Originally Posted by Benzo
'Trane, where does the money come from? Where will the money continue to come from?
Why are we trying to make everyone mediocre? Lets raise the bar, more for everyone.
I am not against welfare, social programs, the arts etc... they should be funded in part by my money, but the more you take from me the less I have.
Should I have less? I pay half my income to the government, I would be better off making less money, I am serious.
It seems backwards to me, I would prefer to enable. If they let me have my money, I would have bought a bigger house, and paid more property tax...
As a side bar (double property tax in this city is nute...I paid 20k in property tax on my new place)
...i'm guessing that you don't really need a bigger house...
not sure what you are asking. ideally the money comes from people generating wealth within the system. sometimes they make it outside of the system. either way, the system supports the generation of wealth. i am not against that. i am a capitalist.
the issue for me is wealth redistribution. this isn't about making everyone mediocre. far from it. as an extreme, taking a person worth $100 million and making her worth $50 million does not make her mediocre. it just makes her less rich. 'mediocrity' is a term that refers to adequacy or quality. in many cases wealth has nothing to do with that. in fact, as it is there are plenty of mediocre rich people and plenty of high quality poor people. this may be a semantic point because i think i know what you were trying to say.
what wealth redistribution does do, though, is create more opportunity for people to do something productive with the wealth that has been redistributed to them. it is less a burden on the social fabric to increase capacity amongst the poor than to let them rot. and the era of paternalistic social programs is coming to an end, at least in my sector. the emphasis in programs now is to build capacity not to hand out. it is initially expensive, but costs less in the long term as it creates independance.
of course this does not speak to infrastructure, which we all need - especially businesses - and which is extraordinarily expensive.
i also pay almost half of my money to the government in taxes. it angers me when this is wasted, but that waste pales in comparison to the good that the money does. in the end i am happy to pay high taxes - in fact i get enjoyment from doing it - as long as expenditures can be justified. so we should be engaging in a talk of government expenditure and how money can be used effectively rather than compaining about the tax rate.
the simple fact is, and i can tell you this from first hand experience, that the money available for much of canada's critical social programs falls drastically short of the demand. it is true that not every organization is run with top efficiency, but it is also true that the funds simply aren't there to provide for our most vulnerable people. i can't imagine that the private sector is going to come in and chip in the rest. it's a massive amount of money and there is no immediate impact on bottom line. add to that the relative 'popularity' or lack of populatity with different causes and you wouldn't have a system that provides that broad coverage of critical services. i would love to know how the private sector could cover this, as you have alluded to in the past. this question still remains unanswered.
we need to make better decisions on how to spend government revenue. from my personal and professional experience, lowering taxes cannot be an option until that is done.