jacee

http://www.whatis-theplan.org/t17603-occupy-bay-street-toronto Just fyi See "Occupy" thread.

occupy bay street Canada Occupy Calgary Occupy Montrea Occupy Newfoundland Occupy Nova Scotia Occupy Ottawa Occupy Toronto Market Exchange Occupy Vancouver Occupy Victoria Europe goes out Oct 15. And Canada It looks like over 100 US cities out now See list here ... http://www.occupytogether.org/ And update ...

Let's just say until there are enough good jobs in Canada to create as many consumers and taxpayers as we can, then we can't afford tax breaks for the wealthiEST so called 'job creators', corporate subsidies or corporate tax breaks. And there will issues of predatory investors and their bankers/traders, bad employers - including Canadian ones elsewhere (eg mining) - and a few other things not quite worked out yet ... it's an evolving thing. And the oil sands will be the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in North America, and second only to the total of all US and Canadian coal fired plants. Ya ... there are some issues ... some conversations to be had.

Exactly.

It's not about the American people of course, and olp is out of line in my opinion It's about the American state. First of all co-opting "American" when there are 35 countries and 23 territories in the Americas. And then there's the tendency to meddle in the affairs of other countries around the world, propping up nasty dictators to protect corporate profits, and such. Quite a bit of the world does have a point. And we are very small, outnumbered and outgunned, and we really don't want to be taken over by the US ... really ... reallyreallyreally, Reallyreallyreallyreallyreally, Do not want to be 'American'. It's not 'an accident' that we're still here. Really.

And how do we know what they're really doing here. It's scary of course. Now that's funny ... I just wrote "Our cops don't bully us. Not so sure about theirs." But of course ours did at the G20. And now this ... I want them in uniform so we know who they are all the time.

Where are you getting this?

Strange comment, coming from a Canadian wannabe.

Oh it's good alright ... if you're not one of the 1%, or their bootlicking politicians, or their bankers, or their spies ...

Rolling Stone weighs in ...

Well then you can count me rebellious and basely ungrateful.

I suspect a lot older, since I'm retired. But thanks for the proposal. It made my day. It's nice to be appreciated for my brain.

We are fed the line that 'job creators' deserve tax reductions. Because. Creating jobs brings in more income tax revenue for Canada. That's the theory. I say investors/advisors should provide evidence that jobs resulting in tax revenues for Canada actually were created. Yes investment, in theory, helps everyone everywhere. In reality, money invested in companies operating outside Canada does not contribute much to Canada. I think the 'job creators' need to prove that they are creating jobs for Canadians because frankly, it's more important for an unemployed Canadian and his/her family to have a liveable wage than it is for the wealthiEST to have a tax break.

Ya well I don't know what any of that means so I think we'd better start with some basic communication before we complicate things too much.

Ya right! Conservative voters wanted him to spend billions on nothing! Do you even know what's in it?

My hypocrisy beef is with people who dis public housing for the poor and disabled without understanding even elementary fact about how it works and has for the past 30 years. In the 60's we built many huge public housing complexes for the (baby boom) poor and disabled. It was a mistake and they turned into crime and vermin infested horrors where nobody, esp kids, could live safely. They were money pits consuming mega taxpayer dollars. The new concept, in place for several decades now, is mixed housing with some market-rate units and some subsidized. The higher market-rate income helps pay for the subsidies. Smart concept, provides safer housing for kids and consumes less taxpayer dollars. So let's not be dissing anyone, including Jack and Olivia, who live in 'public housing' and pay market rent. They are saving you tax dollars.

AMWO ... you can be a nice person but you obviously have a drug bug. It's like an addiction to you, and I'm glad you are finally going cold turkeyif that was indeed your last post on this topic. Addictions can be damaging. The only thing that matters is the law. The law does not define 'under the influence' as 'possession'. If the law wanted 'under the influence' to be defined as 'possession', it would make that clear. It doesn't. Yes they would. They have no evidence, not even a reasonable suspicion. Detaining the person, under those circumstances, would violate his charter right. It doesn't matter who you ask. The law is clear.If your point is that being under the influence of an illegal drug SHOULD be illegal, start a campaign ... in your own jurisdiction. But just a warning ... if cops start hauling people in and giving people invasive blood tests ... just because they 'look like' they might be under the influence of a possbly illegal substance ... be prepared for a LOT of lawsuits! No police officer can make that judgement call, so they won't support your campaign. Now you just go for a walk and see if you can tell the difference between a person under the influence of an illegal substance vs. their prescribed medication vs lack of sleep vs MS/MD or any other motor disorder ... Now let it go ...

Man I can't believe people still don't get that! The concept is simple: People who can pay market rate (for non-profit housing) do so and that helps subsidize (eg) disabled people in the same building/complex who cannot afford market rates. The man is dead! Can people put this to rest please!

Investment in what? Does it create Canadian jobs? Can you prove it? How much income tax for Canadians do those jobs create? Do I look like an economist? (No. I look like a retired person wearing a blanket.) Sorry, I won't get into details without the data. But my opinion would be that if your investment creates new jobs for Canadians, you might be entitled to current investment tax breaks IF you replaced that amount of income tax with income taxes from those new jobs. Simple concept. You want an investment tax break? Create a Canadian taxpayer. Investing in nominally 'Canadian' corporations that do not create jobs for Canadians ... ? No tax break.

