From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:43:38 GMT

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.  Various price surveys (I don't know how long you
have been out-of-country nor whether you are able to follow news from
up north; I know that it can become a black hole without an effort)
have been published to show a stabilization of prices and even some
lowering in the past two years.  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 ...

>>Without any means of verification, most Americans would have to take
>>at face values claims that the GST (our federal Value Added Tax) was
>>put in to pay for wild health care spending rather than a rewrite ...
>
>the GST has nothing to do with health care costs whatever. for one
>thing, health care is handled at the provincial level and the GST is
>federal.

I was pointing out one of the exaggerations people have used to take
advantage of their fellow Americans' ignorance on these matters ...
I've caught more than a couple of people on that one. (-;

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

[Just as a neutral comparison, the Americans have an "a la carte"
approach to things whereas Canadians and Europeans have more of a
"prix fixe" approach ... this was something that came up among a
group of us while going out to dine here in Manhattan, seems to
fit ... (-;]

>>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?

>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.  They hate people on welfare just like
anywhere else (certainly I do if they're loafers).  Also, the linkage
of health insurance to work in America is a consequence of their tax
code; it is not written in stone anywhere.  If medical technology had
not advanced and everyone just paid cash like even 20 years ago, this
would not be an issue at all.

>and your comments about "getting fixed up early" make no sense -- if
>they weren't working before, why would they suddenly start working
>after they were fixed up?

If you refuse a certain number of assignments, you lose your welfare
up north.  If you're sick, that gives you an excuse to draw out from
public funds.  If you're healthy, you walk the plank ... people do
get cut off up north, ya know.  

>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.

>>Our cultural and historical low productivity and risk
>>aversion (if you've had any contact with conventional Canadian
>>business --- I'm not talking about Northern Telecom or any of our
>>stars here --- you know what I mean) is being addresses as we're being
>>forced into the realities of a global economy ... or check out of it.
>
>i don't believe much of the above. from what i have seen, canadian
>business and those of canadians who choose to be producers are every 
>bit as good as their american counterparts. 

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 ... don't forget that some of that "socialism" (if you use
the broad, all-encompassing American definition) was instigated by the
business establishment itself ... not just in Canada.  Last autumn, I
was at a German-American Chamber of Commerce dinner with my father-
in-law (who is a research exec with a major Euro-American drug firm)
and the head speaker was a director of Commerzbank who discussed how
by being blindly ideological with simplistic dismissal of "socialist"
policies rather than being pragmatic hinders their being considered
for effective capitalist tools, in particular the idea of universal
health insurance (get them healthy, get them working) since it's an
issue down here.  (Before you scream socialism again, find out who
Commerzbank is, and who has been governing Germany for three terms.)

>>The educated populace and investment in facilities is being noticed as
>>the country restructures (after all you've written, please don't turn
>>around and say you're against free trade!), with upgrades at Amdahl
>>and IBM Research in Toronto, DuPont in Kingston, etc. -- real jobs in
>>white collar, intellectual capital areas that have long suffered up
>>north.  If you go along with the general domestic complaining, you
>>are arguing for more chicken-cutting jobs for our university grads.
>
>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).

>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.

A strange comment for someone who claims experience in the computer
industry ...  At IBM Canada Research and at Northern Telecom, 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. It is much like the Silicon Valley model: you don't spend
the rest of your company's lifetime making just that chip, you go on
and make the next generation of chips.  By the way, I'd much rather
export a few DMS switches out of Bramalea for a few hundred truckloads
of tortillas anyday ... since you're at MIT and I'm at Columbia, don't
we both know that it's the white collar, intellectual industries that
have been at disadvantage for many different reasons (which we differ
on, it seems) for too long a time?

By the way, not all plants have been shut down in consolidations due
to continental free trade ... the smaller Canadian facilities have
often been converted into custom manufacturing, such as those Kleenex
products with the elaborate designs (they come from Canada; the plain
single colour ones by the truckload come from the U.S.).  (ref: UPI)

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy