Thomas,
If the objective is to transfer income from the haves to the have nots, I
don't understand why it can't be done through the tax system. Any parent
without an income could be given a basic credit, hence a "refund", of
$15,000, plus a diminishing amount for each kid (on grounds that each
successive kid is less expensive). This credit would be reduced steeply as
income (it would probably have to be family income) rose and would then
become negative, though remaining progressive, at a certain income level.
All other aspects of the tax system would continue as they now are.
The main point is that what would be paid out of this extra tax to the poor
would be recovered from the rich. For example, if the expenditure bill was
$10 billion, that much would have to be recovered from incomes above the
cut-off level.
Selecting certain types of government expenditures for payment by "premiums"
has me baffled as well. What is the difference between a "premium" and a
tax? Besides the things you picked, there are other important public
concerns - e.g. the environment, research and development, justice, internal
security. And you should never think that Aboriginal people would give up
their constitutionally entrenched programming for something that they would
see as just another form of welfare.
Ed Weick
