Canuckistanis pay less in income tax and employee social-security contributions than Americans? Does that mean we’ll see hockey players defecting to Canada as tax refugees?
Sphere: Related Content-
Sponsored Links
-
English Books on Korea (and CDs and DVDs, too)
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
-
Flickr Photos
-
Recent Comments
- globalvillageidiot on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- globalvillageidiot on US Cows Protest KORUS FTA
- Robert Koehler on Tragic Death in Daegu
- Linkd on Tragic Death in Daegu
- ecorn on Tragic Death in Daegu
- Sonagi on Tragic Death in Daegu
- Piper on Tragic Death in Daegu
- Baek du boy on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- Baek du boy on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- ecorn on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- Inkevitch on Tragic Death in Daegu
- seoulmilk on US Cows Protest KORUS FTA
- Piper on Tragic Death in Daegu
- dda on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- SomeguyinKorea on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
-
Most Popular Posts
- So, This is Probably Why English Teachers Shouldn't Post Photos of Themselves with Club Chicks
- Lee Pani Releases More Photos
- Candlelight Rallies are Back
- Tragic Death in Daegu
- Open Thread #49
- Cool Heads Prevail at the Chosun in US Beef Editorial
- Lee Pa-ni selected Korea's second Playboy model
- Open Thread #48
- KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- Koreans have a "beef" against Korean-Americans?
-
Archives
-
Meta
22 Comments
Well yeah sure, they might pay less income tax, but the beer tax alone is enough to break most Canadian families…
LOL, now you understand why Canadians roll their eyes when they hear Republicans claim that universal health care would bankrupt the US in order to maintain the money flowing into military the hands of military contractors.
We’ll take Modano and Lafontaine if you can bring him back.
Bring him back? I’d be surprised Lafontaine can remember his own name at this point.
Note the graph is percent-based. Canucks with marketable skills can still head south for much larger (grosser?) earnings.
#2 universal healthcare for 30 million as opposed to 300 million
yeah the cost would be a little bigger for the US govt to cover and lets not get started on the claims that the illegals would start making for their rights to free health care!
#5,
That’s the thing, salaries in some parts of Canada aren’t that great. Wonder why there are so many Canadians from the Maritimes in Korea, for example? Their governments think that creating 500 jobs in a call-centre, where hourly pay is just a couple of dollars over minimum wage, is something worth bragging about.
That’s not for all Americans. It’s for single workers with no children. Big difference.
It doesn’t take into account PST and GST which can exceed 20% in certain provinces. I also wonder where the Economist got its numbers, as Forbes shows the US having a lower tax burden. http://www.forbes.com/media/20.....ending.pdf
I’ve managed to get my Tax down to zero %. Now if I could only learn to play da hockey eh…
Well, I’m sure not an expert on Canada’s budget but I know that Canadians have explicitly/ implicitly made the decision over the last few decades to forego comparable-to-their-previous-level-of-early-Cold-War defense spending; I’m sure that helps the
average Canadian taxpayer out considerably.
The explicit/implicit assumption is that in the event of any really serious threat to Canadian territory Uncle Sam will have no choice but to “be there”. This is probably more true of Canada than any other non-US territory on the face of the planet, so you could say this conscious/unconscious decision by Canadians is “the smart play” (I’m thinking of what Al Pacino as Micheal Corleone said at his father’s funeral).
Yes McNut, it would be a shame that all those illegals — who are hired by American companies and work for slave wages with no benefits and keep the prices of Strawberries down for you — should maybe expect to get some help when they need to go to a hospital.
Just remember that those “illegals” are all working and being hired by Americans. Maybe you should shut down those businesses and send home the owner who hired them. I’m sure his parents immigrated from somewhere.
“The explicit/implicit assumption is that in the event of any really serious threat to Canadian territory Uncle Sam will have no choice but to “be there”. This is probably more true of Canada than any other non-US territory on the face of the planet, so you could say this conscious/unconscious decision by Canadians is “the smart play” (I’m thinking of what Al Pacino as Micheal Corleone said at his father’s funeral).”
And the United States can project (and has long been able to project) itself around the world without having to maintain a strong military presence on its vast northern border. It may be “the smart play” for both countries involved.
By the way, Canadian defence spending would now appear to be on the rise.
Blame Canada!! Sorry, I’ve been wanting to see that movie lately
Dear Mr. McNut. Have you ever been to McDonald’s in the U.S., and the counter lady– originally from Mexico–was coughing and hacking all over your food? Perhaps taken a bus and sat next to a tuberculosis patient? Gotten lice from your classmates? I would suggest, my friend, that healthcare for all has benefits for both “legal” and “illegal” residents.
“….And the United States can project (and has long been able to project) itself around the world without having to maintain a strong military presence on its vast northern border….”
We (the US) did this (project itself around the world) from about 1942 through approx 1965, without having to maintain any (much less a “strong”) military presence on its “vast northern border.”
At a time when Canada maintained one of the largest surface Navy fleets in the world; somehow the issue of this being a possible “threat” to the US never seemed to enter anyone’s mind at the time.
I’m surprised you seemingly seriously suggest Canadian military weakness as a “virtue” for the US to “enjoy” nowadays. As a debating point it seems rather “theoretical” & one without any “real-world” relevancy. Perhaps suggested to you by the previous thread here on WWI (and earlier) era Canada/US military defense contingency planning?
