69cat

Sounds like you are not understanding things yet cybercoma. Which topic needs further explaination: Low cit helps the economy All parties favor low cit The Harper gov is giving the left wing govs a gift by setting low cit Higher cit is bad for Alberta and business is holding back till a budget is released The ndp not releasing budget is due to incompetence or holding Alberta economy hostage for purpose of federal election Trickle down economics Or did you have a typo and in fact understand all things discussed thus far. I hope so because this is how a voter becomes an informed voter.

Does it really matter what the percent is? Right now we are contesting the mantra of the left and the media that the tfsa is only a vehicle for the wealthy. If we have now stated that joe working stiff is using the tfsa, do we now have to delve into joe working stiffs income of $70,000 to find out if he paid his house off and now had the ability to put $10,000 in a tfsa? Come on, first the idea is to attack the tfsa as it is for the rich only, then the ndp and libs want to take away the proposed increase because joe working stiff comes across some money and figures, based on his own personal finances, that the money is better in a tfsa vs rrsp. And for those who wont deny there was a world economic crisis, maybe money locked in a tfsa is smarter than some rrsp purchases.

No what hitop is laying out is EXACTLY what is playing out in Alberta right now. Not just because of low oil but also because of the change in government. So you are correct that corps dont know what to expand or invest in when discussing Alberta - specifically because it now has ndp gov. And Alberta also raised their provincial tax rate, anyone fail to see why Alberta is a big deal with all that has now been laid out. And can we now understand why the Alberta ndp has not released a budget after 6 months in power? The reason is they are waiting for the federal election is done before that bombshell drops in the ndp camp. If they were so high on themselved thst budget would be out before this next national debate.

I understand that position Michael, i am right now addressing why a company may sit on cash. If our own business had no more desire to grow then we would pay it back to the shareholders and it would be spent in the economy. My point therefore being that a company could follow either doctorine depending on the circumstances. Our company did both over various years.

From wiki, the definition of an asset Probably the most accepted accounting definition of asset is the one used by the International Accounting Standards Board.[6] The following is a quotation from the IFRS Framework: "An asset is a resource controlled by the enterprise as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the enterprise."[7] It does not say anywhere that there is no debt owing on it. I have many assets o the farm in all forms of the definition above, the item is in my name and i use it for future economic benefits. But i can tell you that you better not assume there is no debt against it. I will sit on as much cash as i can but still carry debt if it makes sense. As previous post says, companies sitting on cash is smart business.

Here is a question for you then, when you say these companies are sitting on a pile of cash, will you also post what their comparitive debt liability is also. You really dont think that graph implies these corps are debt free do you? So, why does a corp sit on cash? As stated, most companies are looking to grow when the opportunities arise. It could be a copoetitor selling out, an upturn in economy, landing a big contract requiring need to add more people/infrastructure. I dont think it is really for us to predetermine under what circumstances are for spending cash. Simple matter is you need to have cash to act on opportunities and you need a sound financial position to borrow. Here is your question, if a company had no cash on hand and was heavily financed what is the liklihood of securing more financing to act on opportunity? I would say very low, may be possible, but sitting on cash makes it more possible. A company sitting on cash makes a lot more sense than one without cash because the gov took it, correct?

And further to the comment on ceos of large corporations rolling in cash, well, the companies i have seen in my careers have no such excessive cash. I dont deny that you could probably find 50 companies in Canada where that applies but is it fair to paint all the other 'large corporations' with the same brush when someone comes up with the bright idea for them 'to pay their fair share'. It is my opinion that the majority of large corporations already pay their fair share as well as keeping the economy rolling. So using what a ceo makes is a few samples of that group is hardly a fair way to reach such conclusion.

Lets get back to your initial conclusion that trickle down economics dont work. And further along you think (lets use the correct term) 'large corporations' should be taxed more and CEOs make too much money. Ok, as stated all political parties think it does work. We agree that all political parties follow that doctorine. Ok, so how do low corporate taxes help a working stiff. Well, spent 20 years working full time, have been employed by multinational corps, have been worker/shareholder/part owner of a private company with revenues reaching $15M a year and i farm in Sask. So i have seen things from many angles. First in the businesses i have been involved in, typical profit margins are around 10% with 20% phenomenal. When recently employed with Siemens i had Canadian managers sign off on bids up to $1M at 12% margin, and they were fine with that. So a combined tax rate of say 40% on 10% profit is a big bite, no? As our private business we had a couple years around 20% profit but as we grew things get more complex and it becomes harder to make the same profit because of increased expenditures (qa programs, additional safety reqirements, more meetings, bigger jobs with same risk of reduced profit if things go bad). So lets use 15% profit for our personal risk in our business endeavours. It does mattef if the gov takes 30% vs 40% of our profit. As a company, your goal is to grow, add more product, more revenue. You do this by investing your profits. If the gov takes them you cant invest it yourself therefore less grass roots growth. On the farming side where i am a consumer, if the implement manufacturer is making 15% profit and the economy tightens, or the gov takes more via more taxes then it reduces their profit to work with and expand. And if times get really tight, they need money to survive and they need to keep their employees to be able to ride things out. So they have fixed costs therefore the price of the product to me increases. Trickle down economics.

