Hydraboss

Don't think for a moment that I don't believe the PC's will retain power this election. I would just love to see the right wing vote split with the WRAP and (in a perfect world) the Tories get a strong minority. It's obvious that they'll get a majority, but the message that would be sent to the party if they 'barely' eeked out a 4-5 seat majority would see Pierre Elliot Stelmach bounced on his ass come the annual leadership review. It would be fantastic to see Morton get the leadership after that (cause the Liberal Dinning has gone home crying to mommy). It's all dreams, but hey, what else do we have to do politically in this province?

Shakey, you are partially right. The only thing I would change in your statement is that it is not only right-wing parties that should not be supported. No political parties should be supported or attacked by use of union dues. My wife is an RN in Alberta and pays ridiculous money in the form of union dues. She has no choice, and therefore we look at it (with distaste) as a cost of doing business. That being said, those funds are supposed to benefit the union members (which they do not for the most part), not attack Eddie the Liberal. I do not want to see our money going to support or attack any political hack. rbacon, you've hit it on the head. Pierre Elliot Stelmach is playing the same stupid game with my tax dollars. Amazing how the coffers open up right before the election. I would like to see some kind of mandated freeze on all spending 6-8 months before an election. Sure, parties would still try to spend like hell before dropping the writ, but the voting public is not one of long memory and most of the effect would be gone before going to the polls. The governing party knows damn well when they'll want to call an election so they'll have to plan a lot better and much farther in advance.

Well, I just went back and reread all nine pages. Pat believes that the more kids he has, the more the rest of us should pay him. You and I have to work more for them. The rest of the posters seem to believe that Pat's kids are his responsibility to pay for. He should have to work more for them. Neither side will agree on what is the only point to be resolved...the definition of fairness. I think this thread could end now and we wouldn't miss anything. By the way, Pat, it was me that suggested the $25,000 surcharge on kids for demonstration purposes. Anyway, love to stay and chat but I have to go to work (on a Saturday) so Pat's youngest can have a new Pokemon. Anything else you need since I'm going, Pat?

Pat, You are right. I absolutely disagree with all exemptions, spousal as well, but I can concede allowing the first $1000, $15000, $20000 or whatever to be tax free FOR THE INCOME EARNER. However, your hang up that children have needs that are required to be met does not mean that it is society's responsibility. It's whomever brought those kids into the world. You still have not stated why you should get an exemption for your non-working wife and kids from my tax dollars. As to basic necessities, this is where we part ways once again. You avoid answering my question about shelter. What you deem to be "necessities" does not mesh with (what appears to be) the majority of posters in this thread. Necessary food=basic food, necessary shelter=basic shelter, necessary clothing=basic clothing. $10000 a year per kid buys a hell of a lot more than the basics. There are a ton of people earning a hell of a lot less than that and are surviving, and that is all society has a responsiblity to do, make sure you survive. It is not my responsibility to make sure your kids have XBOX 360 or clothes from the Gap. If you want them to have those things, work harder. "Ability to pay" and "based on income, after exemptions for basic necessities" obviously equate to the same thing. Socialist distribution of wealth. Admit it, Pat, you're a socialist. Lenin would be proud. Voting NDP are you?

Bingo! I think it would be tv-news-worthy to see how the Harper "Liberal Light" Tories would deal with an actual conservative government in Alberta if the WRA ever got into power. Now that would be funny (and expose Harper for what he really is...a liberal). It will take a very, very, very long time to happen...but I can wait.

Sorry, Cap, but I was being sarcastic. Should have ended that with "/sarcasm".

First, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the Liberals delaying the confidence vote in the HOC. Second, the Tories set the date that the Senate must pass the bill to March 1, 2008. Third, it will be interesting to see what would happen when the confidence vote passes and the Senate is instructed to pass the bill. If they don't, what will the HOC do, yell at them louder? If the Liberal Senate refuses to pass the bill by the March 1 deadline, Harper has even more ammo to take to the electorate, "Those damn Liberals and their Senate refused to pass a bill that protects children from pedophiles. They also have no respect for the House of Commons and the laws that were democratically voted upon by officials elected by the people of Canada." Harper wins. Dion loses.

