scribblet

Tax credits and tax refunds from income splitting are not taxed back at all, I don't think any of it is. Everyone has gained something, naturally those earning more and paying more in taxes will gain more, but everyone has gained (unless they don't pay income tax) http://linkis.com/globalnews.ca/news/1/TnQaC OTTAWA – Canadians are saving more than $30 billion in federal taxes— or a little less than $1,000 per person — due to tax changes introduced in the past decade, Canada’s budget watchdog says in a new report. The calculation from the Parliamentary Budget Officer shows the accumulation of tax relief that has come about since 2005, when the then-Liberal government reduced the minimum income tax rate to 15 per cent from 16 per cent.

Wow, more name calling and unsupported accusations.

tTe good people of Ferguson didn't decide anything. The GT is representative of the county as required by law, are you saying that they should have broken the law convening a different jury made up of people only from Ferguson?

Well, as Walkom of the Star says ,Indeed, if A’s account is correct, it may be that Pacetti’s only crimes are adultery and terminal stupidity. Is that enough for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to permanently bar him from caucus? Given the general tawdriness of the incident, Trudeau could probably get away with deep-sixing the Quebec MP. But if adultery and stupidity become firing offences on Parliament Hill, many MPs — both male and female — could feel the effects. Trudeau may regret it if he sets this particular precedent. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/26/commons_harassment_victim_paints_tawdry_but_not_criminal_picture_walkom.html

Indeed and he's since retracted it.

Well, this has sure gone down hill, not worth adding anything with all the insults flying around. Suffice to say, the NDP MP who is making these allegations has now spoken to several news outlets alleging that Pacetti forced himself on her in his hotel room earlier this year, without explicit consent. She is still unnamed and has made no formal complaint. Rape is serious enough to warrant a formal complaint and considering that MP Pacetti issued a statement affirming he is "innocent of any misconduct" she needs to make it formal. In other words, put up or shut up IMO.

Thought I'd post this piece from a black strategist, worth a read http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/24/justice-was-served-in-ferguson-this-isn-t-jim-crow-america.html The day of reckoning has arrived not just in Ferguson, Missouri, but also across America. For some, the grand jury proceedings to determine whether the shooting of a black teenager by a white police officer was justified was never about seeking justice. As widely anticipated in the media, the jury of nine whites and three blacks elected not to indict based on the evidence before them. Sadly, hundreds if not thousands of individuals descended upon this small St. Louis suburb to agitate for an outcome based on their ideology rather than the facts under consideration by the grand jury. Even though the grand jury elected not to find Officer Darren Wilson responsible for the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown, sadly, I never believed that the gathering protesters gathered in Ferguson were seeking justice or a peaceful resolution to the case, which has roiled race relations in America to levels I haven’t seen in decades. How else to explain those chanting “No Justice, No Peace” in the days leading up to the grand jury’s determination? The only justice sought by those folks involved a conviction against Wilson for killing the “gentle giant” teen. Evidence that favored Wilson’s account—that he tragically shot the teen in self-defense—was conveniently ignored, as doing so neatly fit into the narrative that whites are racist, white police officers assassinate blacks at their leisure, and America is as prejudiced toward people of color as it was in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. cont..

Whatever floats your boat.

It's 'willful ignorance' to infer that the cop shot Brown out of racial motivation or prejudice, there is no evidence to back that up. Nor can we assume that the jury was prejudiced, a GJ which was representative of the county as legally required. While there maybe other incidents that were racially motivated around the country, there is no proof that this one was. I suppose by your lites et al, anytime a non white is killed in some way it's racism ! Meanwhile, back in Toronto organizers are being racist by telling non blacks to stay in the back etc. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ferguson-aftermath-protests-in-toronto-ottawa-spark-debate-1.2850162 A suggestion that white and non-black protesters limit their visibility and "stand behind black folks" at protests Tuesday in Ottawa and Toronto against the fatal shooting of a black teen in Ferguson, Mo., has sparked a heated debate on social media.

