That's not circular logic at all. That's basic investment. You're investing upfront into people on the basis that tax dollars contributed later are significantly less. That's basic fundamental investment, put in the work now for greater yeild later. In this case the yeild being a net decrease in tax dollars go subsidize those higher cost places.

Quebec for instance pioneered 10 dollar daycare, after doing it long enough, more people ended up being able to work as a result of subsidized daycare and Quebec generated a net positive tax return as a result. Now the rest of the country is adopting it. Spent money upfront yielded a net positive.

This post was edited by SBD on Aug 1 2023 06:04pm

Basic investment follow some efficiency frontier. I wouldn't invest in a bond at 100 par yielding 1% when I could go get US treasuries and get 5%. Sure it's equitable to build schools, hospitals, import fresh food for tiny villages up north but it's not an optimal or efficient at the aggregate level because by virtue of those tiny populations those areas will always be reliant on outside subsidy because tax revenue from there won't ever be able to support that level of investment which is more appropriate for larger population centers. If this was really about the best investment the Canadian government would move all of those people within 150 miles of US border which would be a far less financial burden compared to having to maintain all of these societal structures where there simply isn't population to support itself.

And like i said, I'm not saying these places should be left for dead. I agree, it's humane and the right thing to do to not let these people freeze or starve to death but simultaneously I'm 100% against any notion that living in a desert or a tundra you should have the same access to fresh foods or modern amenities. It's anti-economic theory.

Again we don't live in the efficiency utopia where everyone's fucking miserable that so many hope for. If you even elevate a fraction of the population off welfare and social housing of which is 75% of the population because they don't meet and education requirements for jobs such as the one I have or my entier office actually, that would vastly make up for your investment. Suddenly you have someone in my roll making 350k rather than the white guy down south and that person will support an entier family and their kids will go on likely go not be on welfare and so on and so forth and you snowball.

Every mining manager job, every analyst, every cpa, every lawyer every teacher for the most part is a white person from the south. If you're not willing to invest in people here to eventually take those rolls than so be it and enjoy a much larger PV of tax payments.

People will not leave and people will need to survive on welfare and when they physically can't the government will have to increase it. That's just a fact and those are constraints you have to work around when finding a solution.

This post was edited by SBD on Aug 1 2023 06:27pm

I mean the recipe for success is literally in your reply. Those who want to succeed and benefit from education need to go south to get an education and specialize. To 'invest' in people there (in those locations) is not efficient, those people need to go to places where they can make themselves competitive, or at least the government needs to help them go to those places, sounds blunt but it's true, it has nothing to do with race or demographic and everything to do with the ecosystem or lack there of.

You're compeltly omitting the fact that the government will continue to pay welfare no matter what though and this remains true. People don't want to leave and so they are going to stay and stay on welfare.

Welfare isn't going to stop again that's a constraint to your solution. You have to find a solution within the constraints you have. My view being that investment at the youngest of age possible via subsidy will result in a lower present value of future tax payments than the value of a perpetuity of a population remaining compeltly relent on social welfare and social housing.

I think just accepting a place is a welfare state forever and doing nothing and letting it be a huge tax suck is the worst thing possible but that's what will happen if nothing is done.

This post was edited by SBD on Aug 1 2023 06:43pm

I think saying it should be a right is the problem.

Access to affordable, healthy food for its population should always be one of the main goals of any country. That doesn't mean it needs to be free, but it should be a goal for it to be easier to purchase fresh, healthy food than processed frozen garbage. If that requires government subsidies than IMO it is exactly the type of thing taxes should be used for.

There should also be more of a focus in education about the risks/benefits of healthy/unhealthy diets. Many people have access to healthier options but still eat garbage food because they don't know any better and are constantly manipulated by the increasingly dystopian psychological manipulation of the marketing/ad industry. It seems like sort of a perversion of the "free market" when people see red and yellow and suddenly crave a Big Mac.

Also I think criticizing the horrifying conditions in the food industry is completely valid, doesn't mean we all have to raise our own meat and grow a garden (though that certainly wouldn't hurt either) but there shouldn't be anything controversial about wanting to improve conditions in this industry constantly.

Hi Dizzy, I agree with you mostly except the bolded part. Personally, I am well aware of how unhealthy the junk that I eat is, however I can't stop myself, because it tastes so good. I have access to and money for healthy food like fresh veggies and fruits everyday, however I simply must have my matchachillo (which is similar to Starbucks' frappucino except worse cause it contains ice cream) at least twice a week, otherwise I feel deprived.

You spent an entire topic arguing that you don't think the government should subsidize food in the north, then immediately tun around and agree with "If that requires government subsidies than IMO it is exactly the type of thing taxes should be used for."

Lmao, couldn't make it up if I wanted too.

IMO it should be people's responsibility to build their own wealth. We shouldn't allocate tax resources to help people do that. Tax money should be used for public good, not to help someone generate net wealth.



But nobody is "abandoning" them though. If they truly find surviving in the North that difficult, they can and should consider moving. They can't just say, "nope I don't feel like moving so the government has to continue to subsidize my existence". That's unfair to the tax payers.

I really think you are obsessed with me, dude.