# The myth that Canadians have a high tax rate



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Interesting read:

http://taxfreedom.ca/


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Of course. The NDP would like to spend 100% of our cashflow on our behalf. After all, we cannot manage our own affairs. Example: We should pay more taxes so that we get coupons from the government for 'free' gas. That is an extreme of course but an example of the Broadbent Institute being as far 'left' and wrong as the Fraser Institute is as far 'right' and wrong too. The truth is somewhere in the middle. 

Here is a quote where the Broadbent Institute plays just as footloose and fancy free


> Tax Freedom Day calculations include business taxes, oil and gas royalties, and other surprises in the amounts paid by families. We’re pretty sure that the typical Canadian household does not directly pay for those things.


 Well, of course the typical Canadian household does not 'directly' pay for those things but we sure do pay for it indirectly. All those things decrease the cash otherwise available to shareholders, Canadians like you and I for example, taxes to municipalities, and provincial/federal gov'ts...which if not paid by business would be borne by the average Canadian family in increased income and property taxes. Give me a 'freaking' break. Jeez.... misinformation is just so damn alive and well.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

In relation to the services we get, our taxes are high. Sure europe has higher taxes but look at the public services and infrastructure that place has.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

The Broadbent Institute's research is so politically biased it doesn't even have charitable status. I know in ON the top combined personal rate is 53.53% and that is among the highest in the world. 

They also made no mention of municipal taxes and land taxes are a huge cost as any homeowner will attest.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

the 53.53% is for money over $220,000 - that person's first 42K is taxes at 20%


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I do not have a problem with our tax regime. We have both been in the top marginal tax bracket for many years. We have paid a fair amount of tax. But we happen to live in a great country with many services and privileges that we take advantage of. 

Yes, there is Government waste at all levels (and there always will be regardless of the party in power). We have to remain vigilant in order to keep them half ways honest. But don't kid yourself, there is a fair amount of waste in private companies as well. You just do not hear about it and it does not make for good press.

We have traveled internationally a fair bit. We often think than many Canadians do not realize how fortunate we really are.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

none said:


> the 53.53% is for money over $220,000 - that person's first 42K is taxes at 20%


That is irrelevant. Again in an apples to apples comparison of top tax rates our top tax rate is among the highest in the world. And no the surtaxes start on income > 74K.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

"it's mot relevant". Give me a break. Someone making 221,000 claiming that they pay 53.53% tax is a Trump level lie (well maybe not THAT bad).

Absolute tax rates are irrelevant anyway. Someone paying 10% tax may be getting more ripped off than someone paying 50% tax. It depends what you get for it. I think Canada is generally well served by their taxes - see Ian as an example above.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

none said:


> "it's mot relevant". Give me a break. Someone making 221,000 claiming that they pay 53.53% tax is a Trump level lie (well maybe not THAT bad).
> 
> Absolute tax rates are irrelevant anyway. Someone paying 10% tax may be getting more ripped off than someone paying 50% tax. It depends what you get for it. I think Canada is generally well served by their taxes - see Ian as an example above.


They do pay 53.53% tax as their 'marginal' rate ( on their last $ of income) whether you like it or not. That is the rate that is quoted when you compare tax rates by country. You are talking about the 'effective' rate which is something completely different. Link to help you out.

http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm

And again by that universal measure we have some of the highest tax rates in the world. You obviously don't live in ON either where tax $ are far from well spent.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Canada's tax burden is 32.2% of GDP. It's higher than some countries and lower than others.

I sorted the countries by tax burden to see if there were any countiries that I would live in. All but two of those countries had a higher overall tax burden than Canada. 

It suggests to me that we get good value for our tax dollars in this country.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

none said:


> the 53.53% is for money over $220,000 - that person's first 42K is taxes at 20%


Whenever taxes for increasing one's income begin to tip over 50%, it's counter-productive. It's been proven time and time again. A marginal tax rate this high (as it is in Canada) is a disincentive and encourages avoidance in many ways. 

You may class them as rich, but a retiree with a simple pension of $40,000, with added CPP and OAS, and some investments that produce interest income of $8000 and dividends of $19000 will pay 51.9% on every further dollar they make. That's a retiree with a pension of $61581 and investment income of $28000. That's a far cry from your claimed $220,000.

This person isn't concerned about their average tax rate when they look into new investments. They want to know if it's worth their while to even bother or is there some way around paying so much tax as we do in Canada.

ltr


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> They do pay 53.53% tax as their 'marginal' rate ( on their last $ of income) whether you like it or not. That is the rate that is quoted when you compare tax rates by country. You are talking about the 'effective' rate which is something completely different. Link to help you out.
> 
> http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm
> 
> And again by that universal measure we have some of the highest tax rates in the world. You obviously don't live in ON either where tax $ are far from well spent.


No, that's misleading. If our tax rates were 0% for the first 220K and 54% above that you are suggesting that would be worse than the progressive system we have where the top bracket above 220K is 53.53% since the top bracket is higher. It's obvious that one would pay less tax in almost every scenario for case 1. Tax burden and total tax rates for median or average incomes would be a better way to compare.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> You may class them as rich, but a retiree with a simple pension of $40,000, with added CPP and OAS, and some investments that produce interest income of $8000 and dividends of $19000 will pay 51.9% on every further dollar they make. That's a retiree with a pension of $61581 and investment income of $28000. That's a far cry from your claimed $220,000.


Are you talking about total taxes? Because the marginal rate for ON at 89,581 is 37.9%.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

nobleea said:


> Are you talking about total taxes? Because the marginal rate for ON at 89,581 is 37.9%.


Go ahead and enter the numbers for a 65 year old I chose into The 2017 TaxTips advanced tax calculator for Ontario. Then add $1000 interest income. Your tax will be $519 more. That's a marginal rate of 51.9%.

ltr


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

nobleea said:


> No, that's misleading. If our tax rates were 0% for the first 220K and 54% above that you are suggesting that would be worse than the progressive system we have where the top bracket above 220K is 53.53% since the top bracket is higher. It's obvious that one would pay less tax in almost every scenario for case 1. Tax burden and total tax rates for median or average incomes would be a better way to compare.


No it isn't. Again it it is still how tax rates are compared apples to apples by country by accounting firms and other economics measuring groups. Here is KPMGs chart. https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/se...online/individual-income-tax-rates-table.html

Find the same data on wikipedia or trading economics.

