You Win, We Win - The Power of Positive Taxation

[keoadmin]

Click here (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/article.php?id=338) to see an article on You Win, We Win - The Power of Positive Taxation

[Exhibitionist]

A report, by law professor Kathy Lahey, said women’s average incomes are only 60 to 70 per cent of men’s average incomes during most of their working lives.

Women continue to have lower incomes than men and the Canadian tax system only makes it worse, a Queen’s University study has found.

“Frankly, I reject where this report is coming from,” said John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation in Ottawa.

He said the report was based on “junk economics” and disagrees with the premise that the tax system unfairly penalizes women.

“What about low-income men or families?” he asked. “Low income is a problem for a lot of people in this country, not for just women.”

The fact that, on average, women’s incomes are less than men’s isn’t rooted in discrimination, but has more to do with women’s decision to have children, he said.

“Women coming out of university, their salaries are on par with what men are making and these are Stats Can numbers,” said Williamson. “But if you look across the entire gender, yes, incomes are lower. That has more to do with the decision of women to have children than it does with any systemic discrimination in society.”

He asserted that the Canadian tax system treats men and women the same.

“Two individuals earning the same income in the same situation are taxed the same,” he said. “There’s no special gender box or affirmative action box. If you’re a certain sex, sexual orientation or colour, you’re not entitled to any preferential tax treatment, nor should you.”

What do you think?

[SLN]

I think the guy sounds like a flippant jerk, but I can't really argue his with his point that men and women earning the same incomes are taxed at the same rate. He's right.

"The decision of women to have children." hmmm.. since only women CAN have children, and THAT's his reason for the income inequity, then really, there might be something to the discriminatory taxation part. If it's a given that we are at a disadvantage because of gender and yet we are taxed the same... well then that's wrong, isn't it?

But then I've always said that tax benefits for parents (not just mothers) are FAR FAR too small. It takes a lot to raise healthy, educated, well-adjusted children and it is my opinion that the country ought to stop paying lip service to that FACT and act on it.

Put their money where their mouth is. Nevermind childcare allowances up to the age of seven (SEVEN???? So what do we do after that? Leave them alone?) How about BIG basic personal deduction allowances for mothers and fathers, to do with as they see fit?

[Exhibitionist]

A report, by law professor Kathy Lahey, said women’s average incomes are only 60 to 70 per cent of men’s average incomes during most of their working lives.

Women continue to have lower incomes than men and the Canadian tax system only makes it worse, a Queen’s University study has found.

I think you may think like Kathy Lahey - the actual "junk" report issuer.

You seem to think - that John Williams is suggesting (That it is the "fault" of women having children) That's not what was meant.

In my mind; because women tend to physically have the child and take the maternity leave ( gennerally for two children /more) They (loss the income) of having full time work - for in some cases 2-4 years.

I believe on average it could be up to $ 100,000. Which they do not earn - and also need to "catch up" upon returning to work..

Which is why women tend to fall into the lower income levels as suggested.
- (that is mutually exclusive of tax discrimination)

The report is rather bias. Because as Jim mentions - the analysis should be based on the "families entire income" - before and after deciding to have children - NOT souly on the female of the family earning years.

In fact; in Germany 2 years manternity is the norm. And a guarrantee of job replacement - after that term.

Their social system affords other benefits that are more generous than ours. We would be wise to iinvestigate.

They also tend to raise their children "better" than ours. The children are more independent and speak several languages (which I would suggest are more "worldly") for the 21st century. (University is also free)

I also believe Canada is NOT a wealthy country. We have the lowest GDP we have a small population, we do not manufacture (exportable high end - value added products.)

We are still basically: a natural resource exporter. In other words we sell trees and rocks - and the Germans, Japan etc. - make something from them and sell them back to us at 10 x the cost. They are much richer because of this. Thus can afford social systems such as free University - which really is the largest burden a family would likely have in this day and age. The early years, clothes, food shelter needs - should be the responsibilty of the parents. Society should not have to support the basic needs - unless health or marginalisation of the parents is the underlining issue. If anything E.I benefits should be extended and more generous.

This wealth could afford the systems you are "dreaming" of.

But, to be perfectly honest I believe we need less children in this world - not encourage more.
(...that you suggest we strive for - with Government incentives...)

