Hicksey

If your argument is that subsidizing people's education is an investment by the government, then it should be treated as such. Then: 1) People's who's education has been subsidized should be on the hook to contribute more in the years when the start earning (perhaps by a higher marginal tax rate) until such time that investmetn is paid off. It doesn't seem right that those who have not recieved such an investmetn should have to pay the same amount as those who have. 2) If people want to leave the country they would be requred to repay the investment plus more. 3) The level of educational subsidy should be reflective of the propensity for that education to deliver higher paying employment. So perhaps someone studing to be a lawyer should get a subsidy, and someone studying to be a librarian, none. IMV, the extent of government involvement in higher education should be to provide enablement in the form of loan guarantees open to appropriately qualified students. Any other subsidy unnaturally distorts what people would choose as a course of study, and the incentive is already there for students to invest in their own higher education via higher wages. 1) The point in doing this is to get people who were content to ride the system back into the work force. Taking back the advantage really serves no purpose. The investment is one made back today so that within 5 years they will be a net income for the government. Taking back what benefit they get takes away the incentive. 2) I agree wholeheartedly that if people want to take their skills outside Canada they should have to pay back our investment with interest. Great idea. 3) I think that people should be funded according to the field they plan to enter also. However, we're not talking about people that already had funding would have already gone to school so we cannot deny funding to people that didn't have any to begin with and require they go to school. The whole point is to take people that are a net cost to society because they are on welfare and make them a net gain through an investment that would get them the skills to get back into the workplace.

This is just an advertisement for someone remains a Conservative party member. It isn't a journalism piece. I vote for the CPC, but I hate when people give credit not deserved to those they support. Who is going to take them to account when they mess up if their own supporters will not? The other parties do not want them to succeed at the things you voted for. So I ask, what has Harper done to the end of Canada returning to its role as a "key member of the English-speaking world, which over the years has rescued the world from Nazism, Communism and other loopy forms of dictatorship" other than agree with the US? Harper wasn't even the one who sent the troops to Afghanistan, the Liberals did that. Sure, he left them there after their role exceeded their usual one of social workers to the downtrodden, but beyond that name one thing ... please.

If they stay in Canada. It would be nice if people had a more altruistic view of their professions than the one of what their material worth can be, but that's not in the deck of cards we have to play with. What we need to do is find ways to attract skilled people to Canada. I do not have that answer. But I am sure someone left here is ingenius enough to come up with that one.

In practice, it is what they called "treat and street." It doesn't mean that you getting identical treatment to a paying customer. You are right in that. An aside. You know why I think the last CPC promise has gone unmentioned and essentially forgotten? I think it was an ignorant promise, one that they thought they could do because they had no grasp of exactly how bad waiting times were, the number of people on them and the associated costs of moving them outside their area to get care. Once they found out it would likely bankrupt the system they just decided the best course of action would be to let it die and hope the political consequences wouldn't be too much to bear.

That doesn't change that an investment in people educating themselves will pay us back huge in extra taxes paid on a higher income and would also likely encourage more people to do so. I have always characterized the government as an investment counsellor. I beleive that the government should invest in things and people that gets itself the best return to pay for infrastructure, health care and other programs. We have to be much better at seeing the investments that will not only maximize the productivity of our population, but also bring in the work to keep them going. I've always maintained that rather than letting people sit on welfare for year after year, they should be forced to pick an occuaption and train for it so we can get them back into the workplace. 2 years of tuition and welfare may amount to $50k, but if that changes their status from a $20k/yr money drain to a $6,500 a year money supply for the government, that's a net gain of $26k/yr and it would pay us back in two years and continue to pay us after that.

I think the public transit tax credit is an excellent idea which will help a lot of people. My bus pass is built into my tuition though, so I'm not sure if I'll get a break or not. Oh well. I think we should QC, I can't see why not... university students are probably among the most common transit users. We also get to write off our textbooks this year. To encourage people to get educated we should let them write off all costs related to schooling. Students should be able to write off 100% of their lodging if they have to leave their home town to attend school. These people will ultimately earn more in the long run and pay the government back for the breaks tenfold more than someone who does not attend post secondary education.

As a practical matter, most get it through their employment, because of the tax incentives. Or they qualify for medicaid - right? Am I correct in believing that the low income people are not turned away, and are entitled to hospital care. That anyone can get free medical care at any emergency room in the country and will not be turned away? As to Canadian health care, I have a real problem at not being able to purchase some services if I wish to. I can get an MRI for my pet right away, but cannot pay for one for myself. It is ridiculous that Canadians cannot pay for diagnostic services if they wish to, but on the other hand the gov't funds abortions in private clinics - go figure. If you end up in an emergency room in the US you cannot be denied life saving care. They can patch you up to send you to a government run hospital if you cannot pay or do not have insurance, but they cannot deny you care. While Clinton was in office that was passed through the house and senate, in 1993 I think.

