The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Reality Check: Corporate Taxes are a regressive tax where the poor pay a higher rate of tax then the rich. I will use these assumptions to demonstrate the point.

1) The “poor” spend a higher portion of their income. The “rich” pay more income taxes and save more. The poor spend most of what they earn. For the sake of example, I will assume the poor spend 80% of their income and the rich 50%.
2) The “rich” buy more foreign products. Let’s assume for the sake of example the poor spend 10% of their purchases on foreign products and the rich 20%. Corporate taxes are not paid by foreign corporation’s foreign operations.

Companies do not pay taxes, they collect them. When the steel prices go up, customers realize the cost is passed on them. Of course the same happens with taxes. Furthermore, it is not only the taxes of the company you bought the product from but the taxes on all the companies who’s products they purchased. That includes their vendors, accountants and so on. It is estimated the rolled up corporate taxes account for 30% of the purchase price. Since the exact percentage doesn’t matter to demonstrate if taxes are regressive or progressive I will use that value.

So the calculation of corporate taxes for an individual would be

(% of the income they earn they spend)*(1-% they spend on foreign products)(embedded corporate taxes).

For the rich, that would mean they pay corporate taxes of:

50%*(1-20%)*30%=12%

For the poor, the rate is:

80%*(1-10%)*30% =21.6%

In other words, the poor pay almost double the corporate taxes of the rich! You can quibble with the numbers that I used which I think reality is probably that the poor pay an even higher corporate tax rate then the rich, but unless you change the principles of my assumptions, like that the poor spend a higher percentage of their paycheck living, you cannot change the reality which is that corporate taxes are paid disproportionately by the poor.

Now I know you will say, “but Kaz, you’re a libertarian, you HATE the poor. Aren’t you in favor of this?” Good question and of course if it just came down to it being a regressive tax I would totally keep my mouth shut. The problem is corporate taxes are complex and expensive and raise the price of American products reducing our competitiveness. So even though we have the advantage of corporate taxes being disproportionately paid by the poor, they are still a bad thing.

http://www.fairtax.org

What is the FairTax?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:

A progressive national retail sales tax.
A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.

Not to mention the travesty that is Social Security tax:

Joe Sixpack making a paltry 50K per year pays SS tax on 100% of his income...

Paris Hilton rakes in 6.5 million per year, but only pays SS tax on approximately 0.013% of her income....


And we wonder why SS is in trouble....

absinthe1023 wrote:Not to mention the travesty that is Social Security tax:

Joe Sixpack making a paltry 50K per year pays SS tax on 100% of his income...

Paris Hilton rakes in 6.5 million per year, but only pays SS tax on approximately 0.013% of her income....


And we wonder why SS is in trouble....

So you admit social security is a welfare program?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:Not to mention the travesty that is Social Security tax:

Joe Sixpack making a paltry 50K per year pays SS tax on 100% of his income...

Paris Hilton rakes in 6.5 million per year, but only pays SS tax on approximately 0.013% of her income....


And we wonder why SS is in trouble....

So you admit social security is a welfare program?

I wasn't aware that there was a debate about SS being a welfare program, so I wasn't "admitting" to anything, just stating a hard fact about the way that particular tax is levied.

absinthe1023 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:Not to mention the travesty that is Social Security tax:

Joe Sixpack making a paltry 50K per year pays SS tax on 100% of his income...

Paris Hilton rakes in 6.5 million per year, but only pays SS tax on approximately 0.013% of her income....


And we wonder why SS is in trouble....

So you admit social security is a welfare program?

I wasn't aware that there was a debate about SS being a welfare program, so I wasn't "admitting" to anything, just stating a hard fact about the way that particular tax is levied.

The same math you used on Paris's tax works for her "benefit." If it's a retirement program, uncapping her tax would mean uncapping her benefit. As an undending tax but benefit capped to as you point out is nothing to her, it's a transfer of wealth to people who didn't pay for the benefit. That would be spelled W-E-L-F-A-R-E.

Which is what Social Security already is, you just want to make it more so. I pay the full freight maximum social security taxes every year and my "benefit" is capped as if I earned like 40K. If a man steals your wallet takes out a $20 bill and gives it back to you, did he rob you? According to the Left on Social Security, no, he did not. Not sure what your point is on corporate taxes being regressive, but did you know that the social security taxes I pay are a regressive tax on the poor? It works like this.

