[afransen]

^You've got a problem, sport. You're counting 407 toll fees here in Canada, but ignoring tolls in the US. Obviously you're also ignoring health care costs (that would tip any tax comparison for median earners in Canada's favour). I'm sure mortgage interest deductibility also skews the numbers.

It's also worth noting that the data is from 2005 (and who knows when the actual rates are from). There have been significant tax reductions both federally and provincially since then. Also, tax rates in the US are going in one direction: up, up, up.

 

[afransen]

And to put our 'nanny-state' fuel taxes in perspective:

From The Economist (h/t WCI):

 

[salvius]

We've gone over this ad nauseum: The USA underspends on healthcare and Canada underspends on military/defence. Spending policies are political. No argument here.

No, you have gone over, ad nauseum. Our military spending is below OECD median, but far from drastic underspending.

You're right, we do 'punish' single-income married couples. We also punish the average married family (with two children) whereby the income tax paid on a median income level is double that of the same in the USA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada)

No - all the calculations are average income, not the median. There's a big, big difference.

You continue to lose credibility when you blindly cherry-pick sites without questioning them. Citing an Australian site is problematic, its numbers only take into account income taxes and payroll deductions (after welfare deductions no less!) but doesn't include the vast array of other taxes, hidden and otherwise we pay: provincial sales taxes, GST and municipal and so on... which together do give a true picture of the real tax burden.

Well:

1) The tax wedge is the standardized calculation of tax burden, so it's far from cherry picking. It is calculated for every country, offering a good snapshot of the overall tax situation.

2) Why do you think that would make such a difference? US municipalities also get to levy other taxes in addition to property taxes.

Here's a novel idea for you: how about taxing less and letting Canadians keep their own money in their own pocket to spend as they see fit. Not enough regulation there for you? Canadians don't know what's best for them?? Not nanny-state enough for you, even as you claim we are not one.

You're dead wrong, and have obviously not thought this through. On the one hand, what do you propose? That Canadians spend money on national debt (or defence, court systems, jails) with their own pockets? On the other, there are significant cost savings by pooling of resources -- who do you think pays more, month-to-month, on health care costs, us or the residents of US who pay insurance out of their own pocket? What do you think costs more, private or public education?

And clearly it's not an 'empty' phrase given your reaction, methinks you doth protest too much...

No, I dislike partisan hackery, that's all there is to it.

Once again your simplifications undermine your credibility. You focus on income taxes (which we have already established to be higher across the board anyway) deliberately choosing to overlook all the other taxes imposed on us in our triple-level government system: GST, provincial sales taxes, property taxes, alcohol taxes in restaurants, gas taxes (15% higher at the pump in Canada than in the USA), capital and corporate taxes, liquor and cigarette taxes, and the politically hidden taxes of municipal user fees, 407 toll fees, crown corporation profits and government profits (on top of the taxes) from the LCBO that are transferred directly to the government coffers out of your pocket. I could go on, there are many more and across the board they are substantially higher in Canada than any equivalents that may exist (when they do) in the USA. Again, to point to only income taxes and claim that Canada is somehow undertaxed is ridiculous.

US also has liquor and cigarette taxes, user fees, far more road tolls, and municipal power to levy sales and other taxes.

But now, go look at that chart I posted again. Does it say income taxes? It's a chart of government expenditures as a % of GDP. So, what in the world does that have to do with your rant and what you are responding to? In terms of government expenditures as a portion of GDP, US and Canada spend exactly the same. So, if you want US-style taxes, it means the government is going to have to get further into debt. I notice you are not touching that one with a ten-foot pole, so let me repeat that for you: in order for the taxes to go down, we will have to pull the ultimate fiscal irresponsibility hat trick and get used to a yearly deficit and horrendous debt. Here's the IMF link for you again -- attempt to understand what those numbers mean:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...1,136&s=GGD,GGD_NGDP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=43&pr.y=13

Yet again, this has already been addressed. You were the one who made the erroneous claim that Canada is one of the largest spenders on military.

It was not erroneous - as total spending, it is in the top 20; in terms of GDP, it is not. How is my claim erroneous?

 

[urbandreamer]

Coors Lite: Colder than most Russians but not as good looking.

 

[lordmandeep]

Tweder would a socialist source be promoting a decline in the size of governments as a good thing?

