Great points! Enjoy that 1.83 years longer you have to live. You'll need it to pay your tax burden.
You're absolutely right. My tax burden is excessively higher than a counter-part in the States would have. And it needs to be.
Let's take a look at the details. Canada has 1/10th the population of the States and geographically, is larger. So, we have far fewer people spread out over a much larger area. And, if our tax rate wasn't what it is, we couldn't function as a nation. We have remote communities of a few hundred people for which -no business case exists-
In order to have potable water, phone system, internet and power grid for one of these towns that is fly in access only (so remote that there are no roads to it) subzidization is necessary to provide those services. So, why do we even keep a town there?
1) History has proven that forced relocation of an entire population rarely has a good end-outcome
2) The community is usually nearby a very large mineral deposit of say, uranium. Or in the case of where I live, a few hundred miles north there are three large diamond mines and less than sixty miles south they've found a whole bunch of rare earth elements that currently are only being mined in quantity in places like China and Congo (Lithium, Tantalum, etc, etc)
So while there is no direct reason to have a community there, indirectly there are a thousand reasons that benefit the whole nation, so it makes sense to keep it alive via subsidization. Therefore higher taxation required.
But the real bonus? Higher taxation means there are more opportunities for everyone that otherwise, wouldn't have those opportunities. I went through college on federal student loans which are pretty much better than anything I could ever dream of getting from a bank. It's a loan which cannot be defaulted on, if I have trouble re-paying....and can prove I'm not trying to bilk the system.... they'll drop my interest rate to zero and the monthly payment to 10 dollars a month. Or even temporarily suspend re-payment depending on my situation.
Here's another incentive. If I start a family and raise my kids in the northern part of the country, they will be able to go to any university or college they want to in Canada, and the government pays the way, as well as providing living costs for them while they're there. This is a government incentive to keep population in the north, so that one day we may realize our dream of conquest and invade Alaska (kidding)
Seriously though, this is a huge burden that my kids wouldn't have to worry about. Quality post-secondary education costs tens of thousands of dollars which puts young people in a severely disadvantaged situation when they graduate. Unless, of course you're going to become a doctor or lawyer and then it's not such a big deal. My brother is going to have approx 90-100K in debt once he graduates, but he's then going to be an optometrist and make enough income to be able to repay that.
Anywho, off-topic I know. Yes, we pay much higher taxes. But the trade-off is that I'll never have to worry about medical bills or coverage.
BTW even fast food outlets (McDonald's, Hardy's, etc.) offer health care for their "minimum wage" employees
Indeed. And I wonder what exactly that coverage offers? I wonder what kind of claims they can make and get coverage for, what the deductibles are and so forth? It is a documented fact that many of the folks who declare bankruptcy due to medical bills actually -had- coverage, just not very good or complete coverage. And I highly doubt that McDonald's springs for the gold package for it's employees.
Could you provide the company that charges that amount for basic health care? The most expensive my employer offered was in the neighborhood of $3500.00 per year (after their contribution of course).
I do believe that 13,200 dollar figure I got was for the average rate someone would pay if they approached an HMO directly as an individual. It does make sense that a company would get a "group" rate that would be much better than individual, just like buying in bulk. However, if enough employees of a company make claims that start hurting the HMO's bottom line it can (and has in the past) told the company it's going to up the premiums, or tighten the criteria, etc etc.