gc1765

This is what I managed to find: "To this end, the government has also introduced significant corporate tax relief measures that will improve competitiveness and support small business growth, scheduled to take effect beyond 2007, including: * Reducing the 12 per cent income tax rate applying to qualifying small business income to 11 per cent by 2009. * Reducing the general corporate income tax rate to 18.5 per cent from 21 per cent by 2011, starting in 2008. * Eliminating the corporate surtax for corporations as of January 1, 2008." Link But if you find the total corporate income, let us know, it will be interesting to compare the numbers.

Good point. It makes sense that if the children inherited money from their father then they are liable (assuming that the father should pay), although the amount paid by the children should be no more than the amount of inheritance they receive. If the father had been sued before his death, the plaintiff would be entitled to some money and the kids would get less inheritance. Why should that change upon the death of the father? Then again, I must bring up a point that I made in the Arar thread:

Certain posters here find it acceptable to call him Stephanie. Others prefer to call him Celine...

I think that is compared to what was projected. In other words, if I estimate revenues from corporate taxes to be 20 billion, but it ends up being 17.4 billion, then the number in that table would be 17.4 - 20 = -2.6 P.S. Look at table 2.4 to see where the revenues are coming from.

I don't think there is any way around wrongful convictions. If there was a way to prevent them from ever happening, I think everyone could agree on that. Unfortunately, people make mistakes. My point is that spending 10 years in jail (or however long the wait on death row is) is better than being executed. I agree that a life sentence is just as bad as being executed for some people. However, I don't believe that 10 years in jail is as bad as losing your entire life (50+ years). I think if people had to choose between the two, most would choose 10 years. At the very least, I'm certain that some people would choose 10 years in jail and those lives could be spared in the case of wrongful conviction if there is no death penalty.

Actually, geoffrey was arguing that it was as bad or worse. I don't think it is as bad, but what do I know. Maybe we should ask Truscott whether he is glad that he was not executed? I never said I wanted it, I offered it as a solution to someone who thinks that being in jail for 10 years is worse than being executed.

Does that mean no more of this as well?: P.S. I think Charles is doing a great job.

He lost 10 years of his life in prison. He could have lost 50+ years had he been executed. But I'll tell you what, if you think locking someone up for life is worse than putting them to death, then how about we give them the option to choose prison vs. death penalty?

Sometimes I wish you had a few Muslims working in your law office...

If someone in prison turns out to be innocent, at least you can release them from prison. Sure, they wasted time, but at least they have the rest of their lives. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to undo an execution.

All that matters to most people is how much they actually pay in taxes, and as I have noted before, we all paid 15% before the Conservatives increased it. If someone had their child enrolled in a national daycare program, but that daycare program was never "officially" law, and the Conservatives got rid of that daycare program, then yes they would be considered to have cut that program. Otherwise your comparison is not valid.

From Matthew 15:10-20: I think this is why Christians are allowed to eat pork.

Link?

We've been through this before...we all paid 15% tax on the lowest income bracket until July 1, 2006 when the 0.5% increase came into effect. Now we are all paying 15.5%. That's a 0.5% increase. What is propaganda is the Conservatives trying to claim that is a decrease.

Link I don't know whether this is true or not, but if it is, it's pretty frightening.

I too noticed that the Conservatives took credit for the 0.5% reduction in the lowest income bracket, when in fact it was a 0.5% increase. They also took credit for raising the basic personal exemption, when in fact they lowered it.

Fair enough, but assuming (hypothetically speaking) that there was sufficient evidence for abuse, you would have no problem with paying (through taxes) some sort of reasonable settlement to residential school victims?

Does this logic apply to Native residential schools?:

Using that logic, those Danish cartoonists are the intolerant extremists?

As someone who is pursuing a doctorate in health research, I'll give my two cents about how it is funded here in Canada... At my University (each department may differ), every graduate student (at least those in health research) is paid to go to school. Some of that money comes from working as a teaching assistant (helping with labs, marking tests etc.) part-time. In addition to that, students do research which is paid for through grants obtained by the research supervisor (usually from the Government). Students may also qualify for scholarships, but they are very difficult to get. If a student gets a scholarship, they are paid for by the Government, which gives the students two advantages: 1. They don't have to work as a teaching assistant, giving them more time to do research 2. Their supervisor does not have to pay them through their grant money, which means the student has a lot more options about where they want to work (who's going to turn down free labour right?). Unfortunately, the link doesn't seem to work so it's hard to get more information. I agree it seems strange to only offer it to Chinese students...what about other foreign students? Or having more scholarhips for students in Canada?

Another idea...and I'm just throwing this out there...is to have the option of stating the reason for the edit. I sometimes write a footnote for why I edited a post, however this takes up more space and I know how much Charles hates wasted space. The reason for editing could be included in the "edit post notice".

I agree there should be a period of about 5 minutes in order to edit spelling mistakes etc. without the line appearing. Not sure I understand the point of locking out a post though. If the argument did ever come up, which I have never seen in my time here, where one person says "you said this" and the other person says "no I didn't", the first person can always point to the post in question and say "look, you edited this month old post just five minutes ago...very suspicious". I like to think that most of us are more honest and mature than that anyhow.

I realize that. Still pretty crazy though. Sometimes I wonder how there could be so many millionaires in Vancouver. I realize most of them are only millionaires because they have probably owned their house for quite some time, but who are all of these people paying a million and a half for a bungalow?? Also makes me wonder how the average Joe can even afford an apartment here, let alone a house.

I figured as much. However, there are some people here who do appear to want immigrants to assimilate. If you look at my original comment, it was addressed to someone who appears to believe that immigrants should assimilate, but since I don't have any concrete examples of what assimilation actually entails, I thought I'd ask. Actually, it depends entirely on what other people mean when the say "assimilate". If they expect immigrants to watch hockey and eat poutine, I'd suggest why don't Canadians watch soccer and eat falafels, or watch anime and eat sushi? But I don't actually know if that's what people mean when they expect immigrants to assimilate and no one seems to want to explain. Personally though, I don't give two cents what people eat, watch, worship etc. so long as they obey the law in doing so.