Renegade

Eliminating deductions for legimate expenses required to earn income is not an option. For example, a vendor selling hot dogs on the street may have gross sales of $60/year but have to pay out $40K/year for food, propane and city permits. Charging that person a flat tax calculated on $60K/year is simply criminal and would discourage people from starting new businesses.Tax deductions for legimate business expenses are unavoidable - so people who think a flat tax will eliminate the need for tax accountants are simply wrong. Furthermore, I need no reason why someone earning 20K/year should pay the same percentage tax as someone earning 100K/year provided the taxes on the person earning 100K/year are not punative. Insisting that everyone must pay the same 'percentage' of their income is a perverse form of social engineering designed to help the wealthiest people in society at the expense of the middle class. I agree that we should allow legimite deductions to earn income, why why restrict that only to businesses and the self-employed. Don't the employed need a wardrobe in order to earn income? Should that not be deductable? Doesn't it make sense that a corporate executive needs a more expensive wardrobe than a hamburger-fllipper, so shouldn't he be entitled to a higher deduction for employment expenses?

What deity decided that there is something intrinsically fair about charging everyone the same 'percentage' tax? When it comes to taxes 'fair' is a matter of opinion so you cannot argue that flat taxes are any 'fairer' than progressive taxes. In any case, most flat tax advocates don't really want a flat tax: they just want to reduce the number of tax brackets from 5 to 2 and in the process significantly increase the taxes on the middle class while cutting taxes for the rich.My opinion: if we can afford to reduce taxes then everyone should benefit. No one should see their taxes go up as a result of a 'reform' to the system. Similarly Riverwind, which diety dedided that we should force people who earn higher income to pay a larger percentage of that income? I agree that what is fair is a matter of opinion, and seems to be defined in the self-interest of those who espouse a "fair" tax system. In my view, taxes should not be based upon what you earn, it should be based upon the benefits your recieve. For me that's my definition of fair.

Similarly then, you should consider the increase of the "Pension Tax Credit" to $2000, as a tax on everyone who earns a living.

I would be fine with taxation to support the roads. Perhaps the year-round residents should be paying a higher share then the tourists or cottagers, afterall they benefit more as they used the roads year-round and the cottagers and tourist only use it part of the year.

Riverwind, no system is completely implementable without practical consideration. This is true of capitalism, commumism, and is also true of Libertarianism. In the situation you have described, Libertarianism needs to be adapted to the circumstances. I would be fine with either forced taxation to support the road assuming all the owners benefited. I would also be fine with a toll system if it were practical. This is very different from the situation as we have it today. Today, the people who pay for the road are the ones who have the income. These are not necessarily the same ones who benefit from the road. IMV practical Libertarianism means government should restricted to only those services which are necesssary and cannot be supplied privately. In addition, the services should be funded by taxing those who beneift to the extent of the beneift. Of course in some cases it also means providing a measurement system of the beneift.

I did not say that gov't should provide water for 'free'. Charging for water is one tool that the govt can use to encourage conservation. However, a private company wants to maximize profits which means encouraging conservation would reduce profits. The government is not involved in the sales or distribution of many non-renewable resources. Oil, natural gas, are but some examples. It has many levers to control consumption including taxes (as it does with oil) and regulation. If government thought water consumption was an issue, it certainly is not reflected in the price of water today. I'm failing to see that it is necessary for the government to own and be sole supplier in order to encourage (or mandate) conservation.

As far as I'm aware there is no real difference between MRSP and MSP. Some manufacturers use "MSP" to mean "Minimium Selling Price". In and case it is pretty much meaningless as the retailer is free to set the price based upon the market.

Hey, you're the one who admitted that you were happy. And you're quite wrong. The MSP is $599.99 (Canadian), which coincidentially is pretty much exactly what you paid. DMC-FZ7K-S So let me see if I can summarize the situation: 1. The retailer offers the camera for less than the MSP 2. You don't do any research to find out what the selling price of the camera is at other retailers or in the US. 3. You take up the offer and are happy with the purchase. 4. Because you find out it is available for less in another country, we should now buy your argument that the retailer is gouging you? C'mon. Let me ask you a question. You do a job, you get paid a salary. Your employer finds that he can get the exact same job done for a fraction of the cost in another country. Should the employer consider that you are gouging him?

I'm not sure why you are blaming the retailer and not yourself. The retailer tries to get the best price he can for his goods. It's your job as a consumer to do the research to find out what other retailers are selling the same product for (ie be informed). If you failed to get informed who's fault is that? You made a willing trade for the product at $595, so it must be at least worth $595 to you. So now you're pissed that the retailer made a better profit than you think he is entitled to? Let me ask you, if you bought something at an extraordinarily low price, and after the purchase found that other retailers were selling it for much higher prices. Would you then feel that you took advantage of the retailer you purchased from and that you should somehow make amends?

We will never have that agreement IMV. Any change will have winners and losers. As long as it requires unanimity or near-unanimity, a province's self-interest will always trump the overall good. So whether it be senate reform or equalization, despite those being flawed they are too hard to change if even a minority of provinces object.

Interesting how some of the same posters who expect Southen Ontario to fund their OAS and healthcare, are the ones who don't want to fund the roads in Southern Ontario when they don't use them.

Absolutely you should be able to opt out. Isn't that what toll roads are? If you opt out of paying you opt out of using. Similarly for the infrastructure such as sewers, electricity etc. Even with private infrastructure such as telephone lines or internet you can opt out of the service. If more services were structured along a pay-for-use model, it allows society to allocate cost to those who actually benefit from the infrastructure.

I would dispute that simple housecleaning is enough. An election is an effiective way to change the personel involved but doesn't change the structure or power. Sometimes a more radical approach is required. Suppose we wanted to eliminate the senate, or change the federal/provincial power balance. It is not very easy in our current democratic system.

Thanks BHS. Haven't seen you posting for a while, so if you've been away, welcome back.

Ah. No. The oil companies own the "rights" to extract that oil. They definitely do _not_ own the oil that is sitting in the ground. Paying royalties to the gov't of Alberta is part of the contract that the oil companies agreed to when they acquired those extraction "rights". Implying that the gov't is taking undeserved money from those poor little oil companies quite ridiculous. I think we are quibbling about nomenclature at this point. Once they have the rights to extract the oil, and they extract it, do they not have the same rights property owners have for any other resource and can do with it as they see fit. Yes I agree, that they made an agreement to pay royalties to the provincial government in return for the right to extract that oil. I did not mean any judgemental implication by the statement, nor do I believe that the government is taking undeserved money from companies. I acknowledge it was simply part of the deal. When you refer to royalties, it was part of what I meant when I referred to the power to tax. Royalties imposed by governments are only one specific kind of tax. Why is this a problem? The gov't of Alberta has no problem redistributing the oil money to people that have no connection to the oil industry within Alberta. If Albertans have no problem sharing that wealth with fellow Albertans then there should be no problem sharing _some_ of that wealth with fellow Canadians. It's not really a problem, it is just a statement of fact. By extension of your argument that the wealth should be shared with all Canadians, why stop there? Why not share it with the rest of the world, afterall Canada is just an arbitraty geographic designation. Also by extension, are we not morally entitled to some of Saudia Arabia's oil wealth? The point is what anyone is morally entitled to, is irrelevant in the case of resources. What is relevant is who has the power to control that resource. As the situation now stands, both the Albertan and Canadian government share some power in controlling the wealth generated by the oil. Until there is a power shift such as a Constitutional amendment or Alberta separates, that is not likely to change.