Back the truck up, so 4 of 5 Canadians contributing to tfsa make less than $100,000? But how can that be so different to what the mainstream media, JT and Tom Mulcair want us to beleive regarding it being a perk for only the wealthy. It seems that we are being lied to and fed a bunch of propaganda. Say it isnt so in such a democratic country like Canada. We could not possibly have propaganda and conditioning being performed by our media. That is a communist (oops, Russia likes socialist) tactic.

Ok, cybercoma i clearly have no clue what your response is saying. Since i have clearly stated that all parties agree with the ideology of low corporate taxes, i can assume you agree and are on Harpers side for staying the course rather than raising the cit to make the fed budget look better and leave the provinces twist in the wind? Good, because it is a very simple concept. So next point is, what do you have against corporations that would warrant anyone to consider raising their taxes and stiffle growth? I mean other than the nerve of the people to take a risk in their life and be rewarded because that is so much against tge socialist way. Lets keep on track because that last post lost me completely.

So what is your point? Quantify it. Who was the 18% that maxed out their TFSA limit? Was 90% of those the middle class? So, could we say 1 in 6 or even 1 in 7 middle class Canadians max out their TFSA? That is a darn high percentage. To give context, if 18% max out there TFSA, tell me how many Canadians max out their rrsp. I would say knowing the nature of how Canadians save would be relevant, no? Lets see, about 66% even contribute, and i see reference to "the majority" do not max out their contribution. Yet 1 in 5 Canadians max out their TFSA. What can possibly be inferred from that? Well the lefties will say it clearly means the "wealthy" and only wealthy are able to max out their rrsp and so also go on to max out their tfsa. Trouble with that theory is i know a number if average working stiffs that out money in their tfsa as a rainy day fund and dont max out their rrsps. And how is the tfsa a non-issue when at the start of the campaign Mulcair states he will reduce the tfsa to $3000 because it is a priviledge only for the wealthy. I think that clearly shows a party who is not remotely in touch with who the average Canadian is. 1 in 5 max out their tfsa you say? Well sun of a gun, we got a really strong "wealthy" class and Harpers economic plans a clearly on the right track. Or do you want to reconsider what that 18% number means in reality?

Yeah, anyone in the "middle class" (to use the left wing tactic of not putting numbers to define what i am referring to) should and, unless a worthless personal finance manager, can take advantage of the TFSA and infact benefit from the increased headroom. As is clearly evident, Canadians are not saving but rather spending because of low interest rates (the whole cheap credit lifestyle) so the Cons dangle a carrot to entice Canadians to save more and it is spun by left wing media as a bad thing and only for the wealthy. I never knew i was in the affluent and "wealthy" class, i thought i was just smart with my money and not pissing it away because of cheap credit. But the left wing wants to condition me to think completely differently about TFSAs. Anyway, still no thought out response to: Springers initial post Why i need to fear bill c51 Why there is questionable science in the climate change article posted For those undecided voters who may not beleive the mainstream media is left wing biased keep tuned as this thread follows the pattern well.