The top rate is important to the wealthiest the most who pay the most tax and will move $ if rates are too high. You also know if the top rate is higher, the other rates are likely higher too.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> The myth that Canadians have a high tax rate


 Not myth, but reality


----------



## lagagnon (Apr 13, 2017)

gibor365 said:


> Not myth, but reality


Please provide data to show that the overall tax rate for Canadians is significantly higher than any other developed world nation. I don't see it. We're pretty much ball park overall...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I doubt high earners pay the full tax rate in any event. If they do.........they should get a new accountant.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Compared to the alternatives around the world, almost happy to pay the taxes we do... *Almost*


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

lagagnon said:


> Please provide data to show that the overall tax rate for Canadians is significantly higher than any other developed world nation. I don't see it. We're pretty much ball park overall...


Check by yourself
https://www.immigroup.com/news/how-does-canada-compare-taxes-rest-west
Especially impressing New Zealand with 33% marginal tax rate
Those stats from 2014 and sinse then Trudeau significantly increased tax rates (marginal tax now is 54%)... Also don;t forget that in many developed countries couple can fill out family tax together, Harper started to do income split, but greedy Liberals canceled it...

Also check
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/calculator-compare-taxes-might-pay-u-s-developed-nations/

you can enter your salary and see what taxes would you pay in different countries... I bet you will find many developed countries with less taxes...also don't forget that in EU countries there are free universities and absolutely free health care and many other goodies.

Also, even by the calculator above taxes in Germany "higher" than in Canada,exceptthose free goodies


> In 2016, this basic tax allowance is 8,652 euros if you are unmarried and not in a civil partnership. *For couples who are married or in a civil partnership is 17,304*. If your taxable income is higher than these amounts, you will pay income tax on it. The taxation rates vary from 14 percent to 42 percent.


 Thus for couple in Germany , basic tax allowance is about $26,000 ...


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Income taxes are just one component of total government revenue. You have to consider corporate taxes, sales taxes, duties, fees etc. New Zealand taxes 34.5% of GDP compared to Canada's 32.2%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

I care more about income and sales tax than about GDP ratio


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

Oh the irony of a website called "Tax Freedom", telling us we're under taxed. I guess they'd like to free of us of the burden of having any money.

I too, belong to the camp that truly believes, more taxes aren't evil, but government waste is scandalous. Case and point: The abhorrent abomination that is the Liberal party of Ontario.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Income taxes are just one component of total government revenue. You have to consider corporate taxes, sales taxes, duties, fees etc. New Zealand taxes 34.5% of GDP compared to Canada's 32.2%
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio


Yup, last time I was in NZ, the VAT was 15 % on almost everything and Canada had only PST at the time.
Road tolls, tariffs, land tax, licensing fees, school tax, school fees etc could all be considered taxes. Every country charges different rates and fees and provides various levels and types of service. Countries also have comparative advantages and disadvantages such as geographical size, location, population, natural resources etc as well as different perspectives on how governments and societies should act.. This means comparative taxation is not only difficult but mostly meaningless.
In regards to the comment on waste in gov, this true but a lot of gov waste creates jobs and ends up in the economy somewhere. And ones man's waste is another man's treasure(or prefered gov program;-)).


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm familiar with personal income taxes in California and Oregon. At my income level, both have comparable overall tax levels to Canada. Some provinces have lower taxes than CA and OR. (In this total I am including both income and sales taxes and looking at state/provincial plus federal totals).

People usually don't believe me when I say that my US taxes are about the same as my Canadian taxes. My accountant didn't believe either until they saw the numbers.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

STech said:


> Oh the irony of a website called "Tax Freedom", telling us we're under taxed. I guess they'd like to free of us of the burden of having any money.
> 
> I too, belong to the camp that truly believes, more taxes aren't evil, but government waste is scandalous. Case and point: The abhorrent abomination that is the Liberal party of Ontario.


+1



> In regards to the comment on waste in gov, this true but a lot of gov waste creates jobs and ends up in the economy somewhere


 even when it's going to so-called African aid, wastes on gas plants, 
"fighting" climate change?! And why working people should pay high taxes that "gov waste creates jobs and ends up in the economy somewhere"?



> Yup, last time I was in NZ, the VAT was 15 % on almost everything and Canada had only PST at the time.


 it was long time ago , we had GST+PST and now HST 



> This means comparative taxation is not only difficult but mostly meaningless.


 tosome degree it's true ... how you will compare taxes in 2 countries while 1 has free universities and really free health care and in other one you have to pay.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I'm familiar with personal income taxes in California and Oregon. At my income level, both have comparable overall tax levels to Canada. Some provinces have lower taxes than CA and OR. (In this total I am including both income and sales taxes and looking at state/provincial plus federal totals).
> 
> People usually don't believe me when I say that my US taxes are about the same as my Canadian taxes. My accountant didn't believe either until they saw the numbers.


I've been to OR and they don't have sales tax at all... Taxes in CA probably the highest in US, on the other hand, I've read that they can write off much more than here


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I'm familiar with personal income taxes in California and Oregon. At my income level, both have comparable overall tax levels to Canada. Some provinces have lower taxes than CA and OR. (In this total I am including both income and sales taxes and looking at state/provincial plus federal totals).
> 
> People usually don't believe me when I say that my US taxes are about the same as my Canadian taxes. My accountant didn't believe either until they saw the numbers.


Yes I think a comparison of where people actually want to live in both countries is very favourable to Canada. And not worrying about healthcare once you get older is also a big plus for Canada! Medicare is under attack in the US.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

twa2w said:


> In regards to the comment on waste in gov, this true but a lot of gov waste creates jobs and ends up in the economy somewhere.


Good God. That has to be one of the absolute dumbest arguments ever. I'm not trying to offend you TWA2W, but step back and think a little.

Tax dollars are a finite resource like water, and you can't wastefully drain the well and say it's OK flushing it down the toilet. A lot of government waste doesn't create jobs, it's just waste that adds pressure to increase taxes further, and the taxpayer gets ripped out of services they never got.

Sadly, a lot of politicians must deeply believe this in their idle minds.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> I doubt high earners pay the full tax rate in any event. If they do.........they should get a new accountant.


Fair comment. As Leona Helmsley aptly observed: Taxes are for the little people.


----------



## Joebaba (Jan 31, 2017)

LTR said - "You may class them as rich, but a retiree with a simple pension of $40,000, with added CPP and OAS, and some investments that produce interest income of $8000 and dividends of $19000 . That's a retiree with a pension of $61581 and investment income of $28000. That's a far cry from your claimed $220,000."

