From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:33:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.043319.13522@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>mk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>>
>>>>   They receive no interest deduction for house payments.
>>>
>>>That's an aberration of the U.S. tax system.  Everything's relative.
>>>Does the U.S. give you a deduction for expenses in running a power
>>>saw?  Order a federal tax form from a Canadian consulate or embassy.
>>>It's in there.  It has it's own little outlined section ...
>>
>>you have made some good points in other areas of this discussion, but
>>the above is absolutely ludicrous. you're comparing home interest
>>deductions to running a power saw? what percentage of candians buy
>>homes and what percentage buy power saws?
>>
>>call it an "aberration" or whatever you want -- you sound like you
>>work for the government. for a home-owner with a $200,000 mortgage
>>at 10%, that "aberration" saves somewhere around $30,000 in taxes
>>over the first five years of the mortgage. more than enough to buy
>>all the power saws a guy could want.
>
>The point that I was trying to make was: Why should non-homeowners get
>to subsidize homeowners?  The power saw deduction (which is real, by the
>way; second or third page of the tax form guide last time that I looked)
>was an example of how this is so arbitrary.  By the same token, why have
>a deduction for renters at the provincial level?  It's arbitrary.  Why
>not for car payments?  I hope that clarifies matters ...

it clarifies your point, but to me anyway, it makes no difference whatever.
the interest deduction is arbitrary, yes, but so is everything else in
both tax systems, including all deductions, all exemptions, and the
tax rates themselves. the only thing i care about, given that it is
all arbitrary, is how much money the gov't extracts from my wallet --
and they steal a lot more up there than they do down here.

if you want to talk about taxes from a philosophical standpoint, well
that is a different discussion. i have plenty of objections to much
of the way it is done too.

>
>>>>      The gas tax ALONE is a killer.  It effectively DOUBLES the cost
>>>>      per gallon.
>>>
>>>We do not have toll booths up north.  
>>
>>more power saws. what kind of argument is that?
>
>Not an argument, but a partial explanation.  Sure, I'd rather have
>neither taxes nor tolls but roads are nice if you have a car ...

*very* partial.

>
>>gasoline costs about $1/gallon more in canada than here. the average
>>car drives about 12,000 miles or so at about 25 mpg. that is an additional
>>cost of around $500 a year. you think people spend $500 a year on tolls?
>>some do, but most don't. and there are many people who *never* pay a toll.
>>it is only on a small number of roads.
>
>In metro New York, the Bay Area, L.A. and most other well-developed areas
>you can ring up US$200-300 in tolls a year; I rang up $5 over two days of
>interviews between NYC and Westchester County just outside city limits.

you've picked the absolute worst example areas in the whole US. in canada,
i have to pay $1+ more per gallon even if i want to just run a motorcycle
on my own property. can't you see the difference? the bad tolls are
in a few specific areas. the ludicrous gas taxes (also very arbitrary,
please note) are *everywhere*. the tolls can be avoided. the gas tax
cannot.

>>>Canada hasn't been like that, as you've exaggerated; I'm not denying
>>>the warts (check the companion article to this one; I'm a free trader)
>>>but we are reconfiguring.  It's not necessarily a matter of socialism,
>>>as I realize that Canada and Western Europe are now a favourite target
>>>of McCarthyists in the new world order, but note that we suffered the
>>>scourge of Victorianism, which has not had very good effects on our
>>>efforts in commerce.
>>
>>please tell me how Bob Rae is not socialistic.
>
>Ontario and Canada were around long before Bob Rae.  He's looking to
>be a one-term premier anyways, just like Mike Harcourt in B.C.

so you admit that he is a socialist. thank you.
(note to other readers: he was elected by a majority in Ontario).
he is capable of doing enough damage in 4 years that it doesn't matter
if he is a one-term premier or not. how do you know he'll be a one-termer
anyway? as little as 6 months before the election, no-one gave him a chance
to win, never mind a majority.

>>please tell me how canada, even compared to the US now, is not socialistic.
>
>We have private businesses, all our doctors are private, we have major
>corporations, we have major league sports franchises, people work hard
>and struggle to make a living, and try to get ahead.  What bothers
>your ideology?  There's too much to point out how Canada is a
>capitalist country.

compared to the former soviet union it is a capitalist country. compared
to the US (as i requested) it is a socialist one. i don't know what you
mean about doctors being private -- they seem pretty government-controlled
to me. and the fact that people work hard and struggle is irrelevant --
they do that more in socialist countries than capitalist ones anyway.

i think i've been pretty clear about what bothers my ideology.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex