carepov

Since when? "Canada climbed from its lower rankings of sixth and seventh in 2011 and 2010 after coming through the financial crisis relatively unscathed, the institute’s report said" http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/prosperity-index-ranks-canada-5th-in-world-1.2821919

I know. The system would be more fair if families paid income tax. Correct. I never though of this before. All else being equal, a single parent would not deduct the spousal amount ~10 k and therefore pay about $2,000 more than a couple with kids. Unless I am missing something this is very unfair, even now and should be rectified. Currently, all families with kids that make 80,000 per year: 2 earners (40 + 40) pay ~ $20 K in taxes 1 earner (80 + 0) pay ~ $24 k in taxes 1 earner (single parent: 80) pays ~ $26 k in taxes

What? Are you saying that parents that choose to stay at home are slaves? This policy will not affect the decision to have one or two people working. It will reduce the unfairness of taxing those families that choose to have one income earner.

Of course it is not fair. A fair system would see families with equivalent incomes pay equivalent income taxes.

It looks like Canada's doing quite well: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/prosperity-index-ranks-canada-5th-in-world-1.2821919

IMO, every family (with or without kids) should file one single tax return. There should be separate tax brackets for individuals and families.

I disagree. There are certainly many families with a sole income earner making ~ 50-100 k. These are not wealthy families. And it is not fair that these families pay thousands more in taxes than similar families with dual incomes. I suspect that this policy does little to help wealthy families as most already split their income without this new policy. Business owners and professionals simply "hire" their spouses (and children) and pay them a salary. They also split income by having the lower-earning spouse claim all investment income. I agree that this does not do much to help struggling families (although some struggling families will benefit) but this policy makes our tax system fairer.

Disproportionate? Really? Disproportionate to Kenya or Lebanon?

IMO, Canada has the best immigration system in the world. Can you think of a country that has a better one? I do not think "open and generous" best describes our system. Immigrants are already selected based on their probability of successfully integrating and contributing to our society. Our system is tolerant and successful. If I understand your suggestion correctly, you would deny applicants from certain countries. I think that this policy would harm our reputation - obviously with those countries that are on the banned list. Also, Even if the policy were not racist, such a policy would certainly be called racist and more people would view Canada as a racist society.

Japan is a homogeneous society that is declining in its influence and headed for demographic disaster. Thanks to our multicultural society, Canada has a major edge in international business. Icelend is not a good comparisson as it is too small.

Harper has successfully bought my vote. Why should my family, with gross revenue of ~$80,000 pay ~$25,000 in income tax when my neighbor's family also makes ~$80,000 and pays ~$20,000? The only difference is that my family's income is from one person, while the other family has two earners. I will gladly vote Liberal if they promise to keep this "income splitting" policy.

As I said off the top - yes we are doing pretty well! We are not perfect and therefore there is room for improvement, right? Do you agree that fewer children living in poverty would be an improvement?

Just because less civilized behaviours take place in other countries does not excuse barbarism here.

What is more significant than the odd person with disagreeable beliefs is to have an immigrations system that is fair and tolerant, and to do our part in helping refugees. This greatly benefits Canada's reputation internationally. Making the world a better place is also a benefit to Canada.

IMO, allowing people with unacceptable beliefs about human rights in the numbers that we do today has no significant negative impact on Canadian society. It does however have a major positive impact on the individuals and families that do immigrate, and therefore a positive impact towards making the world more civilized. When small in number as they are now in Canada, it is not beliefs that matter, it is behaviour. For every person supporting FGM that immigrates to Canada, how many fewer actual cases of FGM are there in the world?

You are not understanding my position -I never claimed that Scandinavian countries wwere some utopian socialist paradise. My response was to jbg that asked "are there any countries without a significant underclass?" If it makes you feel better, you can continue to believe that Canada sell weapons to only the "good guys". Sorry, I mistakenly lumped you in with another poster. I brought up fighting in hockey in response to "Canada, a land cold in climate, warm in contributions to humanity and the civilized world.". Canada would be more civilized if there were fewer bare-knuckled blows to the head in our national sport.

This is an interesting study, thank you, I will look more into it, but I must correct you: in the above poll 14% of those Muslims that believe that there is a struggle between moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims self-identify as extremists. That would put the figure at 56,000. The Toronto 18 group question was also a subsample but a larger one. Is it a concern: yes. Is it reason to panic: IMO, no. A recurring theme throughout the report is that the more education a person has and the more frequent the contact with cultures, the more likely that person is tolerant of other cultures.

You misunderstood. The topic is Aboriginal child poverty in Canada. Are you proud of Canada's record in this realm? Don't you think that there may be ways for Canada to improve? Are you are OK with shipping arms that will be used to violate human rights? Exactly. Lots is different about Rwanda and every country is unique. Can you spot the contradiction? On the one hand, we agree: every country is unique. On the other hand you say: foreign aid can't work anywhere. You are wrong. Outside money did help turn things around in Rwanda and in many other places too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/29/paul-farmers-graph-of-the-year-rwandas-plummeting-child-mortality-rate/ If it is not worth discussing, then don't discuss it. If you had a 19 year-old son just drafted into the NHL would you feel the same way?

It is not practical to accurately determine the beliefs of an individual. And if it were practical to determine their beliefs I still think that Canada should not refuse entry to individuals that believe that women should wear burqas. Please do not mistake my acceptance of these people into Canada as an acceptance of this belief. Also, please do not try to suggest that I favour opening the borders to millions of these people. I am basically supporting the status quo, with a gradual, moderate increase in the number of refugees and immigrants. IMO, one of Canada's top strengths is our acceptance of all cultures and our ability to successfully integrate all cultures. This benefits us Canadians by giving us a good reputation and other advantages in a globalized world; but is also a benefit to the world as we are a model of tolerance and we also have a positive influence on other cultures.

The first source concludes that foreign aid has a "mixed impact" with as many positive outcomes as negative. If this is true, then it's simply a matter of learning from the types of foreign aid that work - and keep doing it; and what types don't work and stop or modify. Here is an excellent source: http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/ that debunks the myths presented in the second source.

We both agree that Canada is very good and not perfect. Therefore there is room for improvement. Perhaps the Scandinavian countries and places like Holland would be something to aspire to? Canada should sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). People are needlessly dying because of our policy. No. But Rwanda (1994-2014) is a huge foreign aid success that can be used as a model for other countries. None. Canada is lagging behind other countries in helping Syrian refugees and it is lagging behind our own historical performance. On the bright side, (contrary to your claim) Canada's sucess in welcoming and integrating refugees is something to be very proud of! I did not say zero-waste. Japan and EU countries waste much less than we do. Knowing what we know in 2014, allowing or even encouraging bare-knuckled blows to the head is uncivilized.

Foreign aid to Rwanda in the last 20 years has been very effective.

For the most part yes, especially by modelling a society of tolerance and protection of minorities. However, in 2014, the following stain our reputation: -The abhorrent poverty faced by too many aboriginal children -The export of weapons and small arms to questionable regimes -The export of asbestos -The relatively low levels of foreign aid -The relatively low levels of refugee admittance -Excessive waste of food, energy and other resources -Fighting in hockey -Excessive and arrogant patriotism

I thought that WestCoastRunner stood up earlier in favour of a burqa ban. The answer in no - mainly because it is not practical to do so.

In the worlds of prostitution, pornography, and extreme Muslim households there are certainly cases of abuse, let's also add modelling. The world would certainly be much better off without any of these. My argument is that banning burqas is as useless as banning prostitution or pornography.