SF/PF

Given that the new trend in extraction (sagd) is highly dependant on fresh water supplies and typically only nets about 30% of the bitumen from the area, those estimates seem pretty high to me. The reserves are there, the question is if we'll be able to economically get at any more than about a third of those reserves.

No, they'll boost it to drive down wages.

I know that and you know that. But Shady seems to believe otherwise.

In which case, immigration numbers are completely irrelevant. They illustrate where people do move, not where they want to move.

Can you cite a publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal that establishes (or even claims) that fetuses are persons?

We don't have a democracy, we have an elected aristocracy. I'm not sure anyone has suggested a better alternative, though.

I suppose by that definition, any party that runs in an election against the incumbent government would be guilty of treason? Likewise, any party that lobbies for benefits for its voters would be guilty of blackmail?

For the vast majority of people, the TFSA is the one that should be maxed out first. RRSP's should only be purchased when you're at your peak career income, since this is when they provide the biggest bang for your buck. In fact, if you can only afford to invest up to the TFSA limit, ignoring RRSP's and putting everything into a TFSA will likely provide a lower lifetime tax bill than RRSP's would. In fairness, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the RRSP provides a little bonus up front in the form of an increased tax return. I can agree with this, though I believe that policy aimed at helping the middle class but ignoring the poor is, well, piss poor policy. Increasing the TFSA will increase the number of people qualifying for the GIS, and also lower the tax revenue from other forms of investments. There are better ways to achieve the goal of encouraging people to save. Increasing the TFSA limit, while great for me, is bad policy.

Old enough to have people in my immediate family that collect CPP and OAS. In some ways the TFSA can be thought of as a backwards RRSP, but the TFSA is a far better tax shelter than an RRSP. Especially for young people who are not yet at the highest income of their career. To be accurate though, with the TFSA you do in fact pay tax when you earn it, not when you spend it.

I think we would both agree that the number of people that can afford to invest more than $10,000 per year is smaller than the number of people that can invest $10,000 per year. Its basically true by definition. Of course, I'm just assuming that we can agree on this since you in fact stated the opposite. Every single one that doesn't have other investments or a private pension plan. So yes, perhaps the number will be relatively small if we only consider the people that put in exactly $10,000 per year, but it will be much larger if we consider people that put in $5,000-10,000 per year. Young people that are buying into the RRSP in preference to the TFSA are ill-informed. Over time, the TFSA is a far better investment vehicle. Lots. I have an aunt that is literally worth millions (they sold an acreage near Surrey for a huge sum of money years ago) and she qualifies for every income supplement available. You know why? Because income and wealth are NOT the same thing. Thankfully, I don't think it will come to that, seeing as this increase, like Harper's other "when the budget is balanced" promise, isn't going to happen. My point is simply that this plan will allow more people to qualify for the GIS than currently do, and some of them will be qualifying despite having pretty substantial wealth. I see that as bad policy.

For anyone that can afford to invest $10,000 or less per year, they will in fact have no income outside of OAS and whatever private pension they may have if they choose to limit their investment to the TFSA. I'm not sure why that is no contentious; it's a self-evident fact to anyone that actually understands how the TFSA works. I'm not sure why that is so hard to see.

So you think that the percentage of people that can afford $10,000 is the same as those that can afford $12,000, $15,000, or $50,000? I suppose anyone that can invest $10,000 can also afford to invest $1,000,000? \I fear that you were right about most people not understanding the TFSA, and you are obviously one of them. People that have been able to afford $10,000 a year into their TFSA will be defined as low-income seniors provided that they didn't make significant investments in other places. Why? Because the interest generated in a TFSA is NOT income. Ergo, people with almost the entirety of their savings in a TFSA will have NO income outside of OAS and whatever private pension they may have. The TFSA is a far better investment vehicle for the young than the old. For seniors today, a TFSA is only marginally better than a standard savings account. At any rate, the reason that its a bad policy now, let alone in 25 years, is that its a tax cut for people that least need help in retirement saving. Even if it only lasts 10-15 years, it will increase the number of people receiving the GIS. It doesn't need to go on forever for that to happen. No, it boils down to the simple fact that any money put into or generated from a TFSA is NOT income. Ergo, anyone who has the main source of their retriement funds in a TFSA is by definition "low-income." My assumption isn't that these people are poor. Rather, I think its quite obvious that my criticism is that these people are NOT poor, but will be treated as such. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. Go do some research on the TFSA if it still doesn't make sense.