 

[AKS]

Canada's military LOL

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Canadian_Military_(Or_Lack_Thereof)

 

[MisterF]

I suppose your socialist mouthpieces are objectively legitimate then

Please show where in this thread I've linked to a "socialist mouthpiece".

Perhaps a refresher course in 'real vs relative' terms is in order?

Irrelevant. Canada is one of the world's top 20 military spenders, period.

 

[Tewder]

Irrelevant. Canada is one of the world's top 20 military spenders, period.

Nonsense. Your not accounting for national wealth or means or well anything.

 

[Tewder]

Tweder would a socialist source be promoting a decline in the size of governments as a good thing?

Good point Lordmandeep, but a socialist source wouldn't see the size of government or level of taxation as a bad thing either. It's all relative, despite what MisterF would have us believe.

 

[Tewder]

^You've got a problem, sport. You're counting 407 toll fees here in Canada, but ignoring tolls in the US. Obviously you're also ignoring health care costs (that would tip any tax comparison for median earners in Canada's favour). I'm sure mortgage interest deductibility also skews the numbers.

I do and I did acknowledge that some of these things exist in some US states but not at the levels we see here and not all things in all states. In Ontario we have all the things mentioned and all at higher rates. As an example the highest state sales tax in the USA is that of California at 8% which is equal to that in Ontario but most states are lower at an average of 4%. Just one example though.

It's also worth noting that the data is from 2005 (and who knows when the actual rates are from). There have been significant tax reductions both federally and provincially since then. Also, tax rates in the US are going in one direction: up, up, up.

Agreed, but my original point (so many tangents ago) was about a big gov't/big tax culture creating a poor standard of service. This 'culture' wasn't formed overnight and is not likely to be influenced in the short term by any changes that are recent, relatively speaking.

No question Canada has fared better than the US in the latest economic recession, but to be fair many countries have seen their national debt and unemployment rise, such as France. The US has also been screwed over by the corruption of the Bush regime with very costly wars. I'm not advocating for Bush-style government, in any way, which has been damaging and which has in fact gone against the principles of 'less govm't/lower taxation' that Americans prefer. We've all witnessed the corruption and propaganda over the last 8 or so years that explains this...

 

[afransen]

Nonsense. Your not accounting for national wealth or means or well anything.

I would think absolute spending is more revealing than relative. Perhaps spending per unit defended area?

 

[Tewder]

No - all the calculations are average income, not the median. There's a big, big difference.

That's churlish. Average or median the point of comparison is the same, approx. 21% in Canada vs 11% in the US for the same level cited.

Well:

1) The tax wedge is the standardized calculation of tax burden, so it's far from cherry picking. It is calculated for every country, offering a good snapshot of the overall tax situation.

2) Why do you think that would make such a difference? US municipalities also get to levy other taxes in addition to property taxes.

You have to look at the whole picture. Why wouldn't you want to do that? Again, I've already acknowledged that some states do have some of these hidden/incidental government taxes/user fees but not all states have all of them that we have in Ontario and not at the same levels. The tax wedge is only part of the picture because already stated it only looks at income taxes and source deductions which thankfully we have had some relief on as of late thanks to the conservatives (no this statement doesn't make me a supporter of the conservatives, only a support of tax breaks - I'll leave it to you to ponder the difference...)

who do you think pays more, month-to-month, on health care costs, us or the residents of US who pay insurance out of their own pocket? What do you think costs more, private or public education?

I've not once stated we shouldn't fund healthcare or education. Are you suggesting the Canadian government is a lean effective machine that doesn't waste money or fund things it shouldn't (I feel another tangent coming on)? Besides, we do pay for healthcare through our source deductions. It's not free. The US also subsidizes healthcare even if to a less and more problematic degree. To be sure there are issues surrounding the administration of health care through insurance companies but Canada's system isn't perfect and there certainly are issues of quality of service, wait times, lack of funding for equipment and personnel etc surrounding government health care programs in Canada, especially if you live outside of major cities like Toronto.

No, I dislike partisan hackery, that's all there is to it.

