Okay, apparently there's much about Canadian taxation I don't know about. But from my perspective, having grown up on the dole, an extra $160/month isn't something to sneeze at. I really don't get, unless there's some trick in taxation, why anyone with a functioning brain would say that. That's absolutely stupid. An extra $1300+/year is not nothing. This is why, much to your hatred, some of the welfare state opponents have a point. not enough incentive? Jesus wept. It's so much better to sit on my butt than to net $1300 extra a year to get my kidlets something better than this.

Down here if you make minimum wage(below a certain amount that extends beyond just minimum wage too) the only tax you pay and don't have returned to you at the end of the year is SSI(social security). Employers that don't go halvsies on medical care leave you on medicare(the US's single payer healthcare system)---which is what people down here complain Wal-Mart does. It works(not saying anything valuative beyond that. It simply works).

So break it down for me Al. There's a lot I don't know here that's critical to my agreement or disagreement to the policy.

And that $53/youngling credit? Not everyone's a middlingclass barrister. Without that child credit I bet some families will lose their shirts. Good reason for needs testing in the welfare state system, yeah? And there's nothing stopping you from sending that $53 per kid abroad yourself Al. There's orgs already in place for that(http://www.civicworldwide.org/). Nothing stopping you at all. Stopping you from making others do that, sure, but nothing stopping you.

ry, Alan is a remarkably giving and selfless man, and he is not rich or a millionaire. None of our business, all of that, but his example is important: in a wealthy nation, the wealthy and middle class can help those who need it most.

I have to disagree with you about one thing, ry, I couldn't lump the Jays together with the Cubs (commnets below): the Cubs have a long history of losing and being loved anyway, the Jays have a short history of losing in comparison, and only about 5 fans.

That is sort of dense, ry. Everything isn't sarcasm. I do like the idea of the proposed tax break. I also like the idea of taking away my child credit and adding to the pot of money for the poor. Claw it back. I make enough. I am satisfied.

I'm pretty sure there's a line on the tax form, near the end, where you can gift money to the government. That might be a good place for your child credit funds. On the other hand think of the exotic beers and popcorns that you could review on the beer blog.

I'm with Alan on that one. I make enough. At the very most, I should break even at tax time. Except this year, when I'll owe most likely the contents of my savings account due to having been on contract for two months. Oh well, pays my parents' pensions.

That is right, Chris. It would be nice if there was the ability to direct those funds specifically. But a clawback is better. Claw back the beer and popcorn money, too. Why should anyone making over $100,000 get almost $2,000 out of the public purse between the beer and popcorn money and the child tax credit - just because they have a couple of kids under four - when that much can make the difference in getting a family into the workforce and off welfare?

Look for that line on your tax form near the bottom, where a percentage of your income can be donated directly to me. I will use it to buy beer, popcorn, and maybe cat food. They get hungry too.

Chris, sorry, you probably think I have no respect for the Blue Jays. I am a Cubs fan. Feel free to heap scorn upon my head.

Maybe you could waive your child care benefit and have it sent to the benefot dance for the creative commons. Something's got to prop up your punching bag and maybe your own money is just the thing. I bet you could get Sloan flown in to headline.......

See what The Star says about them poor peoples. I agree that any money above welfare is better than nothing - every welfare bum I've known, and I've known a few, was happy to take whatever work they could whenever they could, even if it did net them $1.08 per hour. I don't think that "less money" is a disincentive to work. Humans love being busy and doing stuff; hunting and gathering is in our blood. But making sure that the poor make more when they make anything at all is still a good thing to do, even when the premise is still kind of evil. Unfortunately it's a refundable tax benefit, so it won't make a day-to-day difference when it's needed, but will be a windfall which, while still being useful, is too late for Christmas and too early for back-to-school.

I have no scorn for Cubs, Orioles, Mariners, Rangers and Tigers fans, Gary. I have a couple of sentimental favourites from every division, but mostly from the AL.

And I think sports fans from all cities and leagues can still come together in the spirit of unity and sportsmanship to heap scorn on the Phillies, the worst-performing baseball franchise ever. Never mind that they were also the first guys to carry the unofficial name "Blue Jays". That merely makes them our bourgeoisie class enemy.

Wait, didn't the Phillies have a good year or two in the late 70s or early 80s???
I want the (baseball) Giants to move back to New York. The Dodgers back to Brooklyn. Those were BIG mistakes. And the Colts back to Baltimore, and the Oilers back to Houston and....