I think the public transit tax credit is an excellent idea which will help a lot of people. My bus pass is built into my tuition though, so I'm not sure if I'll get a break or not. Oh well. The point of that post was to point out that the tax cuts were targetted. A very wide spectrum of low to middle income homes will benefit. Some more than others, but a lot of people will benefit. I believe it should have been much more tax relief than it was.

I could be in at Belleview in Detroit, MI in a week if I was willing to pay. If I could I would.With all due respect, you are not answering the question. Why must you wait for the service you need? If you need a sleep disorder specialist, but there are very few of those in your province and no new specialists want to come to your province no matter how much they get paid, how can you blame the government??? There are illnesses that exist which have no cure. There are illnesses that are treated by very few specialists in the entire world. There are people waiting for organ and marrow transplants. There are people waiting for compatible blood transfusions. There are accident or violence victims whose lives depend on the arrival of paramedics. All of those patients have to wait too. Is that all be the government's fault?? It is physically impossible to serve everybody instantly -- to varying degrees, there will always be a wait for service. Correct. It has always been here. Expanding two tier to allow more privatization will take people (willing to pay extra) out of waiting lists and let the very poor move along waiting lists faster. Start demand privatization in Canada or wait in line! Primarily, I wait because of waiting lists which would lend to a shortage of specialists--here. Its obvious there isn't a shortage of specialists in Detroit if I can get in in a week. The secondary reason I have to wait is because I cannot afford to go outside the country to get the care I need. I believe that with each paycheque I receive that I have paid my taxes on, I have already paid for my health care and should not have to leave my country to be properly cared for in a reasonable time frame. I would expect a month or two, maybe three, but six with no initial consult after which I have to wait further for an actual date for the tests? That's unreasonable for a relatively uncomplicated and inexpensive diagnostic procedure IMO. If I am to be denied the care I need, then I should be refunded the money I paid for it. I CAN blame the government. They pledged to provide my health care if I agree to let them tax me to pay for it. They are taxing me and I am not getting the care I need. Its legal fraud. It is their responsibility to overcome the challenges, not mine to pity them for not meeting their obligations. I did my part in paying my taxes. Now, its their turn. I don't mind paying for it if I get what I pay for. I am getting nothing and paying dearly.

Well you probably know better than me since I"ve never bought a single car. I just got my info from Here (at bottom of page) where it says GST is not charged on used cars bought privately, which makes sense. I don't own a car so it's not going to help anyways, even if GST is charged. I pulled the receipts from my last car, bought privately, and when I registered the vehicle under my name I was charged both PST and GST. If that document is true, Drivers & Vehicles is guilty of fraud. Though you won't get much help from the GST, someone who doesn't own a car like you did get a break. You get to write off your use of the public transportation system.

I am wrong about groceries it turns out. Except for some junk food and some toiletries and cleaning items, groceries are not taxed. I verified this using the receipt my wife just came home with. But I know from many years of experience and many purchases all cars are taxed here in Ontario. I have owned 14 cars in my time and every one has been taxed at the time of title transfer no matter how transferred (fit/unfit). My present car isn't new, I recently bought a 2003 Pontiac Montana minivan. Most of my friends' incomes are in line with mine and it was all of them that recommended I buy used as they did. I have bought cars for prices ranging from $100 to $13,000, and ranging from 3 to 13 years old and have had to pay tax on all of them. Where you come from they might include utilities in rent, but down my way since the volitility of utility rates one is hardpressed to find a place with more than water/sewage charges paid. I pay $575 plus hydro/gas/water/sewage. This is the most common situation where I live and as far as GST costs it brings renters in line with home owners save for renovation/home improvement costs.

So if there was private care in Canada, would you have insurance for it or would you still have access problems? I am a little stretched right right now, but as annoying as being tired all the time is becoming I am thinking more and more about finding funds and paying anyway. You don't know how hard it is being tired all the time unless you drive for a living. If there was affordable insurance I would get it in a heartbeat.

Is this wait the result of a lack of specialists? I've heard there are smiliar waits for sleep studies in the States just because there are so many people suffering from a sleep disorder and not so many specialists in the field. I could be in at Belleview in Detroit, MI in a week if I was willing to pay. If I could I would.

