Canada's Being TAXED Out Of Existence! - Trudeau Raises Taxes AGAIN!

originally posted by: CCKP72
I am Canadian and would love nothing more to move to the US!

BTW - our healthcare system is a joke UNLESS you have cancer or heart issues.

I disagree as to the healthcare system. It ain't perfect, but I can make one solid prediction about it...cutting taxes won't fix that.
As to moving to the US...happy trails and don't forget to write, eh?

originally posted by: audubon
*Ahem* I hate to interrupt another fixated rant about the evils of taxation, but you might like to look at how the Canadian economy is performing.

Annualised GDP growth rate of 4.5 per cent. As one economist put it: "Wow. There seems to be no stopping Canada of late."

So, not only is Canada not being "taxed out of existence", it is outperforming the USA, whose most recent GDP growth was 3.0 per cent.

So even with higher taxes Canada's growth is 150% of the USA's, in case this needs spelling out. It's almost as if fairly-distributed taxation, used wisely, can improve the economy of an entire nation... nah, forget I said that, it's clearly not true at all.

That is like comparing a backyard garden's growth rate to an industrial farm's growth rate... The garden got 4.5%!! So much better...lol

a reply to: audubon

It's another way of looking at the economy, depending on why one wants to look at the economy in the first place

- Well one wants to look at the economy cause someone was making claims that Canada's economy was better than the U.S.

If Trudeau isn't gambling on growth, then he has managed to achieve impressive growth by accident while increasing public expenditure for some unknown purpose.

- So two years isn't enough to extrapolate a trend in Debt/GDP ratio, but it is enough to say that he managed to achieve impressive growth ? Kind of like Trump saying that he is the reason the American economy is doing so well. Although I am a Trump supporter, economies take time to respond to changes. I think it is a bit early to take out the champagne. Growth can be increased in a couple of different ways, not all equal, and not all positive for the economy.

But generally if you predict an economic disaster for long enough, you'll be proved right eventually.

- Not sure which imaginary foe you are responding to, but I certainly never predicted anything regarding Canada.

When you overspend in order to increase GDP, it can not be considered an "unexpected economic mishap" when something goes wrong.

originally posted by: HanSolo31
Well one wants to look at the economy cause someone was making claims that Canada's economy was better than the U.S.

Not what I said. I said it was outperforming the US economy. Which it currently is.

- So two years isn't enough to extrapolate a trend in Debt/GDP ratio, but it is enough to say that he managed to achieve impressive growth ?

Growth has occurred. Whether this is a trend is too early to call. There's no contradiction here.

- Not sure which imaginary foe you are responding to, but I certainly never predicted anything regarding Canada.

I can see how you took it that way. Idiomatic in UK English, "you" can be interchanged with "one" ("to achieve x, you need y" = "to achieve x, one needs y"). I should have been clearer.

When you overspend in order to increase GDP, it can not be considered an "unexpected economic mishap" when something goes wrong.

You (correct me if I have this wrong) are presuming that Trudeau's plan will fail from within due to inherent structural flaws (endogenous). I don't share that certainty or anything near it, and was talking about a scenario in which it fails from without due to some naturally-arising but unforeseen influence (exogenous).

a reply to: audubon

No, I am not presuming Trudeau's plans will fail. If I buy a house on credit in Houston which is know to be prone to flooding and don't buy insurance, it can not be considered an unforeseen event when my house floods and I am left with nothing. In today's way of calculating GDP, borrowing and consumption are considered "growth." Thats what I disagree with. Borrowing and spending IMO is not growth. So household spending ON CREDIT in Canada was the main reason for the increase GDP, to me that is not growth.

Yes, Canada is outperforming the United States in borrowing and consuming on credit. You can have the glory.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: HanSolo31
Well one wants to look at the economy cause someone was making claims that Canada's economy was better than the U.S.

Not what I said. I said it was outperforming the US economy. Which it currently is.

- So two years isn't enough to extrapolate a trend in Debt/GDP ratio, but it is enough to say that he managed to achieve impressive growth ?

Growth has occurred. Whether this is a trend is too early to call. There's no contradiction here.

- Not sure which imaginary foe you are responding to, but I certainly never predicted anything regarding Canada.

