Hydraboss

If a single-rate tax structure was put in place, say 40%, one level only (fed, prov), no consumption taxes of any kind, and you gave an exemption ceiling of $20,000, you would have a lot less bitching and moaning from the have-nots. Of course if they still complain, who cares? The number of people in Canada that are below the threshold where this scheme would cost them more out of pocket is not that great I'd wager. (And before anyone rips my numbers apart, remember they're for demonstration purposes only. Do not try to calculate this at home. No animals were harmed in the making of these equations.)

There should only be one tax with one tax bracket. Either an income source tax or a consumption tax. Choose. The percentage is not important for the sake of this discussion...20%, 30%, 99%...that is for the tax department and government to decide with voters. Why would we have anything else? Some posters don't think wealth should be concentrated with the few; why not? Others feel that investments should be taxed lower; why? By the way, investment in the stock market and business DOES create jobs. Where the hell does everyone think the corporate money comes from to hire people and pay salaries? If I have enough income to invest in stock, then if it makes money I still get to keep 80% of it (or whatever amount). Good for me. If a company's investments aren't paying enough dividends to prevent investors from taking their money overseas or across the border, then they better do something about it. It is not the taxpayer's of Canada that should be on the hook by offering tax breaks. It sickens me when people feel they have a right to other's earned income. If Bill Gates has $50 billion dollars, he earned it. Did he run a backhoe? No, but he took a risk with his money and was smart enough to find other people's money from investment. Doctor's don't run backhoe's either, but nobody's bitching about their income. P.S. Accountants and CEO's don't dig ditches either. There should be no other incentive for RRSP's/GIC's/RPP's than the knowledge that you have money for retirement. No tax advantages. I'm sure someone will pipe up that "Well, if there's no tax advantage how do we ensure that people will put money away?" Who cares? It's not my problem if people are too stupid to look into the future. Incidentally, if those people are truly that stupid they aren't putting any money away tax advantage or no tax advantage. Don't like it? Then make it a mandatory deduction at source (but no tax deferral). I know this isn't a touchy-feely-liberal-do-gooder approach to things. "Society is judged by how it treats it's weakest links." Not in my world. Society should be judged by how many stupid people it has, not by how much of a nanny-state it is. "But the poor wage earners aren't getting ahead!" Again, who cares? Because Billy-Bob can't make $50,000 a year is not my concern. Not everyone is destined for greatness. Some people will be fry cooks until they are promoted to grill. That's life...deal with it. Progressive taxation is regressive. Socialism.

This is already being witnessed in Alberta thanks to the new royalty rates. Big oil are cancelling contracts left and right and are either looking at Sask or the US.

Why on Earth should the amount of income determine the tax rate? How does $1M affect fairness? Assume 20% flat tax (for simplicity sake). The guy making $40K pays $8,000 tax but the guy making $1M pays $200,000!!! Why would you increase the tax load on the second guy who is paying 5 times as much in tax as the first guy grosses in a year? Years ago I was talking with one of my Dad's buddies that owned a new car dealership. He said that the reason he quit being a manager and started his own dealership was because of his last and final boss. It went somewhat like this: When he went in for his interview, the owner asked him how much he wanted for pay. Cam said he wanted 10% of net sales. The owner thought this was a hell of a deal and agreed (most managers were netting around 15%). The first year they did about $600,000 in net sales, so Cam made $60,000. Again, the owner was happier than hell. The second year, though, the dealership made almost $1.2 million. It was then that the owner called Cam into his office and told him they would have to renegotiate. When Cam asked why, the owner simply stated, "I've never paid a General Sales Manager $120,000 and I'm not going to start now." Cam quit the same day. So what was the problem? Who cares if Cam made $120,000? That meant that the owner was pulling in $1.08 million instead of $540,000 the year before. So in the end, the harder Cam worked and the more successful he made the company, the less he received (percentage-wise). Now what if we said that the owner was only going to pay 10% on the first $600,000 and then 5% on the rest? What if he gave the balance to the salesman working the floor - just cause? So the manager makes $90,000 instead of $120,000 and others get what he worked for? Would you be okay with that? What if you were Cam?

