Alberta Politics Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Just because a few people think that way doesn't mean that way of thinking should be forced onto everyone.

Good thing I never said that then, eh?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

If you actually think your taxes are being used efficiently and appropriately to benefit society as a whole, more power to you.

Debating the efficiency of government spending is fair, but I have the feeling that if we made government as efficient as possible and there was still a need for higher taxes, I think we'd still hear a fair amount of bitching.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by woob

In an ideal world, the amount of taxes you pay would be in sync with how well your government is run and how well they're managing finances, supplying services, and running the province/state/country you're in. In that ideal world, if they're a good government and not crooked, then I'd happily pay the level of taxes set and wouldn't think twice about it.

But unfortunately in our reality, many think that the government of their province/state/country is not running things as best it can and so feel like taxes just go to fund corruption/unions/over-spending/etc. and do what they can to pay as little taxes as possible.

I don't think Alberta is or has been run well for a long time so I don't really blame people for trying to get as creative as possible with their tax burden. There's a lot of fat that could be trimmed in this province that would likely result in less taxation.

Anyways, just rambling.

Right, and I wasn't debating any of that. Those are all valid concerns to have, and despite what people think I'm not someone who thinks just throwing more money at a problem is going to fix it. I do think there are various areas in society that are underfunded and need to be addressed. I also feel like a lot of that funding could be addressed by closing loopholes in our tax code and punishing those who aren't paying their taxes (which I know is tougher than it sounds).

My point was just in response to Slava's that people tend to throw away their ideals as they get older and start getting taxed more. It may be true in some cases or a majority of cases, but it's not true in all cases.

[OMG!WTF!]

I don't care how much tax you pay....or about people saying they'd pay more tax if services were better. I just care about how much you donate. Money where mouth is.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't care how much tax you pay....or about people saying they'd pay more tax if services were better. I just care about how much you donate. Money where mouth is.

A little over $600/year.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by rubecube

A little over $600/year.

Dude...sentiment not nuance. TMI.

[transplant99]

nm

[Mr.Coffee]

I'm of the opinion that having kids actually is a societal need, and it is a lot of work, and those families should be compensated for that either through taxes or rebates or whatever. Which people are compensated a bit, but governments could do a little more, considering how out of whack childcare has gotten for the average family.

I love when single people say 'well you had kids because you made a choice'. Well a) maybe I did maybe I didn't (in my case I did, but how the hell do you know everyone chooses to) and b) these kids are going to be supporting your diapers when you're old so that's a pretty unsympathetic attitude to have to these families working their balls off raising their kids.

Raising kids is about 10x harder than not raising kids. For the people not having kids, I suspect the answer is because holy ####, that sounds like a lot of work. Yeah, it is, so yeah, it should be compensated because yeah, our society needs it and YOU are going to need young people to feed the tax system to keep your ass alive and comfortable in the future.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I'm of the opinion that having kids actually is a societal need, and it is a lot of work, and those families should be compensated for that either through taxes or rebates or whatever. Which people are compensated a bit, but governments could do a little more, considering how out of whack childcare has gotten for the average family.

I love when single people say 'well you had kids because you made a choice'. Well a) maybe I did maybe I didn't (in my case I did, but how the hell do you know everyone chooses to) and b) these kids are going to be supporting your diapers when you're old so that's a pretty unsympathetic attitude to have to these families working their balls off raising their kids.

Raising kids is about 10x harder than not raising kids. For the people not having kids, I suspect the answer is because holy ####, that sounds like a lot of work. Yeah, it is, so yeah, it should be compensated because yeah, our society needs it and YOU are going to need young people to feed the tax system to keep your ass alive and comfortable in the future.

So what do you consider the billions paid in taxes by empty nesters, and child less adults that go towards education, youth programs and child care? When it comes to the real cost of raising kids, the parents are already getting an unmeasurable tax break. If my wife and I and every other person who is childless or has already raised their children could keep this tax money we'd have more then enough to take care of ourselves and "keep our asses alive".

