More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)

[DEFCON]

“While Canadians are being squeezed by a slumping economy, Stephen Harper is handing out a $2 billion a year tax break that will only benefit 15% of Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed in their update on the Budget 2015 that the Conservative income-splitting scheme is an ineffective tax measure that would benefit families in medium-high through high-income households while lower-income households would get absolutely no benefit. “

Why is it wrong for only 15% to receive a tax benefit especially considering that it’s that part of the population paying the taxes in the first place?

Why does the NDP believe that lower-income households should expect to receive a benefit from every tax relief related scheme introduced by government?

Isn’t the income-splitting tax deduction a fair representation of one politician’s attempt to protect the interests and pocket-books of the middle-class?

[Fido]

Because the policy is all ideology driven

[Guest]

NOT a fan of the current regime. I could never feel it is fair that two income earners in a family would generate the same income I did and pay less in taxes. As a single income family, we would pay about 25-30% more taxes for the same family income. This is not about left or right, it is about taxation fairness. The two income family also would have other tax breaks which would further reduce their bill, such as child care expenses. I am not disputing those, just that if you want to recognize a family unit, then provide taxation equity.

Don't even get me started about corporations who only pay taxes on their profits. That would be equivalent to taxiing us on our net savings at the end of the year! Who has the most rights as 'persons'?

[Guest]

Who has the most rights as 'persons'?

Them that the parties think will cast a vote in their favour.

[boestar]

Income splitting does me ZERO good anyway as my wife earns almost the same as I do.

[Guest]

Pension splitting on the other hand is great for me as my wife worked full time as a housewife and does not therefore have any pension income other than OAS. Tax refund every year since the splitting was allowed.

I wonder what the numbers are for single income families..... but maybe there are not that many who qualify for income splitting.

[J.O.]

“Why is it wrong for only 15% to receive a tax benefit especially considering that it’s that part of the population paying the taxes in the first place?Why does the NDP believe that lower-income households should expect to receive a benefit from every tax relief related scheme introduced by government?Isn’t the income-splitting tax deduction a fair representation of one politician’s attempt to protect the interests and pocket-books of the middle-class?

Because that $2 billion a year could be put to much better use (paying down debt; improving infrastructure; investing in innovation) than buying votes from a demographic that (for the most part) will vote for him anyways.

[mo32a]

^You can always find a better place to spend our money, I want more of it in my pocket so I can decide what is best for me to spend it on. It sure as hell wouldn't be childcare.

[Guest tailwheel]

Because that $2 billion a year could be put to much better use (paying down debt; improving infrastructure; investing in innovation) than buying votes from a demographic that (for the most part) will vote for him anyways.

With the deficit at or near zero and trending downwards into a surplus, a large infrastructure program in place and over a billion announced for innovation in the last budget...

http://www.nature.com/news/canadian-budget-pushes-applied-research-1.17305

.... I assume that you will be voting conservative as Justin plans to go back into deficits big time. Looks like you thinking is in alignment with Harper.

After all, Harper isn't trying to by votes by shifting taxes from one group to another(while trudeau schemes to raise the GST and add carbon taxes).

[boestar]

Todays Federal Debt: 616,444,726,281.02

10 years ago: 495,530,668,493.00

Does this look at all like a defecit that is trending towards ZERO?

Any federal budget is a smoke screen to what is actually going on behind the scenes. You and I are all paying for this. If EVERYONE in Canada coughed up $17,233 today we could eliminate that debt and drop taxes.

[DEFCON]

But everyone won't / can't cough up the 17K Boestar which means the few would be required to pick up this load for the others too.

[J.O.]

Todays Federal Debt: 616,444,726,281.02

10 years ago: 495,530,668,493.00

Does this look at all like a defecit that is trending towards ZERO?

Any federal budget is a smoke screen to what is actually going on behind the scenes. You and I are all paying for this. If EVERYONE in Canada coughed up $17,233 today we could eliminate that debt and drop taxes.

That's not the deficit, that's the federal debt. The deficit is the difference between tax revenue in and government expenditures out in a fiscal year. Oh, and anyone who believes that the deficit will be near zero this year is dreaming in technicolor. Ain't gonna happen, won't even be close, no matter what Joe says.

[Guest]

That's not the deficit, that's the federal debt. The deficit is the difference between tax revenue in and government expenditures out in a fiscal year. Oh, and anyone who believes that the deficit will be near zero this year is dreaming in technicolor. Ain't gonna happen, won't even be close, no matter what Joe says.

I think you will be proven to be right but then let's add in the amounts of money Justin and Thomas are promising to spend if they win the election........

[deicer]

As opposed to Steve not saying a word but giving away everything and the kitchen sink while making drunken sailors look fiscally responsible?

[inchman]

I think you will be proven to be right but then let's add in the amounts of money Justin and Thomas are promising to spend if they win the election........

First words uttered by the leader of any change of party in power to justify not following through with their promises ... "We had no idea know how much of a financial mess we were going to be left with".

[Don Hudson]

Re, "And who's idea was it to cancel the gold standard, don't blame Nixon, that once prevented all the crazy smoke and mirror style transactions that go on today from taking place?"

If not Nixon, who? Keynes?

The site below can be useful for 'big pictures' in terms of historical exchange rates, trends and comparisons with gold and other commodities.

http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates-comparison.php

[Guest]

Had to look.

When did the United States go off the gold standard?

H.J. Res. 192, approved by President Roosevelt on June 5, 1933, provided that obligations payable in gold or specific coin or currency are contrary to public policy, and that those obligations could be discharged dollar for dollar in legal tender. After that resolution was adopted, currency of the United States could not be converted into gold by United States citizens, but the Treasury would convert dollars into gold for foreign governments as a means of maintaining stability and confidence in the dollar. Because the dollar was no longer freely convertible, one could consider that the United States was no longer on the gold standard at that time. If, however, one considers the gold standard as a monetary system in which the unit of money is backed by gold even if the monetary unit cannot be converted into gold, one could argue that the United States went off of the gold standard on August 15, 1971 when President Nixon announced that the U.S. dollar would no longer be convertible into gold in the international markets. The President was able to suspend the ability to convert the dollar into gold because there was no legal requirement that the United States exchange gold for dollars. On December 18, 1971 the President devalued the dollar, and even though the devaluation was effective immediately, only Congress could officially change the gold value of the dollar. Early in 1972, Congress passed Public Law 92- 268, which gave formal approval to the December 1971 devaluation.

https://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/gold_silver

[Don Hudson]

The material effects of both are made clearly visible by the linked site - it was the 1971 action by Nixon and not 1933 technical change that was the turning point for currencies-as-commodity and the speculatory political economy that ensued.

The graph is in terms of the USD, beginning in 1953. The site provides the following notes in relation to the obvious questions that arise:

"Historical exchange rates are official ones from central banks.
"For Gold, Silver, platinum and Palladium, rates and amounts are expressed in grams (1 ounce=31.103 g).
"Before 31/12/1998 the Euro Exchange rates are theorical ones, use XEU code to see ECU exchange rates.
"Before 13/03/1979 XEU rates are theorical ones."

[Guest]

back to Canada....

TVNews.ca Staff
Published Friday, September 11, 2015 2:00PM EDT

The race to be voters' preferred prime minister remains tight, nightly tracking by Nanos Research for CTV and The Globe and Mail shows.

According to the latest survey:

• 30.2 per cent of respondents would prefer Conservative Leader Stephen Harper as prime minister
• 27.5 per cent would prefer Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau
• 27.3 per cent would prefer NDP Leader Tom Mulcair
• 4.5 per cent of Canadians preferred Green Party Leader Elizabeth May as PM
• 8.9 per cent were unsure.

Trudeau makes gains:Voters were asked: "Of the current federal political party leaders, please rank your top two current local preferences for prime minister?"

Compared to a month ago, tracking shows that preferences for Harper and Mulcair have remained relatively unchanged. Trudeau, however, has seen his popularity grow.

One month ago, 21.3 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they would prefer the Liberal leader as prime minister. In the latest survey, his numbers were up approximately six percentage points, sitting at 27.5 per cent.

According to Nanos, Trudeau's numbers have trended up as the impact of the attack ads he faced earlier has started to subside.

Second choice for PM:

Among those who prefer Trudeau as PM, 60 per cent picked Mulcair as their second choice.

Among Canadians who prefer Mulcair as PM, 56 per cent said their second choice was Trudeau.

For those who prefer Harper as PM, 25 per cent identified Trudeau as their second choice and 25 per cent identified Mulcair as their second choice (42 per cent had no second choice).

Nanos Party Power Index:

The NDP scored highest on the Index with 55.5 out of a possible 100 points with the Liberals scoring 53.3 points, the Conservatives 49.1 points, the Green Party 28.9 points and the Bloc Quebecois (Quebec only) 28 points.

The Index is a composite score based on a series of measures, including ballot and leadership preferences.

Poll Methodology:

A national dual-frame (land and cell) random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign using live agents. Each evening, a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprising 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking, a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped.

The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. This margin varies for subpopulations, such as supporters for respective leaders.

Full survey at Nanos Research

[Fido]

back to Canada....

TVNews.ca Staff

Published Friday, September 11, 2015 2:00PM EDT

The race to be voters' preferred prime minister remains tight, nightly tracking by Nanos Research for CTV and The Globe and Mail shows.