This is a clever choice of numbers by LTR. He/she has chosen numbers that put the retiree into the OAS clawback range.
But interestingly, if the retiree were to make $20,000 MORE, then their marginal tax rate actually drops from 51.9% to 43.4%.

Also, LTR's statement that "they will pay 51.9% on every further dollar they make" is simply not true. The hypothetical retiree will pay 51.9% on their next $22,000 or so (until their income reaches $119,400), and then they'll pay 43.4% thereafter (until they get to the next tax bracket of course).


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> The hypothetical retiree will pay 51.9% on their next $22,000 or so (until their income reaches $119,400), and then they'll pay 43.4% thereafter (until they get to the next tax bracket of course).


 How did you come up with those numbers? More income you get, less % you pay? Strange.

Also I don't get how did you get 51.9%, hence as per tax calculator,on taxable income $119,400 marginal tax is 43.41%

btw, if I withdraw RRIF minimum , will it be qualified as "other" income?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The difference is the OAS clawback of 15% on the dollar. LTR is right but I agree he cleverly picked something that has clawback in it. I disagree with this approach because that person should not be getting OAS in the first place.,,, or I would have clawed it back at 50% rate or so. CARP uses similar tactics on 'effective MTR'. It's all about data mining to make one's case.

A simliar thing happens for the Age Amount for retirees in the $35-50k range or so (may not have the numbers correct). The 'effective MTR' rises during that window and then drops back once the Age Amount is fully clawed back. I hate it when people use numbers that way...especially when one is getting 'entitlement' money.


----------



## Joebaba (Jan 31, 2017)

If you plug LTR's numbers into the taxtips.ca calculator, you'll come up with a tax bill of $18,671 (for Ontario).
Then add $1000 of interest and the tax bill becomes $19,190.
Increase in tax of $519 (19,190 minus 18,671), on an income increase of $1000, so a marginal tax rate of $51.9%

Next, start over with $20,000 more pension income - you'll get a tax bill of $28,728.
Then add $1000 of interest and the tax bill becomes $29,162.
Increase in tax of $434, on an income increase of $1000, so a marginal tax rate of 43.4%.

So even though the retiree started with $20,000 MORE income, his/her marginal rate is actually lower. This is because LTR chose to use numbers that would put the retiree into the OAS clawback range. Had LTR chosen larger, or smaller, amounts of income to start with , such that the retiree fell below or above the OAS clawback range, then the marginal tax rate is much lower than the 51.9% that he/she demonstrated.

And of course, if this is someone under the age of 65, and not receiving OAS at all, then their marginal rate on the same amount of income would also be 43.4% (not 51.9%).
And that’s why the calculator says 43.4% marginal rate for income of $119,400.

This all falls into Mark Twain's "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" philosophy.

As to your RRIF question, as I understand it, your RRIF minimum is effectively taxed as "other income". There is actually a line on the taxtips.ca calculator for RRSP/RRIF withdrawals.
If you are over 65, and draw from your RRIF, you do get a $2000 tax credit.


----------



## Joebaba (Jan 31, 2017)

Thanks AltaRed - well put - our posts crossed in the Ethernet.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Good article on out taxes.... Is it "myth"?!
*
In Ontario, we've got taxes on taxes. Ugh.*
_In Ontario, we have the income tax, the first income surtax, the second income surtax, the health tax, multiple taxes on beer, wine and cigarettes, and of course, the HST, which taxes almost all the goods you buy and the services you receive, from getting your hair cut to fixing up your home. The new, carbon-busting Ontario tax on gasoline will soon join this crowded field.

The pièce de résistance in the tax world, though, is the tax on taxes. There was a bit of a stir a few days ago when CTV revealed that HST will be charged on the carbon tax. It is, of course, an outrage, but sadly not a surprise.

Taxing taxes is government business as usual. It’s just not something politicians spend a lot of time talking about.

The biggest taxes on tax in Ontario are the two surtaxes. If you owe the Ontario tax collector $4,484, she says, “Wow, that’s a lot. We’d better add 20 per cent to that.” If you don’t learn your lesson and owe $5,739 in Ontario taxes, you are hit with a 56-per-cent surtax. The same money could be collected by increasing the Ontario tax brackets, but that would be easier to understand and wouldn’t sound so good when Ontario’s taxes are compared with other provinces.

Beer, wine, gasoline and cigarettes are already subject to the tax on a tax approach. These are all commodities that have been heavily taxed before the HST kicks in, but that doesn’t deter the federal and provincial governments from taxing the taxes they imposed.


In Ontario, there is both a basic beer tax and a beer volume tax. The “basic” tax goes up automatically every year, once because of inflation and the second time, just because. HST is paid on those taxes, but because it’s all cleverly rolled into the price, you don’t see the charge. Wine faces similar basic and volume taxes.

Booze and cigarette taxes are what used to be called sin taxes, back when sin was seen as a guilty pleasure. Driving your car is the new sin. This is where the new gasoline tax comes in. Ontario’s “climate change action plan” seeks to slow global warming by attacking every imaginable source of CO2 emissions. Part of Ontario’s plan to spend $8.3 billion on things like transit and electric car incentives is a 4.3 cent a litre tax on gasoline.

Politicians tell us that putting a price on carbon is a bold move, but when it comes to gasoline, it’s certainly nothing new. There are already substantial taxes. We just don’t call them carbon taxes. The federal government charges an excise tax of 10 cents a litre. The provincial government takes a road tax of 14.7 cents a litre. Then the tax amigos apply the HST on top of it all and split the take.

Across Canada, taxes already make up about 35 per cent of the cost of gasoline. It’s difficult to imagine that the extra 4.3 cents per litre, plus HST, is going to curb the use of automobiles, but it will provide a cash flow for government green programs, and a nice little HST windfall to boot.

It is difficult to discern the intellectual justification for applying HST to taxes. The taxes being taxed certainly are not a good. Are they a service? If our governments wanted to be fair, their array of taxes would each be charged against the base price of the object being taxed, not stacked up on top of each other and subject to HST.

*Don’t expect to hear a rationale for taxing taxes from your provincial government any time soon*. Various fact-related questions for this column were met with a political statement from Finance Minister Charles Sousa’s spokesman, praising the climate plan.

The government’s line of defence is understandable. Really, how could anyone defend taxing taxes?_


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> As to your RRIF question, as I understand it, your RRIF minimum is effectively taxed as "other income". There is actually a line on the taxtips.ca calculator for RRSP/RRIF withdrawals.


