Black Dog

This is false. Publicly funded Catholic schools you mean? This gives me an idea for a fun new game: MLW poster or Anders Brievik?

You should read the full wikipedia articles you quote. Clearly the devil is in the details, but it's a pretty basic economics that unmitigated consumption taxes are regressive. "In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income." I never said anything about opposing the GST or consumption taxes. But I appreciate it when you embarrass yourself by engaging in the kinds of behaviours you deride in others!

I had a lengthy reply to that fella all done, then my computer crashed and ate it. But this post pretty much says it all. In a one party state, no one is getting plum gigs at the top without the right connections and party affiliations.

This inane conversation could have been avoided if you had not chosen to dick around with basic economic terminology for no particular reason. Your argument is "sales taxes aren't regressive because of all of these things that have nothing to do with the actual tax!" It's silly.

Yes: an artificial set of constraints placed on a tax that would otherwise disproportionate impact low income people. If only they had a word for such a tax!

Again: this due to limitations placed on the tax to counteract its regressive nature. The rich paying more in this scenario is not a product or function of the tax itself.

And those mitigation measures are put in place precisely because such taxes are inherently regressive. No it's not. Everyone pays the same rate for the same goods regardless of income. It's a flat tax.

I'd suggest you re-read the OP, which is entirely about whether these NDP Socialist Caucus proposals would make their way into the party platform (spoiler: they won't).

This might be true, but it's not relevant here. The thread is specifically about the NDP Socialist Caucus.

Being heard is not the same thing as being listened to. Citation required.

No, I was saying that your contention that the socialist caucus is a major voice in the NDP is clearly false. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh yeah, such a strong voice that they couldn't even prevent the party from taking the word socialism out of its constitution.

They are irrelevant.

I don't know why you dignified that ridiculous tangent with a response.

How naive does one have to be to actually believe this, especially in AB.

Progressive taxes are called thus because the rate increases (or "progresses") as income increases. With a sales tax, people pay the same tax for the same thing regardless of their income, so someone with a low income will be paying more tax relative to income than a higher income individual buying the same thing, therefore, it is a regressive tax. Obviously.

What is it about this article, specifically, that has sent you to the fainting couch here?

Having finally watched that clip, I can honestly say the bolded is a complete crock.

That might be true, but you haven't proven that. hence the idea about changing the age of consent. Derp. Because the content of those opinions is relevant.

Ok: do you have any examples?

And guess what: you don't have to wear the damn shirt!

So when my job sends out memos letting employees know it's a holiday like Passover, they're actually telling me to convert to Judaism. Huh.

Better put surveillance on every single group on every single cause just in case someone associated with them does something illegal.

This is derailing.