More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)

[flyinghigh]

Yes, tell me how the banks have lowered fees since their profits are constantly rising. Or the oil companies.

Oh that's it. Bank fees have gone up and oil companies have been making a lot of profits over the past several years so that proves that all the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other business's out there will raise their prices if their expenses go down.

Am I supposed to take you seriously? Better raise taxes on businesses as it appears to be the only way to lower prices for the public at large. Sounds like the platform of one or two parties out there.

[J.O.]

Whenever I see these discussions I always like to dig up this little thought provoking gem.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

[Don Hudson]

I'm interested by the descriptor, "banned".

By whom, for why and what happens to those who ignore the ban?

The point being made is so obviously logical and correct that governments have had to make laws to protect the rich from the middle class and common sense.

[dagger]

Oh that's it. Bank fees have gone up and oil companies have been making a lot of profits over the past several years so that proves that all the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other business's out there will raise their prices if their expenses go down.

Am I supposed to take you seriously? Better raise taxes on businesses as it appears to be the only way to lower prices for the public at large. Sounds like the platform of one or two parties out there.

I didn't talk about raising taxes, you do. You just can't show any evidence how lowering corporate taxes from where they were several years ago has produced any more economy benefit for consumers or growth for the economy as a whole than where we would have been had corporate taxes not been lowered. It's a sure bet, however, that a sap like you will always buy what the BS being pushed by the Fraser Institute or other right wing toadies that the rich - be they people or corporations - should pay as little tax as possible because somehow that's the magic elixir that will raise up everyone else's income, no matter that average income growth has been negligible for the average Canadians.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/income-growth-for-canadian-middle-class-families-lags-behind-other-groups-report

Yet, the report says the median annual wage has actually declined by six per cent in real terms (adjusted for inflation) since 1976 and has only increased by eight per cent overall since 1996.

But keep on kissing Dear Leader's hem as we get set for more of the Great Stagnation.

[flyinghigh]

I didn't talk about raising taxes, you do. You just can't show any evidence how lowering corporate taxes from where they were several years ago has produced any more economy benefit for consumers or growth for the economy as a whole than where we would have been had corporate taxes not been lowered. It's a sure bet, however, that a sap like you will always buy what the BS being pushed by the Fraser Institute or other right wing toadies that the rich - be they people or corporations - should pay as little tax as possible because somehow that's the magic elixir that will raise up everyone else's income, no matter that average income growth has been negligible for the average Canadians.

But keep on kissing Dear Leader's hem as we get set for more of the Great Stagnation.

Sap, Dear Leader. It is sad when insults seem to be the prime argument of some.

"Canada is apparently becoming an attractive place to do business. This week Burger King announced plans to move its headquarters to Canada, via a merger with Tim Hortons. Other U.S. companies that have recently moved or announced plans to move to Canada include Bausch and Lomb, Allergan, and Auxilium. A Bloomberg analysis indicates Tim Hortons was once a U.S. company, until it inverted to Canada in 2009.

Part of the attraction is the substantial tax reforms that occurred over the last 15 years in Canada. First among these is the dramatic reduction in the corporate tax rate, from 43 percent in 2000 to 26 percent today. The U.S. currently has a corporate tax rate of 39 percent, but lawmakers are reluctant to do what Canada did, i.e. lower the tax rate, for fear of losing tax revenue.

The natural question is: How much tax revenue did Canada lose?

Answer: None.

According to OECD data, corporate tax revenue increased following Canada’s corporate tax rate cuts that began in 2000. The first chart below shows the data. Corporate tax revenue as a share of GDP in Canada has averaged 3.3 percent since 2000, while it averaged 2.9 percent over the years 1988 to 2000, when Canada’s corporate tax rate was 43 percent.

The second chart shows the same data for the U.S. The U.S. corporate tax rate has remained at about 39 percent since 1988, but this has not translated into higher corporate tax revenue. For 15 years straight, Canada has raised more corporate tax revenue than the U.S., as a share of GDP. Since 2000, U.S. corporate tax revenue as a share of GDP has averaged 2.3 percent, compared to 3.3. percent in Canada.

Canada's corporate tax base has grown for two reasons. First, multinational corporations, especially those based in the U.S., are attracted to Canada's tax regime. Second, Canada's low corporate tax burden and relatively simple tax code grows corporations organically, i.e. through low start-up costs and reinvestment of after-tax earnings.

Next time a lawmaker says we can't afford a corporate tax cut, tell them to look at Canada."

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/canadas-lower-corporate-tax-rate-raises-more-tax-revenue

I suppose there will be more insults on the way as an argument. Vote for the party that will result in less money out of your pocket.

