• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can A Nation Tax Itself Into Prosperity?

Can a nation tax its way to prosperity?


  • Total voters
    61
Consider the following quote from Winston Churchill:
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
The question / quote is deeply flawed.

Excessive taxation will obviously cause issues for any economy.

Insufficient taxation will, contrary to conservative mantras, will also harm an economy. A state cannot function without sufficient revenues; an economy cannot function without a functioning government.

It is also incorrect to imagine that revenues collected as taxes are permanently destroyed, and that the economic effects of taxation are purely negative. E.g. the American government collects payroll taxes, and most of that goes to programs that directly spend money -- Social Security and Medicare. Most entitlement, safety net and infrastructure spending winds up aiding the economy, hence the Keynesian approach of using stimulus during recessions.
 
Yet all those things you mention could be provided by private interest, and some are. But there is often a reason government steps up to the plate, and that is usually when community interest trumps individual interest, or at least perceived individual interest. The young and healthy might likely calls for cut backs in health expenditure, causing calamity to those who need it, which probably means the young themselves when they life makes its fragility known to them by a later date. The pacifist would starve the military, the hawk divert important funds from other areas to pump it up. The greens wouldn't want that new power station, but would want public transit. The good 'ol boys in fringe city would refuse to pay for public transit, as they love their SUVs......and on and on. Which way to pick? The answers are subjective, and so require some sort of public consensus, ie: elected representatives.

Governments have been picking winners for some time now. Countries like the US and Britain decided to shift from agriculture to industry, and enacted the policies to allow that to happen. So to in later years, as places like Japan or S Korea insisted on high tariffs, and other measures that directed state resources to heavy industry, and hence made the societies we see there today. It wouldn't have happened otherwise, as it would have been much easier for those with funds to just buy what they wanted elsewhere. No need for a local factory. And the future is someone else's business.

We have also seen examples of the private sector choosing "losers", and thereby squandering resources better spent elsewhere. Deifying the corporate world, while insisting government is all bungling bureaucracy, are ideas not born out by history. Management can be good or bad in either, but there is no assurance what so ever that private companies will naturally make the best pro-social choices. Just look at the work of the financial wise guys in the 2008 debacle, for one example.

We need an involved referee, or we will get chaos.

I'm not sure what your point is. You asked what I considered core functions of government and I gave you a list and a generalization that any expenditure that picks winners and losers BASED ON IDEOLOGY OR SPECIAL INTERESTS isn't a core government function. I never claimed business was superior in all regards and I never claimed government was always bad. I did say that government has a place and that's related to the provision of services and facilities that by their very nature don't provide a profit margin or shouldn't provide a profit margin and thus lend themselves to private business interests. Nor did I claim that any particular ideology is better at governing these days, as it relates to what I consider core government function.

My bottom line, as noted originally, was that conservatives do not oppose taxes going to fund these core government functions but we do oppose raising taxes when current levels of taxation are being wasted on non-core matters. Wipe out all the nonsense and if revenue is still too low to meet government's core responsibilities, then tax increases or other revenue generators are appropriate.
 
My bottom line, as noted originally, was that conservatives do not oppose taxes going to fund these core government functions but we do oppose raising taxes when current levels of taxation are being wasted on non-core matters. Wipe out all the nonsense and if revenue is still too low to meet government's core responsibilities, then tax increases or other revenue generators are appropriate.
Again, with the contradictions, what "conservatives" view as "core" is driven by ideology, does create "winners and losers" especially since your lists of "core" do not include welfare for the very young and the very old. Further, the con tax policy used to fund this incomplete "core" also is ideologically driven, again choosing "winners and losers". This is all just rhetorical bs, smoke and mirrors, lipstick on a pig.
 
Again, with the contradictions, what "conservatives" view as "core" is driven by ideology, does create "winners and losers" especially since your lists of "core" do not include welfare for the very young and the very old. Further, the con tax policy used to fund this incomplete "core" also is ideologically driven, again choosing "winners and losers". This is all just rhetorical bs, smoke and mirrors, lipstick on a pig.

