TimG

I hear you. The disclosure rules in Canada are the start. Adding MERs to the total is the next step. I don't think you can do much about the fact that most people are not going to be come sophisticated investors. But if they are given basic information about the real costs of the services they receive that should help them make better choices.

But what we do have now are mandatory disclosures of fees collected by financial advisers. Just because a problem exists that does not automatically mean that any cleverly named regulation dreamed up by a bureaucrat is better than the status quo. One big problem with regulation in the US is vague or subjective definitions leave people with no clear path to follow to avoid breaking the law. This leaves them open to legal attacks by grand standing DAs or trial lawyers looking for a payout. That said, Trump's response to get rid of - rather than replace with a more effective regulation - is still problematic. My point is it is mistake to assume that the existing regs are better than no regs.

You have to have a thick skin to express conservative ideas in today's Canada. The left is very quick to label people who disagree with them as sexist/racist/anti-science/etc. That said, it is good you are using the feature in the way it is meant to be used.

Forums don't need to choose "winners". They exist to allow discussion.

Can you at least get rid of the 'community recommendation' on the profile page?. It is unreasonable to label people based on whether a majority of people agree with their opinions. If you want it to be used for something other than partisan cheer-leading you need to remove the incentive to vote because it affects the status of posters that someone disagrees with. If people vote for or against a post it should only affect that post. The 'community recommendation' feature reminds me of the social media dsytopia in Black Mirror Season 3: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/black-mirror-nosedive-review-season-three-netflix/504668/

I was assuming the objective was to flag well written posts. If it is just a partisan cheer-leading mechanism then it is pointless. Progressives tend to form their opinions based on what other people think. Conservatives tend to have opinions based on principles and don't really care if they are popular.

I disagree with the premise. I could not care less whether people like or dislike a post because despite your claim otherwise it does simply become a partisan popularity contest where people on one side of an issue will like all the posts that say things they agree with and dislike those that say things they don't like. If we are to have a ranking system it should be based on the quality/thoughtfulness of the post and have nothing to do with whether someone agreed with the opinion expressed. I would get rid of 'like' and replace with 'worthwhile' or 'thoughtful' or 'insightful' to make it clear when people should vote for a post.

IMO, a simple up vote would be better. Edit: I noticed I got a dislike for my post asking for "how to search". That is simply absurd.

Yes but that does not show exactly which of thousands of posts got likes. That page turns it into a competition which exactly what we don't want. I would rather see that page deleted and replaced with a page that shows the 'liked' posts sorted time. I dislike such ranking systems because they encourage people to be partisan and ignore the quality and/or substance of the post and simply vote for it because they agree/disagree with it. I would rather see a system that encourage people to like posts based on substance rather than whether they agreed with it.

How do we search for the posts that got "likes"?

I doubt that. As I said, perpetual rights are essential tool in the software business. If Facebook lost it was likely due to some other restriction related to privacy laws.

The software industry would be in big trouble if the courts did not enforce "perpetual rights to use and distribute". If Facebook ran into problems it was because they did not ask for those rights (probably because it would scare users away). Your argument was that no terms can be added. That is false. There are terms that can be added but each website may not wish to add such terms because of negative user reactions.

Perpetual rights to use or redistribute are common terms and are enforced by the courts. If you grant someone the perpetual rights to use or redistribute your works then you can't come back later and tell them to remove your works from public display. Free software is often distributed under these terms (i.e. the author retains ownership of copyright but grants users perpetual rights to use or redistribute).

I understand turning off editing for older posts, however, can you make the editing period 24 hours? I often find typos and other goofs when I come back the next day. One of the reasons I like this forum is that posts can be edited after posting to correct such issues.

It is not a policy. It is a character flaw and a minor one at that. The most problematic character flaws that Trump has are that he is a narcissistic bully that take offense easily. If I was going to criticize Trump voters for ignoring character flaws I would focus on the latter. The other point that you seem to miss is how in the age of information it is actually very hard to find reliable information. So you can roll out your examples of Trump saying absurd things and I will accept your claims because you have shown yourself to be a poster that is usually very careful with facts. I would not give other posters the same benefit of the doubt and would question whether such claims were even true. The same dynamics play out in the media and on the internet where people filter information based on how much they trust the source. So if these Trump voters are are only hearing the things you claim from untrustworthy sources then you can hardly expect them to take them as seriously as you do. And before your go on a rant about the professionalism of the MSM means it should be trusted before some yahoo with a blog peddling "fake news", I think it is important to understand how mainstream media have undermined their credibility with larges swaths of the electorate by pandering to people with with particular political POVs. Here is the most recent example were the NYT misrepresents building activity in Israel by failing to distinguish between construction in East Jerusalem which is not seriously contested and rogue Zionists building in the West Bank in violation of Israeli laws: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/02/the-nyts-misleading-settlements-coverage/ I don't want to get into a debate about the substance of the link - the point is to illustrate why it is not reasonable you to assume that everyone should treat publications like the NYT as credible sources of information and they have valid reasons to be sceptical. And given that Trump voters do not necessarily believe the same information sources that you believe why would you expect them to come to the same conclusions that you do?

Nonsense. People vote for people they find distasteful all of the time because they have one vote to manage a complex web of issues. The kind of reduction-ism that you are using here is exactly the type of bigotry that criticize Trump for. I suggest you look in a mirror.

There are not any left that don't represent a real cost of doing business. Even your home internet connection is not entirely deductible if you use it personal use. Some accountants rave about the benefits of tax deferral but that will not help someone with a small business providing employment for themselves.

I think they should just make them deductible for everyone by lowering the threshold to something reasonable that would actually provide a benefit to people who don't need major dental work.

In principal I agree but if the government did do this they would likely exempt and/or compensate public servants while screwing people in the private sector. That approach I oppose because it would be even less fair than the current system. BTW: CPP contributions are deducted by the business and the self employed do not pay tax on the employer portion so your premise WRT CPP Is wrong.

As if you never make predictions of future events based on the past actions of the actors. I provided a logical argument based on past behavior of PSAC which you obviously cannot refute so instead of trying you try to pretend it does not exist.

Why? Because you believe public servant unions care about the greater good and will meekly accept a large income cut for their members?

I simply pointed out the political realities of the move. I take you refusal to address my points as a tacit agreement that I am likely correct.

Those words don't mean what you think they mean. My point is valid. If the Libs care about fairness they will turn the public service unions in to enemies. If they public servant unions don't turn on the LIbs it is because they were bought off which means the Libs don't care about fairness. So it is extremely unlikely that any proposal produced by this government will have any connections with fairness and will only screw those poor sods working in private industry that are needed to pay the taxes that fund public servant benefits.

The public service unions would be the worst hit by such an attack so there are only two possibilities: 1) The Libs decide to pass on this tax; 2) The Libs increase public servant wages to compensate for the tax while everyone in the private sector get screwed; If they pick 2) we need to dispense with the notion that this is about fairness. It a pointless tax grab driven by ideolgy that will not net much revenue because of cost of buying off the public servant unions.

He cares that a US corporation is having its copyrights violated by the Canadian government (at least according to BC's spin). It is not a stretch given the fact that this administration sees value added taxes like the GST as a 'tariff' on american goods.