Savant

The real problem with her proposal is that it is based on a flawed premise. We don't need to make the rich pay 'higher' taxes, they just need to pay 'more' taxes. Or more precisely, they need to raise the ETR (Effective Tax Rate) for those who make higher incomes. As it stands, there continues to be a gap when you reach those who make high incomes. Once you reach the 'top' their ETR dips markedly. Here's an example chart I dug up from the last decade, although I expect it wouldn't be much different with recent numbers. Note the dashed line that represents the ETR, and how it drops off as you reach the higher income brackets. Raising the tax rate for high income earners isn't a solution. They have more than enough ways to reduce their taxable income. So instead, imho, the better solution is to reduce tax exemptions for those at the upper end.

I know I'm late to the party, but I don't see how people can suggest that Ford's decision to go to his cottage somehow means he disproves of gays. He's also skipping Canada Day celebrations, does this mean he 'hates Canada'? There are festivities at Mel Lastman Square on Canada Day, and Mayor Ford won't be there. He wasn't there last year either. Furthermore, I don't think Ford should go anywhere NEAR the Pride Parade so long as there is even a hint that QuAIA might show up (as they have done for the last few years). Yeah Rob Ford is the mayor of all citizens, and that includes the Jewish. While I do think he should do the flag raising, I don't think he should be pressured into attending or criticized for not attending the parade.

The law was capricious and arbitrary. Just because the government creates a law, does that mean people are expected to blindly follow it? Would you be following any laws that restrict your ability to download music & movies off the net? Something tells me there would be a significant backlash if that happened.What about laws that require you to get a LICENSE to access the internet? With all the child porn out there it only stands to reason that law enforcement will want to license people to use the internet. So will you just obey that law? You're not above the law, right...? The problem with this so-called gun registry is that it only applies to legal owners of guns. You can't control illegal guns with a gun registry any more than you can control child porn pervs by forcing internet users to be licensed. Laws that target honest citizens will NEVER impact illegal activities.

As many are likely aware, a refugee claimant can use their sexual preference as a means to apply for refugee status. This this is not to talk about homosexuality, but is instead to ask the question, how do you tell? More and more people are showing up as refugees, and claiming they are 'gay' as a means to subvert the process. After all, it's not like there is some simple 'test' that you can do to validate one's sexual preference. This issue came to a head last week when a federal court judge rejected a Nigerian man's claim that he was gay and was fleeing persecution. I won't go into details but you can read some of the story here. So this begs the question, how does Canada deal with genuine refugee claimants, while sifting out those who are trying to abuse the system using whatever lie they think will give them the best advantage? It used to be that a fake marriage was seen as a sure thing, but with crackdowns to check the validity of such unions, refugees are now playing the 'gay' card more and more. Without some reliable means to deal with this issue, there may soon be a flood of illegal immigrants using this back door as a means to enter Canada that they wouldn't have been able to use otherwise.

Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion seems to feel that Canadians are 'hungry' for an election. What do you think, have the times changed? Are people really 'hungry' for an election? Or is Dion trying to mentally prepare the public for an election by suggesting such?

I think the real problem is that people aren't eating enough PB&J. Since we all know that this is the real cause of global warming.

I put out some feelers, I'll see what they come up with and let you know...However, let's operate on the premise that this blogger isn't intentionally fabricating the entire story. Would your comment still be the same?

So has anyone seen this blog info about the raid? It would seem that things were not as they appeared to be. A quote from the link... As a side note, Liberal party cameramen were not present for the return of the material, for obvious reasons.

While the topic is getting a bit off, let me offer a couple links to those who think that scientists are united behind theories surrounding climate change. Global Warming Petition Project 31,072 American scientists have signed this petition rejecting Kyoto, including 9,021 with PhDs Friends of Science "Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change."

