Election 2015
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
Yes, really. You may have heard about this little insignificant thingy your master called Bill-C36 or have you been living under a rock?
My brother and his friend got turned back from the US for marijuana residue. No pot in car or person but still got turned around. I found a Conservative flyer that a customer left on the ground and it says that with C-36 that paying for sex is now a criminal offence. Also they were proud to tout that a majority of Conservatives were against a bill for including transgender rights in the human rights act. Bill C-279 wtf?
So why would people vote for a party that is against consenting adults paying for sex oops "companionship"?
And the Chinese aren't capitalists! Dictators are dictators. It matters not what they name themselves.
Lol.....sorry about that. At least Hitler could built infrastructure and not just advertise it.
I look at a much bigger picture. Show me a government with a perfect set of bills - it simply doesn't happen. In terms in what is best for the majority of people, including keeping jobs for those who are incapable of having a job unless someone hired them (e.g. they need a company or similar to employ them as they cannot create income on their own), the Conservatives are far and away the best choice. Both the NDP and Liberals want people to believe that you can tax the "evil" successful financially individuals and that will solve all the problems. Thing is, not only doesn't that work but it removes those from the system who actually create employment.
Happy to watch this one unfold. I am going to really enjoy seeing how fucked up the Liberals make things but feel for those of you who don't have the ability to work without having to work for someone. Hope you got lots and lots socked away - you will need it.
Just reponding to your specific response but you keep moving the goal posts...
Taxing the very rich is not a new idea, even Warren Buffet sees the problem that there are just way too many tax loop holes for the 1%. No offense to you but I think I believe him a little more than I with you. I also have 1st hand knowledge as I'm a Canadian CPA who works in a public practice. My focus is owner managed business. Some of them do care about their employees and realize their contributions to the company's success. But a bigger percentage just want to minimize taxes at all costs and couldn't care less about their employees.
Taxing the very rich is not a new idea, even Warren Buffet sees the problem that there are just way too many tax loop holes for the 1%. No offense to you but I think I believe him a little more than I with you. I also have 1st hand knowledge as I'm a Canadian CPA who works in a public practice. My focus is owner managed business. Some of them do care about their employees and realize their contributions to the company's success. But a bigger percentage just want to minimize taxes at all costs and couldn't care less about their employees.
Bollocks. Although I agree that too much taxation certainly is a drag on economic growth, I would suggest that too little taxation is to. Which is why much of the Western world has economic stagnation and difficulties recovering from the periodic and predictable financial crises. Companies create employment when there is demand for their goods and services, not because they have low taxes. When taxes have a redistributive effect that results in the masses lower down having more to spend, it creates reasons for companies to create jobs and further enhance the economy. The so-called neoliberal 'trickle-down' economics of cutting taxes for the wealthy to enable investment and creation of jobs has been shown to be false and fraudulent.
Harper has the worst economic record as a Canadian Prime Minister since WWII. None of the other parties are likely to screw things up any more than he has, and arguably might begin to reverse some of the damage he has done.
Last edited:
Yes, like how the last Liberal government fucked up the country by getting the deficit under control and running yearly surpluses. Yes those days were so bad. What great economic track record does Harper have? A mild recession in the first half of this year and inconsistent job growth.
and do you remember how they did that?
by gutting the canada pension plan and old age security funds is how
before the liberals 'balanced the budget', a senior could, by very careful management of their meagre pension, get by
after the liberals 'balanced the budget', seniors had to keep working. the cons raised the retirement age to 70 to reflect what the liberals left behind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
Single Party Elections where you have a Brown Shirt looking over your shoulder are not elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election_and_referendum,_1936
The retirement age was raised to reflect the fact that life expectancy has increased. It was necessary in order to keep the system running, since previously it had been based on older life expectancies which were significantly lower. The system is supposed to be self funding using CPP contributions, but with the traditional retirement age that would not have been viable unless CPP contributions dramatically increased. If CPP contributions did not increase at rates above the inflation rate, and life expectancies continued to rise, the balance would increasingly have to come from general revenue and that would eventually make it difficult for the government to do anything other than pay pensions. Obviously allowing things to get to that point is unacceptable and bad governance. More money needed to come into the pension arrangements in one way or another, and they needed to reduce the payout to keep things balanced. Raising the retirement age does that.
As far as retirement income was concerned, they shifted some of the responsibility for retirement planning from the state to the individual, in the form of increased RRSP limits. That allowed them to keep CPP contributions at levels Canadians would find acceptable, but with the understanding that more should be contributed in the form of RRSPs by individuals.
it might help if you get your points a little closer to the facts :doh:
Old age security isn't a fund, it isn't a pension
the liberals mainly cut transfers to the province, rode Saddam's effect on the world, the greed allowed to grow around the world, in other words the world economy, which Canada has virtually no affect on, helped in part by Free trade Mulroney, the GST and raiding the EI surplus, billions upon billions, close to 50 billion, which Justin sorta has his own scheme of planned to over tax the EI fund into surplus to fund his ideas, not that Harper hasn't been
and Chretien didn't gut the CCP, he raised the premiums on it, because it was underfunded, it never was set up properly in the first place, like a pension fund should have been, to be sustainable
and Harper raised the OAS to 67, not the retirement age, and that doesn't start for more than a few years, affects people born in 1958 on, doesn't fully kick in till 2029
you can still take your CCP at 60/65/70 whenever you choose, anytime after 60
OAS, which is old people welfare, which virtually everyone gets, cut off starts in the 70 grand (NET INCOME) range and doesn't get completely cut off till the 100's
it comes out of general revenue, there is no magic fund, basic math, if everyone over 65 now was to get it, it's in the high 30 billion range, seen estimates saying it's in the low 30's, out of a 290's billion budget
and it's only going to get worse, cause the most useless generation, the boomers are coming
Honestavi's post was brilliant.
My university tuition was about $2300/year, books were < $100. Then went to RMC and got paid to earn another degree, and had a guaranteed job on graduation.
Today kids graduate with a debt that takes years to pay off. Assuming they get a decent job that leaves them enough to make payments after wking out an existence.
My buddy's kid graduated law school and worked for a year, unpaid before getting a paying job.
Interships are bullshit and should be illegal.
The world today is totally different from tge one most of us grew up in. It is nothing like Harper's either.
KiDs today are disenfranchised because nobody is taking their concerns seriously.
My university tuition was about $2300/year, books were < $100. Then went to RMC and got paid to earn another degree, and had a guaranteed job on graduation.
Today kids graduate with a debt that takes years to pay off. Assuming they get a decent job that leaves them enough to make payments after wking out an existence.
My buddy's kid graduated law school and worked for a year, unpaid before getting a paying job.
Interships are bullshit and should be illegal.
The world today is totally different from tge one most of us grew up in. It is nothing like Harper's either.
KiDs today are disenfranchised because nobody is taking their concerns seriously.
It's called throwing a few bones to the majority of the tax payers who might benefit from increased TFSA etc etc. Look at the demographics of who the tax payers are in Canada. Middle class, typically making > $100K or more and totally worn out by taxation, user fees, and the like. Students usually pay very little tax compared with they typical Canadian household.
If you take a pyramid, the Middle Class tax payers are the base with low income earners the middle and the high $ earner i.e. top 5% at the top.
Government has always tailored their taxation perks to appeal to the demographic most likely to vote for them.
I honestly don't get what Trudeau is proposing since it will most likely be the middle class in Canada who either vote Cons, Lib or NDP. Taking away those perks made me raise my eyebrows thinking WTF?
You are correct about CPP needing a greater cash infusion. IF it is to last for the next generations it will need more $ because the elderly are getting older and staying alive.
