CdnFox
-
Posts
16,472 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
165
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:
We had Kim Campbell in 1993, and we all know how that turned out. Hilary Clinton? Bombed.
Women just do not make good leaders.
Thatcher.
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
I guess we just disagree on what fair share means then, not to mention far more. There's not much to be done about that I suspect.
Well for me 'fair' would be a fairly easy to define equitable portion of the costs - that's what taxes are after all. Paying more for the same services isn't fair. The rich should pay SOME more arguably becuase they derrive an additional benefit in some cases but they only get the same health care anyone else does, they get the same roads, they get the same 'safe supply' drug programs, so there's no rationale for charging them excessively higher rates.
What you mean when you say "fair" is 'take more than whats' fair by force because you want it", which would commonly be known as theft but you feel 'fair' is more politically acceptable as a term
QuoteIn the meantime, I'll let the article I posted stand for what I think fairer means. In broader terms I'm convinced one of the main reasons there's so much wealth inequality in the world is the complexity of tax systems of countries that also subscribe to a set of international rules regulating the movement of wealth around the world - basically just a shell game to avoid taxes.
Poor people believe that kind of stuff.
QuoteSo....a minimum tax on wealth needs to be similarly negotiated amongst the same 140 countries that have agreed to a minimum 15% corporate tax.
It can't be. They'd all still have different deductions and sooner or later one would cave so that all the businesses ran to them and then it collapses.
QuoteMaybe the ridiculously rich will flee to the moon or Mars. They'll probably create a lot of good paying jobs doing so.
They'll buy themselves some politicians in one country or another and shelter their money there.
The problem with the left - not joking or being sarcastic - is that you ALWAYS come up with solutions which are in direct opposition to human nature and natural laws. And you think somehow humans will change what and who they are to accommodate that. Which we know isn't possible. Which is why your ideas always fail. Communism failed, Market socialism has failed, safe supply failed, 'letting the budget balance itself' failed, widespread ubi in the form of cerb failed. Climate change policy has failed. Etc etc
You cannot create a system which requires humans to change their very nature to work - if you do it will fail. You need to learn to harness the power of systems that DO work hand in glove with human nature. It is the nature of humans to compete and some will do better than others. But everybody benefits. And that's a good thing.
-
13 hours ago, ExFlyer said:
So...the take your drugs anywhere is a failed project? Wow, what a surprise!
I was personally shocked. SHOCKED i say!
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Well I didn't, I never mean that and you can take it as a given, always, that I mean the rich should pay more than anyone else, lots more.
Well then i would have to say that you should reconsider your position on a flat tax. You shouldn't be supporting it. Currently the rich DO pay lots more and that would not be as true under a flat tax. They'd still pay more but not as much as they do now.
Currently the top 1 percent pay 22 percent of all income tax collected. And they only earn 10 percent of the income BEFORE deductions and sheltering. They currently pay far more than their fair share.
-
13 minutes ago, herbie said:
As they were actual figures and deductions pulled off a Cdn tax website, not just pulled out my ass to make a whiney post.
Pulling a number from a website without context is pretty meaningless. I can say 10+10=100 but the fact that i'm using binary numbers from a computer coding website doesn't make that statement appear less wrong to someone trying to figure out what i meant.
-
8 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
Debate the topic without insults. Can you?
Says the guy who started the thread attacking someone else with insults.
-
2 hours ago, Nationalist said:
Revenge of the nerds.
LOL well something like that
More like revenge of the mentally unhealthy but either way....
QuoteThey've learned to put the females up front in everyone's faces, 'cause nobody wants to slug a woman.
I'm reminded of that joke - "After watching his behavior, i remembered i've always been proud of the fact that i've never hit a woman. But i can find something else to be proud of. "
QuoteThey are cowards...loud...disrespectful or downright hateful...vengeful little d1nks.
Yes - thats what you get when you get mentally unwell violence filled projectionists.
QuoteThey are a clear and present danger to society.
Sadly they're a part of society. And that's a problem that's not easily untangled.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, herbie said:
Showing how you don't even know what 'woke' is, just a parrot that uses woke, liberal, leftist for anything at all you don't personally like.
LOL - awww - triggered leftie is triggered
Woke fits perfectly fine here. Billions wasted on corporate welfare because 'EV' and "climate change" when it's becoming clear that EV's are not a good solution to fight climate change is pretty woke.
