hitops

They don't, they feel entitled to their own. Ex: You put 3 loonies into a pile, and AG puts 10. You get 2 back, and he gets 4 back. The rest is used to buy stuff you both might need. Just because it is technically possible that one of your specific loonies, once mixed in the pile, wound up in his hand, that does not mean you are paying for his tax breaks. He already put 250% more into the pile than he got out. You put only 50% more. Your logic is liking saying that when you buy something at Walmart, they give you money. Because after all, they do physically put coins into your hand to make change. Well I guess nothing except more clamor for them to pay their 'fair share'. It does not matter how much they pay, it will never be enough. Good thing nobody has done that. It doesn't need to make sense, or be economically sound. It just has channel hatred towards those evil people making $200,000 who stamped their evil club card while laughing diabolically. They deserve to pay more, isn't it obvious? They have, and I don't. They owe me. The logic is flawless.

They have been proven wrong, it was a success story. Regarding arab muslim refugees, look no further than Europe for that story. We should learn from history, not be blind.

Ok that would be the poorest income brackets, many natives peoples etc. What is your point?

There is difference between feeling entitled to your own earned money, vs that of somebody else. Feeling like other people owe you based on the fact that they have more than you, is a psychologically malignant way to go through life.

These are not the Vietnamese boat people. We will experience the consequences of who we take in.

Wasn't the example about $200,000 between a couple?

Ok using the couple making $200,000 example; What if is paid entirely in dividends, $100,000 each?

The fact that you do not feel entitled to their money, is because you have the mindset that led you to be successful in the first place. It is no accident that success and not feeling like others owe you, tend to go together. This is the tragic part about the victim, entitlement mentality. Those who hold it (like most in this thread) have a put a psychological cap on their own potential. It is a self-defeating, toxic worldview.

It is available to anyone. Neither are a poison, but that does give us an insight into how you view people. There is no end to this argument. Everyone always thinks that people making more than them should not complain, and no matter how much they pay, they will always be accused no not paying 'their fair share'. 'Fair share' is a concept with no endpoint. Low earning does not = deserving. What infantile thinking. There are plenty of low income people who will use it well, and plenty who will just blow it in ways destructive to self and others. You have absolutely no clue who 'deserves' what, as if that can even be defined. Nobody is going to understand what you are saying, unless they have gone to the effort and grind to achieve what you have. You have to understand the mindset - you did not get what you have due to your own efforts and sacrifices (sacrifices they did not make), a magic fairy just dropped it in your lap and you are 'lucky'. Hence, you owe others.

I would go for Brad Wall. Too bad.

Goodale for finance.

This is what happened. And when other people realized he could not win Quebec, they realized he could not win period. The progressives went to the only other not-Harper choice. Middle-right voters who disliked Harper but supported the CPC out of fear of an NDP government, saw that Mulcair was no longer a threat and Trudeau was clearly ahead. They were now safe to express their anti-Harper vote in a non-NDP fashion, and did so.

How does calling someone cringeworthy = partisan?

A system with perfect proportionality and near-perfect regional rep is the following: A ranked list of all the candidates from all parties. You rank them. It could be in the thousands. You spend many hours filling out your ballot. Leaving crazy land, a similar plan approaching the margins of logistical plausibility: Leave ridings as they are. All parties list candidates by riding, like now. As a voter, you choose a party first. Then you get a list of that's party's candidates, and rank them 1 through 338. Number 1 gets 338 points, number 2 337, down to number 338 who gets 1 point (or some other mathematical system for ranking). Using Monday's result, Libs get 40% of the popular vote, meaning 135 MP's. Those must be the 135 with the most points from that list of 338. As a candidate, if you rank 136th by points, sorry, no seat for you. Same for the other parties according to their popular vote. Obviously this still borders on comedy when considering the logistics. An alternative would be a candidate ranking system where perhaps you simply write your top ten into ten empty spaces. First choice gets 10 points, last one gets 1 point, same as above. The 135 liberals seats are again made up of the top 135 liberal candidates in points. This allows anyone to vote for their local guy first, the riding next door guy second, or whoever they want, and not spend all day doing it. If they hate their local guy but want to vote for Lib, name whatever Lib you would rather give points to. You could expand this beyond party and simply give the 10 empty spaces. If you want to list all Libs, fine. If you love Michael Chong a few Libs, and few other independents, malcontents or other assorted disturbers, fine. Whoever gets the most points can re-assemble into their parties, or not. Party affiliation would give them brand recognition and campaign support but not make them nearly as beholden afterward. All these are similar in concept to STV but; - more accurately representative - ranking based on candidates rather than parties - ranked choices do not transfer but rather hold different weights Another even simpler alternative that would require no administrative or procedural changes: Again give 135 seats for a 40% win, but no closed party list. Mandate that the parties must put the 135 best performers in those seats, determined by percentage win in the riding. In this system the winning party will never send all their winners to Ottawa, and the losing parties will send all their winners and their best-performing losers. In this scenario, using Monday's numbers as an example, Megan Leslie would be an MP but Bob Nault (Kenora) would not.

Polling companies are partisans?

