Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > Tilted Fun Zone


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-12-2004, 12:10 AM   #41 (permalink)
Rawr!
 
skier's Avatar
 
Location: Edmontania
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJRousseau
Sorry Dude didn't mean to be abstruse. I just enjoy a little sesquipedalianism from time to time.
AHHHHHHHH *puts on tin foil hat* the evil 2 dollar words can't get me with this on!
__________________
"Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim
skier is offline  
Old 01-25-2005, 09:05 AM   #42 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Antikarma's Avatar
 
Location: Yellowknife, NWT
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpack0102
Personally I would cut all civil servants wages by 5 per cent or next time their contract is up offer them a 5 per cent cut or get new workers. Why should a friggin secretary get 75000 a year when in the normal world they might get 30 000.

OK, now that's just ignorant stereotypical thinking, me's thinking. My wife works for the feds, she's a helluva lot higher on the food chain then a secretary, and she earns the SECOND number you quoted. Hell her boss earns less than 70k, by far.

And whereas there are some extremely good dissections of the wheres and the how's, I prefer to take a somewhat naive and idealistic approach to the reasoning of why the debt is so high, as opposed to where it could be.

Lack of creativity. It seems every new approach we have, is simply the status quo with new spin. That can be applied to fixing healthcare, or our military, or pretty much any federal fix it up program you like. Cue 1 year study and report here, cue fist full of dollars next, cue trumpeting of our revived and saved [insert program here].

I think, as financial managers go, the liberals have done a bang up job. I think as free thinkers and problem solvers, they leave much to the imagination.

And my theory on the surplus? I know this will get shot down as incorrect or perhaps a horrible idea and I'd like to hear a counter argument. Universal, free day care. My family pays 800 a month for our two kids. And many single parents can not work because their income cannot support both day care and their expenses. All of that income gets turned right back around into the economy. I know it would easily double the disposable income of my family (course, my disposable income goes to Vegas, but don't tell the feds

), and by following the same (of course, perhaps flawed) theory, many income support dependant families can go get jobs, which would lower the federal burden as well as create new tax revenue.

Or hell, legalize pot. Could support Universal Daycare off the hippies in the Okanagan
__________________
"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."
Antikarma is offline  
Old 01-25-2005, 11:21 PM   #43 (permalink)
Psycho
 
JJRousseau's Avatar
 
Location: Vancouver, Canada
AntiK, I certainly agree that over the past ten years, the bottom tiers of government services have become MUCH more efficient. Most gov't employees at the bottom level work very hard, in many case for less compensation than a comparable private sector job.

The waste in government (aside from the pet projects, grants to friends and corporate welfare) comes in the bureaucracy - which is why I'd oppose your idea of universal day care. Imagine the gov't megalith that would be required to administer that! However, I do agree that assisting people to earn a living is preferable to welfare.
JJRousseau is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 08:27 AM   #44 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Make day care expenses fully deductable against your income, with an extra nominal (say, 3$) deduction/day for side-expenses to day care (dropping off/picking up).

Seems more practical than a national program.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 09:08 AM   #45 (permalink)
Psycho
 
JJRousseau's Avatar
 
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Yakk, agreed. The problem, I guess, is that some people don't make enough to pay the child care even if they are deductible. Not sure how to deal with that.
JJRousseau is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 11:06 AM   #46 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJRousseau
Yakk, agreed. The problem, I guess, is that some people don't make enough to pay the child care even if they are deductible. Not sure how to deal with that.
Then they should stay at home and take care of the child?

If it costs X to have someone else take care of your child, and you earn Y by having someone else take care of your child, if Y < X, you should take care of your child yourself.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 07:33 AM   #47 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Antikarma's Avatar
 
Location: Yellowknife, NWT
uh, which is why I brought up the issue. Molly the single mom can't afford to take her child to daycare, so she has to stay at home with the child, forcing her onto social assistance and the like. A program that lessens child care costs to the point of affordability not only reduces the social costs of having to support someone, but creates revenue income by taxing an income that would otherwise not exist.
__________________
"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."
Antikarma is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 01:14 PM   #48 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
uh, which is why I brought up the issue. Molly the single mom can't afford to take her child to daycare, so she has to stay at home with the child, forcing her onto social assistance and the like. A program that lessens child care costs to the point of affordability not only reduces the social costs of having to support someone, but creates revenue income by taxing an income that would otherwise not exist.
If Molly can't earn more at a job than it costs to put her child in daycare, why shouldn't the government 'hire' Molly to take care of her child? It is cheaper than hiring the daycare. In a way, Molly is more productive taking care of her child than she is working?

