www.ditl.org

SolkaTruesilver wrote:As long as the ex-canadian provinces can retain some of their previous federal structure - like the paid healthcare, against, obviously, extra taxes,

You can't. The whole basis of being a state of the U.S. is, well... being a state of the U.S.

SolkaTruesilver wrote: Independant and Sovereign Republic

Go for it.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:As long as the ex-canadian provinces can retain some of their previous federal structure - like the paid healthcare, against, obviously, extra taxes,

You can't. The whole basis of being a state of the U.S. is, well... being a state of the U.S.

Can't states have cooperation accords? Can't the Federal government administrate an inter-state agreement that only applies to volounteering states?

I mean, how unflexible is the USA's federation?

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote: Independant and Sovereign Republic

Go for it.

If I have my say, we will. And if I have my say, I'm gonna do my best to remain friends with Canadians. Can't say they are bad neighbours, they just a lousy landlord.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Can't states have cooperation accords? Can't the Federal government administrate an inter-state agreement that only applies to volounteering states?

I mean, how unflexible is the USA's federation?

Of course a state in the Union could have its own single-payer or state healthcare plan. If Quebec, for example, were to join the Union it could certainly administer its own healthcare program. However, you can't continue what you have now, because that's not a program of your province - it's a program of your nation, and one which the U.S.A. couldn't offer because it's one which we don't have to offer.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Can't states have cooperation accords? Can't the Federal government administrate an inter-state agreement that only applies to volounteering states?

I mean, how unflexible is the USA's federation?

Of course a state in the Union could have its own single-payer or state healthcare plan. If Quebec, for example, were to join the Union it could certainly administer its own healthcare program. However, you can't continue what you have now, because that's not a program of your province - it's a program of your nation, and one which the U.S.A. couldn't offer because it's one which we don't have to offer.

It would work. After all, Canada's healthcare system is administrated on the provincial level, it's just that the law is federal, and the federal government gives money proportionnaly to the use (with an elaborated insurance system).

But yhea, overall, I wouldn't mind Canada joining as multitude of states. It's not like it would be "The U.S. annexing Canada". Joining the U.S. as states is perfectly acceptable and honorable, AFAIK, as most of the current States did joined of their own free will with no shame (a few others were merely conquered from Mexico)

The whole process would take years to process, as the administrative structure wouldn't disapear overnight, obviously. But I think it'd be a good thing. As long as Quebec is allowed to keep it's cultural identity-protective laws, I got a hard time seeing the bad points.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:most of the current States did joined of their own free will

On the contrary - most of the territory of the US was either bought or conquered. I'm sure Tsu would be happy to give you chapter and verse on the latter point.

As long as Quebec is allowed to keep it's cultural identity-protective laws, I got a hard time seeing the bad points.

Other than the slight issue of joining a country that, despite having the world's largest GDP, does an excellent imitation of a third-world shithole.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:It would work.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:it's just that the law is federal, and the federal government gives money proportionnaly to the use (with an elaborated insurance system).

These two statements are mutually exclusive. We don't have a nationalized healthcare plan, much less a single-payer system, so no state that instituted such a plan would be federally funded - there's no money for such a thing to fund it.

Captain Seafort wrote:Other than the slight issue of joining a country that, despite having the world's largest GDP, does an excellent imitation of a third-world shithole.

Beg pardon? I trust from this assertion that you mean that there's no poverty or homelessness in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, or anywhere else at all in the U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I.

I'd be interested to see your source for the comparison of what's considered to be the poverty line in the U.S. vs. that of the U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I. or Western continental Europe, as well as such a comparison for the average per capita income.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:It would work.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:it's just that the law is federal, and the federal government gives money proportionnaly to the use (with an elaborated insurance system).

These two statements are mutually exclusive. We don't have a nationalized healthcare plan, much less a single-payer system, so no state that instituted such a plan would be federally funded - there's no money for such a thing to fund it.

I don't think so. The very, very, very simple solution is obvious: have the tax points used to pay the healthcare system be transferred from what is Canada's federal level to the Provinces', and then the provinces join the state.

OK - then what state/province level programs can you get rid of with no repercussions to fund that instead?

Captain Seafort wrote:

As long as Quebec is allowed to keep it's cultural identity-protective laws, I got a hard time seeing the bad points.

Other than the slight issue of joining a country that, despite having the world's largest GDP, does an excellent imitation of a third-world shithole.

Seeing as it's not like we'd suddenly lose our economy overnight because we'd joint he U.S., I don't see how the U.S.'s citizen average standard of living is going to overflow through us. With NAFTA, businesses who already want to settle in USA rather than Quebec already do. So joining the US wouldn't have any big impact on that.

If anything, the lowering of protectionism on the U.S.'s part would benefit us a lot. When they start to go into one of their random patriotic rethorics, they can be soooo obnoxious and hurtful to their friend-economies

Mikey wrote:OK - then what state/province level programs can you get rid of with no repercussions to fund that instead?

You don't.

The Federal Canadian government already uses part of its tax income to help the provinces pay for their healthcare. You simply transfer these income at the state level prior to joining the U.S.

Since the U.S. Federal governenment don't have such tax, it would be illogical to have the tax income dedicated to healthcare go to Washington after an integration. Therefore, give that power back to the Province.

