Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
No, you cut off the second half of my sentence.
"I think a big thing people will always fail to consider with the idea of a public grocer is that even if we each are contributing $500 in tax dollars to make it happen, it is worth it if we end up saving any number that is more than $500 of post tax money when buying groceries."
You can replace "500" with whatever number you want. I think most people understand that spending pre-tax dollars to save post-tax dollars is a win. If we can stop the cost of groceries from continuing to skyrocket in cost then that is a win. If we can reduce the cost of groceries, then that is a huge win.
|
I mean, I can't believe I'm doing this...
We can figure out what the "whatever number you want" is... There are 30mm tax-filers in Canada and you're wanting to reduce grocery profits by $2B. There was a post earlier that the bottom 50% of filers only contribute 5% of taxes, so let's eliminate them from the equation - you essentially have 15mm people needing to fund a program that will save Canadians $2B annually, which is $133 per payer...
So you have 15mm people paying $133 per year, to theoretically save $50 per year for the entire population.
Or let's take it a step further: since this is such a glorious idea (comrade), let's just nationalize the entire industry and wipe all $6B of profit out. Those same 15mm tax payers would have to pay $400 a year so every Canadian can save $150.
Which all sounds
kinda meaningless great, until you consider that this (from the same post I referred to above):
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
...
But the tricky thing is that the median income of the whole top 50% (ie. the top 25%) was 76,200 (2023), which is to say that income level is still a subsidizer and not a subsidizee (which is totally fine)...
|
So the vast majority of those 15mm tax payers in the top 50% aren't exactly rich. Most likely, a typical family of four in this group has two working parents... so in the scenario where we're slashing profits by $2B, that family would contribute $266 a year to save $200. When we nationalize the grocers and eliminate all profit, that family of four would need to contribute $800 to save $600.
Sure some single income households, single parents with 2 or more children would come out ahead... but at what cost? Like someone said earlier, this sounds like a really really (really) complex wealth redistribution scheme.
The list of assumptions to get to this point is so long I can't believe anyone would genuinely believe this is a good idea.
Like I said, just because the numbers are big doesn't mean that they're meaningful... you seem really hung up on that $6B in profit, but it's really a nothing-burger in the scheme of things.