It’s Canada’s sovereign decision what it wants to do with its tax monies, of course. All I ask is that it live with the consequences of its own decisions — it’s a matter of pure aesthetics as much as anything with me.
The quintessential example being the Canadian Parliament’s decision in Feb 2005 to reject participation in continental US ballistic missile defense (interestingly, the issue of ROK participation in ballistic missile defense has been subsequently the subject of another post here, to be found immediately above).
The ultimate high-risk low-probability defense event. Canadians can certainly congratulate themselves on making “the smart play” here, not only in terms of tax monies saved but also on the self-satisfaction they get to enjoy from posturing on the world stage as heroic resisters to US “arrogance” (as personified by the current administration).
“I’m surprised you seemingly seriously suggest Canadian military weakness as a “virtue” for the US to “enjoy” nowadays.”
No, I’m saying that sharing a huge border with a friend and ally is - and has been - of mutual benefit to both countries. Canada has a strong ally next door, while the United States can maintain overseas bases and fleets of carriers without having to devote enormous resources to its longest border.
“Canadians can certainly congratulate themselves on making “the smart play” here, not only in terms of tax monies saved but also on the self-satisfaction they get to enjoy from posturing on the world stage as heroic resisters to US “arrogance” (as personified by the current administration).”
We have increased and are increasing cross-border security cooperation with the United States. We currently have around 2500 troops fighting in Afghanistan. I’m in favor of both.
Opposing missile defense and a disastrous war in Iraq was/is about more than “posturing on the world stage” or saving money.
“Canadians can certainly congratulate themselves on making “the smart play” here, not only in terms of tax monies saved but also on the self-satisfaction they get to enjoy from posturing on the world stage as heroic resisters to US “arrogance” (as personified by the current administration).”
heroic resistors to US arrogance….
…in Canada a hero is someone who have more hockey scars than teeth
resisting ? resisting spending ourselves out of social programs to defend ourselves against all those enemies we just don’t have ?
we only resist working longer than we have to, to qualify for unemployment benefits for another year
…US arrogance.?..we spell it a bit different..ignorance..lots of the same letters, but essential a different, humm quality.
…self-satisfaction.?..hardly a Canadian trait, except if we were satisfied with our own sense of humility, which hardly rings the same way now does it…
I watched a show on walruses the other day ( you know how outdoorsie we Canadians are)…there was this huge dominate male, throwing all his weight around chasing other would be king of the hill walruses for the right to mate with females in that prime territory…on the side, at the fringe of all the noise and fighting were the females, and these smaller, younger male walruses….mating away albeit, clandestine…strange thing, the winner of the battle had no idea that what he was fighting for, was the right to think he was king of the hill, and the father of all the young…
Well a silly show, but then again, how smart are walruses ?
#15 Universal health care for the Canadians is great…for them. As an American, I don’t want to pay for someone else’s ills, much less an illegal immigrant’s. If they contract cancer, I feel sorry, but I should not be forced to pay for their bills. Charities and NGO’s exist for these kind of things and the money given is voluntary.
The argument of, “it could happen to me” is covered when I pay for my own insurance. My labor - my protection. That insurance company has to compete with another company and keeps prices down — free market economics.
#12 You’re right in some aspects. Those companies should be fined for hiring illegal aliens.
Since there is a demand for cheap labor, let’s call it entry-level work, lets ask the people that are able to work, but aren’t (certain people on welfare) and ask them to do the jobs that the illegals are doing. If they refuse, stop the welfare. If they take it, great! Let the price of strawberries be high, I don’t care. I don’t think there will be protests over pricer OJ or strawberries. There will be more strawberry farmers, more work and/or higher wages for pickers. Supply - Demand.
“Opposing missile defense and a disastrous war in Iraq was/is about more than “posturing on the world stage” or saving money.”
Fine, as long as Canadians don’t expect the US to fire its interceptor missiles in defense of Canadian territory. There’s only a limited number and who knows what their success rate will be (I suppose this could be one of the unspecified “mores” you allude to).
Since the 2005 vote, I’ve often wondered what the Canadian government’s instructions are to their officers who fill the Canadian portion of the watchingkeeping shifts at NORAD. And what the US DoD’s instructions are to their American counterparts, in the event our space surveillance systems are in fact efficient enough to pick up the incoming track of one or more ballistic missiles that appear to be headed for Canada.
I suppose the subject is top secret, as my attempts to search for even speculative articles on this subject have been unsuccessful to date. A good idea to keep potential adversaries guessing, I suppose.
#18: “….Well a silly show, but then again, how smart are walruses?”
Regardless of their particular paternal lineage, all walruses are protected under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....ection_Act
I infer from the wiki article on walruses that there are equivalent Canadian and Russian laws on the subject as well (but haven’t checked for specifics):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus
So I reckon that walruses will be able to go on entertaining us with their antics on Nature-type TV shows into the indefinite future — as long as the national wildlife authorities responsible for the oversight of their populations can remain reasonably honest and efficient.
#21 well at least until we hit them in the head with a hockey stick and eat them
…may take a couple smacks(we shall endeavor to persevere)…they are rather resilient…thick skins, lots of fat, thick skulls…they don’t know they are dead until long after the fact…
…they taste great with maple smoked bacon and strong beer.
…protected under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972:…? well then I guess that means the US will be obliged to put an end to global warming …thanks again…your patronage is greatly appreciated…
now where did I put my beer