politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You are making two claims, perhaps indirectly, that I think are simply false. (1) You claim there's no contribution requirements for national pension. Not true, says the government website. (2) You claim the mom and kid don't pay taxes in the hypothetical. The national government already has various rules to prevent "income sprinkling" that address this exact issue.
So basically, you're accusing the Canadian tax agency of failing to do its job without presenting evidence of that.
Issues with Chinese immigrants are well known and documented, literally with immigrant families openly exposing their own community's rampant fraud methods to our supreme courts, because "that's just how its done in Canada!".
Paying a little bit of sales tax on modest purchases, is not sufficient to sustain social support programs. Taxes are paid in various ways, and yes, there's a minimal contribution made by the non-earning people staying in Canada, but it's not enough to offset the costs of providing social support services to the extended family.
I don't think I mentioned the pension program specifically, that's on you. When I 'm mentioning old age social supports, there's more than just 'old age pensions' in Canada (heck, there's CPP and OAS, so two direct payments in terms of 'pensions' even) -- the universal healthcare system is another example. The cost of that system increases significantly for the older demographic, as people become more reliant on pills/medications. There's a reason a bunch of seniors from the states, in the past at least, would buy prescription meds in Canada, for example -- and that's tied to us having a government funded approach to providing those medications (the US medi-tourists are basically leeching off us). The basic premise of the system is that, generally, working age adults who have less reliance on the healthcare system, fund it via taxes, with the expectation that it'll be there when they need it (generally when they're older).
We do have a problem with frauds and abuse, but the system can tolerate some fraud and abuse. If the ops approach were adopted, we'd have rampant fraud and abuse. The system can't tolerate rampant fraud and abuse. I don't think this sort of statement requires me to go into absurd detail to justify/demonstrate, frankly, and I'm not going to bother further.