blueblood

And I as a cowboy learned that if you don't adapt to better animal production methods the environment and healthy ecosystems arent a hill of beans. The fact that fishermen haven't grasped the 8000 year old practice of animal husbandry is why their industry is such a gong show.

I heard they were offering 99 year mortgages/leases down there. The only time I heard of something like that was for use of crown land. I guess the people down there are still making the payments, but I'm also in the bubble popping camp. Its going to be like saskatchewan in the early 80s

Oh it will still be canada. Whether it will be a richer or poorer canada is up in the air. Everytime I see a politician who has a little too much chaisma, I see massive spending. The more boring they are, the better. The sad thing is canadians are potentially throwing away the chance at prosperity. I remember the last time a politician with charisma came trotting around with ideas and we are still paying for it.

You forgot to mention our best friend time. Rapid transit works on their time not mine, which means people have to adjust their schedule to accomodate mass transit. Who knows how much that costs, then we have transfers on top of it. The only place where mass transit works is in aviation because of the distance vs. Time factor. There's a reason why so many people own cars, they can get around quickly on their own time, which is something mass transit can't do.

Laytons attack ads which started early in the campaign are cartoony yet witty. The liberals attack ads are gloomy, and "scary". The tories have both witty and scary attack ads. Personally I prefer the ndp attack ads even though I disagree with their policies, they're just better made.

That's one of the debatable what ifs nobody will know the answer to, was the stimulus really needed in canada?

If I wasn't a fiscal conservative, I'd join you in voting ndp because of nutbars like this associated with the cpc. That's why we have duct tape.

Harper had to do stimulus or he and his party would not be in government. It was a multi billion dollar investment to make sure they get to keep going with their economic policies which are working. Unfortunately it will take us a bit longer to slay the deficit. I'd say it was worth the risk because the opposition at that time wanted to throw open the spending spigot.

The polls only show trends. Libs tanking, cpc flat, bloc tanking, and ndp rising. There is a 9 point spread in between the pollsters for the tories in the same time period. You don't know where the parties are, only where they are going.

I sort of cancelled his vote haha. In our riding the cpc gets alberta like win margins.

I'd say their economy growing at 5+ % for a sustained period of time contributed to increasing govt revenues more than a housing bubble. Its not deregulation its wrong regulations. Its the hot economy helping cause the housing bubble just like everywhere else.

You do know that martin slashed spending which hurt poor people, you can't have it both ways. Marin also slashed corporate taxes, he was no tax and spend when he is cutting taxes like harper is. The only person to be raising taxes to help out poor people is trudeau. So which philosophy had the better economy and better prosperity?

And leftists don't understand that tax and spend puts a country into chaos. Oil boom 1 tax and spend trudeau govt Oil boom 2 cut taxes martin/harper govt Which economy did better?

So your telling me that 30 yrs ago housing prices in ireland were sky high and they decided to cut taxes? I don't think so. It was slash corporate taxes then grow from there. Its worked once and that's why they didn't touch it when securing the bailout. The housing bubble occured because of the same reason they all occur. A hot economy and people spending money on houses like its going out of style. Happened in the us, spain, ireland, and could very well happen in BC (houses at 10x earnings, yikes!!)

Irelands problems were caused by the same factors as the usa. Stupid policies encouraging home ownership when homes are unaffordable. It was the wrong regulations in place. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it. Its a good example because the tax rates were the main variable that was changed that led to prosperity. Also its why they are keeping it there. The tax cuts make getting our resources much more efficient. Having high taxes would put an opportunity cost on exploiting our resources, which I believe happened in the late 1970's (I would like to see a study on how we would have done then with low taxes). Every little bit to reduce the tax burden to only fund things that are absolutely necessary helps.

Ireland was poor before the low corporate tax regime, became rich, then got itself into a banking crisis. How do low corporate taxes cause irresponsible lending? How come ireland is keeping those corporate taxes at 12.5% while enacting drastic austerity measures? Simgapore is also a rapidly growing emerging market country. Then we have canada which is growing while cutting corporate taxes and will grow itself out of the deficit providing economic conditions in emerging markets continue on their growth path. Why is unemployment and the deficit shrinking while gdp is rising in canada even though corporate taxes are falling? The numbers don't lie, falling and low corporate taxes is the most efficient way to grow an economy. I think I have something.

All right I call bs. Let's resume our debate on walmart operating in canada shall we. Who's the blue shirt socialist now?

A

Well we have ireland before the banking crisis. And the reason they got into hot water was bailing out the banks. Interesting to note they are keeping their corporate tax rate at 12.5 percent. Then there is singapore with a max tax of 20%. Also with other emerging markets with no capital gains tax. And there is canada. Since 2000 canada's economy has done very well and the gdp numbers and other metrics of growth back it up. Coincidentally corporate tax rates since that time has fallen allowing for a more friendly environment to invest and get returns from. Fareed zakaria suggests that the us should not attempt to copy the nordic countries as a social democracy tends to put the kibosh on the entrepreneurial spirit.

Its been shown though that dropping corporate taxes is a good thing. In canada it would be really good as far as attracting foreign capital to develop our resources. The income taxes from employees and the shareholders from t.o. Would make up for it, not to mention the growth. We are enjoying the benefits of being the most competitive tax rates in the g8. It would be unwise to give other countries a competitive advantage.

Ah mr. Canada, the branding nightmare of right leaning posters on here...

Your forgetting about the staying potential of med/nursing grads if there is a private option up here. Also the spaces at med/nursing school need to be ramped up as well as making it easier for foreign doctors. Also that private option provides tax revenue to help fund the public system instead of canadians sending our speedy med dollars south.

I stated that effect earlier on regarding leisure time. If someone makes enough to be comfortable and are fine with what they make, its harder to justify putting extra effort when the extra work is dinged for half taxes. If I'm going to work more, I want to keep as much of it as I can instead of working for the govt. Another thing with people as they earn more is that they have underlings or help hired out to assist in getting work done and thus more leisure time.

That's from the guys who are still in sole proprietorships. People also value their time off. If those guys have their bills paid, that time off is looking pretty good when there's a 44+% tax on doing extra work. When a persons incorporated, they can keep the business's money in retained earnings which is taxed lower. And lots of guys are going that route. Its different if your a wage earner. Because your under contract and can show up for work and get paid. A wage earner at six figures gets his taxes deducted from his cheque and doesn't have a day long meeting with the accountant. Its a different game when we're talking about wage earners.

That would be culture and how a person grew up. Each household is different. I happen to prefer watching a pitched battle on tv than people making out. So the answer would be the same reason why people prefer sexuality to violence. Some people get put off by violence as I get put off by sexuality in cinema. That's just people being different and there's nothing wrong with that.