Elections
Gregg Pattinson, Candidate for Hamilton East-Stoney Creek in Ontario Provincial Election 2011
Details page for this candidate.
In This Page:
Candidate Details (top)
| Name | Gregg Pattinson |
|---|---|
| Election | Ontario Provincial Election 2011 |
| Area | Hamilton East-Stoney Creek |
| Party | Ontario Libertarian Party |
| Votes | 0 |
| greg.pattinson@yahoo.ca | |
| Website | http://libertarian.on.ca/profiles/greg-pattinson |
| Home | |
| Business | |
| Fax | |
| Bio | I was born in Hamilton Ontario and attended Sir Winston Churchill Secondary school. I joined air cadets at 12 obtaining my glider pilots licence at 16. At 17 I joined the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry. After high school I have worked various jobs including, security in the service industry, towing, automotive machining, and achieved journeymen status as a scaffolder in the carpenters' union. Since then I have worked in finance as a both a foreign exchange trader and equities trader. I have attended Nipissing University's joint programme with the Canadian Securities Institute, Bachelor of Commerce (financial services), learning economics and accounting.
Why Are You Running?: I am a strong believer that if you want things done right you have to do them yourself. I never wanted to be a politician but the more I looked at government, the more I realized that all the politicians from the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP were not doing things right. So, I decided to step up and take action. For too long politicians have been treating voters like children. If only a kindergarten class could vote politicians would run on a policies the children would like, free candy and illegal broccoli. Free healthcare and illegal drugs are no different. As adult voters we should know that nothing is free and just because something is legal doesn't mean we have to do it. We should be voting for what's right not just for what we like. Issue Details: Our current tax system is so convoluted that nobody knows how much they are paying in taxes. During the debates in the federal election I offered $100 to the sitting incumbent if he could tell me his total tax burden last year. If he makes the laws and couldn't do it there is no way the average citizen can. I advocate for a fair tax (aka flat tax) on consumption with a negative income tax. All other forms of taxation should be eliminated including; income tax, property tax, excise tax, tariffs, and all the other hidden taxes. Canada's combined tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is about 35% depending on the source. This would represent the current fair tax rate. If you take what we spend on social services, education and health care we could give every resident citizen $10,000 per year and still have enough to not only balance the budget this year but start paying the debt. This is what is called the negative income tax. It would cost each individual an average of $2000 per year out of that $10,000 for a health insurance plan that would cover more than the current public system and allow competition in the market that would provide far better service than we would have now. Since a child can still fit the definition of resident citizen they would be eligible for the negative tax since a Libertarian government would not discriminate based on age. This would be held in a legal trust by their parents to avoid the current problem with social services that some parents spend their child's money on themselves instead of the child. They would have to pay about $3000 per year for private education. This would allow schools to tailor their programs to their students and provide better education than our current "one size fits none" public system. This would leave children with $5000 per year to pay a portion of their living expenses and save for post secondary education. For people later in life this system would eliminate the need for welfare programs and old age security and still provide more for each individual in need of those programs while not benefitting the few at the expense of the many. EI would be privatized an act like real insurance. If someone is a higher risk because they are on EI every 6 months they should have to pay a higher premium than someone who is a low risk and that has never used the system. CPP would also be privatized to eliminate the current ponzie scheme where the young pay for the old instead of everyone paying for their own retirement. Immigration and trade would be simplified by this system. We could have completely open borders. Imports would be subject to the same tax rate with no other tariffs. Immigrants who come to this country are seeking a better life. In times of recession where there are no jobs immigration would be reduced because they will not be able to find a job to provide a better life and the government will not be paying for them to immigrate. In times of economic boom where there are lots of jobs and a shortage of labour it would increase the incentive for immigration. There would be no need for immigration quotas because the free market would act as a self correcting mechanism. Immigrants would no longer be a drain on our social services because they do not fit the definition of a resident citizen so would not be eligible for the negative tax. Once they have been a resident for 5 years paying the same tax on consumption and can prove that they will not likely be a burden to society then they can apply for citizenship and then be eligible to receive the negative tax. This would make new immigrants an asset to society instead of a burden. Further tax savings would come from reducing the size of government bureaucracy and eliminating all foreign aid. Ideally we could get the total tax rate down to about 10% divided among municipal, provincial, and federal. Property tax would be eliminated by allowing Canadians to own their property. That is not the case now. When you buy real property now, what you are actually buying is fee simple title. This entitles a person to indefinite and exclusive use of the property not ownership. True ownership is called allodial title. Currently allodial title to all property in Canada is held by the queen and managed by the province. This difference between fee simple title and allodial title is the justification for things like, property tax, expropriation, zoning laws, and building permits. If allodial title were sold to property owners as the value of a perpetuity equal to the future value of property tax it would reduce the debt the provinces have accumulated. This system would be a win for the government in balancing its budget which affects individuals by lowering their future tax rates but it also benefits individuals directly. Every individual would be better off in this system. They would receive better health care, education and, social services at less cost because of free market efficiency as opposed to government monopoly. Individuals would only have to pay for the services they want instead of the services that the majority wants. The best part is that this system would be completely voluntary. An individual can reduce their tax burden by altering their spending and by buying cheaper products. An Individual who does not want to be a part of society will not be forced to. They could be self sufficient or do business outside of Canada. However, if someone does not want to be a part of society they should not share in the same benefits of that society. The negative tax should be viewed as a payment for participating in a democratic society. All aspects of a democratic society would be voluntary, things like voting, filling out the census, and serving jury duty. In years that a resident citizen does not participate in the democratic process they will not be eligible for the negative tax. This system would also be flexible for the future if it was added to the constitution that government revenues must exceed spending except in times of specifically declared emergencies. If people want more benefits than taxes must be raised to balance the budget against the increased negative tax payout. If people want to lower tax than the negative tax would have to be reduced. Since revenues will exceed spending in most years the debt will eventually be paid off and then we can start building a surplus. As that surplus grows the interest from it will be able to reduce the necessity for taxes and eventually be able to eliminate all taxation. |
Responses to Questions (top)
This candidate does not appear to have responded to any questions yet.