And yet, you continue to bastardize my comments, misrepresent them, and respond to my posts with your own BS. Can't find anyone else to annoy?
 
And yet, you continue to bastardize my comments, misrepresent them, and respond to my posts with your own BS. Can't find anyone else to annoy?
Instead of allowing my counter-arguments to emotionally upset you, perhaps you could instead....maybe....produce a well thought out fact based rational response....because otherwise......leaving your last retort as whining is considered a loss in debate.
 
I'm not sure what your point is. You asked what I considered core functions of government and I gave you a list and a generalization that any expenditure that picks winners and losers BASED ON IDEOLOGY OR SPECIAL INTERESTS isn't a core government function. I never claimed business was superior in all regards and I never claimed government was always bad. I did say that government has a place and that's related to the provision of services and facilities that by their very nature don't provide a profit margin or shouldn't provide a profit margin and thus lend themselves to private business interests. Nor did I claim that any particular ideology is better at governing these days, as it relates to what I consider core government function.

My bottom line, as noted originally, was that conservatives do not oppose taxes going to fund these core government functions but we do oppose raising taxes when current levels of taxation are being wasted on non-core matters. Wipe out all the nonsense and if revenue is still too low to meet government's core responsibilities, then tax increases or other revenue generators are appropriate.

But again, your list of "core" services is simply your own assessment of the role of government in society. All such assessments are based on ideology, to the extent that there is subjectivity in social policy, and so decisions will usually reflect political values. And with most of these decisions, some tend to benefit more than others, creating controversy and claims of special interest.

Yes, ideology can be wrong-headed, and catering to small special groups can merge into corruption, but often the questions are not so clear cut. Take unemployment insurance for example. One could accurately say that this is more favored by the political left than the right, and hence has an ideological element. One could also say that it favors special interests: those that tend to be unemployed frequently. UI has no value for the wealthy, or those in secure, lucrative, professional positions. It has no value for retirees or those that do not work. The political football is in the air.

There are a great many conservatives around today who think it quite wise for governments to pick winners and losers, and funnel massive amounts of money in response. It's just that they want themselves, or their colleagues, to be anointed winners, because their financial future depends on it. So we have seen the bailout of faulty financial institutions in recent times, while these same conservatives lament the (much smaller) resources given to UI programs (losers to their way of thinking, I suppose). What is waste and nonsense? It varies. Maybe you can give some specific examples.
 
Instead of allowing my counter-arguments to emotionally upset you, perhaps you could instead....maybe....produce a well thought out fact based rational response....because otherwise......leaving your last retort as whining is considered a loss in debate.

If you were interested in an honest discussion, something you seem incapable of, I might be interested in "debate".

There are many posters on this site who enjoy trolling and being so annoying that posters avoid them and they believe that's a form of "winning" when in reality it's simply a matter of adults having better things to do. However, if declaring a win floats your boat, by all means go for it. And on that note, I'm done with you.
 
If you were interested in an honest discussion, something you seem incapable of, I might be interested in "debate".

There are many posters on this site who enjoy trolling and being so annoying that posters avoid them and they believe that's a form of "winning" when in reality it's simply a matter of adults having better things to do. However, if declaring a win floats your boat, by all means go for it. And on that note, I'm done with you.
You are doubling down, if my argument is not honest, it seems one would easily explain how it is so.....but your argument seems be incapable of doing so.....so there it is.

Better luck next time.
 
But again, your list of "core" services is simply your own assessment of the role of government in society. All such assessments are based on ideology, to the extent that there is subjectivity in social policy, and so decisions will usually reflect political values. And with most of these decisions, some tend to benefit more than others, creating controversy and claims of special interest.

Yes, ideology can be wrong-headed, and catering to small special groups can merge into corruption, but often the questions are not so clear cut. Take unemployment insurance for example. One could accurately say that this is more favored by the political left than the right, and hence has an ideological element. One could also say that it favors special interests: those that tend to be unemployed frequently. UI has no value for the wealthy, or those in secure, lucrative, professional positions. It has no value for retirees or those that do not work. The political football is in the air.