 Thus i understand that in order to avoid OAS clawback and higher tax brackets, it make sense to switch to RRIF earlier and withdraw as much as possible witn no tax or minimum tax rate..

Also checked on taxtips.ca,even though RRIF withdrawals and other income are 2 separate boxes, the tax outcaome is the same....

So, in order not to pay taxes at all, my RRIF withdrawals + interest from non-reg should be less than $11,650


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

STech said:


> Good God. That has to be one of the absolute dumbest arguments ever. I'm not trying to offend you TWA2W, but step back and think a little.
> 
> Tax dollars are a finite resource like water, and you can't wastefully drain the well and say it's OK flushing it down the toilet. A lot of government waste doesn't create jobs, it's just waste that adds pressure to increase taxes further, and the taxpayer gets ripped out of services they never got.
> 
> Sadly, a lot of politicians must deeply believe this in their idle minds.


Government waste is not a Canada only problem. And, as TWA pointed out, some of what is called government waste may be considered by many to be an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. 

TBH, I find the feds are generally careful with taxpayer dollars. Our hard working public servants often find themselves stuck in old buildings with old furniture and we refuse to even buy them a cup of coffee. IMO, the system breaks down when politicians get involved or when the rules interfere with common sense. (Specifically I am thinking about m3s' post in the other thread talking about outfitting our military folks with subpar products).


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

IF one can play with tax brackets and find ways to stay in a lower one over longer periods of time, that is probably the ideal situation, and the situation will be different for different folk. That said, given the vagarities and size impacts of the unknown, e.g. market returns, interest rates, changes in tax policy, trying to be precise is likely 'tilting at windmills'. Enjoy life and forget the decimal points.


----------



## Joebaba (Jan 31, 2017)

"So, in order not to pay taxes at all, my RRIF withdrawals + interest from non-reg should be less than $11,650"
That would be true.

"it make sense to switch to RRIF earlier and withdraw as much as possible witn no tax or minimum tax rate."
There are two camps on this - once camp agrees with you 100% - one camp says to leave your registered funds as long as possible, so they continue to grow without taxation.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Joebaba said:


> "So, in order not to pay taxes at all, my RRIF withdrawals + interest from non-reg should be less than $11,650"
> That would be true.
> 
> "it make sense to switch to RRIF earlier and withdraw as much as possible witn no tax or minimum tax rate."
> There are two camps on this - once camp agrees with you 100% - one camp says to leave your registered funds as long as possible, so they continue to grow without taxation.


I'm planning to switch to RRIFs in 1.5-2 years (when i will be 52-53 y.o). Currently I have too much cash in my RRSPs , so it will be enough for 3-4 years of minimum withdravals, also dividends that I receive will be more than enough to get RRIF paymnents, I just will need to turn off DRIPs on about 70% of my investments


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

STech said:


> Good God. That has to be one of the absolute dumbest arguments ever. I'm not trying to offend you TWA2W, but step back and think a little.
> 
> Tax dollars are a finite resource like water, and you can't wastefully drain the well and say it's OK flushing it down the toilet. A lot of government waste doesn't create jobs, it's just waste that adds pressure to increase taxes further, and the taxpayer gets ripped out of services they never got.
> 
> Sadly, a lot of politicians must deeply believe this in their idle minds.


Well I still have to disagree with you. And I did not say it was ok, just that the money does circulate back into the economy. Take the gas plants in Ontario for example. The gov spent money on them to build them then mothballed them if I understand it correctly. Stupid, waste of money. But think of all the worker employed to build them, the materials bought etc. That money did end recirculating into the economy through jobs and material. And more money was likely spent to fence off, decommission, guard etc those plants. That money didn't disappear. It went to Canadian companies and suppliers.
Sure, if the plants were completed and commissioned it may have been far better in terms of having a productive ongoing asset.
Even if a government spends money on advertising, the money goes into the economy through ad agencies, etc.
Could there be a better use? Absolutely. 
Just making a point that government waste does not disappear into a black hole.
Even some of foreign aid now comes back into the country when done properly. Materials bought from Cdn suppliers, Cdn airlines paid to deliver, our workers employed to train locals. Mind you most does certainly end up in some dictators Swiss bank account.
Cheers
J


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Well I still have to disagree with you. And I did not say it was ok, just that the money does circulate back into the economy. Take the gas plants in Ontario for example. The gov spent money on them to build them then mothballed them if I understand it correctly. Stupid, waste of money. But think of all the worker employed to build them, the materials bought etc.


 You remind me joke about Soviet Army... First division digging the ditch, and second bury same ditch ... enormous "motivation" and materials bought (like shovels).
Very efficient economy!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Twa2w is right in the 'wasted' money is re-circulated back into the economy for the benefit of others. The confusion is simply that the initial investment of 'wasted' money has no return for the shareholde, indeed, it is a writeoff from a private company's perspective. From a government perspective there is simply no return....the wasted funds sill do pay for goods and services, in which said goods and services creat positive income/profit for those providing them....who in turn pay taxes. This is the so called multiplier effect of a single dollar being spent. We just don't want our initial investments 'wasted' and ultimately some of the benefits 'leaked' to ex-Canada sources, e.g. imports.

Anyone who has had the responsiblity for conducting 'economic impact' studies and 'cost benefit' studies for major projects will 'understand' it.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

twa2w said:


> Just making a point that government waste does not disappear into a black hole.


I got what you meant, and it's still a silly argument for government waste. Just because pieces of crumb fall to the floor, it doesn't mean the tax payer should be any less furious with the loss of productivity, and theft of services and infrastructure, while the government turns around and raises taxes and fees. You said government waste creates jobs. No it doesn't. It *wastes* money. 






gibor365 said:


> You remind me joke about Soviet Army... First division digging the ditch, and second bury same ditch ... enormous "motivation" and materials bought (like shovels).
> Very efficient economy!


Exactly. Just look at countries like Greece and Italy and their marvelous economies.




AltaRed said:


> This is the so called multiplier effect of a single dollar being spent.


Are you perhaps confusing government stimulus with waste? We're talking about waste here, the word itself is descriptive enough.


And as you mentioned earlier, private companies have waste as well, and I agree with you. I work for a very large corporation, and sometimes we find wasteful leaks, big and small. Those leaks get plugged very quickly, and never repeated. We also realize that if waste isn't controlled, then we'll be out of a job. We realize that we can only raise prices so much, unlike the government with unlimited powers to tax and waste at will.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Just making a point that government waste does not disappear into a black hole.