I was having an interesting discussion with a friend that is a Green party supporter, and she was bemoaning the Liberal's 'Green Shift' plan. However, she was annoyed not because she is against action on the environment, but because the Liberals are making such a mess of it that she worries it may turn people off from the Green party by association. (Since the Liberal 'Green Shift' plan is basically ripped from the Green party playbook with things tweaked to further their agenda.) I can't help but wonder if my friend has a point. Do the Liberals risk making people associate 'green' with 'cash grab'...? Even though the Green party has a different platform than the Liberals, do they risk being seen as 'guilty by association' with respect to their 'green tax shift'...? With all the gains the Green party has made of late, does the Green party risk becoming collateral damage as Canadians choose whether they want to embark on the largest tax hike in Canadian history?

One of the sayings I like to use in situations like this is "perception is reality." It doesn't matter if crime is acttually decreasing or not. What matters is the public's perception of crime, and whether that perception is good or bad. Flying in the face of the article quote the original poster noted, there was a survey released by Angus Reid this past Monday which revelaled that 51% of Canadians believe there has been an increase in crime in the past 5 years. (ref) That's a full one out of every 2 Canadians that is not only NOT seeing a decrease, they are perceiving an increase. Why the difference? Perhaps the media sensationalizes crime too much, and that leads people to believe there is more crime than there really is. Or perhaps people have just developed a lower tolerance for crime. Either way, with 51% of Canadians believing that crime is on the rise, a 'law and order agenda' will certainly cater to their concerns.

This is like trying to suggest that you can reduce congestion on roads by putting up toll booths and sending the toll booth money to squeegee kids. While there may be a minor impact on the number of cars using the road, simply using road tolls to deal with increased traffic congestion belies the fact that the main reason for the congestion is the increased number of people driving cars, a factor that cannot be mitigated by tolls alone. As the population grows, more roads have to be built, or more public transit has to be put in place. You can't try and short cut your way around this by trying to get people to stop driving with road tolls. In the same vein, a carbon tax that does nothing to provide for increased choice to reduce one's reliance on high carbon sources will do very little to impact carbon output. If the only power source in a given province is coal fired electricity, then people really don't have a choice. A person who heats their house with fuel oil will still have to heat their house with fuel oil after a carbon tax is put in place. Manufacturers who make goods will simply pass on costs to the consumers, there is no incentive to reduce their carbon output since they know all their competition will be paying the same increased prices and passing on those costs to the consumer. Since none of the carbon tax funds are going to environmental initiatives, there is nothing being done to provide for new clean energy resources. Without those choices, people will just be stuck paying higher bills without any real way to change to cleaner alternatives.

Poor Ken Boshcoff has been getting smoked over his comments (I posted further back), since they don't portray the Green Shift program in a very favourable light. In an attempt to try and 'recast' his comments, he agreed to appear on a radio show on a Saskatchewan radio station. (News Talk 650 - Saskatoon) However, while he atttempted to talk his way out of it, he really didn't help matters. You can hear the interview here, and as noted on the page, the 'hard stuff' comes out at the 6:50 mark, where he tries to explain his way out of some simple math. The point raised seems to be a good one. Of all the spending in the Green Shift plan, there isn't ANY spending on the environment. Nothing. Zero. Of the $15.4 billion that will be raised in carbon taxes, here is where the spending will go as per the Green Shift handbook... Broad Based Personal Income Tax Cuts - $6.675 billion Benefits for Working Families and Canadians - $3.740 billion Support for Rural and Northern Canadians - $.789 billion Corporate Tax Reductions - $3.823 billion Contingency Tax Offset Reserve - $.400 billion So where is the spending on the environment? Isn't this supposed to be an 'environmental' program? What kind of environmental program spends NOTHING on the environment?

I came across this little gem written by a Liberal M.P. today... Anyone notice a distinct lack of talk about the environment and a significant amount of talk about sucking cash out of the west (oil patch) to redistribute to the rest of the country? And they wonder why people suggest that it is just a cash grab. This carbon tax is just a cash grab, and their own people are admitting as such. Reducing emissions is just a side effect, not the real design behind the plan.

Looks like things got a bit worse for the Liberals... Something tells me this isn't going to end well for the Liberals...