There are a great many conservatives around today who think it quite wise for governments to pick winners and losers, and funnel massive amounts of money in response. It's just that they want themselves, or their colleagues, to be anointed winners, because their financial future depends on it. So we have seen the bailout of faulty financial institutions in recent times, while these same conservatives lament the (much smaller) resources given to UI programs (losers to their way of thinking, I suppose). What is waste and nonsense? It varies. Maybe you can give some specific examples.

I thought we were talking about taxation.

As for unemployment insurance, or more accurately, employment insurance - I don't consider it a form of taxation but a form of insurance, as the name states. Only individuals who are working pay "premiums" for their employment insurance. As a conservative, I'm quite happy with employees paying to secure insurance against their loss of employment. The system itself should be self funding. Here in Canada, our employment insurance system has $billions in surplus - as it should be. In the US, your government and politicians make the employment insurance system a slush fund for buying votes, thus the payroll tax "holiday".

Social security, another payroll "tax" program, is in effect a retirement program - a benefit plan that provides a defined pension, based on a formula, for all who participate. Social security is designed to be solvent, however, successive governments have raided what should have been a self-funding program. As a result, increases in taxation and/or reduction in payouts are the proposed solution. Such a solution shouldn't be necessary. Canada's old age security and pension plans are all fully solvent and have tweaks along the way but never has the government raided the funds to support other social programs or core functions. These funds are held independent of government and invested to benefit both citizens and economic growth for the country.

There may be some conservatives who believe differently - we're not monolithic or into group think. But most conservatives, on principle, want government to be small and targeted, which is basically what I've suggested.
 
Yeah, it could. But just because it can be does not mean it should be.
 
I thought we were talking about taxation.

As for unemployment insurance, or more accurately, employment insurance - I don't consider it a form of taxation but a form of insurance, as the name states. Only individuals who are working pay "premiums" for their employment insurance. As a conservative, I'm quite happy with employees paying to secure insurance against their loss of employment. The system itself should be self funding. Here in Canada, our employment insurance system has $billions in surplus - as it should be. In the US, your government and politicians make the employment insurance system a slush fund for buying votes, thus the payroll tax "holiday".

Social security, another payroll "tax" program, is in effect a retirement program - a benefit plan that provides a defined pension, based on a formula, for all who participate. Social security is designed to be solvent, however, successive governments have raided what should have been a self-funding program. As a result, increases in taxation and/or reduction in payouts are the proposed solution. Such a solution shouldn't be necessary. Canada's old age security and pension plans are all fully solvent and have tweaks along the way but never has the government raided the funds to support other social programs or core functions. These funds are held independent of government and invested to benefit both citizens and economic growth for the country.

There may be some conservatives who believe differently - we're not monolithic or into group think. But most conservatives, on principle, want government to be small and targeted, which is basically what I've suggested.

Yes, the funding for some social programs comes from taxes considered separate from general taxation, all though not always (the old age pension and supplement in Canada for example). Philosophically, it matters little. One is required to pay, the monies then handled in accord with government policy, and any payouts are also a matter of political decision. The unemployment insurance program in Canada in recent years is a good example of political manipulation. To say that these are just another insurance plan deflects the reality that pensions and some sort of welfare net have become expected, and indeed become necessary in today's economy, and premiums or not, no government in the developed world is going to backtrack on them.

When conservatives say they want small government (with the exception of a few bona fide crazies, like Rand Paul) what they really mean is small for those they feel disdain for, and large for themselves and their pet projects. So bailouts and tax giveaways for the corporate world, massive increases in defense spending, etc, are OK, while extensions of programs like UI are not.

So what is outside the core?
 
As for unemployment insurance, or more accurately, employment insurance - I don't consider it a form of taxation but a form of insurance, as the name states.
It's a safety net, thinly disguised as insurance. Hence, the federal government extended unemployment insurance out to 99 weeks at the height of the recession. I've never heard of an insurance company doubling the payouts to policy holders. ;)


In the US, your government and politicians make the employment insurance system a slush fund for buying votes, thus the payroll tax "holiday".
You're (understandably) getting revenue streams mixed up. Payroll taxes only go to Social Security and Medicare, and the payroll tax holiday was a stimulus measure during the recession. Many states ran out of funds for unemployment insurance, which resulted in the federal government funding it and extensions, an act that some die-hard Republican legislators decried because they didn't want to spend the money without offsetting it somewhere else. There's a separate tax for unemployment insurance. There is no "slush fund."