But i understand. It's not like you can argue with the truth of what i said so you're attacking me for saying 'woke'
LOL
4 hours ago, herbie said:Now you're applying it using tax dollars and incentives to encourage business development which is exactly what a do-called conservative would do,
But they're not encouraging business development at all. They're buying a company some factory space because they thing that guarnatees they'll make full ev's over the long term. Which is not guaranteed in the slightest. He's doing this to buy some short term jobs in Ontario and to look woke.
If he REALLY wanted to invest in something that was all about jobs and bringing in severe amounts of money and business to Canada he'd have supported the LNG expansions that japan and germany begged us for. But nope - now the us has expanded theirs and are making money hand over fist. So we did nothing for the environment - we just gave the cash to someone else,
But noooo - we put so many billions into an 'investment' that it will take decades to get it back in tax revenues. 5 billion dollars in cash (not tax breaks) - even with 1000 workers that's going to be a long time before we break even on that.
And the labour unions are already pointing out that many of those jobs may go to foreign workers - which happened with his last big 'investment' with volkswagon. So it may not even be 1000 canadian jobs at all.
Waste money because 'climate' and "EV'. Woke.
-
2 hours ago, eyeball said:
Who said the other guys should lose anything? Not me.
Yeah - you literally did, but then strangely claimed that somehow their losing something was ok because the wealthy are losing something so yay or soemthing like that
I told you it means the poor and middle class pay more. you thought they didn't because you don't understand how tax or math works, but the fact is they would under a flat tax system even if the wealthy lose their ability to shelter a portion of their income
QuoteEliminating the advantage wealth enjoys will actually accomplish something.
Like what. They already pay vastly more taxes. If you make taxes 'Fair" then the rich pay less than they do now. That may upset your leftist brain but it's a simple mathematical truth. No matter how you slice it and no matter how much you hate them - the reduction the rich would enjoy in tax rates would mean massively lower tax revenues that would have to be spread among the lower income earners in a flat tax model to restore income.
QuoteGiving those advantages to everyone else won't accomplish very much if anything.
Nobody proposed that. But to be honest the poor already shelter a large portion of their income with minimal effort. Even the middle class does. Consider someone who earns 35 thousand dollars - 15 thousand is instantly sheltered with the personal basic deduction. So almost half of their income - half! - is income tax free right off the bat. That goes away - so now they're paying tax on the full amount. What about deductions for children and such? Also very substantial as a portion of that person's income. Gone.
Sorry kiddo but in reality the low income earners shelter more of their income than the wealthy do as a percent of their income. That's who'll get clobbered
-
4 hours ago, herbie said:
What I don't understand is how you can still f*cking argue even when I agree with you.
Dude - nobody can tell what you were trying to say.
-
2 hours ago, eyeball said:
Nope and neither do you.
Oh really
QuoteYou're discounting the fact wealthy people have numerous ways of squirreling their income away into funds, trusts, and other investments that defend it from the taxman.
I'm really not. I know most of those ways.
QuoteTake all that away and flatten the playing field for everyone.
well first off you can't take all of that away - much of it has nothing to do with the tax rate or allowable right offs.
But - what you're really forgetting is that while the wealthy have ways of sheltering some of their money, the fact is it's not all that much in the end. Most of their money is taxed.
And currently - that money pays for about 80 - 90 percent of our personal tax reveue which represents most of the gov'ts revenue. So - when you 'level' that, the poor must make up the difference in actual revenues - and that is HUGE.
let me do some quick math for you and we'll see if we can make this a little clearer.
lets say there's 10 guys. And right now the gov't makes 100 bucks in taxes. 1 guy earns 220 dollars - shelters 40, and pays 90 dollars in tax on the rest of the money. the rest each earn 20 bucks but becauase they're in a lower tax bracket they only pay 1.10 dollars each after their deductions and sheltering.
So we level the tax. The gov't still wants its 100 dollars. So - 20 times 9 plus 220 = 400. So everyone has to pay 25 percent.
Well for the rich guy that's 55 dollars. Even tho he couldn't shelter his income as much he still pays a hell of a lot less. he still pays a lot more taxes than the other guys but not as much as he used to
For the other guys they go from 1 dolllar to 5 dollars. Remember - they lost their personal basic deduction, all their education deductions, their child and dependent deductions and now they have to make up the difference because this represents a LOWER tax burden for the rich.
