Jerry J. Fortin

Sounds like a lot of effort to achieve little benefit to the citizens. Why not simply appoint Senators that are at least 70 years old! They can only serve until they are 75 under current law. Why not simply ed run the system through a procedure instead of legislating their way into a mine field. Idiots!

Leave the government in charge of how citizens dress.......NOT!

The entire health care debate is a joke. You cannot simply bring in "competition" and lower the expenses. Private care requires a profit, we already have that within our system, yet most people either do not realize this truth or accept the reality of it. Doctors are private corporations and do very well. Putting any more profit scenario into the system will simply increase, not decrease the cost of service delivery. The big argument seems to be that private ventures are more efficient and can do it cheaper, to this I would suggest that we could instead improve the existing system and SAVE money instead of providing a profit at a higher cost to the consumer. I think some people actually believe that private ventures would reduce government expenditures. To them I would suggest that unless government tax dollars were completely removed from the equation there will never be any savings realized by the public. Even then, I would suggest that the net cost to the consumer would in fact be greater than they currently experience.

Well said, its speaks toward the real truth that is very well hidden. In the end it is the consumer covering all costs associated with production including taxes and profits. Yet there is real benefit at this point in time of freezing any level of taxation to any specific segment of the society of which we are all a part of. Logic dictates that the disparity created will eventually become contentious and result in an across the board reduction. In my view that disparity exists in the difference between corporate and personal taxation. Personal taxes do not take into account expenses in the same manner applied to corporate taxation. Therefore net taxable income is evaluated in a different manner. There are costs experienced by citizens in the production process that should be tax deductible. Strangely they are not. These costs may be related to transportation or clothing, or even food. They could even be applied to housing and entertainment as well as in the area of insurance. A true dialogue on taxes is sure to follow this tactical political move on the part of the Liberals, and we may all benefit from that.

The question then becomes how do we proceed from here? An international currency that is devoid of speculation? The elimination of fiat currencies altogether? Yet perhaps the problem has other depths than merely the creation of money itself or if you prefer the creation of wealth which is at least more accurate. In my view, as long as there are competing systems in play there will always be disparity. Systems are tools of citizens to be utilized to their advantage. These things have been well used to the advantage of some, but definitely not for all. In my view no amount of regulation is capable of eliminating the problems of inflation or deflation until some form of global standard is agreed upon. It is not the financial industry at fault, nor is it the evolution of systems in use that are at fault. There is no blame to be assessed, nor single finger that may be pointed to define the specific issue in contention. I think that perhaps these things are a result of a society coupled with technological advancement that is winding its way through a developmental process that does in fact correct its own mistakes through advancement. That advancement is based upon the successful resolution of the problems encountered. This is simple logic. Is not the real problem we have the dissociation of the fruits of labour and the value of currency? Is there not a very real and problematic difference between the modern ideas of production and wealth? Is not the human removed from the equation to a very true extent? Does not the modern perception of value have more relevance than the effort of production? Is not leverage the true measure of capitalization? The entire concept is devoid of the realization of the human interface within the productive process and the value of human effort. I will suggest that we have developed beyond the concept of "money" altogether, yet out of greed and avarice we retain the use of money as a "fair" means of exchange. If anything at all, money is far from such a concept when we consider the variance amongst the fiat currencies of the world. Perhaps the Japanese had it right at the height of their feudal system. Money was a reference to an amount of rice sufficient to sustain life. There were indeed variances such as taxes and the like to contend with, yet it was a true measure of defined value. Money = Life. No money equates to no food and hence no life.

The velocity of money? I fully expect you will define that as circulation MSJ. The concept is valid, in order for money to do its job it must circulate. Every hand that it touches is enriched, or so the convention goes. There is a slight problem with this and it is in fact problematic. Nations buy and sell currencies, just as people do. However once a nation buys "dollars", they disappear from circulation and are keep as foreign reserve accounts. China has a few trillion in US dollars just sitting there. Russia has begun to buy Canadian loonies as well. This isn't news, its all happened before and it will all happen again because we have failed to learn the lessons of our mistakes. Freaking fiat currencies!

There is no such thing as international law outside of "Maritime Law", and that applies on not one square inch of land.