That is where you are wrong. I can't speak for everyone making $20,000 a year, but I can speak for myself and other people I know. For example, out of $20,000: take off $5,000 a year for tuition, $1500 for income taxes, $8,500 for rent, $3,000 for groceries and you're left with $2,000. Most of that goes towards savings (for a house...in the distant future). If I could guess I'd say I spend around $500 on GST taxable items, so I'll save about $5 bucks, not $67. Nice try. You pay GST on at least half of your groceries, on all of your utilities, on books, every drink you buy at the bar, your dinner in the cafeteria etc ... Most of the poor families you talk of have no tuition to worry about and spend their money on things like gasoline, clothing, vehicles, etc which are all GST applicable items. I spend about $150 per month on hydro/water, $50 per month on natural gas, about $500 per month on groceries, $350 on a car payment, $120 on car insurance. Those are all GST applicable items, save for groceries which I am only counting 50% to total $920 a month and I am in the lowest tax bracket at about $35K per year. That's about 1/3 of my income. And the things I have listed are common expenses of a family of my income level and I have included no extravangances (other GST applicable items like internet, satellite, etc.) I pay the same $31 out in extra taxes and I save about $100 to net about $69. And families far outnumber students as far as taxpayers go.

I think if they want my money now, I should get my health care now. If they want deny me the care I need for a year, I should be able to deny them any money for a year. I have been waiting for a simple sleep-study for 6 months now with no end in sight. I am sick of it. No government has been able to solve this problem. In the last 15 years all three parties of note have held office in this province(ON) and the problem has only gotten worse despite all the extra tax dollars they dump on it. It will take a class action lawsuit to make them take note of how badly they neglect us.

Please explain your new math to me. The last I checked $8,839 was higher than $8,648. You could also explain how a HIGHER personal exemption rate hurts the poor. And even if the conservatives did reduce the rate by $400 for the entire year (which they did not), can you please explain how a grand total of a whopping $9 is going to hurt anyone enough that they would notice? My source you ask? The taxpayer funded and apparently unimpeachable CBC. Source If you take out the rise due to inflation, they are raising it by $200 and then cutting it by $400. So the "new math" becomes $200 - $400 = - $200, which is actually lower (last time I checked). At 15%, the increase in taxes will be much more than anything I save from a 1% GST cut. 1. Assuming you are correct, that $200 amounts to less than $4 per week, which doesn't measurably hurt anyone. 2. If the average person spends 1/3 of their income on GST applicable items, a person earning $20,000 per year spends about $6,667 on goods they are required to pay GST on which amounts to $467. With a 1% savings they save $67 which is actually a positive balance of $36. I'll grant you they may not save much, but it is not a negative balance as you suggest. They pay 15.5% on an extra $200 which amounts to $31, but they get about $67 back in GST. That doesn't equal a balance of -$200 as you say, rather a postive balance of $36.

Harper did increase the income tax on the lowest rate by a half percentage. Most experts have said this hurt the poor the most. $20,000 gross income averages out at about $11000 net income after taxes. This rate extends up to $36,378 of gross personal income. $11,000 x 15.5% (current rate) = $1705 federal taxes. $11,000 x 15% (previous rate) = $1650 federal taxes. You're trying to tell me that pennies more than $1 a week would hurt anyone? What a joke! A tempest in a non-existant tea cup. That having been said, I still think that all the tax rates are too high. Everyone should be paying less by about 5% or more. If they're not going to give the money the Liberals stole from the provinces back to the provinces, it should come back to us. You are forgetting that they also reduced the basic personal exemption. It's yet to be seen if they will increase it again. Please explain your new math to me. The last I checked $8,839 was higher than $8,648. You could also explain how a HIGHER personal exemption rate hurts the poor. And even if the conservatives did reduce the rate by $400 for the entire year (which they did not), can you please explain how a grand total of a whopping $9 is going to hurt anyone enough that they would notice? My source you ask? The taxpayer funded and apparently unimpeachable CBC.

Harper did increase the income tax on the lowest rate by a half percentage. Most experts have said this hurt the poor the most. $20,000 gross income averages out at about $11000 net income after taxes. This rate extends up to $36,378 of gross personal income. $11,000 x 15.5% (current rate) = $1705 federal taxes. $11,000 x 15% (previous rate) = $1650 federal taxes. You're trying to tell me that pennies more than $1 a week would hurt anyone? What a joke! A tempest in a non-existant tea cup. That having been said, I still think that all the tax rates are too high. Everyone should be paying less by about 5% or more. If they're not going to give the money the Liberals stole from the provinces back to the provinces, it should come back to us.

Harper has only echoed Bush as of late and I think you know what Bush's America is worth around the world. If we had sweet oil contracts with Iraq or were owed 11 billion dollars maybe then we could make such a righteous decision as France, China, Russia and Germany did. Don't think the countries that opposed Bush's war didn't have their own interests at heart any less than the US did. Their decisions had no more to do with "reason and morality" than Bush's did. They voted to save their own asses--period. As for Harper, he ought to think in terms of Canada has for a military and what we can actually support. If we have the troops and are willing to dispatch the troops to back up our stance, then go ahead and get involved. Otherwise stay out of it. Don't be a broker or a back-seat-driver -- just stay out of it entirely. In short, unless you can put up ... shut up.