I know - that was a lot of numbers for you to read
but - work it out a few times. And remeber poor people get tax deductions too. And when you add it all up and account for everything the rich would pay less than they do and the poor would pay more.
-
12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
So Russian collusion bombshells landed every second weekend for 2 years, and Trump's whole team is in jail for collusion?
Jussie was lynched? Sandman was a racist who flexed on an elderly native fellow? There was a 50-person car crash in Waukesha? M Brown was a gentle giant? G Floyd was a gentle giant? BLM protests were mostly peaceful, with just a few billion dollars in damages and a couple thousand injured cops, some dead folks, overrun police stations and part of Seattle taken over? There were 'seditious mobs' at the capitol, where some unarmed troglodytes almost managed to "overthrow" the gov't? There was a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'? Trump referred to immigrants as 'animals'? It's not that big of a deal when members of the FBI commit crimes? Trudeau's hate-mongering against the unvaxed wasn't worth reporting on? The Freedom Convoy was really an unruly, destructive mob, flying Nazi and confederate flags everywhere? Kids needed a covid jab? No one was forced to take the jab?
LMAO Aristedes. Maybe you were dumb enough to believe this stuff when it was being reported - I certainly wasn't - but with the benefit of hindsight, you need to be man enough to admit that they were all wrong about all of that.
CNN and CTV are a joke, right from top to bottom. Regurgitating their id10tic narratives is inexcusable at this point.
That's the thing about the 'mistakes' narrative that many on the left hide behind. "Sure they grossly misreported something but hey - everyone makes mistakes!"
If that were true, the mistakes would be pretty evenly distributed between the right and the left. They are not. When a mistake is made - it favors the left 90 percent of the time
Then there's the outright lies. CNN and NBC were busted for deliberately altering tape of the christian school fiasco to make it look like something happened that did not. NBC was also nailed for editing the travon martin 911 call again to make it look like something happened that did not. CBC lied about Smith all through the alberta election and then claimed it was a mistake after. Etc etc etc.
It's not a mistake. And trying to blow it off as just 'mistakes' is beyond egregious. It is willfully participating in fraud. And people wonder why the CPC has such support for scrapping the CBC.
-
1
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:
I don't believe, not for one minute, that the left has any intent to create equal footing for all men, women and children among all races, religions and ideologies in every corner of the world. Their entire political theology is driven by hatred stemming from perceived inequalities.
Their hatred, huge tho it may be, actually stems from other things. The percieved inequities is simply their 'vehicle' for expressing those issues because they can't otherwise in a politically acceptable fashion.
They are mostly driven by jealousy, anger and dissatisfaction with themselves as a person. And in some cases a sense of wanting to belong to something or some group, and really wanting that group to somehow be relevant.
And rather than learning to be happy with what they have and improving it, or managing their anger productively, or improving their own confidence and who they are as a person or making friends normally, they lash out. They will find something or someone that is' 'evil' and make it their holy mission to eradicate that thing. To the point of ridiculousness.
It has ALWAYS been this way. This is the so called 'But for' phenomenon. "But for the Jews, our economy would be strong!" "But for the class structure, you would have a turnip in every pot!" "but for evil white men, you would have freedom and prosperity!".
Etc etc.
Conservatives tend to not allow others to be the excuse for their problems. They just look at what is between them and what they want and figure a way around it. If someone or a specific group is deliberately personally blocking them then fine, they'll fight that group but only if there's no way around and only till they're past them.
This is why we see all those reports and polls that show that left wing thinkers are far far more likely to have mental health issues and depression.
-
1 hour ago, I am Groot said:
Uh, she did not come anywhere near to leading the conservatives.
She did. You know me better than to think i make idle statements.
Have a look yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election
In the second round with three remaining it was between her, mckay and otoole. Leslyn actually got more votes and a higher percent of the vote. She beat erin by about 2 percent of the vote. However - ridings were wieghted so not everyone's vote counted the same way. So Erin won by a fairly small amount. And that knocked her out.
Her votes went to erin for the most part and he handily won the next round. But if the weighting or model had been even a little different, she'd have taken the leadership. Polling and analysis showed that if erin had dropped his voters would have gone to her.
And if you look at the vote distribution it gets even closer. She lost a few of those "ridings" by a tiny amount, a few thousand votes the other way and it would have been her facing justin instead of otoole.
It was actually shockingly close. NOBODY expected someone who'd never even been an official part of the party would do that well. She damn near won it.
