Nobody is forcing them to live in a big city. If they want more land to retire on they can move in a smaller city or a rural area and sell their house in the big city.
1) Whoa whoa what kind of commie idea is this, taxing based on income?
2) why should a retiree out in a rural area receive preferential treatment over a retiree in a dense city if they have the same income? People in the city worked hard for their land too, even if it is a physically smaller parcel
One of the biggest waste in government is actually compliance. The number of hoops you have to jump through just to get a project going is at least a quarter of the total cost. But because it's public money the public demands fair and equitable treatment of vendors. Just fucking reading through the RFP submissions is a monumental task. Oh no matter who was picked, guaranteed some other vendor would file a dispute and cause more delay and increase cost.
I was hiring a DBA once and had to read through 700 resumes. Including a FedEx driver with zero computer experience. But because it had to be fair and equitable, we couldn't even have HR screen them first through keywords. I had to provide reason for rejection for every single fucking submission.
Yes, a lot of copy and paste was used.
Nobody is forcing you to live in a rural area, either. So why should you benefit preferentially just because you have more land,?Nobody is forcing them to live in a big city. If they want more land to retire on they can move in a smaller city or a rural area and sell their house in the big city.
How else is he going to run out of specific cat food and cause a feline revolution?Nobody is forcing you to live in a rural area, either. So why should you benefit preferentially just because you have more land,?
Weird thing is here that despite all that the contracts almost always end up going to the same few companies - and that's contracts for doing a vast variety of very different tasks. In fact it's almost always one company in particular who win most of those contracts. It's almost as if their real expertise is in 'winning government contracts' rather than any particular line-of-work.
Conversely, though, the PPE farce occurred because it was declared that because COVID was such an emergency they could bypass all that and ministers could just give the contracts to their pals and fellow Party members.
As a retired defense contractor, that is 80% of the ball. Knowing how to work the government RFP's, you name it.Weird thing is here that despite all that the contracts almost always end up going to the same few companies - and that's contracts for doing a vast variety of very different tasks. In fact it's almost always one company in particular who win most of those contracts. It's almost as if their real expertise is in 'winning government contracts' rather than any particular line-of-work.
Conversely, though, the PPE farce occurred because it was declared that because COVID was such an emergency they could bypass all that and ministers could just give the contracts to their pals and fellow Party members.
Okay, then what do you mean by, "a formula that accounts for land mass"?No go by income, you make more money you pay more tax. Get rid of every other tax. That seems like the most fair way to go about it. It also allows people to be able to retire and keep the land they worked hard for.
If owner=squirrel pay him property tax.Okay, then what do you mean by, "a formula that accounts for land mass"?
He's not capable of doing his own thinking, he outsources that.lmfao, did he really post a jordan peterson video as some kind of proof? lmao
Okay, then what do you mean by, "a formula that accounts for land mass"?
Nobody is forcing you to live in a rural area, either. So why should you benefit preferentially just because you have more land,?
You are starting from a false premise that there is currently excess taxation. Once again, you need to understand that even if all taxes went away, you would not suddenly have more money in your pocket. Taxes pay for hundreds of things you use every day and take for granted. When government stops doing those things you and your neighbors will have to pay for that yourselves. Want to guess how much it costs to plow/salt/repair your roads? A lot more than you pay in taxes in your entire lifetime, that's for sure.You misunderstood the entire post. I said there should be 1 single tax, and then it gets distributed to other tiers of government. In order to determine how much funding they get, they could go by population and land mass, basically a formula that accounts for both. Big cities would get more funding than small cities, because they require more resources like more roads etc. If anything it more or less already is that way but my idea involves getting rid of excess taxation so overall we would pay way less taxes but every tier of government still gets funding.
That doesn't even make sense. Why would I not want to live in a rural area if there are more benefits? And what's stopping you from moving if you don't like the big city? No one is purposely giving preferential treatment to one over the other, one just happens to be better. And that's subjective because there are people that actually think big cities are better. So live where you prefer, basically.