This is where the phrase going to far comes from. What of the true point here! This all stems from picture ID, no picture no ID. Why not address the real problem instead of creating more problems. Damn governments and the fools who support them!

To return to the point, "money is created" as medium of exchange. It matters not if that "dollar" is backed by gold or any other precious metal because money is merely the paper or electronic "real" and tangible footprint used to realize the purchase or sale of a product or service. Money is the fixed term used facilitate a transaction of variably priced objects or ideals to either acquire or divest ourselves of that which we desire. Consider the reality of all this for a minute, then consider that "dollars" themselves are both valued and sold as if they were in fact a commodity. This is the root of the problem because we are converting a belief into a a reality when something of no particular value is bought and sold. The entire concept of money becomes problematic at this point.

Does this not all relate directly into the operation of government? Why does government permeate our lives? Is it not time to say to the government and all politicians that citizens have had enough of government spending? That spending is reflected in our own disposable income. Every dollar we give to the government is one that we deprive ourselves of. With so many folks out of work, and so much debt in both the personal as well as corporate segment of our economy, how do we justify the wealth transfer from private to public hands? It seems to me that things are finally coming to a head on a global scale. We cannot control events outside of our nation, nor should we try to because that would serve to impact the freedom of others, and that is a cost far too high to live with for any individual. We can control events within our own nation, we can set an example and we should set an example. This is a rich nation, and that makes us a rich people. We have the means, and we have the ability to stand alone and act in a manner that earns respect and admiration. This nation needs an internal focus and a national will to be welded into a political agenda for the benefit of our own citizens.

I for one believe that free speech is a vital concept for a nation. That does not mean that the concept should be applied in any manner that would serve to cause harm to any group of, or individual person.

Good call!

I never liked the idea of sitting on a fence. With that in mind, I am merely suggesting that there has been no fat lady singing, and it ain't over yet. The price of gold is trending upward, and it has been for some time. Does that mean anything to you?

Money is a rather broad term. There is hard currency such as dollars and coins, then there is credit which is another rather broad term, which is often described as interest bearing debt. Of the entire money supply in the world, 90 percent is interest bearing debt, not dollar bills. That is a very important distinction. The central banking system which the entire planet lives and works with is based on a fractional reserve system where only a small portion is preserved or protected in deposits within financial institutions. There is far more money supply then there is deposits. That is why there is so much confusion on how the system works, because the banks appear to be creating money out of thin air. Another source of confusion is the concept of central banks and their role in the operation of the financial system. Central banks are not really banks in the traditional sense or the way we think of banks. They do not take deposits from the public or loan money to the public. The theory is that they are the bank for other banks, but that is not very accurate either. Some central banks are privately owned and some are publicly owned. Some are a mixture of both public and private. The original central bank, the Bank of England was a private corporation for more than two hundred years. The central bank in the US is privately owned, but that is confusing too, given that the actual ownership of the US Federal Reserve Bank is in the hands of seven other "banks". There is much reason for folks to be concerned with a system that is so key to our well being and so misunderstood. In my view the system needs much work, and I think that many folks would agree with me. To return to the point, I think that it is prudent to discuss "money" in terms people can understand, such as earned income or realized equity instead of simply dollars. The relevant thing in my view is that "money" is merely a medium of exchange. The only real value of money is that folks believe in it and trust that it has a defined worth.

The worse conditions have yet to come.

Now for the real question ... Is Steve that smart?

This is a bit strange, such is the reality of Canadian politics I guess.... National anthem, flip flop 10 percenters flip flop Contraception in developing countries flip flop More to libraries than books flip flop.

Sort of. I do dislike taxes, that is true but I don't advocate any plan or concept to eliminate them because the government requires a revenue stream to function. On the other hand this thread is not about merely taxation but instead the specifics of the equalization plan within the broader definition of taxation. I like the way you said..."especially in a federation". It is very nearly an admission that this form of government is very ineffecient and very expensive. There is only one tax payer and there are only so many tax dollars to go around, Each citizen should be entitled to an equal share of those dollars spent, regardless of region or province lived in. I suggest that the paradigm of government and taxes needs serious redress, and that in as short of order as possible.

I think the Conservatives will lose seats in Quebec. Conservatives in BC are at peril as well.

