Conference kaosws::canada

    The property tax system for whatever (education / local government)
    is unfair ... no two ways about it.
    
    The income tax system has the potential for being more fair ...
    
    Whether paying taxes in two locales is actually fair, I haven't
    decided ... if you can afford two properties, could you not afford
    a more expensive first home and therefore have to pay more taxes
    at your primary residence ?  (Sorry Candace, while I understand
    your gripe and am somewhat sympathetic, I'm not sure that your not
    paying taxes (be they education or local property ... after all you
    don't use all services of your cottage community either) is exactly
    fair either!).
    
    The income tax method really has the potential to be more fair, but
    with all the inequities in the existing tax system, that really falls
    down too.
    
    If we went on user pay, no-one would have more than 1 child anyway
    and then we end up with more problems!!!!
    
    Stuart

    saw last night the NDP in Ontario are going to be introducing a
    "Minimum Corporate Tax" for companies that make a profit. They expect
    to bring in 100 million dollars from profitable companies that use tax
    loopholes to avoid paying any taxes at all. This is more like what an
    NDP government is supposed to be like. Also heard they are planning
    further cuts in the next budget. They have already cut around 4 billion
    so far. People whine about the NDP, but they are the only ones I see
    making headway on the debt/deficit problem. Sure they are making
    unpopular decisions, they have to to sort this mess out. Just remember
    it was the other two parties who frittered away the money during the
    good years, and then left the mess to be cleaned up during lean times.
    
    Now all we need is a flat tax system !!
    
    
    							Derek.

    

    Great! Just what we needed, more taxes. Let'see, this would imply that
    the government is able to handle the moneys better than industry. 
    Let's keep the money away from free enterprise, reduce hiring (increase
    unemployment) reduce research and development,(get behind in 
    technology) reduce expansion (reduce the tax base, make doing
    business in Ontario difficult, unappealing) and create a nice social
    empire for the world to see. (From afar!)

    	Increasing taxing has never solved any problems. Let Capitalism
    work, or should I say let 'FREE enterprise' work.
    	We are going to have to learn to compete with not only the USA
    but Mexico for industry/manufacturing/investment.We better make 
    ourselves attractive. Nafta is here to stay. (catchy name, the Torrent
    Naftas,.. nah!)

    	As much as increasing taxing seems like a solution, it is
    a short solution. A company must reap profits, else it does not exist,
    period! Maybe the government should look into how to stimulate growth
    instead trying to find another way to stagnate it.

    Mike, keep your boots on.  On the radio this am, the government is
    looking at increasing the maximum amount taken for UIC from just over
    $600 per year to $1200.  They called it a 6 - 7 % rate increase.
    
    Bill 

    I have neither kids nor real property, but I pay income and sales taxes
    like everyone else.  It seems to me that a both progressive income
    taxes and property taxes are "fairer" than sales taxes because they
    take more from thos who have more.  
    
    It also seems to me that taxes on business transactions, like sales
    taxes, have the effect of stimulating smuggling, black market activity,
    etc., and should therefore be kept at a moderate level.

    
    >It also seems to me that taxes on business transactions, like sales
    >taxes, have the effect of stimulating smuggling, black market activity,
    >etc., and should therefore be kept at a moderate level.
    
     i.e., they shouldn't be raised too high...

    
     Re .1  Stuart:
    
    	Who said that because I own 2 properties I am rich? That's
    the nature of recreational property - it gets held onto and passed
    along to your family.  Lots of people own a piece of bush land that's
    worth next to nothing.  And I *do* use the municipal services at my
    cottage - they grade the road, plow the road, let me use the landfill,
    maintain a fire station to name a few. IMO, that's why I pay 
    property tax (not schools!)  
    
    Candace-who-is-rich-in-any-way-EXCEPT-$$$$$

    Regarding sales taxes stimulating the black market, etc. I heard an
    economist argue that the best way of capturing taxes on the underground
    economy would be to reduce income taxes since it is easiest to hide
    income from the taxman and then increase consumption taxes (GST, PST)
    where it is most difficult to avoid the taxes.
    
    For example the electrician who wires your home may avoid income tax by
    getting payment in cash, but it is difficult to escape the consumption
    taxes on the supplies.

    Candace,
    
    I didn't say you were *rich* ... what I did say was that *if* you
    didn't chose to own a recreational home, you would probably afford
    a larger primary residence, and hence pay a larger share of taxes
    in your home town ... so to some extent it's 6 of one and half a
    dozen of another.
    
    One other thought, if you didn't pay taxes to the rural community
    to fund their schools, that community would have higher transfer
    payements from the province, and we'd all get hit with higher taxes
    from Premier Bob!
    
    On the one hand, I do agree that it is somewhat inequitable, but at
    the same time, I don't know of a particularly better way ... 
    