[IFG]

Canada is apparently becoming an attractive place to do business .... Part of the attraction is the substantial tax reforms that occurred over the last 15 years in Canada. First among these is the dramatic reduction in the corporate tax rate, from 43 percent in 2000 to 26 percent today ....

Hi, flyinghigh - Far be it from me to question the intention (or impartiality) of the Tax Foundation, but I do wonder if there might be a little statistical sleight-of-hand going on in that article.

The graph below, supposed to support their point about alleged benefit of tax changes beginning in 2000, shows the 'improvement' in tax receipts that they cite (using the oblique metric of %GNP, but we'll go with that), occurring mainly during the 6-7 years preceding the corporate taxation rate changes for which they credit it.

I'm not a professional economist, but I can follow numbers; perhaps you can elaborate?

Cheers, IFG

[Guest]

My man was elected on the plus side. It will be interesting to see how soon our new PM carries forth one of his "first acts" to legalize pot. CTV Montreal
Published Thursday, September 3, 2015 7:31AM EDT

Justin Trudeau says if elected, his Liberal government would start taking action to legalize marijuana "right away."

Trudeau reiterated the promise on Wednesday evening at a rally in Quebec City.

​

[mo32a]

^You are worrying about nothing, income splitting for pensioners will remain unchanged, it is the income splitting for working folks that is going to be cancelled. Both the Liberals and the NDP stated the same.

[Guest]

^You are worrying about nothing, income splitting for pensioners will remain unchanged, it is the income splitting for working folks that is going to be cancelled. Both the Liberals and the NDP stated the same.

If so great but , I sent an email to all 3 parties only the Liberal party declined to comment when asked if Pension Splitting for Pensions would remain. Their answer was that they were busy with the campaign and would get back to me, they never did. However when asked about marijuana I had an instant reply.

The results still show however that it is tough being green.

Re Pension Splitting, I found my answer on page 8.

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/The-Liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing.pdf

[DEFCON]

Congrats to Trudeau for running a very successful campaign. Although I'm not a Liberal, I welcome the change.

[Guest]

I too am glad for the change but now comes the time for the Liberals to stand up to the plate and deliver their promises. It will be interesting to watch and of course our media will hold their feet to the fire in the same fashion as they did the previous Government.

[dagger]

If so great but , I sent an email to all 3 parties only the Liberal party declined to comment when asked if Pension Splitting for Pensions would remain. Their answer was that they were busy with the campaign and would get back to me, they never did. However when asked about marijuana I had an instant reply.

The results still show however that it is tough being green.

Re Pension Splitting, I found my answer on page 8.

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/The-Liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCiwTBvHc1k

[Guest]

Missing your point Dagger......... see my earlier post http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/406879-more-more-politics-ot-but-relevant/?p=1655925

[Guest]

Canadian marijuana stocks jump as Liberal wins signals legalization on the table

‎Today, ‎October ‎20, ‎2015, ‏‎13 minutes ago | Peter Kovenhttp://business.financialpost.com/news/agriculture/canadian-marijuana-stocks-jump-as-liberal-wins-signals-legalization-on-the-table' title="Go to full article">

Of all the industries across Canada, none could possibly be happier with Monday’s election result than the medical marijuana sector.

Justin Trudeau’s plan to legalize marijuana promises to bring massive opportunity to an industry that only came into existence last year.

Marijuana equities moved higher on Tuesday as investors absorbed the news. Shares of Canopy Growth Corp. (formerly Tweed Marijuana) jumped 13 per cent, while Aphria Inc.’s shares climbed 11 per cent.

The federal government birthed the marijuana sector in April 2014, when it introduced rules that required medical pot patients to buy their product from licensed producers. That created a market frenzy as dozens of companies popped up out of nowhere to get into the sector. Those firms are slowly being whittled down to a much smaller group of capable long-term producers.

But while the medical marijuana patient list is growing, it is still below 30,000 people across the country. That is a tiny number, and it limits the amount of money these companies can possibly make. As of now, none of the major producers are cash flow positive.

Legalization, if it indeed happens, will transform the business because the potential customer base is enormous. Assuming Canada follows the path of U.S. states like Colorado and Oregon that have legalized, pot will become huge business literally overnight.

But that will also bring big challenges to the marijuana producers. Higher production could drive prices down, which would force plenty of companies out of business if they cannot establish enough scale to drive down their costs. Consolidation, which is already happening, will likely become a must. The regulatory environment under legalization is completely uncertain. And a legalized marijuana industry could also draw interest from the global tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. If they bring their scale and know-how to pot, it may become impossible for the small Canadian firms to hold their ground.

