From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Death of Canada (was: Re: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:00:46 GMT

In article <1gg50cINN5jm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>In a previous article, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) says:
>>I get UPI Clarinet's Canadian news on our feed; where in the last
>>couple of federal budgets has such a tax hike come through?  Hey,
>>I'm a tax-hating son of entrepreneurs ... but I can see where your
>>friends were exaggerating in their bellyaching.  Do you know of any
>>sources to contradict them?  Do your local papers ever print anything
>>about Canada? (Except for explosions and Quebec nationalist eruptions?)
>
>        No.  But I *did* see the Ontario Art Museum being closed.
>        The Toronto Symphony filing for bankrutpcy.
>        I paid $2.00 / gallon for gas.

you found gas that cheap? you must mean US dollars for US gallons.

>        I saw house prices that make L.A. look cheap.

right, but Mr. Dare will just tell you to move to Manitoba.
if you want to spend less than $250,000 on a decent-quality house,
in the toronto area, you have to live at least 30 miles from
downtown. of course i am not including condos.

>        I saw the penalty for not wearing a seatbelt.  $200 bucks.

i must concede, there are many states which have similar laws.

>        I saw an $11 Billion deficit being run, for 10 million people.

but it's even worse than that. that's only the *provincial* deficit.
add to that a $30-something billion deficit at the national level,
for less than 30 million people.

>>>   They receive no interest deduction for house payments.
>
>>That's an aberration of the U.S. tax system.  Everything's relative.
>       It still amounts to less taxes in the U.S. 

exactly.
here's some more amusing "aberrations": canada also *always* has higher
interest rates. right now they are pretty close, about 2% difference,
which is still a lot. less than 2 years ago, the gap was over *5%*.

and another: there is no concept of a long-term mortgage in canada. i
have never heard of a 30-year mortgage up there. 15-years have shown
up lately, but they are very rare. so most people are forced to get
5-year mortgages and hope for the best. and they pay more for them than
you pay for your 30-year. *and* they can't deduct the interest.

>>
>>We do not have toll booths up north.  
>>
>       Neither does Idaho.   So what?  

hear, hear!

>
>>>      I've seen the future.  It's highly bumming to think that the 
>>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.
>
>      I wish I were exaggerating.  I was totally appalled.  
>      My girlfriend is Canadian.  She's confirmed a lot of what I 
>      saw.  She was mugged in Toronto.  There's your gangs. :)
>
>      It was clean.  But it wasn't a place to live.  All kinds of 
>      government double-think posters on the wall.  Sad.  The people
>      seemed raggedy and poor.  

he said it. i didn't.
did you see the government "we were ranked the best country in the world
to live in by so-and-so ad, aren't we wonderful" ads on TV? there's
fiscal responsibility for you.

do you know how depressing it is to hear, every time i mention that i
am originally from toronto, "oh yeah. great city. nice and clean. i'd
love to live there"? it *used* to be that way. and the people who say
that have no idea what it is like to *live* there. it is still a nice
city, but not like it was (i'm talking 15 years ago, not 50). and you
pay the price if you want to live there. i still love toronto, because
i grew up there. that is exactly why i am so harsh on her now.

>>
>>As much as I can sympathize with your friends' complaints, I'm afraid
>>that you should be a little more critical before accepting every word
>
>
>      Believe me, chum.  I'm HIGHLY critical.  Of just about 
>    anything that promises something for nothing.

i wish there were more canadians who felt this way. because when this
socialistic morass comes crashing around their ears, they're not going
to know what hit them. and it's going to happen there first.

here are some more stats for those of you yet unconvinced (note that
much of the discussion is now only on t.p.misc, not t.p.theory, i'm
not sure on what basis to make the distinction). canada's federal
deficit, per capita, is as bad as the US's. ontario's doubles it
for 1/3 of the population, and many other provinces are also in
dire shape.

just looking at the national deficit, it is interesting to note that
it has been run up under the following circumstances:
- *much* higher per-capita taxes. proof to any american who thinks
  that raising taxes without controlling spending will fix the deficit problem
- canada spends only 8% of its budget on defence. not much of an
  excuse for a deficit there, and not much room for cuts
- canada spends *28%* of its annual budget on public debt charges
- excluding the 28% above, canada spends over 22% of the remainder
  on "equalization" programs. this is tax money which is collected from
  provinces which are actually capable of sustaining themselves, and
  is given to those that are not, so that things are more "fair".

i could list more, but i'm out of time and patience.
suffice to say, with its current level of spending, and anything
approaching canada's level of taxation, congress could probably
run a surplus easily. the gas tax difference *alone* would make
the difference (not that i am suggesting they do that). but things
are *much* worse up north.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy