4 ms·

What about stopping the services as well a stop taxing them? Then if it is viable they can stay.

• abz10 10y ago
  Could the down-voters at least tell me why? Thx
  • acveilleux 10y ago
    That's not how Canada works. We're way to the left of the US. Furthermore, that's outside the power of the provincial government to do.
    • abz10 10y ago
      I understand that it's not politically viable. But I don't think that disqualifies it from a suggestion worth exploring. Politics can change, especially when the money starts running out.
      • CountSessine 10y ago
        Ack! I wish our political system were so flexible as to permit this sort of exploration!
    • Canada 10y ago
      It is within the power of a province to credit 100% of provincial taxes back, although I wouldn't want to try that if I was governing a "have not" province, especially if part of the deal was cutting essential services subsidized by transfer payments.
  • AdrianB1 10y ago
    The explanation is simple: Canada is socialist. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.". The problem with Canadians is that they don't like to run out of money to support their socialism, so even suggesting to consider giving up to taxes is worse than blasphemy, it's counter-revolution.
    • timecube 10y ago
      Canada is in no way a socialist country. Perhaps the term you're looking for is "social democracy".
      • AdrianB1 10y ago
        Tomato, tomato. Living in a former communist country that was calling itself "socialist" you can call Canada any way you want, it is socialist. I am not saying communist, that's your "democracy" difference between the two.
• desdiv 10y ago
  That's the tricky part though, it would be the provincial government that's cutting all services and leaving them to the wolves. The federal government has nothing to do with this and thus will still expect the federal taxes to be paid in full. From the viewpoint of the residents it will be a 25% tax cut (ballpark estimate) in exchange for the stoppage of all essential services, hardly a fair deal.
  • abz10 10y ago
    That would be tricky. I think fairness depends on the value for money - it's possible that they don't need as many services that are being provided with. It's also possible they could provide for themselves cheaper - perhaps with a few lifestyle changes. In anycase it would be up to them to decide what to do. I understand that it's not a politically viable solution but I wanted to add to the list of options the idea that perhaps there is no need to force them to buy government services or force other taxpayers to bail them out. It also sounds like the federal government is spending money to support the area - instead of spending taxpayers money on growth (churn) perhaps a rebate on their federal tax as well.
    • acveilleux 10y ago
      One of the main service provided to the village in the article is a ferry with a subsidized rate since it's on an island. Without ferry, there's not going to be a village.
      • abz10 10y ago
        If the village cannot survive without taxes and without a subsidized ferry then I think the answer is clearly to allow the village to disband. You'd no longer need to force other canadian taxpayers to subsidise island residences lifestyles.
• speeder 10y ago
  I wish there was ANY government willing to do that in the entire world. Most governments won't ever do that, because it effectively means allowing a independent nation in their lands. For example: I am from Brazil, and I am most certainly paying in taxes much more than I get in services, police is unreliable (even simple calls to emergency number because I saw shady shit, never worked, sometimes it didn't even connected at all), fire department is also unreliable (more than once they REFUSED to come, and I had to figure on my own how to handle a fire, once this resulted in half of the trees in my yard getting killed after some asshole made a huge debris bonfire on a empty area outside my house), my family purcahsed our own telephone cables and lines (literally), we purchased our own asphalt, we rely on private security, I was 100% privately educated, my health insurance is "private" (it is a private business owned by the Roman Catholic Church), electricity belongs to a private company, our military suck (in fact, I wasn't allowed to join the military when I signed up when I was 18, with the official stated reason being: Lack of money to purchase basic training equipment). So... what I am paying my taxes for? Taxes in Brazil are about 38% of someone income, on average (I actually pay more than that, according to my calculations my family pays about 60% of our income in taxes). I would gadly move to a place with no public services + no taxes, to me this would be 100% profit, since right now I have no public services but still pay taxes.
  • abz10 10y ago
    I hear you. Panama and Belize are poor man's tax havens if you can work remotely with a foreign source of income. I live in Panama. I haven't seen a homeless person since leaving SF.
    • trapperkeeper79 10y ago
      Err .. if you have foreign employment income in the US, you will be taxed at the source, no?
      • abz10 10y ago
        You need to be a contractor, not an employee, then a lawyer can sort it out so you're all good.
• shitgoose 10y ago
  yea, right!:) that would create a dangerous precedent, when people may suddenly realize that they can organize their life perfectly well without any government. that reminds me an episode during government shutdown in US a few years ago. local services stopped cutting grass in one of the war memorials. so some veteran brought his own lawn mower and started cutting the grass. the cops showed up! they were very angry and threw the veteran out. instinctively they understood that the illusion that government is indispensable, should be maintained at all cost.
  • restalis 10y ago
    The government in a broad sense is actually any form of political structure that governs a society. When some people secede and do their own laundry, unless you assume for their new society to live in harmony without any form of political structure (anarchy), then there you have got a new government! ____________ P.S.: I haven't downvoted you.
    • shitgoose 10y ago
      right, but i was obviously talking about government in a less broad sense - as an entity that uses force to coerce public into submission. which is what any self-respecting government is. please, do not confuse anarchy with absence of political structure. if people invent a structure and voluntarily agree to follow its rules, this is anarchy (in fact this is the definition of 'anarchy'). when some group within the people invents a structure and forces others to comply with it, this is government. unfortunately the term 'anarchy' has been abused and its original meaning has been long lost. P.S.: thank you for not down-voting, but rather explaining your point of view.