How will public services/entitlements in Canada be funded?
The population of this country is ageing rapidly due to sub-replacement birth rates and improved life expectancies. As the bulk of baby boomers retires the load on working people becomes unsustainable. Many people express negative xenophobic views toward immigrants on the yahoo forums yet the minimum immigration targets needed to sustain the system haven't even been reached for years. How can the system of old age pension, health care, welfare, ei and various other social programs be maintained then?
Question answered by Karma
Tax's will go up as usual.
How many more industries will the American taxpayer have to provide welfare for?
How much longer will our tax dollars be used to fund spa retreats (sorry, I guess they're called "seminars" now) before we get rid of the executives that are making the poor business decisions?
Question answered by Robinson Cruz
You have a point. Executives in this country are feeling very entitled (Louis the 16th syndrome). But we must acknowledge as a country that we are competing on a tilted playing field. Competitors to the auto industry as well as other industries in other countries (steel, electronics, etc.) don't deal with labor unions, pensions, or health care costs because governments in Japan, China, Korea, and Europe strictly regulate labor already (hours worked, salaries, etc.) and provide healthcare already. In other words, American industry competes with government subsidized industries in other countries. We can go through and bail out our companies one by one, or we can re-level the playing field by getting our industries out of the healthcare and retirement business and eliminating the need for constant labor strife.
In australia, can you only receive the aged pension when you are retired and over 65?
Also are you in favour of the government progressively increasing the age in which you can access age pension. and why?
Question answered by guyfromoz
This depends on whether you are male or female.
If you are male you need to be 65 to qualify for the age pension from Centrelink.
If you are female you need to refer to the table below.
Qualifying ages for women to get Age Pension
Woman's date of birth Qualifying age
before 1 July 1935 60
on or between 1 July 1935 and 31 December 1936 60.5
on or between 1 January 1937 and 30 June 1938 61
on or between 1 July 1938 and 31 December 1939 61.5
on or between 1 January 1940 and 30 June 1941 62
on or between 1 July 1941 and 31 December 1942 62.5
on or between 1 January 1943 and 30 June 1944 63
on or between 1 July 1944 and 31 December 1945 63.5
on or between 1 January 1946 and 30 June 1947 64
on or between 1 July 1947 and 31 December 1948 64.5
on or after 1 January 1949 65
Centrelink will then means test your assets and income and the lower of these will apply to determine your eligibility.
Refer to Centrelink for details on income test from 1 July 2009;
The reason behind the government increasing the age to qualify for the pension is because Australia is an ageing population so icnreasing the age takes some of the financial strain off the government, particularly given that we are in a time of financial crisis so taxation revenue would be down.
Personally I don;t think we should have any welfare payments full stop, that includes the dole, age pensions etc. The money could be better used to fund schools and hsopitals to improve the public health system so we all dont have to buy private health insurance so we know we wont die in the case of an emergency. People should have to earn their retirement income (superannuation).
What are some examples of communism in our society today?
It could be anything that's communist-like in nature... Even if it's loosely based on communism. Any ideas would help. For example, free health care: It's kind of communist-like if you think about how everyone is entitled to it no matter the class... So, anything like that would help... Thanks a lot :)
Oh and I don't want examples from actual communist nations... Just examples mainly from democratic/capitalistic societies.
Question answered by paul s
some countries still have very big and powerful workers Unions,
most countries no longer have a state owned automobile industry but a small number of nations still subsidise their automobile industry to stop it collapsing
some nations still have state owned banks and mortgage lenders,
Nationalised Healthcare, (there are wide differences in how much healthcare is state run in each and every country)
some countries still have some level of nationalised public transport and utility companies, (this can range from providing school buses up to entire rail networks)
pretty much every nation has some sort of state welfare and socialist programs such as, unemployment payments, maternity leave, sick pay, pensions etc
most countries still have a nationalised postal service and post offices
every first world country has some sort of state run education system,
most 1st world nations still pump larges amounts of money in to their own agricultural industry (this is where you get a socialist/capitalist hybrid system, whereby state funds is pumped into an industry purely to keep it competitive on a global market, without the subsidies it is possible for an entire industry to collapse as it is unable to compete with cheaper alternatives from 2nd and 3rd world countries, so in essence you use a socialist program to met a capitalist objective) (every single 1st world nation uses this capitalist program, the US for example spends more of it's GDP on this socialist/capitalist program than any other nation)
some countries still have some level of state owned or subsidised primary or heavy industries (i,e Coal, Oil, steel etc)
How much of the budget does Social Welfare take up as far as the US Government goes?
Diehard Conservatives and diehard libertarians love to bash social Welfare programs as killing the country. They make it sound like Food Stamps, Medicare, and such take up around 80-90% of Government spending and that its is the main reason the economy is collapsing. That billions of dollars are being wasted that can be spent on more useful things like military,etc.
