sage

Wow, has this thread gone to hell.

Sparhawk, actually everything you said is fairly accurate, except for the subtle distinction on dividcend taxation. If you have a CCPC (canadian controlled private corporation) recieivng active business income, you are entitled to the Small Business Deduction (the preferential tax rate) up to $300,000 (which I believe is the latest amount, it was $200,000 and the lib's increased this). If you pay taxes on the net income at the preferential rate and were to pull it all out through dividends, there is a slight tax advantage to receiving the dividend. This is from a tax law course a few years ago and the C.A./lawyer instructing the class had it all diagramed out and there was a slight benefit to receiving dividend income over employment income. All of this is exclusive of the fact that you would also not be paying EI premiums.

Sparhawk, I was speaking in terms of net income in order to make it comparable. As for RRSP limits, they are at approx. $18,000 per year, though I also believe that this would not take into account the spousal contributions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, my personal preference would be to simply have income tax reduction start by an increase in the personal exemption.

Oddly enough this (the Mulroney stuff) was only an issue on the CBC. No other networks are carrying the story to the same degree. I think this speaks volumes as to the "shock-value" of Mr. Schreiber's allegations.

Sorry - it doesn't explicitly say that in his post, but that's what would happen. If you make $500K (salary) now, you might pay something like $250K in income tax. With a consumption tax, you'd never pay that much. The net result is a huge tax cut for the highest earners. I still don't know if this is accurate. I know people that make this much money and spend most of it from year to year. Also your example is far too simplistic. On a $500,000 wage earner, they likely put a considerable amount into RRSP's, etc., thereby reducing their tax load even further. Compound this by the fact that most people that make $500,000 are in business (as opposed to wage earners) ans therefore they are incorporated and pay tax at somewhere between 15%-20%. Of course my points are simplistic also, however I'm just saying it might not be such a bad idea and in order to actually have any serious discussion you can't just summarily dismiss the idea.

Where exactly did Geoffrey's point suggest the wealthiest would receive a tax cut?

Its not a question of capability. Solberg would have been finance minister if that was all that was required. Its about the very thing you reference, optics. Harper wants a representative from Montreal in Cabinet and that's all there is to it. He feels that putting this fellow in cabinet will ensure that he is elected next election. Its not about putting a friend in cabinet, its about placing the party in a position to win some urban seats in the next election. Don't get me wrong, I wish there was another way to do this but my prediction is that Emerson will make headway on softwood lumber, ensuring his ascention to the heavens of the BC electorate. If Fortier runs and honours his promise to step down from the senate, this will be a non-issue as well.

The thing that gets lost in this debate then is how exactly does Mr. Harper appoint a senator at this very moment? He can't appoint them, because then he's a hypocrite. So then the obvious choice is to have elected senators. Oh yes that's right, there is no legislative framework to do this in. Apparently Mimas your answer to this then is that he must simply not appoint any senators.

Thousands of people die everyday because they live in a climate where they cannot produce enough food. You don't think if there were 10 million people living in the arctic they'd be starving? I'm not saying there's other things at play here, but simple geographics do play a role as well.

People vote for the NDP because they never will hold power. No-one wants them to spend us into a recession, yet people don't want the right to lead us as republicans. Its a vote for balance is all it is.

What exactly are you referring to?

I agree with both your comments to an extent, though in Canada there is nothing specifically preventing someone from disagreeing with party lines, being punted from cabinet, and running as an independent except the distaste of the electorate. There must be some difference though when it comes to the nomination process for candidates in the US, otherwise the party leadership would have a veto over the local nominees and exercise the same control as in Canada.

What is it that makes partisnship less likely in the US system? Is it just convention?