Lets get back to the "its all Harpers fault" mantra. Question, how does low CIT rate affect the provinces like Ontario whose economy is in the toilet? Well it makes it a tiny bit more attractive for a company to operate in Ontario and turn a profit. How us that not good for Ontario to have a low vs high CIT? Another question, why does the left think that a low CIT is only supported by the Conservatives and not the NDP and Liberals? Answer is to accept that low CIT is supported by all parties but that does not fit well with the anti-Harper mantra. My proof of that conclusion, thd opposition parties have both said they wont change the rate (liberals), or may add 1 or 2% (ndp). Further proof, each and every time the feds lowered the cit, the provincial ndp, libs, and con governments held provincial rates or lowered. Only BC bucked the trend by adding 2% and now Alberta. So what do we learn from this? That all parties think low corporate taxes are a good idea. And what else? That if the feds keep cit low it actually gives the provincial govs room to implement their own tax policy. Does it not make sense that if Harper set the CIT extremely high to stick it to those evil corps that the provincial ndp and libs would have far less leeway to determine their own fiscal policy. In short, Harpers low CIT helps the left wing provincial governments manage their own fiscal plans. And lets talk about those evil corpirations, who knows who they are even referring to? Well, a company with retained earings of $50M is a large corporation - correct me if i am wrong. In Saskatchewan i can think if Startco, Honeybee, Great Western Brewing Co, Degelman, Brandt, Bourgault, Seedhawk, and SeedMaster that i would think fit that bill. Why do you think the ceos of these companies are rolling in cash and need to be heavily taxed? Why do you insist on destroying the idea of a group of guys taking a risk, being sucessful, expanding, hiring more people and inturn making a profit as reward fir their risks? When you talk of large corporations, flip open your phone book and find out which businesses in your imediate area you are going to put the screws to. I got more to go on where those profits go in these so called "large corporations" but will pause there.

This thread suddenly got very quiet......

For the record, Waldo posted that my link to questionable science regarding global warming did not belong in this thread but that post was deleted. But 14 pages and there has been no response to contest the original post by Springer and that is OK according to the Left Wing. Once again proving to never question global warming, it never goes well with the true beleivers.

Exactly Waldo, people are going off on the science of climate change and i post a very accurate example of why the science is questionable and the left wing sticks their head in the sand denying the existence of real science that goes against global warming. Ok, i will give you two options 1) since you are offended that my link does not belong in this thread then speciffically address Springers first post that started this thread. 2) if not that, explain why the pdo is mistaking referenced in an article on NOAA website.

For sure climate change is a religion, just mention anything that questions that "the science is settled" and step back. So no point going there. Although it is odd that in my lifetime i have been told to expect an iceage and now an oven. But lets leave that alone for a few more years and see what we are told next. By the way, i dont see how i am living in fear, and i also have not been told why i need to fear c51. Also, regarding Canadians right to privacy, how does one reconcile the fact that organized crime, drug trafficking, black mail (all those things not related to terrorism) find peoples rights to privacy violated in the name of justice but terrorism gets a pass. Frankly, i am all for violating a persons right to privacy under a number of circumstances. Oh, and from my understanding c51 also requires judges to sign off on many aspects the same approach as if a biker gang is being targeted. Another thing about c51 is the freedom to share info between agencies. I fail to see that as not being the most logical thing. Governments are great for creating more departments and procedures that hinder and obstruct other departments from doing their job so a plan to take down barriers just seems so old school that it should have been in place 50 years ago. Still no response to the original post by Springer. Well no surprise there as that follows the exact pattern of the media where real points are made but the issues are side stepped with talk like bill c51, climate change and name calling such as denier or paranoid. Nothing to see here, move along.

So, the government, or system, or whatever can impede my right to privacy without bill c51. Ok, so educate me on three main points in bill c51 that i personally need to be concerned about. As i say, my concern is internet hacks getting to my personal info, anything in c51 to track cybercriminals or is it only going to be terrorist activities being tracked? Also, would be nice for someone to disput the key points in Springers original post. 12 pages and nada.

Exactly what right to privacy do you think we have now? If you are acting suspicious you can get questioned or otherwise have your "rights" violated, is that not true? And so, as technology changes does it not make sense that the police tactics change and adapt new technology? Or is it your beleif we rely on cops walking the beat to keep you safe now, and as it has ever been. I have been pulled over for no reason at all for driving down a back road at night a number of times and not violating any law, i would say six times. Is that not a violation of my right to privacy? If a policeman shows up at my door with a search warrant, can i exercise my right to privacy. I am a pretty simple guy so these are two things that come to mind. If bill c51 is not passed can i give the policeman the finger and carry on my day? That is my right to privacy, correct?