Big deal. Its not like there is any chance of an election anytime some, unless Harper pulls the trigger. Iggy does what Iggy wants, just like Steve does. These guys are at the top of the political food chain people, but they are not rock stars. This isn't US politics and this isn't the USA.

Well said.

Need is a bad choice of words my friend. I see and understand your point but there is a problem, with your understanding of the situation. In a perfect world, I agree that federalism is a highly idealistic and noble effort. Unfortunately in the real world politics has a way of perverting things. This nation does not have as many national institutions as you may think, there are far too many for me but that is just me. The provinces have much authority and control of a vast majority of social programs and services. The feds merely provide funding to a large degree, with administrative left to the provinces. That is how the system is setup. Because of that you have provinces doing this and that with their control of those programs and services. There are some programs not available from one province to the next, that is the reality of the situation. So when you venture into an equalization system the actions and the effects of programs and services vary from province to province. It therefore blurs the line between the federal government and the provinces. It boils down to a dollar number per capita in transfer payments that have no strings attached. The provinces can do what they want with the citizens tax dollars. That is why there is a great child care program in Quebec, but no other place in the land. Need doesn't really play into the equation at all. That is the problem. Alberta is not lecturing, where did you get that from? I, a citizen of Alberta, do not lecture either. I merely ask the questions of the representatives of the people. Bureaucracies in this nation are putrid fact of life. They exist because of the wants and desires of the public for programs and services and are a result of the administrative quagmire poorly designed for service delivery. I certainly did not design the system, although I can see many of the flaws within it as can most citizens. In such a system patronage and nepotism run rampant, at the expense of the tax paying citizen. What you do not seem to understand is that average is brought to a lower configuration through this method. The question needs to be asked, why not aspire to higher and not lower standards? Why not just let the provinces collect taxes from their own people and do what they want with those funds being ultimately accountable to those people? Change the tax system to leave tax dollars in the provinces, instead of sending them to Ottawa? Let the feds have their cut, sure, but those dollars come from citizens of a province, and they should be spent on those citizens of that province. Provincial tax rates are the business of the provinces, not the feds or other provinces. MY issue is with the federal rates and levels of taxation with its accompanying problems. I have been paying taxes since 1970 and have seen vast amounts of my personal income withheld from me in the name of taxes. If all those dollars were returned to me I could retire in comfort without my company pension. Such is not the case. I guess my real problem with equalization is the computational tables and parameters used to determine what goes where. For instance why is renewable energy production exempt from the calculation? Having said that, I can foresee the day when this all comes to a head because the levels of expenditures on the part of government entities are not functionally sustainable.

PART III EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES Commitment to promote equal opportunities 36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to (a)promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; (b)furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and ©providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. Commitment respecting public services 2)Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. Lets see now, where to start with this..... Equalization actually fails to promote "equal opportunities" in "have" provinces by detracting from the provinces fiscal subsidies granted by the federal government to "have not" provinces. Equalization actually fails to further economic development and actually creates disparity in opportunities by furthering the cause and efforts of bureaucracy instead of the cause and efforts of privately owned productive operations. Equalization actually fails to provide essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. Most public services are at the expense of the provinces, such as health care and education, roads and other infrastructure concerns. The feds actually merely provide EI and CPP, while paying lip service to the entire concept of a military defense. With all due respect; those are rather vague parameters wouldn't you say? Lets talk of things like the reality that the provinces pay no taxes to the federal government, just us pond scum citizens. It is not the provinces getting robbed, but instead us low life tax payers. It should make no difference where a citizen lives! ALL citizens should have equality in taxation treatment. Equalization does not do that, in fact it discriminates against people by virtue of where they live. Those tax dollars are the peoples money, not the feds and not the provinces.

So is the military industrial complex. We don't have that issue in Canada and to equate our society with Americas in terms of the "drug war" amounts to the same thing, we are not them.

In your opinion you mean...... In my opinion, it is a bad system that does not function to the benefit of all citizens. It is a leftist solution that has resulted in higher taxation levels and a larger bureaucracy. It punishes the citizens of successful provinces and rewards the citizens of provinces with less productive effort. It is ingrained within the constitution, so there is little chance of eliminating the program. However, the government can change it as it sees fit without opening the constitutional can of worms just long as the program remains "alive" in political terms.