According to the latest survey:

• 30.2 per cent of respondents would prefer Conservative Leader Stephen Harper as prime minister
• 27.5 per cent would prefer Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau
• 27.3 per cent would prefer NDP Leader Tom Mulcair

About 2 days ago some poll had those numbers reversed

[Guest]

About 2 days ago some poll had those numbers reversed

Polls are exactly that. Proofs are in the actual votes.

[deicer]

With the campaign half over the truths are starting to come out.....

[Guest tailwheel]

It amazes me how shallow the arguments are against our current government. The ad shows clear cutting trees. How long has Canada had clear cutting. Soldiers in our streets sort of like during the war measures act from someone's dad. And if you want more accurate, then those riot police were there because of the left wing radicals smashing buildings as they tend to do at global conferences. Pollution from factories as if we never had that previously and then the infamous tar sands which grew significantly under the Liberals.

I suggest you read this article from CTV about how Canada was recently rated as the most admired country in the world....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-ranked-as-most-admired-country-in-the-world-report-1.2470040

......this is a classic example of the lies that come from the opposition. Theonly ones spitting on our flag are probably Canadian Harper Haters.

"Canada is the "most admired" country with the "best reputation" in the world, according to an annual survey ranking the reputations of developed nations across the globe.

The 2015 report from the Reputation Institute ranked Canada as the most reputable country in the world, based on a variety of environmental, political, and economic factors.

The Reputation Institute's Fernando Prado says Canada offers "something good" in many different categories evaluated in the survey.

"We all love Canada because of several things," Prado told CTV's Canada AM on Wednesday. In particular, he praised Canada for its "effective government," "absence of corruption," "friendly and welcoming people" and welfare support system.

However, there were a few categories where Canada lags behind, Prado said, explaining that Canada has a perceived lack of strong brand names and companies, and is not considered a particularly important contributor to the global culture.

Despite its "less positive" scores, Canada's well-rounded performance in most categories helped it regain top spot on the Reputation Institute's list, after it fell to second place in 2014.

Canada held down top spot for three consecutive years prior to that, from 2011 to 2013.

"Overall, Canada is a country that can offer something good in all different aspects," Prado said.

The Reputation Institute surveyed approximately 48,000 residents of G8 countries to gather the data for its rankings. Survey respondents were asked to rank the reputations of the world's 55 wealthiest nations (based on GDP) in a variety of categories.

Norway placed second on the list, followed by Sweden, Switzerland, and Australia. The United States slotted into 22nd spot.

The Reputation Institute also produced a separate list ranking countries based on what their citizens said about their homelands. Australia ranked first on this "self-image" list, followed by Canada, Russia, India and Germany, with the U.S. in sixth place.

Russia had the largest gap between their self-image and how they are perceived by other nations. Russian citizens scored their country as the third-most reputable country in the world, but other nations ranked them 52nd out of 55 countries, ahead of only Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq.

The gap between internal reputation and external reputation was also large for China, India and the United States.

The Reputation Institute bills itself as "the world's leading research and advisory firm for reputation

[Guest tailwheel]

It appears that news stories are starting to show that this dead boy's father was actually a people smuggler, that the NDP MP claiming that there had been a refugee application to Canada was a lie, and that the CBC and other news organizations just jumped on this anti-government bandwagon.

Mulcair is defending his MP now just like he defended his communications director for anti-Catholic church statements. Meanwhile the NDP still refuses to pay almost 1.2 million taxpayers dollars for improperly used parliamentary resources.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/ndp-mps-told-to-pay-back-1-17-million/

Sorry, but are there not a bunch of people around that pretend that Harper's so-called corruption means that they will not vote for him.

I know Harper has been around a long time, but is it really worth having your taxes raised for more of the same?

[Don Hudson]

tailwheel;

Re, "It amazes me how shallow the arguments are against our current government. The ad shows clear cutting trees. How long has Canada had clear cutting. Soldiers in our streets sort of like during the war measures act from someone's dad. And if you want more accurate, then those riot police were there because of the left wing radicals smashing buildings as they tend to do at global conferences. Pollution from factories as if we never had that previously and then the infamous tar sands which grew significantly under the Liberals."

That was then, and now is now; things change. One might reasonably conclude that your argument is for more of the same, that such standards of governance and stewardship of both resources and environment to address just two, are acceptable, when Canadians are increasingly recognizing that these things are indeed no longer acceptable in Canada therefore change is needed, if only to retain Canada's 'most-admired' status, and desirability as a country in which to live and work.

It matters to whom Canada is acceptable and by whom it is admired; I think Canadians are well in front of the present administration in answering this important, national question.

As for your second entry, perhaps Mulcair is just asking for the same treatment afforded Mr Duffy and all the others embroiled in this Conservative Senate scandal - "innocent until proven otherwise", which speaks to due legal process vice the fickle 'court' of public opinion, the tea leaves of polls, or conviction by media proxy.