Also, when you do your income tax, there are tax breaks and credits available to you as parents that are not available to others.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

So what do you consider the billions paid in taxes by empty nesters, and child less adults that go towards education, youth programs and child care? When it comes to the real cost of raising kids, the parents are already getting an unmeasurable tax break. If my wife and I and every other person who is childless or has already raised their children could keep this tax money we'd have more then enough to take care of ourselves and "keep our asses alive".

Also, when you do your income tax, there are tax breaks and credits available to you as parents that are not available to others.

I don't know. The way I see it, I had my education paid for by the generation before me, so it's only proper that I do the same.

[corporatejay]

Why should I forego a vacation and a new car that I earned so someone can get a free education? Tuition in Canada isn't prohibitely expensive.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Raising kids is about 10x harder than not raising kids. For the people not having kids, I suspect the answer is because holy ####, that sounds like a lot of work. Yeah, it is, so yeah, it should be compensated because yeah, our society needs it and YOU are going to need young people to feed the tax system to keep your ass alive and comfortable in the future.

I'm of the opinion that in about 50 years, when I'm of the age that where adult diapers may happen, society will have already ruled in favor of assisted suicide as an everyday right. And I will gladly exercise that right and save your kids the trouble.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why should I forego a vacation and a new car that I earned so someone can get a free education? Tuition in Canada isn't prohibitely expensive.

Why should I have to forego cheaper education so someone can have an extra kid or two?

[GGG]

This discussion centers around what is a public good.

But if you look self interestedly at things like crime and poverty it probably is economic to pay more in taxes to have better social programs, which will give better eduction to poor women. Poor uneducated women have significantly more kids then educated women. Poor uneducated men father more kids than educated men.

So if in general we want to reduce the burden people put on our society targeting specific groups of people with funding whether or not anyone "deserves" it is probably a good idea.

A good example of this are housing first initiatives which basically gives anyone homeless a free house. This is found to save money over all on emergency room visits and policing. Instead most programs want people to get clean first.

From a government standpoint a good government should be driven to implement programs which measure the economic benefit of programs and derive maximum value. For example does free tuition at university increase the GDP and therefore the tax base of a country? Does a minimum living wage make more sense than current safety net? Instead we have left wing government that want to expand programs to serve there base and don't seem to want to means test anything. Nothing should be universal. And you have conservative governments who just want to idealogicly cut programs from everyone who hasn't "Earned it".

And no one seems to care about economic analysis to evaluate social programs and targeting funding at programs which are proven to be effective.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Why should I have to forego cheaper education so someone can have an extra kid or two?

Well you know...it's not your money in the first place. I see what you're trying to do but its not the same argument.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Why should I have to forego cheaper education so someone can have an extra kid or two?

You say this as if you think you have some right to other people's money to fund your life choices.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Why should I have to forego cheaper education so someone can have an extra kid or two?

Agreed. I think having too many children you can't afford is a big problem in our society.


You do realize that those who benefit from my tax dollars are in large part individuals who have made this decision though right?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You say this as if you think you have some right to other people's money to fund your life choices.

Yes. That's how taxation and public services works.

You also have the right to disagree, but neither of you have the right to make decisions without consensus

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I love when single people say 'well you had kids because you made a choice'. Well a) maybe I did maybe I didn't (in my case I did, but how the hell do you know everyone chooses to) and b) these kids are going to be supporting your diapers when you're old so that's a pretty unsympathetic attitude to have to these families working their balls off raising their kids.

I can understand where you are coming from with people assuming things, but in the end its still a choice. Unless the child was born outside of Canada, you have the choice and the procedures are free (up to a certain amount of times) to prevent an unintentional pregnancy. If these procedures are against any of your religious or personal values I completely understand however that's your choice, no-one is forcing you to hold those beliefs and you better be more careful with preventative measures if you don't want to be a parent.

I'm not trying to single you out, just trying to provide a counter argument.

[polak]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You say this as if you think you have some right to other people's money to fund your life choices.

I have to fund your kids life. I really wonder how much of the tax I pay goes to child related areas....

Obviously people don't complain about it cause funding society's future makes sense. Just funny that we're bringing up paying for life choices when the taxes from people without kids are pouring tons of money in for schools, playgrounds, youth programs and recreation for children.

Personally, I'd like it if we converted every playground to a strip club and instead of funding school buses we funded limos to take me to said strip clubs.