4 ms·

I don't know if you care to be consistent: > Great government and social benefits > - TAXES! TAXES! TAXES! are one and same thing. Unless you think benefits

by geodel 4y ago

I don't know if you care to be consistent: > Great government and social benefits > - TAXES! TAXES! TAXES! are one and same thing. Unless you think benefits can just appear out of thin air. Or just that others must pay for all good stuff that you looking to get.

anyfactor 4y ago
I believe Canada could find a better way to provide social benefits without alienating the middle class. First of all levying higher taxation or regulation for money laundering. I think that alone will reduce the tax burden on the middle class people. Taxation is a long controversial discussion that often leads to no where. But the gist is that, for the 60k+/year roles, if you are employed in America, from what I heard, your medical coverage is the same as the public health coverage by the Canadian government. In America you can buy a house within a smaller time frame at a more reasonable financial burden compared to Canada. The cost of Canadian taxation is reasonable to a limit.
- amscanne 4y ago
  > First of all levying higher taxation or regulation for money laundering They should take it one step further and make it illegal!
  - anyfactor 4y ago
    They are never going to do that. Making money laundering illegal will send shockwaves across its economy. Canada is being criticized by both its citizens and foreign governments but the illegal moneyflows are actually proping the housing markets of Vancouver and Toronto up. It is a very complicated situation as taking any action against money laundering will also might greenlight foreign governments to sue Canada for harboring money from corruption and illegal activities. Taking actions against money laundering is always a slippery slope.
    - amscanne 4y ago
      It was a joke. Money laundering is already illegal in most jurisdictions, including Canada [1]. Generally disguising the source of funds is financial fraud on its own, even without dedicated money laundering laws. The canard that the housing market in Canada has been propped up by illegal money has been debunked so many times it's not funny. Everyone continues to prefer to think that over the real truth, which is that domestic speculation and house-horniness (house at any financial cost, down-payments from a HELOC on the family house, etc.) is responsible for the insane market. How else do you explain the 50%+ increase in rural Ontario over the pandemic? Peterborough didn't suddenly become the hot spot for laundering. [1] https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-24.501/ https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-24.501/
      - anyfactor 4y ago
        I wouldn't use the word the "propped up", I would probably use foundational. It is not like the Canadian government is eager to turn away the flow of money entering into their economy as they say. Canada is doing as great of a job of preventing this moneyflow as UK is doing with stopping Russian Oligarchs to "invest" in their economy. UK too have laws in preventing money laundering I presume.
        amscanne 4y ago
        Jurisdictions in Canada keep passing laws on the basis of this kind of xenophobia (e.g. the foreign buyer tax in BC, non-local tax in Ontario) that have consistently turned out to be ineffective. Why? Turns out it's not the problem and it applies to a minor fraction of buyers. So they crank up the rhetoric and pass more ineffective laws. If you want to call money laundering foundational, then you need to explain how on earth that is connected with the market in Peterborough being up 50%+ over the pandemic. Peterborough isn't unique; it just gives the lie to the idea that this is somehow foreign money causing the problem. Foreign buyers have tanked in the last two years (since most of the time they were not even permitted to enter the country) yet it is continually called out as the culprit. Nonsense.
amscanne 4y ago
Without higher taxes, you generally won't get good social services.. but just because taxes are high does not imply that government benefits are good. There's a large range of effectiveness at using tax dollars to actually provide value to citizens (and while I wouldn't put Canada at the top, I think it's well above high tax states like California).
- anyfactor 4y ago
  I prefer the whole middle region of America as truly the best part of America. Weather can be an issue in WY, SD, ND but overall the region is fantastic from what I have heard. I have been thinking about the idea of social benefits. For the middle class what is even good social benefit? Affordable housing, affordable medical, maybe some kind of financial support for the elders, good public education, enough social benefits which lowers crime rate. Like if that is the things that are essential, America is doing a fantastic job. But over emphasising social benefits aspects at the cost of the middle class is a bad idea. Canadian middle class from what I heard is somewhere between too rich to not get access to subsidized housing and too poor to buy a 600k house.
  - closeparen 4y ago
    An interesting take from Matt Bruenig is that if you look at the “six figures doesn’t go as far as you think” genre, you almost always see one or more of: * Saving for retirement * Saving for college or having a kid in college * Having young kids and paying for daycare or losing an income * Dealing with a health crisis (while not currently a full time employee at the kind of corporation that has great insurance… even if at other times you were or you will be again) * Caring for an aging parent These are all significant financial stressors even to the upper middle / professional class in America, whereas in a strong social benefits environment none of them are a big deal at all. The idea that middle class families need to stand up to all all these costs personally, sink or swim, is not necessarily pro-middle-class. Like, why is it so important to own a house? One reason is so that you could sell it or otherwise tap the equity in case you have to do something ruinous like go to the hospital while between jobs. Another is that the apartments are all in neighborhoods overrun with untreated mentally ill people. Both of these are self-chosen problems.