 It's like to say that sponsorship scandal was n't too bad eighter, hence money "does not disappear into a black hole" and went to different accounts of Liberal mafia members and stayed in "economy"


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> LTR is right but I agree he cleverly picked something that has clawback in it. I disagree with this approach because that person should not be getting OAS in the first place.,,, or I would have clawed it back at 50% rate or so. CARP uses similar tactics on 'effective MTR'. It's all about data mining to make one's case.
> 
> A simliar thing happens for the Age Amount for retirees in the $35-50k range or so (may not have the numbers correct). The 'effective MTR' rises during that window and then drops back once the Age Amount is fully clawed back. I hate it when people use numbers that way...especially when one is getting 'entitlement' money.


hehe, OK, but that's just an opinion, and one that many will agree with, just as many will disagree. I know and respect your position on this, as it's your particular axe to grind, although perhaps it would be better not stated so dogmatically as above, because there are lots of other perks for seniors along with OAS that many may debate about, just as there are many tax credits for seniors that reduce tax owing and just as many tax deductions for seniors that reduce taxable income. I can agree with or disagree with just one or many. I happen to feel that seniors income splitting is incredibly unfair to singles, but no one likes to talk about that.. Whatever! Why fix on OAS in my example and not another of the many modifiers to tax owing? They all contribute to a final tax bill that is very real for many people.

The fact remains that I don't think it's out of line in a discussion about Canadian taxes when I point out that any senior that makes between $75000 and $140000 along with CPP and OAS is taxed with a marginal rate of 51.9%. Many can ameliorate that unfortunate situation with income splitting, but it's still a fact. The numbers I chose in my example weren't clever or deceptive since those numbers are fairly familiar to me. Personally, if I make a $1000, and I am taxed $519, it doesn't sit too well. You can call me clever, but it's hard to present it any other way. If you're in that tax bracket, you'll probably remain in it, so every time you invest, you know your return will go to CRA to the tune of 51.9%.

And of course, new member Joebaba calls my posts, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". I'll just bet if Joebab made $1000 he wouldn't have to pay CRA $519. Just a guess.

ltr


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

That $1000 you "made" was a welfare payment from the government, though. By the same token, taxes on someone getting welfare are also at an exceedingly high tax rate if they decide to get a job as well as receiving welfare.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Any system that has a series of tax credits, benefits and clawbacks will skew the results for a particular group. Would be much better to not have any targeted programs...except maybe the safety net for those that would otherwise starve to death or be homeless. I agree with LTR that pension splitting is unfair too...for single people but if there is some light at the end of that tunnel, I suspect it won't be more than another 15 years or so that much of that largesse will disappear (as the one income families die off). Not much solace I know.

LTR, I pick particularly on OAS and GIS because the system is really f*cked up. GIS is woefully inadequate for those in need and rich people (especially middle class and above couples) don't need OAS. The fix would not be difficult if someone in Ottawa had balls.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Joebaba said:


> If you plug LTR's numbers into the taxtips.ca calculator, you'll come up with a tax bill of $18,671 (for Ontario).
> Then add $1000 of interest and the tax bill becomes $19,190 ...


Weird ... I used CPP at the max of $1114 to end up with annual CPP of $13,3790 with OAS of $578 for an annual amount of $6942.

If I assume the dividends are Canadian Eligible Dividends (i.e. taxable income for the OAS clawback of $26,230), I end up with:
"Total taxes, clawbacks, CPP/EI premiums" of $18,027 where bumping up the interest entry by $1K increases the tax by $505.

Where the dividends are Canadian non-Eligible Dividends (taxable income of $22230), it changes to $19,411 with the increase in tax is $472.

Using Foreign Dividends or Capital gains removed the gross up for the OAS test, where the increased tax was $438 or $437.


It looks to me that the OAS clawback is the main part but the second factor is the gross up of the Canadian dividends.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> twa2w said:
> 
> 
> > ... Take the gas plants in Ontario for example. The gov spent money on them to build them then mothballed them if I understand it correctly. Stupid, waste of money. But think of all the worker employed to build them, the materials bought etc. That money did end recirculating into the economy ...
> ...


YMMV ... where something was built - sure, some $$$ were spread around.

The recent gas plant *cancellations* built nothing, were said to cost about $270 million for cancelling both plants. The Auditor General put the cancellation costs at $950 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_power_plant_scandal

Then there's the executive salaries/bonuses, no matter what was produced.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/onta...ndal-plagued-ornge-ehealth-agencies-1.2077067


Cheers


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

"Democracy can be a tool, or a family of tools, for achieving the humility that wealth can otherwise life beyond reach."


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The $950 million went somewhere........unless the Martians took it.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

none said:


> "Democracy can be a tool, or a family of tools, for achieving the humility that wealth can otherwise life beyond reach."


Lift, not life. But thank you, led me to an interesting article


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

lagagnon said:


> Please provide data to show that the overall tax rate for Canadians is significantly higher than any other developed world nation. I don't see it. We're pretty much ball park overall...


USA, Colorado is a quick example that comes to mind.
And please don't get me started with Quebec and their French bohers / "intelligentsia".


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> [...] The new, carbon-busting Ontario tax on gasoline will soon join this crowded field.
> 
> The pièce de résistance in the tax world, though, is the tax on taxes. There was a bit of a stir a few days ago when CTV revealed that HST will be charged on the carbon tax. It is, of course, an outrage, but sadly not a surprise.


Booooo! I hope that made all the "global warming" ... errrr "climate change" aficionados super-happy, eh? BOOOOO!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> I do not have a problem with our tax regime. We have both been in the top marginal tax bracket for many years. We have paid a fair amount of tax. But we happen to live in a great country with many services and privileges that we take advantage of.
> 
> Yes, there is Government waste at all levels (and there always will be regardless of the party in power). We have to remain vigilant in order to keep them half ways honest. But don't kid yourself, there is a fair amount of waste in private companies as well. You just do not hear about it and it does not make for good press.
> 
> We have traveled internationally a fair bit. We often think than many Canadians do not realize how fortunate we really are.


When a private company wastes their money, they don't come and forcibly take more from you.
It's absolutely disgusting that the working poor still have to pay taxes, while they can barely cover their own necessities.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

It's hardly a myth that Canada's personal income taxes are high regardless of the quality or quantity of services.

