Michael Hardner

Thanks, Kimmy, for that inspiring post. As a Toronto liberal, I find that MapleLeaf and the good forums are the only places where I come into contact with other points of view. That's sad when you consider that productive dissent is supposed to be a mainstay of democracy. I always try to bring up the conservative point of view in casual conversation if I feel that it's not being well represented and you post will be helpful in that regard.

Sage, maybe I should ask you this question: Is there anything else in the way of major tax advantages we've left out ?

It's such a subjective and nebulous thing. Some men were probably confused. The Metric system was confusing too. That doesn't make it a valid reason to not move ahead.

Betsy: 1) You're right about common definitions changing and eroding over time. Liberals have been the ones accused of trying to 'legislate against human nature' in the recent past by trying to impose social engineering through legislation, including changing common elements of language to be politically correct. But 'Person-hole cover' never replaced manhole cover as the liberals would have liked. Now, conservatives are picking up the ball and playing this game too. They don't want the term marriage to be used in connection with legally sanctioned same-sex relationships. 'Marriage' was still called marriage after divorce first became legal, then commonplace. That term - 'marriage' - will survive its latest sociological morphing in the same way. This will happen whether or not legislation is passed to re-label same sex marriage as 'civil union' or whatever. 2) This seems odd to be. How many societies over thousands of years did survive ? Ancient Rome ? Elizabethan England ? Eisenhower-era America ? Maybe more detail here would help.

This is highly conspiracy minded. It would be highly cynical for a government to design its entire immigration and social policy for purely political reasons, ignoring the fact that it has a negative effect. Of course, this didn't happen. Multiculturalism was designed in part to make Canada an attractive country for immigrants, to increase immigration for the common good. You should take a page from 'The Fog of War' and empathize with your enemy.

You don't think that that a 40-50% consumption tax would have an effect on purchases ? You have no way of knowing what you said here. It's just a guess.

Thanks for the info Sparhawk. Is there anything else in the way of major tax advantages we've left out ? It seems to me that there are other loopholes that get you out of paying income tax...

Sure, but if it was completely 'even', you'd see a lot more people going the sallaried route. I think there are other tax credits that you can get as a corp. Anybody know for sure ?

By the 'flat tax', I assume you mean consumption tax. It's an extreme and drastic experiment. It would reduce consumer spending drastically, which is what drives about 2/3 of the economy and would dry up government revenues at the same time. Stephen Harper is pretty right-wing, fiscally, for Canada. Watch his government to see how carefully he moves on these matters, and you'll understand why these things are done as slowly as they are.

It seems to me from your post that you think 'Freedom of the Press' means the press is open for people to print their opinions. Not so. It means that the press can print whatever it wants, with a few exceptions. Freedom of the Press even means they can ignore you and whatever story you think is important. That's their right, their freedom. There's nothing stopping you from talking about your pet causes but nothing forces them to care about them either.

Interesting. There must be other benefits, though, or people wouldn't incorporate so often.

Strictly speaking, that's illegal. Of course, Revenue Canada would have a hard time proving you're using business resources personally, you're not supposed to do that. And the remainder ? Ahh... I see below. We're on a bit of a tangent from the issue of flat-taxing now, though, which was a tangent on the NDP's general philosophy.

Why do you think that ? Of course, plenty of white people are poor.

What's the dividend rate ?

How so ? Are you saying that if I make $500K in profit I'll pay the same as if I were sallaried ?

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.