I can see how you took it that way. Idiomatic in UK English, "you" can be interchanged with "one" ("to achieve x, you need y" = "to achieve x, one needs y"). I should have been clearer.

When you overspend in order to increase GDP, it can not be considered an "unexpected economic mishap" when something goes wrong.

You (correct me if I have this wrong) are presuming that Trudeau's plan will fail from within due to inherent structural flaws (endogenous). I don't share that certainty or anything near it, and was talking about a scenario in which it fails from without due to some naturally-arising but unforeseen influence (exogenous).

Not hard to outperform anyone when you prop up your economy by borrowing massive amounts of money. Except of course it all needs to be paid back. With interest.

Petition the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to increase pressure on Ottawa to keep our books in order!

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Have you ever been undiagnosed with unrelenting pain? Have a loved one die in the ER while waiting for Drs to get off their butts? How about watching another loved one wither away?

Let me guess - your fragile butt got treated well when you went to ER for a flu or hangnail? Or maybe when you got your feelings hurt on the internet?

originally posted by: CCKP72
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Have you ever been undiagnosed with unrelenting pain? Have a loved one die in the ER while waiting for Drs to get off their butts? How about watching another loved one wither away?

Let me guess - your fragile butt got treated well when you went to ER for a flu or hangnail? Or maybe when you got your feelings hurt on the internet?

One Canadian to another...

I been told that for those who can afford it they come here to the states for healthcare...

BTW I think the rise in tax is more due to how cheap oil is. You all really need oil in the 90$ a barrel range to be healthy and now you all are feeling it.

a reply to: nightbringr

Not hard to outperform anyone when you prop up your economy by borrowing massive amounts of money. Except of course it all needs to be paid back. With interest.

Again, this is simply a truism. All nations accrue debt, but the thing is that the debt doesn't belong to a person, so it doesn't have to be resolved in one lifetime. As long as you can keep servicing that debt, whether it takes decades or centuries, you're a good borrower (hence nations having credit ratings).

After the defeat of Napoleon, Britain's national debt exceeded 200 per cent of its GDP. But the nation did not collapse into destitution, and in fact the 'glory days' of the Empire were just around the corner. (It took two world wars and a US long-term extortion project to finally finish Britain off as a world power!)

a reply to: HanSolo31

Borrowing and spending IMO is not growth.

I think you'd be hard-pushed to find anyone who thought otherwise. Stimulating an economy with public funds is as old as FDR's "New Deal", and the thing is that it works pretty well because an economy is more than a profit-loss ledger, it relies on people having money to spend. The challenge comes when you've done all the stimulation that can reasonably be performed and the economy has to set off on its own again. In FDR's case, WWII provided a good way forward but led to the rise of the modern mil-ind complex, the consequences of which we are still enduring.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: nightbringr

Not hard to outperform anyone when you prop up your economy by borrowing massive amounts of money. Except of course it all needs to be paid back. With interest.

Again, this is simply a truism. All nations accrue debt, but the thing is that the debt doesn't belong to a person, so it doesn't have to be resolved in one lifetime. As long as you can keep servicing that debt, whether it takes decades or centuries, you're a good borrower (hence nations having credit ratings).

After the defeat of Napoleon, Britain's national debt exceeded 200 per cent of its GDP. But the nation did not collapse into destitution, and in fact the 'glory days' of the Empire were just around the corner. (It took two world wars and a US long-term extortion project to finally finish Britain off as a world power!)

That isn't the point at all. I understand debt doesn't need to be paid in this lifetime, or the next. But it SHOULD be paid. And in some cases, oh, let's say Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Italy, etc, spending wrecklessly has been a punishing reminder that borrowing year after year isn't a valid option.

Why on earth in times of economic growth, do we need to borrow? More money is coming in than last year, you pointed that out. In fact, more than the rate of inflation. Therefore, responsible fiscal management would point out its entirely possible to run a balanced budget, hell even a slight surplus.

But no, Trudeau claims we need to borrow to repair infrastructure. Fine, it needs repair. But there are better ways. There are many needless social programs and wasted expenditures that could be trimmed. The government is not here to decide how we spend out money apart from policing our streets, building and maintaining roads and infrastructure, and defending or borders.