Gary, while you're at it, get the hockeys teams out of cities that don't have natural ice.

Like Vancouver?

I for one am very annoyed about the wonderous $100 a month we get for our littlest as I am now preparing to do our online tax prep and see "oh boy another $600 from 2006 to account for in income".. The monies given out to parents by governments should always be based on income. We didn't need it, we didn't invest it, we just threw it into the account like most other people making enough to live on and spent it on popcorn and beer.

People on the dole have a hard enough time as it is on the money they get each month and I for one cannot imagine how one could get by on such a pittance. The incentive to get up and go to work each day and pay for daycare, even heavily subsidized, is I am sure just not there when in the end you know that $1.08 an hour per day works out to about $65 after deductions every two weeks. That doesn't exactly offset the fact that unless you have a non-menial job handed to you for your minimum wages means you no longer get free dental and prescriptions that persons on Soc Assistance get.

See, I may complain when crazy homeless chick bugs me for change when I buy my starbucks in the morning but I do care, I just care from a distance.

I think, if I understand correctly, that you have identified my recipient of choice. My theory is that if enough people are consistent with their recipients of choice, then they will receive if not enough, something significant.

Natural ice? That would place the NHL entirely 200 miles north of its current most northerly outposts - in the East at least. And call it the East and West while your are at it. Which reminds me of...:<blockquote class="smalltext">First Guy: "Who won last night?"<br>Second Guy: "The East, I think."<br>First Guy: "the East?"</blockquote>Spoken along to "The Sea of Love".

Gordo, I have been ranting that for years: hockey teams from Carolina, Atlanta, LA, Nashville, Miami and Tampa and Dallas??????????????????????????
Nothing like June Stanley Cups with folks attending in shorts!!!!!!

As for taxes, look carefully, Gordo, and make sure you sign on the dotted line so I get my share.

Gorthos, I believe that you qualify for welfare-quality medical and dental even if you're not on welfare, as long as your income is under $xx,xxx. So that's not a disincentive.

On that crust thing...I blame George Bush.

On taxes and benefits and the like: I live in a part of town where about half the parents are single mums on welfare. they need every cent they can get and there is no reason at all why they should not be able to work part time and still collect a decreasing cheque.

In Victoria at the moment there is a looming crisis in the service biz: not enough people to work despite the fact that the hotels and restaurants are paying well above minimum wage. The problem is that this is seasonal. So, were I to rule the world, I would create a system which allowed people on welfare to work, more or less full time, for several months a year and a) retain a degree of benefit, b) retain their eligibility for further benefits.

I cannot imagine how big a loser one would have to be to view porn on a 2x2 screen when there is the 22" puppy sitting right there on your desk. I mean how can a guy see into a porn babe's pores with cell phone resolution. Even the Catholic church endorses (well, more or less) this sensible position.

On blogs - I think the official spin is "a long anticipated correction".

I apologize in advance for the rather random nature of this comment...Jamesons, 'nuff said, save that I have purchased "pixel offsets" for the more loony, banal, incorrect, incendiary, OT or otherwise deleterious aspects of the above comments.

Nothing dense about it, Al. Gorthos seems to try to speak to my question: "is I am sure just not there when in the end you know that $1.08 an hour per day works out to about $65 after deductions every two weeks". Is this the case? I don't know. Canada and the US don't share the same tax code. It could be utter boilerplate. It could be true.

When someone says to me that you 'net' $1.08 it sounds like taxes have been factored in. Can someone say with certainty that this is so? I asked a question, nothing more. If there's trickery in the tax system that takes away some or all of that extra $160? Otherwise I'm throwing a flag on this play. The guilt ridden, reflexive, and unreasoned socialism flag. There's good compassion and then there's stupid compassion. Guilt ridden, reflexive, and unreasoned socialism is stupid compassion. Reasoned socialism, though not my particular cup of tea, is hunky dory(ask the French).

But calling this dense is being your own echo chamber. All I asked was to defend it even a little bit by examining whether or not the worker is actually being screwd as opposed to not having the doors to middleclass living thrown upen wide for them. You know, explain the belief instead of taking it as holy and unquestionable.

gr. I called Al middlingishclass. Not rich. How is that an insult? That does mean he's got a bit of leeway that bluecollar stiffs don't have, but why is that something to get offended by? He wasn't gifted it by some rich uncle. IF that's an insult then there's no possibility of ever talking about this at all unless one sings from your hymnal. And I'm not going to do that.