Sure, people that can afford to throw significantly more than $10,000 a year into savings will still not qualify for income supplements in retirement. What percentage of Canadian families do you think that makes up? And money might fall from the moon, too. You can't reasonably evaluate a platform promise on account of what might happen in the future. Plug it into a calculator if you don't believe me. I ran the numbers with an investment at the start of each (annual) compounding period. Also, 5% isn't really exaggerated given that you can get 3.5% in a simple 5 year GIC. Interest rates are going up, if anywhere. At any rate, my point stands regardless of the interest rate; at 1% or 99%, increasing the TFSA limit will increase the number of people qualifying for low-income supplements. Whether I'm receiving $1,000,000 a year or $10,000 a year from my TFSA investments, it is still boosting my bottom line without affecting my qualification for low-income supplements. Other investments don't do that. What relevance do you feel inflation has to the simple fact that increasing the TFSA limit increases the number of people that will qualify for the GIS? Yes, obviously higher interest rates are preferable to lower. Still, irrelevent to my point.

In other words, pretty sizable tax cuts over time. Encouraging people to save is a great idea, but as I indicated in my first reply, this increase in the TFSA will increase the number of people qualifying for GIS supplements to OAS payments. The reason is that the interest gained in a TFSA is not classified as income, and thus does not disqualify people from low income supplements to OAS. For example, if someone invested $10,000 per year into their TFSA for 25 years at a return of 5%, they would have a balance of $501,134.54, which at the same rate of 5% would provide over $25,000 per year of interest "income" that wouldn't be classified as income for the purpose of qualifying for income supplements. In effect, as more people move their savings to the TFSA vehicle, you will see MORE people qualifying for income supplements in the future. Not less. Which is to say, Harper's plan to increase the TFSA will increase spending and decrease revenue.

You're definitely wealthier than someone that can't save $5,000 a year. And people that can afford to sock away $10,000 a year are definitely doing better than the vast majority of Canadians.

The only thing delegitimizing Israel is its policy on the occupied territories. Neither side has shown the slightest interest in good-faith negotiations to move toward peace. Its long past time for the rest of the world to smack some sense into both sides.

Just another Conservative tax cut that benefits the wealthy (people with an extra $5,000 a year) over the poor. Are you suggesting that not being able to save for retirement is usually a choice, rather than an economic fact that many families have to face? Also, have you considered that the more people have in TSFA's, the more money the government will be paying out in senior's benefits? Particularly those tied to income, since interest "income" generated in a TFSA is not considered income, people with vast amounts of savings and sizable monthly "income" will qualify as "low-income." Probably the worst platform announcement of the campaign thus far.

We should be concerned about a potential UN resolution that would be the most sensible development in Israeli-Palestininian relations in decades? Why? Because Israel will lose claim to land that it unjustly occupies?

Because they're elected by some voters in Quebec based on that platform? Or as others have pointed out: Democracy. Thrown in jail for what?

The sport is still dominated by grapplers. A weak striker can still be a contender (or even champion) in many of the UFC weight classes as long as they are solid on the ground. Someone with a weak ground game isn't going to be a contender, no matter how good of striker they are. The ref typically isn't going to stand up the fighters unless there is literally nothing going on. If anything, the refs excercise the stand up option far too little. Some of the submissions do become quite a bit more difficult once the fighters are covered in sweat, but then some submissions, like chokes, become easier as the fight progresses due to fatigue. The British fighters, as a whole, are very weak grapplers compared to north and south american fighters. They just don't have the wrestling or jujitsu culture that the new world does.

Duceppe just savaged Harper. Harper caught in a flat out lie on day 1 of the campaign.

It makes perfect sense. You're the one making the charge of relativism. Point out where I adopt a relativist position. You made a rather nebulous charge of relativism, and have since refused to explicity state what it is that I've said that constitutes relativism. You made the claim, support it or drop it.

Yes. And the Conservative leader had simply refused to accept questions, let alone answer them, until this morning. And Harper had a letter drawn up for the same purpose in 2004. He even held a press conference for it. Whats the difference? On the contrary, one requires a complete misunderstanding of the Canadian system to believe that this is serious.

If the Liberals can find a way to frame those scandals into soundbytes during the campaign, they certainly will begin to resonate. As they should. By the uninformed and partisan, sure. To anyone that has followed the scene on parliament hill over the last few years, such a conclusion is impossible to reasonably reach.

Oh yes... the relativism canard again. You'd do well to avoid using words that you don't understand the meaning of. You're right. No one mentioned any of those 3 together, except you. In a desperate attempt to find some sort of argument on a topic for which you have none.