    Here I am in Colorado Springs, and I can assure you, you'd be
    envious of our local tax bill ... but I can assure you that as a
    result of our low taxes, you'd be shocked at the kind of services
    and planning and education we *DONT* get!!!
    
    Garbage collection is a private hauler ... there are about 5 different
    companies collect trash around us, and we pay the hauler!
    
    Street lighting is through Special Improvement District Taxes.
    
    The planners in this town don't get paid much (low taxes) so we
    get planning to match ... no requirement for greenspace in 
    subdivisions ... no consideration when allowing new development as to
    whether the local schools can actually accomodate all the kids that
    will come with that development.  In short they pay peanuts and
    get monkeys ... they really make some of the Ottawa Carleton planners
    look like saints.
    
    Education here is very lacking ... you pay the taxes and then pay
    pay pay for supplies, books, and lots of other things that Carleton
    Board paid for.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    It seems that among the effects of any kind of tax increase is an
    increase in the number of people who feel justified in trying to avoid
    paying the tax, illegally if necessary.  There are always tax evaders,
    but in this country I think most people have traditionally been willing
    to pay most of the taxes they are supposed to.  As tax levels increase,
    however, people rebel, and begin to participate in the underground
    economy.  
    
    This is one important reason why it is necessary that taxes and tax
    increases be perceived as fair:  in order to get the revenues, you need
    the people to be willing to pay the taxes.
    
    -Stephen

    That's exactly the point (as Stephen just made it): FAIR.  People would
    not be so opposed to taxation for services if it was perceived as fair.
    
    What bothers me is corporations not paying their fair share, e.g. the
    Royal Bank made some obscene amount of profit last year ($5 billion),
    and pays virtually no tax.
    
    Simplify the system.  If you want me to pay consumption taxes, fine. 
    But charge all businesses say 5% of gross revenues as a flat tax. 
    Charge all wage earners 10% income tax on all income before deductions. 
    In fact, eliminate deductions (tax shelters, loopholes, etc.) and make
    the rich pay too instead of squeaking out.  Tax lottery winnings at a
    flat 10%.  With this scheme, the government would bring in twice as
    much revenue with half the paperwork, and could even eliminate consumption
    taxes.  But don't eliminate sin taxes.  I smoke, drink occasionally,
    and drive.  I don't mind paying tax on these items, if it's reasonable. 
    Gas should be priced a little lower, alcohol is fine, but tobacco
    should be lowered only to reduce the incentive for smuggling, and in
    the process save the enormous cost of law enforcement, which currently
    seems to be costing far more than the tax revenue generated from the
    tabacco tax.
    
    My humble opinions...
    Otto.

	Otto,

	Have you ever thought of running for office?

	Charlie

    Yes, Charlie, I have!  But I'd never make it - I'm afraid I'm too
    honest!  :-)
    
    Otto.

    
    	Well, it doesn't make me feel any better about funding education
    through property tax  if  I know the algorithm is 
    	IF you own property
    	  you must pay school taxes
    	    AND the more your property is worth	
    	       the more school tax you must pay
    	        AND it doesn't matter how many pieces of property
    	          you must pay school tax for all of them
    
    when it gives no consideration to the income I make. Therefore
    	- senior citizens who own property whose market value has increased
    while their income has declined pay proportionately more school tax
    OR	- I might make gobs of money with the great job I have because of
    the {public/subsidized post-secondary} education I received in Ontario
     and yet could rent and pay no school tax
    	....and be sending my kids to school.
    (It's not extreme! I know 3 families that fall into category #2!).
    
    	Sorry about the flame. It's a red flag to lump me in with rich
    people because I own a cottage when there's lots of people driving
    vehicles that cost more than my "bit of heaven".
    					Candace
    
    

Otto,

If you *drink, and drive* you probably wouldn't get elected as a 
politician...  The media would have a field day with this.

/Mario

    Very funny Mario!  I drive then drink, thank you! :-) :-)

    re. 5
    
     
    
     I beg to differ about your generalization. People who own
    property do not necessarily own more than people who do not.
    In most cases, the owners only really own the equity in the property
    which might be small, especially in light of the minimum 5%
    down payment rules.
    So, maybe some people need a house for different reasons, but are not
    necessarily more affluent.
     You might actually have more than a homeowner, beleive it or not.
    
    Nextly, I am a homeowner and am somewhat bothered by the enormous
    education portion of my property tax bill, of which I am not
     benefitting whatsoever at this point in time.
    Some might say, you will have children someday, so start paying now,
    bbuutt, should this not apply to everyone that works that might have
    children someday,yes!!
    
