Voter Responsibility

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 48 comments
  • 3,408 views
This, is why I agree with at least the bulk of Danoff's post;

God help us...

EDIT: In a related note, I hope this displays correctly!

EDIT2: Nope; no dice. I'll stick with the url until I can sort this embedding stuff out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxwBzgO7YsM

That video would be,probably, more suitable for the Funny Video Thread,and if something could be taken out of it,which obviously can't, it surely wouldn't be the confirmation of Danoff's theory...
 
I would like to see a campaign that says "don't vote unless you've done plenty of research".

This is exactly why I have never voted since reaching the legal age. I didn't feel like I was in a position to make such a decision.

I was kind of shocked once when I spoke to someone just after the 08 election. I ended up revealing that I didn't vote, and this led to the person I was speaking to to ask why. I told him that I hadn't put enough thought into it. He asked me how much time I'd need to think. I told him something along the lines of "a few months". He laughed and said something like "It's just a vote".

I would like to exercise my right to vote, but only when I feel like I know enough to make a good decision.
 
There is much to admire about Canada. It's seldom in war and not in debt. I could award no greater accolade. There is an intuitive genius of sorts to Canadians. But conceivably they have erred in providing health care for their citizens. It is not for me to judge, because my country is at a lower level of fiscal sanity and military prudence.

Just FYI, we are most definitely in debt. We, just like the rest of the Western world, are deeeep in debt. Although you're right about staying out of war (although that can be iffy).
 
I just don't get how these people don't understand that voting for parties which keep health care in law is why their taxes are so damn high. In my province, we spend somewhere between 6-7 thousand a year on health care per person. I would really like those 6 thousand back please.

As you actually don't pay any tax, noob, I assume you are talking hypothetically?

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States are often made by government, public health and public policy analysts.[1][2][3][4] The two countries had similar health care systems before Canada reformed its system in the 1960s and 1970s. The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[5] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.[5] In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take in to account population differences.[6]

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people complaining and moaning about the new HST (Harmonized sales tax), and about how high our income taxes are.

How do such things get passed?

The HST is a consumption tax, identical in its structure to the Value Added Tax used in European countries. It is the kind of tax advocated by many libertarians to reduce or eliminate the income tax. People naturally dislike having to pay any kind of taxes, while at the same time wanting the services those taxes pay for. In my experience Canadians are a little more realistic about the connection between taxes & services than Americans.

There is much to admire about Canada. It's seldom in war and not in debt. I could award no greater accolade. There is an intuitive genius of sorts to Canadians. But conceivably they have erred in providing health care for their citizens. It is not for me to judge, because my country is at a lower level of fiscal sanity and military prudence.

Thank you Dotini! ;)

Canada is not saddled with the burden of being "Exceptional". It is also less constrained by having to support a massive "military-industrial complex", which leaves it better able to concentrate on other objectives, like providing health care for all its citizens.
 
Last edited:
The HST is a consumption tax, identical in its structure to the Value Added Tax used in European countries. It is the kind of tax advocated by many libertarians to reduce or eliminate the income tax. People naturally dislike having to pay any kind of taxes, while at the same time wanting the services those taxes pay for. In my experience Canadians are a little more realistic about the connection between taxes & services than Americans.
What exactly was the correlation between that and the posts you quoted?
 
As you actually don't pay any tax, noob, I assume you are talking hypothetically?

Yes, I'm speaking hypothetically. Although I do pay somewhere around $400 a year on EI (I know it's not a lot, but still). I'd like that money back, because I'm not eligible for EI, nor will I ever use it.
 
The HST is a consumption tax, identical in its structure to the Value Added Tax used in European countries. It is the kind of tax advocated by many libertarians to reduce or eliminate the income tax. People naturally dislike having to pay any kind of taxes...

At the same time I assume that the HST would be an additional tax and not used to lower other taxes?
 
Yes, I'm speaking hypothetically. Although I do pay somewhere around $400 a year on EI (I know it's not a lot, but still). I'd like that money back, because I'm not eligible for EI, nor will I ever use it.

Do you not have tax returns on Canada? Here if you make below a certain amount(I think it's like 5,000/year, probably wrong though) you get everything back that they took out, you obviously have to file a return though.
 
At the same time I assume that the HST would be an additional tax and not used to lower other taxes?