-
The media's failure is largely due to structural problems and an inability to adapt to new markets and methods. They've been here forever making money with ads placed next to content .... yet google ate their lunch while they sat there and watched.
They offer little but think i'll pay more than what i do for netflix to get a tiny fraction of the content netflix gives.
And they're trying to compensate for their lack of innovation and inability to get ahead of the problem by attracting people with more and more clickbait and confirmation bias. And that's where the media isn't being co-opted as a vehicle for the employee's personal agendas. They believe this will 'attract' readers but they don't understand the dynamic of how and where people want to consume their content.
in an effort to make themselves more attractive they're becoming less and less relevant.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:
My mother was deceased before you had your first doll.
Sure kid. I"m sure she wished she was by the time you had yours
QuoteBut, if she were here, she would throw her lifelong commitment to voting Republican in your face,
Why? 'MY SON'S NOT A LIAR BECAUSE I VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!"
That how you think things work?
And you claim you're over 20 do you? Pfffft.
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
So long as what everyone can deduct is limited to the same things...medical expenses top a very short list. No loopholes for anyone.
You realize that would screw over the poor prety bad right? Currently people are allowed to earn a certain amount before they pay ANY tax. And the wealthy pay about 80 percent of the taxes. So to bring in the same revenues the tax rate for the poor would have to go up rather substantially. I mean - I"M ok with that, just didn't think you would be. A 100 percent raise for taxes on the poor's income would really sting.
-
7 hours ago, herbie said:
More like $4200, but seeing as how you mentioned EI & CPP which are not tax, counting that as pa deductions would reduce it at least $1000 more as 2 people are paying those instead of one. And take into account a nonworking spouse gets a lower pension than one that worked.
But you're correct in that an extra tax hurts your family income and is unfair.
Look at it like this it's even worse: taking in the 15k deduction for a nonworking spouse on earns 60K vs 2 earning 30K
You're looking at the single earning paying $2400 more tax. 2400 bucks of a family income of 60,000 hurts a hell of a lot more than 4200 to a family income of 120,000.I don't think you really understand any of that. Your math is totally buggered there.
end of the day under our current system a single earner bringing in 120 k while the spouse supports him and works in teh home pays much more than the 2 income family of 65000 each. Yet they're the same family and use the same resources and get the same benefit from their taxes - so how is that fair?
-
6 hours ago, Black Dog said:
You mean the whole time the solution was for western people 3000 miles away from the conflict to just ask Hamas to give up? *slaps forehead* Why didn't anyone think of this before??
In essence there's truth to that. The people pressure the gov't, the gov't acts through agencies like the un and puts political pressure on hamas.
Again - why do you think they're paying for people to demonstrate? If gov'ts are convinced they can do much.
I'm somewhat shocked that you needed that to be explained to you.
QuoteSome were. Not all but definitely some of the more highly publicized ones.
Shuuuuuurrre.
QuoteNah you're projecting. The number of boomer emojis your using is a dead giveaway that you're Big Mad.
LOL - i'm sure you desperately wish that's how it worked
Quote"Hamas is a bloodthirsty terrorist organization that only exists to murder Jews whenever and whenever they can. But what of we simply asked them to stop, surely they would listen!"-you
The gov'ts of the world combine to control all trade, all money, and enough military forces to overrun the entire middle east in a week - but they have no real power!!!! (snif!)
-you .
Grab a brain. Hamas exists because of iran. Threaten iran and put pressure on them and hamas will negotiate for surrender. It's not complex. ANd if they don't blow the crap out of them for a while and ask again
QuoteIt's always amusing when you think all the people laughing at you for being stupid are actually the mad ones.
LOL - talking to that mirror again i see
Hey kid - your desperation and frustration says it all. You know I'm right and it's infuriating to you
Sorry - but when you're a grown up you know things. You'll get there one day
LOL!!!
-
45 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
Calling for Hamas to surrender when one has no power or ability to influence such an outcome just to be seen to be taking the "right" stance on the matter is absolutely virtue signalling you dumb twat.
Nonsense. People DO have power. Why do you think the palestine sympathizers are paying for people to protest?
If people spoke out and gov'ts got the message and started to call for hamas to surrender there would be a great deal of political pressure on hamas.