     I never did like this NDP govenment, I personally think they are
    the absolute worst thing for this province at this moment in time.
    They realize they are doomed to the scrap heap of ousted parties,
    maybe they can share the Chevrolet with the Tories, and are ramming
    all all their socialist leaning legislation through .
    I guess we're all stuck with the bills and repurcussions of this
    after they are long gone, hopefully to the fate the Tories experienced.
    
    
    re. 2,
    
     You really need a lesson in economics and how money is generated.
    Aren't you contradicting yourself as a socialist by mentioning
    the flat tax system. Yuo do realize that everyone, regardless of income
    would have to pay their share. Doesn't this go against the NDP policy
    of let's punish anyone who earns money and/or helps employ people
    by taxing them more,
    Seems that the NDP just does not get it, we need the corporations to
    hire people , who in turn pay taxes to pay for services. It's
    a food chain with the corporation at the bottom, so stop scaring
    investment away.
     

    It does seem strange to me to finance education directly from local
    property taxes.  It might be "fairer" for the province to fund it from
    general tax revenues.  Would this reduce the power of local school
    boards?
    
    -Stephen

re .14

I wish we could come up with a system that is more fair (even down here,
property and education taxes are based on similar bases ... except that
the valuation of your property bears some relationship to reality!  But I'm
not convinced that saying that you own a $200,000 house bears any relation
to the local government services, and/or education services you deserve
to pay for.  Some formula based on frontage, number of bedrooms, bathrooms
and square footage of the house might bear more of a relationship.

Income based taxes have the one advantage that they are hard to avoid.
Property taxes, on the other hand are impossible to avoid!

Sorry Candace, I don't mean to rile you ... it's just that while I hear
you and others in your situation complain ... I've yet to hear any sensible
proposals on a scheme which would be fair to all in providing education and
local services.  I do sympathize ... really ... 

Stuart

re .18

Indeed Stephen, that is the complaint ... the more funding the province(state)
gives, the less power the school board has ... exactly the same problems
in the US!

Stuart

    While driving through Casselman yesterday, their is a sign in front of
    the Cambridge Township works department that states where the taxpayers
    dollars go.
    
    60 % of every tax dollar goes to education.
    25 % of every tax dollr goes to the province.
    15 % of every tax dollar stays in Cambridge Township.
    
    That's a pretty big chunk for education. I would speculate that this
    allocation of tax dollars is fairly standardized across the province of
    Ontario. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 
    
    What are we as tax payers getting for all this tax ? 
    
    Terry

KAOFS::N_PIROLLO

>>Aren't you contradicting yourself as a socialist by mentioning
>>the flat tax system. Yuo do realize that everyone, regardless of income
>>would have to pay their share. Doesn't this go against the NDP policy
>>of let's punish anyone who earns money and/or helps employ people
>>by taxing them more,

 I am for a fair and simple tax system. I believe that NDP are as well. A flat
tax is far more fair (both to rich and poor alike) than one where the rich can
use their extra disposable income to avoid paying taxes. Believe it or not,
socialisim is about fairness, not "punish[ing] anyone who earns money and/or
helps employ people"

 As for the need for companies to pay people to pay their taxes, maybe you
should write up an article and submit it to the Ontario government. I am sure
they never realized that. According to offical party documents, money grows on
trees, and we should be saving the forests, so we have to do away with money !!


								Derek.
    

    re .21:  surely the money that goes to "education" also "stays in
    Cambridge Township"?  I admit my knowledge of the system isn't as good
    as it should be, but I thought that municipalities and local school
    boards each levied property taxes, and disposed of the revenues
    themselves. 
    
    -Stephen

    In response to .22:
    
    Derek, I think you're talking about a "minimum" tax, not a "flat" tax. 
    The less wealthy argue that the poorer should pay less than the rich
    because they can afford it.  A tax rate that increases (ie. not flat) 
    with income (or supposed ability to pay) is a socialist mechanism to 
    redistribute wealth.
    
    I think everyone should pay something (a minimum tax) and would love to
    see a flat tax because most likely my taxes would DECREASE...
    

    A more interesting education stat is how much is spent in the classroom
    versus administration.  I heard one stat that about $0.50 of every
    dollar is spent in the classroom.

    re .23
    
    Stephen,
    
    Not sure if the money stays in the school district or not, as I don't 
    live their. Knowing what I do about Cambridge Township, their aren't a
    whole lot of local school's to support. My guess is that at least 50 %
    of it goes to support the county school board administration which 
    aren't located in the community and to support busing.
    
    Terry

    Thanks... I should have realized that municipalities and school
    districts aren't identical, hence school taxes would in fact leave the
    township.  
    
    I am going to look into this when I have a little time; I want to know
    how the system works.
    
    -Stephen

    While the NDP minimum tax on business profits may be a good idea,
    the NDP is looking for tax revenue any where they can get it.
    
