[kkgg7]

I have some reservation about "help old people".
Yes, it sounds politically right (NDP loves it), and the "old" always sounds like a weaker demographic the whole society seems to have a moral obligation to help.

On the other hand, a smart person should NOT wait to rely on government welfare when he gets old and retire. There is something called "savings". Coming from a thrifty cultural background, I am sometimes shocked at how Canadians spend money when they are younger, and don't really make that much money. When they dine out and order those expensive wines, or stay at $300 a night hotel when traveling, or buying iphones/ipads as if they are "necessities", they should think more about "can I really afford that?" Being able to afford doesn't mean you current paycheck can cover the expenses for this month, but rather to spend in a responsible way, with saving for the future in mind. It is utterly stupid and irresponsible to spend more than 85% of one's income a month. With that hedonism, one is destined to become poor approaching retirement. It is simple math.

If Paul and John both make $60,000 a year, and John saves 20% every month and Paul saves almost nothing with a fantastic lifestyle. At the age of 65, they both retire. John ends up with $150,000 savings and Paul has 2000 bucks. Should we believe savers like John have the responsibility to make Paul's senior life better by donating more taxes?

The truth is, suppose one starts working at 25 and retires at 65, he has 40 years to save for the 15-20 years of retirement life, along with the opportunities to build up home equity. 40 years, that's about 1000 biweekly paychecks. If you save $100 per paycheck (lets assume it is real terms), you end up with $100,000 of cash, not including any investment returns. So if you are still cry poor at the end of the day, where is the problem?

I am sure there are special circumstances that brought people into poverty. But I would say the vast majority of seniors are not supposed to be poor and need social assistance upon retirement. Most are because they spend too much when on the payroll.

 

[adma]

Ah great. Hardcore Social Darwinism hits the Internets once again.

 

[Silence&Motion]

The problem with this is that if the city doesn't know how much it is getting, it is hard to plan out a budget or plan for what services it can provide.

This is right on point. Logistically it makes no sense to fund the operating budget through donations because of uncertainty. If the Ford administration is keen on promoting voluntary donations among the population of Toronto, it should tie the donations to capital expenses. I think people would be far more willing to donate money toward a new bridge to Fort York than into some mysterious department budget anyway. And because capital expenses are one-time deals, uncertainty and fluctuation from year to year is not an issue.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Of course if there's one thing the Ford administration does better than screwing up useful left-wing policy initiatives, it's screwing up useful right-wing policy initiatives.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

However, we should only force people to pay taxes for service that every taxpayers gets to benefit from, not those only part of the population can.

The above-captioned line is so lacking in cogency that it calls into question anything you have written or may ever write in this forum. You would be well advised to reconsider your line of thought and, hopefully, revise it. I sincerely question why others in this thread have chosen to engage in a discussion of your ridiculous assertions on this subject. A toddler could destroy your argument, even while distracted by eating breakfast and crapping his pants.

 

[cdr108]

let me review again

Children's Services - no, won't ever either
Cultural Services and Museums - no, plus museum in Toronto are VERY expensive to visit already
Emergency Services (Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services) - hardly
Employment and Social Services - no
Long Term Care Homes and Services - no
Parks, Forestry and Recreation - hardly, not a fan of nature
Roads and Transportation services - no car, but we do need to walk on streets I guess
Shelter, Support and Housing - no
Toronto Animal Services - no
Toronto Public Libraries - no
Transit - occasionally

So basically I use parks, transit occasionally. Parks maybe 3 times a year, transit 5/6 times a months (which is not free).
Police do need to be there no matter what I suppose. I have used very little medical service.

In general, I am 100% sure that my $25,000 income tax, plus property tax plus sales tax every year is far more than enough to pay for the "services" I enjoyed.
Yes, I prefer minimum free services and lower tax. Those who need the services pay for them.

you CANNOT be for real ... this is some sort of prank to instigate responses !

what you're saying is instead of paying a bit at a time over your lifetime for the services you never use, you would rather pay the actual cost per time you actually use it.

Emergency Services (Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services) - odds are in your lifetime, you will use it. but forget that, you'd rather pay several thousands the off chance you do.

Long Term Care Homes and Services - everyone gets old and sick sometime, but you're not going to, right.

 

[jn_12]

I have some reservation about "help old people".
Yes, it sounds politically right (NDP loves it), and the "old" always sounds like a weaker demographic the whole society seems to have a moral obligation to help.