You are starting from a false premise that there is currently excess taxation. Once again, you need to understand that even if all taxes went away, you would not suddenly have more money in your pocket. Taxes pay for hundreds of things you use every day and take for granted. When government stops doing those things you and your neighbors will have to pay for that yourselves. Want to guess how much it costs to plow/salt/repair your roads? A lot more than you pay in taxes in your entire lifetime, that's for sure.
Of course you'll come back with "just reduce the corruption, not the good spending." What you don't understand is that corruption is part of life, just like shrinkage is an accepted part of retail life. At a certain point, you end up spending more money trying to find and stop corruption than you save. And who roots out corruption in the people charged with rooting out corruption? It's an endless cycle chasing an imaginary utopia that in the end doesn't even benefit you in any tangible way.
When the government raises or lowers taxes, it is the employers that need to raise or lower their wages to match. People, including you, work for your take-home pay. If the government doubled your taxes you would need to find work that paid more because your job would no longer pay enough for you to continue your current lifestyle. That means your employer would lose workers if they don't raise wages to match the new tax rates.
Once you manage to grasp the simple concept that taxes were never your money you will stop being a miserable fuck impeding the progress of the entire human race.
You only pay $15k a year in taxes? How do you pull that off?Dude gets refunded all his provicial income tax plus 17 dollars in the form of provincial government services while I am paying effective 15k a year. He is bitching taxes are too high while enjoying all the provincial government services I pay for.
Talk is cheap. Please design a simulation with a bustling economy and account for normal human factors like greed, cheating, finding loopholes etc. and apply your taxation formula there and see what comes out. You are of course allowed to use AI to help mimic the worst of humans. Or find an existing simulation and inject your taxation idea into that. We need concrete reproducible proof.You misunderstood the entire post. I said there should be 1 single tax, and then it gets distributed to other tiers of government. In order to determine how much funding they get, they could go by population and land mass, basically a formula that accounts for both. Big cities would get more funding than small cities, because they require more resources like more roads etc. If anything it more or less already is that way but my idea involves getting rid of excess taxation so overall we would pay way less taxes but every tier of government still gets funding.
No, net tax burden by region means income tax - government services received back. And that is only the provincial tax. old report but the ratio is the same. I am in Other GTA while Nutty Squirrel is in North. My net burden is 17,643 while Nutty Squirrel is -19.You only pay $15k a year in taxes? How do you pull that off?
If I'm understanding correctly, it's not the the tax burden but where the money is spent?No, net tax burnden by region means income tax - government services received back. And that is only the provincial tax. old report but the ratio is the same. I am in Other GTA while Nutty Squirrel is in North. My net burden is 17,643 while Nutty Squirrel is -19.
View attachment 114757
Dude gets refunded all his provicial income tax plus 17 dollars in the form of provincial government services while I am paying effective 15k a year. He is bitching taxes are too high while enjoying all the provincial government services I pay for.
Yeah, most of the tax is collected from the urban areas then redistributed to the more sparsely populated areas cuz they cannot support the services needed with the local tax base. Of course we are talking average households. I don't mind it, I just hate hearing people like nutty Squirrel bitching about taxes.If I'm understanding correctly, it's not the the tax burden but where the money is spent?
In government services, like hospital and OPP. It is not a hard concept, as a region the North got 19 dollar more in government services than provincial tax you paid.Huh? We do not get any sort of refund whatsoever. We pay just as much tax as you do. Where that money goes is irrelevant, I don't have control over that.
If anything you should be wanting lower taxes too, if you feel that the tax money is not being spent in the right place.
I think that he's saying that you get more in services than you pay for in tax and that he's paying the difference.Huh? We do not get any sort of refund whatsoever. We pay just as much tax as you do. Where that money goes is irrelevant, I don't have control over that.
If anything you should be wanting lower taxes too, if you feel that the tax money is not being spent in the right place.
He is getting all the provincial income tax he paid in plus 19 dollar back in the form of provincial government services. We are talking average household of course.I think that he's saying that you get more in services than you pay for in tax and that he's paying the difference.
Apologies all round if I've got the wrong end of the stick there.