RNG
-
Posts
1,496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RNG
-
-
Again want to name a country that has a Liberal party left that hasn't joined one of the two sides of the spectrum as their lunch was eatin up 50 years ago.
I think you interpreted what I said wrong I never said that political parties have become more polarized they have become more moderate and in that moderation they ate the lunch of brokerage parties. Again I ask for an example outside Canada where their is a brokerage party left standing. I know is hard for a Liberal to hear but the rest of the world left that type of party behind a long time ago.
You can't be all things to all people it doesn't work.
As for your 30-40% BS number. The EU parliament has 88 Liberals in a parliament of 700 seats you do the math. You are dead wrong the Liberals died a quick death in the EU.
But with the exception of the US, most right parties have moved towards the center and most left parties have also.
-
I don't think he will step down this summer, but its not out of the realm of possibility that Harper does not fight the election as leader in 2015. I think it all depends on how real this Trudeaumania 2.0 really is. I think there will definitely be a honeymoon effect once Trudeau is appointed leader, but does that last? You have to think the Conservative war room is just chomping at the bit to define him very early... and Trudeau has enough public gaffes over the years to definitely help them with that.
However, if Trudeau can consolidate his celebrity into actual firm support heading into 2015, I think the chances increase substantially that Harper gracefully exits in late 2014 making way for Kim Campbell 2.0.
Notwithstanding the Trudeau issue, slight cracks are definitely emerging within the Conservative caucus and that is a sign it may be time for the leader to consider stepping down, considering how airtight that caucus has been since Harper became PM. Harper is still young enough to have a career outside public life, he may take that chance. Harper is if anything, a very intelligent man. I am sure he is weighing this decision as tactically as he has weight any political decision in his career.
One of the problems the Conservatives have is I don't see any rising stars in the wings. One problem with Harper's complete control.
-
Haven't seen many poll results that backs what you are claiming.
If anything,there is more of a split on the right between the conservatives and liberals.
WWWTT
Admittedly I am looking at it from a western perspective, but I can't see that. It appears that it has always been a Liberal/NDP splitting. And that sure was the battle cry of the Liberals to explain their pounding in Quebec and Ontario in the last fed election.
How do you come to your conclusion that there is now a Conervative/Liberal splitting?
-
How is every Republican in the Senate voting against the Budget a compromise? Seriously how dumb do you think I am? Republicans wont give anything on the sequestration. Remember Democrats have made proposals to replace this sequestration while this republican congress can't even have a vote on a plan. Its not Obama's fault the republican congress wont do its job if it wants to replace the sequestration come up with a plan because Obama and the Senate both presented us plans.
So, whose job is it in the US congress to present a budget and when is the last time a budget has been presented? Oh, yes, it's the Democrat controlled Senate.
And you didn't comment on the CBC story or that the Republicans compromised and allowed $1T of new taxation. BTW, the "budget" referred to in the CBC story isn't a real budget, it is a funding bill, a different beast. What compromises have the Democrats made?
-
Every country is facing serious challenges over the next 50 years. There is no reason to believe the challenges facing the US are any worse than the challenges facing Europe, China or India. If anything, the open economy of the US makes it better equipped to meet these challenges than any of the competitors.
Under some scenarios the population of the US will surpass the population of China around 2070 (because the US population is increasing due to immigration where as the Chinese population will start decreasing soon).
A friend of mine is knowledgeable in economics. He strongly feels that thus far the US has escaped a lot of the pain the PIGS and such have suffered largely because of the reserve currency status resulting in helping keep inflation and interest rates low. Loss of the reserve currency status would cause them to suddenly "catch up to Europe" which would be a great shock to their economic system. If they could even show some intent to actually decrease their debt, rather than just trying to slow the rate of increase of debt, they might continue getting a pass. But given the current state of affairs and the fact that the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot with their possitions on rape/evolution/science and environment I don't see the Democrats losing. The Republicans only hope is to get a charismatic candidate for president that can muzzle some of the old white men.
