CdnFox

uhh - mike, that article is from february 2019. The election was held on October 21 2019. That is close to a year later. An 'update' can be a typo change. they didn't repost or reprint the article. My guess is his response is going to be a fair bit of laughter.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT you said noooo!!!! Your problem is you have to lie so much to defend your position you can't remember what stories you've told up to this point Now you just look stupid. Regardless of where it's done - if you gave a shit about kids you'd be calling for hamas's surrender, not israels. Dude there's been tonnes of main stream media discussions about this already, the stories have been posted. Look it up, and then you can pretend you're NOT an uninformed blathering dolt. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Well that was one of the dumber things you said - and it had some stiff competition Yes you keep telling yourself that people laughing at you is a sign they're 'big mad' there snowflake " Well, when what you want is them NOT to slaughter your women and children and mutilate their genitals and burn them then yes. That would be accurate "Why are they so angry over a few thousand women and children getting burned to death and having their genitals nailed?" - you, the terrorist apologist I suppose stupid people would see it that way. In reality if you were paying attention, they DO see it that way. Notice the war in gaza? Notice the bombing of Iranian sites and the threat of escalation? Yeah. Me too. Dumbass I debate lots of people. With you and a few select others its pretty hard not to feel a little superior - you're dumb enough that even someone of average intelligence is going to feel like an intellectual giant talking to you And ya know ... you kinda sound 'big mad' there

That is patently ridiculous. While i'm sure there is some weird fake scenario a person could concoct where somehow the value of a growing practice DECREASES over time, that's not a reasonable thing to say. If your argument is "doctors don't make money selling their practices' then why bother taxing it at all? Sooo..... you feel they're deliberately selling for less now? Do you need me to explain why that's dumb or can we just preteend you didn't say that and move on. First off no it doesn't In fact a 'huge section' already has more than 50 percent sheltered. If you make about 40 thousand or less right out of the gate 50 percent of your income is sheltered. Or did you forget that? And second off i doubt the people you're referring to paid 100 grand in canada and spent 7 years studying for the privilege. Third, the doctors don't get their INCOME sheltered - they get 50 percent of the value of the business they built up with years of hard work accepting all the risks and costs etc sheltered. Bit of a difference. And finally Lots of people think their job is stressful - but it's really not compared to the levels of stress medical professionals like doctors have to face, where the slightest mistake could have disastrous results and they are under scrutiny for their actions 24/7. In exchange for not getting increases in wages. So for 25 years Doctors said "ok - well if that's the deal we'll just work hard to build our business and that'll be our retirement fund". Then the gov't says "OOOPSIE!!!! We lied and we're taking that away before you get the benefit of it and we still didn't let you uninoize and set your own rates! Thanks for the freebees suckers!" Maybe we SHOULD be doing that - safe canada a lot of money. Apparently changing the deal at the last minute is fair game. Let me put it in perspective. Imagine teachers who'd worked all their lives were retiring and the gov't said "sorry - wev'e decided to cut your pension benefits in half to help cut costs. We know we promised you'd get this amount but eff you. Canada thanks you for your sacrifice. Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. And they pay all their costs up front and take the risks and they had a deal. They can't go back in time and somehow magically pick DIFFERENT investment or retirement strategies. With the stroke of a pen the gov't wiped out a sizeable hunk of what doctors were planning on. They told the doctors they could rely on something for their retirement, let them work hard to build something up, and then pulled the rug out from under them. That's just plain wrong. If you can't see that then there's something seriously wrong with your ethics.

That's a good way to put it. My dad explained things like this to me this way as a kid: If there's 100 deer in the woods and there's food for 90 of them for the winter, most people think that 10 starve and 90 survive. But what happens is that they all eat the food and then there's not enough for anyone and they all die. If the system gets overloaded, it takes everyone down with it. You need to reduce that early on.

Well - more pollsters have had a chance to weigh in. So - now that trudeau is dead in the water and even his multi billion dollar spend fest didn't move him up (and in fact sank him), what's he going to do now? Many of his mp's will be afraid of being out of a job if he calls an election and the party members will be afraid of a kim campbell style rout if they try to force in a new leader. There's really only right now, this fall and next spring to have an election by choice before they're forced to it. They're going to run out of road pretty quick https://www.338canada.ca/p/338-sunday-update-somehow-the-conservative 338 Sunday Update: Somehow, the Conservative Lead Grew Larger It may be still too early to draw conclusions with absolute certainty, but so far the outlook appears just as bleak for the Liberals as it did in early April. In fact, it’s possible the numbers became even worse for Team Trudeau.

Far from the us and asians. Sooooo - austrailia? The asian countries? Doesn't seem very likely

Here's what people are really worried about. And if biden loses this will be a big part of why. You can lie to people about how well the economy's doing but they know what's happening when they reach the check out lady:

When did the nazi's and commies show up? Did you have a family reunion or something?