Oh ... so you really do believe that 'double dip' crapola.Let me educate you. The principal you invested was already taxed. The income you earn from the principal has not been taxed, is income, and thus subject to income tax, albeit currently at lower rates. (In my ideal world, it would only be taxed at lower rates if you prove that your investment created Canadian jobs.) It's not rocket science.

First of all, government is not "they", it is us ... every one of us. . We pay their salaries, they work for us ... every one of us. We tell them what to do. Unfortunately, sometimes they forget that and only listen to and pander to the megarich, giving them tax breaks that the rest of us pay for. Enough. Secondly, in Canada the wealthiEST 1% is 155,000 households, not "50", And finally, as I said above, we have a problem with an increasing income gap because the megarich are making their megaprofits outside the country and middle class jobs are disappearing here in Canada, so the middle class can no longer afford to pay for the tax breaks for the rich that are supposed to be for creating jobs for Canadians, but aren't. If you want a tax break, you should first prove you have created jobs for middle class Canadians, ie, created more taxpayers (to make up for your tax breaks). THAT would make sense to me. However, the present situation where nominally 'Canadian' corporations. Steal jobs from Canadians (and taxes from all of us) by operating overseas making crappy products (also nominally 'Canadian') and then getting tax breaks as if it is all 'Canadian', when not one Canadian got a job (and paid taxes) out of it. NO. That's a scam, a ripoff of all other Canadians who have to pick up the slack for the megarich without the advantage of more jobs. And to add insult to injury, we buy their stinkin crappy 'Canadian' products and they fall apart! I haven't done the research , would like to have the data to do it, but it certainly appears to me that the income gap is increasing because the megarich are getting tax breaks for stealing jobs from Canadians, while they used to (in theory) get tax breaks for creating jobs (and income taxes) for us. You want a tax break? Create a Canadian taxpayer. ... and prove you did ... because the so-called 'job creators' aren't creating them HERE! Now, do I have a point? Good grief! I've barely met the man! I'm still waiting to hear back about a possible first date! Then I have to find out whether his money comes from ethical sources. I hear Wall Street is beautiful at this time of year.

So ... Mr megarich protester ... when's the next flight to Wall Street ... or do we teletransport?

Whoa!Derek was halfheartedly trying the old "double dip" two-step, claiming that the money invested had 'already been taxed' as income. But of course the investment income (from savings already taxed) is new earnings and taxed as such, albeit (currently) at a lower rate. That's all. As for your mythical character - we'll call him Jake because I think we shouldn't meddle in Derek's personal affairs - Jake the industrious fellow ... is within the law. Should the law be changed to tax Jake's investment income more? I believe it should. Yes, he's worked hard and smart for the money and now it his money itself earns him a living, though he chooses to keep working. Good for him. He has earned his reward. But does that also earn him a gift (ie, money saved in income tax from investments) from the rest of us taxpayers? Maybe on some of it - a reasonable living perhaps - but I don't believe that Jake should get a tax break - that the rest of us have to make up from our employment earnings - on his investment earnings. I feel particularly strongly about that now that most large corporations are earning megaprofits from worker poverty in China, etc. There is NO WAY I should be picking up income tax slack for rich people - much more able to pay than me - who are earning investment income from overseas poverty wages while the jobs that should be in Canada have been 'outsourced' to make it easier for rich people to get richer while I pay their taxes. And by the way, it isn't just poverty wages that are saving corporations megabucks and skyrocketing investment income: It's cheap quality of materials and processes, such that children's toys are toxic and purchases fall apart the first time you use them. But they carry the same label and price tag as before. I don't care whether a company says it's a Canadian company, it's NOT Canadian quality products. And I'm not paying more for crappy products while also paying more Canadian taxes for Canadians so that some rich people can get richer investing in corporations that make megaprofits from crappy work and call it 'Canadian' while keeping the money and the work overseas so it isn't taxed in Canada, and the jobs are not in Canada. Screw you! SCREW you! Make your money here, invest it in jobs for Canadians, PROVE that money invested created jobs for Canadians, made products that are good enough to be called 'Canadian' and pay taxes in Canada. THEN we'll talk. Well ... I guess I kind of went on a rant there. Nothing personal CPC, Derek. It's just the way it is to the vast majority of Canadians. Investment income isn't good or bad intrinsically: It's how and where it's invested that matters. And if - like GoldmanSachs in the US - you are earning megabucks betting that people will lose their homes, and then making sure they do so you can 'win' ... and then getting kudos for "the best trade of the year" ... OR you're making money off jobs that should be in Canada ... screw your welfare rate taxes for the rich! Is that clearer? Do I have a point? Look back at the thread title ... we have a problem ... and continuing on in the same way will exacerbate the problem. WE need to solve the problem, not make it worse.

There is no law. Thus, it is not illegal to have consumed illegal drugs. National Defense and CF have nothing to do with law enforcement in Canada. What about in your countey ... is there a law against having consumed illegal drugs?

OK, now go find a cop who's going to arrest and blood test someone on a suspicion that he might 'possess' illegal drugs in his system, though he's not causing any trouble. It's a ridiculous argument-for-the-sake-of-argument, and it is not written in law so it is not the law, and any cop who detained and (invasively) blood-tested someone on such a suspicion would get laughed out of court, out of the squad room, the police club, and likely get slapped with a lawsuit. It couldn't be law because the police could not enforce it. But go ahead ... try to find the law.