- Companies pay half the tax and take the other half out of my pay. They have to pay me more to cover that because I'm I'm not taking on all the responsibility and stress I do just because the company pays me more if the government just takes the difference away. I'll pump gas if I'm paid the same. Companies know that and every time my taxes are raised they have to pay me more to make up for it.

- So, where do the companies get the money? Sales of their products. Do they "eat" the cost or pass it on to their customers as they would the cost of steel? They pass it along in higher prices.

- Who pays a disproportionate amount of the taxes baked into the price of products? The POOR! See the corporate tax calculation.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Reality Check: Corporate Taxes are a regressive tax where the poor pay a higher rate of tax then the rich. I will use these assumptions to demonstrate the point.

1) The “poor” spend a higher portion of their income. The “rich” pay more income taxes and save more. The poor spend most of what they earn. For the sake of example, I will assume the poor spend 80% of their income and the rich 50%.
2) The “rich” buy more foreign products. Let’s assume for the sake of example the poor spend 10% of their purchases on foreign products and the rich 20%. Corporate taxes are not paid by foreign corporation’s foreign operations.

Companies do not pay taxes, they collect them. When the steel prices go up, customers realize the cost is passed on them. Of course the same happens with taxes. Furthermore, it is not only the taxes of the company you bought the product from but the taxes on all the companies who’s products they purchased. That includes their vendors, accountants and so on. It is estimated the rolled up corporate taxes account for 30% of the purchase price. Since the exact percentage doesn’t matter to demonstrate if taxes are regressive or progressive I will use that value.

So the calculation of corporate taxes for an individual would be

(% of the income they earn they spend)*(1-% they spend on foreign products)(embedded corporate taxes).

For the rich, that would mean they pay corporate taxes of:

50%*(1-20%)*30%=12%

For the poor, the rate is:

80%*(1-10%)*30% =21.6%

In other words, the poor pay almost double the corporate taxes of the rich! You can quibble with the numbers that I used which I think reality is probably that the poor pay an even higher corporate tax rate then the rich, but unless you change the principles of my assumptions, like that the poor spend a higher percentage of their paycheck living, you cannot change the reality which is that corporate taxes are paid disproportionately by the poor.

Now I know you will say, “but Kaz, you’re a libertarian, you HATE the poor. Aren’t you in favor of this?” Good question and of course if it just came down to it being a regressive tax I would totally keep my mouth shut. The problem is corporate taxes are complex and expensive and raise the price of American products reducing our competitiveness. So even though we have the advantage of corporate taxes being disproportionately paid by the poor, they are still a bad thing.

You begin with the assumption that governments should yield to the law of the jungle rather than create ''civilized' law, thus enthrone corporatons, which they then protect by buying governrnents. If we are to have a society that functions for the greater good, we must control and limit the power of corporations and the wealthy in general.

That's been done before in the U.S. and will doubtless be done again, one way or the other, with laws or knives.

Government should not assist the strong in mugging the weak or stand by and watch while the intelligent infilrate the government and throw the mentally ill out on the streets. This world is not the oyster of the powerful, however much they flatter themselves as to their worth. Not to put too fine a point on it, the meek will one day rise up and kill us all if things keep going the way they are going.

Edwards was only the tip of the ice berg of current class resentment in this country. Watch what happens if the next administration fails to turn things in a more sensible direcion. By the way, I'm the same guy who predicted over four years ago that the House and Senate would fall to the dems and Obama would be a viable presidential candidate in 2008.

Conservatives are being blamed for the war, corruption in Washington by corporate interests, and the war. They should be. They've rolled over and let the fascists among them take control of the railroads.

crazyhorse1 wrote:You begin with the assumption that governments should yield to the law of the jungle rather than create ''civilized' law, thus enthrone corporatons, which they then protect by buying governrnents. If we are to have a society that functions for the greater good, we must control and limit the power of corporations and the wealthy in general.

That's been done before in the U.S. and will doubtless be done again, one way or the other, with laws or knives.

Government should not assist the strong in mugging the weak or stand by and watch while the intelligent infilrate the government and throw the mentally ill out on the streets. This world is not the oyster of the powerful, however much they flatter themselves as to their worth. Not to put too fine a point on it, the meek will one day rise up and kill us all if things keep going the way they are going.