If you're making $500k, your total taxes could easily run 60-70% of your income when you factor in everything. This is part of the reason why the best, brightest, and most motivated regularly move to the United States, and why Canada struggles to aspire beyond mediocrity and the productivity gap is rising.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

gt_23 said:


> It's hardly a myth that Canada's personal income taxes are high regardless of the quality or quantity of services.
> 
> If you're making $500k, your total taxes could easily run 60-70% of your income when you factor in everything. This is part of the reason why the best, brightest, and most motivated regularly move to the United States, and why Canada struggles to aspire beyond mediocrity and the productivity gap is rising.


Canadian tax estimator says that with 500K employment income in Ontario, you take home 267K.
An American tax estimator for California shows that with 500K employment income, you take home 298K.

With these numbers you'd take home 12% more pay in California, or 30K better off.

Now consider that in California, you face enormously higher medical costs and also much higher liabilities if you're the kind of professional who might earn 500K (say a doctor or lawyer). Between those medical costs and legal liabilities you assume in the US, it's really not clear whether you're better off in the US... despite the nominal 30K tax advantage.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

I guess you didn't read what I wrote, I was talking about total taxes, not just income tax.

I've worked in the US several times and never paid for healthcare, along with the bulk of other Americans. And this doesn't even consider the quality of healthcare, only the cost to deliver, but lets not go there. Judging purely from watching a grandparent go through the Canadian system, I don't think it could be much worse in another developed country.

The paper that was posted to justify this thread is bogus and probably politically motivated. On page 3 alone, they state the average tax rate for incomes above $250k as 29%. Plug $250k into EY calculator and average rate is 39% for Ontario and this is only income tax, the total tax burden would be much higher. There's more errors all throughout even without looking that hard.

It's sad that smart people can't be more fact-based and objective. Maybe if that we're possibly we could start to create better outcomes instead of engaging in futile debates and politics.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Judging purely from watching a grandparent go through the Canadian system, I don't think it could be much worse in another developed country.


 Don't know about other provinces, but healthcare is Ontario is a disaster. Before coming here in 1999, I couldn't even imagine that OHIP is so bad.



> Canadian tax estimator says that with 500K employment income in Ontario, you take home 267K.
> An American tax estimator for California shows that with 500K employment income, you take home 298K.
> 
> With these numbers you'd take home 12% more pay in California, or 30K better off.


Interesting why did you select state with one of the highest taxes... In Colorado , you take home 313K. Also , in states you can fill taxes as a family (aka income split), in Canada - no way!

btw, if Ontario is so f$%^& awesome, why did you move to Oregon?!


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

gibor365 said:


> Interesting why did you select state with one of the highest taxes... In Colorado , you take home 313K. Also , in states you can fill taxes as a family (aka income split), in Canada - no way!
> 
> btw, if Ontario is so f$%^& awesome, why did you move to Oregon?!


In fairness isn't Ontario one of the highest tax rates for Canada (at least at the 500K mark?) In Alberta or BC you'd take home in the $291-$292 range, still less than Colorado but basically the same as California.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Few people actually pay taxes at the rate specified and the tax deductions are different, so it is impossible to compare jurisdictions.


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

I think the bottom line in my eyes, is that if you want to argue that taxes are too high (they are) in Canada and that changes should be made, I agree.

But looking at our neighbors to the south with envy about what their taxation and government system is like, is insane. I can't see the rational argument that they get more for their tax dollars than we do for ours. 

Their health care alone is the greatest example of waste in the world. They pay significant tax dollars towards it, with a huge percent of their population not being covered properly, and the rest either paying through the nose for theirs or having their company do the same. Insurance companies walk away laughing with billions.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

CalgaryPotato said:


> I think the bottom line in my eyes, is that if you want to argue that taxes are too high (they are) in Canada and that changes should be made, I agree.
> 
> But looking at our neighbors to the south with envy about what their taxation and government system is like, is insane ...


+1 ... I have mentioned to people going to the US, particularly a cousin that tax rates are only part of the picture. Some stayed in the US but agreed it was far more complicated/costly than comparing just tax rates while others moved back to Canada in under a year.


There is a lot of variation among US states so a lot depends on where the job is / desired location.


Cheers


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> In fairness isn't Ontario one of the highest tax rates for Canada (at least at the 500K mark?)


Not really  NS, NB, QC have even higher taxes on such income..



> There is a lot of variation among US states so a lot depends on where the job is / desired location.


 Looks like OR is pretty good as James is not to eager come back to "awesome" Ontario 



> I have mentioned to people going to the US, particularly a cousin that tax rates are only part of the picture. Some stayed in the US but agreed it was far more complicated/costly than comparing just tax rates while others moved back to Canada in under a year.


 Maybe, but still much more people going from Canada to US than in opposite direction... 
Personally, I'm not a big fan of US (maybe it will change when America will become "great again") . I don't really understand US healthcare system, but Canadian is competely sucks, for example, it's insane that if I don't want to wait 5-6 months for MRI (or my idiot GP doesn't want to give me referral) and want to pay my own money, I need to drive to US or fly to Cuba! (MRI will be done same day)...
Healthcare systems in Western Europe and Israel are much better


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Americans are going to Mexico for their health care.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> Americans are going to Mexico for their health care.


Canadians too! But no one going to Canada 
If somebody would tell me some time ago that to get good and fast medical tests, we will need to fly from Canada to Cuba , I'd think it's a joke, but this's reality... in some cases Canada is more communist than Cuba


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

One example, Cuba
*Cheap foreign dental care attracting more Quebecers, says Order of Dentists*
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cheap-dental-care-sherbrooke-1.3630379

another example, Mexico
http://www.mexicodental.co/prices_for/Dental Implants


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

gibor365 said:


> Don't know about other provinces, but healthcare is Ontario is a disaster. Before coming here in 1999, I couldn't even imagine that OHIP is so bad.


What kind of problems have you encountered with OHIP? I've been under OHIP for most of my life.

The simplicity of healthcare in Canada is really beautiful: use your provincial health card. Travel between provinces and show the same card. No bills.

Also, American health coverage is usually not complete coverage. For example at my company, we are covered under a health plan ... except, if you are unfortunate, and have a certain ailment that is not fully covered, you will still pay out of pocket. One of my coworkers had to spend over $10,000 out of her own pocket for pregnancy complications. This is the reality of US healthcare: it usually does not cover everything. Unless you have the best health plan in America, you probably have a co-pay and will still be paying 15% (or something like that) of your bills.