The only thing Dion can do to delay is command his troops not to show up for the confidence motion. This would probably be the best outcome Harper could hope for. Picture Steve going to the polls with yet another "The Liberals under Dion hold the parlimentary process is such disdain that they continually refrained from even showing up to do their elected duties." Dion already has raised the ire of a lot of voters by pulling this stunt in the past. How else will he delay the motion? Ever play chess? Dion has four pawns left to stand against Harper's queen, two knights and two rooks. It's not checkmate, but the game is over.

So, should Eddie then change his name to Pierre Elliot "Yellow Dog" Stelmach? It probably fits. <kneels to pray> "Please God, let the PC's get a minority!" "And make Brian Mason go back to driving a bus. And tell Kevin Taft that there are voters in Red Deer that want to talk to a Liberal."

Pat, we can debate the pros and cons of a single tax rate versus two tier tax rate until we're blue in the face. What we cannot come to terms on is why you are so hung up on deductions for children. Answer this simple question: Why should I pay for your kids? If we can get past that then the rest of the discussion becomes one of semantics. As for an earlier statement of yours: No, I don't use anything paid for by the "public". My family pays far more in taxes than we will ever see in benefits. Before you make a comment like "public money", make sure that you fully understand that I am "public money". Governments do not make money, they take it in the form of my taxes. Ability to pay is BS. Do you and your family of five live in a two bedroom rented apartment? Why not? If you get some bunk beds you could easily fit in there. Voila! Your mortgage payment just went away and I bet you save at least 50% of your shelter costs. Did you just develop a major increase in your "ability to pay"? If so, you should now pay more taxes. So by that line of thinking, if I want to pay less taxes all I have to do is increase my monthly mortgage payment and buy a couple of new vehicles. While I'm at it, I might as well start pre-paying for my kids' university education. I should be able to drop my tax load by 50-70% with ease. Also, the easy way to fix your benefit-splitting issue is to CANCEL ALL PAYABLE BENEFITS. Problem solved.

Wil E. had a better command of the English language. If the motion passes - Harper wins. If the motion is defeated and triggers an election - Harper wins. If the motion is passed and the Senate refuses to comply - Harper wins. I really wonder why Harper would push this. Weird.

Actually, since you like to point to Canadian law, if what you believe is true and you own stolen land.... ...you're in possession of stolen property and should be charged. You will also have to surrender "their" land and have no right to compensation. So are you going to do the right thing and give them back "their" land?

There is another right-wing party (actually, the only one in the province) now called the Wildrose Alliance. They don't stand a chance in hell of getting many MLA's in this election, but give them time. The Alberta PC's are Liberal Light. Pierre Elliot Stelmach has been pushing, pulling and dragging them to the left since he took power. Even at the risk of the Libs and NDP gaining seats, I hear a swell of anti-PC sentiment in the oilpatch (and they run this province). It wouldn't surprise me to see a PC minority and that would probably be the best outcome we could hope for. The PC's would punt PES in two seconds flat if he screwed up 36 years of PC majority rule. If you want to be left wing, go to Manitoba or the east coast. There is no place in Alberta for the left's BS.

Pat, let's get something straight. The government, and society in general, did not have intercourse with your wife/significant other. You did. The government, and society in general, did not force you into a large mortgage. The government, and society in general, does not force you to do anything more than feed, cloth and shelter your dependants. You said it yourself very clearly, "They're here, and I have to support them." Your dependants are not my responsibility to pay for. No doubt if the government announced that there would be a tax exemption of $50,000 per child retroactive to 1990, you would cheer quite loudly. Would that make it fair? Not even close, but you'd accept the cash just the same (as would any reasonable person). That is self-interest at work. What you're proposing has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. As for what ancient indians would have done to split up food rations...who cares? Were they a Canadian democracy? Did they have a secret ballot to elect the chief? If they had a different culture, then it would stand to reason that they would have different social standards. You have still not given any reason why a flat tax is unfair. Please do so.

When you introduce cockeyed schemes like pension splitting, it only confuses matters further. The current tax system allows for far too many exemptions for this and that. You want tax breaks for families. Seniors want tax breaks for seniors. Politicians get 1/3 of their income tax free. It's all BS. If a family has one earner making $100,000 then they should pay X tax. If a family has four earners making $100,000 combined then they should pay X tax (not Y or Z). If a family has a combined income of $200,000 then they should pay X x 2 tax. Simple. You have failed to explain why families or anyone else deserves more of a free ride than a single person. It is the income that is supposed to be taxed, not the individual.