Edwards was only the tip of the ice berg of current class resentment in this country. Watch what happens if the next administration fails to turn things in a more sensible direcion. By the way, I'm the same guy who predicted over four years ago that the House and Senate would fall to the dems and Obama would be a viable presidential candidate in 2008.

Conservatives are being blamed for the war, corruption in Washington by corporate interests, and the war. They should be. They've rolled over and let the fascists among them take control of the railroads.

What does this have to do with corporate taxes being regressive?

And when did the objective of government become the "greater good?" In reality, the greater good IS liberty. To a liberal or a conservative the greater good means their own selfish interest which they inflict on others because you have enabled politicians to define what "greater good" means. And to politicians the "greater good" means their own personal good.

By advocating government for the greater good you are advocating a government which enables the oppression by those with political power over those without it. It is rule by majority, which means rule of the manipulated. What kind of liberty is that? What kind of real "greater good" is that?

In reality, the greater good IS liberty.

Word.

Liberty means, not only the right to succeed, but the right to fail.

The second someone declares a "greater good", they have determined to undermine the supreme intent of the Constitution... liberty.

Countertrey wrote:

In reality, the greater good IS liberty.

Word.

Liberty means, not only the right to succeed, but the right to fail.

The second someone declares a "greater good", they have determined to undermine the supreme intent of the Constitution... liberty.

Who's going to protect you from people who have failed when their numbers have gone way up? The day I financially fail is the day I'll regard you as fair game. That's reality. Roman Emperors used to throw gold coins at the poor, for damn good reason.

Who's going to protect you from people who have failed when their numbers have gone way up? The day I financially fail is the day I'll regard you as fair game.

I don't understand why you assume that Free Markets = No Security. Police protection is a service that can be priced and sold (or even given as charity) just like everything else.

Hell, private security is a booming business right now, even though we're already paying taxes for police protection.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Who's going to protect you from people who have failed when their numbers have gone way up? The day I financially fail is the day I'll regard you as fair game.

I don't understand why you assume that Free Markets = No Security. Police protection is a service that can be priced and sold (or even given as charity) just like everything else.

Hell, private security is a booming business right now, even though we're already paying taxes for police protection.

Forty percent of working Americans are now failing to make a living wage.
If the Bush administration continued for a few more years the numbers of working poor would rise to point that they couldn't be policed and, speaking economically, a depression would occur because there wouldn't be enough consumer money in the market to buy the products we produce. We are rapidly approaching that point, according to many economists. Corporate greed, unchecked, would almost certainly destroy our economy and corporations along with it. Our system, to work, must be managed to work for the benefit of all-- or it will fall. Pure capitalism's problem is the same as pure communism's problem-- neither work.

The Soviet Union proved its brand of socialism didn't work. The whole history of the U.S. has repeatedly proved that pure capitalism doesn't work, not just the depression. We have survived economically because we haven't been so dogmatic about sticking to our failed system as Russia was. Bush has been such a disaster that the government now has to make aggressive moves to keep us from going under. Inflexible adherence to the policies you espouse is not prudent now. We simply cannot allow the reduction of the middle class to present levels-- or the waste of the poor as a healthy labor pool-- no matter our utopian fantasies of a free market or notions about who is morally deserving of money of money and who is not. Your attitudes about the rich and poor, as widely inaccurate as they are, don't, in any case, come into it.

Forty percent of working Americans are now failing to make a living wage.

I love these baseless statements. It's on the internet... it must be true (of course, it's on the internet because you put it there).

Crap.

The day I financially fail is the day I'll regard you as fair game.

Are you feeling lucky?

crazyhorse,

Just so we're on the same page before I level any critique: could you please define what you mean by capitalism for me? Also, pure capitalism (if there is a difference).

Also, could you give me a brief diagnosis of what you believe the cause of the great depression was (i.e., something a little more substantive than "too much capitalism" or "pure, unbridled capitalism").

Finally, can you do the same for whatever you would call the current, oncoming crisis. What are the causes / consequences / solutions?

I don't want to make you write a dissertation here, but a few sentences on each topic (that go beyond simply invoking the term "pure capitalism") would suffice for me.

Loosely related:

Wesley Snipes is my new hero!

crazyhorse1 wrote:Forty percent of working Americans are now failing to make a living wage.

Eighty percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Irn-Bru wrote:crazyhorse,

Just so we're on the same page before I level any critique: could you please define what you mean by capitalism for me? Also, pure capitalism (if there is a difference).