    Bob will do anything for cash (example legalized cassino's)
    
    Derek you must be blind to say that the NDP is the only provincial
    government making inroads in the fight against the deficit.
    In the first year Bob came into power he tried to follow his parties
    platform and wound up with the largest provincial deficit ever.
    In his second year he's realized that he did a lot of damage and is
    running around making enemies of the people that elected him in the
    first place. (social contract, provincial income tax increase...)
    
    
    IMHO
    
    Brian V
    

    I remember the time quite well, the Federal government slashing
    transfer payments, and the NDP trying to stimulate the economy (like the
    Federal Liberals). Sure blame the NDP for years of the federal government
    trying to look good (and failing) by passing the deficit buck on to the
    provinces. Funny how after years of Conservative rule, we are more in
    debt than ever. I will also point out the the NDP governments in Sask.
    and BC are unpopular because of taking serious action on the debt. None
    of the parties are perfect, but to try to blame Ontario's problems on a
    party that was always comming third in elections is a joke. As Bob said
    himself, after years of being on the outside looking in, they finaly
    get on the inside to find the money was all spent.
    
    								Derek.

    Yes Derek Ontario's problems have been accumilating for quite some
    time. But trying to rape the people of this province just leads further
    down the same rathole. Government needs to learn to control thier
    spending and reduce thier overhead. Until that is done we can all give
    the government 100% of our earnings and it still wont be enough.
    
    Bob has made only a few token jestures when it come to reducing
    government size/spending but he's making great inroad when it comes
    to finding more income.
    
    This social contract is a BAD idea. I'm no union supporter but come
    on, once you've signed an agreement you live up to it.
    
    Brian V
    

    My BIL is effected by the social contract. My sister was crying the
    blues to me the other day. I had no sympathy. When I lost my job due to
    the company going broke, and lost 33% of my salary by taking the only
    job available, Ontario did nothing for me except keep on taking taxes. 
    As I said to my own flesh and blood, "Do you really expect the public
    sector to be immune?" Maybe they would prefer the "loose your job and dam
    near lost your house" option I had ? As our ability to pay is decreased,
    so should the public expenditures. If Bob had not come up with the social
    contract, I bet some would say he was in the pocket of the Unions. When it
    comes to cutting the debt, you are damed if you do, and damed if you don't.
    I would be far less willing to pay if he had not come up with the social
    contract.
    
    							Derek.

    re: .3
    
    Boy Mike, you must have really taken a sh*t kicking in the school
    yard as kid.  I quess you spent a lot of time on you knees screaming
    out "Don't Tread on us, Bloco".  All the comments I've ever read
    from you give me the impression that the bully's of the world 
    really have you brained washed into the idea that their way is best.
    
    Mike,  read the writing on the wall, capitalism is dying.  The 
    downtrodden of the world aren't going to take it much longer.
    
    	       " The meek  S H A L L  inherit the earth ! "
    
    
    Robin

    re .14
    
    I pay ridiculous property taxes too, but can't understand why you run 
    down renters?  Do you really believe that the capitalist pig landlords 
    don't pass on each renter's fair share of the property tax plus a 
    reasonable (yeah right!) surcharge?  Or are you of the belief there is 
    no property tax on commerical property? (actually it's highter than 
    residential)
    
    
    Robin

    
    	First of all, I worded my note such that it appears that
    I am calling renters social parasites.  I was not. However..
    
    Robin:
    	No, I don't believe renters pay more tax than I do.
    RENT CONTROL has been in effect for many years.   My taxes
    have doubled in the last 5 years.   Rent Control has been
    handing out increases under the inflation rate for years.  
    Why do you think there is such a low vacancy rate in Ontario?
    It's almost 0 in Ottawa!
    IMO,There's so little money to be made by renting out property
    (unless you own it free and clear).
    
    Candace
    
    	

    Derek the union's had a contract. That contract is for $X in wages 
    and benifits and lays out the procedures that must be followed to
    surplus personell.
    
    If ministry offices are costing to much you tell them how much to 
    reduce by and leave it at that. The individual ministries should have
    had the power to decide how that was done. Some ministry offices are
    overstaffed and the staff needs to be reduced. Others are overpaid
    and their pay rate needs to be reduced. But the later is protected
    by their contract and should be addresses only when the contract is
    up for renewal again.
    
    
    Brian V
    

    Desperate time call for desperate measures.
    
    >>Derek the union's had a contract.
    
     You are correct, of course. I just can't get worked up over a plan
    that cuts pay to save jobs. How many times have I seen people suggest
    the same thing here at Digital. I saw Bob on TV when this was a hot
    issue saying quite plainly that it was either a cut in pay, or layoffs.
    I think they did the socially responsible thing by lowering the
    standard for all rather than cutting some people off at the knees.
    