Rue said already much of what i had to say but did it very well. Its sad when you have to state the obvious after 19 pages. Context, a word hated by the left. Worst PM in Canadas history, i am sure someone could dig up a lot of flattering Harper numbers on value of exports or total gdp, but it would not matter without context. To talk of Canadas economic performance does it not make the slightest sense to the Left to compare a country (ie Canada) to other countries during the same period? No, all that comes up in 19 pages is refernce to past governments. BRILLIANT. And how about that deficit? Why does the left forget that the NDP and Libs voted against the Conservative balanced budget and triggered the 2011 election as they demanded more deficit spending? So the left demands deficits then hangs the government now for providing it. Wonderful. And how about that $2.7T debt. Conservatives added $170B of debt since 2007, oh geez that is unforgivable, world economic crisis never occurred and it was Harper mismanagement. But hold on a second, lets talk 'context' that the left hates so much. How much debt did Ontario add in the same period? From $143B to $288B, i will let you do that math to test your skills. Quebec added $60B in same period. Ah, but references to provincial debt is irrelevant in a Harper bashing spree. Though we wont compare to other countries and we wont use provincial budgets to compare either because the Left wants zero context. And TFSA is only for the wealthy. What kind of sad personal finance person would make that kind of statement? I guess the same people who do not understand context. To put it in context, i live within my means, drive a 20 year old car, 10 year old truck and max out my TFSA, did not consider myself wealthy, i think 'smart with my money' would be a better term. And large corporations getting breaks. What do you people have against a couple of people starting a business, hiring people, expanding and doing well? I live in Saskatchewan and wonder why companies like Brandt, Degelman, Seedhawk, Seedmaster, Bourgault, Great Western Brewing Co, etc need to be taxed and brought to their knees to pay for the next national spending spree? Canadas oil based economy. Actually its resource based economy and oil is part of it. When it is stated as 9% of the total revenue, what is the context? That is to say, have we seen a drop off in another area thus propelling oil forward? And lets not state the obvious that $100 to $200 bbl oil propels that number pretty high, will $40 oil bring it back to the 3% referenced early in this thread? I dont know, guess the person who posted that 3% and 9% can clarify what context those numbers came from and what the values in $/bbl were for those two numbers. I could carry on but those are some of my main points.

Yeah, but that all doesnt play well with the lefties Springer. Remember, we are suppossed to be afraid of Harper and what he says and here you go being sensible and making it sound like we should be afraid of what the left is telling us. I mean, the left would not be mis-representing anything or creating irrational fears now would they? That is only Harper doing that, no way could it be flipped around. But i dont have anything to hide so perhaps i differ greatly from those oppossed to bill c51. By the way, regarding neo conservatives, if it takes two to tango in the middle east and Russia is socialist can we all agree socialist ideals are equally at play or is that a completely different animal. Anyway, would be nice to hear some counter point to Springers original post or was it just too concise to contest?

So if the NSA has access to my bank info, should i be concerned about that? I am worried about someone getting into my account and taking my money and/or ruining my credit rating. Does this happen alot? Does the NSA do this? If so, we should have some government agency to protect my interests, similar to how the police are available when my physical property is at risk. If bill c51 doesnt include monitoring of cyber crime will any of the parties work on some sort of agency as we move further into the 21st century. A guy robbing me on the street is not a worry to me as he can have my $50, my bank account is more worrisome so what should my opinion of bill c51 be in that regard? Regarding the Middle East, yes it goes much deeper and back to borders being redrawn after the Ottoman Empire collapsed and those new borders forced together groups of different ethnic and religous ideals. Picture North America with a 60% Muslim content. I would not consider my self a racist or religous idealist, i am just saying i would see a lot of friction as is evident already. I am a pretty simple guy, what are neo conservative policies? Does Russia also have neo conservatives as they have been heavily involved in the middle east for decades, i thought they were labelled communists, what am i missing here.

I thought Springer had a good initial post, too bad the left wing can only respond on issues such as bill c51 using the slippery slop and what if angle. I personally could care less what government agency is monitoring my email, i am more concerned about what internet entity is trying to hack my personal bank info, but here i am on the internet anyway. I am in Sask and to say the Conservatives are loosing ground in the west is, well, questionable to be polite. No doubt the urban centers have their support for the ndp with unions and people who have no real job or knowledge of budgeting but that is the voter base they target and buy those votes. As a friend said, the working stiff and small business owners will tend to vote Conservative. And the left wing still ponders how they can buy that vote too. Well, as the number of people working declines they get more voters. Then we have JT planning more deficit spending. It hasnt worked for what, 10 years in Ontario, but it simply has to work somewhere sometime so thd liberals should keep at it. I guess if that is all you know about fiscal management then that is all one can expect. Long gun registery, hmmm, someone on here must be good at tracking stats. How many people in last 30 years were killed with handguns and knives vs long guns. I would be curious to know. As for Syria, yeah its a mess with the summation of decades of meddling. But this is where things are as of right now, no imaginery "what if" scenarios. You want to help the refugees, then do what can be done to give them their homes back. If your home land was tore apart by civil war would you be on tv complaining about a countries immigration policy or demanding the civilized world get their act together and restore order. In Canada, restoring order angle doesnt play well with the left so there will be no discussion at all on that. Lets only discuss refugees so we can all feel warm and fuzzy.