what your getting; where Wynne may leave them confused on what the hell she just said.
I say that as someone who speaks/types that way, LOL
Just an observation.
Sometimes clarity is an asset, even when the clarity is utter nonsense.
Your last sentence pretty much sums up the success of Trump/Ford populism
Northern Light
Superstar
Simply, I think this really speaks to the value of simple, clear, universal programs that have no income tests.
The program is paid for (ideally) by progressive taxes that hit high(er) earners hard(er).
But in services it reads as close to identical as possible.
Targeted programs, means-tested program (other than income support for the poor), have the effect of making others who foot the bill feel excluded and wonder they are paying.
To add to that, most targeted programs are more expensive to operate, as they involve evaluations, forms, additional layers of staff. Want to remove economic barriers to University? I'm all with you, how about we just abolish or substantially lower tuition, and then ditch all the scholarships, grants, bursaries and loans? The additional cost is negligible, the savings substantial, its transparent, easy to understand, no extra forms to fill out, and everyone gets something out of it.
kEiThZ
Superstar
It's a mistake to think they never want to pay taxes. If you actually talk to people who espouse those views, you'll find your strawman rather thin.
Most often, their views on taxation come out of perceived lack of benefit. And sometimes, they aren't wrong about how little they benefit.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Exactly. I've made this point before.
Universal programs are better sells. And often, people are actually willing to pay more to support them.
The other issue I raised perviously, needs to be highlighted more explicitly. The GTA gets really screwed by the double whammy of progressive taxation and targeted programs. The average GTA family makes about $4000 dollars more than the average Ontario family. So the average GTA family pays more in taxes and fees and probably receives less in services.
But the real culprit is how the GTA has been milked by Ontario and Canada:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...t-for-confederation-in-ontario/article743713/
We're sending tens of billions to Ottawa and Queen's Park. Average voters may not entirely understand the mechanics of it all. But they know when they perceive a lack of value for money. And given how much the GTA sends out, I don't think it's out of the question, that many GTA voters feel they aren't getting a good deal.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
This is very true. This is why welfare states in the Nordic countries have been so highly developed and generally supported by most of the population.
Means-tested, targeted programs serve vulnerable populations with little politcal power and are more likely to fall victims to "tax revolts" from the middle and upper income earners. Serving a more "ghettoized" population means public services are more likely to be neglected; if it's universal it's more likely to be of high quality.
So yes, I favor supports for the poor and vulnerable but I think when possible universality is better. All paid for by progressive taxation.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I fully support taxes, but to a point. With income taxes, government payroll deductions, and consumption taxes, plus the corporate taxes included in prices before we pay the latter (people forget that corporate taxes are just personal incomes taxes applied to a corporation’s shareholders and customers), I’d estimate middle class Ontarians pay well over 50% of their incomes to the government. But again, if it’s well spent, Ontarians would likely roll over and take it.
But taxes, in this case the Ontario portion are not being well spent, and so we resent increased levies.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Parental income should have nothing to do with tuition levels, unless the parents are legally compelled to pay. Back in the early 1990s my dad was making tons of cash, owned his company, but didn’t contribute a dime towards my university. And that’s fine, I made it through university no worries, but when applying for OSAP my dad’s income was taken into account, meaning any potential benefit was reduced.
I suppose this could be fixed, or maybe it is already, by including an affidavit or declaration on the forms that parents are not helping. Otherwise, parental income shouldn’t be a factor.
Northern Light
Superstar
This comes as a result of case law on child support, as I understand it.
Any lawyer here may correct me.
I found an example from Quebec, where the law is similar to my understanding.
https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/child-support-adult-child-still-school
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I started university at 20, so hardly a child. At 20 my dad already had one kid and a wife, at 20 my grandfathers were officers in combat during WW2. As much as we like to infantize young adults, at 20 I did not expect my parents to give me tuition, but osap loans were appreciated.
Can you imagine a bank asking about parental income when offering a mortgage?
So, bringing us back on topic, I'd like whomever wins the election to remove the parental means test from tuition calculations.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
So some of the details of the NDP healthcare (dental in particular) proposal are out this morning.