Guess he won't be dancing in the street any more.. yikes

Agreed. This particular incident had nothing to do with racism as much as some would have us believe and as we are seeing, the lies about why Brown was shot keep repeating. Meanwhile The New York Times should be ashamed of themselves, they published Officer Darren Wilson’s home address; how badly does media want mayhem and 24 hour live coverage? It's allready been tweeted and re-tweeted, protesters have taken note. The Times should now have to pay for moving him and security. The fact that he isn't there right now or that it could be googled doesn't excuse such irresponsible journalism. Why many ‘eyewitnesses’ in the Darren Wilson investigation were wrong; “The most common element in all wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence has been eyewitness misidentification” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/25/why-many-eyewitnesses-in-the-darren-wilson-investigation-were-wrong/

Only this one is special I guess, unlike when a black cop kills an unarmed white teen in Utah which the media treats differently - and no riots either. I didn’t see the President speaking to that one ! http://fox13now.com/2014/08/25/dozens-protest-death-of-dillon-taylor-shot-by-slc-police-officer ETA: The Castle Doctrine as written in Mo. Was part of the wording in the prosecutors explanation of not charging Wilson. http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-House-passes-change-in-self-defense-castle-doctrine-law-254885011.html

I only insulted the hyperbole and fabrications which were completely unreasonable.

Exactly...

Total hyperbole, the state isn't sanctioning any execution of citizens for stealing anything. It's this type of sanctimonious nonsense that causes problems. The jury weighed all the evidence and witness testimony before reaching their decision after separating fact from fiction. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer. The accounts of several other witnesses from the Ferguson neighborhood where Mr. Brown, 18 and unarmed, met his death on Aug. 9 — including those who said Mr. Brown was trying to surrender — changed over time or were inconsistent with physical evidence, the prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, said in a news conference.

Facts don't seem to matter to many people, maybe I shouldn't have been surprised at statements made last night on TV, but I was. I listened to a black Senator talking on I think CNN who just refused to acknowledge any facts - facts which did not counter officer Wilson's statements. I think before people start spouting off about 'chosen racist narratives' they should read all of the facts. I give the grand jury credit for not being afraid to give that verdict and not giving in to pressure from protesters. I hope they are able to stay safe.

The U.S. has had joint filing for decades, I see this as a step towards this in Canada.

And you do ? get a grip Meanwhile, those against equalizing taxes for single income people and don't want to help families, want us to pay billions for a day care program that will only benefit 10%... maybe you need to get a clue.

Now it's slavery... really, get a grip, the hyperbole is astounding, those types of comments do not lend any credibility to your argument. It certainly gives a woman more choices, I'm a woman but do not see it as 'slavery', I would've welcomed it in order to take another year or so off. Income-splitting is about putting single income families on the same footing as two-income families. It levels the playing field as a family with a single earner making $70,000 a year pays 30 per cent more in taxes every year than a family with two partners making $35,000 http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/krzepkowski-mintz-income-splitting.pdf Most of the anti income splitting responses here are disproportionate to what is actually happening. In fact, it is nothing but a fight to frame the gov’ts plan in a negative light in order to win votes for the opposition. It doesn’t matter if it helps middle or low income families, the point is to denigrate and frame the issue as being a negative measure, or simply as helping the ‘wealthy’. - and now 'slavery', get real. Liberal Logic: Income splitting, isn't fair but forcing others to pay for daycare or other choices which only benefits a few is 'fair' - go figure. I look forward to income splitting or filing joint returns for all people in the not too distant future.

It doesn't just benefit the wealthy, it's a positive step towards addressing inequality. Capping the benefit at 2K ensures that the wealthy don't benefit more and expanding the Child Care Benefit etc. benefits more people than the NDP day care plan would. We both worked full time and are middle income, we would have benefited from it some years, none in other years. Certainly the seniors income splitting is a major benefit to us now. The working class can't afford the NDP's day care plan either, a plan which only benefit about 10% (no. of families with kids under 6) and cost all of us billions, even if expanded the spaces are limited. I see this as a step towards joint filing for all couples as they have done in the U.S. for decades. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/30/jack-m-mintz-family-friendly-tax-breaks-a-good-start/

PM Harper is trying to help out families by giving them money but people don't like helping out familes - why - because it's Harper doing it? If the gov`t has the funds to spend then I can't think of a better place to spend it than on helping Canadian families prosper. Canada is stronger if families are together and prosperous. Limiting the possible credit to $2K limits the super-rich so I don't see a problem. Maybe what he really needs to do is increase the basic personal exemption to about $15K from the current $11,138 which would make a big difference to the working poor and part time workers. Mulcair had a difficult time during question period the other day trying to come up with a well reasoned attack.