From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:52:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.030427.10182@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>
>>>It replaces a previously hidden wholesale tax.  People now see
>>>it, and complain.  This taking advantage of people's inability to 
>>>count has been spurred on by the Canadian Left, and it seems to 
>>>be working in many quarters ...
>>
>>the reason it is a lie is the "S" part of "GST", which has *nothing*
>>to do with a wholesale tax. canadians pay tax on the following
>>services: haircuts; dental services; car repairs; green fees;
>>computer services (i was in this industry -- it has taken a major hit
>>from this combined with the recession), and just about everything
>>else.
>
>True enough, but the capital equipment to carry out these services is
>now lower in price.  In the computer industry, some of those costs can
>get pretty major.

another variant on the "power saw" argument.
i get about 10 haircuts a year. each one costs about $20. that's
$200 a year, plus $14 a year i have to pay in GST on those haircuts.
my hairdresser probably has at least 100 other customers. you think
he saved $1400 on the difference between the GST and the old tax
on his capital equipment? *every* year?

how about green fees? dental services?

>have been published to show a stabilization of prices and even some
>lowering in the past two years.

yes, that will tend to happen during a recession. don't give the
GST credit for that.

>Also, that the GST funds have been
>earmarked to write down our deficit helps to reinforce the idea of
>fiscal responsibility, something that our population needs to be
>reminded of repeatedly ...

you sound like george bush with his "check box to reduce the
debt on your tax form". this is a fallacy. all the revenue goes on the
left side of the ledger, all the expenses on the right side. if you
take in more money and just spend it, it makes no difference.
so, has the deficit gone down since the GST was introduced?

(note that this contradicts the "GST replaces an existing tax" theory
anyway -- if the GST just replaced an existing tax, it wouldn't
generate any funds.)

>>>Another thing that I have to warn Charles about is that Canadian
>>>income tax rates include provincial taxes (only Quebec collects its
>>>own provincial tax like U.S. states do) and I've always seen those
>>>rates compared against the American federal rate ... add on state
>>>taxes in many states and it starts to hit or exceed Canadian rates.
>>
>>not even close. i live in taxachusetts, and there's still no 
>>comparison.  and there are many states which have no income tax.
>
>New York and California are not among them.  Others make up for it by
>having higher property taxes.  Or, you can live in a desert state ...
>not much to have to pay state taxes for. (-;

well, they could say the same thing about manitoba or newfoundland,
couldn't they?

>Look at your aggregate
>taxes, add in the cost of your health insurance coverage (even if your
>employer covers it, that coulda been salary

wrong again. at least in the industry i am in, salaries are similar
in both countries. so the health care is no extra cost.

>... and there always the
>copayment and deductibles and the share that you have to kick in) and
>all the other nickel-and-dime fees you have to pay down here ...

exactly. nickels and dimes.

look, i have filed both canadian and US income tax returns in the last
year. there is *no* comparison. i did a rough calculation before
i moved here that showed that a gross salary of $250,000 in canada
is equivalent to a salary of $140,000 in the states in terms of
purchasing power. and that doesn't even take into account the difference
in the value of the dollar. (no, my wife and i don't make anywhere near
that amount -- but i hope that we will be able to some day).

there is also the matter of other little things, like being able to
file jointly, which one cannot do in canada.

>
>>>On the other hand, a wealthy nation ought to be able to compete in
>>>terms of infrastructure ... educated populace, facilities, lack of
>>>public liabilities (with universal health insurance, not even our
>>>welfare bums get so sick as to ring up multi-million dollar tabs at
>>>our hospitals -- they get fixed up early, so they can either work or
>>>get cut off).
>>
>>classic socialist gobbledy-gook.
>
>You can do better than McCarthyism ... everyone else is Red, right?

more classic socialist gobbledy-gook: call a mccarthyist everyone
who recognizes your words as socialist.

>
>>it doesn't work because there is no incentive for people to do other
>>than grab all they can grab. there's no need to work because you get 
>>health insurance even if you don't. there's no need to do more than
>>the minimum required to guarantee this year's unemployment benefits. 
>
>Not all Canadians are communists on welfare.  The majority of people
>up north work for a living.

of course they do. but they get health care even if they don't.
why should they? isn't having someone take care of your body a valuable
service that one should earn, like any other?

>If you refuse a certain number of assignments, you lose your welfare
>up north.

oh yeah, this system works real well. i was working for a computer
systems firm in '87 in toronto (when things were going well). a
man in his 50's walked in the front door, unshaven, in dirty clothes,
and asked if we had a job for him. the person responsible said no,
so he asked if we could sign a form for the government saying
that he had tried to obtain employment.


>>also, who is supposed to pay for building the infrastructure? 
>>how are they supposed to pay for it?
>
>You make the bums work and pay their share.

then how come nobody is making them do that?
how are you going to make them work? 

>As I said, I'm not talking about the Northern Telecoms and the Peter
>Nygaards ... if you've ever read books about the Canadian finance
>establishment (e.g., "Towers of Gold, Feet of Clay") or a history of
>the Alberta oil industry (one reason why there's so little allegiance
>to central Canada and "let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark"
>attitude is that the Albertans went to Toronto first for financing
>and were shown the door by the Canadian Establishment ... that's why
>so many American banks and oil firms are active in Calgary), you'll
>see that risk aversion.
>
>>in fact, in some ways they have to be better, because they have to
>>carry canada's socialist burden on their shoulders in their attempt
>>to compete with american companies.
>
>Since the Conservative and Liberal parties are organs of various parts
>of the Canadian Establishment, they've not said much about that aspect
>although they have at least been moving towards some rational fiscal
>sensibility ...

they are cancerous organs if they are any kind at all :^)

how have they moved toward fiscal sensibility? mulroney (conservative)
promised to reduce the deficit and instead raised it; peterson
(liberal, former premier of ontario) raised the deficit and then
covered it up; rae (NDP, current premier of ontario) has been
so fiscally sensible he got the province's credit rating downgraded...

>don't forget that some of that "socialism" (if you use
>the broad, all-encompassing American definition) was instigated by the
>business establishment itself

how so?

>>you really think things are turning around up there? i don't believe
>>it for a minute. a couple of companies doesn't make much difference.
>
>But there is a trend ... GM closed a plant in Van Nuys, CA and then
>consolidated its production in Bromont.  IBM's exploitation of our
>Canadian brains comes at the same time that other firms are doing so
>in other areas, like Ericsson in Montreal (I'm jobhunting all over the
>continent, it's not just what I'm reading in the papers, and I'm
>amazed at the changes that I've seen up north since the past five
>years that I've been out of the market).

that's the most optimistic extrapolation i've heard in a long time.

>>i'm not sure what you mean about chicken-cutting jobs. i am talking
>>about manufacturing. canada's manufacturing base is being destroyed.
>>as it goes, it will be replaced with services. the problem with 
>>services is that they cannot be exported. and without exports, a
>>country cannot develop wealth.
>
>At IBM Canada Research and at Northern Telecome, they're making stuff
>that is being shipped out and around for cash money.  It's just that a
>lot of it is stuff that you can't hold in the palm of your hand.

if you can't hold it in your hand (or a crane, whatever), you can't export it
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc