Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

A lot of us remain proud of our British ancestry and heritage. I have no idea why we should have just remained quiet while Trudeau Sr. stripped it way just to placate Quebec and to satisfy the endless animosity he had towards Britain.

   

   

F'n infuriating.

"Records show that between April 1 and June 30, 2015, they approved $11-million specifically on Economic Action Plan ads. The government approved a total of $56.2-million in advertising during that three-month period, including other campaigns on tax measures and “Better Jobs” that were similar to the Economic Action Plan ads."

   

What exactly is a "structural deficit"? What makes a deficit "structural"? Is a structural deficit something more sinister than a run-of-the-mill deficit? I know we economists love to expand the lexicon, but I've always thought that "structural" was a prefix coined-up to make something that "is what it is" seem somehow worse for political purposes.

But you're right that it cut off a dependable source of tax revenue. Is that a bad thing though? A government starved, forced to make choices, tough choices, is a good thing. Too bad we lacked the leadership to make the choices equitably. On the other hand, go back to #1. A lot of the shit that went down, economically, during Stevo's time was out of his hands. Had the sub-prime mortgage and resulting global recession that followed not happened, tax revenues might not have shit-tanked, even with the 2% GST cut. Maybe there's something to the Laffer curve. Maybe the drop in tax revenues would have been worse if not for the 2% GST cut. Who knows.

But poor people still did benefit from the cut. Those who spend everything they earn have no shelter from sales tax.


Maybe. But I don't much care what the motivation was for allowing income splitting. I care that it helped people. I especially like that it encourages families to have a stay-at-home-parent. Sure, that's still fantasy for lowest-income families on the poverty margin who need two paycheques. But income splitting does a lot of good for a lot of middle-income families and I don't see how it harms those who don't benefit from it. Not everyone will benefit from every government program.


Yeah that was a serpent slayed.

   

This is the problem with 'Liberal math'. Tax cuts under anyone but the Liberals have no effect beyond the negative. They either have no effect on the economy or they 'only' benefit the Conservative base.



Again, we return to 'Liberal math'. Had JT come up with this, Liberals like Boots would be celebrating how this helps all middle income families.

   

I don't think anyone should get help like income splitting if the people lower on the income ladder don't benefit more. Same with the child care cheques.

That's just bitter. You're driving the bitter bus. If JT came up with it I would say it sucks. The number of people who could take advantage of it was small, so why spend the time on the legislation? To help the wealthy?

   

Same reason I don't agree with JT's middle class tax cut. It will benefit people earning between 80 and 200k the most, while leaving out anyone earning less than 44K. Making the cut to the lowest tax bracket would include these people, while still giving the same cut to those earning more.

   

We could surely do both: help low and middle income Canadians. Just because income splitting doesn't benefit everyone isn't a reason to scrap it. If the poor don't benefit and still need help, then we should do something else to help them similarly.

We`re never going to have a "one-size fits all" tax policy. And you lefties would scream bloody murder if we did have a one-size fits all policy, such as a flat tax, so don't expect one.

   

Not every program will help everyone. That's impossible and not a good reason to do away with something that does help a lot of people.

Tax cuts will rarely help the lowest income people cause, well? They don't pay many taxes in the first place. But there are plenty of programs that do help them. Daycare subsidies, for example, add up to more over the course of a year than what i got from income splitting.

   

As with the tax cut, you can target the lower income it will benefit the higher incomes as well. In the income splitting case, just amp up the deductions for children or increase the baby bonus. Either one will benefit all people with children, whether single or married, low or high income. I believe JT is doing just that with the baby bonus, but making it depend on income - so you'll still get your relief, but so will the single mom next door, and the dad that cleans your offices.

   

How about your tax rate rises as your income rises.

One size fits all, and 'lefties' would probably agree with it.

Back in the day when people earned a lot, they paid a higher percentage not just 2 percent more.

   

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... e24441644/

The cost of dinner

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn’t share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

“You’re all very good customers,” the owner said, “so I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I’m going to charge you just $80 in total.” The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren’t paying anything for their meals anyway. They’ll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that’s fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person’s share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person’s bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got one dollar out of the $20,” said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, “and he got $9!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too! It’s not fair that he got nine times more than me!” “That’s true,” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn’t faced before. They were $50 short.

   

This is true. Why did our culture become officially disposable but not anybody elses.? There is some old fashioned but cloaked racism against us behind that. I was raised in Quebec and I know of what I speak.

   

Probably something to do with the Brits beating the French asses on numerous occasions.

   

I wonder what the Plantagenets have to say about that

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next