But as predicted - as a leftie you honestly can't tell the difference - you only understand virtue signalling
Way to "out" yourself big guy
QuoteThe fact that you are too stupid to understand that pointing out the incontestable fact that many of the "atrocities" Israel reported in the aftermath of Oct 7 were fabricated is not denying that any atrocities occurred is crystal clear evidence that you have spent a not insignificant amount of time in your life deprived of oxygen.
Ummm.. claiming they're fabricated is in fact the definition of claiming they didn't occur
LOL - oh dear. You're in full melt down mode again it would seem
That seems to happen a lot when you try to think. Oh well.
QuoteAgain, I'm amazed you think I have that kind of power and influence,
I'm amazed you think people don't.
Quoteit'd be almost flattering if it was coming from someone who was not clinically retarded.
You're talking to your mirror again i see
Well considering your full blown melt down hissy fit moment (and i do love it when you lefties do that
) it sounds like i was right on the money. You don't care about the kids at all. For you ALL of this is virtue signalling. And now you're mad that it got pointed out.
Sorry kiddo.
-
31 minutes ago, herbie said:
Took you long enough to notice. And it's absolutely typical to interpret things that way.
No they don't. They want say over their lands not ceded. The concept of First Nations is not the same as Countries.
No one will lose titled land, but they will determine the terms of future land use and ownership on Haida Gwaii. You will deal with them, not just Victoria and Ottawa.So they want to basically live in their mommy's basement
Not be responsible for actually having a nation but be slightly seperate from the country
Sounds about right.
-
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:
The editorial stance of a news outlet is not just its "editorials". It's the ideological "stance" of the newspaper - how they frame the news they report, or how much they pay attention and promote certain topics and ideas. What they choose to report (or omit) is also part of that stance.
So.... in other words the paper or news outlet is bias. They hire reporters that fit with their bias and control the news to suit their bias or biased agenda.
I would agree with that.
-
1 hour ago, Black Dog said:
In one breath you cry about "virtue-signalling" and in the very next demand that I virtue signal in a way you'd find acceptable. You have absolutely zero self awareness lmao.
Ummmm... no
But i could see how stupid people would think that
Virtue signalling happens when someone takes an impractical or unreasonable position for 'virtue points'. Pretending that the Israelis are deliberately targeting children or can control hamas putting children in front of their fighting positions as if it's the israeli's fault is simply virtue signalling and pretending to care about children's deaths. So when you complain about the israelis when it comes to kids deaths - that's just bullshit.
Hamas surrendering and facing up to what they did and NOT hiding behind children actually WOULD stop the children from dying. So if you cared you'd be calling for ACTUAL action to resolve the issue. That is NOT virtue signalling - that's an actual practical resolution.
But of course - being a flaming leftie you probably didn't know the difference between virtue signalling and calling for legitimate action
Wah wah waaaaaaaaah
QuoteWe heard plenty about those Israeli children, even ones that didn't actually exist.
Well that's a pretty easy way to solve the problem, simply imagine that the dead don't exist. So - no palestinian children have been killed. Problem solved. Hey! that worked great
The left's belief in self delusion to solve problems is simply stunning.
QuoteOn the contrary, I simply fail to see how slaughtering a bunch of other kids is going to bring those dead children back.
Pretty simple - no more children need to die if hamas is wiped out.
Strange if you care about children that you're not interested in that
What a hypocrite. You don't have a single word of complaint about the dead israeli children - in fact you want to pretend that never happened - yet we're supposed to believe you're all choked up about the alledged dead gaza children
You coudln't teach morals or ethics to a snake. If you care about the chlidren start calling for the surrender of hamas so that it can be dismantled and the war can be over.
-
2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
Don't think the thousands of dead kids had any say in the matter dickwad.
I think their parents did. And I think the terrorists that hide behind them do. You should talk to them. And let's face it, you don't care about dead kids. You care about virtue signaling for the terrorist group that you approve of. Otherwise you'd be calling for them to surrender.
I wonder how much say was given to the Israeli children who were slaughtered on October 7th and whose bodies were burned and desecrated? You don't seem to care that much about that.
British Columbia to recriminalize use of drugs in public spaces
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Yeah but now they're doing them openly in the hospitals and the nurses aren't allowed to do anything. IT got right out of control.
When it was illegal the cops turned a bit of a blind eye to it if nobody was bugging anyone else but everyone knew there was a line and if you crossed it you might get a free 'midnite tour of stanley park" and that tended to keep the problem from becoming a public threat.