3 ms·

Wait, you’re claiming to not pay enough taxes? Best way to reduce poverty is to cut taxes.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
The poor don't pay income tax, their carbon tax rebate is higher than what they pay in carbon taxes, and the GST rebate mostly offsets the GST they pay. OTOH, they greatly benefit from many programs paid for with taxes. Cutting taxes helps the rich, not the poor.
bob-09 3y ago
> Best way to reduce poverty is to cut taxes. How does that work? I would assume making up for lost tax revenue involves cutting public services that people in poverty rely on.
- VancouverMan 3y ago
  Despite the high taxation, Canada's public services are quite limited, inefficient, and of rather low quality. Taxation is also just a small part of the government-imposed economic problems that Canada is facing. Canada's invasive regulatory overhead and high property/rental costs, for example, make it quite difficult to start and successfully operate small businesses. Small businesses are what truly pull people out of poverty, both as entrepreneurs and as employees. Even something as inherently simple as hiring an employee, for example, is far more difficult and costly than it should be in Canada. It often makes more sense for owner-operators to shoulder the burden themselves rather than hiring, even if it means they're over-worked. We can't forget that some small businesses will eventually grow into larger ones, providing even more employment opportunities, too. The more that the Canadian government has gotten involved in the Canadian economy, the worse the situation has gotten.
  - rfrey 3y ago
    I have started businesses both in California and in Canada, and have not found it more difficult or more expensive to hire in Canada. Can you tell me what additional roadblocks or expenses you have encountered?
  - bob-09 3y ago
    So essentially trickle down economics? Help the small business owners and hope they help people in poverty? Since you can be employed and still be living in poverty, a minimum wage hike would be needed to have a tax cut to actually benefit people living in poverty. Instead of making employers support the welfare system, make employers make sure their own employees aren’t poverty stricken?
  - manishsharan 3y ago
    >>Canada's invasive regulatory overhead So we should all aspire to be like Florida or Texas Or Lousiana ? Hey Arkansas has legalized child labor. It is now only a matter of time before they become more prosperous than California . /s
- 0xbadc0de5 3y ago
  I believe the thinking is that reducing tax and regulatory burden promotes entrepreneurship and job creation. Higher rates of employment reduce poverty. Additionally, the government is woefully inefficient at (re)distributing resources (and even worse at picking winners). There is a school of thought that believes many "social services" can be better provided by community led organizations and charities. No doubt there's no perfect solution and this topic has a lot more nuance to it, but I think that's the jist of it.
rfrey 3y ago
The United States is into its fifth decade experimenting with that theory. The results do not seem to support your assertion.

The poor don't pay income tax, their carbon tax rebate is higher than what they pay in carbon taxes, and the GST rebate mostly offsets the GST they pay. OTOH, they greatly benefit from many programs paid for with taxes. Cutting taxes helps the rich, not the poor.

bob-09 3y ago

> Best way to reduce poverty is to cut taxes. How does that work? I would assume making up for lost tax revenue involves cutting public services that people in poverty rely on.

VancouverMan 3y ago
Despite the high taxation, Canada's public services are quite limited, inefficient, and of rather low quality. Taxation is also just a small part of the government-imposed economic problems that Canada is facing. Canada's invasive regulatory overhead and high property/rental costs, for example, make it quite difficult to start and successfully operate small businesses. Small businesses are what truly pull people out of poverty, both as entrepreneurs and as employees. Even something as inherently simple as hiring an employee, for example, is far more difficult and costly than it should be in Canada. It often makes more sense for owner-operators to shoulder the burden themselves rather than hiring, even if it means they're over-worked. We can't forget that some small businesses will eventually grow into larger ones, providing even more employment opportunities, too. The more that the Canadian government has gotten involved in the Canadian economy, the worse the situation has gotten.
- rfrey 3y ago
  I have started businesses both in California and in Canada, and have not found it more difficult or more expensive to hire in Canada. Can you tell me what additional roadblocks or expenses you have encountered?
- bob-09 3y ago
  So essentially trickle down economics? Help the small business owners and hope they help people in poverty? Since you can be employed and still be living in poverty, a minimum wage hike would be needed to have a tax cut to actually benefit people living in poverty. Instead of making employers support the welfare system, make employers make sure their own employees aren’t poverty stricken?
- manishsharan 3y ago
  >>Canada's invasive regulatory overhead So we should all aspire to be like Florida or Texas Or Lousiana ? Hey Arkansas has legalized child labor. It is now only a matter of time before they become more prosperous than California . /s
0xbadc0de5 3y ago
I believe the thinking is that reducing tax and regulatory burden promotes entrepreneurship and job creation. Higher rates of employment reduce poverty. Additionally, the government is woefully inefficient at (re)distributing resources (and even worse at picking winners). There is a school of thought that believes many "social services" can be better provided by community led organizations and charities. No doubt there's no perfect solution and this topic has a lot more nuance to it, but I think that's the jist of it.

rfrey 3y ago

The United States is into its fifth decade experimenting with that theory. The results do not seem to support your assertion.