Charles Anthony

You are putting a price on voting -- which is fair. Elections are not free. If I squeak by and pay only $0.01 in taxes, does that earn me the right to vote? Would you let me sell my vote to the highest bidder and let him vote twice? Prisoners voting: why not?? Are you afraid that they will elect "criminals" to public office? If the numbers of criminals ever becomes so great that they can swing an election or a riding, we have a lot more to fear than a skewed election and democratic reform will be at the bottom of our priority list. You can resent it as long as you are willing to give the guy who pays $50,000 in taxes the right to vote twice. I am curious: are there any jurisdictions of the world that tried this? It would be interesting to see if voters actually tended to split their voting power or whether they tended to just give all 100 votes to one party anyway. Precious little, but he does contribute a considerable sum of money towards the state's treasure chest, and so it's only right and proper he have some say in how it's spent.Are you two kidding???? If there is no "real value" to trading currency, have you ever tried doing it yourself??? I do not think it matters. I agree completely on your assessment of justice and legal aid. They deserve an exclusive thread. If that truly is the case, we have already put a price on the value of a vote. Call me a nihilist but I believe you are attributing too much grandeur to democracy and the right to vote. blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda After election day, we are all divided up into two camps: winners and losers. Let the man who would stand up and with his vote say that he is wise enough -- and owns the right -- to decide how his fellow man should be ruled live in fear that a second man will stand up and find a more direct way to impose his will upon that first man.

This is interesting. What ever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? The whole concept of being held on bail flies in its face.

Justice and punishment of crime are a peculiar animals. Personally, I find them to be very confusing mainly because everybody has a different appreciation for the effects of crime. It is easy to raise many irreconcilable questions. I have to agree.I think it also does not provide enough answers. What if we can not successfully deter others with our punishments? No, you should not be punished if you do not hurt anyone. Even if you did hurt someone, how should you be punished to deter others??? Taking away your driver's license could do it. Preventing you from drinking could do it. What if you got into a drunken car accident and paralyzed pedestrians? An eye-for-an-eye could say you should be paralyzed too. Should you be paralyzed surgically or by being struck by a car too?? What if you got into a drunken car accident and paralyzed pedestrians but also got paralyzed too? An eye-for-an-eye could say we should call it even. Is that fair?? What if you got into a drunken car accident and paralyzed pedestrians but you died in your own crime? What does an eye-for-an-eye have to say??? If a criminal had a martyr complex, capital punishment would not be a punishment at all. The criminal-martyr may think he was getting a free pass to Heaven instead. Suicide bombers come to mind. Seems fair. In our society, and in Hugo's 'anarchist utopia'. It would be wrong to take more.Wrong. It could certainly be fair to take more. The value of that thousand dollars to me is not likely to be the same as it is to you. [That is one of the reasonings being which we have tax brackets.] This is also where the anarchist concept of justice being a negotiation arises. You might be a millionaire. I might have been depending on that thousand dollars to pay my rent but unfortunately, I have been evicted and I am out on the street. Also, I have difficulty understanding the concept of "victim impact statements" used in determining sentences. If a victim of crime has absolutely no friends and no family, should a criminals sentence be different???? To make matters even more confusing, some people forgive.

Bogging down parliament? What would you recommend be done when the Bloc put forth its motion?

Excellent! That is the best definition of Left-wing that I have ever heard! Because less money would be going into gov't coffers...This is where the foolishness of the Left vs. Right ridiculotomy collapses in economics. [i wonder what will happen when Right-wingers and Left-wingers learn that the Earth is actually round? I also wonder what will happen when they learn that some actually people live at the equator of this globe?] The assumption that "less money would be going into government coffers" is hilarious because it depends on us living in one moment of time. Furthermore, it completely omits the fact that each of us very frequently buy and sell from each other. In other words, the government collects taxes on your dollar and again when the second person spends it and again when the third person spends it and again when the fourth person spends it and so on and so on and rinse and lather and repeat. We all leave with bouncing and behaving hair! Now, all we have to do is tell two friends and the government has oodles and oodles of taxation. Please forgive the dramatic sarcasm but my point is that the price you pay for ANYTHING includes several layers of multiplied taxation which our Big Brother can not even calculate. A decrease in income tax can lead to more general spending and thus, it is not wise to assume how it will affect the total money going into government coffers. If that is so ostensible, can taxes also take care of peace and harmony and motherhood and joy to the world and eliminate poverty too?