Social security, another payroll "tax" program, is in effect a retirement program - a benefit plan that provides a defined pension, based on a formula, for all who participate.
Sorry, but SS is another safety net, thinly disguised as a retirement program. SS also covers people who are disabled.


Social security is designed to be solvent, however, successive governments have raided what should have been a self-funding program.
Again, vastly incorrect, though understandably so, due to the aforementioned "thin disguise" part.

The initial law dedicates payroll taxes to SS, and it is (and always was) "pay as you go" -- as in, the payroll taxes collected in 2005 were spent on benefits paid out in 2005. There were surpluses for decades, and those surpluses were by law loaned to other parts of the federal government.

In reality, a tax is a tax is a tax, and how you spend it doesn't actually matter where the revenue comes from. In order to trick people into thinking that SS was a "retirement fund," rather than a standard tax, they came up with the dedicated payroll tax, which disguises the realities.

By the way, every penny of those intergovernmental loans has been repaid with interest, and there is every indication it will always be paid. (Even if the Treasury Department had to straight-up print money, it will be repaid.) There was no "raiding." The trust fund is still solvent. The current problem is that life expectancy is at least 10 years longer than it was in the 1930s, and revenues aren't keeping up with payroll tax income. Thus, SS benefits are now drawing from the trust fund.


As a result, increases in taxation and/or reduction in payouts are the proposed solution. Such a solution shouldn't be necessary. Canada's old age security and pension plans are all fully solvent and have tweaks along the way but never has the government raided the funds to support other social programs or core functions....
Well, you're part right. ;)

We will have to increase revenues and reduce expenditures in order for SS to continue. The thing is that Canada's Social Security is much more expensive than the US, relative to the two nations' GDP. SS is a significant chunk of Canada's GDP, and a tiny sliver of the US's (13.3% vs 0.077%). This in turn results in a much, much lower rate of elderly in poverty in Canada than the US (7.8% vs 24%).

It is critical to note that OAS and GIS -- over half the cost of those safety nets -- are funded by general tax revenues. For some inexplicable reason, it does not occur to Americans that our nation can do the same for Social Security. Did I mention the whole thin disguise / illusion stuff yet? ;)

Below is the SSA's comparison of SS in the US and Canada circa 2008.

The Canadian Safety Net for the Elderly
 
It's a safety net, thinly disguised as insurance. Hence, the federal government extended unemployment insurance out to 99 weeks at the height of the recession. I've never heard of an insurance company doubling the payouts to policy holders. ;)

You're (understandably) getting revenue streams mixed up. Payroll taxes only go to Social Security and Medicare, and the payroll tax holiday was a stimulus measure during the recession. Many states ran out of funds for unemployment insurance, which resulted in the federal government funding it and extensions, an act that some die-hard Republican legislators decried because they didn't want to spend the money without offsetting it somewhere else. There's a separate tax for unemployment insurance. There is no "slush fund."

Sorry, but SS is another safety net, thinly disguised as a retirement program. SS also covers people who are disabled.

Again, vastly incorrect, though understandably so, due to the aforementioned "thin disguise" part.

The initial law dedicates payroll taxes to SS, and it is (and always was) "pay as you go" -- as in, the payroll taxes collected in 2005 were spent on benefits paid out in 2005. There were surpluses for decades, and those surpluses were by law loaned to other parts of the federal government.

In reality, a tax is a tax is a tax, and how you spend it doesn't actually matter where the revenue comes from. In order to trick people into thinking that SS was a "retirement fund," rather than a standard tax, they came up with the dedicated payroll tax, which disguises the realities.

By the way, every penny of those intergovernmental loans has been repaid with interest, and there is every indication it will always be paid. (Even if the Treasury Department had to straight-up print money, it will be repaid.) There was no "raiding." The trust fund is still solvent. The current problem is that life expectancy is at least 10 years longer than it was in the 1930s, and revenues aren't keeping up with payroll tax income. Thus, SS benefits are now drawing from the trust fund.