     Been there, done it, no fun. It would be interesting to see the faces
    of the people after fighting the reduced pay if the government said:
    "Fine! You, you, you, and you, are all laid off". Wanna bet they would
    suggest job sharing or some such to keep people from being unemployed ?
    The union did what the union is paid to do, but that does not mean it
    would have been best for the membership (as a whole).
    
    			
    							Derek

    
    ?out "Don't Tread on us, Bloco".  All the comments I've ever read
    ?from you give me the impression that the bully's of the world 
    ?really have you brained washed into the idea that their way is best.
    
    ?Mike,  read the writing on the wall, capitalism is dying.  The 
    ?downtrodden of the world aren't going to take it much longer.

    Robin,

    What brand of space suit do you use on those walks of yours? Are you
    really confused with the term Bloco?  Would it make more sense if I
    reduced the word to just Bloc. There! It is done. The 'Don't tread on 
    us', watch a couple of American war movies, as they are big on that
    phrase. You play jeopardy?


    As to you comments about capitalism. Hmmm, this should be interesting.I
    think capitalism is doing quite well, but you see something else. Want
    to elaborate? Are you one of the socialismites like Derek? Derek has
    a problem with the rich ya know. He kinda likes that Bobby Hood stuff!
    Take from the rich, give to the poor. So let me paraphrase you;

    	The Jobless shall inherit all the freebies the socialismites are
    handing out, giving the workers no reason to work, cause it's all going
    to the jobless who once were meek, but now have might.

    

    Mike,
    
     I suppose you missed my note on flat taxes ? One of the points was
    that it is generally fairer, to both rich and poor. My family income
    comes close to being what the current government calls "rich", so
    when I say the rich should be willing to pay their share, I mean myself
    in a few years (I hope). The "morality" (or lack there of) of
    capitalism doomed it from the start. There is probably not a pure
    capitalist country left. If you would look at the merits of an idea
    rather than the percieved political slant you might find there are good
    ideas from all ends of the spectrum.
    
    							Derek.

    Oh yeah,
    
     Saw on TV last night that the commision on fair taxes agrees with
    Candace. They are recommending that schools be paid from general tax
    revenue, rather than property tax. I saw a pentioner on the news who
    explained how unfair it was to people on fixed incomes. The idea (Mike)
    is to tax people on their ability to pay.
    
    							Derek.

    true but they also went on to say that the communities could still
    add a levy to property tax to handle local programs. What this means
    is you'll have a big chunk of your income tax going to edu and part
    of your property tax going to the same to pay for your local arts
    program or buy the teachers a new lounge.
    
    Brian V
    

    
     Although I am in agreement with the Fair Tax Commision conclusions
    about removing the Edu tax from Property Tax, I do not agree
    with regressively taxing people who earn higher incomes.
    I realize that the public in general have accepted this notion
    as fact over the years and have blindly accepted it.
    
    If one reviews the history of tax, this was designed to temporarily
    pay for cost overruns, be it war or depression.
    Over the years, the thinking evolved into using the tax base to pay
    for services rendered to the public from both federal and provincial
    governments. Everything was fine for a number of years. The cost of
    services was proportionaltely low, of course , not as many services
    were offered as today.
     The key statement above is taxes are meant to pay for services.
    Now where are statistics that indicate higher earning people
    use more services. There aren't any, and in fact, they probably use
    less government services and are in fact subsidizing the people 
    that cannot pay their share of taxes, if all things were equal.
    
     Oh no, it sounds like I'm agreeing with Derek. Something's
    wrong :-) . Let's make Income Tax fair and have a Flat Rate and any
    overruns incurred would be dealt with possibly with outright
    surcharges, how's that.
    
    
    Norm
    

     A hidden benifit to welfare is that "poor" people don't have to rob
    rich people at knife point (this is Canada after all). The rich benifit
    from living in a peacefull prosperous society. If they choose not to
    contribute, they may still be rich, but would the country be worth
    living in ? There are many reasons we have less violent crime than out
    American cousins, social spending is not the least of them.
    
     The "puzzel" needs all the pieces to make the picture, not just the
    one you like.
    								Derek.

    re: -1
    
    My sentiments exactly.  Excellent points Derek.  I get really
    sick listening to all these wanna be rich guys believing the
    Bull Sh*t line that anyone can do it.  If that were the case
    then why haven't they.
    
    Let's here some them tell us just what government services they're
    willing to give up and then lets watch the fur fly.
    
    As matter of fact I'll start it off.
    
    1. I think they should quit putting play ground equipment in parks.
       Hell, sell the parks for building lots and use the money to pay
       for garbage pickup.
    
