What would you pay for taxes if you lived in Canada?

fergus51 · Mar 6, 2004

You should also consider the deductions you would get. I paid 24% in taxes, EI and CPP this year. My refund is only 900... Sigh... I was hoping for more, but what can you do?

And just so you know, the income is not necessarily less in Canada because we take the exhange rate into account. A new grad in Seattle starts around 20 US, one in Vancouver starts at about 25 CDN

fergus51 · Mar 6, 2004

Just so you know, that thing was waaaaaaaayyyyyy off the mark. It said I would pay 50% in taxes. Quite a big difference than what I actually paid.

fergus51 · Mar 6, 2004

no wonder, did you see what they are including in their calculation (like sales tax, automobile fees and lisences, etc)? And people wonder why I always point out that the Fraser Institute leans a little to the right....

RN-MSN-FNP · Mar 6, 2004

staff nurse - rn 25th%ile median 75th%ile portland, or $44,621 $47,944 $51,113

staff nurse - rn 25th%ile median 75th%ile salem, or $42,032 $45,162 $48,147

wages in wisconsin effective june 1, 2003 were starting for basic staff rn:

$22.22 per hour

figures above for basic staff rn

canadian nurses association:

http://www.cna-nurses.ca/_frames/resources/statsframe.htm

union nameminimumwage increase effectivecontract

bcnu$24.70

alberta$24.7000

nova scotia nurses' union$22.34

ontario nurses' association$21.750

saskatchewan union of nurses$21.34

manitoba nurses' union$21.48

nbnu$20.160

pei nurses' union$19.35

nu$20.05

fiiq$17.11

fiestynurse · Mar 6, 2004

I assume that you are trying to make a point that Canada's taxes are high because they have Universal health Care. Propaganda!!!

Patchwork Health-care Reform not What Most Want, or Need

January 14, 2004

Published on Sunday, January 11, 2004 by the Boulder Daily Camera

Single-Payer: We'd Get More for Less

Patchwork Health-care Reform not What Most Want, or Need

by Brian Smith

Politics aside, we could all have better health care for less cost. Our current health-care system pays for universal health care but does so in an ineffective, costly manner while providing overall poor care. Unfortunately, a majority of physicians are opposed to single-payer health care, despite a majority of citizens who support it. Major health-care reform will happen only if citizens demand change.

Currently, no one can be denied health care for lack of insurance, but private providers can demand payment at time of service, while emergency providers cannot. This tends to shift uninsured patients toward expensive ER care. Since the emphasis in ER medicine is single-contact care, all eventualities must be covered, and that leads to significantly more expensive care.

A visit for a cold in a clinic setting may cost $50, while that same visit in an ER could easily exceed $500. In addition, patients without insurance tend to put off visits until they are sicker, when care is more expensive and outcomes poorer. Improving access to care, promoting preventative care, and adequately treating disease can significantly decrease cost while improving outcomes. It should be noted that unrecoverable costs of care for the underinsured are shifted to paying patients.

In 2002, health-care costs in this country exceeded $1.6 trillion. This represents approximately 15.5 percent of the U.S. GDP, in contrast to most developed countries, where costs are typically less than 10 percent GDP. A significant portion of this cost is administrative, which approaches 30 percent to 35 percent in America as opposed to 15 percent to 17 percent in the Canadian system. Private insurance overhead runs almost 12 percent vs. 3.5 percent for Medicare.

Pharmaceutical costs have spiraled out of control, with really no attempts to limit them. Currently medications account for about 15 percent of overall health costs and rising. There is no market control of these costs, and costs are set based only on what the pharmaceutical company wants to earn during the life of the drug patent. Competitive drugs are usually priced in the same ballpark. Generics are only marginally cheaper. When drugs from this country can be exported to Canada, re-prescribed and re-imported at cost savings of 20-50 percent, it is clear there is a problem.

It is important to understand the lack of market control in all aspects of medicine. The ultimate consumer, the patient, rarely has any concept of cost vs. benefit of medications, studies, care etc. Physicians write prescriptions but don't have direct knowledge of actual costs. This lack of market control is inherent to the system of medicine and understanding that is essential to understanding the need for external controls on the system.

A quick look at the numbers involved in implementing universal health care shows it is feasible. By switching to a single-payer system, administrative costs could easily be reduced by 50 percent. Reasonable tort reform could cut malpractice costs by 50 percent, and cost controls of medications could easily realize savings of 25 percent. Overall, these measures could reduce U.S. health-care costs to about $1.35 trillion. Improved access, prevention and disease management should further reduce cost to about $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion (10 percent of the GDP).

Universal care could be funded by modestly increasing the "Medicare" tax, appropriately taxing tobacco and alcohol, incorporating a 10-percent co-payment, and combining all current health-provider systems while utilizing the current infrastructure. The current Medicare/Medicaid budget is about $420 billion. Some $200 billion in taxes on cigarettes and alcohol would help to offset the health costs associated with their use.

Another $40 billion to cover the health-care costs associated with motor vehicle accidents could be raised either through vehicle licensing fees, fuel tax, or could be collected by auto-insurance companies. Adding current VA funding of $25 billion, worker's comp ($80 billion) and a 10-percent co-payment for those who can afford it ($100 billion); only an additional $300 billion to $350 billion would need to be raised through a combination of payroll and income taxes to provide universal care. Keep in mind that overall this represents a cost savings while guaranteeing coverage for all and improving health care.

Universal single-payer health care is both economically feasible and desirable. With decreased societal cost and improved health, it is a win-win situation. Why physicians and politicians resist such change really has more to do with their financial interests in the current system, or fear of government-run programs, rather than interest in providing good health care for all citizens. The current system is broken, and health-care costs will continue to spiral out of control if the government continues its patchwork approach to reform. A recent poll shows 62 percent of Americans want universal single payer health care.

It is up to you to let them know you care.

fiestynurse · Mar 6, 2004

Universal Health Care Will not Raise Taxes! We are already paying for Universal Health Care and Not getting it!

Currently, about 64% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees' health insurance. About 17% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 19% of health care costs. In all, it is a very "regressive" way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance - so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Another consideration is that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance that is almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

fergus51 · Mar 6, 2004

staff nurse - rn 25th%ile median 75th%ile portland, or $44,621 $47,944 $51,113

staff nurse - rn 25th%ile median 75th%ile salem, or $42,032 $45,162 $48,147

wages in wisconsin effective june 1, 2003 were starting for basic staff rn:
$22.22 per hour

figures above for basic staff rn

canadian nurses association:
http://www.cna-nurses.ca/_frames/resources/statsframe.htm
union nameminimumwage increase effectivecontract
bcnu$24.70
alberta$24.7000
nova scotia nurses' union$22.34
ontario nurses' association$21.750
saskatchewan union of nurses$21.34
manitoba nurses' union$21.48
nbnu$20.160
pei nurses' union$19.35
nu$20.05
fiiq$17.11

you do realize those wages are 2 years ago right? and what do new grads start at in rural alabama? or kentucky, or georgia, etc. you havine to look at cost of living and not just a basic wage. a new grad in william's lake bc is going to be a lot better off than a new grad in seattle on a lower wage.

fergus51 · Mar 6, 2004

I assume that you are trying to make a point that Canada's taxes are high because they have Universal health Care. Propaganda!!!
.

Especially considering they are inflated figures! I paid about half of what the Fraser Institute claims I would have paid. That's a pretty signifigant difference.

Dplear · Mar 6, 2004

Even if I paid half of what the Frasier Institue said I would pay, that is still TWICE the amount of what I pay here. Including licenses and property taxes.

Dave

fergus51 · Mar 6, 2004

Dave, what do you pay in taxes?

Tweety, BSN, RN · Mar 6, 2004

It does seem a bit high, but I was only guessing my income since I'm too lazy to actually convert.

I pay quite a bit of taxes in the US having no dependents and no deductions. Plus as was said, there is sales tax, extra taxes and fees for phone, utilities, etc. Extra fees and tax for property, car, even there's an extra tax when you get an oil change. Hotel taxes, on and on and on.

So it's hard to calculate what we I pay, but it's probably similar.

The US is no better or worse than Canada I'm sure. Other countries might be worse. I hear Sweden has a very high tax burden. But they also have an awesome social welfare system too.

I think if we went to a universal health care system, even if it raises taxes, I doubt hopefully it wouldn't cost more than the outrages insurance premiums we pay.