Why is that a problem? He could still end up with an overall higher net income. I agree. It would involve less wasted time. Why would that be right wing? What side of the political spectrum would it be if we added a consumption tax? Also, why are you assuming revenue would be lost?

Kudos, ThelOne, kudos. I think that is the most perfect analogy. With that analogy, if rest-of-Canadians can not understand the sense of Harper's motion, they will never understand. You are misunderstanding the intent of the motion. The motion says exactly what you want. Harper is forcing the separatists in the House of Commons to shut up and get on with business. The motion actually rubs it into the faces of the separatists. Now, the separatists can never play the emotional card pitting rest-of-Canadians against the Quebecois. Furthermore, by concurrently advancing more decentralization and more powers to ALL of the provinces, the separatists have less reason to demand separatism. I agree. Canadians should respect and embrace this legacy. What a lot of rest-of-Canadians do not realize is that the British had no practical choice years ago. The British needed the conquered French as allies in North America. Remember, the British were losing their colony to the new U.S.A. down to the South. Politically, I am actually starting to get excited as a Canadian. We may be taking a few more baby steps along the evolution towards a federation that may rival the U.S.A. in terms of political freedom. We have that opportunity -- something I never thought was possible. I honestly picture us as being too hard-headed. My fellow rest-of-Canadians, consider this: our continued decentralization is happening when our federal government has absolutely no federal purpose nor clout -- other than central banking, the one thing it can do right and certainly better than our neighbors to the South.

This is an interesting concept. I heard one person justify party solidarity by saying that MPs owe much of their election on the support of the party. In other words, the party pays for their election campaign and the candidate just has to show up on election day.

I believe the media has every right to engage in propaganda and even to tell lies. Unless, of course it is funded by tax-payers -- in which case, it only has the right to remain silent. There is no need. We should be smart enough to automatically make that assumption. If we are not that smart enough or we expect a right to free factual entertainment, we are probably better off listening to lies.

But then he/she would pay tax on the bonus, and possibly at a higher tax rate.You misunderstand. The suggestion is that the bonus be raised high enough that -- even with the higher tax rate -- it will still amount to a higher net income. The only solution I see to rectify this injustice between your purchase and Conrad Black's purchase is to eliminate income taxes altogether and replace it with consumption taxes. Presumably Conrad Black's house will be higher priced and we will be able to extract more from him than us poor-folk. Let us stir things up a bit more. On what side of the political fence would the elimination of income taxes fall: Right camp or Left camp?

What could be more productive for our federal government than to promote its own decentralization?? and more power to the smaller jurisdictions? The amendment deals with limiting federal government spending. I believe you fear losing power and control over the taxes of your fellow citizens. I can not see any other reason to oppose this amendment. So what??? I look on the bright side: we saw the development of two regional parties. Please, continue the big-government-knows-best arrogance. Yes, it is scare tactics because your explanation would justify never making any change for the better.

It sounds consistent to me if you believe that the state owns the land and resources underneath. A government who wants to maintain power every single year will also want the support of every firm and their employees. What else would you expect from a state?

Please. Have you ever had a Muslim friend? I have several and you are not being reasonable.

I am just throwing something out here: those are images and sometimes images in forums pose a security risk. I do not know enough about those risks but images were a hole before, were they not?

