Flint your post is exactly the boring rhetoric that always gets spouted when discussing this and I will slap it down in one sentence.
"If the government is so corrupt and constantly misuses funds, how is it anything other than foolish to expect that they'd use less of it well?"
You are talking about reforming allocation of resources- which is fine, but must predate any reduction in spending, which must predate any cutting of taxes or other sources of income. Unless you refute the existance of ANY 'Have Nots'
The talk here is the equivalent of being a results-oriented poker player, short-sighted and not focused on the whole.
The flaw that most Flat Tax opponents have in their argument is that they presume that the write-offs currently available to all would remain untouched. A true Flat Tax system would virtually ELIMINATE deductions as a matter of course. Something like the TFSA, or RRSP contributions might, and I emphasize might, be continued, but not much else.
With that in mind, has it ever occurred that, under a Flat Tax, the rich might actually pay more?
Disclosure, I have never, nor do I expect to, made more than $60k per annum.
My Father was the sole earner for our family. He and my Mom raised 4 kids, sent three to University, owned their home, and saved enough that Dad is not exactly hurting for $$$ in his retirement. He never made more than $30k per year in his life. I plan to be able to do the same. One does not need to be "rich" to be comfortable, they just need to be practical. Too many people are foolish with their $$$. I resent subsidizing stupidity.
Spoken like a true fiscal conservative. Smaller Gov't, more money in my pocket. That's the utopian dream we should be all working towards. Dunno how the hell we got into this "gov't knows better" mentality thats so prevalent nowadays.
Look at Canada now with just E-Health and OLG. Millions spent and the citizens have to pay for it and we have nothing to show.
Like the Liberal sponsorship scandal... we have a multi billion dollar budget.. If the worst we do is misallocate 0.01% to stupid shit like the above, I think the gov't is doing ok...
E-Health really gets under my skin. I'm in the IT Consulting field can understand completely why it's such a failure. It tried to solve a tough problem all at once. You need to break a problem down into small manageable parts if you ever want a project to succeed.
Oh, don't worry about the RRSP. It's such a huge grab by the 'future' gov't that I'm sure it more than self-supports. Think about the scenario where someone with a large RRSP dies. It's all taxable income in that one year...
Oh, don't worry about the RRSP. It's such a huge grab by the 'future' gov't that I'm sure it more than self-supports. Think about the scenario where someone with a large RRSP dies. It's all taxable income in that one year...
If you're wrong it's not by much. My Dad did what the government pushes, namely saving for retirement. He has friends that spent every dime (pretty much). Now, in retirement, they are getting all manner of benefits, while he, for the first time in his life, is actually paying out at tax time.
Comments
"If the government is so corrupt and constantly misuses funds, how is it anything other than foolish to expect that they'd use less of it well?"
You are talking about reforming allocation of resources- which is fine, but must predate any reduction in spending, which must predate any cutting of taxes or other sources of income. Unless you refute the existance of ANY 'Have Nots'
The talk here is the equivalent of being a results-oriented poker player, short-sighted and not focused on the whole.
With that in mind, has it ever occurred that, under a Flat Tax, the rich might actually pay more?
Disclosure, I have never, nor do I expect to, made more than $60k per annum.
My Father was the sole earner for our family. He and my Mom raised 4 kids, sent three to University, owned their home, and saved enough that Dad is not exactly hurting for $$$ in his retirement. He never made more than $30k per year in his life. I plan to be able to do the same. One does not need to be "rich" to be comfortable, they just need to be practical. Too many people are foolish with their $$$. I resent subsidizing stupidity.
Spoken like a true fiscal conservative. Smaller Gov't, more money in my pocket. That's the utopian dream we should be all working towards. Dunno how the hell we got into this "gov't knows better" mentality thats so prevalent nowadays.
Like the Liberal sponsorship scandal... we have a multi billion dollar budget.. If the worst we do is misallocate 0.01% to stupid shit like the above, I think the gov't is doing ok...
E-Health really gets under my skin. I'm in the IT Consulting field can understand completely why it's such a failure. It tried to solve a tough problem all at once. You need to break a problem down into small manageable parts if you ever want a project to succeed.
Oh, don't worry about the RRSP. It's such a huge grab by the 'future' gov't that I'm sure it more than self-supports. Think about the scenario where someone with a large RRSP dies. It's all taxable income in that one year...
If you're wrong it's not by much. My Dad did what the government pushes, namely saving for retirement. He has friends that spent every dime (pretty much). Now, in retirement, they are getting all manner of benefits, while he, for the first time in his life, is actually paying out at tax time.