On the other hand, a smart person should NOT wait to rely on government welfare when he gets old and retire. There is something called "savings". Coming from a thrifty cultural background, I am sometimes shocked at how Canadians spend money when they are younger, and don't really make that much money. When they dine out and order those expensive wines, or stay at $300 a night hotel when traveling, or buying iphones/ipads as if they are "necessities", they should think more about "can I really afford that?" Being able to afford doesn't mean you current paycheck can cover the expenses for this month, but rather to spend in a responsible way, with saving for the future in mind. It is utterly stupid and irresponsible to spend more than 85% of one's income a month. With that hedonism, one is destined to become poor approaching retirement. It is simple math.

If Paul and John both make $60,000 a year, and John saves 20% every month and Paul saves almost nothing with a fantastic lifestyle. At the age of 65, they both retire. John ends up with $150,000 savings and Paul has 2000 bucks. Should we believe savers like John have the responsibility to make Paul's senior life better by donating more taxes?

The truth is, suppose one starts working at 25 and retires at 65, he has 40 years to save for the 15-20 years of retirement life, along with the opportunities to build up home equity. 40 years, that's about 1000 biweekly paychecks. If you save $100 per paycheck (lets assume it is real terms), you end up with $100,000 of cash, not including any investment returns. So if you are still cry poor at the end of the day, where is the problem?

I am sure there are special circumstances that brought people into poverty. But I would say the vast majority of seniors are not supposed to be poor and need social assistance upon retirement. Most are because they spend too much when on the payroll.

Your posts in this thread might be some of the most ignorant posts I've seen on this site. My guess is you've never even heard of the Toronto's Vital Signs reports because it would be pretty embarrassing to have read it and not learned a single thing from it.

Fact is, the median family income in this city is only $51,000 (a family earning minimum wage makes around $45,000). To expect people who earn that little to also save $100 per paycheque suggests a huge lack of understanding of the realities most people face. This has nothing to do with living a fantastic lifestyle and then expecting the nanny state to pick up the pieces for you and entirely has to do with the fact that most people earning this amount are one paycheque away from being homeless.

I'm also baffled how someone can have an interest in urban politics/life and not have an understanding of these issues and the importance of social services on maintaining an urban environment.

I also think that you have a very narrow understanding of how public services contribute to your daily life. You suggestion that you "hardly" rely on emergency services speaks volumes about your lack of understanding. Even if you aren't calling an ambulance everyday, there are massive residual effects that benefit you significantly just because these services exist.

 

[js97]

To some degree, I agree with KKGG7s point of being self reliant and efficient (but not his lack of understanding on the impacts of social services in his life), But, before this thread was ideologically sidetracked... I just wanted to see if any of the so called 'social services champions' actually voluntarily contributed to 'the cause'. My suspicions where right, very few, if any have.


So it really brings me back to my one issue: why do some people feel it's okay to take other people's money to pay for their interests?
I'm not making the argument that there should be NO taxes at all. Living in a society, there needs to be public services delivered (but at an efficient and effective manner). But why are some of the biggerst champions of wanting every service, the last to voluntarily contribute?

 

[jn_12]

I don't think you can infer from the few posts in this thread that everyone who believes in public services wouldn't be willing to voluntarily contribute. Most of the posts have addressed the ignorance of kkgg7's posts or mentioned how basing expenditures on donations is a poor way for any government to do business.

The fact is, you only have to look at the public consultations that were completed with regards to the Toronto Services Review to see that most people wanted significant increases to their taxes to help pay for these services. 80% of the respondents (and almost 13,000 people responded) suggested that they'd like to see a 3-10% increase in their taxes (essentially more than the recent tax increase) and the two highest suggestions were increases of 5% (20% of respondents) and 10% (around 19% of respondents). Without being able to ask every single citizen, I think that's a good idea of the public's desire to ensure that our public services are well-funded with our own money.

For one, I'd gladly volunteer to contribute more if I had the means, but I think it's pretty easy to understand why anyone would have problems with public services being propped up by donations.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

To some degree, I agree with KKGG7s point of being self reliant and efficient (but not his lack of understanding on the impacts of social services in his life), But, before this thread was ideologically sidetracked... I just wanted to see if any of the so called 'social services champions' actually voluntarily contributed to 'the cause'. My suspicions where right, very few, if any have.