We will have to increase revenues and reduce expenditures in order for SS to continue. The thing is that Canada's Social Security is much more expensive than the US, relative to the two nations' GDP. SS is a significant chunk of Canada's GDP, and a tiny sliver of the US's (13.3% vs 0.077%). This in turn results in a much, much lower rate of elderly in poverty in Canada than the US (7.8% vs 24%).

It is critical to note that OAS and GIS -- over half the cost of those safety nets -- are funded by general tax revenues. For some inexplicable reason, it does not occur to Americans that our nation can do the same for Social Security. Did I mention the whole thin disguise / illusion stuff yet? ;)

Below is the SSA's comparison of SS in the US and Canada circa 2008.

The Canadian Safety Net for the Elderly

Good post. As I have said in other posts around here, to suggest Social Security and Medicare are something other than a defined benefit pension is to "thinly disguise" them. Our recent history shows defined benefits are intergenerationally harmful. If all predictions had held true, demographics held stable, and the economy were to have continued to roar uninterrupted, there would probably have been no issue. But reality isn't that way, and the fact that all shortfalls can be converted into liabilities and handed down is what is making subsequent generations worse and worse off than the previous.

I agree with many of your points. But more than just increasing revenue and decreasing benefits of Social Security, I think we need comprehensive public pension reform (including SS and Medicare as well as other public sector pensions) before the boomer generation dies off, or else it will be guaranteed that the millennial generation will be almost fully dependent and a lot poorer when they hit retirement age.
 
When conservatives say they want small government (with the exception of a few bona fide crazies, like Rand Paul) what they really mean is small for those they feel disdain for, and large for themselves and their pet projects. So bailouts and tax giveaways for the corporate world, massive increases in defense spending, etc, are OK, while extensions of programs like UI are not.

So what is outside the core?

When this conservative said I want smaller government, that's exactly what I meant. I never suggested that governments on the right are devoid of plans and policies that support reelection to the detriment of the country as a whole - all governments these days seem to do that, to the great disgust of most conservatives. I have no interest in government buying favour from big business. I'd eliminate most business incentives and payouts in favour of lower corporate tax rates - likewise, I'd eliminate most personal tax deductions in favour of overall lower personal tax rates.

As for welfare and social programs to support those who temporarily are in trouble or who are handicapped or otherwise unable to support themselves, that falls under protection of the citizens that I spoke of before. You should have noted that I included healthcare and security of all citizens as core functions of government. So I'm not sure who you feel I "disdain" or what my particular "pet projects" may be. It seems you haven't comprehended anything I've posted in this thread because it doesn't fit with your view of conservatives.
 
Consider the following quote from Winston Churchill:
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."​

Yes

No

Other

You can neither tax your way into prosperity, nor cut your budget into prosperity. Both are reliant on INCOME and PROSPERITY in the first place. No prosperity, nothing to tax. No prosperity, nothing to cut.

But failing to tax prosperity is a sure way to dig a deeper deficit. Failing to budget properly is a sure way to waste prosperity.
 
When this conservative said I want smaller government, that's exactly what I meant. I never suggested that governments on the right are devoid of plans and policies that support reelection to the detriment of the country as a whole - all governments these days seem to do that, to the great disgust of most conservatives. I have no interest in government buying favour from big business. I'd eliminate most business incentives and payouts in favour of lower corporate tax rates - likewise, I'd eliminate most personal tax deductions in favour of overall lower personal tax rates.

As for welfare and social programs to support those who temporarily are in trouble or who are handicapped or otherwise unable to support themselves, that falls under protection of the citizens that I spoke of before. You should have noted that I included healthcare and security of all citizens as core functions of government. So I'm not sure who you feel I "disdain" or what my particular "pet projects" may be. It seems you haven't comprehended anything I've posted in this thread because it doesn't fit with your view of conservatives.