Ultimately, it is an example of the Canadian federal government meddling with the Provinces' constitutional perogative of taking care of healthcare. You end up with superlative structures between the government layer, BECAUSE the central government tries to increase its influence and power. Canadians might be fine with it (except maybe Albertans), we Quebecois are usually annoyed at it.

Um, we do have both federal and state tax. Are you suggesting that new states added to the Union would be subject to a different tax plan than the extant states? If so, I'd like to introduce you to an area we like to call "reality." In other words, if Quebec (for example) joined the Union, you would pay federal income tax according to our current plan, which money would become part of the current federal budget - which does not include funding for a single-payer healthcare system. Quebec could levy taxes as it sees fit - state income tax, sales tax, whatever. If Quebec wanted to fund healthcare, it would have to do so itself via its tax base - which would mean keeping it the way it is (if you even have province-level taxation) and cutting something else, or raising taxes to the point which would completely subsidize a statewide single-payer system.

Mikey wrote:Um, we do have both federal and state tax. Are you suggesting that new states added to the Union would be subject to a different tax plan than the extant states? If so, I'd like to introduce you to an area we like to call "reality." In other words, if Quebec (for example) joined the Union, you would pay federal income tax according to our current plan, which money would become part of the current federal budget - which does not include funding for a single-payer healthcare system. Quebec could levy taxes as it sees fit - state income tax, sales tax, whatever. If Quebec wanted to fund healthcare, it would have to do so itself via its tax base - which would mean keeping it the way it is (if you even have province-level taxation) and cutting something else, or raising taxes to the point which would completely subsidize a statewide single-payer system.

Wow. You are quite the dumbass

Read carefully my post. I said the Federal U.S. government doesn't have SUCH tax. As in "Tax to pay for country-wide welfare" (at least, not yet). So if you have the classic tax receipe of x% which are common and somewhat the same between U.S. and Canada, but in Canada, we have a tax premium of x%+p%, with the p% used to pay for the healthcare system. In that case, the p% will be transferred automatically at the province level prior to joining the U.S., as it wouldn't be logical to have that p% being sent to Washington.

Yeah, I get it. But it doesn't work that way. In your ideation, one of two things would have to happen:

a) citizens of Quebec (or whatever other province were to become a U.S. state) would have to pay the standard income tax (which you designate as x) plus a premium, which you designate as p, while residents of other states would merely have to pay x. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, the IRS charges what they charge - no matter which state in which you live. There is no p%.

b) a portion (p) of the total income tax (x) would be used to fund such healthcare programs for the states-nee provinces. Things don't work like that either; the federal revenue raised from a certain state isn't parsed in the federal budget according to that state's programs. In other words, the federal gub'mint takes all of its tax revenue and adopts a federal budget.

The final analysis is this: if Quebec joined the Union and its residents wanted a statewide healthcare program - and were willing to pay a tax premium for it - Quebec would have to raise that tax money on a state level and implement the plan on a state level. It's no different in its effect on the citizen then the plan I paraphrased in "a" above, it just eaves the federal government out of things in which it has no business.

Mikey wrote:Yeah, I get it. But it doesn't work that way. In your ideation, one of two things would have to happen:

a) citizens of Quebec (or whatever other province were to become a U.S. state) would have to pay the standard income tax (which you designate as x) plus a premium, which you designate as p, while residents of other states would merely have to pay x. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, the IRS charges what they charge - no matter which state in which you live. There is no p%.

Hum, maybe we are missing an important point of information which might influence the conversation: In Quebec (and RoC) we pay taxes both to the Province and the Federal level. I assumed it's the same in the U.S., but I might be wrong.

And the p% I am talking about is the premium tax paid by canadian to the Federal government that is meant to pay for the healthcare. It will stop going to the central government once Quebec joins the U.S., since Quebec will administrate fully that program, both on the income and on the expense side.

The IRS will charge what they usually charge in term of federal taxes, which will replace the standard Canadian federal tax. Federal programs on the state-level (such as healthcare) Quebec wants to keep will be paid by the difference of income tax Fed-Canada charges and what Fed-US charged, transferred into l'Etat du Quebec tax scheme.

Mikey wrote:b) a portion (p) of the total income tax (x) would be used to fund such healthcare programs for the states-nee provinces. Things don't work like that either; the federal revenue raised from a certain state isn't parsed in the federal budget according to that state's programs. In other words, the federal gub'mint takes all of its tax revenue and adopts a federal budget.

Which is why I said you would have to make a tax separation of the Fed-Canada's tax revenu between what is simply attributed to the "whole country" budget (ex: military), and what is parsled back to the provinces. The money that is collected and parsled back will simply be collected and administrated by the Provinces themselves. You don't understand the principle of tax reallocation, don't you?

Mikey wrote:The final analysis is this: if Quebec joined the Union and its residents wanted a statewide healthcare program - and were willing to pay a tax premium for it - Quebec would have to raise that tax money on a state level and implement the plan on a state level. It's no different in its effect on the citizen then the plan I paraphrased in "a" above, it just eaves the federal government out of things in which it has no business.

That's what I've been saying. The difference is that the current tax paid to the Fed-Canada government are partly going back directly into the province's budget, that negociation between Provinces vs. Fed government is usually pretty heated and wasteful (as you need negociation over healthcare, over education, etc...), as the Fed doesn't want to give more depending ont he provinces' needs. If you have each province/state paying for its own, I'd be happier. As I said, what I like about the U.S. is the Federal goverment minding its own business, as opposed to Canada's, which keep a leash on the provinces through budget allocation.