That would end this discussion. - And the world would be a better place.

I also believe most people have children for selfish reasons and are rather poor parents in this culture of consumerism.

I say adopt if you "need" children in your life.

[SLN]

I agree wholeheartedly that Canada sells rocks and wood. I wonder why we have so few tertiary industries? What exactly do you think stands in the way of their development? Lack of skills? High business taxation rates? Punishing labour costs? I have yet to really nail down why we haven't developed industries that go beyond mining, oil, and timber. I would be interested to know your thoughts.

I disagree that people have children for selfish reasons. I also disagree that most people are poor parents. This is one of those roundabout arguments where I tell you that children represent the future of our country, and you tell me that there already isn't enough to go around. Let's not get into it since I am a parent who is AVIDLY anti-consumerism and obsessed with education, and actively goes about teaching my child manners and respect. It would just insult and infuriate me to have you tell me that I've been selfish by not having an abortion when I became pregnant by surprise.

I agree that children do not learn much that is useful in our primary and secondary education systems here in Canada. I think it this based on the facts that :

A. We have basically left the running of school boards to well intentioned volunteers and not-so-well-intentioned bureaucrats;
B. Our education system, right down to the insane hours and school-year, is based on a model created pre-industrial revolution.

It most definitely needs to change. Discipline should be a priority. Changing curricula to meet current world demands would be essential in my version.

This could be an interesting discussion! I hope to hear back from you.

[Exhibitionist]

Both of you seem to agree that Kingston lacks quality employment opportunites. Both of you believe that Kingston needs to do something to attract these businesses taht can offer good employment.

I hate to keep reminding folks - that THIS forum regards how the LVEC as a community investment - would help the area attract medium to large business: that have left ...and with it good paying jobs.

I disagree that we should just "pull up our socks" and become capitalist entrepenuer geeks working from our computers. (Thats nieve and short thinking.) A generation of IT geeks I certainly would not want around me- when I'm 70-80 years old giving me a needle or washing my hair! Becuse there is no one trained and experienced to so like maybe a nurse!

In any case:

The LVEC would:

- help expand our dwindling tax resources - business tax base leaving..........!
- would allow young people during their studies, graduating a opportunitiy to work in this community for job experience and monetary gains. (brain drain to India, US)
- would encourage more "sustainable" long term development for the future of this community.
- the LVEC - is "mutually exclusive" of any future/past tax increases for our community.

Interms of your question why Canada in general - is a resource based economy.

1) Historically - It has many resources (and close to the surface)
2) development of the latter - started 100 years ago and are mature/stable (industries)
3) Lack of investment in R&D 1/10 - compared to most other G8 nations
4) Higher taxes, low productivity, and poor educational investment here
5) Less competition in terms of: having matured resources, wheat etc. to sell to the world (historically) - brought in a "decent GDP income" for the last 50 years - makes us frankly (lacking incentive, or hunger - to risk taking..
6) Canadians tend to "sell" their investments in industries - to other countries - that tend to make them even better. We tend to look at short term gains - we are not as "proud" to keep individual industries at any price. Except maybe Bombardier - which is a political scam.

These are some of the reasons I believe.

I disagree that people have children for selfish reasons. I also disagree that most people are poor parents.

Even though this is not of the forum per say.

I certainly do know when asking a parent about their children (which is usually in terms of (school, athletics and work prospects) in general the responses from parents tend to be competitive in nature (maybe naturally proud / but between parents - selfish!)

Of course I enjoy and love children. They are more honest then their parents. Believe me children have helped some "adults" become less selfish.

But, I guess you missed (my point) inwhich the world would be a better place -i.e enviromentally, socially, and culturally speaking (if one had the choice) - which we do...

Based on: 50% marriges fail in the first 2 years.

a) Getting - manditory marrige counselling- before getting married
b) No children should be planned before 5 years married

Then -

2) adopt at least one child
3) get the man "fixed"
4) And most importantly - becareful what you wish for - in children.

Rather than increasing the population over the obvious limits -that our combined cultures are - "consuming" or contributing (negatively) to the biosphere.

Have you read the papers lately????