Pat, my imaginary rules make every bit as much sense as yours. The difference is that you favor tax rules that favor you. I believe in fairness across the board (I would end up paying substantially more as a result of my tax scheme). Ability to pay is socialism. Pliny nailed the quote.

Eddie will get an even slimmer majority (hopefully the extras are picked up by the Wildrose Alliance). The Libs will gain 2-3, the NDP will gain 1. Just my prediction. Pierre Elliot Stelmach, however, will get his his ass handed back to him well tanned at the annual leadership review. I think his support within the party will be in the 55-65% range. He's done after this election's term. Thank god.

English Caucasion Canadians are not equal under the law. We are the only group in Canada that cannot file HRC discrimination complaints based on race, or on English as a primary language. edit: That was incorrect. We can file them, but the HRC will find nothing to further the complaint on those basis.

I think what we need is a single earner exemption. $100,000 tax exemption for a non-working spouse $25,000 taxable surcharge for every non-working child (regardless of age) That would mean that the first $50,000 I earn would be tax free (because my wife would quit her job of course and I have two kids). Sign me up. Now Pat (if his wife didn't work) would have to pay extra tax on a surcharge of $25,000. If his wife works, then he would have to pay extra tax on a surcharge of $125,000. Sounds perfectly fair to me. Sign him up. Still think it's okay to treat different family structures by different tax rules?

People have been "screaming" to keep more of their income since taxes were invented. Only when the media uses words like "inflation" and "recession" do politicians pay any breath to it. As for tax breaks...just because it is nearly universal does not make it right. The beating of women was pretty much universal at one time. Doesn't make it right, just a reality. The same applies to redistribution of wealth. It is socialism and in it's most extreme form, communism. You believe that tax reform can happen? Fine, but the government has a track record of decreasing "this" while at the same time increasing "that". Once again, slight of hand. So do you want to discuss what is "right" or "what is likely to happen"? If it is the latter, might as well go back and delete the words "flat", "single" and "fair" from this thread.

Pat, just because it's being done does not make it right. The CTF proposal as well as mine are only proposals, and as I have said before, neither will ever see the light of day. This entire thread is about what we think of the proposals, not whether they will be accepted because we all know they won't. Tax law is set for pandering and favoritism, not what is right. Progressive tax law along with exemptions galore only ensures that the accounting profession and the tax law profession stay afloat. As long as the rules are fuzzy and convoluted, the governments of Canada can get away with anything they want. Conspiracy? No, just slight of hand. Perfectly legal in a corrupt way.

Yes, August, let's be practical about this. Would I have your support for a white-only school in Alberta? Remember, "where numbers warrant" and where I live, they do. You say let's be practical about racism. Kid's will learn more? Why can't they learn in the existing school system? If the core subject matter (math, english, science, social studies) will remain the same (math isn't black by the way) then why would anyone expect these segregated students to improve their scores in an all-black school? Do the teachers have to be black to work there? I'd like to see the Human Rights Circus on THAT one.

msj, First of all, my caveat is not supposed to excuse anyone of anything. The problem with government is that they decide what they want to do, and then tax to fund. What they should be doing is taxing and then budgeting from the money available. If there isn't enough money, then they have to raise taxes the following year. THE TAXES SHOULD SET THE BUDGET, not the other way around. As for your calculations (and, no, I don't care what tax rate you choose to use), you fail to explain why the person making $1,000,000 should have to pay a higher percentage of his money for no apparent reason. The CTF proposal is just that - a proposal. So is mine. Neither one will ever see the light of day because eastern Canadians are socialists.

This is where Canada is fundamentally wrong. NO ONE needs tax breaks (trust ME!). There is a basic exemption for low income earners, and that's enough. If it isn't...maybe you should have considered it before you had five kids. They're not my responsibility to pay for...they're yours. A major problem with income tax is that we just can't seem to agree on what "income" is. Income is money you are paid for doing a service but that service does not have to be physical. Investing your money in a company is a service you do for that company. It's income and should be taxed. If a husband and wife have sex, should one or the other be taxed on a market-value assessment of their skills (because either one could have hired someone to do it)?