Admittedly, to make the 'someone else taking care of your child' completely tax-friction free, the cost has to be tax deductable and the income child care people earn has to be tax free. This looks something like a subsidy?
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 01:48 PM   #49 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Antikarma's Avatar
 
Location: Yellowknife, NWT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakk
If Molly can't earn more at a job than it costs to put her child in daycare, why shouldn't the government 'hire' Molly to take care of her child? It is cheaper than hiring the daycare. In a way, Molly is more productive taking care of her child than she is working?
No it is not cheaper. By the governments own standards, one childcare worker can take care of six pre school aged children. The one child care worker I know, with a degree in ECE, makes 32000ish pre tax. So work that out to, roundabouts, to 5300 a year per child. And yes, I'm aware that these are not numbers set in stone, but it's for debate's sake, of course.

Now, social assistance provides, for a single person, 1200 per month. This is of course in MY region, and very able to vary based on economic situation and area of residence. Keep in mind that that number is also based on SINGLE person, and a single mom would recieve more. Now, for the government to pay her at home it costs, immediately, 14400 a year at minimum (that is taxed too I believe). It ALSO loses out on potential tax revenue from the income of Molly were she gainfully employed, adding to that cost.

Which brings us to the second part of that. Noone at all can debate that Molly is not the most qualified to care for her child. But that arguement is two pronged. By a statement like that, it seems to degrade the parenting of those of us who DO work and send their child to daycare. As well, I would argue she is not doing the best for her child resigning herself to a lifetime of low income living. No college fund, no nice dress at prom, no family vacations, there are many things you miss out on when living low income.

Social assistance barely provides enough to survive off of. Its awful hard to take college courses while on it (to provide a means by which you would make an income to support your family as WELL as child care)

And as well, the point of my arguement is that universal daycare provides for more than lower income families. My family spends (I'd have to double check with my wife) 650 a month on day care. If I could turn part of that around and invest it in an RESP, or spend it back into my family, I think it helps ALL families involved.

But then again, as I also said previously, its just MHO, and could mean nada in the grand scheme of things.
__________________
"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."
Antikarma is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 02:34 PM   #50 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Oh, so the problem is that the marginal "tax rate" on people leaving social assistance is stuplidly huge? I'd be all for fixing that!

Quote:
And as well, the point of my arguement is that universal daycare provides for more than lower income families. My family spends (I'd have to double check with my wife) 650 a month on day care. If I could turn part of that around and invest it in an RESP, or spend it back into my family, I think it helps ALL families involved.
I already subsidize your family to a huge extent. I'd be willing to make that 650 a month tax-deductable, it being a cost of employment, but building a government child care program is a bit much.

Quote:
Which brings us to the second part of that. Noone at all can debate that Molly is not the most qualified to care for her child. But that arguement is two pronged. By a statement like that, it seems to degrade the parenting of those of us who DO work and send their child to daycare. As well, I would argue she is not doing the best for her child resigning herself to a lifetime of low income living. No college fund, no nice dress at prom, no family vacations, there are many things you miss out on when living low income.
I was just saying, if she can't afford to work and put her child in child care, then she must be more efficient at taking care of her child.

As it happens, the problem here was that social assistance results in punative marginal "tax" rates on people with low incomes. That huge tax rate magnifies the cost of working and hiring someone else to do something for you.

That single mom is earning, say, 18,000/year. If she goes to work at a 12$/hour job for 7.5 paid hours/day, 5 days/week and 48 weeks/year, she earns 21160$/year. She still recieves 2,000$/year in social assistance.

Her nominal marginal tax rate in going from 18,000$ to 23,160$ was, say, 18%.

Which means that by going to work, she earned 4238.58$ over the year. Now, she worked 1800 hours that year, which works out to an effective hourly income of 2.35$/hour.

She was paid 12$/hour. This means her effective tax rate was over 80%.

Not only that, placing her kid in daycare cost her 7800$/year.

If you got rid of the punative effective marginal tax rates on people on social assistance earning income, and allowed daycare costs to be deducted from income, this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.