I don't think I insulted the man. I tried to point out that there's nothing stopping him from being generous, with his own money. There's problems when he starts being generous with others over their objections.

Gorthos. Man, you should try. Jess and I save $200/month on a $18k/year combined income, and been doing that for quite a while. Got that? It isn't hard, and it isn't unusual. My projects been shut down for over a year and the U isn't paying me real regular because I don't work for them real regular. Project has been iffy funding wise since my first year in Indiana 5 years ago. We've been doing this for a good stretch of time. Just because it's unfamiliar to you doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world. I speak from personal experience here. $65 extra a month is a weekly grocery bill for a family of four, is three weeks for Jess and I. That's REAL LIFE equivalents there. ANd that's if it's only $65, which we're unsure of. I have no problem with compassion, having been the recipient of it, but I have a problem with unreasoned and reflexive. I particularly have a problem with 'caring from a distance'. But that's a different issue for a different day.

$65 a month is more safety cushion than they had before. What's so unappealing about that? Explain it to me because I simply don't understand how having some safety cushion is worse than none at all.

In the US system nothing stops you from forgoing deductions and credits you don't want. Is the CAN system the same? I'm trying to not make assumptions here. If not, well, then I understand some of what yuo guys are complaining about, but not all. (And even gorthos agrees with means testing. Never would've guessed that.)
(break)
Some of the policies mentioned here have been tried. Wisconsin. Look at how Wisconsin altered its welfare system. It still isn't perfect, but it doesn't allow for 'I don't feel like it's worth my time to earn an extra weeks groceries this month. I'd rather take from the Fed.'

I get pissed because having grown up on this kind of thing and hearing you guys talk about it like you do it's like I'm getting lectured by my 'betters' who wonder about my sanity because I question their holy 'compassion'. Screw that. And Morgan SPurlock doctored the system with his 90 days on this. I've been there and done that and it isn't like he portrayed it. Unless you're a complete screwup without the sense God gave a goose and zero friends.

I'm not going to go the 'everyone's a deadbeat' or 'everyone wants to work' route. Both are oversimplifications. I think, and I'm assuming here, most of this group would rather not work and spend time with our loved ones instead most of the time. I like that. I agree with it. I'd rather not work 80% of the time. So what. Life is hard. Life isn't fair. you aren't allowed to force others to be compassionate(it's called theft). That still doesn't justify giving someone a lower middle class life for no effort at all. Not even Marx would support that. Keeping people off the street and from starving? Si. Above that? That's you're responsibility. The state gives you a hundred ways of escaping a cycle of poverty already and you say it's too hard? Give me a break. Time for some of you to embrace the concept of tough love, though it'll break your hearts to do so(compassionate souls you being).

Al has more than I, and I don't care. I wish him well of it. He's earned every last bit of it. As has gorthos and gr and.... About the only person I can think of who hasn't earned what they have is Paris Hilton. You're welcome to your popcorn and beer. You've earned the luxury. Welfare isn't supposed to give you a middleclass existance. It's a compassionate safety net. Period. And what I'm seeing debated here isn't compassionate safety net but a guilt trip effort to provide those who are gaming the system into middleclass lifestyles. Which pisses me off because I, though I hate work, have worked hard to get what little I have and their going to get MORE simply because you all feel guilty.

Jesus wept.

And the "$100 for our littlest' is exactly the kind of thing that makes me hate, and I mean hate, my father in law. If you don't want it don't take it. If you feel bad about it divest yourself of it. It isn't hard to do that you know. You could simply walk where bums live and drop two fifties if you wanted to do something super-painless. But instead you want to generate a system where people get free entry into the middleclass because you feel guilty for taking the tax exemption? What kind of self hating mixed up morality is this you guys are trading in here?

Sorry. But telling me I'm dense when all I asked was a question about similarity of US and Canadian tax codes and because I have the temerity to question the righteousness of guilt caused socialism pisses me off. I proll'y could do this in a much more friendly tone and manner, but i doubt you'd even hear it then. I never suspected you of being sarcastic Al. I figured you trully believed in this nonsense and wanted a bit of a reasoned explanation for why. My bad. Doom on me for, you know, questioning authority here.

And gr commits the greatest herresy of all. Dissing the LA Kings? That means war(dons ancient Black and Silver Kings cap, ten minute game misconduct penalty, and goes and sulks in the locker room.).