What are you?!? Some good-for-nothing anarchist punk?!? If you do not like it, you have two choices: 1) use your Almighty Power To Vote and "vote for change -- or whatever the popular catch-phrase happens to be" at the next election 2) move It sure beats the Liberal spending years that followed preceded them. They never ended with one tiny spending project. They never do. They were everything and everyone taking millions of our dollars worth. The AdScam and Katimavik did not keep this country together. That is an illusion. Name a few examples where the federal government is successful doing that. Actually, it is the other way around: smart and responsible people try to clean up their own backyard and improve their lot in life before they call it quits. Explain why they should. I see no valid reason why that should be the case. Exactly how are we better in the long run with a distant government telling us what our standards should be????? Like what?? Would the strict government controls permit them to offer better quality service or to free up waiting lines in the public health-care system? Big deal. We change laws all of the time -- as we should. Did you ever consider the possibility that the BNA Act might be out of date and does not address the needs of modern Canadians? Any other province can get the same if they had the political will. Why should that be? Hell, I would say we should just reduce it down to the Governor General's office! Who cares??? Exactly what do you fear? Probably not but that is only part of the picture. Even if the federal government has a bigger budget for a project, I would ask: does the federal government know what every smaller jurisdiction needs? Of course not. Therefore, if the federal government was not collecting the taxes for healthcare to start, the provinces would be able to afford what they need. I believe the practical experience of governments is that bigger governments are less responsive to their constituents. If we compare two small governments (over two neighboring jurisdictions) to one great big government (over the same jurisdiction), I believe that we will get more rapid and useful action with the two small governments cooperating.

Instead of ranting, how do you propose we deal with it? The opening rant from Heather Mallick gives recommendations on what should be done but it says absolutely nothing about politically HOW they should be done. Until somebody presents incentives for preventing the inevitable "crunch year, 2050, when we're hot and killing each other for water" all we are getting is hysterical and useless ranting. The Global Warming Ranting is just as productive as saying we must end all poverty or end all hunger or promote peace or be good to our neighbors or get tough on crime or promote literacy or yadda yadda yadda.

Who can argue with this: ????

Rarely. However, the electrical power outage from three years ago should have taught us a lesson: carry currency all of the time. [if there is ever a run on the banks, we will be a lot more vulnerable.] I hope they clearly indicated that at the entrance before you waited in line like a herd of cattle. I have a real big problem with retailers who advertize their plastic card services with stickers on the window but then say "system is down" when you get to the register. CAVEAT TROLLUM: Ignore the rest unless you have a sense of humor. Aktchually, I woood say it shold reed "across" its ted. Typos and spelling errors are a sign of typing too fast without being careful or being too eager to fire off a new thread. Careful. From what I gather, that sounds like a precursor for downhill-posting-eventual-banning.... First we need spam filters, now we need a breathalizer login function too????

What "trend" do you see?? It is nothing new. No nation can dominate the world. We depend on eachother too much and modern communications make it much more difficult to deceive the masses.

-- because they are distinct and they ask for it. -- because no other province can muster up the political power to ask for it. Is there any "special treatment" that Quebec gets now vis-a-vis the federal government, that no other province can get? I do not see any.

The housing market is equally vulnerable to demand forces as it is to supply -- along with the value of the currency. When you are talking about inflating the money supply all prices will rise together not just houses going up or fur coats going down. You are really getting the various aspects of economics mixed up. According to you (and your infaltion-paranoia), the prices of fur coats would still rise with the currency deflation. Look, it is like pollution and clean air. Even if all of the millionaires controlled the world, it would still be to their advantage to have a stable currency as it is for us poor folk.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!The value is also determined by demand. Years ago, fur coats were in style and fur coats were valuable. Now, fur coats are out of style and fur coats are worthless.

If the tax savings are great enough, we will see the development of "tax-savings pseudo-prenup" agreements to go along with these marriages-of-convenience.

What are you going to do?

No. I do not understand. I think you are over-sensitive.