And it's extremely complicated. Each health plan is designed to screw you, with caveats, exclusions, out of pocket maximums, time limits, etc... NOBODY can figure out how their US health plan works.

When you get unlucky in the US, you can go broke. At the barber shop I overheard a story of someone who picked up a staph infection, required hospitalization, and ended up with over $300,000 of medical bills -- despite having a health plan. He had to sell his house and negotiate with the hospital to reduce the bill. This is how ugly American healthcare is, it can cost you a fortune even if you have coverage.

The first doctor I saw in America actually said something to me like, if you ever have a very serious medical problem, you should probably head back to Canada ASAP and re-gain your provincial health care. The consequences of staying in America, when being very sick, can mean hundreds of thousands in medical bills, possibly millions of $. *And of course as soon as you lose your job -- you're hosed.*



> btw, if Ontario is so f$%^& awesome, why did you move to Oregon?!


I came to Oregon for the job opportunity in my specialized field, and this company really is great. I did not move here due to higher salary. I also really like the geography here: lots of forests, mountains, and ocean. It's an extremely attractive part of the world.

If I knew how complicated the health care situation was, and how difficult it is to deal with the IRS & immigration system, I probably would be in Ontario, Manitoba, BC, or in Australia ... all places that I've spent time in and like.


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

What James (above) said +1

My wife and I lived and worked in the US for 6 years and we did it strictly for the money. We heard from many people who lived there the horror show of their medical system. The people who were fortunate enough to have a good medical plan told us of medical situations that often went well over $100,000. Others with less plans told of fearing they would run out of coverage and go bankrupt. We worked with people who said when they retired they figured much of their pension would go to paying for their medical coverage!!!

Our plan (Blue Cross) was good and we could get almost any test we wanted but I believe care and treatment I received in Canada before and after the US was just as good and in many ways better.

And Gibor maybe it is a good thing that one can't easily get any test (e.g, MRI) you want. In the US they are rewarded for all the tests/drugs/ etc they prescrib and that drives costs up.

We have relatives/friends who recently had serious medical problems (quintuple bypass/liver cancer) and they both praise the care they are getting.

My wife and I firmly believe life in Canada is far, far better than US and we were so thrilled to return home in 2006. And that was in the Bush era - I can't imagine how miserable we would feel if we were living in US now that the idiot tRump is president. (In fact many Americans we meet in our travels only half-jockingly talk about moving to Canada


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Last time I was in emergency room there was a 6 hour wait to see a doctor and 12 hours if a person needed to bed.

In my doctor's office there are signs advising patients NOT to visit emergency clinics, but to go to the emergency room at the hospital.

I am not sure what that is all about. Sparring over turf maybe.

Canada has a good system, but we need to increase funding substantially as the population ages and more people become ill.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> In my doctor's office there are signs advising patients NOT to visit emergency clinics, but to go to the emergency room at the hospital.
> 
> I am not sure what that is all about. .


Interesting. I have no idea what that's all about. I haven't seen that in my doctors office.

I had occasion to use one of these clinics a year ago and it was quite good. I had a problem that popped up one day and since my doctor was all the way across town, and I would have to make an appointment, etc, etc, I thought I would test out one of these AppleTree Medical Center Clinics that was down at the end of my street at the local shopping center. I went down and registered at the desk and sat in the waiting room for a very short time and then saw a doctor who gave me a prescription for the problem and that was that. Seemed to work out OK. I can't imagine it would have been so easy at the Hospital Emergency Room. I've been there and it ain't fun.

ltr


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

sags said:


> Last time I was in emergency room there was a 6 hour wait to see a doctor and 12 hours if a person needed to bed.
> 
> In my doctor's office there are signs advising patients NOT to visit emergency clinics, but to go to the emergency room at the hospital.
> 
> ...


Canada has a good system, but there is a major gap like you said. Emergency rooms push back and say to only go for emergencies, but clinics are very unempowered to do much more than long term referrals and therefore are constantly sending people to emergency.

The other major gap is outpatient care, especially for things like terminal illnesses or things needing tests at hospitals. I've had experiences with family members spending weeks at the hospital for the sole purpose of getting a test done every 2-3 days. But the system isn't set up in a way that they can have that person outpatient and still able to get those tests (unless they go on multi month waiting lists). 

And with terminal illnesses they don't properly medicate people dealing with those things, unless they are inpatient. I understand there are concerns about addictions, etc. But watching relatives with cancer suffer because doctors refuse to fill a proper morphine prescription for them unless they are in a facility is madness.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> What kind of problems have you encountered with OHIP? I've been under OHIP for most of my life.


 Tons of problems!
There was a thread about my wife "adventures" with MRI.
I had fracture, GR in walked-in clinic didn't even want to send me to X-rays (just said use the ice), after I insisted and went to X-ray, same GP said "Sorry, my mistakem you have fracture, go to emergency as I don't know what to do"). I went to Milton Hostipal emergency, waited for 7 hours, at the end they did nothing and told to come next day as an orthoped doesn't work anyway. Very "nice service"!
My daughter has issues with knee , and our GP didn't want to send her to MRI, not even give her referral to orthoped... just said to use Voltaren (just wanted to suggest her to shove voltaren in her ***).
Even more, here our "specialists" cannot even properly use MRI or read results (my son's example who was diagnosed with ACL full tear, and when orthoped opened his knee - issue was completely different). Exavtly the same was with other patient.
Our GP is an idiot and we cannot get any good GP as they just don't accept new patients. Per one visit, our GP allowed to ask her only 3 questions. What a joke! OHIP is completely retarded.
When I came to Canada , I was 33 and completely healthy, I went to GP maybe 3-4 times in 7-8 first years I lived there, so I was thinking that OHIP is OK (even though I was surprised to see in Canada same devices I've seen in USSR 30-35 years ago ). However, when you start having issues with your health, you will see how bad it it.



> This is the reality of US healthcare: it usually does not cover everything. Unless you have the best health plan in America, you probably have a co-pay and will still be paying 15% (or something like that) of your bills.
> 
> And it's extremely complicated. Each health plan is designed to screw you, with caveats, exclusions, out of pocket maximums, time limits, etc... NOBODY can figure out how their US health plan works


Probably it's true, I just see how our Manulife or Sunlife is trying to screw us with paramedicals, drugs or dental.
And I said thousand time that I;m not big fan of US healthcare eighter, Healthcare in Europe or Israel (probably Australia) is much better and efficieant thatn both Canada's or US's.