    2. Stop building mutil-million dollar arenas and sell the one's they've
       got.  If hockey players want to play hockey let pay what it really
       costs.  (This one was for Mike)
    
    
    Robin
    
    
    

>    
>    1. I think they should quit putting play ground equipment in parks.
>       Hell, sell the parks for building lots and use the money to pay
>       for garbage pickup.
>    

Robin,

I really cannot believe that you really mean this ...  I am currently
fighting a developer who has refused to provide any park in our comminuity,
and wants to develop 12 acres across the street from us in a manner that
a) destroys views ot the mountains for our neighbourhood, b) makes the
nearest open space / parkland over a mile away ... meaning that our younger
kids have to be DRIVEN in at car to get to it and c) devalues the overall
neighbourhood.

The "Let's cover every square foot of land with building" really offends me.

Stuart

      :  sick listening to all these wanna be rich guys believing the
  :  Bull Sh*t line that anyone can do it.  If that were the case
  :  then why haven't they.


    Robin,

    	Did you go from suckling off you're mothers bosom, to expecting the 
    government to look after your butt! You got to be kidding. It is not up
    to big business to look after your needs, nor is it the governments
    responsibility . It irritates me to see someone whining away, expecting 
    the government to take care of them. I'm sick of paying taxes for
    people who think like this.
    	Let's start reducing this needless waste of money before our
    children grow up to a country which will not be able to afford the
    same standard of living which I have seen.
      Letse, a few Ideas which would save more money than
    Robins parks for parking scheme. Howabout, if you do not finish high
    school and receive a diploma, you are eligible for only 1/2 of your UIC
    allowable benefit. Or upon receiving triple the money you've paid into the
    UIC system, you must go for retraining. Obviously you're in the wrong
    line of work.

    	Stuart, I'm surprised with your statement. You should of checked the
    zoning laws prior to buying. Here in Ottawa, ya got your XYZ
    neighbourhood complaining about the noise from the international
    airport.You got ABC neighbourhood complaining about the noise from the
    summer exhibition. They both have gone to city council for change.
    These people have bought, with full knowledge they were near a
    prospective nuisance. Probably got a good deal on their home because of
    it. Now they want to whine away cause they want change.  Sheesh!


      

    Hey Mike,
    
    Oh, yeah, we knew about the zoning before buying ... and we and
    neighbours had assurances from the developer on how he intended
    to use this land ... trouble is he decided, now that the single
    family home market here in CoSpr is hot hot hot, to play "Lets
    get the rules changed".  As many have told me "It's his land, he
    should be able to develop it how he wants."
    
    Seems to me Joni Mitchell had a song about this ... 
    
    	"take all the trees, put 'em in a tree museum" ... etc
    
    This is what we have town planners for, to ensure we don't pave
    paradise.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    Mike,
    
    You missed the point.  I really don't think they should get rid of
    parks I was only trying to make the point that what one person thinks
    is unnecessary another will think is very necessary and Stuart
    confirmed it.  I don't like taxes any more than you do but how
    else do we pay for services.  
    
    The impression I'm left with from your note is that you think the 
    2.7 million Canadians on welfare and 1.5 million unemployed really 
    enjoy living like that, doing it by choice and are the cause of
    our problems.  If you'd look beyond the end of your greedy nose
    you'd realize they are the result of our crumbling society.  Our
    wonderful capitalist system is the cause of the problem.
    
    The real leeches of society are those that manipulate and exploit
    for profit while adding no productive value to the system.  The
    current paradigm we're living under has to change or you'll be
    correct about your kids future.  Atleast you've got twenty years
    or so to work on the problem, my kids are there now and the prospects
    are pretty bleek.
    
    Robin
    
    
    
      
    

	Mike had some very good points:

	I know of many young people out there who waste their chances
	for a proper education by droppping out of school early or
	not continuing to further educate themselves when there
	would be no problem doing so. (many parents more than willing
	to help pay for an education)

	Most of these kids are living in a beer commercial and this living
	comes out of my hard earned tax dollars. If the yahoo doesn't have
	a high school dimploma, make him pay for it! Only give him a percentage
	of what someone with a fighting chance in todays job market would
	get. Lets get a bit harder on some of these freeloaders.

	Usually the kid smartens up and, at 25 years old, get the HS diploma
	and some sort of technical training, BUT in the mean-while he has
	been collecting pogey/welfare for 7 or 8 or 9 years.

	Charlie

>>    If you'd look beyond the end of your greedy nose
>>    you'd realize they are the result of our crumbling society.  Our
>>    wonderful capitalist system is the cause of the problem.
  

  Yet if we look at the other end of the spectrum we have a bunch of socialist
  freeloaders who are given absolutely no incentive to get off their asses 
  because the government will takes care of them.

  No one wants capitalism with a government policy of "laissez faire" but at
  the same time you can't tax/restrict these corporations to death. 

  Ben   

    
     I've noticed that the dialogue in this Note is heading into
    a capitalism/anti welfare vs. socialism/pro welfare debate.
    
