Bryan

I'm still waiting for you to score single point. Just because you can't stop talking, doesn't mean you've said anything of value.

It's true that the marginal rate would rise by 4 points under this plan, but that NOT the number that matters. What matters is how much money people have to pay. The cheque that will have to be written will be 13% higher than the previous one. That's why seemingly small numbers like a 1% difference in a tax rate make a lot of difference.

You didn't even come close, not even once. Repeating yourself won't make it true.

You cite one. You're doing nothing but trolling, trying to get people to waste time rehashing that same things you've already been told that you had no credible answer for. It's what you do in almost every thread (see the nonsense you're spouting in the aboriginal title thread right now for another classic example). You want to keep talking in circles, you do the work.

Not even close.

NDP are pretty good at hiding their messes. It takes a few terms to realize how much damage they've done. By the time you realize you've made a bad choice, you're in a lot of serious trouble.

Really? Restaurant hostesses aren't hired for their attractiveness? Not much of what you're saying is specifically about the topic of this thread either. I was just responding to your narrow-minded nonsense.

The answers are already in this thread multiple times. I'm not falling for your troll bait. Do your own homework.

I already gave a list. Lots of examples have been given in this thread. Businesses in all walks of life make discriminatory decisions on a daily basis about who they will hire and who they will serve. In many cases they even get government subsidies if they can prove that they have discriminated to a sufficient level.

They can and do in many areas. It happens all the time.

The plan seems to be: take away several thousand dollars, give back a few hundred. What is his objective, to finish fourth in October?

Of course they did, and their most glaringly poor choice was not taking steps to break the union before it became a destructive behemoth.

Yes we are.

You specifically talked about "the threat of popular uprising is necessary to keep politicians honest". That's a very specifically American point of view. Not many Canadians would agree with that.

Not many of the conservatives on this forum are Americans.

Are you sure about that? Does it say "WestCoastRunner" on your birth certificate?

If violent dissent happens, a greater level of violence will be used to disperse it. The only people it helps is those who do window repair for a living. As an added bonus, the protesters gain new enemies from the general public who previously had no dog in the fight.

If that were even remotely true, people would not be discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Or for their age, or for their gender. Educational backgrounds, job histories, language skills, job history, public appearance, physical capabilities, and on and on... People pick and choose who they will and will not discriminate against all the time. As do governments.

There's nothing to mix up. If your "identity" doesn't align with your genetics, you have a mental illness. Rejecting the fact of your gender won't change it.

They want unions to keep their noses out of policy decisions.

So you're discriminating against people's choices. Making a value judgement over who is worthy and who is not. How deliciously hypocritical of you.

It isn't relevant either. Want to do it, know how to do it, whatever. A person doing the job can decide what kind of jobs they want to work on, and the reasons don't matter.

They can, and they very frequently do without anyone getting upset. Discrimination is a fact of life, it's neither possible nor rational to eliminate it.

They weren't unhappy, because they were blissfully unaware of the fiscal damage being done. That's the problem with the NDP, it's not their programs that are difficult to live with, it's cleaning up their messes and paying for that fun that's the burden.

I was responding to Kimmy's claim that Starbucks uses offshore incorporation to shave 10% off their taxable income. Almost everyone has the ability to cut their tax load by that much if it's that important to them.