Assume we both work as plumbers making $40/hour. You work 12 hours a week and I work 70 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, OT @ 1.5X over 40 hours. You gross $24,960.00/year and I gross $145,600.00/year. We both do the same job and have the same opportunity to find a job that allows us the hours. The only difference is I work more. In your estimation, I should be penalized and have to pay a substantially higher tax rate because I work harder, therefore subsidizing your laziness. Yep....your tax system is WAY more fair. Welcome to socialism.

Maldon, you need to quit making sense. You're clouding the issue.

And if we were to do away with the entire criminal code....voila!!! A complete end to crime! Damn, it's so easy! Now why didn't anyone think of that before?

What I find hard to digest is the fact that you feel wealthy people are not entitled to their own money. What inherent right do you feel you have to other people's money? If wealthy people want to hide their cash under their very expensive mattresses, then that should be their decision to make. You didn't make their cash...they did. A flat tax (or modified with an exemption level income) is the only FAIR way to generate taxes. Anything else shows favoritism to one side or the other. What you are failing to admit is that taxes should be based on percentage of income, not ability to pay. Ability to pay is a sugar-coated way of saying socialism, aka everyone becomes poorer at the same time. Don't want to pay? Take a risk with your own finances and make your first million. After all, the first million is the hardest....after that it's all gravy, right?

I want a white-only school in Alberta so my kids can learn in an environment that relies heavily on the history of caucasion people and their traditions. That's not racist.....is it? (Oh, and I want the Canadian taxpayer to fund it.)

If your question was sarcastic in nature, I would agree with you. The Human Rights Circus is of absolutely no use in this country. There are various legal systems available to whomever needs them: Criminal and Civil. If your complaint cannot be actioned in one of these two....it's a BS complaint. So what good have the HRC's done? I can think of nothing. The downfall of the Circus has been mentioned previously in this thread: There is no cost or responsibility placed on the complaintant, and the people on the bench are far too busy making and skewing laws than applying them. Applying the laws of Canada is for the courts, and they cannot do it worth a damn as it is.

August, If you're being asked to recommend which school for people to send their kids to, be very careful. UofA is VERY left wing orientated and most student activities are centered around the campus itself and Whyte Ave (the bars and funky shops). A res student doesn't really have to go much more that five or six blocks when in session. Calgary has more that is centered off campus. That being said, if these students are from Kwebek, they may not find the warm and interesting welcome they're hoping for. There can be a VERY agressive attitude towards Kwebekers in general in this province, but it is much more noticeable in Edmonton and Calgary. While the school may accept them with open arms, the community at large is not always so understanding. U Vic is much better as they are much more liberal (small L) and the students may be much happier. Just a thought.

Jennie, you asked the question so here's the answer: Any others?

- are they creepy types who would suffer a deviant errection during the act. - he could then feel confident that he could have sex with his wife that night or get something a little extra ordinary from his mistress or boyfriend or what ever the case would be with a man who would make such a damning and foolish statement - Forgot to add that I'm in favor of the death penalty because I want to get a deviant errection and get laid. Sorry for the oversight.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. You can't put to death some poor soul who needs to steal a metric to eat. But if it's my Harley....fry him.

Actually, you're wrong on that one. Officers are given the opportunity to experience a taser shock, but are not required. (Didn't actually know that until I listened to the Edmonton Chief of Police during one of their hiring spree radio interviews) Wow! The Queen and I agree! I think the units should only be allowed to carry 2-3 charges (one may not be enough, and if you need more than three....use your gun).

Nothing can absolve me of responsibility. Or anyone else for that matter. Could I live with myself knowing I had pulled the switch on a man the courts deemed guilty? Yes. And if he were to be proven innocent at a later date? Yes. There is a price to be paid for the defense of our children, families and friends. If you are too cowardly to pay that price, I will pay it for you. I am willing to take the responsibility off your shoulders in order to protect the lives of the people who will be saved by putting to death the guilty. Should innocents be caught in the middle....at least we know it will not be some kindergarten girl that can't figure out why the mean man hurt her instead of showing her his puppy like he promised. Ya, I'll take the responsibility.