by geodel 4y ago

anyfactor 4y ago

I believe Canada could find a better way to provide social benefits without alienating the middle class. First of all levying higher taxation or regulation for money laundering. I think that alone will reduce the tax burden on the middle class people. Taxation is a long controversial discussion that often leads to no where. But the gist is that, for the 60k+/year roles, if you are employed in America, from what I heard, your medical coverage is the same as the public health coverage by the Canadian government. In America you can buy a house within a smaller time frame at a more reasonable financial burden compared to Canada. The cost of Canadian taxation is reasonable to a limit.

amscanne 4y ago
> First of all levying higher taxation or regulation for money laundering They should take it one step further and make it illegal!
- anyfactor 4y ago
  They are never going to do that. Making money laundering illegal will send shockwaves across its economy. Canada is being criticized by both its citizens and foreign governments but the illegal moneyflows are actually proping the housing markets of Vancouver and Toronto up. It is a very complicated situation as taking any action against money laundering will also might greenlight foreign governments to sue Canada for harboring money from corruption and illegal activities. Taking actions against money laundering is always a slippery slope.
  - amscanne 4y ago
    It was a joke. Money laundering is already illegal in most jurisdictions, including Canada [1]. Generally disguising the source of funds is financial fraud on its own, even without dedicated money laundering laws. The canard that the housing market in Canada has been propped up by illegal money has been debunked so many times it's not funny. Everyone continues to prefer to think that over the real truth, which is that domestic speculation and house-horniness (house at any financial cost, down-payments from a HELOC on the family house, etc.) is responsible for the insane market. How else do you explain the 50%+ increase in rural Ontario over the pandemic? Peterborough didn't suddenly become the hot spot for laundering. [1] https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-24.501/ https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-24.501/
    - anyfactor 4y ago
      I wouldn't use the word the "propped up", I would probably use foundational. It is not like the Canadian government is eager to turn away the flow of money entering into their economy as they say. Canada is doing as great of a job of preventing this moneyflow as UK is doing with stopping Russian Oligarchs to "invest" in their economy. UK too have laws in preventing money laundering I presume.
      - amscanne 4y ago
        Jurisdictions in Canada keep passing laws on the basis of this kind of xenophobia (e.g. the foreign buyer tax in BC, non-local tax in Ontario) that have consistently turned out to be ineffective. Why? Turns out it's not the problem and it applies to a minor fraction of buyers. So they crank up the rhetoric and pass more ineffective laws. If you want to call money laundering foundational, then you need to explain how on earth that is connected with the market in Peterborough being up 50%+ over the pandemic. Peterborough isn't unique; it just gives the lie to the idea that this is somehow foreign money causing the problem. Foreign buyers have tanked in the last two years (since most of the time they were not even permitted to enter the country) yet it is continually called out as the culprit. Nonsense.

amscanne 4y ago

Without higher taxes, you generally won't get good social services.. but just because taxes are high does not imply that government benefits are good. There's a large range of effectiveness at using tax dollars to actually provide value to citizens (and while I wouldn't put Canada at the top, I think it's well above high tax states like California).

anyfactor 4y ago
I prefer the whole middle region of America as truly the best part of America. Weather can be an issue in WY, SD, ND but overall the region is fantastic from what I have heard. I have been thinking about the idea of social benefits. For the middle class what is even good social benefit? Affordable housing, affordable medical, maybe some kind of financial support for the elders, good public education, enough social benefits which lowers crime rate. Like if that is the things that are essential, America is doing a fantastic job. But over emphasising social benefits aspects at the cost of the middle class is a bad idea. Canadian middle class from what I heard is somewhere between too rich to not get access to subsidized housing and too poor to buy a 600k house.
- closeparen 4y ago
  An interesting take from Matt Bruenig is that if you look at the “six figures doesn’t go as far as you think” genre, you almost always see one or more of: * Saving for retirement * Saving for college or having a kid in college * Having young kids and paying for daycare or losing an income * Dealing with a health crisis (while not currently a full time employee at the kind of corporation that has great insurance… even if at other times you were or you will be again) * Caring for an aging parent These are all significant financial stressors even to the upper middle / professional class in America, whereas in a strong social benefits environment none of them are a big deal at all. The idea that middle class families need to stand up to all all these costs personally, sink or swim, is not necessarily pro-middle-class. Like, why is it so important to own a house? One reason is so that you could sell it or otherwise tap the equity in case you have to do something ruinous like go to the hospital while between jobs. Another is that the apartments are all in neighborhoods overrun with untreated mentally ill people. Both of these are self-chosen problems.