    Let's face it, we all work for a corporation, an American one,
    and without corporations like this making investments in this 
    province there would be no tax dollars to pay for the
    huge welfare slice of pie. 
     So for all those that do not condone capitalism, please remember 
    to not bite the hand that feeds you.
    
     Ther are next to no precendents of socialism countries being
    succesfull , even the model Scandinavian countries which prided
    themselves as being superior to capitalism. They are now finding
    out that socialism can be very expensive, like a drug habit,
    and the same people that benefit from it are not in positions
    to finance it.
     Socialist type countries and economies are rapidly falling under
    the new global trade era.
    
    I am convinced that people would be infinitly more motivated to
    work and add to the GNP, if welfare programs were not so lavish
    and so available in this province.
    
    
    
     Norman,
    Stepping off his capitalist
    Soapbox
    

>>I am convinced that people would be infinitly more motivated to
>>work and add to the GNP, if welfare programs were not so lavish
>>and so available in this province


    I am convinced that people would be infinitly more motivated to
    crime and decrease our quality of life, if welfare programs were
    not so available in this province.

    If you had a family to feed, and no money, what would you do ? Given
    a choice between adding a few million to the bank or oil companies
    profits, and giving housing to the needy, I know what I would do. Note
    that I said profits. You know, like the CIBC, they didn't make enough
    profit, so they lay off tellers. They disrupt the lives of people
    because some jerks gave Olympia & York a pile of money, and O&Y dropped
    the ball. Solution ? Crush the little people. Remember Norm, you are a
    little people too. I stand by my statement that capitalisim has no
    morals, only profit motive, and that the human condition will not
    improve under those influences alone.

>>So for all those that do not condone capitalism, please remember
>>to not bite the hand that feeds you.

 Norm, no one is saying we should go to a government run economy, what I am
saying is that if we leave it soley up to the money barrons, the poor would
rot. If you want to see what happens to those types of countries look at Iran
or Cuba. They end up with a revolution, in which the capitalists get
their butts kicked. It's like the Fram commercial you can pay them now, or you
can pay them later. I prefer the installment plan we have now.
    
    							Derek.

>> If you had a family to feed, and no money, what would you do ?

I'd take the job that I was offered and refused to take because I thought 
I was too good for it and I knew I could still get a bunch of money from 
either UIC or Welfare.

Ben

    With 1.5 million unemployed in Canada, do you say they they (and
    all those not counted to make the government look good) could all find
    gainful employment? Dream on. Sure, 1.5+ million people are holding out for
    that Bank Director job I saw in Toronto. 
    
    Social safety nets are just that, safety nets for society, not the person
    getting the money. What about the guy who takes the only job offered and
    finds that it is not enough to feed his family ? I hope none of you
    have to take the humility pill I did recently when I lost my job. Walk
    a few feet in the other persons shoes, you would be surprised how
    quickly you can change your mind.
    
     Oh yeah, the "bunch of money" I would have got from UIC wouldn't have
    covered the mortage and car payment if I had not been able to get a
    job. Why do i work? I could have it Sooooooooo good on UIC !!
    
    								Derek.

For a good many people, UIC and welfare are decidedly better than official jobs.
There are also a good many people on UIC etc and doing casual labour.

Guys, this is not a black and white issue ... there are lots of shades of grey.
UIC and welfare are all or nothing ... for example, the people that cannot
find full time employment cannot afford to take part time ... so they
cannot take UIC or welfare because they have a job.

There are lots of other areas of grey.

Yes, a social safety net is a good thing, but there are limits to what it can
provide and how long it can provide.  Wouldn't it be better for the economy
for someone to work for maybe a lower salary and get partial UIC or welfare
than to do no work at all ?

The cost of democratic socialism is very high because there are abusers ...
no question about it.  On the other hand, that's no reason to say that
democratic socialism should be eliminated.  There are more abusers than just
those who "receive" the benefits ... there are all the paper pushers who
invent systems for dealing with the management of policies who manage to
complicate the systems so much they create jobs for themselves and others
for life.  Some of these systems are so complex, there is no way to
unravel the problems.

We see this time and again in the attempts to dismantle universal programs.
More people than the intended recipients get hit.

A prize example, although outside the scope of this discussion, is the GST.
The system is so burdensome with levels of bureaucracy that it is utterly
inefficient and costly and will be virtually impossible to get rid of.

Stuart

    re a few back...
    
    >if you want to see what happens to those types of countries 
    >look at Iran or Cuba. They end up with a revolution, in which the
    >capitalists get their butts kicked.
    
    Derek, are you saying the common folk in Cuba or Iran are better off
    today than they were when they worked for the capitalist pigs.
    
    Cuba is a great example of socialism/communism gone bad. Now that the 
    Soviet Union has collapsed, the Cubans are suffering mass hardships. 
    No food, no fuel, no guns. Even the almighty Cuban military is in dire
    straights as they can't afford fuel, bullets, or food.
    