I don't think it's anti-semitism in most cases. The people who hate Israel are usually the same people that hate the U.S. for whatever reasons. Pure envy which quickly transforms into hatred. If you can't join 'em or beat 'em, hate 'em. Works for most leftists. You mean to say these leftists and/or traitors want to join the US or Israel? I sure hope not. The only person left to support in this equation is a terrorist organization and you hope the Liberals will not support all the others. Liberals wonder why people equate their positions to supporting terrorism. I know that is probably not what you meant. I am just pointing out how easy it is people can espouse such things.

It doesn't really matter what he says. It doesn't matter who gets the party leadership. The anger over the scandal is waning which means the Liberals will be returned to office whenever we return to the polls. Harper is doing OK, but to change the view that the Liberals are the ruling class of Canada he had to be great. He's not been great. I think the best CPC voters can hope for is another slim minority.

My cynicism comes from a few places, not the least of which is the lunacy I told you earlier. If you cannot understand how one could have an apathetic view toward a society that so looks down upon the hand that feeds itself, then I seriously doubt you have ever been a driver. Secondly, government screws up or half-asses everything it touches. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is a good thing to screw up. Especially when the UNSC has already stepped in with troops and is actively negotiating a lasting ceasefire. My view is that with more nations included in the process, as in the UNSC, the process is more likely to be effective because the likelihood of one nation's interests being in conflict with either of the two involved and affecting the outcome is much less. If Canada wants a say then they ought to seek to gain sufficient affluence to be a sustained member of the UNSC. Besides, from what I have read here most people who want our government to step in, want them to step in and support a terrorist organization. I cannot support that. You just said it. Let Canada continue to be whatever influence we can be in the UN. Canada need not be a foreign affairs cowboy. The US steps in every time the UN doesn't agree and everyone whines, now that some of you disagree with the UNSC, you propose Canada do the same thing. The difference between the two is that the US believes it it defending itself, you want Canada to interfere between two other countries where Canada really has no place. I suggest lobbying member countries. A country that positively refuses to offer its military to help solve problems, preferring to come in and clean up afterward has no place in deciding what should be done, nor should they act the monday morning quarterback.

If we were just nicer to the terrorists ... Its good for a laugh if nothing else.

And then this one. Strong parenting? What a joke! Kids listen to their Hollywood idols, but they largely ignore their parents during the years that matter the most. Kids already get taught all about sex, the methods of birth control in school these days and what could happen as a result of not taking proper precautions. You list the "40 Year Old Virgin" as a movie that highlights the use of condoms. You forgot one thing. That movie is intended for adults and is rated R. How is that supposed to teach them anything? I listed that movie because I someone asked about a movie that showed condom use. I wasn't asked about one for kids. However, let's be clear: There are no restrictions on kids seeing these movies when they become DVDs or when they appear unedited on movie channels. The only thing stopping that would be a parent. That's why I say strong parenting. Would you let your very young kids watch these movies? Would you not try to instill a message to them that shows your values in the face of the media, their peer group? And Hollywood is held to account. They have a rating system. They don't let minors into films with adult content. They are criticized in various reports each year. They suffer at the box office for movies that cross the line. There used to be a censors board. They used to say that you couldn't show a husband and wife in the same bed. They had to have two beds. Later on when they could show one bed, they had to ensure that one of the people had one foot on the floor. Do you advocate going back to a censor board, one that cuts all swearing, violence, sexual content and controversial material out of film and TV? So don't skirt the issue. Do you believe in blanket censorship on all those things to protect young and older minds alike? Did I ever raise the issue of censorship? You keep shifting the focus of the question asked. We know smoking kills but still it is legal. If Hollywood wants to continue to produce what they do because they feel it is their right to free speech, then fine. But if the consequences of them producing what they do costs society, why should they not be responisble for paying the costs? If we can continue to leave other things that create social ills legal, but require the makers to contribrute to the costs of correcting the ills, why can we not apply this to Hollywood too? We can balance free-speech and the needs of society but making those that cause the ills to help pay to offset what they cause. Again, why can we not hold Hollywood accoutable for the social ills they cause? A rating system holds no one accountable. It does make it easier for parents, but as you so astutely pointed out, once these movies come out on DVD they are there for anyone to view. While I may do my job, as parents we usually never find out about the parents that don't until its too late.

What question are you referring to? I think any type of sensationalism can affect someone's mind whether it be politics, media or religion. Do I think they should be regulated? No. Do I think there should be strong parenting? Yes. Better education? Yes. This one And then this one. Strong parenting? What a joke! Kids listen to their Hollywood idols, but they largely ignore their parents during the years that matter the most. Kids already get taught all about sex, the methods of birth control in school these days and what could happen as a result of not taking proper precautions. You list the "40 Year Old Virgin" as a movie that highlights the use of condoms. You forgot one thing. That movie is intended for adults and is rated R. How is that supposed to teach them anything?