blueblood

Its pretty easy to do that with a govt insurance which can undercut any competition on the taxpayer's dollar or in manitobas case, alta and ontarios tax dollar. Is the insurance company you work for publically traded?

Does that mean 70% are scared of the libs? Does that mean 84% are scared of the ndp?

Nope, and its not scaring 41% of canadians according to recent polling!

how will canada feel a "global depression" when the bric countries are growing at 6-8%, and canada is their food, lumber, mineral, energy, and fertilizer supplier?

Going by your numbers, it looks like the "average" 30+ year old married w/ kids couple (the family stereotype) as I call it benefits fairly significantly, even more so if the kids are day care age. Also shows why lower income people could be bitter. I think its all right that single income households could get this potential benefit because of the one extra dependant vs single parent families.

And here's a tid bit to refresh yours: http://m.ctv.ca/topstories/20110402/nanos-ctv-globe-poll-110402.html Those scare tactics didn't work in 06, 08, and they aren't working now

I see where your coming from, I however am of the notion that people look out for number 1 first. With this foundation in hand, early on it worked out that by making sacrifices and organizing into communities, it allowed for advancement. for example people can feed themselves and will find a way to feed themselves. With organized society it allows people to feed themselves more efficiently by working together, which in turn allows for more time for other things.

Given the latest poll numbers and their trend, why does he need to get into a debate? The debate only would improve ignatieff's numbers. However if the polls drop for harper, he'd probably entertain the idea.

I disagree, to start it off somebody is in it for themselves, which only gets somebody so far. However, by starting to work with others sacrifices had to be made which in the end benefit everyone else and gets into the point of your post..

I gave you an out, now I get to rip this nonsense to pieces. The private sector has been around long before organized govt. Probably around trading some meat for tools or whatever stone age thing going on. Organized govt came around to ensure that there was no funny business in the tools or the meat trading scheme, thus creating stability for the exchanges to take place and thus economic growth. So did farmers, sailors, and merchants suddenly pop out of the industrial revolution or not. Its quite simple, no private sector; no funds for public sector to spend on infrastructure. That is why spending on public sector employees has to be done carefully. One only needs to look at the ussr to find proof that you can't rely only on the public sector.

Your joking. Please be joking.

New nanos poll http://m.ctv.ca/topstories/20110402/nanos-ctv-globe-poll-110402.html Tories @ 41 Liberals @ 30 NDP @ 16 Bloc @ 8.5 GRN @ 3 and change Punked must not be impressed!!

The perfect candidate for the op's moderator and this ridiculous thread.

Ill see your julie couillard and ill raise you snooki from the jersey shore. there would definetely be no bias there.

I think it is a tory majority. Barring a catostrophic meltdown and harper running the boring campaign, I think voters will cry uncle at the polling booth and vote to stop the gong show.

Ignatieff would need one maybe two opposition parties to pass legislation. He would need their support otherwise the GG makes another decision. The next election would be interesting to say the least

Are you sure about that, they seem pretty centrist to me

If it doesn't simplify it, then screw it. Can't win them all.

Good point. Contractors I think are under a different tax scheme than regular employees. Being as the income is diversified, it obviously couldn't go. At the end of the day, if the bureaucracy can be cut by simplifying employee pay, then I don't see a problem with it. However, if the status quo is the most efficient, then so be it and I get to have my mind boggled by government paying someone, then taking their money back.

Only if it cuts down on gnomes in ottawa. Public sector employees get paid with tax dollars so they're already different than the rest of us.

The reason I'd want it is if (and that's a big if) it is more efficient (cutting amt of employees processing returns). Look at it this way, there are lots of public employees which means lots of returns to be processed, all I'm saying why not cut some fat? The current system which is in use amounts to a shell game for public employees. I'm pretty sure it would be easier if a public employee just got a simple paycheck (although for less). No deductions or complicatedness, a perk of being a public sector employee. If it is more efficient than why not have at it. You have to admit it is strange getting paid by the govt, yet you see on the check all those deductions.

Wouldn't it be more efficient and easier on the CRA if public sector employees got paid their net salary with zero govt deductions since their pay comes from those various pots in which govts spend their money?

Goods were not useless before roads. They were still made and provided initial capital to get taxes from. A sane govt would spend those taxes on making roads so more goods can travel easier. If a road is to be built a road will be built, government or not. Govt just does it cheaper.

What you are talking about is public sector jobs boosting wealth creation. I.e. Police, road workers, etc. Which is why we pay taxes. Initially that wealth creation starts at the private sector. That road is useless when there are no goods created by the private sector travelling on it.

Those roads aren't free. Paid for with taxes and those of us who drive, vehicle registration, liscencing fees, and fuel taxes.