| You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and that there are some features you can't use or read. We are an active community of worldwide senior members participating in chat, politics, travel, health, blogging, graphics, computer issues & help, book club, literature & poetry, finance discussions, recipe exchange and much more. Also, as a member you will be able to access member only sections, many features, send personal messages, make new friends, etc. Registration is simple, fast and completely free. Why not register today and become a part of the group. Registration button at the very top left of the page. Thank you for stopping by. Join our community! In case of difficulty, email worldwideseniors.org@gmail.com. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| New Taxes | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 6 2016, 12:56 AM (342 Views) | |
| haili | Mar 6 2016, 12:56 AM Post #1 |
|
Gold Star Member
|
It seems that I'm not alone complaining about Kathleen Wynn's new taxes on home heating, hydro, gas, drugs, etc. The Toronto Star letter page is full of complaints by seniors wondering how to make ends meet with all these extra costs and only a less than $6. raise in the old age pension. How this will help global warming is beyond me since we all still have to heat and light our homes and many like me have to drive to get to appointments, shopping etc. The companies that can afford it will continue to pollute and can buy carbon credits, so where is the benefit? It all seems like a tax grab that does nothing for the environment IMO. |
|
|
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Delphi51 | Mar 6 2016, 10:50 AM Post #16 |
|
Member title
|
I'm interested, Darcie. Elaborate! Do you allow people who make money to keep it or not? If not, no people will invest in businesses. Already lots of Canadians move to the US where they can keep more of their earnings. If you let them keep it, some will get rich. Many think the progressive tax system we have with supports for the poor is close to ideal. I don't understand why our public health care doesn't include drugs, dental and eye health care. Canada has had a pretty good mix of public and private ownership, slipping now with the privatization of electricity in Ontario and in the past with telephone service in BC and Alberta. The advantage of private enterprise is that it is in the interest of the owners to do the job efficiently. Governments do dumb things like blowing a billion dollars to move power plants because the voters in one riding ycomplained louder than in the other. Edited by Delphi51, Mar 6 2016, 11:03 AM.
|
|
|
|
| haili | Mar 6 2016, 12:14 PM Post #17 |
|
Gold Star Member
|
Darcie: there is an alternative - socialism - but Canadians don't want it. I just think that people who make less than $19,000 per year shouldn't have more taxes imposed when they already pay sales tax, property tax, gas tax, licence fees, etc. |
|
|
|
| Delphi51 | Mar 6 2016, 01:14 PM Post #18 |
|
Member title
|
We have socialism, don't we? Americans certainly think we do. We have public funded health care. Schools and hospitals are provided by government and so are many, many other services for all or those who need them. Some Scandinavian countries have more services and the taxes to go with them. Canadian taxpayers aren't willing to pay even for the services we have let alone more. The Scandinavian countries all have corporations and billionaires just like we do here. Edited by Delphi51, Mar 6 2016, 01:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Darcie | Mar 6 2016, 02:24 PM Post #19 |
|
Skeptic
|
The rich and corporations in the socialist countries probably pay a whole lot more taxes than the ones in Canada. What happens to the poor in the US is disgusting as far as I can understand listening to my family members who live there. One lives in a relatively affluent part of a large city, my daughter and her husband were very surprised to see that 99% of the service people were black, my daughter said it reminded her of Gone With the Wind. |
|
|
|
| Trotsky | Mar 7 2016, 04:42 AM Post #20 |
|
Big City Boy
|
Because that is the way it has been painted for a century. THe painters are, of course, those who own the paint and the easels (printing presses, radio and TV media.) The only way to keep a poor man from sticking a knife into the first rich man he meets is to convince him that he could be much worse off if he did. Of course the median is any degree of socialism. BUT wealthy capitalists see socialism as the route to communism and their impoverishment and Communists see socialism as a minimal attempt at wealth sharing with the ability to pull it away any time the Kapitalists want. I have read often that FDR saved Capitalism by giving just enough socialism to keep mobs from impaling the J.P Morgans on pikes in the town square, and Capitalists have been trying to claw back these meager wealth sharings for the last 80 years. In Russia, the divide was between the Czar (ultimate autocracy, aka sublime capitalism), the Bolshevik pure communists and the Menshevik socialists. The Mensheviks wanted to keep the czar and limit his power with a socialist Parliament. Obviously we know who won that battle when the royal family was taken into a cellar and obliterated. The only way to assure yourself of power is to destroy your opponent. I guess what I am saying is that the middle roads are not sustainable long term (although the Norways, Swedens, Denmarks and Germanies seem to manage pretty well so far.) |
|
|
|
| haili | Mar 12 2016, 12:23 AM Post #21 |
|
Gold Star Member
|
My gas bill came in yesterday and it was $15 higher. Hydro was up about $35. I hope everyone is breather cleaner air now. I won't be using any less energy as I didn't waste energy anyway. |
|
|
|
| Durgan | Mar 12 2016, 02:03 AM Post #22 |
|
Veteran Member
|
Trotsky "The only way to assure yourself of power is to destroy your opponent." Machiavelli described it all in The Prince. |
|
|
|
| margrace | Mar 12 2016, 03:48 AM Post #23 |
|
Gold Star Member
|
Our last hydro bill was $100 more and although we live on seniors pensions we do not qualify for any help. |
|
|
|
| angora | Mar 12 2016, 04:14 AM Post #24 |
|
WWS Book Club Coordinator
|
I think anyone, anything with the ability should pay taxes and tax money should be used to make life better for all citizens. I guess that makes me a socialist. I'm ok with that. I think that the one law I would make is that big corporations cant buy up other big corporations so that there is no competition and that all the wealth rests in a few hands. |
|
|
|
| haili | Mar 12 2016, 05:50 AM Post #25 |
|
Gold Star Member
|
I agree that people should pay taxes but not on necessities like heat and hydro. Income tax is the fairest IMO since it hits people who can afford it. Things like candy, pop, booze and smokes are fair game too and also luxuries like designer handbags, expensive jewelry, etc.; at least that's how I see it. |
|
|
|
| Delphi51 | Mar 15 2016, 05:23 PM Post #26 |
|
Member title
|
I believe the law in Canada is that such takeovers must be reviewed by the government and approved only if it is in the interest of Canadians. An interesting example is cellular phone service. The little companies have had mergers and alliances that made two or three companies big enough to offer service across the country - and difficult for a new company to compete. We pay higher rates than other countries, perhaps because we have a very low population density and those companies have to build a lot of towers to provide the service. Governments have a very difficult job regulating takeovers and mergers. We were just watching some British history. It looked like socialism went a little too far and conditions improved quite a bit when Margaret Thatcher dialled it back a bit. I think the level of socialism here is pretty close to the best level. A key thing is to have pretty good support for those who can't make a living but not too good or people won't be sufficiently motivated to work hard. People must be able to own things, especially businesses, because they generally work more efficiently than mere employees. This works to some extent for big companies where share ownership enables ordinary people to share in the wealth generated. I agree the tax collector must ensure the rich owe a higher than average rate - and it is collected. But confiscating too much drives wealth creators away. It is all about taking a middle road. Edited by Delphi51, Mar 15 2016, 05:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Trotsky | Mar 16 2016, 12:47 AM Post #27 |
|
Big City Boy
|
Or, perhaps, the interest of the lawmakers or regulators?
Or perhaps, the owners need not work at ALL. "Capital" is rewarded for it's own sake, no work required. Edited by Trotsky, Mar 16 2016, 12:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Rants, Bouquets, Consumer Issues · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2