[Bruce_the_vii]

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative (CCPA) has calculated what families pay in taxes, and you can see that it is nearly a flat rate.

Using this family income data as a proxy for taxes on an hourly wage and making a few assumptions you can make a rough calculation of how much a low wage earner is subsidized by the nanny state.

The all taxes and all benefits of government are probably a wash at the average wage. That is an average person gets out of government about what he or she pays in. The taxes in the middle are 36% while the average Canadian wage is $20 an hour so taxes are $7.20 an hour. At $9 an hour wage taxes are 32% for $2.88 an hour. The difference of $7.20 - $2.88 = $4.32 is the net subsidy a low wage earner gets in the nanny state. Per year that is $8,640.

This is the status quo and it’s considered fair generally. However it is an argument against the low wage economy. Only good wages make sense in the nanny state. Low wage businesses are highly subsidized, almost on welfare.

[andyt]

Gruebel calculated it at $6800/yr, and that's his argument for reducing immigration. If businesses couldn't import people to work at the low pay jobs, it would naturally put pressure on lower wages to rise.

Of equal concern is the tax rate, which is supposed to be progressive, dropping off at the high end. Where is our Warren Buffet to push for the rich paying a higher tax rate?

[Bruce_the_vii]

Grubel is actually complaining about economic growth. You can slow economic growth if you reduce immigration. His study isn't too clear about all that though.

[andyt]

Can you back that up?

What people have pointed out, is that economic growth when you import more people means that no individual is growing economically. You can have an increase in GDP with a lower average income because the GDP is spread over more people. Where's the benefit in that?

[bootlegga]

andyt wrote:

Can you back that up?

What people have pointed out, is that economic growth when you import more people means that no individual is growing economically. You can have an increase in GDP with a lower average income because the GDP is spread over more people. Where's the benefit in that?

What are you talking about?

Despite increases in immigration, Canada's per capita income has risen almost every for the past three or four decades. Recessions might slow increases in per capita income, but over the long term, it has grown steadily, from around $15,000 in 1970 to over $30,000 in 2008.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/detai ... apita.aspx

If your theory was true, our per capita incomes shouldn't be rising at all - yet they are, every year.

[andyt]

As you yourself say, despite increases in immigration. How much would Canada's per capita GDP have increased if we had greatly reduced immigration when economic conditions didn't warrant it? How much per captia GDP do the grannies and grandpas we import add?

To turn your last sentence on it's head - if your theory was true, the only reason we had per capita increase in GDP is because of immigration. I'm sure you will find that other countries, with much lower immigration per capita had similar or even better per capita income growth.