- 主题发起人 jjsheng
- 发布时间 2019-11-10
看看详细的breakdown，特别是表5，6，7，魁省居民没沾多少便宜，而且人均的支出在全国平均附近。联邦拨款主要是政府项目支出，小的边境海洋省人均比较高。阿省养魁省是扯淡。
5 Conclusion
There is a clear redistributive effect to net federal expenditures in Canada: the federal government receives more tax revenues in certain provinces and spends more in others. In many cases, the differences in net federal expenditures from one province to the next do not stem from a decision to favour certain provinces over others. Rather, they are largely a reflection of federal policies to redistribute wealth from the more affluent to the less affluent. In fact, except for the Employment Insurance program, place of residence has no bearing on the amount of federal tax individual Canadians pay or the amount of federal support they receive.
5 Conclusion
There is a clear redistributive effect to net federal expenditures in Canada: the federal government receives more tax revenues in certain provinces and spends more in others. In many cases, the differences in net federal expenditures from one province to the next do not stem from a decision to favour certain provinces over others. Rather, they are largely a reflection of federal policies to redistribute wealth from the more affluent to the less affluent. In fact, except for the Employment Insurance program, place of residence has no bearing on the amount of federal tax individual Canadians pay or the amount of federal support they receive.
最后编辑: 2019-11-15
还科研军事项目，真是啥也没有，就是嘴大脸大，啥都敢说并且还不负责任，你指出他的错误来，他压根儿就不回应，再再编出点儿新“概念”继续跟你扯别的。
“没占什么便宜”，理由居然是“支出差不多”。这是吃什么米长大的呀？看来要饭的得比主人吃得还好，那才能叫占便宜了，奇葩！支出差不多，这不就是Equalization的原因么，可你收入也差不多了吗？要是一家有兄弟俩一块儿住，一个是麦当劳前台，一个人是肯德基高管，最后俩人支持差不多，那麦当劳的好意思说自己没占啥便宜？！
“没占什么便宜”，理由居然是“支出差不多”。这是吃什么米长大的呀？看来要饭的得比主人吃得还好，那才能叫占便宜了，奇葩！支出差不多，这不就是Equalization的原因么，可你收入也差不多了吗？要是一家有兄弟俩一块儿住，一个是麦当劳前台，一个人是肯德基高管，最后俩人支持差不多，那麦当劳的好意思说自己没占啥便宜？！
最后编辑: 2019-11-15
比如在同省，温哥华平均家庭收入高过BC其他城市或地区，如果算交的个税，和分配到的政府服务，肯定是大温付出多过所得，但能说大温养活全省或养了别的城市吗？
在联邦层面，是一个道理，每个居民有同等的体制，比如同样收入税，同样的儿童补助金等体系，不可能给大家不同政策，没有以省划分这一说。联邦并没有在阿省或别的省搞特殊财政政策。仅仅是高收入个体多些集中些。
另外也别夸大阿省。就算按人头个人收入税阿省比全国高50％，以阿省是全国十分之一人口，对总财政贡献也就多了5％，没有阿省，按体制魁省可能少得5％，不需要夸张到养活别人的地步。
假如阿省进了美国，在联邦税上也是一样，高收入个体交税多，回填少是常识。如果独立，自己不见得能活下去。
在联邦层面，是一个道理，每个居民有同等的体制，比如同样收入税，同样的儿童补助金等体系，不可能给大家不同政策，没有以省划分这一说。联邦并没有在阿省或别的省搞特殊财政政策。仅仅是高收入个体多些集中些。
另外也别夸大阿省。就算按人头个人收入税阿省比全国高50％，以阿省是全国十分之一人口，对总财政贡献也就多了5％，没有阿省，按体制魁省可能少得5％，不需要夸张到养活别人的地步。
假如阿省进了美国，在联邦税上也是一样，高收入个体交税多，回填少是常识。如果独立，自己不见得能活下去。
看看，我说什么来着，这还没翻页呢，就绝口不提什么“科研军事”的事儿了，又给弄出个“收税”的概念来，可你光回帖不看帖子的吗？前面已经有人抢注这个概念了，人家比你的理论还先进呢，直接把拿到的钱算退税了。
可你是真的不知道Equalization是什么钱吗？你那同省为例，同税率大温收入高交的税也多，可全国为例阿省收入高交的税也是高啊，交税这事儿就算是结束了啊。可阿省额外拿出一笔Equalization补助那些穷省，请问一下，大温地区的人有在交税之外再额外掏钱给其它地区了吗？？
这根本就是拿出一个驴唇不对马嘴的概念在这儿胡搅蛮缠！
几位看不懂这个吗？
5 Conclusion
There is a clear redistributive effect to net federal expenditures in Canada: the federal government receives more tax revenues in certain provinces and spends more in others. In many cases, the differences in net federal expenditures from one province to the next do not stem from a decision to favour certain provinces over others. Rather, they are largely a reflection of federal policies to redistribute wealth from the more affluent to the less affluent. In fact, except for the Employment Insurance program, place of residence has no bearing on the amount of federal tax individual Canadians pay or the amount of federal support they receive.