I agree. I'm not a lover of the conservatives either, there are many social issues/policies with that party that I am against. I'm not arguing for a political platform. I'm arguing that Canada can do better regardless of who is in power.

if you want US-style taxes, it means the government is going to have to get further into debt. I notice you are not touching that one with a ten-foot pole, so let me repeat that for you: in order for the taxes to go down, we will have to pull the ultimate fiscal irresponsibility hat trick and get used to a yearly deficit and horrendous debt. Here's the IMF link for you again -- attempt to understand what those numbers mean:

You're speaking in absolutist terms (like MisterF). You simply cannot blame current national debt in the US on their tax policies. Do you do the same for France whose debt has overtaken that of the US? Your points here are grossly simplistic.

It was not erroneous - as total spending, it is in the top 20; in terms of GDP, it is not. How is my claim erroneous?

Relative vs real? Means nothing to you??

 

[ganjavih]

The US also subsidizes healthcare even if to a less and more problematic degree.

In fact, the US spends more public money per capita on health care than Canada does.

 

[salvius]

That's churlish. Average or median the point of comparison is the same, approx. 21% in Canada vs 11% in the US for the same level cited.

No, in fact, that's a valid criticism of the tax wedge as a measure (as someone doing demography most of the time, I can tell you I cannot imagine using an 'average income' unless I was calculating kurtosis). In any case, the wedges tend to be comparable. We do punish families more, but, again, I do not think that the govt spending habits relative to the tax room are sustainable.

You have to look at the whole picture. Why wouldn't you want to do that? Again, I've already acknowledged that some states do have some of these hidden/incidental government taxes/user fees but not all states have all of them that we have in Ontario and not at the same levels. The tax wedge is only part of the picture because already stated it only looks at income taxes and source deductions which thankfully we have had some relief on as of late thanks to the conservatives (no this statement doesn't make me a supporter of the conservatives, only a support of tax breaks - I'll leave it to you to ponder the difference...)

I have nothing against looking at the whole picture. It is true that I distrust the Fraser Institute to look at the whole picture for me, because their politics and bias are well known (in the same way that I don't get acquainted about policy from CCPA).

I've not once stated we shouldn't fund healthcare or education. Are you suggesting the Canadian government is a lean effective machine that doesn't waste money or fund things it shouldn't (I feel another tangent coming on)? Besides, we do pay for healthcare through our source deductions. It's not free.

Nobody said anything about free - I was responding to your idea of letting people spend their own money and not get taxed as much. Sure, that's a good idea, but not paying taxes doesn't mean getting those same things for free - from health insurance, to education, water/road/transit infrastructure, etc. It would mean paying more. Of course there are things that can be improved about our health care or other programs, but our government is (generally) not a bastion of waste.

The US also subsidizes healthcare even if to a less and more problematic degree. To be sure there are issues surrounding the administration of health care through insurance companies but Canada's system isn't perfect and there certainly are issues of quality of service, wait times, lack of funding for equipment and personnel etc surrounding government health care programs in Canada, especially if you live outside of major cities like Toronto.

There is no doubt that there is no perfect health care system; we could spend 100% of our GDP on it, and it would still not be ideal. In terms of bang for the back (i.e. patient outcomes for the cost), it is quite effective. It could be more so.

I agree. I'm not a lover of the conservatives either, there are many social issues/policies with that party that I am against. I'm not arguing for a political platform. I'm arguing that Canada can do better regardless of who is in power.

Sure, I agree. We can always do better.

You're speaking in absolutist terms (like MisterF). You simply cannot blame current national debt in the US on their tax policies. Do you do the same for France whose debt has overtaken that of the US? Your points here are grossly simplistic.

I don't see how the terms are absolutist. France has not overtaken US; in fact, their debt in relation to GDP is lower than Canada's, although the 2010 IMF estimates put Canada on slightly more solid footing. And, yes, I do think that many countries are utterly fiscally irresponsible.

In any case, one could argue sporadic deficits with a relatively quick return to black ink don't necessarily point to the inability of a government to pay for its expenditures within the current tax room, but the remarkably consistent year-to-year deficits of our neighbours (since the end of the 90s rapid economic expansion) -- with the rapidly skyrocketing debt as a result -- indeed points to this. I certainly wouldn't be happy with that debt situation, unless I was Chinese.

Relative vs real? Means nothing to you??

Of course, I believe relative spending is relevant, but total spending is also revealing. Eritrea may be spending 6% of its GDP on military, but it's hardly competitive. Our relative wealth is likely one of the reasons why we can get away with spending less relative to GDP and getting comparable results to many other developed countries on a whole host of things.