Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The "winning conditions" are not in place.

No, but unfortunately Justin Trudeau and his vision of Canada is a winning condition.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Even if an individual lived and worked outside of Atlantic Canada and returned home to retire, they would have to have a place to live. Likely, they would be living off a pension and/or a RRIF. Those financial instruments are taxed and the province of residence would be getting their cut. Plus, they would be spending money to live; hence HST and other tax revenues to the province of residence. It's not like they are living for free and are not contributing.

Retirees do spend some money, but since they (mostly) dont work, they dont produce anything anymore (economically speaking). So they are using services (food, housing, gas, government services and so on) but they dont help produce them. And with a worker shortage in many fields, it is a problem.

And one of the main sector where we need workers is healthcare, which is exactly the type of services older people use the most. I think we spend more medical ressources in the last 5 weeks of life than in the first 20 years. No, I dont remember the source for that (I read that a long time ago) but right now it shouldn't be very far from that ratio. So, Alberta has people during their most productive years, after people got their costly education, then the same people go back home to retire at the (very high) cost of their original province. That definitely is worth some equalization!

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

There are more floor sweepers in Calgary earning minimum wage than well-paid lawyers in Campbellton. Hence, Calgary floor sweepers contribute more to equalization than Campbellton lawyers.

Maybe, but a minimum wage sweepers will be at the very bottom of the tax brackets, and with the various low wage related subsidies they will receive, they might cost more to the government that what they bring. On the other end, the well-paid lawyers will be taxed at the top bracket (which will bring the government a lot of money) and probably not receive as many subsidies as the sweepers.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Retirees do spend some money, but since they (mostly) dont work, they dont produce anything anymore (economically speaking). So they are using services (food, housing, gas, government services and so on) but they dont help produce them. And with a worker shortage in many fields, it is a problem.

And one of the main sector where we need workers is healthcare, which is exactly the type of services older people use the most. I think we spend more medical ressources in the last 5 weeks of life than in the first 20 years. No, I dont remember the source for that (I read that a long time ago) but right now it shouldn't be very far from that ratio. So, Alberta has people during their most productive years, after people got their costly education, then the same people go back home to retire at the (very high) cost of their original province. That definitely is worth some equalization!

Areas in Canada that attract large areas of retirees (such as areas on Vancouver Island, etc.) end up developing a cluster of services to support retirees; which creates jobs, wealth and tax revenues. There's high end senior/retiree housing; in-home medical care; recreational services; wealth management, etc. There are individuals and companies doing quite well financially in the provision of services to retirees.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Maybe, but a minimum wage sweepers will be at the very bottom of the tax brackets, and with the various low wage related subsidies they will receive, they might cost more to the government that what they bring. On the other end, the well-paid lawyers will be taxed at the top bracket (which will bring the government a lot of money) and probably not receive as many subsidies as the sweepers.

Indeed, and I should think that this would be obvious to most. People in the bottom quarter of the economic strata are contributing very little (probably a net loss, actually) to federal (and provincial) government finances.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Areas in Canada that attract large areas of retirees (such as areas on Vancouver Island, etc.) end up developing a cluster of services to support retirees; which creates jobs, wealth and tax revenues. There's high end senior/retiree housing; in-home medical care; recreational services; wealth management, etc. There are individuals and companies doing quite well financially in the provision of services to retirees.

All true, but I think the overall financial impact of retirees in coastal BC (and also a classic mega-example like Florida) is much more of a net benefit in that these retirees are totally new people, not returnees.

Atlantic Canadians who return home after working in Alberta during the peak years are double-dippers: they were net takers of the health, social program and education system when they were younger, then they were out of province for their peak contribution years so paid into Alberta's coffers, and then they come back in retirement and cost their birth province money again.

[lio45]

Retirees are fine when they're not a burden. Florida has world-class healthcare and hospitals thanks to them, for example.

However, when the entirety of the healthcare they'll cost until the day they die comes from the government's coffers, it's different. Retirees in such a system can easily be a net negative, financially, even though they do buy things.

Healthcare is one of the biggest costs to all provinces, and old people cost the lion's share of that.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

Retirees are fine when they're not a burden. Florida has world-class healthcare and hospitals thanks to them, for example.

However, when the entirety of the healthcare they'll cost until the day they die comes from the government's coffers, it's different. Retirees in such a system can easily be a net negative, financially, even though they do buy things.

Healthcare is one of the biggest costs to all provinces, and old people cost the lion's share of that.

And Canada has had decades to prepare for "end of Boomers", and chose not to.

[lio45]

It's fine that Boomers will cost a fortune in healthcare, it's expected, the problem is when the jurisdictions that have to pay the aforementioned fortune are not the same ones that pocketed all the taxes those same Boomers paid during their earning years.