If you have children, you should be very alarmed at the interest payments they will have to make due to our current government's lack of fiscal restraint. They will be paying for years for this mismanagement.

originally posted by: nightbringr
That isn't the point at all. I understand debt doesn't need to be paid in this lifetime, or the next. But it SHOULD be paid. And in some cases, oh, let's say Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Italy, etc, spending wrecklessly has been a punishing reminder that borrowing year after year isn't a valid option.

Why on earth in times of economic growth, do we need to borrow? More money is coming in than last year, you pointed that out. In fact, more than the rate of inflation. Therefore, responsible fiscal management would point out its entirely possible to run a balanced budget, hell even a slight surplus.

Now you're getting away from the discussion in hand, and onto fundamental concepts. If we go down this road there will be no end to it, so I'm going to give you this link, and you can pursue your own research from there if you like. As I mentioned above, if you apply the reasoning of a household budget to the reality of a national economy, you will never understand how it works. Abandon that comparison, start from scratch with an open mind on a new subject.

originally posted by: CCKP72
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Have you ever been undiagnosed with unrelenting pain? Have a loved one die in the ER while waiting for Drs to get off their butts? How about watching another loved one wither away?
Let me guess - your fragile butt got treated well when you went to ER for a flu or hangnail? Or maybe when you got your feelings hurt on the internet?

Tell you what...before you decide to insult me, how 'bout you take a look at my post history on the subject? Lemme know what you find there. Then we'll have something to talk about.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I been told that for those who can afford it they come here to the states for healthcare...

I've heard that too. I think they all belonged to the Frazer Institute so that they could cite it as truthiness, because I've never met anybody who ever felt the need.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: nightbringr
That isn't the point at all. I understand debt doesn't need to be paid in this lifetime, or the next. But it SHOULD be paid. And in some cases, oh, let's say Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Italy, etc, spending wrecklessly has been a punishing reminder that borrowing year after year isn't a valid option.

Why on earth in times of economic growth, do we need to borrow? More money is coming in than last year, you pointed that out. In fact, more than the rate of inflation. Therefore, responsible fiscal management would point out its entirely possible to run a balanced budget, hell even a slight surplus.

Now you're getting away from the discussion in hand, and onto fundamental concepts. If we go down this road there will be no end to it, so I'm going to give you this link, and you can pursue your own research from there if you like. As I mentioned above, if you apply the reasoning of a household budget to the reality of a national economy, you will never understand how it works. Abandon that comparison, start from scratch with an open mind on a new subject.

That link simply shows WHY government's borrow. We all know why they do, taxes are unpopular. But I'd rather be taxed now than later. It is cowardly to say 've will borrow now, so we look good on paper, but your children will in turn pay higher taxes to pay this off, and another government will have to deal with it '.

You do know borrowed money will eventually have to be paid back, right? With interest?

originally posted by: nightbringrYou do know borrowed money will eventually have to be paid back, right? With interest?

As I have said before, this is simply a truism. It doesn't become more significant by repetition.

Taxation = theft and is the hallmark of communism. Wealth inequality is the result of taxation - the poorer wage/salary earners are taxed way beyond the proportion of business and corporation owners.

We need a completely new system other than taxation, something like user pays for services rendered and after the fact like in a shop or market.

If you're unemployed, those who work and make money should be billed proportionately to pay for your welfare or something along these lines.

At the moment, taxation is destroying western civilisation which is under the grip of Maoist-Marxist-Leninist-Communism. Make no mistake about that.

a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Canada's Being TAXED Out Of Existence!

Wow! That is some hyperbole.

originally posted by: Macdon
Taxation = theft and is the hallmark of communism. Wealth inequality is the result of taxation - the poorer wage/salary earners are taxed way beyond the proportion of business and corporation owners.

We need a completely new system other than taxation, something like user pays for services rendered and after the fact like in a shop or market.

If you're unemployed, those who work and make money should be billed proportionately to pay for your welfare or something along these lines.

At the moment, taxation is destroying western civilisation which is under the grip of Maoist-Marxist-Leninist-Communism. Make no mistake about that.

Taxes are collected by every government in existence past and present. There is literally no way that "taxation is destroying western civilisation (sic)". Man pull your head out of your ass and learn some civics.

originally posted by: Macdon
Taxation = theft and is the hallmark of communism.

Hahahaha.

Hahahahahahahaha.

No.