I hold that an 80%+ marginal tax rate on the poor is the core of the problem.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 04:16 PM   #51 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Demeter's Avatar
 
The education & medical systems need to be overhauled. Thats a given. We need daycare funding big time (as mentioned above). And better student loan rates. I think these should be damn near tax-free.
Demeter is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 04:21 PM   #52 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Antikarma's Avatar
 
Location: Yellowknife, NWT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakk
I already subsidize your family to a huge extent. I'd be willing to make that 650 a month tax-deductable, it being a cost of employment, but building a government child care program is a bit much.
I'm not entirely sure how you meant that, and I hope you didn't mean it as you wrote it. That's incredibly presumptuous to the point of rude if so. You don't subsidize my family at all. We pay money to the government, not receive it, and proudly so.

That being said, we're looking at this from two separate perspectives. The argument you use is sound, and of course, correct. My argument is approaching this from another perspective.

Let’s assume we use your numbers, because I find no fault in them at all. Let’s assume that she does go to work, for 12 dollars an hour (which by the way in my neck of the woods, not happening. But I'm pretty sure that’s doable anywhere else in Canada), and send her child to daycare at a cost I believe we both agree on. All being said, with what she takes home, she cannot survive. The amount of money that she would bring home, deducting rent, childcare costs, food, utilities, essentials such as a small budget for clothes etc, if she DOES manage to somehow get by living in a cheaper part of the country, leaves absolutely nothing to allow for educational upgrades or spending on the child.

Now, my perspective is this. Let’s do as you say and allow the daycare costs to be deducted from taxable income. Molly goes to work, making, using the numbers, a total of 23160 a year, or 1930 a month. Before, using the taxable combined rate in BC, she would be paying 425.57 a month in taxes, taking home 1504.43 a month. Now, using the new numbers, with daycare rate deducted from the taxable income, molly has a taxable income of 15360 and pays 282.24 a month in taxes, taking home 1647.76.

Rent:650 (lets assume she lives in the ghetto)
Daycare: 650 a month
food: 200 dollars a month
We're up to 1500 dollars a month in expenses and she's eating rice every night without a telephone.

You see, we're approaching this from separate perspectives, and both of us are right in one way. But even with the daycare removed from taxable income molly could not support the family.

Feel free to poke holes in that. It's an open discussion and I'm never always right (according to my wife, its actually quite rarely I am). But unless I'm misunderstanding your perspective, which I don't believe I am, I don't think what you have offered provides a solution more than a band-aid to the people we are both talking about.
__________________
"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."
Antikarma is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 04:23 PM   #53 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Antikarma's Avatar
 
Location: Yellowknife, NWT
Wait, I forgot to deduct the personal income deduction from that, so the numbers are skewed. As I said, not always right. I'll re-crunch the numbers if you like, but I think it still stands to reason
__________________
"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."
Antikarma is offline  
Old 01-28-2005, 08:09 AM   #54 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
I'm not entirely sure how you meant that, and I hope you didn't mean it as you wrote it. That's incredibly presumptuous to the point of rude if so. You don't subsidize my family at all. We pay money to the government, not receive it, and proudly so.
Families recieve tonnes of tax breaks from the government, and children have higher medical costs than adults do. Single people don't. I shouldn't have used the a specific noun, pointing to your case. My apologies.

I subsidize families in the same way that elderly people's property tax subsidizes young people's education. =)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
That being said, we're looking at this from two separate perspectives. The argument you use is sound, and of course, correct. My argument is approaching this from another perspective.

Let’s assume we use your numbers, because I find no fault in them at all. Let’s assume that she does go to work, for 12 dollars an hour (which by the way in my neck of the woods, not happening. But I'm pretty sure that’s doable anywhere else in Canada),
I assume you mean 12$/hour unskilled labour isn't doable? Or, working full time at 12$/hour isn't doable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
and send her child to daycare at a cost I believe we both agree on. All being said, with what she takes home, she cannot survive.
She cannot be well off. I would argue she could survive.

However, please examine the implications of both keeping social assistance and lowering the effective marginal tax rate on low income individuals. The end result is a relatively low marginal tax rate on low income people, and a net negative tax rate on low income individuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
The amount of money that she would bring home, deducting rent, childcare costs, food, utilities, essentials such as a small budget for clothes etc, if she DOES manage to somehow get by living in a cheaper part of the country, leaves absolutely nothing to allow for educational upgrades or spending on the child.
*nod*, children are extremely expensive.

