From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Spartacus League Investment Club
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:09:42 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>
>>The provinces can harmonize their PSTs with the GST whenever they 
>>want.  Mostly for political reasons they have chosen not to do so.
>
>ah, but we were discussing Gary's claim that the GST had some 
>beneficial aspects to retailers. 

Eh?  Where'd I say that?  I just said that it removed the wholesale
tax to give a straighter sticker price.  The overnight implementation
was a bitch, and I did say that it was clumsy (shoulda said the former
to catch yer attention).  You don't have to tell me about the GST's
implementation, I had to spend most of December 31, 1990 reprogramming
the cash registers at our family's business for 6% Manitoba sales tax
and then 7.5% GST according to the formula ...

[Okay, 7.0% ... gotcha! (-;]

>>If memory serves, the 7% GST is taking in about $18 billion per year.
>>The 13% (or thereabouts) *hidden* MST used to take in somewhat less 
>>(one or two billion).
>
>now if that was Gary saying that, i'd not be surprised, because he 
>has done this once too often. i'll assume you weren't trying to 
>mislead the readers (as Gary is). 

Everything that Jim said has been consistent with mine ...

>if the old tax was $1-2 billion, and the new tax is $18 billion, the
>old tax did not take in "somewhat less" -- the new tax is between 800%
>and 1700% higher than the old tax, depending on if you use the $2B or
>$1B figure.

Please read it again ... Jim meant "MST *by* 1-2B less than the GST" ...

>and this was my essential point in response to Gary's lame attempt
>to justify the GST as a replacement for the MST, a line he quoted
>directly from the government bureaucracy, and dropped like a hot
>potato after i forced him to try to defend the math.

Luckily, Jim is in Canada and has access to figures ... again, please
re-read Jim Robinson's article *carefully* ...

>>Thus, there was no 7% reduction in purchasing power.

Parity check ... got it!

>sorry -- you can't refute my argument by redefining the laws of math.
>maybe it isn't 7% -- maybe it's 7% times $16 billion over $18 billion.
>so? 6%?

Parity check ... bzzzt!  (see above)

>>It is also a more "honest" tax in that, unlike the old MST, it
>>is not (usually) hidden in the price of the good or service.

That certainly bears repeating, Jim ...


cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes: [By the way, I'm
concatenating sections of two articles since they are running in
parallel ... each section is on the same topic, in A-B/B-A order]
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:

>>Not at all!  Check it out" "there was a swap ... the two taxes were
>>tied together".
>
>oh right. was the swap made before or after you tried to defend
>it two days ago? sheesh. would you like some more rope?

Do a ^p (or control-p on dumb terminals) and you'll see that I've been
consistent.  And Jim and Gerald have corroborated what I had said with
figures they have available to them in Canada.  It all jives with what
I've read in the press.

>did you ever consider that the only reason they had a "small plant
>open in Ontario" in the first place was to avoid the tariffs they 
>now don't have to avoid?

That was the reason why I gave that example about free trade ...

>it doesn't have to be all one-way. but your argument means nothing
>since you can't tell us why an entrepreneur should start up a company
>in canada when she can do so much more easily in the states.

Maybe we can ask someone with more experience in these matters from
Corel in Ottawa or Ogivar (high quality super PC-clone workstations)
in Montreal, if they're on the Net?  I wish that I had the UPI article
about Ericsson's lab expansion in Montreal over New Jersey (they're on
Ile des Soeurs, near BNR Montreal) handy ... okay Ericsson's not an
entrepreneur but ...

>more deception for our american audience. how can you compare M-F/
>Varity, which has been in financial dire straits for years, with 
>Northern Telecom, a pillar of canadian business and a major employer?

Varity took a bag of money that could have set it straight and used
it in a cross-border move to satisfy their CEO's desire for "freedom".
They gambled and lost ... that bag of money was from Ontario, and it
was used in a way that wasn't intended in the original loan for the
firm to "save itself".

>and tell me this.. what kind of society is it that a company
>like NT has to threaten to leave the country to get tax breaks

Everyone plays the game.  NT had a stronger hand because they are a
techology leader ... excuse me, THE techology leader in the digital
telecom field.  Through the 1980's, our best EE/CS, IE, OR, etc.
people who wanted to work at home at something that really matters
depended on NT and BNR for research and development jobs.  Even now
they are at the front of the field in the job market, but others have
appeared in the meantime with real jobs.  Our CEO's were great at
squeezing water from stones, especially if it was a politician's head.
Think about this when you read about a tax abatement anywhere, for
anyone.  Stadium/arena building is a common one, there's a couple of
new ones going up for the NHL expansion teams in Florida ...

>>>that the canadian business council came down to harvard business school
>>>this year to practically *beg* canadian business students to come back
>>>to canada "because the country needs them", in true socialist fashion?
>>
>>The Canadian Business Council is socialist?  Then is the Chamber of
>>Commerce? (-;
>
>i was there, Gary, don't give me more of your crap. 
>they paraded a whole bunch of top executives to talk about how
>wonderful things were, and how "needed" young business grads were.

Gee, at our campus careers center they call it a recruiting drive ...
Virginia coordinated a session with some of their businesses lately
here at Columbia.  What's that say?

