From: jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:53:28 +0800
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: RE: Risk v. Charity (was: RE: Workers Paradise. /Political.
Message-ID: <9608188430.AA843096378@smtplink.alis.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> wrote:
>Canada has the world's second most expensive system (after ours) and I
> think is a bit closer to 80% of our per cap expenditures. [...]
>Canadian costs have risen at approx the same rate as ours.  
 
Thanks for the figures and historical background. I'll keep trying to verify the
figures I cited, but I see no reason to disagree with you.
 
> Interestingly, even though government expenditures here are 60% of the
> total, per cap government expenditures on health care are higher here
> than in the UK under the Nattie Health.  
 
This is a surprise. I guess it would also be an example.
 
>Course Canada lost it when smuggling defeated the high tax levels on
>cigarettes.  This will be more of a problem in the future as more efficient
>markets enable more smuggling.
 
At present, provinces west of Ontario have not dropped taxes, while Ontario,
Quebec and New Brunswick dropped them significantly (+50%). The drop had a
predictably negative effect on the smuggling, although due to the rapid increase
in smoking rates among adolescents pressure is mounting to increase the taxes
again.
 
Most systems have undesired side-effects (e.g. remailers and spam). But if you
can keep second order effects from becoming first order, you're heading in the
desired direction. 
 
Ciao,
James