CPCFTW

Oh god.. 3 more years of lefties reassuring each other that every minor scandal they can conjure up into the next national crisis will be the death knell of the conservatives. I don't know if I can take it. Can't you guys wait until your parties find leaders before talking about winning the next election?

I'm sorry I don't have access to a computer right now so I can't research this, but what exactly does ontario's "diversified" economy consist of? I'm pretty sure the labour force is something like 25% government (produce nothing), 25% health (produce nothing), 15% finance/law (manage wealth, produce nothing), 15% construction/trades (create infrastructure, repair finished good, produce nothing), 15% menial service jobs (produce nothing), 10% manufacturing (produce something). The entire Ontario economy is based around managing wealth generated in the west, regulating how that wealth can be generated, and providing infrastructure and services to the aforementioned occupations. Feel free to provide some more accurate statistics, as I am completely guessing, but there isn't much that Ontario does other than be the centre of government and financial corporate headquarters.

I guess it depends on the tween-like act. I think we'll survive this one... Not so much if some tween ndp's utopian dream ever got implemented.

Better to act like tweens then to have sitting tween members! Another non-story

On the back of his creation of close to 600,000 jobs since the recession, StatsCan drops this bomb. Harper's steering the ship alright. Right away from an iceberg.

I agree. Harper forcing football teams to honour the military was the last straw!!! I also noticed you used the American spelling of honour in your anti-America rant...

Damn 1.4B and we get nothing back? I mean other than hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in corporate and personal tax revenue.

Sure you can look at it that way except that it is every canadian citizen who is an owner, not the employee. The government involvement is the whole point... Tax dollars going towards private jobs rather than welfare cheques.

How do the employees share the profits of the company? They get paid a fixed "minimum income". The government, as a shareholder, shares the profits. The idea is to keep management in the hands of the private sector, and to keep the company's focus on generating profits rather than the plethora of public interests a government owned enterprise would be subject to. The profits from this portfolio would be used to pay for the public interests of the socialists, rather than borrowing funds from China. Currently our society is: Use tax revenue to provide public services, borrow from china to make up shortfall. I'm proposing we change it to: Use tax revenue and borrowed funds to invest in a portfolio of assets managed by professionals. Use income generated by these assets to pay for public services. Who knows... Maybe if our portfolio did well enough, we could actually afford those crazy ideas like defined benefit pensions for all.

I already mentioned in another thread that I wouldn't mind if governments had no voting rights or too large a stake. A stake in a private business would definitely be a better return on investment than heroine injection houses and welfare cheques. My reasoning in the previous post I made on this was that it shouldn't be hard to find private investment opportunities with expected returns greater than the 1-2% cost of capital for Canadian government (based on t-bills and GOC bonds). I specifically stated that they should be non-voting shares to avoid politicians influencing private boards/management for political gain. The problem with public ownership of business is when the government is in charge of managing the business. The companies should be free to cut costs with layoffs, firings, outsourcing, or other measures without any political ramifications... the relationship should be a purely financial consideration. I wish our government would employ more financial analysts, portfolio managers, equity/credit analysts, investment bankers, etc. rather than environmental scientists and political science or sociology grads. I'm sure they could build a hell of a portfolio with our tax dollars.

Whoa 200 economists!?! That's gotta be almost 0.1% of economists in the world! They really do speak for the 99%!

That's the problem with subsidizing degrees. High school grads would rather get a student loan and a subsidized degree than a job. Who wants to hire a 25 year old who has only read books his whole life?

"Moral of the story: all jobs are good, minimum wage is bad." I would like to expand on my moral and redirect this thread back towards the problems caused by free trade. I've always thought that a "minimum income" would be a better solution than minimum wages. Basically, governments would subsidize low wage jobs by guaranteeing a minimum income. For example, a manufacturer could set up shop in Ontario and pay its workers $5/hr. The government would top up this income by paying the workers another $5.25/hr to guarantee a minimum income of $10.25/hr. The government could even take an equity stake in the manufacturing company to help pay for the employees "minimum income". The taxation of export profits would also help pay for this expense. This may contravene free trade agreements, but it would certainly help bring some of these jobs back from overseas. I'd rather my tax dollars went towards subsidizing workers than subsidizing laziness.

Yes it is an error. You obviously have no idea what median is. What if those 10 participants paid taxes as follows: 1 x $91, and 9 x $1 Then the median income would be the income that generated $1 of tax revenue. By your logic that is the income level required to be paying your share of government services. But it was the one guy paying $91 of taxes that paid for 91% of the services. Hence, the average income is the figure you should be using. Personally, I think that anyone that is employed at any wage, is helping the government income statement. High paying jobs will be paying for their own government services and also the services of others. Low wage earners will be reducing the burden on high wage earners to support them, and low wage earners will presumably be employed by someone who can profit off of their labour and pay taxes/consume with that profit. Moral of the story: all jobs are good, minimum wage is bad.

Pretty sure we're massively in debt and not paying for the services we get through taxes. And why would you use the median? Do you not understand math or averages? Another blatant error. You obviously haven't put much thought or research into these arguments. You're just arguing from emotions as is usual from the left.

Completely untrue. Low wages reduce the cost of living. Furthermore, low wages means the employers are making greater profits and paying taxes on those profits. I already addressed this.

Good point. Minimum wage should be raised so that everyone can pay for their health care, education, savings, and other government service needs without government assistance. How does $30/hr sound? I can't wait to order my $20 big mac! Dre's ideal society: 40% unemployment with 60% philosophy PhDs "making a living" flipping burgers for $30/hr. You're also forgetting that people making minimum wage are generating profits for the companies/employers they work for. Those companies/employers pay taxes on those profits to subsidize the workers making a living.

Oh god... now people on government ordained minimum wage are too good for government tax breaks?

So what is the argument? I indicated that people are perfectly capable of living off minimum wage and still having discretionary income, then people started to argue: But what about clothes? But what about savings? But what about education? I had $300/mo in discretionary spending in my budget that I posted earlier. You can buy all of that stuff in whatever amount (ie. at your discretion), that you'd prefer. Want new Nike shoes? You can buy a pair a month. Want an education? Save up for 9 months a year, put $2500 in an RESP per year and the government will chip in a $500 CESG grant. In two years you'll have $6000 saved plus the return on your investment. Want to go to school earlier? Then work more than 40 friggin hours at minimum wage and spend less than $500/mo on food. It's not like my budget was conservative. I eat out almost every day and hardly spend any more than $500 on food.

I've seen the list but it's still early in parliament. 14 absences is a 2 week vacation... who knows how many at the top simply took celebratory vacations after finally helping Harper to secure his majority. I will be upset if, at the end of 41st parliament, the list looks anything like the liberal list did. Keep in mind that the conservatives have far more MPs than the other parties. Feel free to copy that chart into excel and calculate absences per MP for each party. I'm sure the conservatives aren't doing too badly since around 140 out of 166 conservative MPs have no absences at all. It's hilarious to still see so many liberals up high on that list with only 34 MPs though. Guess they still didn't get the message.

I'm sorry but what the hell are you guys arguing? Are you now suggesting that saving and accumulating wealth is a fundamental human right? We're talking about minimum wage here folks. It should be just enough to provide for all your needs but you can still also have a little discretionary income. I can't believe I have to actually argue this... Should we pay lifelong burger flippers at mcdonald's 30k? Well you still can't save that much on 30k and what about haircuts and designer label clothes? You can't live without designer label clothes!! Raise min wage to 40k!! Ridiculous. Besides, I already touched on being able to work more than 40hrs per week. Work 50hrs and you make 25k. Work 60hrs and you make 30k. It's not like people working in the private sector on salary punch in at 9 and punch out at 5 every day like government employees. People making over 50k, outside of unionized public sector jobs, are generally working more than 40hrs per week. Is 40hrs the lefty decried human limit to working?

Maybe he's nodding off because he works too hard? He's obviously not getting enough sleep so he must be doing something with his time. It's not like he pulled out a sleeping bag and laid down... he showed up too work too tired to keep his eyes open. At least he bothered to show up... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/which-mps-missed-the-most-votes/article1931547/?from=1932039

Ei and cpp contributions are included in my take home pay numbers. I left 300/mo in discretionary spending. That's more than enough for clothes and medicine. Take a look at craigslist or kijiji. You can find hundreds of ads per day of accomodation at that price in toronto. Yes I have lived like that. In fact I chose to live like that for 2 years while making 40-50k and paid off about 30k in debt and maxed out my rrsp and put some money in my tfsa. In the next 2 years I plan on continuing to max out new RRSP contribution room, maxing out my TFSA, and buying a 2 bedroom condo and renting out 1 bedroom. Hopefully I will get a few more raises and promotions in the meantime. I will still be under 30. I hope my wealth doesn't get seized by hippies later in life for making these personal lifestyle choices now.

Yes. $20000/12 = $1450/mo after tax $100/mo = transit pass $500/mo = rent a room in a home, or a basement apartment $500/mo = food $50/mo = internet $300/mo = discretionary spending Have a kid? No problem, you get another $100 from the UCCB, and $400/mo from the CCTB: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/clcltr/cctb_clcltr-eng.html You will also get back about $200/mo in taxes. Want more? Get a 2nd job. There are more than 40 waking hours in a week. Or get a husband/wife/bf/gf/roommate to split costs.

I think it will affect the public's vote the same way the contempt of parliament charge did. The public will once again see one party trying to get things done and the other parties playing politics.