    IMHO Cuba will soon be facing another revolution - back to capitalism.
    
    Terry

    Read in yesterday's paper (Ottawa Citizen) that they're trying
    to nail the guy that made $200K dollars feeding Thomas S. Assaly
    info that allowed Assaly to purchase an old school from one
    school board for $6.5 million and sell it the same day to another
    school board for $10.35 million.  Of course Assaly did nothing 
    wrong, ripping off the unsuspecting is the excepted capitalist 
    practice.  And we blame the the poor unfortunates for our high
    taxes.
    
    I'll bet Assaly probably paid fewer taxes that most of the other 
    middle income earners who are supporting this nation.
    
    
    Robin

    
    Derek,
    
    I beg to differ.
     We are and have been in the past few years part of the North American
    Free Trade Agreement. What this has done is made in increasingly more
    competitive for corporations to relocate to more profitable 
    provinces/states. This is a fact, and manufacturing have and will
    relocate with increases in Corporate Taxes. I'm not totally pro
    NAFTA, but we as well accept the harsh reality that the 
    Province of Ontario and Canada for that matter, cannot shelter
    itself from the rest of NA , with our own agenda. I feel that we
    almost given up sovereignty with NAFTA and are at the mercy
    of both a low Corporate Tax and low wages. How else do we compete?
    
    As we speak, there are umpteen U.S. State Marketing people vying
    for our business.
     Increasing the burden via increased taxes on corporations will
    only expedite this proces of relocation. Why is this NDP government
    so anti-business, and instead, make it more appealing for business
    to remain here.
     Because they still seem to be living in the 60's/70's era, where
    Canada virtually had a wall around it. Corporations had to play
    by our trade rules, hence the branch plant economy. I'm afraid
    this is a thing of the past, and we must be as competitive
    as the U.S..
     Adding to the social safety net is an ever increasing burden on
    business and taxpayers, and business will simply leave and ship to
    us from elsewhere.
    
    'Nuf said,
    Norman
    

RE: -1

Like Ronald Reagan said Robin, "well there you go again." spewing out that anti
capitalistic rhetoric. If you want examples of real government corruption and
a people that are fed up with it why don't you have a look at Eastern Europe.
To quote another president (JFK), "At least we don't have to build a wall to
keep our people in."

Ben 

    I did not say that the results of these revolutions were better than
    the previous governments, what I did say is that they were
    percipitated by unrestrained capitalisim. Anyone who points at a
    "communist" country and says that socialisim/communisim does not work
    is missing the fact that these governments were really facist in
    nature, and used the name of communisim as a fig leaf.
    
     Norm, I refuse to be drawn to the lowest common denominator (which in
    this case would be either Mexico or the US State most desperate for
    jobs). If you want the US to guide policies like minimum wages,
    environmental controls..... for you, MOVE THERE!!! While we cannot put
    "a wall" around Canada, that does not mean we need to subjagate
    ourselves to the multi-nationals. Look at McMillan Blodel (SP) they
    are raping the BC forests, convinced the loggers that they are
    providing jobes, and when (not if) the harvestable trees are gone, they
    will go to another country that allows them to pillage their natural
    resources. Logging should have been a renewable resource, in the hands of
    the multi-national, is is a disposable resource, like a bic lighter.
    
     As Stuart mentioned, there is a middle ground. But BS policies like
    "trickel down" from Reagan, and Mulroney's "private enterprise will
    pick up the slack" are not it. Feel free to dump on socialism, I just
    hope you never need the assistance you are so willing to deprive others
    of.
    
    							Derek.

    
    Derek, 
    
      I've been in the work force for ~17 years non-stop
    and heavily taxed I might add. So if I ever need social
    assistance, I will probably be financing myself from my
    investment in taxes :-)
    
     Does this mean I got the last word in............ :-)
    
    Norm
    

    But Norm, you want to reduce those benifits (or eliminate them) so you
    will not benifit from the years of contribution.
    
     Be honest, you want them reduced because you can't see yourself ever
    needing them.
    
    							Derek.

    
    	Well after starting off this very interesting debate, guess
    what happened to me?  I recieved a letter from the Bank of Mortgage
    saying they had over estimated my property taxes for the year and
    were sending me a 350$ cheque.  Everything seems so much better
    now. :^)
    
    	Candace
    
    

And next year they'll reckon they underestimated by 350 ...

With the bank of mortgage it's called "Heads they win ... tails you lose"!

Stuart

    Two simple rules that serve me well:
    
    1) Brown Cadillacs are always driven by white trash.
    2) Never let the bank pay your property taxes. 
     

    Norm ...
    
    The second I understand (and wholeheartedly agree with) ... the first
    ??????????????? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm