Michael Hardner

How do you know that ? I would think people who make that much money tend to invest a greater percentage than the average person. There's a limit on that, though. But you're right. The actual tax rate is lower. Right again. Well, I'm not summarily dismissing it just asking for details. I'm sorry but I'm naturally suspicious of plans to cut the tax rate for the highest wage earners as this trend never seems to abate. Meanwhile, middle income earners have it tougher and tougher.

I think Concerned made the best pro-CBC points: And Canuck E Stan made the best points against. I'm pro-CBC but that organization needs a thorough review. It's expensive and aloof. There are too many managers and too much nepotism. It's notable that the most successful series of all time - "Trailer Park Boys" - was developed as a complete "outsider" project at very little cost. This is the type of thing that the CBC was developed to champion, but they totally missed it.

Sam: Ok, well, I based my idea on your story of what happened to you - and on the fact that many men I've known who believe sexuality is a "choice" seem to have had to make that "choice" themselves. But you know better than I do. My point stands, though: many people did not make any kind of choice about their sexuality.

Sage: Sorry - it doesn't explicitly say that in his post, but that's what would happen. If you make $500K (salary) now, you might pay something like $250K in income tax. With a consumption tax, you'd never pay that much. The net result is a huge tax cut for the highest earners.

Sam: So long as you vote with your emotions (ie. hate) then you are by definition irrational. There's nothing wrong with voting with your heart, but it shouldn't be confused with voting with the mind.

SamStranger: It seems pretty obvious to me that you're bisexual. There's nothing wrong with that. I've read that 90% of people aren't "strictly" gay or straight. I'm in the 10% that are, though, (straight) and I have never had to make anything like a "choice" about my sexuality. It's natural to assume that the the rest of the world is like us, but in the case of sexual preference I and many others are different from your experience. We were born with a distinct sexual preference and never had the choice. Therefore, it wouldn't be fair to discriminate against us based on that, would it ?

Hicksey: Read geoffrey's post. In order to replace income taxes, you'd need a huge consumption tax. And the wealthiest in Canada would see a huge tax cut. Is that what you're talking about ?

Sam: You can say anything you like, but you're not going to convince anybody simply by saying "this is a good idea" and "you are stupid". Are you so easily convinced, that somebody can tell you "this is a good idea" and you'll buy into it ? I didn't think so.

Indeed, let "us" struggle together, having learned that the extremes of left- and right- belong to the past. Let's find ways that we can bring more people into a pragmatic discussion of what is the best course. Thank you !

France ? Have you forgotten the furor when France banned religious dress from the public school system ? The immigration process in France is very much about integrating. The French are as proud and nationalistic as Americans are and expect immigrants to become French.

Why are you asking such a silly question ?

Sorry but I didn't see it. When I searched for 'equality' I got this: Note that it says 'reduce inequality' not 'legislate equality'. There's a big difference. Sometimes I wonder if the NDP is a bigger threat than they appear to be, when their opponents exaggerate their goals.

Sorry, August, but the Conservative party is far to the left of any government in power during the depression, when socialism started to take off. For that matter, the NDP is fiscally to the right of many right-wing parties from 40-50 years ago. All mainstream parties are today converging on a hybrid, a political "sweet spot" wherein a social safety net exists, but business and success is encouraged.

Well done. Your forum seems to be doing better since I was last here ! Cheers.

I hope that this continues and that the other parties are held to this standard by their supporters.

Hicksey: That sounds more like a flat tax. Do you mean the same percentage, or the same amount ? Either way, the rich would pay less. That means you need to increase taxes for low/middle income earners to keep revenues the same.

Sparhawk: If you make $20K, chances are you're spending a greater proportion on taxable items than somebody who makes $2M. Hence, it's regressive. I think such an idea is too drastic, if that's the only goal. You could tax savings at a lower rate, for example.

You mean to replace income tax ? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, as in the more you make the less you pay as a percentage. In order for a consumption tax to replace income tax, the lower/middle income people would probably pay more. Besides, consumer spending is generally something that governments want to encourage.

I highly doubt that this post was serious. It plays very well as a caricature though.

Obviously that's a simplification. Today's three parties are much closer in philosophy than you suspect. The NDP is no more interested in legislating equality than the Conservatives are in abolishing all taxes.

You're right, it's not charity but keep in mind I was addressing your point #1. I don't know. Why don't we discuss and figure that out. School breakfast for example. There are a lot of bad parents out there. I suspect that they are the children of bad parents. If a school breakfast program can help these kids, then maybe it will break the cycle. Giving drugs/alcohol to transients. If these people are utterly addicted to substances and have thrown their lives away, what's the best way to deal with it ? They're going to get their substances from criminals anyway, maybe it makes sense for them to be under supervision while they're doing it. It's not a question of ideology, as much as it is common sense. I'd even be willing to crunch numbers to determine how valuable these things might be. Like I said: let's discuss and agree to shed ideology in favour of what works. Politics today is, unfortunately, more about arguing stereotypes rather than being pragmatic. I agree that such a blunt approach doesn't help anybody. In fact, it might be time for people to consider taking some powers away from the government in order to foster innovation. I'm left-of-center politically, but the government's stasis in many areas needs to be addressed somehow.

Charity is very much a part of our culture and it grows out of sympathy for those who are lacking. This is at the base of Christianity as well. That's not that you should feel guilty for what you have, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to share your wealth. It's kharmic, or if you prefer: win-win. Every western economy includes some measure of wealth distribution and social assistance. It might do well for those on the opposite side as the NDP if they told us what limits they would like to put on distribution. Often when these things are discussed it seems like it's an all-or-nothing option. What do you mean here specifically ?

I agree. No real conscientious objector would agree to fight in the first place.

But if alcohol and tobacco become too expensive, you can still give them up entirely. Not really an option with kids. I think this question needs to be answered by the country as a whole: BubberMiley has done a good job of explaining the rationale here. I think that discussion needs to happen nationally for this and every social program. It's not enough to play on the heartstrings of the electorate. People need to know that there's a rational reason behind them.