Moving To Canada

Your comments on local and global news of the day
Post Reply
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4325
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Moving To Canada

Post by yogi » 02 Mar 2016, 06:43

Each presidential election year we Americans go through a process of primary elections. This is the time that each state determines which of the list of candidates will be supported at the national convention for the Democratic and Republican parties. The actual elevation to official candidate supported by the party is done at the convention, but the primary elections are a strong indication of how voters are thinking.

The 2016 primaries are carried out at different times during the year, but last night was Super Tuesday where several major states held primaries. Donald Trump took commanding control early on and by the time it was all over after midnight he racked up a landslide victory with 49% of the Republican votes. While the votes were being counted and the trends started to make themselves clear, something interesting happened on the Google search website. The number of searches for the term "How To Move To Canada" went through the roof. The official Canadian immigration information website was overwhelmed and could not handle all the traffic.

You can draw your own conclusions from the information in the article, but I do not recall people wanting to leave this country in masses at any time in the past. It's particularly revealing that the spike in inquiries occurred when it did.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/02/how-can- ... ald-trump/

User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 4430
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 15:35

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by pilvikki » 02 Mar 2016, 12:25

well, things are getting better now that Harper is history. and there's lots of room there. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Icey
Posts: 10161
Joined: 18 Feb 2015, 18:13

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by Icey » 02 Mar 2016, 15:07

I'd emigrate like a shot if my OH was willing. If we don't get out of Europe, I can't imagine what's going to happen to the poor old UK, and Cameron insists that he won't step down as PM until it's time. Canada sounds quite inviting.

Today's news: Working youngsters're going to have to keep on working until they're 81 in order to receive a livable pension at the end of their working lives.

I doubt if many'll reach 81 if they're forced to work until then!! What a ridiculous idea. People need a good few years of pleasant retirement, not made to carry on working until they drop. You should've heard some of the comments as folk passed the newspaper stand and saw the headlines! : (

brandtrn
Posts: 161
Joined: 27 Feb 2015, 10:27

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by brandtrn » 03 Mar 2016, 02:12

I suppose I'm fortunate. My husband, while having lived here in the US for nearly 25 years, has retained his Canadian citizenship (he's still immensely grateful to the nation which provided him with asylum from the Soviets and which ALSO provided him with a prosperous and happy life for more than 10 years!) and takes steps to renew his Canadian passport every five years to make certain that we have an "out" if things get TOO awful here. So, I suppose that we COULD go, if the s**t REALLY hits the fan here -- but, in my opinion, if things get SO bad in the US that we find it necessary to flee, Canada won't be nearly far enough away! Who knows, though? Their new PM doesn't seem to be as happy to kiss American a** as the previous couple of them have been...still, as much as I love to visit Canada, I certainly wouldn't choose to live there. As much as Americans love to bitch about paying taxes, it's NOTHING compared to the way that the Canadians are taxed to death!
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)

User avatar
Icey
Posts: 10161
Joined: 18 Feb 2015, 18:13

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by Icey » 03 Mar 2016, 07:27

I didn't realise that the Canadian tax system was bad, but it surely can't be any worse than over here. We're taxed on EVERYTHING. We all have to pay Council Tax, Income Tax, Death Taxes, Value Added Tax on just about everything you can buy, massively high energy prices, water rates, television licences, vehicle taxes, and to add insult to injury - sometimes toll taxes.

My mother's friend's daughter emigrated to Canada a few years ago and she loves it. She says she'll never come home except for a short holiday each year.

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4325
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by yogi » 03 Mar 2016, 08:11

I have to laugh to myself every time I read about the wonderful "free" entitlements in Europe and Canada. Everything from healthcare, to education, to housing is taken care of by the government. There is a lot of criticism as well about how America, one of the wealthiest nations on earth, does not take care of their citizens as well as these other countries. I'm here to tell you that it's a conscious choice by the people who live here. The choice is as it is due to all the reasons cited above. Entitlements are not free.

The sudden investigation into immigration requirements for Canada was in direct response to the prospect of Donald Trump's landslide victories on Super Tuesday. It was not a vote of confidence in Canada as much as it was a protest against Trump's candidacy. Keep in mind there was a similar interest in immigration north when the Viet Nam war heated up and conscription into the military was instituted. It was a case of running away instead of solving the current problem. Trump, or anyone else, can run for office. But it is the electorate that puts them in.

User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 4430
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 15:35

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by pilvikki » 03 Mar 2016, 13:13

I don't understand what you find funny about "free" healthdcare... my dearly beloved ex had a silent heart attack, didn' know it, but was nagged by daughter to see the family GP for feeling out of sorts. (how could she tell?) he was sent straight away for a stress test, and 3 days later he was on the table for a triple bypass performed by the top surgeons. no charge. drugs, no charge. now I don't know if there would have been any charges or if had extra insurance. but anyway, his lordship decided to skip on the meds he was given - and had a massive stroke while on vacation in france. he spent 10 days in the hospital and that was $22 000. his travel ins. paid for that, but very begrudgingly.

different for adults, but you can trot any child to a clinic in finland and they don't even ask for a name, just patch them up.

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4325
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by yogi » 03 Mar 2016, 14:28

3 days later he was on the table for a triple bypass performed by the top surgeons. no charge. drugs, no charge.
What you are implying in that statement is that the hospital, all the surgeons and nurses involved, and the drug treatments were provided at no cost. That is laughable. No healthcare provider could stay in business if they were donating all their time and services. SOMEBODY is paying this huge staff. It may not be the patient that is stuck with the bill, but it totally is not a free ride. You say it's all paid out of taxes or insurance premiums? Then how can you think it's free?

User avatar
Icey
Posts: 10161
Joined: 18 Feb 2015, 18:13

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by Icey » 03 Mar 2016, 15:04

Everything over here comes out of what people've paid in taxes, but we often get far more out of the system than we've paid in. The government invests this money (hopefully wisely) and that's how it all runs.

A person on a low wage or certain benefits doesn't pay any income tax, but he/she can still get free healthcare, housing and schooling for their children. This irks some tax payers, but people pay proportionate tax according to how much they earn. This is one of the concerns about migrants coming into our country. They've never worked over here and paid taxes, and some of them never will, so those who work to pay for those who don't, feel as though they're getting a raw deal.

When you say nothing comes free, it certainly does over here, especially when receiving treatment from the NHS.

The government contributes to each health Trust (out of taxes which working people pay). A person, whether working or not, can get treated at no cost, and receive all the drugs he/she might require, undergo expensive operations and even have aesthetic procedures done for nothing - such as weight reduction ops, plastic surgery, etc.

Naturally, the money from all this has to come from somewhere - and it does - but not necessarily from those who're benefiting from it.

User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 1926
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 11:54

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by Kellemora » 04 Mar 2016, 13:08

I did my college thesis on the Social Security Administration.
Although it had to begin more or less like a Ponzi Scheme, it did exactly what it was supposed to do.
Not only that, it ran well ahead of schedule, and met all requirements years before they expected.

In the beginning, they were paying out to people who did not pay in, but only after they had the funds to do so.
I forget the exact projected dates now, but it was something like they did not expect to be paying out to those who did not pay in until around 1974. They beat this date and crossed the line in like 1972.

This was also the date when they became 100% solvent, and it would be impossible for them to have any shortfalls, even as the baby boomers turned 65.
Unlike in the beginning when it first started, Social Security does not rely on income from future generations to cover the payments for those who are now retired.
This is why 1972 was such an important date they met ahead of their projected schedule.

Since 1972, all funds paid into Social Security were for the persons own benefit, it was no longer used for previous retirees, or had to be recovered from future funds. In other words, the money was there to cover everyone in the system, and with enough extra to insure COLA increases, and perhaps more.

SO WHAT HAPPENED, since I did my thesis?

The Federal Government first borrowed money from SS, at an agreed upon interest rate.
The Federal Government defaulted on their payments back to SS, and then settled for a greatly reduced interest rate.
This HURT SS a little, but not much, because they demanded the Federal Government pay them back the Principal they borrowed.
A couple more wars (due to the many deaths) helped to get SS back stable and 100% solvent again.

THEN the Federal Government STOLE ALL THE FUNDS which belonged to SS and squandered it away, agreeing to take over the Payments to the retirees.
Since the Federal Government is insolvent, this THEFT should have never been allowed to take place.

Social Security is not insolvent, it is our Federal Government who is insolvent and cannot pay back the money they stole from SS. So no one can blame Social Security, they MUST lay 100% of the blame on our Federal Government.

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4325
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by yogi » 04 Mar 2016, 15:20

It's amazing that the Social Security Administration can be seen as an entity separate from the federal government. That's simply a misstatement of what Social Security is. Social Security exists as a result of an act of congress, which IS our government's law making body. To say that any one branch or department of the federal government is not part of the system is misleading.
The Social Security Act created a Social Security Board (SSB), to oversee the administration of the new program. It was created as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal with the signing of the Social Security Act of 1935 on August 14, 1935. The Board consisted of three presidentially appointed executives, and started with no budget, no staff, and no furniture. It obtained a temporary budget from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration headed by Harry Hopkins.

