NDP holds a convention wackiness ensues

[Azure]

They have a lot of supporters who don't have a brain which is why they get all the crazy proposals.

They'll weed out most of them and try to form a center-left platform.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wait, if we paid out 10,000 to lets say 25 million Canadians wouldn't it come out to $250,000,000,000?, in as you put it a combination of program and cash.

Canada spends half of that per person federally on health care alone.

What it sounds like your proposing is the tax free exmption level actually becomes a check and people can decide what services they use?

It actually does work a lot like the basic personal exemption, yeah.

As far as cost goes, it would replace a bunch of existing programs so it wouldn't be $250B in new spending. You could probably play around with the tax code so that for most people you're not changing their net income.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'll let Andrew Coyne explain it:

The basic idea behind the GAI is sound: to consolidate a number of federal and provincial programs, some in cash and some in kind, into a single, universal, unconditional cash benefit, delivered through the tax system. The base amount would be modest: perhaps $10,000-$12,000 per person. Critically, it would be taxed back only gradually, say at 25 cents on the dollar, as earned income rises. Compare that to current practice, where benefits are often withdrawn dollar-for-dollar, or in the case of benefits in kind like free dental care or prescription drugs, are denied altogether to those who leave social assistance: an effective marginal tax rate of 100% or more.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-when-they-do/

I bet all programs that administer various welfare payments cost twice as much to run than they actually pay out.

[Azure]

Is there a country doing it on a wider scale?

[GreenLantern2814]

Am I the only one who doesn't give a damn about curbing smoking anymore? Are we going to act like it doesn't cost more to keep someone alive well into their eighties for no real reason than it does to treat a cancer patient who will die at 60?

Or heaven forbid, are we going to let people make their own choices?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Am I the only one who doesn't give a damn about curbing smoking anymore? Are we going to act like it doesn't cost more to keep someone alive well into their eighties for no real reason than it does to treat a cancer patient who will die at 60?

Or heaven forbid, are we going to let people make their own choices?

Wait what? Are you serious? You don't think that smoking costs the health care system money in terms of long term costs ie pretty much every single disease imaginable is linked to smoking.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Or heaven forbid, are we going to let people make their own choices?

Only if 'breathing fresh air' is one of the options.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Wait what? Are you serious? You don't think that smoking costs the health care system money in terms of long term costs ie pretty much every single disease imaginable is linked to smoking.

Of course it costs the health care system money, but someone dying at 60 costs less than someone living until 80.

We live too long. More people need to kick off. There's something to be said for dying on more or less on your own terms as opposed to holding on to endure five or ten years where you need help to go to the bathroom.

Smoking helps thin the herd.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by SebC

Only if 'breathing fresh air' is one of the options.

We've already made it nearly a capital offence to smoke anywhere that isn't your own property. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking. If they don't, I'd argue the sooner they're not around the better.

The battle to keep us safe from cigarettes is well in hand.

[mustache ride]

Is smoking even an issue at this point. I smoked for fifteen years before quitting and now i don't know anyone that smokes.

It's banned in all public settings to the point that seeing someone smoking is now memorable. It is hidden in convenience stores and gas stations. There is no advertising for it.There are no kids outside 7-11 asking you to buy smokes for them anymore.

Are there reliable stats out there for the percentage of people that still smoke?

[Daradon]

I would agree that the laws we have for smoking seem to be working just fine now. I've never smoked myself, and do prefer non-smoking areas to smoking ones, but it is at record lows isn't it?

As well, I think GL2814 might have a point. I think was discussed in one of our smoking threads. That while yes, smokers do cost the health care system money, the taxes the pay on their smokes, combined with their lower average length of life, do come close to evening out in the end. On average of course.

Regardless, even as a non-smoker I don't really care about making the rules any stricter.

[Resolute 14]

I'd prefer the anti-smoking laws go farther. For instance, I would love to see smoking completely banned at Stampede Park, because it is annoying to put up with the odour coming from the a-holes who can't wait three extra minutes to get to their car before lighting up.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Of course it costs the health care system money, but someone dying at 60 costs less than someone living until 80.

We live too long. More people need to kick off. There's something to be said for dying on more or less on your own terms as opposed to holding on to endure five or ten years where you need help to go to the bathroom.

Smoking helps thin the herd.

People dying of lung cancer at 60 isn't what I would call dying on your own terms. Also that is why smoking is such an awful thing, because it is a contributing factor in nearly every disease imaginable. Diseases which cost money to treat throughout the lifespan, COPD is a major burden on the health care system that negatively impacts quality of life as well as the quantity of years lived.

Honest question, do you smoke? Do you have children? Do you want your children to smoke... because umm freedom?

[mykalberta]

I found it odd they would hold a convention the same weekend the Liberals picked their leader. I'm glad I only watched some of the Liberal conv and none of the NDP.

Although I dont mind the idea of taxing non Canadian RRSPs - although if you get into that then what about Canadian RRSP that hold US companies - very odd indeed.

[AR_Six]

^What the heck is a non-Canadian RRSP?

[CaptainCrunch]

The NDP were trying to do one of two things

1) Either Steal the thunder of Trudeau by holding their convention on the same weekend as the Trudeau election. They were probably hoping that the big news was NDP not socialists anymore.

2) They throught that the press would be so busy with Trudeau that they would ignore the wackiness.

Not sure which

[yads]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^What the heck is a non-Canadian RRSP?

I think he just meant non-Canadian Holdings in an RRSP

[AR_Six]

In other words, shares listed on a designated stock exchange that happen to be of an American based company aren't RRSP eligible anymore? That's pretty dumb. The point of RRSP eligibility is to ensure that retirement trust holdings are stable and not fly-by-night penny stocks; it's essentially a seatbelt law. Excluding viable, stable securities as non-qualifying would be counterproductive.

[Resolute 14]

And if that interpretation is correct, wouldn't that result in double taxing RRSP savings? Once on the way in, and again on the way out?

[AR_Six]

No... They've recently overhauled the prohibited investment regime so that it applies to RRSP's and RRIF's as well as TFSA's, so they would probably just add it to the list of prohibited investments. That results in a 50% up-front tax on fair market value refundable when you take the property out of the trust, plus a 100% tax on any gain or income from the property. It's pretty nasty and is the reason why private company shares are functionally RRSP ineligible as of a year and a half ago.