|
Yes a lot of the topics on politics and finance to become repetitive after a while.
OK so now we've agreed on paying down the debt "as quickly as our individual economic philosophies allow". And we agreed up the positive and negative effects of a strong social safety net on the economy, what is left to debate?
Well, I guess we could go around GDP vs CPI one more time but brighter minds than ours have disagreed on macro-economic theory. But let me try this. In year one, Canada produces $100 worth of stuff. In year two, Canada increases production by 3% and so produces $103. Because there are $105 dollars in the economy in year two, that stuff sells for $105. So we say GDP increase by 3% and inflation was 2% (approx) What I am suggesting is that if the gov't required $20 worth of taxes to support the $100 production in year one, it does not follow naturally that that $21 (5% increase) will be required in Year two.
It's still my opinion that I am paying too much tax to a government that is too large. So I guess to look at it your way, I believe that the safety net is larger than it needs to be such that the negatives are outweighing the positives.
Now here's a ringer for you. I don't think over-spending on the safety net and infrastructure is our biggest problem. I think the fundamental problem with our system of government is that it's primary function is to get re-elected. It does that by appearing to be active (moving wealth around). Or for even more cynical thinkers, by giving out to more voters than they take from. (ie. if they tax one person $50 and give 10 people $5, how many votes are they ahead???)
OK that's cynical even for me.
|