Welfare and Baby Bonuses - Our Goverment's Main Responsibilty?

[Infanteer]

That's democracy. You have a vote. Those programs were democratically proposed, debated, and passed in the Commons by your elected MP (or MLA in the case of welfare).

Does this automatically justify the programs?  Where does the line get drawn on the "Tyranny of the Majority"?  Can a reasonable claim be made that it is okay to enforce upon the public an ideological system based upon a failing and easily abused centralized socialist bureaucracy while at the same time condemning other coercive government measures for "public good" such as putting an immigration tax on Asian immigrants or keeping Natives segregated, economically and socially, in what amounts to third-world conditions in some places?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Democracy, absent vigilant respect on the part of the majority for the natural human rights (eg. life, property, freedoms of conscience), is merely tyranny of the majority.

Should we have a democracy which respects minority rights, or a self-indulgent tyranny of majorities?

 

[dutchie]

Re: "Can a reasonable claim be made that it is okay to enforce upon the public an ideological system based upon a failing and easily abused centralized socialist bureaucracy while at the same time condemning other coercive government measures for "public good" such as putting an immigration tax on Asian immigrants or keeping Natives segregated, economically and socially, in what amounts to third-world conditions in some places?"
I'm a little unclear on what your saying here. I got your description alluding to EI (or other Social Program), ie- idelogical system...but I don't get the connection to the Asian 'Head Tax', segregation, etc. One is clearly rascist, one is a Government social program.

Re:"Democracy, absent vigilant respect on the part of the majority for the natural human rights (eg. life, property, freedoms of conscience), is merely tyranny of the majority."


Since when is "freedom to not pay EI premiums" a human right? In what country can individual constituents manually direct where, and where not, their tax dollars go? If you feel that it is your human right not to pay EI premiums, launch a Charter lawsuit, or become self-employed.

Re:"Should we have a democracy which respects minority rights, or a self-indulgent tyranny of majorities?"

The first one. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[Gunnar]

I think it has more to do with the price of tea in Boston, actually.  

Infanteer is saying "If we can force socialism and a government bureacracy on people, why can't we force racism on them too?   What's the difference?   If it's OK to force people to do stuff, where do we draw the line?"

Since when is "freedom to not pay EI premiums" a human right?

Since always, actually.   See, rights are things which are required by your nature as a human being.   Freedom of action implies freedom to dispose of one's personal property, including wealth, as one sees fit, particularly as one gains it through their own effort.   For the majority to take my money to spend on programs I don't want, support, or agree with is to deliberately force me to act counter to my best interest.   As I said before, legal gang rape.   The smallest minority is the individual...

Since when is the freedom not to be molested a fundamental right?

Note, I'm not saying that I should somehow be exempt from EI premiums and public taxes, and yet still enjoy these "benefits".   I'm saying that Canadians should be exempt from EI premiums and publically imposed taxes, and that THOSE WHO WANT THEM can pay for them, and only those who have paid for them can colllect them.   That's how insurance works.  I'm willing to pay my invasion and public molestation premiums...I'm just annoyed that there's only one policy being offered, and it includes the cost for all these other things I never asked for or wanted....

 

[Infanteer]

I'm a little unclear on what your saying here. I got your description alluding to EI (or other Social Program), ie- idelogical system...but I don't get the connection to the Asian 'Head Tax', segregation, etc. One is clearly rascist, one is a Government social program.

Both are founded upon ideological convictions (be it "Anglo-superiority" or "Socialist-egalitarianism") and wish the government to use the coercive powers of the government to further their goals.  What I was getting at is the fact that you justified our social programs because an elected government put them into place - although I hate to use it as an example, remember that the NSDAP was elected.

 

[dutchie]

Infanteer is saying "If we can force socialism and a government bureacracy on people, why can't we force racism on them too?   What's the difference?   If it's OK to force people to do stuff, where do we draw the line?"

Freedom of action implies freedom to dispose of one's personal property, including wealth, as one sees fit, particularly as one gains it through their own effort.   For the majority to take my money to spend on programs I don't want, support, or agree with is to deliberately force me to act counter to my best interest.   As I said before, legal gang rape.   The smallest minority is the individual...

Note, I'm not saying that I should somehow be exempt from EI premiums and public taxes, and yet still enjoy these "benefits".   I'm saying that Canadians should be exempt from EI premiums and publically imposed taxes, and that THOSE WHO WANT THEM can pay for them, and only those who have paid for them can colllect them.   That's how insurance works.   I'm willing to pay my invasion and public molestation premiums...I'm just annoyed that there's only one policy being offered, and it includes the cost for all these other things I never asked for or wanted....

I also would love to pick and choose the 'programs and services' that I will pay for, but that's not how the system works. And seeing as no country works that way, I suspect it is impossible to do.