[SLN]

First let's get something straight. You said:
"I hate to keep reminding folks - that THIS forum regards how the LVEC as a community investment - "

No it doesn't. That's another forum. This is the forum that you started to debate unfair taxation claims based on some woman's report and "junk economics."

Secondly - to answer your final question from above. Yes. I read the papers. I'd guess I read more than you, frankly. I am not trying to be rude but there's not a thing you could tell me about current events that I likely have not read. I read constantly and voraciously. I am a political animal and research every topic tht I find interesting. I know all about permaculture and Malthus and the ice caps and the NASA scientist that was silenced and Greenland and food production. Got it?

Third, I'm only going to address the parts of your post that are your take on the family unit, since those are kind of relevant to your original post on taxation and the family.

You say that no child should be planned until someone has been married for five years. Well, Ex, sometimes nature plays tricks on you. I told you already that I had a baby by surprise. And guess what? She's doing fine. I'm doing fine. I've worked and provided for her for her whole life, even though there was no Daddy. So.... I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

What do you mean "when asking parents about their children their comments are competitive in nature?" Huh? If you asked about mine, I'd tell you that she is healthy, smart, kind, doing well in school, interested in animals and art, and that she is the love of my life. She doesn't always do her chores, and I have to nag her to get out of bed some mornings... but she's a kid.

I don't buy into the "there's not enough food to go around" argument you are alluding to by asking if I've read the papers lately and saying the world would be a better place with fewer people on it. There's enough food, sir. There just isn't the political will to distribute it.

When the oil shortage begins in earnest we will have to readjust. Local economies will be the most important, and I hope to be ready for that. But it isn't that "selfish westerners are having kids." It's that greedy leaders and corporate icons are hogging up the wealth. They are poisoning the earth. They are introducing no alternatives. There's where you shoud target your wrath.



[/COLOR][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[Exhibitionist]

Yes - Sorry - I am in a few forums:

Taxation - or the family regading Taxation... (with regards to the "junk study/and yours)

“Frankly, I reject where this report is coming from,” said John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation in Ottawa.

He said the report was based on “junk economics” and disagrees with the premise that the tax system unfairly penalizes women.

Third, I'm only going to address the parts of your post that are your take on the family unit, since those are kind of relevant to your original post on taxation and the family.

Firstly;, I guess you missed (my point) inwhich the world would be a better place...
-i.e enviromentally, socially, and culturally speaking (if one had the choice) - which we do. NOT to have more and more children. i.e Contraception? Status quo is not good.

Secondly: and specifically: undo future pressure on the enviroment....
-The enviroment is abviously at a nearing the breaking point. (and more cars coming...)
- Let alone China and India's - explotation methods for the - next 30 years.

Also: I did not say anything specifically with regards to "food" distribution:
- There are just to many people on this planet. Period.
- That buy cars, food, homes, plastic toys, McDonalds, and Nike. etc....

Ever been to Europe? Or China? There are to many people!

Well read - great. But, travel is the best education one could ever have.

You say that no child should be planned until someone has been married for five years. Well, Ex, sometimes nature plays tricks on you. I told you already that I had a baby by surprise. And guess what? She's doing fine. I'm doing fine. I've worked and provided for her for her whole life, even though there was no Daddy. So.... I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

Don't take it so personally. This is not about YOU. It makes sense people (try to plan)

Its about the burden "modern populations" and broken marriages have on this planet - (Period.) I don't care what you say: a two (2) parent family is best for raising children.

But it isn't that "selfish westerners are having kids." It's that greedy leaders and corporate icons are hogging up the wealth. They are poisoning the earth. They are introducing no alternatives. There's where you shoud target your wrath.

Yikes. Mike Moore and you - seem to be half right!
- I agree that "corporations" are "greedy" in terms of profit/expoltation i.e Indonesia...

But, in terms of "westerners having children" you would think we would learn from our "individualist ways". (But, I do not think so..) Less is more.

I just think its way "overdue" - that we have.
- proportional representation
- and consume less "stuff" (that the corporations make)
- and have less children.

That would be a good start for both the "West" and the Asian Pacific.

And especially the future of the children - that will come anyways - surprises or NOT.

[SLN]

I am not anti-corporation. I support capitalism, I just do not support the way business is being conducted with regards to publicly traded companies bending over backwards to please shareholders, who usually only care about the bottom line. Notice how share prices rise when companies announce layoffs? This is the problem. Yet no one seems to be willing to step up and say - o.k. We're paying our CEOs WAYYYYYY too much, so, to increase profit, we'll cut expenditures on labour off the top end for a change.

As to your critique of the world population. Are there too many people? I don't know. No one really knows, no matter what scientist does what study. Nature is a great balancing force. If there are too many people, then many will die. Either way, the decision by people in wealthier countries where there is access to birth control and religion does not dictate social policy to stop having children is foolish, in a way. Wouldn't it just result in peope moving about the globe, rather than cutting down in population size?

My argument is that countries where there is no birth control and where people are encouraged, through religious dogma, to have children would still become more and more populated. If we were to stop having children in our country, we would see a shortage of population, thus increasing our efforts to bring in more immigrants, who would come. It wouldn't stop babies being born, it would just stop white babies from being born.

I am not trying to say I would dread a world with fewer white faces - not at all - I am merely saying that it's a doomed idea to ask for fewer children.

Why not focus on something achievable?

[Exhibitionist]

As to your critique of the world population. Are there too many people? I don't know.

Well I do know. I have travelled the world and see everyday on TV , read in the newspaper and see the traffic jams! Wildlife is goning at an alarming rate! Are you really that read?

There are to many people, Peiod. Ever heard of Global Warming?

wealthier countries where there is access to birth control and religion does not dictate social policy to stop having children is foolish, in a way. Wouldn't it just result in peope moving about the globe, rather than cutting down in population size?

The access to birth control, education and HIV medical help is obvious. In the west. So, we need to use it! Period. There is over 250 million people in the US. It is more than they need to perpetuate their existance. Beleive me the human race needs to make more room for wildlife territory not farms and suburbs!

where there is no birth control and where people are encouraged, through religious dogma, to have children would still become more and more populated. If we were to stop having children in our country, immagrants...

Your basically saying - That you are a racist and also that Cathlics are the reason for our over population. You may wish to think about things in less "simple forms".

Acheiveable? Like what do nothing! You do not get it do you!

[macphail]

Ever heard of Global Warming?

Yup. It's happened pre-man. Are you saying you buy into the junk science that blames humans for "global warming"? ;)

Cheers, Derek

[SLN]

Just because you have traveled does not mean you know there are too many people on the planet. I mean duh. I've driven across our country. (Canada, BTW) There's a LOT of forest. I mean a LOT. There's pretty much nothing BUT forest.

[Exhibitionist]

Its not a matter of "local travelling" that is (all) the evidence of
(lots of room for more people). That is very simplistic and nieve.

And I would suggest - travelling more than just in Canada, and reading on this subject to be (informed)

a) - most people live (and will only live) within 100 km of the US/Canada border. (now and in the future)
b) Been to Toronto? Duuuh? lots of people right? - and its suppose to double in size!

In any case; its not a matter of what you can see now. Its a matter of other places in the world to. For example: I will get you a new book that is out (to read). The author examined countries like the US, China, India and Canada. within less than 50 years...if the temperature goes up 5 degrees C - the amount of usable agricultural land left because of "global warming" and over population....

China - none
US - only Pacific West areas
India - only 1/10th
Canada - only Pacific West

So, how do we "distribute food production then" ??? Without conflict!

As you said the rest of the country - will be lots of rocks, trees (on fire) and dessert! Within our life time. So, how do you plan to grow more food that we will require - on rocks and trees - that our forefathers - could not?

Population - there were 2 billion in 1950, 4 billion 20 years later, now there is 6.5 billion. So, within 50 years we have increased the population by 4.5 "billion people". People who want cars like the West, applicances, homes, boats, skidoo's, ATV's, trucks, machines, designer clothes...etc. Do you really believe that within another 50 years...that there will be (less) overconsumption leading to CO2 emissions, factories, and sprawling industrial waste?

This is in "direct relation to population growth" both in the West and in the East. The only decline will be in Africa because of HIV.

Great world - you seem to think - that we should NOT slow our population down. Meaning everyone. Not just the Catholics and the Asians as you suggested.

I think you need to read and travel more than in Kingston!