The oil in Alberta doesn't directly belong to to the Alberta government nor to the Albertan people. It belongs to the companies and individuals who have secured the resource rights on the land where the oil is located. The question is who has the power to tax the wealth that the oil brings. The oil will bring direct and indirect wealth to a large number of Albertans. The provincial government has the power to tax that wealth. Unfortunately for Albertans, until such time they have their own nation, the Canadian government also has the power to tax that wealth, and the Canadian government is compelled to distribute the proceeds of that taxation to other parts of Canada. So like it or not, the oil wealth will be distributed across Canada, regardless of claims that the wealth "belongs" to Alberta.

TS, I have said more than once that I support the Canadian government living up to Treaties which they have signed. I agree that if I expect that Native peoples respect the law, I expect the Canadian government to do so as well. I would agree with Riverwind that if the law is unfair and immoral it should be revoked. However, while it is still in place it should be respected. TS, in all of your posts, I have not once heard you state that it is your position that Six Nations should follow Canadian law just as you are expecting the government to. Is that something you can unequivocially state?

Actually, I'm trying not to look at it in black and white terms. I have already stated that Six Nations may have a valid claim on the land. What should be beyond question is that due process should be followed in order to resolve disputes. You say they never agreed to our occupation. What is a treaty then, but an agreement of terms of the occupation. Even TS acknowledges as much. Even if you consider the Six Nations dispute, as a dispute between "nations", historicaly nations which didn't want to end up at war used mediating mechanisms to resolve disputes. If Canada ever unilaterally occupied disputed land and evicted another nations residents, it would be considered an act of war. If what Six Nations is looking to do is esclate a dispute to the point of provocation for the use of force, they are doing a good job. Not a problem. It is a long thread so I don't blame you. I just didn't want to rehash arguments which have already been made.

Everything the gov't pays for is a social program and Bush already wants to scrap seniors benefits,so why would Harper be any different margrace, your definition of a social program is significantly different than anyone elses. For example, would you consider interest cost to service the debt a social program? Most people wouldn't. I doubt that Bush would scrap seniors benefits, it would cut into his power base.

Right. and eliminate the gas tax that pays for those "free" roads.

But what would Toronto do when it starts to snow?

If Martin had come up a plan to assist ONLY low income people to allow them to send their kids to day care (with corresponding money to low income familes who DON'T want the send their kids out for upbringing) that might have been acceptable. Acceptable to who? Not to the scores of the middle class who supported Harper's $1200 bonus.

NoCrap, wern't you the one advocating for univerisal public healthcare? Are you now saying that social programs should only be for those in low income categories who couldn't otherwise afford them? But so what. Many tax credits are created to incent certain behaviour or actions on the part of the taxpayer. It is not really based upon the "need" of the taxpayer. I'm one of those who don't believe that the rich should support the poor through the taxiation system. You state that the poor support the rich by buying goods.. However a fair trade of goods for money takes place. The "poor" or consumers in general get goods in exchange for their money. They are not "owed" anything further by company owners. If I were to use your logic, I could state that the "rich" support the poor by giving them jobs they otherwise wouldn't have, so by extension, the "poor" owe the "rich" BTW Nocrap, how is you would propose to fund a tax cut without also cutting social programs?

cybercoma, the "they were first argument" has been addressed several times in this thread. Even assuming you suscribe to that argument, lets look at the facts in this particular case shall we? The land in question was not originally occupied by Six Nations. Six Nations were given the land, for services rendered against the Americans, by the Crown. Yes, by the Crown. The very same government that by your reasoning, has no authority over the Native group or the land. So tell me, if Six Nations does not agree that the Crown has the authority, what are they doing accepting land from an authority who has no authority to give them the land. Six Nations themselves filed suit in Canadian Court in the late nintes over the disputed land. If we follow your argument, the Six Nations don't need to follow the rules of Canadian law, so tell me, why are they filing suits in a court which in their view has no authority. You say we should treat them at least equally. I think we should treat them exactly equally. Again the reasons have been previously mentioned in this thread.

STATISTICS ACTSo August, go ahead and lie to your heart's content. All you need to do is find a "lawful excuse".