If "freedom of property" includes optiing out of EI premiums, then by extension you could opt out of taxes, which will never happen. "I'm sorry Mr. Gunnar, you can't drive on this road, you don't pay taxes. And no, you can't appeal it as the appeal board is government run, and because you don't pay taxes, you can't appeal. You can call, oh, sorry, you don't have a phone.....can't mail either......you could walk? But make sure you stay on private property, and not on crown land, you didn't pay for the upkeep.....would like to arrange payment of back taxes for the last year? Here's your bill."

It seems you want to live in some kind of free-market capitalist utopia, and I can't argue that. But you will have to find that utopia elsewhere, or start changing the minds of around 20 million people.

Oh, and you draw the line when you start violating human rights. Recognized human rights, not human 'wants'.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The easiest place to draw a line is where safeguarding negative rights ends, and we enter the realm of positive rights.  But, while we may surely dispute the number of programs we need which provide benefits, the key should always be that the benefits are at least in principle universal - for example, education and health insurance.

If the injustice of transferring money from my pocket to the pocket of able-bodied adults or to businesses which can't stand on their own isn't self-evident, I doubt any infringement of negative rights will be thought unjust by those who fear for their security, whether it be economic or against the threat of some yet-to-be-encountered analogue of "yellow peril".

 

[dutchie]

Although I don't 100% agree with your view, I can't argue with that logic.

Ei, for instance, is universal. Any Canadian who works in insurable employment pays premiums, and if they are unemployed (through no fault of their own, to care for a newborn/adopted child, or to care for a gravely ill family member), they can collect temporary financial benefits. That is universal. Yes, it is a 'positive' right, and there are flaws with that system (including fraud), but it is a 'right' that most Canadians want to keep.

The Self-employment Program is designed to improve to chances of a new business succeeding. It is very temporary support, and that support is mainly educational, rather than financial.

 

[a_majoor]

Although I don't 100% agree with your view, I can't argue with that logic.

Ei, for instance, is universal. Any Canadian who works in insurable employment pays premiums, and if they are unemployed (through no fault of their own, to care for a newborn/adopted child, or to care for a gravely ill family member), they can collect temporary financial benefits. That is universal. Yes, it is a 'positive' right, and there are flaws with that system (including fraud), but it is a 'right' that most Canadians want to keep.

The concept of "rights" is being so bent out of shape that it is almost meaningless. The NDP would have you believe there is a "right" to a double latte with milk, while the Liberals operate under the assumption they have a "right"  to spend your money.

The American Consitiution has a very limited list of rights enumerated, "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness" being the most important, and the bill of rights:

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
www.archives.gov February 27, 2005

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendments 11-27
Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.
Page URL:  http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/
bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Notice articles 9 and 10 are very clear that any power or right not ennumerated in the Constitution is automatically "your" right, and one the Government cannot infringe upon. Our own constitutional scholars gave the 1981 document so many weasal words and "outs" that effectively the government holds "all" rights, a situation which is unfortunatly common throughout the world.

 

[Gunnar]

Oh, and you draw the line when you start violating human rights. Recognized human rights, not human 'wants'.

You'll get no argument from me there.   And I *am* proposing a capitalist country.   But you asked our government's main responsibility.   I outlined that, and then told you why.

As far as which roads I am allowed to drive on, it isn't a matter of opting out of road *taxes*.   It's a matter of privatising roads, then you can pay the toll or not.   As far as opting out of taxes, yes, that too is an option...but by opting out of taxes, you opt out of the things taxes pay for...If you get killed in your home, police will find the perpetrator and arrest him because he could endanger other people who do pay their taxes.   If you get swindled and lose your house because you signed a bad contract, you won't be able to sue.   You need to pay for law courts first...and since you didn't, you can't.

I'm not proposing today's system with opt-out clauses.   I proposing the bare minimums with freedom to organise apart from the government to provide other things that are of interest to you and people of like minds.   I really shouldn't have to convince people to take their hands out of my pocket, because a "Majority" thinks its a good idea to spend my money.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law a second time, a majority thought it was a good idea to disenfranchise Jews once.   Money they'd worked for, houses they'd purchased, art masterpieces they'd acquired--all were taken by "the State", because the state was held to be more important to the individual.   Their rights, money, dignity and lives were sacrificed to that ideal.   In fact, the ultimate expression of "the majority needs your money to fund something you don't want" is taking someone's money not to fund welfare programs, but to build the concentration camp in which they will be excecuted.   The difference is a matter of degree.

I think we've pretty much exhausted the polemical aspects of this discussion.   You understand me, you simply don't agree with me...and since any argument of this nature ultimately has to rest on shared principles (we don't), I think we're about done.

But now you know what I think of our government's primary responsibilities, with a side-dish of why.    ;D  Whether or not you agree with the ultimate conclusions of my argument, if you accept the premise that these things are the *primary* responisibilities of government, you can see just how our current governments are NOT living up to their responsibilities.

