Canadian government to fall

[KrazyHorse]

I think you're misunderstanding what Kontiki is responding to, kid.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No, because you simply don't understand the argument. The argument is because X% of people have college diplomas, and X isn't much greater than 20, and most of the people in the top 20% of earners have a college diploma, then most of the people with a college diploma must be in the top 20% of earners by simple math. If X = 80 it's not true.

Actually, you're the one not understanding this argument. My position is that the analogy is bad, because it implies that your argument is largely correct. I don't think that's what he was going for.

[Kuciwalker]

:mrfun:

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyone here working for a political party?

[KrazyHorse]

Could you choose a less appealing picture of Harper as your avatar, Ben?

Or are they all pretty much equally bad?





And of course, this classic

[Kontiki]

nm

[Kontiki]

Hmmm...

[KrazyHorse]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon




Most taxation redistributes income: both within provinces and between provinces. It makes no difference if you have a Federalist system or not. You could of course ban equalization payments, but what would be the point of that? Equalization payments just reflect that the Federal tax system in Canada is used to partially fund stuff that provincial authorities are responsible for.

I thought that you were saying earlier on that redistribution was not an essential part of taxation. In Canada it is. The poorer provinces have zero power to tax the wealthier ones. Ever since the post war boom, and seeking to make a better country, federal taxation in Canada has been primarily redistributive. The majority of federal expenditures are in transfers to the provinces that are based on the provinces own ability to generate taxes locally (the lower the base, the higher per person grants through equalization programs).

But every insurance scheme exists to transfer funds from the fortunate to the unfortunate. Again, do you want to ban insurance?

No, but it would be good for us all to be familiar with the basic facts so I point them out.

It's no different than an insurance company that covers the whole country shifting funds from branches in one province to another. Would it be more efficient to keep the premiums from each province within that province? Perhaps, but you have to come up with some serious numbers to show that it is true, and it is unlikely to be true. Even corporations will shift funds around between branches and even countries rather than let each part of the company stand and fall on its own two feet.

But of course you believe, like most of the right (and a large proportion of the left) that taxation and public health care is about egalitarianism. For the most part it isn't: it's just easier to market the idea this way than it is to explain the sober economics that are the real reason for most public spending.

If it isn't about egalitarianism, then why compel all to suffer the substandard results that our purely public system has to offer, compared to other countries with similar levels of economic development to our own?

As it is, you are falling back on your old and tired form of argument: trying to recast the argument as being about particular features of Canadian society, rather than being about general economic principles. I'm sorry, the latter are prior to the former in any argument about this.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. That has been amply demonstrated by your complete failure to address the economic point at issue. You haven't even shown that you understand it.

You're going to have to go beyond saying things and show us something before I'll take your economic arguments seriously.

Show us how spending more for less result is a good thing. Show us how fewer doctors, fewer beds, less equipment and longer waiting lists for more money is good economics. Show us a grasp of the basic facts. Show me that and then I'll take your statements about economics seriously.

Two tier healthcare can work in certain situations. It is certainly no replacement for a well funded public system. Two tier healthcare is only really useful to clear up marginal cases (elective surgery being the main one). That was how it used to be used in New Zealand, and it worked rather well. Certainly, you should be afforded no tax breaks for private health insurance (as is currently the case).

Blended private/public systems are the norm in developed countries, far away from 'can work in certain situations'.

BTW, which tax breaks for private health insurance are those?

If your complaint is that there are waiting lists, campaign for increased taxation to bring them down, since it is clear that Canadians are not paying for the amount of healthcare that they really need.

That is the same tired, and unsupported, argument that has been being used here to protect the status quo for years now. 'Shovel more money at it.'

Now, even the SCoC is saying 'nuh uhh', find another way.

It would be silly to allow private health insurers to take over a significant portion of health care because it would just result in increased costs to the consumer (well, to most of them - except the 10% of the population that the Tories actually care about - and of course that is what is at issue here: rich people whining).

And they won't. Nobody is advocating that the public system not care for every person facing catastrophic conditions, nor that the public system cease to care for all who need it for minor conditions.

What is being insisted on, by a growing number of people, is that we develop a better system. One where waiting lists for specialists, tests, and procedures are reduced to reasonable levels. The purely public system has had a chance to address these deficiencies, and it has demonstrated an inability to do so. Now it is time for change, and not just a change in the number of zeros at the end of the 'blank cheque' written to the public system.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No, because you simply don't understand the argument. The argument is because X% of people have college diplomas, and X isn't much greater than 20, and most of the people in the top 20% of earners have a college diploma, then most of the people with a college diploma must be in the top 20% of earners by simple math. If X = 80 it's not true.

It's nice little theory, but it falls apart when confronted with the facts.

You assume that 20% of Americans have university degrees. That's incorrect, 27% of Americans have degrees.

You also assume that most top income earners have degrees. Again, that's incorrect.

Only one in three Americans who get a university degree are top income earners. Therefore, just because you have a large income doesn't mean you will be among the top income earners.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Good on you for getting involved, even if I hope your work fails.

Are you working for the Conservatives or for the CH? And what are you doing?

[Tingkai]

Here's an online article about how the Globe made a mountain out of a molehill, based on questionable survey results.

Hey, Careful Where You Swing that Poll!

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2005/12/06/CarefulSwingPoll/

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
It's nice little theory, but it falls apart when confronted with the facts.

You assume that 20% of Americans have university degrees. That's incorrect, 27% of Americans have degrees.

You also assume that most top income earners have degrees. Again, that's incorrect.

I was using those numbers in that post as a demonstration. of the logic.

Only one in three Americans who get a university degree are top income earners. Therefore, just because you have a large income doesn't mean you will be among the top income earners.

That's not what your site said.

[Tingkai]

You're probably thinking that you're right, but you're wrong.

[Seeker]

This election is so oddly ritualistic.

I think that Can Pol is just kinda waiting for the BQ to 'just go away' so we can 'return' to 'normal' politics.