​

[Guest tailwheel]

I too am glad for the change but now comes the time for the Liberals to stand up to the plate and deliver their promises. It will be interesting to watch and of course our media will hold their feet to the fire in the same fashion as they did the previous Government.

For the sake of everyone in this forum, hopefully they will break their promises.

But, I suppose they will keep them.

Let the airlift begin.

"Welcome to Canada. Are you associated with ISIS?"

"No"

"Security check complete, next."

You voted for it.

Tailwheel....I must be a racist. But my conscience is clear.

[inchman]

First, you are simply fear mongering. There is no reason why reasonable checks cannot be carried out on refugees. It's not like we don't have professionals in the CBSA and CSIS.

Second, last time I looked we (and the US) had lots of crime and terrorism from within the country. Immigrants don't have the monopoly on terrorism.

Let's not forget that the country is given direction by parliament, but was, and will continue to be, run by the same civil servants that were there under the Conservatives. Despite our often negative comments about them, the vast majority of them are dedicated and competent and will continue to serve and protect the country and our borders.

[Wolfhunter]

This is cute.....

THE TAX SYSTEM IN BEERS:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking in a different country, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[deicer]

Welcome to the Unites State of Fear North of 49 edition.

Much as we deride how it happens south of the border, it's happening here too.

The new government is not even sworn in, but yet they are responsible for everything that is wrong that they inherited.....

[Guest tailwheel]

Welcome to the Unites State of Fear North of 49 edition.

Much as we deride how it happens south of the border, it's happening here too.

The new government is not even sworn in, but yet they are responsible for everything that is wrong that they inherited.....

Not true at all. They inherited a balanced budget and will be completely responsible for going back into deficit.

And then there are all the statements made by the opposition here. How many Nazi references(first post on this thread), terms like dear leader, statements of how the country" has been destroyed(looked similar to me the last time I walked down the steet), totalitarianism, end of democracy, complete hypocrisy of arguments(as seen by all the ones shot down on this thread by me).

I admit, that there are pro-conservative guys who do the same thing. I always hate when I see the mindless "bozo-trudeau" insult.

But I would say de-icer, that by looking at your posts, that you are one of the worst for misleading statements on this forum. I can go back and collect some examples if you like. One of my favourites is how it took the Syriza party's election to power to get real austerity cuts in Greece and therefore(I assume) was the better government for the Greeks.

AS for the supposed fear-mongering by me, we have already had thousands killed in the west in the name of religion(one religion) in the last 15 years. Plus plots against thousands more. Some are concerned, some are not. Perhaps I am wrong and will freely admit if so. What I will do is keep track of the results of terrorism versus refugees and point it out here. I hope I am wrong.

[Guest tailwheel]

First, you are simply fear mongering. There is no reason why reasonable checks cannot be carried out on refugees. It's not like we don't have professionals in the CBSA and CSIS.

And how exactly is this done. Some questions that will be answered honestly. What other resource is there to go on?

Second, last time I looked we (and the US) had lots of crime and terrorism from within the country. Immigrants don't have the monopoly on terrorism.

I am not talking about crime, only the terrorism risk so lets not try to justify ignoring the latter because the former is a reality(which is the intention of the argument). We have a lot of immigrants in the west from various backgrounds. Major religions include bhuddist , hindus, and the religions we get from the Chinese/Japanese/vietnemese. I am still waiting for someone to point out the first terrorist attach in the west from these immigrants. There must be at least one. Is there?

[DEFCON]

Religion is the problem!

A borrowed, but serious question; why do people pray to their God following a nasty event, a tsunami for instance, when it should be clear that he didn't give a damn in the first place?

[boestar]

Apparently the Fear peddlers have done their job.

[deicer]

I see that the misinformation and attacks continue...

[Guest tailwheel]

I see that the misinformation and attacks continue...

Please note everyone how a statement is made with no backup of information. This is of course how the arguments from this sector are normally made. Mindless statements with no backup. I could say the exact same thing. Who is right.

"Misinformation and attacks continue." OK, show me the misinformation and prove me wrong. I have no problem admitting being wrong. Please pick apart my statements and show everyone else the errors I have made. it is not difficult. I would the the two previous posts fit under the guise of "attacks".

Oops, did the truth slip out again. And notice, nothing to show what Inhave stated earlier is wrong or not bringing up an important subject. How exactly do you filter out people sympathetic to or involved with ISIS?

And yes, I do fear terrorist attacks just like I fear crime, irresponsible drivers texting, etc. They are pretty much separate issues. Just because one exits doesn't justify creating conditions that allows risk of the other to grow.

[Mitch Cronin]

Hey Tailwheel? Do you think you're on some kind of a stage here or something? It often sounds as though you're addressing your commentary to some imaginary audience rather than to whom you're conversing?