User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 1926
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 11:54

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by Kellemora » 05 Mar 2016, 16:30

Although true Yogi, SS underwent several changes. The original SS had three major divisions they had to cover, starting with nothing.
The primary part for the retired changed to SSI which is a form of Insurance. Medicare was also added as a separate division.

The key here, of which my thesis covered in great depth was SSI. It had to comply with all the existing Insurance Laws enacted by congress, and one of these laws had to do with cash reserves.
It's been way too many years since I studied and wrote my thesis to remember much about what I discovered.
But it did boil down to the simple fact, SSI must maintain adequate reserves in a liquid state, plus have stable investments so the money they held grew.
In my thesis I had every law which covered how SSI operated, and the things it must do, plus the laws governing their finances, holdings, etc. Because they had to comply with Insurance regulations, their funds were untouchable, until the government borrowed some with a promised interest rate they defaulted on.
Congress can of course change the laws any time they feel like it, and some of the new laws were made just so they could steal the funds belonging to SSI and the people who paid into the system. It was never the governments money, it belonged to the people who placed it on deposit with SSI.

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4325
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by yogi » 05 Mar 2016, 17:06

I have to agree with you for the most part. SS retirement benefits is indeed an annuity policy whose premiums you pay while you work. As such the SSA is required to maintain a reserved fund so that payment of claims can be assured. The idea was for the interest on the reserves to be sufficient to sustain payment of future claims, but that is no longer the case today. The reserve must still be maintained, but claims are paid out of current income (premiums today's workers pay).

At one point when the federal budget could not be reconciled, the heretofore untouchable reserve funds were tapped and the money went into the general spending accounts. Payback was guaranteed and the net effect was to be a profit from the interest. I don't know the specifics, but my understanding is that they monies have been paid back with the promised interest.

Medicare is also an insurance policy for people over age 65 and who could not get insurance otherwise. Likewise premiums are paid into the policy. Like other insurance policies, a reserve must be maintained for the Medicare fund(s) as well, but unlike retirement benefits that reserve is not able to be self sustaining. Congress is running out of ways to fund Medicare without taxing people to death.

"the government," whoever that is, is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul when they tap into the reserves. The money is not owed to anybody given that the government owns and operates it all. The cash flow may be convoluted, but it's all a balancing act. More people are collecting benefits than those who are paying into the system and it's the simple law of supply and demand that is jeopardizing the system. Congress needs to restructure the way Social Security is funded as well as restructure the general income tax system. We are very fortunate to have a fellow like Donald Trump on the horizon because he is promising to do exactly that. It will be refreshing to see how he can fix a system that could not be made self sufficient since the 1930's.

User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 1926
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 11:54

Re: Moving To Canada

Post by Kellemora » 06 Mar 2016, 10:55

I disagree Yogi. When I did my thesis, SS was ahead of schedule and became 100% self-sufficient something like four years ahead of schedule.
They were no longer relying on future income to pay retirement benefits.
In other words, the current generation of those paying into the system, their funds were not being used to pay previous generations who were now collecting their retirement.
People were worried due to the baby boomer generation reaching retirement age, and a smaller population paying into the system would cause a shortfall. This was the whole purpose I worked on the thesis, to see if it was a rumor or fact.

As of 1972, no person received SS who did not pay into the system, albeit, several had not paid in as much as they were collecting. Nevertheless, there was an abundance who never lived to collect their SS, and these funds more than covered those who were still living.

Yes, the government did pay back their first loan, but NOT at the interest rate they agreed to pay. I used to have a chart of how the government kept decreasing the interest rate until it was under 1% at the time they made the final payback of the first loan.

Everything that happened since the time I did my thesis is what upset the apple cart. The government taking funds from the system, and then later taking all the funds and placing it into the general fund, saying they will take care of the payments for SS.

Regarding the baby boomer generation, which includes me. The gross revenues paid into the SS system by the baby boomers was more than sufficient to pay those who survived to age 65 and up until they reached age 84, which at the time of my thesis was ten years beyond the expected life expectancy for any SS recipient.
This is why no funds were required from current or future generations to cover the massive debt owed to the baby boomer generation.
I was only 37 year old, give or take, when I wrote my thesis, and at that time, SS would have more excess funds than they would ever need. This is one of the reasons more payout items were added to what SS was already paying out.
The three separate divisions were more or less merged, and disability payments became the responsibility of the SS retirement program, and not from the disabilities program as it was previously.

I wish I had a copy of that thesis for you to read, as it included factual data, dates, statutes and laws, and changes in laws which protected SS from going bankrupt or funds being pilfered from their accounts. However, many of the laws soon changed in the years after I did my thesis. And now, once again, people are added to the SS system who never paid into the system, which totally defeats how the system was established and operated.

Have a great day Yogi!

Post Reply