是下面的数据总结。
科研军事在政府服务开支这里，给你贴一段吧。
Net Expenditures on Goods and Services
The first type of program expenditure covers basic government activities – the salaries of public servants, the day‑to‑day operation of government departments, and military installations and operations. It also includes the purchase of supplies and materials.
这个所谓传送是联邦以同一税制全民收税后按同一标准分配到各省支出。不存在阿省专门收了一笔钱送给别省。对联邦来说，就是按联邦税制向所有个体收税然后用于统一的国家标准支出，阿省高收入多所以交的总额大于支出。但与其说是阿省转的钱，不如说是全国高收入的部分税收贴补了较低收入的群体。联邦税制下没有省界市界区界，不是因为人住哪里有啥税务区别。
维基解释很清楚。
Equalization payments are one example of what are often collectively referred to in Canada as "transfer payments", a term used in other jurisdictions to refer to cash payments to individuals (see Canadian transfer payments). The purpose of equalization payments is to enable the "have not" provinces to provide public services which are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at similar levels of taxation.
5 Conclusion
There is a clear redistributive effect to net federal expenditures in Canada: the federal government receives more tax revenues in certain provinces and spends more in others. In many cases, the differences in net federal expenditures from one province to the next do not stem from a decision to favour certain provinces over others. Rather, they are largely a reflection of federal policies to redistribute wealth from the more affluent to the less affluent. In fact, except for the Employment Insurance program, place of residence has no bearing on the amount of federal tax individual Canadians pay or the amount of federal support they receive.
是下面的数据总结。
科研军事在政府服务开支这里，给你贴一段吧。
Net Expenditures on Goods and Services
The first type of program expenditure covers basic government activities – the salaries of public servants, the day‑to‑day operation of government departments, and military installations and operations. It also includes the purchase of supplies and materials.
这个所谓传送是联邦以同一税制全民收税后按同一标准分配到各省支出。不存在阿省专门收了一笔钱送给别省。对联邦来说，就是按联邦税制向所有个体收税然后用于统一的国家标准支出，阿省高收入多所以交的总额大于支出。但与其说是阿省转的钱，不如说是全国高收入的部分税收贴补了较低收入的群体。联邦税制下没有省界市界区界，不是因为人住哪里有啥税务区别。
维基解释很清楚。
Equalization payments are one example of what are often collectively referred to in Canada as "transfer payments", a term used in other jurisdictions to refer to cash payments to individuals (see Canadian transfer payments). The purpose of equalization payments is to enable the "have not" provinces to provide public services which are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at similar levels of taxation.
最后编辑: 2019-11-15
魁瓜新建的超级水泥厂，魁政府巨额补贴私人企业来建的，碳排放爆棚。土豆魁瓜绿党屁都不放一个。
In Quebec, the Port-Daniel cement factory is encased in hypocrisy
Why did the Quebec government hand millions to the Port-Daniel cement factory, an emission-belching, billionaire-owned plant?
www.macleans.ca