Society putting a convicted first degree murderer to death is ABSOLUTELY less horrific. First of all, I wouldn't KNOW I got one wrong. As for the rest, I believe I was quite clear that I AM prepared to pull the switch. One caveat though, the job has to pay more than I'm making now. So that should end that part of your argument. If anyone needs to be put to death, I'm be your trigger man. Throw the switch, hit the injection button, release the gallows. Whatever. Any other questions? How about this: How many convicts, incarcerated for lesser crimes, are killed in prison by those in there for "life"? Do they count to you? Is it okay for THEM to die at the hands of some second-time loser? What about THEIR right to live and be protected? How will you guarantee that? By the way, does anyone know the second-time murder stats?

Can anyone post credible stats as to the numbers of people murdered or raped by two-time losers? This is what puts me firmly in the pro-capital punishment camp. Whether the number of wrongfully convicted people is 2 or 3, or 23 does not outweigh the number of horrific acts that have been perpetrated by people released from prison on parole or who have completed their mandatory (minor) sentences for these crimes. Had the death penalty been used, there would be a lot more innocent people alive. So then, the crux of the problem is whether or not the number of wrongly convicted is worth the lives of the innocents killed or raped. Revenge does not play into this as all penalties are revenge-based. Rehabilitation of people that commit these crimes is nil. If capital punishment is not a deterrent, then it certainly works as a preventative measure for second offences. People who have committed crimes that would be subject to the death penalty have given up their rights. ALL their rights. These people cannot be rehabilitated, and once put in the Federal system, have access to an almost unlimited supply of drugs. REHAB IS NOT AN OPTION. Keep in mind that we're not talking about some twenty-something year old that stole a car. We're talking about someone who brutally raped and cut up a three year old. Emotions had better play a part in the sentence. As for who would pull the switch...I would...and so would a whole hell of a lot of people. Personally, I think the option should be given to the family of the victim and if they don't want to, then you go to a state-paid employee.

Okay, CONVICTED CRIMINAL, we'll wait for the results. As for Robinson, feel free to model yourself after anyone you see fit. If you think being a CONVICTED CRIMINAL is flattery, then you probably LOVE the treatment you get in prison. You are, of course, aware that the opinions and ramblings of a CONVICTED CRIMINAL really carries no weight on this board, right?

Apparently not if you're joining the Green Party of BC (or federal, I guess). They must accept anyone, including CONVICTED CRIMINALS.

...ya...like I'm...uh...not going to, like, TELL you!!!...brainwashed....slave...(income tax is a brainwashing, illegal tactic)...if you were educated...(brainwashed!!!)...then you were indoctrinated....Statute of Westminster...looser...you should already know....sovereign...(monarchy BAD)... And that, Geoff, should clearly answer your question. Any others you would like me to take a stab at? Oops...forgot PROPAGANDA!!!!!! Sorry for the oversight.

It always amazes me when CONVICTED CRIMINALS yell "ignorance" from the treetops at people who are not CONVICTED CRIMINALS. Have any of you CONVICTED CRIMINALS told a teenager that they should try meth "just once" or they'll be "ignorant"? CONVICTED CRIMINALS, though they generally have no idea what the hell they are talking about, somehow their opinion must carry more weight than those that are not CONVICTED CRIMINALS. If I were a CONVICTED CRIMINAL, I would probably not be running for public office as CONVICTED CRIMINALS are typically not welcomed by the general public.

Simple answer to a simple question asked by a simple person: No, it's illegal. Any other stupid questions, of He of the Sacred Leaf?

Yep, it called the penal system. Anyone who doesn't want to follow laws set out in a democratic country (or what passes for one on the world stage) is free to move to Mexico...or Chile. If the draft were reinstated in the US, I'm sure our country full of bleeding hearts would gladly welcome any draft dodgers. Why not? We already welcome murderers, etc from just about every country on Earth. Why would they be any different? As for deserters....second vote for "just shoot them".

For the last time.... I drink when I want. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. I don't smoke pot. IT IS ILLEGAL. Unlike you, I am not a convicted criminal, not do I wish to be one. I would rather be a contributing member of society.