>the policies of the canadian and most provincial governments are
>extremely socialistic. you support them. therefore you are a socialist.

Zzzzzz...

>your argument is *still* nothing more than "we have had so many
>leaders, they couldn't all be socialist". why not? because you 
>said so? couldn't just *some* have been more socialist than others?
>couldn't 90% of them have been socialist and you threw in the extra
>10% knowing full well that they were the exception, in another lame
>attempt to default your way out of a losing argument?

Okay, put up an alternate list of any minor provincial premiers, and
federal or provincial cabinet ministers,  who could have had as strong
a sway as/than that list of pace-setters.  I figured that you're aware 
of how "imperial" our party leaders are, and during their time in power
the dynasty types from my list set the agenda.

>>Paul is a self-made millionaire who rejected his silver-spoon 
>>heritage from his father (the writer of the Canada Health Act),
>>moved to Montreal, became bilingual and founded companies like
>>Canada Steamship Lines (CSL)).
>
>you can deal with the other gentleman on that guy. he seems to 
>disagree with you, and given your track record he is probably right.

Gerald's one o' my homeboys from Rec.sport.hockey with a very healthy
contempt for our running dogs of the Canadian Establishment politicos;
he said "Paul Desmarais was Martin's sponsor" in a more entertaining
fashion ... I almost choked on my coffee giggling over it! (-;

>>>but it *doesn't* work, as i have pointed out.  even the health
>>>insurance system will eventually collapse. don't believe the 
>>>bull about "we spend less on health care per capita than the US". 
>>>i don't. it will come tumbling down too.
>>
>>You have not pointed out anything, with all due respect.
>
>ah! there it is! your pinnacle of deception! well done!

Your only objection centers around the government conducting the
basic health insurance because the private sector won't come near
the risks involved in universality ... and are happy to do so 'cos
they got to keep the private insurance for "extras" ... you have
not presented a single example of grey-suited government figures
directing doctors or patients because in real life, they can't
as our "system" is insurance benefits that the consumers spend
on their own need with a private doctor relationship.

>if you don't want to deal with the issues, to hell with you.
>if you do, go back and re-read them, and respond logically.

I have been consistent in what I've written ...

>do i have to go back and re-excerpt *everything* just to keep you
>straight?

No, just read it carefully the first time even as your veins pop
and you think that I'm slime ...

>>Whoa!  Was I disagreeing with elimination of the deficit?  Not so!
>
>well? exactly what "drastic and sweeping changes" are you not for 
>then, since you just *assumed* that you knew which ones *i* was for?

Why get rid of the health insurance?  It's not broken.  Honouring
international drug patent terms hasn't hurt the French and Germans
who have the same insurance system that we do ... no problem.  More
private hospitals?  If someone cares to set one up honouring the
current insurance (our doctors get the same net take-home pay, but
a smaller gross due to less liability by an order or two magnitude),
again no problem -- the French do it (Palestinian terrorist Georges
Habash was not at a far-out community clinic during that famous
incident last spring).

Keep the Armed Forces.  We're still not entirely sure about Russia and
the rest of the formerly-Soviet dis-Union ... the hardliners got their
guy as PM today, bad news for Yeltsin and a whole lot of us ... RCMP,
Transport Canada, CSIS, Health & Welfare ... I dunno, if Ronnie and
Mags (Thatcher) got stumped then I'm not doing much better ...

There's a lot of other fat, I don't have time to go further on the 
essentials, but let's say we throw an axe in the general direction
of those "Arts & Culture" grants that end up in Quebec strip bars.

Okay, how about means testing so that we have smaller (e.g.) baby
bonus programmes for the really poor (charity?  Dickens had some
good stuff about relying on private charity only) -- I've seen too
many instances of neighbours dropping off their baby bonus cheques
at the bank on the way to catch the plane for their third trip to
their Florida winter time-share.  Have an honest tax rate, don't 
bother with bribing people with their own money.

>so tell us Gary, do you believe in "from each according to his 
>ability to each according to his need"?

Yeah, so what about it?  If I lived in a log cabin on the Kootenay
range in the Rockies, that's all I'd need.  Living in a society, I
also believe that "no man is an Island unto himself" (John Milton?)
and the balance of the two are the basis of our western capitalist
democracies having numerous persons.  Jefferson and Disraeli are great
for individual rights and freedoms, as is Napoleon for codifying civil
responsibilities.  I guess that combined makes me a bore ...  I'm glad
that I'm not one-dimensional ...

>>gld, the tory socialist (-;
>
>you joke. tell me this Gary: tell me how the current tories 
>(conservatives) are not socialist? go ahead Gary, give it a try.

Lessee ... US-Canada FTA, GATT, NAFTA ... the international socialist
conspiracy is creeping in there ... yep!

And finally, you're going to love this ... at a Tory fundraiser in
Edmonton last night, Mulroney said that he's looking forward to Bill
Clinton's new administration 'cos Bill will implement policies like
his and thus vindicate his government from the criticism they have
received.  Don't worry, I'm taking that with a big grain of salt ...
*coff*

John Vlad Ono Lenin
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.misc,alt.current-events.somalia