Hmmm...so, if I am reading you correctly, you support social programs that take care the sick, elderly, aged, temporarily unemployed, or those facing a life crisis of similar proportion- pretty much what we have today, and solid NDP territory, by the way. Your also support the criminal justice system, national defense, education, medicare, and other programs that take up the lion's share of government expenditure.

You are not in favor of business incentives, although clearly it depends what kind of incentive we are talking about. China has piled on incentives to produce an industrial, exporting economy, and it has paid off big time. In the corner of the country where I live, business has received strong incentive to locate high tech and film industry locally, and it has paid off handsomely.

You want to lower both personal and corporate tax rates (already at historical lows), and cut out the extraneous functions of "big government". What are those functions? What would you cut out of the system that would be significant?

Big government has become a cliche of the political right, yet, beyond the obvious of elements of corruption and foolishness that can be found in any large organization, and tends to resist total elimination, big government is merely a reflection of a big society. That is, society has grown in size and complexity in recent times, and regulation and administration along with it. Transferring these functions to the private sector just creates a different paradigm, with its own set of problems.
 
Hmmm...so, if I am reading you correctly, you support social programs that take care the sick, elderly, aged, temporarily unemployed, or those facing a life crisis of similar proportion- pretty much what we have today, and solid NDP territory, by the way. Your also support the criminal justice system, national defense, education, medicare, and other programs that take up the lion's share of government expenditure.

You are not in favor of business incentives, although clearly it depends what kind of incentive we are talking about. China has piled on incentives to produce an industrial, exporting economy, and it has paid off big time. In the corner of the country where I live, business has received strong incentive to locate high tech and film industry locally, and it has paid off handsomely.

You want to lower both personal and corporate tax rates (already at historical lows), and cut out the extraneous functions of "big government". What are those functions? What would you cut out of the system that would be significant?

Big government has become a cliche of the political right, yet, beyond the obvious of elements of corruption and foolishness that can be found in any large organization, and tends to resist total elimination, big government is merely a reflection of a big society. That is, society has grown in size and complexity in recent times, and regulation and administration along with it. Transferring these functions to the private sector just creates a different paradigm, with its own set of problems.

My comments are no more "solid NDP territory" than they are "solid Conservative territory" - all those things you claim are solidly NDP have been advanced and enhanced by Conservative governments. Where Conservatives and the NDP differ is in the desire of the latter to spend taxpayer dollars on areas related to personal responsibility and far outside of core government functions. As an example, the NDP wants to initiate a national childcare program, highly subsidizing childcare on the backs of taxpayers, similar to the program established in Quebec that uses $billions in transfer payments from other Canadian Provinces to provide a service their own taxpayers aren't willing to pay for themselves.

Where I differ from the Conservative government, as an example, is in their move to highly subsidize "families" through tax policy and their move to allow income pooling that will reduce the tax paid on high income where a lower paid or non-employed spouse is in the equation. I believe there is no overriding national interest served by these "choosing winners" policies and the $billions foregone or spent to fund these initiatives would have been better used to fund across the board tax relief for all taxpayers.

As for government support/incentive for business, as I've said I don't support it and it should be incredibly rare. As an example, I strongly opposed the bailouts of Chrysler and GM - the auto industry is sufficiently entrenched and mature and is not in need of propping up. If it can't produce products that are desired by the public at a price that is acceptable to the public, then they should cease to exist and let those that can produce such products do it. Likewise, oil and gas giants don't need or deserve government incentives and/or tax breaks.

I don't know how many times I have to say it before you actually get it but I'll say it once again. I believe government should restrict itself to core functions that benefit and/or protect the entire jurisdiction and the entire population and not be creative in establishing policies and programs that social engineer in whatever manner they support - that goes for governments of all political stripes.
 
I voted other. How can there be prosperity while putting so much money into war for corporate profit? Like the middle east for example. Let the oil and oil service companies hire their own mercenaries to protect their operations over there. They profit so much, and then do everything possible to pay little or no taxes. Immigration next. How to have prosperity when allowing nothing to offer but being needy, third worlders, to come to USA in such large amounts of people that the very nature of this country is changing. Both major parties are for this although republicans pretend their against it.
 
