Exactly.

People are just stupid if they think they should be able to voluntarily go live in the wilderness, while simultaneously wanting access to free food.

It's nonsensical. You can't go set up a hut in the Sahara Desert and expect easy access to water.

dude Exactly

Why do you think that people living in Northern Canada should have access to "healthy food"?

Saying "healthy food" is essentially a euphemism for fresh food. Northern Canada is a barren wilderness. The only people ever living there historically were nomads for a reason. There is no neolithic revolution in the arctic wilderness, no farming, no ranching. How do you expect to defy the laws of physics and provide fresh food for this reason? Are people oppressed because they don't have access to fresh steaks?

It's a miracle that people can live there to begin with - supplied for by industrialized non-perishable foods. Fresh food in the North is of course a luxury product (has to be flown in as you mentioned).

Anyone living there is there by choice - now if we want to talk about people who were born and raised there, they can save up money for a one way plane ticket. That's a hell of a lot easier than migrating by foot - which people have been doing since the dawn of the human race. Not to mention anyone has the right to travel freely within the nation. There is nothing stopping people from moving within Canada.

Having access to ANY food in the North is a luxury that you should be extremely thankful for. Otherwise, you're hunting seals and shit like what the Inuit have done for thousands of years.

This post was edited by El1te on Aug 1 2023 04:13pm

Classic. And where do you draw the line that one population costs more so we shouldn't allocate more tax money there to help. What's the line? You have it figured out?

A rural Nova Scotia costs more tax dollars than a metro one does. Do we stop passing on additional tax dollars to every rural spot or do we provide services equally to all Canadians?


Why can't we apply your logic to every area that costs more than the absolute lowest costing area.

Come on now. The fuck everyone who costs more than they lowest, they suck more tax money so fuck off is a classic though. Costs more to pay teachers in rural Saskatchewan so fuck those kids no education for them and we can pay more in welfare in the long run.

Why provide kids with meals and education to generate wealth better to pay via social security and social housing and child tax benifits.

Smart.

There's realities here. The reality being if no aid is given then you accept its a welfare state forever, and because it would be a human rights violation to not provide welfare, child tax credits, social housing etc., than these people will cost significantly more in the long run than investing money into people who can then begin to generate generational wealth and progress. Obviously food security, education, etc. Is all part of that.

People aren't going to move and you're arguing you don't want to subsidize healthy foods, well okay enjoy significantly more tax dollars in the long run being used to subsidize an entier life of near unemployment and generation after generation with no net assets. Id rather invest in the long run of people.



This post was edited by SBD on Aug 1 2023 05:22pm

the dude youre arguing with cant see past his nose, your points will fall on deaf ears

You may only live in cheap parts of the country. If teachers are paid more in Prince George than they are Vancouver those children must pay a daily toll fee. Same if they want healthcare since nurses cost more. A daily toll. Roads cost more too since more shipping. A toll for every road perhaps.

This view is incongruent with efficient resource allocation. There's a reason why cell or internet coverage is good in populated areas and not so in mostly empty square states. Tax revenue is limited and it would be a huge disservice to the 99% of the tax payers and citizens to heavily subsidize the 1%. Sure some aid is appropriate but there's a fine balance. If you live in the far north, no you're not entitled to fresh citrus or affordable heated housing or whatever else that require a vastly higher per capita cost.

Again you're not working in reality. Reality is they are given social housing my the government and always will be, they are getting welfare and always will. They are getting child tax benifits and will continue.

It would be a massive disservice to tax payers to try not to get and entier populace of people into generating their own net wealth. They're going to continue to live there period and those government handouts will continue period so those are the realities you have to work with.

We don't get to make a fantasy land where we just abandon people, we already know the government isn't going to do that so we need to figure out a way to get people off social security, into their own homes, etc. That starts with education and things that contribute to a good education which includes eating halfway decently.

The cost of supporting an entier population on social security indefinitely I assure you is quite the disservice to taxpayers.

This post was edited by SBD on Aug 1 2023 05:47pm

You're proposing subsidizing something because otherwise you will have to subsidize it? The logic is circular. Education is useful when you live or can contribute to society. You go to school, specialize and in return get a specialized role so instead of having to weave your clothes, grow your food, build your house, you can focus on being an accountant or an electrician or w.e. The key part that's missing far north is the society part where your education can lead to some specialized labor and you become a cog of something bigger. If you live 400 miles from US border up north, it's just common sense that you won't have the same opportunities as living in southern Ontario, in the same way if I live in bumfuck Missouri I shouldn't expect the salary or cuisine comforts of NYC.