So it really brings me back to my one issue: why do some people feel it's okay to take other people's money to pay for their interests?
I'm not making the argument that there should be NO taxes at all. Living in a society, there needs to be public services delivered (but at an efficient and effective manner). But why are some of the biggerst champions of wanting every service, the last to voluntarily contribute?

We all benefit from living in a society that provides equality of opportunity (unless you want to live in a gated compound in fear of everyone outside the gate). Social services that provide equality of opportunity cost money. Everyone in society should pay. If I pay more than my share, that means that some freeloader won't pay his/her share.

The question is, why are there freeloaders out there who want to benefit from living in an egalitarian society but don't want to pay the taxes necessary to do so?

 

[kkgg7]

Those who think I am ignorant why not do yourself a favour: drive by one of the homeless shelters when you have time, and ask any of the healthy guys lingering on the street: "I offer you a house cleaning job for $10 an hour, do you want it"? And see how they respond.

Or ask those seniors in poverty receiving social welfare, how many beers or coffee lattes they have had, how many vacations they have taken, how much hockey game tickets they have bought, during their younger life. In theory, one can live his entire without any of those. They spent it instead of saving for retirement, and end up relying on other people's income and become a social burden.

In essence, only those who have done everything they can to have a better life yet still end up in destitute should be helped. And that's my fundamental belief about "equality". A society shouldn't force A to help B because A works harder and B is just lazy and irresponsible.

I don't mind helping the weaker (such as the handicapped) at all. I just mind helping those who don't deserve it and even take it for granted.

 

[Dandy Horse]

and how are you going to tell whether they did everything they canto have a 'better life'?

 

[RC8]

Terribly ignorant remarks above, once more. No wonder you like asian cities so much, it must be great to feel superior to all the poor people around you. To say that being homeless is easier and more typical of a lazy person than to live a 'normal' life is one of the stupidest things I've read in my life.

Those who are genuinely well-educated realise that those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid predictably remain poor while those who start out higher up tend to do much better. Why does person A have to live a miserable life because his father was an alcoholic, whereas person B with 1/3 of the effort and sacrifice gets everything because his father is the CEO of a corporation? It's understandable that person B is wealthier, healthier, and has a number of advantages - but the least we can do as a society is provide person A with libraries, healthcare, and a service that provides minimum care for when they lose the ability to take care of themselves.

Thread starter, I advocate for higher taxes. I wouldn't pay them voluntarily, because I know any cash I pay that the city hadn't planned on getting will be burned in irrelevant stuff.

However, as another poster pointed out, I'd happily pay money to tangible infrastructure projects that have been previously budgeted. I would happily pay $10 a month for a downtown relief line. Much more if I wasn't a student on a tight budget.

 

[kkgg7]

and how are you going to tell whether they did everything they canto have a 'better life'?

Thanks for asking, there should be a smart way of doing this.
My point is whether one is qualified for social assistance shouldn't depend solely on his/her current financial situation. For example, for those seniors in poverty, it would be easy to check their income history (tax returns), credit card transaction history, bank account history and decide whether he has consumed in a responsible way, taking into account the financial burdens (kids to raise etc). If one makes $3000 a month post tax, and has spend $10,000 a year on LVs and highend cosmetics regularly, I doubt anyone would think we should spend our tax money to make her senior life better.

For someone jobless, he has to prove that he has made reasonable effort seeking jobs before being approved welfare.

I don't know why you guys are so against me. It is like that I am saying "let's abandon those poor people and let them die in the snow". All I am suggesting is that social welfare is using other tax payers' money, and it shouldn't be handed out so easily. It should be a "there is no other option" thing. By making social welfare harder to get will push those with potential to work harder and achieve more, without having to rely on other taxpayers' money. Let's be honest, wouldn't the money be better spent on more useful purposes such as improving public transit, than feedings those who just don't feel like working for $10 an hour?

If you look at developed countries, each and every is burdened with huge debt and fiscal deficit. A large chunk comes from "entitlement". You are poor, so government automatically has to give you money. You are old, so government automatically has to give you money, without deciding how one is such situation or whether they have to be. Why should anyone feel "entitled" to spend other people' money??? Is that fair to those who are actually working hard and saving hard? I don't think so. Welfare should be strictly restricted to those who just tried everything and have simply no way out.

 

[RC8]

So do we let the uneducated mess of a person that got thousands of dollars of cosmetic injury die in the snow?