However I seen comments from political scientists who state that while its true Welfare is over $1 Billion total, to blame it for the country's problems is a complete joke. That in reality social welfare at best takes up barely 2% of the government's total spending and that more stuff are spent on other things, namely military.
Here is one such comment.
I am curious have the Libertarian and Republican parties over exaggerated the harms welfare is doing to the US economy?
Question answered by dm_felionous
It depends on what you call welfare.
If you just mean safety net programs than this has gone up in recent years to about 12% of the tax income. Remember unemployment payments to recently unemployed is part of the safety net and Obama extended those. So, around 411 billion. That is a little over half the cost of our defense spending which has recently gone down.
Republicans like to include health care cost with welfare and that pushes it up to 33% of our spending. That would make it closer to 2 trillion.
If you go nuts with it like some of the far right pundits than you include education and pensions and Social Security with welfare. That makes it more than we actually have to spend and ridiculously huge.
Most don't do that but they love to include at least medicaid with welfare. Just for fun you should look up corporate welfare sometime. Most of that is NOT payments to business but incentives and tax credits for any number of things. What we are not collecting in taxes from large corporations far exceeds what we spend on safety net programs.
Added: For the first poster. When you include Social Security, Medicare, pensions with Medicaid and the safety net programs is much larger than 70%. Closer to 95% of our tax income and with payments on loans and bonds it exceeds our tax income by around half a trillion. Of course Social Security and medicare and pensions were paid for by the people who collect and are technically trust funds held for them so including that in welfare is simply unjust.
If you notice I don't say budget it is because we don't actually have a budget, we use continuing resolutions to continue funding rather than actually approving a budget. We have done this for several years now and I do not like the policy.
How does Germany spend its government money?
I know that here in the US we send government money on public goods and other things such as security,education, transportation, natural resources, energy, space, agriculture, income support, social security, and welfare, health and hospitals, housing and community services, net interest, central, executive, legislative, and judicial activities. I have been looking forever and I cannot figure out what Germany spends its government dollars on. Any info will help, links to helpful websites are always nice too.
Question answered by Volker S
If you can understand German go here: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/nn_53848/DE/Buergerinnen__und__Buerger/Gesellschaft__und__Zukunft/Solider__Haushalt/Erklaerstuecke/solider__haushalt.html?__nnn=true
Bundeshaushaltplan (Government Budget) 2008
in Milliarden Euro (in billion Euros)
* Gesamt (Total) 283,2
* Arbeit und Soziales (Labor/Work and Social) 124 (Zuschuss zu Rentenversicherung (Grant for the social pension fund) 78,5; Leistungen und Kosten für Hartz IV (Unemployment Benefit) ca. 20.5)
* Schuldzinsen (Interest on Debt) 42,9 (Bundesschuld (Total Debt) 960)
* Verteidigung (Military) 29,5
* Verkehr (Traffic/Transportation) 24,4
* Finanzverwaltung (Financial Administration) 10,9
* Bildung und Forschung (Education and Research) 9,4
* Familie 6,3
* Wirtschaft (Economy) 6,2
* Agrar und Verbraucher (Agricultur and Consumer) 5,3
* Entwicklung (Development) 5,1
* Innen (Interior) 5,1
* Finanzen (Finance) 4,6
* Gesundheit (Health) 2,9
* Auswärtiges Amt (Department for Foreign Affairs) 2,9
* Kanzleramt (Department of the Chancellor) 1,7
* Sonstiges (Other) 2,1
Why does Canada have a better public education and health systems than Australia?
Why does Australia government continue to fund private options when we could have world class public education and health systems like Canada does and their government uses all public funding on public services? please explain to me why Australia is going down a path of inequity and no longer going to be a the land of oportunity for all? please comment?
I might add that 90% of students and patients use the public system and they are still higher quality than Australias?
Question answered by arokh72
Ina nutshell...and without going into Welfare State theory....Australia is basically a conservativie nation. Successive governments, both Labor and Liberal, have been more or less conservative as well and the ideologies of a conservative don't sit well with a welfare state. Both governments are happy to cave to business and are more interested in profit than looking after the average folk. If you look at the history of welfare in Australia you'll note it was never run by the government in early days and was run by various charities, both religious and non religious, for years. In actual fact the government only ever took a hand in welfare kicking and screaming, and to be able to control welfare. The Benevolent Society (founded 1813 in Sydney) introduced the age pension and advocated for a government sponsored pension system.
On the plus side our welfare system being what it is allows for a lot of movement in either direction, that is either ideologically left or right, and quick action for better or worse. The Canadian system, which is similar to the Scandanavian system, doesn't allow for much movement and change.
Did Americans freely choose to give up the employee benefits that enjoyed through the 1970's?
Now Middle America is angry at government employees for having what they used to have.
Did they no longer want their retirement plans and health plans?
Did they get tired of them?
Did they give them up freely to benefit their employer in hopes that if his profits increased he would earn enough more to cover the loss and then some? Wrong of Course.