Also, could you give me a brief diagnosis of what you believe the cause of the great depression was (i.e., something a little more substantive than "too much capitalism" or "pure, unbridled capitalism").

Finally, can you do the same for whatever you would call the current, oncoming crisis. What are the causes / consequences / solutions?

I don't want to make you write a dissertation here, but a few sentences on each topic (that go beyond simply invoking the term "pure capitalism") would suffice for me.

I mean "free market" capitalism unfettered by government regulation and control, including freedom from such controlling mechanisms as anti-trust laws and and price controls.

The depression came about because there wasn't enough money in the market place to buy back the goods being produced. Other causes/factors resulted from that underlying one.

In other words workers were paid too little and became too impoverished to buy market items and the rich weren't purchasing market items enough to keep producers of goods in business.

Workers spend almost all of their wages; the rich spend much less proportionally and save too much, taking cash out of the economy. Contrary to what many think, investing unspent money doesn't help much in this situation because investing doesn't buy goods at a sufficient rate. The need is for money to be spent and taxes to be raised on money that would otherwise be saved . That way, money is put back in circulation.

Our forefathers discovered this in the last century and brought the economy back by incorporating socialistic elements and various economic controls. They weren't stupid. What we have today is infinitely more sophisticated than what we had. Today, interest rates are controlled, welfare preserves labor pools so salaries don't rise too high, policies are put in play by tax incentives, the government tries to lower and somtimes actually tries to raise levels of unemployment.

Most administrations try to balance all of the above for the greater good. Taxes are used to make money for everyone. Countries need roads, schools, security, etc. to flourish economically, a fact seemingly lost on some, just as some fail to see that taxes spent on public facilities raise the value of their homes and lower taxes could drastically reduce the value of their holdings.

The current crisis is primarily caused by the policies of the Bush administraton, which has operated for the good of one economic class and not in the interest of all. There is too large and a rapidly widening cap between the rich and the poor and the middle class is disappearing. If this continues too long, we'll have an economic collapse.

Thanks for the answers, crazyhorse. Very interesting.

crazyhorse1 wrote:I mean "free market" capitalism unfettered by government regulation and control, including freedom from such controlling mechanisms as anti-trust laws and and price controls.

OK, I'm with you on this as far as it goes. To make this a sufficient definition, though, I think it needs something about property rights and liberty (implied when you say 'without x and y government actions. . .')

The depression came about because there wasn't enough money in the market place to buy back the goods being produced. Other causes/factors resulted from that underlying one.

The implication here seems to be that the money supply in the nation was mismanaged. But that presupposes that it ought to have been managed. In other words, you have problem with how the government handled that job, not that the government was doing it in the first place.

So why not question why the government has control over the money supply to begin with? That's a pretty good question, in my opinion. Money wasn't an arbitrary fiction until government took over -- people didn't start trading meaningless paper tokens around until they were forced to.

When the paper tokens are out of sync with reality, as you've pointed out, bad things happen. Why trust the system that's bound to have that result?

crazyhorse wrote:Countries need roads, schools, security, etc. to flourish economically, a fact seemingly lost on some,

And hospitals, supermarkets, farmers, construction companies, internet and phones. . .I'm not seeing the point. What's so holy about security or schools that the government has to provide them but not farmers or construction companies?

Are you saying that you hate the poor and want to prevent them from having food and housing?

crazyhorse wrote:just as some fail to see that taxes spent on public facilities raise the value of their homes and lower taxes could drastically reduce the value of their holdings.

Again, this relies on the non sequitur above. Why should I buy this argument when there are some obvious objections: namely, that if the government (finally) stopped interfering in those areas I could get those same services cheaper and more effectively?

Irn-Bru wrote:Thanks for the answers, crazyhorse. Very interesting.

crazyhorse1 wrote:I mean "free market" capitalism unfettered by government regulation and control, including freedom from such controlling mechanisms as anti-trust laws and and price controls.

OK, I'm with you on this as far as it goes. To make this a sufficient definition, though, I think it needs something about property rights and liberty (implied when you say 'without x and y government actions. . .')

The depression came about because there wasn't enough money in the market place to buy back the goods being produced. Other causes/factors resulted from that underlying one.

