Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!clarke
From: clarke@utcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Tax Freedom Day
Message-ID: <720@utcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 13:14:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcs.720
Posted: Fri Jun 28 13:14:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 13:36:02 EDT
References: <1121@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1110@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: clarke@utcs.UUCP (Jim Clarke)
Distribution: can
Organization: University of Toronto - General Purpose UNIX
Lines: 40
Summary: 

In article <1110@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes:
>	I know what you mean! I feel the same way. The problem is, how
>do we cut the size of the civil service, and cut back on social
>programs without the people who do it getting turfed out at the
>next election. You saw what happened when a slight de-indexing
>of pensions was suggested. True it was a bad place to start, but
>by the time the bulk of the baby-boomers hit 65 there will be no
>funds for old age pensioners anyway. What we've seen is the first
>ripple in that wave.

Does this mean -- as it appears to mean, though you may be overstating your
views -- that you think pensions should be cut, and that it might as well
be done now since you won't be able to collect yourself when you hit 65?
(I'm assuming you're a boomer yourself, like me, since that's statistically
likely.)  Personally, I'd rather pay higher taxes now and for always, if
the alternative is giving people inadequate pensions.
     The same goes for daycare, medical plans, unemployment insurance, ....
There may be social programs that ought to be cut, but not -- as far as I'm
concerned -- the most visible ones.

>	I joined the PCs last year and I'm trying to work for smaller
>government within that framework. It's a small contribution, but
>if others would do the same...
>	One way would be to sell off crown corporations. A good start
>has been made, but I would continue with Petro-Can. The gov't
>should not be competing in an industry that it is supposed to
>regulate. It certainly should not be taxing it's private competition
>in order to do so!
>
>Cheers,		Fred Williams

How about nationalizing the lot, and forgetting about regulating private
companies?  That seems logically just as valid as selling off Petro-Can,
though of course there are practical difficulties, namely, money.  But more
seriously, I don't see what's wrong with the government's owning businesses,
as long as they're not actually run by civil servants, which crown corporations
aren't.  As long as Petro-Can makes a profit, I'd rather it went to Ottawa
than Delaware.

Cheers yourself 	-- Jim Clarke