My comments are no more "solid NDP territory" than they are "solid Conservative territory" - all those things you claim are solidly NDP have been advanced and enhanced by Conservative governments. Where Conservatives and the NDP differ is in the desire of the latter to spend taxpayer dollars on areas related to personal responsibility and far outside of core government functions. As an example, the NDP wants to initiate a national childcare program, highly subsidizing childcare on the backs of taxpayers, similar to the program established in Quebec that uses $billions in transfer payments from other Canadian Provinces to provide a service their own taxpayers aren't willing to pay for themselves.

Medicare was introduced (among much conservative angst) by the CCF (now NDP) government of Saskatchewan. EI and the federal OAP were introduced under liberal governments, and EI saw it most generous period under the leftest liberal government of Trudeau the 1st. This is by the by, but quite clearly social welfare programs find more favor generally in left leaning parties than in rightist ones.

The childcare program is hypothetical at this point, but it does raise some interesting notions. Conservatives love the term "on the backs of taxpayers". It conjures up the most graphic images of poor peons, struggling under heavy weights. Some spin meister probably paid good money for that phrase. But what does it mean? Those same backs are no doubt standing straighter under such programs, as they benefit the vast majority of taxpayers. I'm sure you see where this is going. When government funds programs, it doesn't spend money, in the same sense as an individual, it redistributes it. A few dollars that were going to help pay for your new yacht now find their way into a daycare center somewhere. Is this a good use of funds? That's up for grabs, but we can be sure that some redistribution is going to take place, unless you prefer the social structure of a Somalia or an El Salvador. The average taxpayer has a family, both parents work, and their income is modest. How do you think their backs feel?

We can take a step back, and also look at things from a more philosophical viewpoint. Where is the line between personal and community responsibility? Daycare makes it easier for both partners to work, and hence contribute to the economy and tax revenue. Good for society, yes? And even if they don't both want to work, there is often no choice. Today's prices, real estate prices in particular, have become geared to a two income family. No one voted for this, it just evolved. In effect, society says: both of you work. Great, but who stays home and looks after the kids? Conservatives tend to like to see things in black and white, and in snappy phrases, but often reality is more complex.


Where I differ from the Conservative government, as an example, is in their move to highly subsidize "families" through tax policy and their move to allow income pooling that will reduce the tax paid on high income where a lower paid or non-employed spouse is in the equation. I believe there is no overriding national interest served by these "choosing winners" policies and the $billions foregone or spent to fund these initiatives would have been better used to fund across the board tax relief for all taxpayers.

And just what "winner" is being chosen here? Most Canadians, I feel confident in saying, loosely fit that category- one partner in a family has a higher paying income (often the male), and the other a lower income. It is tax relief for the masses, something you like, no?
 
......As for government support/incentive for business, as I've said I don't support it and it should be incredibly rare. As an example, I strongly opposed the bailouts of Chrysler and GM - the auto industry is sufficiently entrenched and mature and is not in need of propping up. If it can't produce products that are desired by the public at a price that is acceptable to the public, then they should cease to exist and let those that can produce such do it. Likewise, oil and gas giants don't need or deserve government incentives and/or tax breaks.

I don't know how many times I have to say it before you actually get it but I'll say it once again. I believe government should restrict itself to core functions that benefit and/or protect the entire jurisdiction and the entire population and not be creative in establishing policies and programs that social engineer in whatever manner they support - that goes for governments of all political stripes.

OK, let's start a list. You think these should be outside of government effort: Daycare, tax breaks for families, bailouts for large corporations. Daycare is a double edged sword, as outlined above. In fact, I think (could be wrong) the NDP has produced some stats on this, that indicate a net gain for society. Tax policy in undoubtedly an essential tool of any government, and in this case, it is hard to see what you are against, as it represents a reduction in taxes, one of your key points. Bailouts? I agree with you there, at least in the case where they are a product of insider lobbying and special interests, rather than a part of long term, hard-header economic planning. But that's hardly a conservative viewpoint. Canada has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the developed world, and is not shy about supporting big business, and this is under a conservative government.
 
Back
Top Bottom