I'm not a partisan in that sense. I would have gladly voted for Goodale if he was leader because gov needs to change after some time.The result was remarkable, Trudeau was not. He is cringe-worthy. But the anti-Harper sentiment was intense, and voters decided within the last 2 weeks to go Liberal. The polls in the days before the election are consistent with the result. But not a few weeks ago, if the election were held then, we could easily be talking about a Mulcair or Harper victory. If Trudeau was dominating the polls for months we could say he was great. But that's not what's happened. The election hit at exactly the right time for CPC decline and NDP implosion. This was an anti-Harper election which swung to the Libs in the 11th hour. NDP lost Quebec and when people saw they no longer had to vote CPC to prevent an NDP government, they rushed to the Libs. What is truly remarkable and unique about this election is that there was a three-way tie for some time and lots of changes of position. That doesn't tell a story of a great and historic Liberal campaign, they were losing to both other parties during much of it. It tells a story more analogous to a game of hot potato or a Mexican standoff, where nobody is the clear favourite until the last second, and then it's winner take all. This election is perfectly summed up by the following fact: Thomas Mulcair, who was higher in the polls at one point within the last month than Trudeau was the day before the election, nearly lost his own seat.

I like that guy.

Ok let's go with that. 5x seats is great. But the progressive conservatives in 1997 with Jean Charest must therefore be considered twice as great, since they increased their seat total by 10x. The plain objective reality is that the victory is on par with the last CPC victory at 54% of the seats. See......obviously we should consider her the greatest ever!

The problem isn't capitalism, it is just lack of perspective. People on the other side of the world aspire to the basics, and it is arrogant to us to assume we are entitled to the job and lifestyle simply because we are here. When they work harder and longer and for less than us, it is not hard to figure out why the jobs go there. And they are rising. The world is not falling apart just because we feel sad that right here, right now we wanted to new car and new renos and now we have trouble making the payments. For most of the world, life is much improved.

There is no reason to redistribute wealth just for the sake of redistributing it. If done, it should be because standards of living are declining. But they aren't. Worldwide (remember life exists outside of Canada/US), standards of living are dramatically improved over the last 30-40 years. The middle class has exploded in tons of Asian and even some Africans countries. This is not a bad thing. And because companies are global and their reach is to a global middle class, obviously the very top execs are going to earn far more because their products reach far more people. It is the same reason Lebron James will make far more money today with a global audience (in adjusted dollars), than Jordan ever did with primarily just an American/Canadian one. The idea that things are harder today is a myth. Our consumption as measured (both here and in the US) is way up compared to our parents generation. Our standards and expectations are higher. It is not that we make less, but that the things we want and need are more expensive. They are rendered ever more expensive by more regulations than our parents had, and high expectation of our own lifestyles. Cars have to safer, building things more closely verified to code, etc, all of which makes it more expensive. If we consumed less, and held the same expectations as our parents did about lifestyle and work-life situations, we would be just as well off as they were. But we want it all. They had no cell phone, we need the $700 iphone, new every few years, with $100/month plan. Oh, and don't forget one for each family member. They had 3 channels, we need 500 and netflix. They had no internet, we desperately need 100mbps to our home, the library is so far away!. They bought whatever was at superstore on sale, we need special organic, cage-free, fair trade etc at three times the cost. They drank the office brew, we need Starbucks every day (or 3). They had lino, we need granite and tile and soft-close and backsplashes and brick exterior and heated garages. They had a place to get to work from, we need the 'right' neighborhood. They drove the old buick, we need a new diesel jetta or a prius......with upgrades.....and on payments of course. Oh and a Vespa. They went to work when needed, we need 'me' time. They bought education they could use, we buy education to help 'find ourselves'.

I don't know if it is an option for you, but if you could get your workplace to hire you as a consultant instead of an employee and you incorporate, you could pay yourself and your kids in dividends as shareholders and avoid a lot of taxes.

There's nothing epic about it. It's the usual swing back to the Liberals. Increasing your seat count 5x means nothing when you are coming from being totally destroyed. By that logic, the conservatives are the most amazing party ever, because after getting kicked down to 2 seats...they increased their seats by how many x? The campaign was nothing special, Trudeau is neither canny nor smart. It was an anti-Harper election, full stop. Trudeau managed to speak in full sentences, not vomit on himself on tv and successfully walk on 2 legs, and dress well. That's all they needed. If you hate Harper but are not a lefty, that's your only option. Trudeau is a performer, nothing more. He is nauseatingly inauthentic. He is not charismatic at all, IMO. He virtually never says anything of substance, his speeches have more common with miss America winners than statesmen. If he manages to sit in the same room as Putin and not wet his pants, I'll be surprised. Fortunately the Liberals have a deep bench, and the grown ups who will actually run things are reasonably competent even if somewhat corrupt. Trudeau's vision extends to becoming PM. Fortunately Goodale and some of the others should have some reasonable guidance to give him.

No......I would just scrap them.......without the government taking it over. Government funding charity directly is called the welfare state. We already have one and don't need more. Now if you are saying cut welfare and instead fund charities who provide types of welfare, well now that might be a good plan. Without question the charities will make those dollars go further. If for no other reason than that they have drastically lower labor costs. The reason you would focus on some groups is because some charities exist explicitly as activists towards a given cause. For example you could be the 'save the ducks' charity, where government policy can either utterly fulfill or totally decimate your goals. The incentives line up for such a group to want to influence politics as much as possible. Religious charities would be the least logical to investigate.

Why focus on religious charities? They are usually the least activist. It would be more the types of charities who's main purpose is promotion of some social issue, in other words those who have a direct vested interest in the type of government for their own operations or financial existence. An even better idea would be to scrap the deductions entirely.

Fine work voting twice.