From what I can see:
One mandate for business/workers. Business will cover a minimum of dental services for their employees by mandate.
They may choose to do so by joining a new provincial dental insurance scheme 'Ontario Benefits' voluntarily or may opt for private insurance coverage.
Estimated cost is 575M per year to the government for this part of the program.
Cost split between employer/employee 75/25 but gov't refunding any costs to those who make less than 30k per year, and partial refund for those making up to 50k per year.
Estimate bill for a typical employee in the range of $4.33 per week or just over $200 per year.
***
Second part of the program would cover seniors who lack retiree benefits and those on social assistance at a cost of 670M.
***
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ndp-universal-health-care-1.4582022
***
NDP would expand this program over time to cover pharmacare and vision care.
From what I can see:
One mandate for business/workers. Business will cover a minimum of dental services for their employees by mandate.
They may choose to do so by joining a new provincial dental insurance scheme 'Ontario Benefits' voluntarily or may opt for private insurance coverage.
Estimated cost is 575M per year to the government for this part of the program.
Cost split between employer/employee 75/25 but gov't refunding any costs to those who make less than 30k per year, and partial refund for those making up to 50k per year.
Estimate bill for a typical employee in the range of $4.33 per week or just over $200 per year.
***
Second part of the program would cover seniors who lack retiree benefits and those on social assistance at a cost of 670M.
***
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ndp-universal-health-care-1.4582022
***
NDP would expand this program over time to cover pharmacare and vision care.
Northern Light
Superstar
Comments on the above:
Deeply disappointing.
First, it funds the program by a payroll tax which is the least competitive way to go. You'd be better off using corporate income tax, or sales tax. Its not the worst thing......
Second, it doesn't absolve business of retiree benefits costs. Again, I'm not for letting business off the hook, but retiree costs specifically are very detrimental to business as they don't reflect a current cost of production, they are a legacy cost. This becomes deeply problematic when you consider automation and shrinking work forces; and that the new plan will discourage any business from newly offering retiree benefits, creating an un-even playing field.
Third, I'm completely unclear on how it addresses children, that wasn't in the report.
Fourth, its again cumbersome and convoluted, all in the effort of pulling some costs off the gov't books.
A transparent, simple plan would be better.
'Deluxe dental for kids/youth'; followed by more tightly scoped dental that would apply to all working age adults, then more robust coverage for seniors.
Your free to top-up your coverage w/private insurance, but not obliged to do so.
The add-on in costs wouldn't be large; and the transparency and clarity would be appealing.
Still better than nothing; but could have been so much better.
If they'd wanted to restrain program growth, I would have just targeted youth + seniors for now, and phased in coverage for everyone else later.
Deeply disappointing.
First, it funds the program by a payroll tax which is the least competitive way to go. You'd be better off using corporate income tax, or sales tax. Its not the worst thing......
Second, it doesn't absolve business of retiree benefits costs. Again, I'm not for letting business off the hook, but retiree costs specifically are very detrimental to business as they don't reflect a current cost of production, they are a legacy cost. This becomes deeply problematic when you consider automation and shrinking work forces; and that the new plan will discourage any business from newly offering retiree benefits, creating an un-even playing field.
Third, I'm completely unclear on how it addresses children, that wasn't in the report.
Fourth, its again cumbersome and convoluted, all in the effort of pulling some costs off the gov't books.
A transparent, simple plan would be better.
'Deluxe dental for kids/youth'; followed by more tightly scoped dental that would apply to all working age adults, then more robust coverage for seniors.
Your free to top-up your coverage w/private insurance, but not obliged to do so.
The add-on in costs wouldn't be large; and the transparency and clarity would be appealing.
Still better than nothing; but could have been so much better.
If they'd wanted to restrain program growth, I would have just targeted youth + seniors for now, and phased in coverage for everyone else later.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That's part and parcel of equalization at the provincial and federal level - but the kicker is that there seems to be the widespread belief out there that the rest of Canada/Ontario subsidizes the GTA. Same dynamic intra-Toronto as well.
AoD
animatronic
Senior Member
Clarity without credibility is just a different form of noise.