 

[dutchie]

I think we've pretty much exhausted the polemical aspects of this discussion.   You understand me, you simply don't agree with me...and since any argument of this nature ultimately has to rest on shared principles (we don't), I think we're about done.

But now you know what I think of our government's primary responsibilities, with a side-dish of why.    ;D   Whether or not you agree with the ultimate conclusions of my argument, if you accept the premise that these things are the *primary* responisibilities of government, you can see just how our current governments are NOT living up to their responsibilities.

Agreed. We actually DO agree on one thing: The Governement's primary responsibility is policing, a judicial system, and of course National Defence. Our differring opinion is on what (if anything comes after that.

Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

The Beauty of the Flat Tax
It's fair and it works.

On his trip to Slovakia last week, President Bush praised Prime Minister Dzurinda for the flat-tax system he instituted last year. Bush noted that the new tax regime simplified tax collection, attracted foreign capital, and created economic vitality and growth.

Three years ago, Bush made a point of congratulating Russian President Putin for his country's flat tax, which took effect on Jan. 1, 2001. On that occasion, Bush particularly noted the fairness of the Russian system, which treats taxpayers equally, rather than punishing the successful merely for being successful.

Hoover Institution political scientist Alvin Rabushka points to eight different countries in the former Soviet bloc that have adopted some form of flat tax in recent years. In addition to Russia and Slovakia, they are Romania, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Serbia, and Ukraine. He predicts that Poland and the Czech Republic will soon joint them.

Why so much interest in the flat tax? A key reason is that it is far more effective at raising revenue than progressive rates. With progressive rates it looks as if extra revenue is being extracted from the wealthy. But it is also giving the wealthy a powerful incentive to arrange their affairs so as to minimize their tax liability and also evade taxes altogether.

With a flat tax, there is much less incentive to engage in tax avoidance or tax evasion. Also, the knowledge that everyone is being treated equally helps eliminate the culture of evasion that often becomes pervasive in high-tax countries, and often drives even the law-abiding into the underground economy.

Consequently, it comes as no surprise that a new study by the International Monetary Fund found that Russia's flat tax led to a substantial rise in government revenue. This was due almost entirely to a sharp increase in compliance, which significantly raised the share of income declared on tax returns.

While compliance in the U.S. is not as bad as it was in Russia before its tax reform, it is a growing problem. In his new book, Many Unhappy Returns (Harvard Business School Press), former Internal Revenue Service commissioner Charles Rossotti warns that we are approaching a crisis in tax administration. He estimates that in 1999 the IRS was only able to collect about 17 percent of the $277 billion that corporations and individuals failed to pay that year, leaving $230 billion uncollected.

Recent data from the Department of Commerce suggests that tax evasion has risen since 1999. Annually, it publishes data comparing adjusted gross income paid by governments and businesses (wages, pensions, interest, dividends, etc.) with the amount reported by individuals on their tax returns. The gap between these two figures is the best measure we have of tax evasion.

In 2002, the latest year for which there is data, there was almost $1 trillion paid out that was not reported by individuals. If all this income were taxed at that year's average individual income-tax rate of 14 percent, the federal government would have collected an additional $135 billion. And this is a low estimate, since much of the income not reported was undoubtedly earned by people in brackets well above 14 percent.

More worrisome is the rise in the tax gap to 13.7 percent in 2002. (The tax gap is the difference between the IRS and Department of Commerce income measures as a share of the Commerce figure.) This is the largest figure recorded since data was first kept in 1959. The gap averaged 11.9 percent in the 1980s, 11.4 percent in the 1990s, and was only 10.7 percent in 2000.

The flat tax is not a cure-all for tax evasion, but as the Russian example shows, it can help a lot. When people perceive that the tax system is fundamentally unfair, because everyone appears to be paying different tax rates despite having similar incomes, it diminishes any guilt taxpayers may feel about underpaying their taxes.

Too often in Washington, tax fairness is defined solely in terms of what economists call vertical equity â ” whether the rich pay more than the poor. But horizontal equity â ” treating equals equally â ” is much more important for tax compliance. When there is a single tax rate people are more confident that their neighbors are paying the same tax they are. This boosts compliance.

It also improves compliance because the IRS doesn't need to know as much about the nature and timing of taxpayers' income. Since all income is taxed the same, earners have, for example, no incentive to convert wages into capital income or shift income from one year to another.

It should also not be forgotten that a flat tax is the revenue-raising system that is most compatible with human freedom. As University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein recently put it, â Å“It is no accident that every strong defender of limited government has gravitated toward the flat tax.â ?

â ” Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis. Write to him here.

 
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200503020824.asp

Lower taxes and more revenue; treating ALL taxpayers equally, now there is a model for Canada.

 

[Gunnar]

Viva la revolucion!  Viva Las Vegas!

 

[mo-litia]

Viva la revolucion! Viva Las Vegas!

LMAO! Thanks, it was getting too serious in here! ;D