Reread what I said ry(and he isn't a middling barrister, he is a first class municipal solicitor--big difference!): only that Alan is selfless, not rich, generous, and that his EXAMPLE is important, meaning what he wrote. And I still believe strongly the Colts should be in Baltimore (pppphhhhbbbtttt!!!!)even if they are a great football team....

OK, ry, I am going to say I read you saying I was being a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with relative incomes or nationality. I understood you were saying that my appreciation of this tax policy change - which would not benefit me - was writen as tongue in check, that I actually did not like it. That was the "density" I meant. I thought you were being rude.

That being said, I do like the policy and reject the idea that this is guilt caused socialism. First, its author is one of the most conservative Finance ministers we have had in a long while. Second, it directly rights a actual paradox. People do not make enough to get off welfare. We choose not to cripple welfare as that creates suffering and disorder so we improve tax policy. The tax policy also has general benefits as every dollar you save the poor is a full dollar in the local economy. It can also be structured - like the child tax credit - as a monthly payment.

NO. Al I was asking you to explain something to me while venting a little. Apparently a major misunderstanding. I swear I wish the internet gave the ability to show the puzzlement on ones face. I think you've built a straw man that represents all criticism from 'the right' and what I put down was shuffled into that and then reacted in a scripted fashion. I sit at an odd spot straddling capitalism and the wide 'other' of the varying degrees of socialism. Why else am I hated both here at cneterleft GX40 and centerright Castle for my fiscal views? I'm not far enough left nor far enough right consistent enough to make either happy.

I simply don't get this policy and how you can support it. I don't care whether it works for you or against you. I'm not Frank Rich asserting that it should be all about you. We both don't think that way, Al. I just don't see how, looking only at the article provided, how it makes sense.

Down here if you make less than X working full time/pt/whatever you still qualify for Fed medical help. If your taxes already include medical care, and I'm working off the assumption here that those taxes already are in the Canadian system since it is single payer, a $1.00 an hour net should be enough to get out of poverty. Not easily or quickly. But still enough to make it out. My family did and 3 of the 4 of us went to college(2 earning post grad degrees(I won't)). And down here there's a real net DECREASE when you move off and into the working world--or there was back in the early to mid eighties when we were doing so. So I sit here going, 'You're making more per hour than if you were on the dole, have your healthcare paid for, probably get credits for kids and transportation, and you still claim you can't do it? Something does not compute.' So either I'm missing something or this is a bad policy.

I'm leaning toward the latter, having lived the life I have. $40 more a week, $160 more a month, $1300+ more a year. UNless there is some weird trick that wipes out that $1300 I don't get it. Is there that trick? I don't see it often here in the US(though at times things like project housing does occur, where when you still claim some level of Welfare and earned income puts you out of the income range to live there, and poof, your homeless), and am assuming that it really does rarely happen in Canada as well. If it is pervasive would you explain to me how and why it is? Having been there and done it I don't see it. and my family was not 'nose to the grind stone' people either. We could be stupid with money sometimes. A dollar an hour is still more than you're making on the dole. How does that dollar get chewed up and turned into a negative? i don't see it.

gr. Huh? I still don't get you. I don't know what Al's title means in terms of income. Doesn't matter. Seeing as how he's a lawyer I put him in the broad middle class section. I really don't care if he makes Trump level money. Wouldn't change much of anything. My point is one of free will. Forcing one to believe in God is wrong. Forcing one to be charitable is wrong as well, and makes you a crook and a tyrant. SOme rich bastard wants to be Scrooge McDuck and swim in his gold up on a hill by himself? Fine. Al doesn't pull the McDuck routine.

What did Rush say in their song about free will?

AFAIK you don't have to take every single deduction available. Which is my complaint about my FIL. He takes them all. He has a tax attorney who searches for every loophole. Then FIL turns around and complains about republicans hating the poor(oh, but I give $2k a year to charity, while pocketing the $30k in deductions). I was seeing what I thought was similar here. And denouncing it, which has me as persona non gratis in my Wife's family. It's simply the difference between those who walk the walk and those who just talk. Al's never done anything to indicate either way to me. So I reminded him that charity is always an option available to him instead of forcing someone else to be charitable thru the tax code. We poor folk find ways of getting by on the littlest of charitible contributions. Always have and always will.

I took it that you meant that I was calling Al Scrooge McDuck(rich bastard who only cares about what effects him), which I wasn't. I was saying, 'Don't be a prick like my FIL, pissing about gov't not making you do something you believe you should do but don't.' Not the same thing. It's just paper work and stamp licking for the most part. Is it THAT hard?