On another point Stef, again if the position of deputy prime minister has any consequence whatsoever I am sure Anne McLelland was consulted a great deal by Mr. PMPM. Oh yes, that's right too, she wasn't. In fact your dickhead leader proposed a constitutional amendment that he didn't know how to implement without even a phone call to a former professor of law, deputy prime minister Anne McLelland. Wow, that deputy prime minister thing must be important. Almost as important as tits on a bull.

for one thing idiot, I am a guy not a girl and for another, you did not even refute any of this, which shows me that you do not care do you, and to lump all liberals as liars and thieves and unethical is insulting, cause all of us are not, is that what you are calling me shoop or whatever your name is and all you other right wing neo cons, do you justify what he did, probably, no deputy prime minister either, who takes over for Harper when he is gone? tell me that... you guys do not like to see your party bashed but you sure do like to bash others and other parties that do agree with you right wing opinions, Stephen Harper has already shot himself in the foot with what he did, soon it will be his head... so all you conservative supporters can take all your sarcastic comments and shove them you know where, cause you know what, you do not think for yourselves, you are all sheep following the great neo con propaganda machine, and you know what, Stephen Harper is not the savior you all think he is... so enjoy your year and a half in power... this shows me by you all supporting what he did, that you have not ethics either and are a bunch of hypocrites, and as I said to start this thread off, if Paul Martin did this, you would all be calling for his head, especially Stephen Harper. Easy Stef, if you would bother to read the other thread on the subject you will find that the vast majority of Tory supporters were disheartened by the 2 appointments of Fortier and Emerson, for the very reasons you are irate. The ironic thing in all this though is that your party sets the standard against which all cronyism is measured so I'm not sure I would jump on your soapbox quite yet. As for the position of deputy prime minister, why don't you please explain to all of us rural folks just what the importance of this position is. I mean it must have some constitutional recognition of some sort if it is so important. No? Oh yeah that's right, its the perfect example of bullshit appointments and an exaggerated government that the Liberal Party embodies. From the Library of Parliament website: "The designation, Deputy Prime Minister, is strictly an honorary title conferred at the discretion of the Prime Minister on a member of the Cabinet. It has no standing in law, and does not carry any formal duties or tasks, though the Prime Minister may negotiate or assign specific tasks in conjunction with the title. The title originates with Prime Minister Trudeau who first coined it when he designated the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen Deputy Prime Minister as well as Government House leader in an interview with the press subsequent to the nomination of his Cabinet, September 16th, 1977. Since then there has been only the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark who has never named a Deputy Prime Minister." You'll to forgive us then if we then take your rant with a grain of salt.

The problem is we have an electoral system premised on representation from the individual MP, whereas by operation it has become representation by the party the MP belongs to. So long as we have such brutal party discipline, this should be outlawed without facing the voters. The answer to this dilemna though is not in outlawing crossing the floor, it is in moving away from the this hopelessly inflexible system to one more in line with the US where partisanship plays much less of a role.

This whole issue is the result of our partisan,party-based, electoral system where you vote for the party, not your the individual who is running. The whole thing stinks. Do away with all the parties I say.

Why is it that every government program has to be criticized on the basis that those who need it, can't get it? Specifically, the complaint with Harper's program (vs. the Lib's) was that a national daycare program would allow mother's (some anyway) to have the entirety of their childs daycare covered, whereas Harper's program only covered a few bucks a day (in other words under the Lib's plan a few received full daycare and under the Tories everyone received a little daycare). My question is why does every government program have to target the .5% of the population that represents the most underprivileged. The proverbial single parent with 5 kids from the father who died on the way to the hospital while the 5th child was being born, and the 3rd boy has cerebral palsy requiring constant supervision, all the while mom has no education, no drug plan, and is working 2 night-jobs with no parental support from her own family. I'm not trying to make fun of the situation, it just seems that alot of the criticism tends to deal with the fact that any government support program doesn't help this gal out, and my response is I don't think you can devise any scheme that will be everything to everyone. Try to create a plan which provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people is all you can ask for. By this measurement Harper's program is better, not because its a panacea for our child-rearing woes, but because everyone gets something out of it.

You're right to a degree, though I am not sure there is that many people in the world dying of starvation.

TML is doesn't matter so much what harper said or didn't say. As I said previously he in fact explicitly said that Stronach-like defections had to be accepted in our system.

Actually depressed commodity prices are currently being blamed on chronic over-production. The focus in recent agricultural discussions is how to take land out of production.

Has anyone heard Emerson's reasons for jumping ship? Is the HMCS Liberal sinking that fast?

They say it has something to do with the softwood lumber. This would make sense. At one point in time I believe this guy was on the board of the largest lumber company in Canada.

Out of a sense of gender equality, Emerson is a whore.