Luckily, the child could self-finance an education, given the Canadian student loans/bursuries/etc system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
Now, my perspective is this. Let’s do as you say and allow the daycare costs to be deducted from taxable income. Molly goes to work, making, using the numbers, a total of 23160 a year, or 1930 a month. Before, using the taxable combined rate in BC, she would be paying 425.57 a month in taxes, taking home 1504.43 a month. Now, using the new numbers, with daycare rate deducted from the taxable income, molly has a taxable income of 15360 and pays 282.24 a month in taxes, taking home 1647.76.
Alright, I'll take those numbers as accurate. I assume you rolled CPP and EI into the income tax rate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
Rent:650 (lets assume she lives in the ghetto)
Heh, I'm not living in a ghetto. I'm sharing a 3 story house with 2 other people, and paying 430$/month, inclusive.

If you can't afford the rent in a big city, get the hell out of it.

A shared telephone would cost me another 10-20$ -- instead, you could get a cell phone (100$ hardware costs/5 years, or less if you buy used) and a pay-as-you go plan (10$/month, only minimal phone use, no viable long distance).

And no, I don't live in a big city. =)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
Daycare: 650 a month
food: 200 dollars a month
We're up to 1500 dollars a month in expenses and she's eating rice every night without a telephone.
Using 450$/month rent, that means she now has 350$/month in disposable income, for things like clothes, food upgrades, or savings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
You see, we're approaching this from separate perspectives, and both of us are right in one way. But even with the daycare removed from taxable income molly could not support the family.
She can't support her family out of (relative) poverty.

She is a single, unskilled, mother, with no support from the father or her family. She should be relatively poor. And I mean relatively poor in the sense that she should be worse off than a single unskilled woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antikarma
Feel free to poke holes in that. It's an open discussion and I'm never always right (according to my wife, its actually quite rarely I am). But unless I'm misunderstanding your perspective, which I don't believe I am, I don't think what you have offered provides a solution more than a band-aid to the people we are both talking about.
Lets examine what I meant by "marginal tax rate on the poor".

Lets say social assistance comes to 8,000$/year (lower than current), and that marginal tax rates on the poor cap out at 40%.

So, if you go out and get a job, and earn 100$/month, at most 40$/month is clawed back from your social assitance and taxes. I

Income(annual):Assitance-taxes (negative = taxes, positive=income)
0$:8,000$
5,000$:6,000$
10,000:4,000$
15,000:2,000$
20,000:0,000$
25,000:-2,000$

Extreme? Well, considering that the top marginal tax rate anywhere in Canada is 52%, should we be taxing the poor on the margin at a higher rate?

Under this model, she is earning 12.50$/hour, 7.5 hours/day, 48 weeks/year, for an income of 22,500$ before taxes.

650$/month in child care comes to about 8,000$, lowering her income to 14,500$.

14,500$ at 40% marginal comes to 5,800$ in taxes. After child care expenses.

Paying 650$/month for an apartment to herself leaves her with 6,500$/year, or 540$/month for food, clothing and the like.

Is this ridiculous? Quite possibly. The fact is, right now, the effective marginal tax rate on the poor is higher than it is for any other demographic in Canada. 40% is already a higher marginal tax rate than most of the middle class.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Last edited by Yakk; 01-28-2005 at 11:08 AM.. Reason: Fixing quote errors
Yakk is offline  
Old 01-29-2005, 12:24 PM   #55 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Antikarma's Avatar
 
Location: Yellowknife, NWT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakk
I assume you mean 12$/hour unskilled labour isn't doable? Or, working full time at 12$/hour isn't doable?
The 12$/hour unskilled labour bit. Thats a top end secretary or skilled labourer here. Unskilled labour can expect to make 8 bucks an hour here tops, but thats regionalizing it. As I said, sure its more than possible in most parts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakk
Heh, I'm not living in a ghetto. I'm sharing a 3 story house with 2 other people, and paying 430$/month, inclusive.
If you can't afford the rent in a big city, get the hell out of it.
Average 2 bedroom apartment, in my community of 30k people, is 700 a month. Not sure how that stands up to national average. I know my brother looked at one in Lethbridge for 600 a month, utilities included, for one bedroom. That seems a lot cheaper, but meh, welcome to BC.


I like your arguement. I hate to admit it, but I can't poke any holes in it. Dammit Wheres JJ when I need someone to poke holes in my opposing view

Well said mate.
__________________
"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."
Antikarma is offline  
 

Tags
billion, surplus, wwyd


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:21 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360