This problem can only be solved with an equalization program.

Do you think a situation like "I'll pay all my income and sales taxes to France, while I'll bill Germany for all my healthcare and education costs" would be tolerated anywhere else?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's fine that Boomers will cost a fortune in healthcare, it's expected, the problem is when the jurisdictions that have to pay the aforementioned fortune are not the same ones that pocketed all the taxes those same Boomers paid during their earning years.

This problem can only be solved with an equalization program.

Do you think a situation like "I'll pay all my income and sales taxes to France, while I'll bill Germany for all my healthcare and education costs" would be tolerated anywhere else?

I somehow doubt that this situation was something that was envisioned when the program was created in the late 1950s, but that said it no doubt has greatly contributed to the program's long-term socio-political sustainability. (And that of the country, in the process.)

If its creators are looking down from the heavens on it today, they'd probably nod in approval.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's fine that Boomers will cost a fortune in healthcare, it's expected, the problem is when the jurisdictions that have to pay the aforementioned fortune are not the same ones that pocketed all the taxes those same Boomers paid during their earning years.

This problem can only be solved with an equalization program.

Do you think a situation like "I'll pay all my income and sales taxes to France, while I'll bill Germany for all my healthcare and education costs" would be tolerated anywhere else?

That's an apples and oranges comparison. Don't think there would any issue if a German who grew up in the Saarland; moved to Berlin to "make their fortune" and returned to the Saarland upon retirement.

One also has to consider one of the main reasons for migration from Atlantic Canada to Alberta, Ontario, etc. was due to the lack of work. If individuals did not move and stayed "at home"; likely they may have been unemployed and/or underemployed and would have been a strain on their province's social services. Working in Alberta removes this burden.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

That's an apples and oranges comparison. Don't think there would any issue if a German who grew up in the Saarland; moved to Berlin to "make their fortune" and returned to the Saarland upon retirement.

One also has to consider one of the main reasons for migration from Atlantic Canada to Alberta, Ontario, etc. was due to the lack of work. If individuals did not move and stayed "at home"; likely they may have been unemployed and/or underemployed and would have been a strain on their province's social services. Working in Alberta removes this burden.

Germany actually has a form of equalization between the country's constituent entities.

That said, there are also challenges in Canada that smaller countries don't usually face, including much greater distances to seek jobs, less continuous population settlement making it less likely that the economy is better an hour or two away, and greater regional economic disparities and differences in economic potential between regions.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Areas in Canada that attract large areas of retirees (such as areas on Vancouver Island, etc.) end up developing a cluster of services to support retirees; which creates jobs, wealth and tax revenues. There's high end senior/retiree housing; in-home medical care; recreational services; wealth management, etc. There are individuals and companies doing quite well financially in the provision of services to retirees.

It can work well if the retirees in question are relatively healthy, or if they pay their healthcare with their own money. But when they are very sick and the government has to pay for their care, it is definitely not profitable for the government, regardless of the employment it creates. When the retirees live their retirement in the same place they worked during their active year, you could say they prepaid for the care they would receive later.

[Acajack]

The crazy French political situation leads to a heated altercation at St-Pierre-et-Miquelon airport, not far from SignalHillHiker!

https://x.com/SPMla1ere/status/1801653887427883405

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The crazy French political situation leads to a heated altercation at St-Pierre-et-Miquelon airport, not far from SignalHillHiker!

https://x.com/SPMla1ere/status/1801653887427883405

We should just seize those two. The French have their hands full with New Caledonia.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by whatnext

We should just seize those two. The French have their hands full with New Caledonia.

Though SPM is a nice place, if Canada is going to seize a French overseas territory (France d'outre-mer), how about somewhere warmer?!? Say Saint Martin or St. Barts!

[kwoldtimer]

Russia seizes territory, not Canada.

[Truenorth00]

I gotta say this guy is amazing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/qLxLgmwt9Q

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

No, but unfortunately Justin Trudeau and his vision of Canada is a winning condition.

Even many Canadians now want to separate from Trudeau's post-national vision of Canada, which in effect turns Canada into a giant International Airport.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The US media sided with the Free French of de Gaulle against the Roosevelt administration regarding Saint Pierre and Miquelon, a far smaller territory than Québec, and that's a historical fact, not some speculation.

There was a great documentary on French television tonight about Saint Pierre and Miquelon during WW2. Very interesting. They covered in great length the incident of SPM's capture by the Free French, and the violent reaction of the Roosevelt administration. One detail I had forgotten the other day which they recounted tonight: Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State, who lost his temper over the whole affair, called the Free French "the so-called Free French". This led US newspapers (which supported de Gaulle and his Free French) to call Cordell Hull "the so-called Secretary of State". That's how much the US media can support a foreign government against their own government sometimes, under exceptional circumstances.