> if you ever have a very serious medical problem, you should probably head back to Canada ASAP and re-gain your provincial health care.


 so you will slowly die while on waiting list?! Excellent alternative!



> I came to Oregon for the job opportunity in my specialized field, and this company really is great. I did not move here due to higher salary.


 Oh, really?! When you just moved, you were braging how salary in OR is higher than in Ontario...



> I also really like the geography here: lots of forests, mountains, and ocean. It's an extremely attractive part of the world.


 I know... been thereand also like it much more than plain ON...
7 years ago we were offered excellent relocation package to OR, CA ot AZ... We were very close to accept it, but because of kids, healthcare, CRA amd some other obstacles decided not to.... probably , big mistake.



> If I knew how complicated the health care situation was, and how difficult it is to deal with the IRS & immigration system, I probably would be in Ontario, Manitoba, BC, or in Australia


 I hear you! If I knew in 1999 what is Ontario about and what gonna be with this place in 20 years, we'd probably in Israel, US or Australia right now.
Just don't get what is your problem?! You are single and don't even have US green card.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Canada has a good system


 Really?! have you ever used other countries system?! No wonder WHO put Canada on 35th or so place in the world


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's a recent ranking, and places Canada 16th in the world on health care
http://www.businessinsider.com/healthiest-countries-in-the-world-2017-1/


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Here's a recent ranking, and places Canada 16th in the world on health care
> http://www.businessinsider.com/healthiest-countries-in-the-world-2017-1/


Somehow I believe more to WHO ranking where Canada ranked 30th below not only majority of developed countries, but also below Greeece, Columbia and Morocco....
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

btw, even in link you provided Israel is on 9th place, so it support my statement that Israeli healthcare much better than Canadian one....
P.S. Business Insider looks to me like some tabloid , for example they rank Canada's quality of life at #5 because .... * Canada — This country ranks high in affordable housing. In the 2000s, Toronto and Vancouver's government rezoned all single family neighborhoods, so that homeowners could rent out extra rooms (thus increasing the amount of affordable rent available).* - really?! because of our affordable housing??! Can be considered "joke of the year" .

For me, advantages of Canada are: - relatively low level of crime and terrorism *hopefully Justin won;t have time to ruin it) and sound banking system


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Israel huh...............maybe the Amazing Rabbis visit people in hospitals.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> And Gibor maybe it is a good thing that one can't easily get any test (e.g, MRI) you want. In the US they are rewarded for all the tests/drugs/ etc they prescrib and that drives costs up.


 Sorry. but you are talking nonsense... Let's won;t do any med tests and cost will be extremely low 

btw, Onratio has private MRI, but this is exclusively for "chosen" people


> MedCentra's MRI services were established exclusively for organizations in the medical, legal, corporate, WSIB, insurance, and research communities that often require MRI exams for their patients, clients or employees immediately.


 Pure USSR where high-rank communist party members had special medical care


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Perhaps health service depends in part on where you live, province, city, etc. as well as on the professional services offered.

We have had some significant health issues in our family over the past few years. The health care provided has been first rate. Right down to air evac from a regional hospital to a specialized hospital.

There will always be a challenge with health services. If only because medicine is constantly changing...faster than the various health authorities can act. In our jurisdiction we have urgent care facilities. This is in between the physicians office and emerg.

My spouse was in an urgent care facility last month ago and had an immediate MRI. But, if this hand not been urgent her wait time could have been as much as a month depending on urgency. She has had a follow up MRI and two hospital specialist visits/consults within a month of her first complaint. But, her condition was deemed urgent.

Our experience is that the system will take care of you immediately if your situation is urgent. Our friends in BC had a grandchild born with a heart issue. Six or seven hours of surgery, lengthy hospital stay, constant follow up. Hate to think of this cost for an uninsured in USA. My dad had a pacemaker put in within a week in BC.

My spouse is a nurse. She is constantly amazed by how many people show up in emerg with minor issues or with issues that could have been dealt with in a more effective manner had the individual acted in a timely manner instead of waiting days to come in.

The system will never be perfect...if only because of the limitations on funding. Bottom line is that we feel that our tax rate is reasonable (and we have been in the highest marginal bracket for many years) and we feel extremely fortunate to have been born in Canada.

It is one thing to complain about things, another to whine incessantly. I guess it comes down to outlook and attitude.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

We have had mixed results with BC medplan. Everything was fine until our GP died of a heart attack. Then we began a search that took a year to find a new one. She turned out to be great once we had her trained. Main problem was her reluctance to give us referrals to our existing specialists. But eventually she turned out to be better than our old GP.

But in December, she resigned while we were in Mexico. I broke my foot (3 metatarcels) in mid-April. When I returned at tha end of April with my fibreglas cast on, I went to emergency and in 40 minutes completed my screening, had a CT-Scan, and a referral to an orthopaedic surgeon. He outfitted me with a walking cast which I used for 3 weeks. Now trying to recover my lower body strength through special exercises.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> ... Let's won;t do any med tests and cost will be extremely low


Which is why the two Tampa businessmen who had bought the gold plated HMO plan did not get diagnosed with cancer for an additional two years. Their provider deemed the cancer test too expensive so their doctor wasn't allowed to use it.

The part I couldn't figure out from the article outlining their law suit was why their aim was to get the marketing material changed instead of any damages.


The neighbour had some choice words about how when her husband was on IV, he couldn't eat for the two weeks before dying - yet the bill included full breakfast, lunch and dinner as if he was eating. Her lawyer got a bit knocked off the bill but it wasn't enough to prevent her having to sell her home, move into the trailer park and keep working on paying the debt off.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

kcowan said:


> We have had mixed results with BC medplan. Everything was fine until our GP died of a heart attack. Then we began a search that took a year to find a new one.


As an aside, on family doctors:

I know that finding a family doctor is a common problem in Canada (I've experienced that too), but Americans have this same problem. People at my US office constantly talk about the difficulty of finding a steady doctor. When I went looking for one in the US, I found that most of them were not accepting new patients.

Many of my US coworkers are relying on urgent care clinics for their regular medical care... much like the Canadian situation. The difference? Visit one of those in the US, and you pay $200 to $500 bucks a pop. Then you wait a few weeks, maybe months, and get an invoice in the mail, then connect it through your insurance and yadda yadda yadda ... maybe you pay out of pocket, maybe you don't.


----------