The implication here seems to be that the money supply in the nation was mismanaged. But that presupposes that it ought to have been managed. In other words, you have problem with how the government handled that job, not that the government was doing it in the first place.

So why not question why the government has control over the money supply to begin with? That's a pretty good question, in my opinion. Money wasn't an arbitrary fiction until government took over -- people didn't start trading meaningless paper tokens around until they were forced to.

When the paper tokens are out of sync with reality, as you've pointed out, bad things happen. Why trust the system that's bound to have that result?

crazyhorse wrote:Countries need roads, schools, security, etc. to flourish economically, a fact seemingly lost on some,

And hospitals, supermarkets, farmers, construction companies, internet and phones. . .I'm not seeing the point. What's so holy about security or schools that the government has to provide them but not farmers or construction companies?

Are you saying that you hate the poor and want to prevent them from having food and housing?

crazyhorse wrote:just as some fail to see that taxes spent on public facilities raise the value of their homes and lower taxes could drastically reduce the value of their holdings.

Again, this relies on the non sequitur above. Why should I buy this argument when there are some obvious objections: namely, that if the government (finally) stopped interfering in those areas I could get those same services cheaper and more effectively?

It was the government's failure to manage the economy that caused the depression, not the government's mismanagement of it. The depression happened when and because the market was "free."

"Pure capitalism" allows monopolies to develop and ivites collusion in all matters relating to suppressing worker pay, including strike breaking-- Hoover's belief that the market was self adjusting led to his doing nothing. No government regulation and a lack of union strength means that workers' pay goes down, which eventually destroys even the employer when there's no money to buy goods that are manufactured.

The depression had nothing to do with the government handling money; it showed that capitalism doesn't work and the market is not self correcting. The government or some other third party has to do the regulating if we are to stay economically intact. Hence, we became a socialist country under FDR and have been so ever since.

You're still buying into a fantasy that was dropped as policy by the U.S. almost a hundred years ago. Every modern country in the free world has failed to maintain a ''free" market, for very good reason. The great economists of our era have soundly trounced Adam Smith, which is natural-- a discipline doesn't begin and end with its founder (if Smith can be called a "founder."

You're completely wrong about private contractors costing less in relation to providing services than does the government. It costs zip to go to the typical High School or community college but about 35 K a year to go to typical private colleges; Blackwater security costs about a quarter million dollar a year per soldier; and the costs of electrical services, water, etc. would be astronomical if the government didn't handle it " in bulk."

Also, in areas in which the government has failed to make or enforce worthwhile regulations, such as medicine, insurance, law costs, we are among the the most overcharged and poorly served folks in the modern world. Americans are still sneaking intl Canada to use its medical resources-- they are much cheaper then ours, superior to ours, and far easier to obtain.

Worse, the environment is being destroyed by corporate interests, whose excess profits have already allowed them to take over the government in many areas.

This weakening of the government in relation to corporate or private interests is what Eisenhower was talking about he warned about the coming Military/industrial complex.

He saw such a complex operative in Mussolini's Italy, which destroyed Italy as a nation for a while. Fascism is, as you know, a merging of corporate and government interests.

It classically expresses itself by a widening gap between the rich and the poor, drastically lowered taxes on corporations, reduction of government regulation of corporations, and war itself, which produces great profit for corporations.

These profits are typically not shared with the worker, which typically causes a depression because workers end up nationwide having too few dollars to buy the products being manufactored, which causes manufacturers and businesses to collapse, stocks to drop, etc.

The present regime is a fascist regime. All of the earmarks are in place, including the war, the coming financial crisis, the behavior of the media as a corporate entity in league with the government, unpunished war crimes, etc.

A fascist regime always fosters the notion that private interests are better than the government in providing public sevices, regardless of the facts. That is because the government has merged with private interests and operates almost totally in their behalf, and, in fact, becomes indistinquishable from private interests.

One of the major problems with fascism, of course, is that it has thus far always failed in the real world, either because of its inevitable war making or because of economic collapse, which alway envelopes all when a large sector of the populace becomes too impoverished to buy the products of a country's industries.

If I were to say that Bush is a Hitler, or a Mussolini, or a Papa Doc or a leader of modern Peru, it would not have to be because of his death count or cruelty. It could be because of the similarities between his administration and the administrations of the above.

Nothing could be more evidence of that than his constant attacks on and attempts to dismantle the Constitution and rule of law. Fascists always insist on virtual dictatorship in order to facilitate their mergings of corporations with the government.