Was he Tricked? Was he Robbed? Was he Stupid? Or just plain weak?
Question answered by
My dad retired from GE with a full pension and medical benefits - he had to take an early retirement because it was the last year they offered it.. after that, they sloughed off their pension obligations to the federal government, like most corporations have done.. basically socializing their losses.. that's one of the reasons we have a huge deficit because the gov is obligated to cover failed pension funds. Notice that republicans NEVER complain about corporate socialism - which costs us bazillions,, but they are always focused on some mythical poor black lady in the hood dude.. which isn't even a federal problem to begin with since welfare is mainly a state function.. Is someone behind all of this propaganda concerning social welfare vs corporate welfare and the propaganda that is continually spewed at us.. I think so dude!
Why don't people realize that the Affordable Care Act is more than just a mandate to buy insurance?
It also stops unfair practices on the part of the insurance companies, allows students to stay on their parents' plans longer, sets up exchanges to obtain health insurance, provides subsidies for those who can't afford it, and expands Medicaid to include more people.
It seems like no one even talks about these things, and it's all about the mandate.
Question answered by Robin K
The Mandate is how they plan to fund it. Nothing else is possible without the mandate. Since this is the central pillar of Obamacare everything depends on it. It penalizes non-compliance and forces everyone to participate. If you believe that this strikes at the heart of liberty then you are likely against the whole bill because the mandate infringes on your personal rights. Those in the other camp see the mandate as a way to spread the cost across those who can pay so that those who cannot pay are paid for.
You are right...there are some good things inside this 2000 page monstrosity, but you must measure something on the whole of its contents. There are clearly problems too. The vote will come down to Anthony Kennedy...as it always seems to.
Having a country that does it all for their citizens...it sounds great, but the more they do for us, the more government dictates to our lives. Greece is the horror story of a country with out of control social spending. Not all Social Democracies are on the brink. Austria is one of those European Social Democracies that is on decent footing. But to afford their social programs, insurance and government pension the tax rate is 34% after $11,000 and 50% after $60,000. And employers pay a tax of 21.7% to help fund Austrian Social Security. Employees pay 18% for a total of 40%. That makes our combined social security taxes look small. Even with these high tax rates they are struggling to pay for programs, so in 2013 Austria will add a 50% capital gains tax.
Lets not fool ourselves, we may want federal government more involved in our welfare or we may not, but lets all agree from the example of other countries...letting government do all this for us is extremely expensive. Do we want to add to the burden of government, right now, when spending is out of control and deficit spending is the worst since World War 2?
What is the fairest option for pensions in the UK?
1. Public sector workers receive a pension subsidised by the tax payer?
2. Private sector workers receive a pension subsidised by the tax payer?
3. Private sector and public sector workers both receive a pension subsidised by the tax payer?
4. Public sector and private sector are expected to invest in their own private pension schemes?
5. Is it reasonable to offer a subsidised pension scheme to just one section of the working population, whilst expecting the other section to help fund it?
6. Nobody receives a pension scheme subsidised by the tax payer
Question answered by Elmbeard
3. do think that pensions, along with all other welfare schemes, should be financed by the taxpayer at subsistence level, but everyone is free to supplement this privately if feasible.
I would raise the basic and higher rate of Income Tax to give enough room to make the necessary adjustments.
I would then simplify the whole benefits and taxation structure, streamlining it entirely into one operation - the wealthy being taxed positively, the poor being taxed negatively (i.e. given benefit payments under the same system), and the whole system worked out so that it works smoothly, and nobody who works or endeavours to supplement their income is worse off than those that don't, yet everyone is assured a basic subsistence - to enable the basics of eating, drinking, sanitation, health care and shelter, but that's it.
One thing ignored by the stupid conventional thinkers is that inheritances can provide a pension for the next generation down, in return for care for the older generation. Rather than taking the lot in punitive tax grabs, just at a time when a family is in a state of grief, Government should encourage this transfer of money down the generations as a way of alleviating the pension problem.
I would then abolish the status of unemployment or retired - everyone claiming benefit is free to work as much or as little as they wish or are able, without sanction, for as long as they are engaged in the system and declare all their earnings.
I certainly do not trust private pension fund managers with my pension - there is just too much legal thievery and reckless gambling with other people's money, and they have showed themselves to be even more corrupt than nationalised pension providers.
Everyone gets a tax code, according to their needs and civic status, and this sets the point where a benefit becomes a tax, and is worked using PAYE. Means tested taxes, charges for public services and benefits should be abolished, and incorporated into general taxation wherever these are universal. Only local variations should be taxed or subsidised locally.
Civic status is defined by the NI number. Those born and bred into the country and engaged with the system all their lives get preferential treatment over those whose eligibility is set by Treaty agreements (such as non-British EU or Commonwealth citizens), and this gets preferential treatment over those to whom there are no obligations. Changes of status will result in the issue of a new NI number, and all visitors with working visas must have a NI number.