The HST effectively replaces the previous federal sales tax & provincial sales taxes with a single nationally administered sales tax. The idea is to increase fairness & efficiency. The sales taxes or "consumption taxes" reduce other taxes (theoretically) by generating tax revenue from a source other than income taxes.

Do you not have tax returns on Canada? Here if you make below a certain amount(I think it's like 5,000/year, probably wrong though) you get everything back that they took out, you obviously have to file a return though.

Yes. Noob would no doubt receive all thetax deducted from his pay check when he files a tax return. However, EI is not a "tax", it is "insurance". I would agree: it doubtful how much value it would have to him in Noob's case.

Completely coincidentally, & very surprisingly, yesterday I received a check for $1,000 from the government to help my business in the "transition" to the HST. Weird ... but I'll keep it.
 
Is it just me or would it be more efficient to just not take the money from me in the first place (let people choose), rather than take it for insurance I can't use, and then give it back later...
 
Yes. Noob would no doubt receive all thetax deducted from his pay check when he files a tax return.

He wouldn't receive the intrest that accrued throughout the year. So, technically he still pays taxes.
 
It's a legitimate question noob. Like public healthcare, EI is a form of national insurance intended to provide a fund that you can drawn on for support in the event you lose your job. I neither pay into it, nor am eligible to receive it, as I am self-employed.

I support the concept of a single-payer health care systems for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure I'm that enthusiastic about EI.
 
"that religion is a control mechanism"

Religion a control mechinism? How can an institution where the individual FREE to believe or not be a mechanism of control? I mean fact that you said to you don't believe in God clearly show that religion is an institution of individual choice.

Now if you really want to see a mechanism of control, then the institution of government itself is an mechanism of control especially since you are involuntarility forced to live under laws you might disagree with and with legal repercussion and its for this why government is the ultimate barrier to liberty. Under a religious institution is there is no legal mandates to live other than the fact the association is voluntary.
 
I support the concept of a single-payer health care systems for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure I'm that enthusiastic about EI.


I can give you tons of reasons why a single-payer healthcare system ultimately bad for society like the fact it require the government to steal from individuals(.e.g. the rich and poor) in the form of taxation. Another reason is the fact that government based welfare systems are unsustainable and prone to failure the long. If you really to see how unsustainable these socialist welfare program are, look at the UK where their austerity measure seem more targeted at the welfare state. It also doesn't help that healthcare cost is rising to unsusutainable levels in Canada:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20100308/health_poll_100308/
 
"that religion is a control mechanism"

Religion a control mechinism? How can an institution where the individual FREE to believe or not be a mechanism of control? I mean fact that you said to you don't believe in God clearly show that religion is an institution of individual choice..

I'll give you a quick answer, but if you really wish to discuss this we need to do so in a different thread.

The answer is that it is an institution intended to coerce people voluntarily into desired behavior. This is done in a variety of ways, not the least of which are scare tactics. If I tell you that a particular action will send you to an eternity of pain and suffering, you are free to choose whether or not to perform that action - but I am still attempting to coerce your voluntary behavior. I am attempt to control you.
 
I'll give you a quick answer, but if you really wish to discuss this we need to do so in a different thread.

The answer is that it is an institution intended to coerce people voluntarily into desired behavior. This is done in a variety of ways, not the least of which are scare tactics. If I tell you that a particular action will send you to an eternity of pain and suffering, you are free to choose whether or not to perform that action - but I am still attempting to coerce your voluntary behavior. I am attempt to control you.

=co·er·cion:
–noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

With that mind, when I'm told by my local government that I cannot litter my behavior is being involuntarily modified by means of coercive legislation, however if I choose not to attend church or accept the bible I'm making a individual choice knowing the fact there is no legal ramification for my choice.

If there is one thing I get, it clear you don't understand the difference between voluntarism and coercion
 
...however if I choose not to attend church or accept the bible I'm making a individual choice knowing the fact there is no legal ramification for my choice.
Why would a church need to write laws when they've got hell as their motivator? That is coercion.
 
Why would a church need to write laws when they've got hell as their motivator? That is coercion.

To which the obvious answer would... it's only coercion if you believe there is a hell...


To which, the wise would retort: Laws are only coercion if you believe you'll get caught... :lol:
 
Back