No, I don't hate the poor. I simply wanted to point out that a country with our economic stance needs to maintain a healthy, unemployed work force to keep wages from rising too high. In a market in which there are no healthy, unemployed workers, employed workers can demand unreasonable salaries, putting their employers and other workers at risk.

The moral is: since we deliberately create the welfare poor as part of our balancing act to keep our economic system working, it's rather silly to rail away about how welfare costs us money. It doesn't cost us anything. It's all win win. The poor/unemployed get to live; our system gets its needed available labor poor to keep salaries relatively low.

Even those getting the low salaries benefit. Without the labor pool, there would be a rapid inflation that would render our currency almost worthless.

Quit bitching about welfare.

crazyhorse1 wrote:It was the government's failure to manage the economy that caused the depression, not the government's mismanagement of it. The depression happened when and because the market was "free."

...

Wow, talk about voodoo economics. You should have spent more time studying capital markets in economics classes instead of political science classes.

crazyhorse wrote:It was the government's failure to manage the economy that caused the depression, not the government's mismanagement of it. The depression happened when and because the market was "free."

I agree with what Kazoo wrote. A little economic history will help.

Again, how was the market "free"? I've pointed out that U.S. currency was under government control and manipulation. In what way could the government make itself more intimately involved in every transaction in the nation?

crazyhorse wrote:Hoover's belief that the market was self adjusting led to his doing nothing. No government regulation and a lack of union strength means that workers' pay goes down, which eventually destroys even the employer when there's no money to buy goods that are manufactured.

Oh, Hoover did plenty. The myth of a laissez faire Hoover is perpetuated in 11th grade history books but is easy to debunk. (See above where I linked to Murray Rothbard's book on the the Great Depression. He discusses Hoover at length.)

crazyhorse wrote:The depression had nothing to do with the government handling money; it showed that capitalism doesn't work and the market is not self correcting. The government or some other third party has to do the regulating if we are to stay economically intact. Hence, we became a socialist country under FDR and have been so ever since.

OK, so I laid out an argument that went something like this in the post above:

(1) A free market is a system of property rights and liberty absent of coercive regulation
(2) Money (which is a means of indirect exchange) is used in most agreements and contracts
(3) The government coercively siezed control of the money supply and manipulated it prior to the boom of the 1920's (and subsequent depression)
(4) Therefore, the government was managing the economy in an intimate way prior to a depression that was caused by monetary policy.

And you come back with: No, the Great Depression showed that capitalism failed and that the government needed to manage the economy?

What? Why not take on one of my points (1-4) listed above.

crazyhorse wrote:The great economists of our era have soundly trounced Adam Smith, which is natural-- a discipline doesn't begin and end with its founder (if Smith can be called a "founder."

Smith can't be called a "founder." Spanish Jesuits and Dominicans living in Salamanca wrote (better!) free-market economic theory than did Smith. . .and they did it 200 years before him.

Neither is Smith the best voice for free-market economics. Knocking Smith down in certain points really isn't hard to do, but Adam Smith and Free Market economics aren't identical.

crazyhorse wrote:You're completely wrong about private contractors costing less in relation to providing services than does the government. It costs zip to go to the typical High School or community college but about 35 K a year to go to typical private colleges;

"What is seen and what is unseen. . ."

You can't seriously have just claimed that schools cost nothing.

There's more, but there doesn't seem to be much point in moving onward. I do hope that you check out Rothbard's history of the great depression; it's fantastic.

You can't seriously have just claimed that schools cost nothing.

Oh, yes he did.

Don't you understand? If the government provides... it is free!

Like "free" health care in Canada. It's "free" to use, besides that 40% income tax.

JansenFan wrote:Like "free" health care in Canada. It's "free" to use, besides that 40% income tax.

We cannot afford this "freebie" anymore.

And actually JansenFan got it only partially right. That is only the Federal tax rate (it can be higher according to income) There is ALSO a Provincial annual income tax, -and- Federal -plus- Provincial sales taxes.

There is no such thing as a free product or service provided by government. Government only "manages" the wealth it collects. Sometimes there are elements of vision designed to channel such investment into mechanisms that enhance productivity (I am thinking about basic infrastructure development) and others, well, they are just plain pork barrel mismanagement projects and ineffective operations.