I don't know nor do I care how much Al makes. He's welcome to it. As are you to whatever you have, gr. I may be jealous at times, but it's short lived. I have what I have because, in reality, I'm happy with the ratio of stuff/money to effort I have. Al works a lot harder than I did on my most productive day, and I never liked how aggressive and mean I tended to get when i cared about how much I had/made.

I still just don't get it, Al. It doesn't make sense to me outside of the small number of instances like public housing to homeless.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions, too:<ul><li>This is not true: "Al works a lot harder than I did on my most productive day.";</li><li>This is not true: "I hated both here at centerleft GX40";</li><li>This is problematic: "that charity is always an option available to him instead of forcing someone else to be charitable thru the tax code" as it denies the ability of the tax code to do things as general policy. Good taxation schemes are useful. Sending monthly cheques to people who make over 100G is not useful - it is wasteful; </li><li>This is hopefully a misunderstanding as it is otherwise a grave mistake: "calling this dense is being your own echo chamber" as there is nothing like an echo chamber going on around here. I have barred two babbling fools in four years and seen one other person blow out in a massive flame of denial and disrepute. Otherwise many views are shared here.</li></ul>But your core idea that a tax incentive may not be enough to attractive people into the workforce. I think this is a manipulation of a basic market force. It really only matters if the money is enough. The more money, the more the effect one would assume.

I've tried to think of a better way of saying this. But one escapes me. What I've been given in the last reply sounds like talking points. That's unsatisfying, Al. There's more to it than that, and you aren't giving it to me(share you punk!).

ON the question of means testing. I brought that up long ago in this thread. I have no problem with means testing. I actually like the idea(do you really make THAT much($100K/year), Al?).

What do you mean by 'general policy'? There's a lot of grey area in the term. Points where 'competing good' come into conflict are possible. But what exactly you mean and why you mean it? Well, that's escaping me here. (It's a Socratic teaching moment. I may not walk away in agreement(like I don't agree with the proof of no Divinity in LDoS), but I'll have learned something.)

Of course there's assumptions. I understand that they are. Giving you carte blanch left me getting blasted as dense. so now you have some starting point from which to build, if you care to build on it.

Yes, there are moments when people want to ring my scrawny neck, even here. It happens. It's short lived.

I understand my income will soon be a matter of public disclosure, ry, so yes - just. I do not need means testing so much as clawback. Deduct it back off me at tax time if there is no other way. General policy: good policy for the common weal, good civil republicanism, taxing as a mechanism for reasonable wealth redistribitution to maximize the wealth for each and all, the cornerstone of the blended capitalist-socialist miracle that is the Canadian economy...where housing starts are up and inflation is down.

See, it's the overt wealth redistribution that has me, Al. That's not the purpose of gov't as I understand it. I don't understand how you can say that the gov't should be Robin Hood. Safety net. Leveler of the playing field so the have nots can become haves. But to take and give to someone else?

I like means testing better than clawbacks. Why? Look at the Alternate Minimum Tax down here. As gov't typically is glacially slow in changing tax codes this suck crept up and bit people it was never meant for as a result of inflation. It's too hard to write laws like this that account for market flucuations, I think. So means test. The means test is easier to keep flexible to meet reality. Some people who gross $125k/year need those deductions to get by, believe it or not. 6 kids, 4 in college, and living rather modestly. Yeah, that guy would need the deductions for his dependent kids. Same guy 15 years late won't need those deductions. A simple cut off isn't going to do right by enough people(and I accept that whatever rule is adopted someone, at the margin, is going to be unhappy).

The proof is in the pudding. Giving the poor money for a purpose of spending it (especially spending it as an effective trigger you get off welfare) is one of the most efficient ways to expand the overall economy. This is the source of the boom that is western economics. We had straight capitalism for centuries before that did not bring the good a blended economy does. Others are still mired in pure capitalism and suffer the cost.

I think we mean the same things on means testing but we do it in Canada right in our annual tax forms. We explain the dependents we have, the extraordinary medical costs associated with them, that sort of thing. The Child Tax Credit is based on that. I just think it needs to be stiffer. We have six mouths in our house right now so understand what you mean about where the money goes. Even in light of that, it is important to understand I still think that I should have the 600 bucks a year clawed back just as I would if I also got the 1200 bucks for popcorn, beer and having kids under 6, too. That redistribution of public funds to me would better go elsewhere as a public policy matter.