The Journal of N=1 has suggested that the government should personalize our taxes. I really like this idea. Personally, I would love to know what I am paying for.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Yes I think that would be a good idea. Taxpayers could better understand what they are supporting. We would all like lower taxes, and two areas that have the largest savings are healthcare and education. Hugh tax savings would occur from American style healthcare (and although the Conservatives appear to be moving away from this position lately, with a little encouragement private healthcare could take over -providing unparallel opportunities for making profits. With education, increasing numbers of parents are putting their children in private schools, so great tax savings would be gained by privatizing education, and we could provide a subsidy to the poor. The Harris government floated a similar idea a few years ago -parents would get a subsidy, and have the freedom to choice their school, and I would think the new Conservative Party would not be opposed. With regard to subsidies what do you think of Chavez providing subsidized heating oil to low income families in Massachusetts (the CBC’s the Current had an interesting piece on this today)? Many Canadian families are going to be hit with high heating costs as well this winter. The Oil cartels position (and is this not the basic conservative view?), get the government out of the way, and free enterprise will regulate the market to everyone’s benefit? What is a Thatcher philosophical position on this? Papaprof
Where to start? Firstly, I cannot comment on the CBC's program as I have not seen it. I will openly admit to having an aversion to watching the CBC but the little research I have been able to do on Chavez's oil deal is that it is pure political theatre on Chavez's part. He runs a repressive government and thinks nothing of suppressing dissent and liberty in Venezuela. I take the position that it is deal with the devil. One cannot expect to make a pact with the devil and not get up covered in muck. Whatever short-term benefits the citizens of MA receive there will be a far higher price the US citizenry on a whole will ulitimately have to pay in the longer term. No doubt this will rise Chavez's street creds in Latin American which will allow what Lenin called the useful idiots the rational to suppress the opportunity to take a closer look at the price liberty in Venezuela. The US is not without resources and I would rather see the US government offer a tax credit rebate for heating costs for low income earners than accepting Chavez's subsidized fuel - if it really must be done. If Chavez can offer oil at a subsidized rate to the citizens of MA why not the world - after all he claims to be the man of the poor - why not call him on it?
But is the proper role of government to artifically insulate its citizenry from any hardship? And once government start drawing lines where does it end? Once you consign your fate to the government - any government, you become merely a bystander in your own life.
The more interesting question is why is oil trading at such a high price? Demand has remained relatively stable with steady substanial growth so why the significant increases in the price of crude? Who's trading in oil futures and what nations are ultimately benefiting from the hugely inflated prices?
One of the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission was that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were a failure of imagination on the part of intelligence agencies. I would suggest that we in the west are in danger of having another failure of imagination. There is more than one way to attack or undermine a nation rather than a traditional frontal assault commando style.
Furthermore, how can there be a free market in oil if the majority of oil producing countries do not operate on the free market system? To reap the benefits of a free market system one must be free to trade.
I could go on and on but I think you may have inadvertently missed the point of this post. Click on the Journal N+1 link and read N vision of personalizing our taxes.
3 comments:
Yes I think that would be a good idea. Taxpayers could better understand what they are supporting. We would all like lower taxes, and two areas that have the largest savings are healthcare and education. Hugh tax savings would occur from American style healthcare (and although the Conservatives appear to be moving away from this position lately, with a little encouragement private healthcare could take over -providing unparallel opportunities for making profits.
With education, increasing numbers of parents are putting their children in private schools, so great tax savings would be gained by privatizing education, and we could provide a subsidy to the poor. The Harris government floated a similar idea a few years ago -parents would get a subsidy, and have the freedom to choice their school, and I would think the new Conservative Party would not be opposed.
With regard to subsidies what do you think of Chavez providing subsidized heating oil to low income families in Massachusetts (the CBC’s the Current had an interesting piece on this today)? Many Canadian families are going to be hit with high heating costs as well this winter. The Oil cartels position (and is this not the basic conservative view?), get the government out of the way, and free enterprise will regulate the market to everyone’s benefit? What is a Thatcher philosophical position on this?
Papaprof
Where to start? Firstly, I cannot comment on the CBC's program as I have not seen it. I will openly admit to having an aversion to watching the CBC but the little research I have been able to do on Chavez's oil deal is that it is pure political theatre on Chavez's part. He runs a repressive government and thinks nothing of suppressing dissent and liberty in Venezuela. I take the position that it is deal with the devil. One cannot expect to make a pact with the devil and not get up covered in muck. Whatever short-term benefits the citizens of MA receive there will be a far higher price the US citizenry on a whole will ulitimately have to pay in the longer term. No doubt this will rise Chavez's street creds in Latin American which will allow what Lenin called the useful idiots the rational to suppress the opportunity to take a closer look at the price liberty in Venezuela. The US is not without resources and I would rather see the US government offer a tax credit rebate for heating costs for low income earners than accepting Chavez's subsidized fuel - if it really must be done. If Chavez can offer oil at a subsidized rate to the citizens of MA why not the world - after all he claims to be the man of the poor - why not call him on it?
But is the proper role of government to artifically insulate its citizenry from any hardship? And once government start drawing lines where does it end? Once you consign your fate to the government - any government, you become merely a bystander in your own life.
The more interesting question is why is oil trading at such a high price? Demand has remained relatively stable with steady substanial growth so why the significant increases in the price of crude? Who's trading in oil futures and what nations are ultimately benefiting from the hugely inflated prices?
One of the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission was that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were a failure of imagination on the part of intelligence agencies. I would suggest that we in the west are in danger of having another failure of imagination. There is more than one way to attack or undermine a nation rather than a traditional frontal assault commando style.
Furthermore, how can there be a free market in oil if the majority of oil producing countries do not operate on the free market system? To reap the benefits of a free market system one must be free to trade.
I could go on and on but I think you may have inadvertently missed the point of this post. Click on the Journal N+1 link and read N vision of personalizing our taxes.
"Once you consign your fate to the government - any government, you become merely a bystander in your own life."
Words to live by. Thanks Kate.
OC
Post a Comment