Sigh. You don't get out much do you. Female leaders have started plenty of wars. LIzzie, katherine, cleopatra, Thatcher, Boudica, in fact if you find a female leader she probably started a war. And MANY of history's mass murderers were women. https://www.buzzfeed.com/crystalro/21-female-serial-killers There are literally hundreds that we know about. So your whole premise is entirely flawed. Women can be just as violent. DO start as many wars, and happily kill others. Your comment reminds me of that robin williams joke - "if only women were allowed to run countries we'd have no wars- just REALLY INTENSE negotiations every 28 days"

No ,actually they don't. Trudeau didn't look like he'd last all that long to be honest - and in fairness he BARELY won his second election. He actually got less votes than his opponent. He kind of tricked and lied his way through and weaponized the covid pandemic to squeak another win, then sold out to the ndp to hold on to power. If jagmeet had happened to have morals or ethics he'd have been long done. Lots of others didn't look like long term candidates either. Joe Clark never did. Turner never did. Paul martin didn't. Eventually everyone winds up either stepping down or being defeated, but the parties often carry on. Look how long the alberta PC party was in power, even tho the leaders regularly changed. The fact is in most cases someone is a good leader but not a good campaigner (harper) or is an excellent campaigner but a poor leader (justin). It's very rare to find someone who is both. But i think Polievre is going to turn out to be one of those rare cases. He knows the job, he knows how to make the system work, but he's also clearly a solid campaigner. He went from zero to hero in the eyes of the public in a short time, whereas erin and scheer never had that skill. So - i think he's going to be a bit of a big deal for a while. I don't think the libs are going to have a lot to put up against him in the near future - they're kind of looking at carney as their ace in the hole but i don't think he'll be that strong. Just like Mike Ignatieff. Looks good on paper but he's got no experience with running a campaign or an election, will have to rely a great deal on 'advisers' (and we all know how that turns out - bad advice from bad advisers is a political catchphrase), and there will be internal issues in teh party and i don't know that he can actually win a leadership race against some of the people in the party who have solid ties and contacts to rely on.

Harper was gone for the last two elections. BZZZZT! Fail And no, they're choosing polievre because they've seen what happens when you vote woke, and polievre has shown that he's got a far better grip on the realities of canadian life and isn't just in it to virtue signal. You don't hear polievre saying things like "the budget will balance itself" or 'I care about families so excuse me if i don't think about fiscal policy". Or "i think china's dictatorship is something i admire" They chose Justin originally for the wrong reasons, and they kept choosing him for the wrong reasons, and now they're destitute. They'll give PP a huge majority - they'll likely give him another one after that. And then we'll see - it wouldn't surprise me to see him win a third election You want to konw how bad it is? THe conservative party of bc is soaring ahead of the ndp- and it's all riding on the back of Polievre's popularity. That guy hasn't done anything to justify his polling numbers, that party should be fighting it out with the greens. But - they could win this election because people genuinely like PP and the conservative brand so much that they aren't realizing there's a big difference.

It's fairly common. If you own a business try to "employ' the family. But- you can only go so far. And every year people like your friend get audited and pretty quick the govt' catches them lying and then it's pretty brutal. But this was basically what the conservatives said should be legal. A partner, most often a woman, stays working in the home primarily and takes care of the kids and maybe earns a little bit doing some part time gig but she gets no credit, her contribution is considered to be worth nothing. it SHOULD be treated as being part of the other person's income, and they SHOULD be allowed to split incomes at least up to a certain point. It also helps make families viable. Right now there's a 'tax penalty' for one person to stop working to have kids, and lo and behold our birth rate is in the tank.

Typical leftie - even as they are forced to fix a problem they're STILL denying it exists. The leftist woke drug agenda has failed across the board and the ndp is in full retreat on it. And i see now that the provincial conservatives (whom even I would say is a weak party) are polling higher than the ndp and stand a good chance of winning. Ahhh no. That's you. We want them arrested and forced to take treatment successfully or remain in jail. YOU are the ones who want to go back to ignoring it.

Why? It was legal.

Sure, There's a lot of dumb people out there who don't understand how things work and think like you do. Canadians were ALSO polled on who would be the best prime minister and they chose justin trudeau. How'd that work out. But just like the carbon tax, as people see the impact of higher taxes on wealth fleeing the country (first years EVER that we lost business investment, and we're nosediving already in productivity) then they'll realize that it just makes them poorer with no benefit IF you're hoping that he'll start taking a lot of advice from a left wing think tank i'd prepare for disappointment What needs to happen is we have to send a message to the world - if you live here and invest here it's ok to be rich. You can get rich, you can get richer." We need wealthy people to come here and invest and start businesses and put money into those businesses to make them more productive which increases the wages and opportunity of all people. That makes our gov'ts more taxes, raises quality of life, and lets us create a future where our children will be able to own a home again without inheriting one. If you "tax the rich" the way the left wants to, the rich go somewhere else. And you don't get jobs from poor people.

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.

Thatcher.

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 Poor people believe that kind of stuff. 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. 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.

I was personally shocked. SHOCKED i say!

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.

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.

Says the guy who started the thread attacking someone else with insults.

LOL well something like that More like revenge of the mentally unhealthy but either way.... 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. " Yes - thats what you get when you get mentally unwell violence filled projectionists. Sadly they're a part of society. And that's a problem that's not easily untangled.

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 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.

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 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. 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