-
They aren't facts when they are dead wrong they are spin and you are getting spun. Obama tried many many many times to get rid of the sequestration while Republicans refused to compromise they get to own this one when the hurt starts in Q3 and Q4. Obama is not a king no matter what right wing blogs tell you.
As I said, Whittle only presents one side of the argument, but he offers some interesting numbers. Show me how his numbers, and therefore the conclusions he draws from those numbers are wrong.
The sequester was arrived at by a bipartisan committee. So how can you totally blame it on the Republicans? And the Republicans have compromised way more than the Democrats on a variety of related issues. Do you not believe the somewhat pink CBC story healined U.S. Senate approves budget giving Democrats a win?
Many observers, and not just right wing nuts are seeing that Obama et al are going out of their way to make the cuts as visible and painful as possible for political gain. Hopefully this strategy backfires.
-
I am not going to watch a video blaming Obama for a problem he tried to fix and which Republicans blocked. I clicked the link and the description alone describes America as if Obama was king. The sequester is going to hurt and that hurt belongs to Republicans alone for their refusal to compromise. End of story.
Yup, don't let facts influence you.
-
Can I just stop you right here and ask if there any first world nations that have a "Liberal" party left. Almost every country is split between left wing labour parties and right wing conservative parties. There is no Liberal vote left in the world and Canada is going through a transition other countries made 60 years ago. Welcome to the future where brokerage parties that promise to be all things to all people are done because they never deliver to any of us.
Interesting point, punked. I have noticed that in some countries also, but then when I look at many European countries, Israel, India and on and on where there are sometimes more than 10 parties I have to wonder. Even in the UK it is currently a coalition government.
-
A news story with this headline was reported by CNBC and reprinted in the Vancouver Sun this morning. And this worries me personally. My retirement income is dependent on the performance of Canadian businesses and our economy is still very dependent on the US as they are our largest trading partner in both imports and exports.
My fear is that the USD may lose it's reserve currency status which would then lead to the inevitable consequences of their massive quantitative easing including rampant inflation and skyrocketing interest rates. Iran is currently accepting yuan for their oil and there have been some oil trading in Euros.
China itself has significant debt and there is some fear of a similar bubble there, but given their success in artificially depressing the value of their currency any such fallout would be far less drastic than that which the US faces.
It must be trending. When I went back to google to find the CNBC link, it was now fifth down with
-
I would suggest you watch the Afterburner video on the sequester. Bill Whittle may only offer one side of the story, but I have never seen anyone successfully show his numbers to be wrong.
-
Sad but true.
.
.Meanwhile he has managed to appoint 5 supreme court justices that hand down ruling after ruling that mandate spending on various progressive causes. Such rulings will destroy the country in the long run because governments will no longer be able to choose to spend money on the things that voters want because unelected judges have decided that they know better.
What, you mean supreme court judges aren't supposed to be social activists above the wishes of the population and the laws as passed by parliament? How radical of you [/sarcasm]
-
Mr. Harper was the most fiscally conservative of the choices we had in the last federal election. I haven't a good handle on Trudeau Jr's economic slant, but given that he is a Liberal I currently assume that my first statement is still true. Could he be more fiscally conservative. Oh, yes. Would he loose many votes? Oh, yes. It is a fine balancing act in this great and diverse land.
My biggest bitch about Mr. Harper et al is the stupid "tough on crime" agenda. It is expensive and experts from around the world agree that it doesn't work. But it sure sells to the uninformed. Is he cynical or does he really feel he is helping our quality of life? I don't know. But he should look at the US where over 1% of the population is incarcerated and it still doesn't seem to be making the streets any safer. And the war on drugs is about as successful as prohibition was.
-
Why is it that when any measure to decrease the amount of special treatment Quebec gets in proposed or passed, it is called Quebec bashing?
I am not an expert, but with a fair amount of investment equity, I had never heard of these investment vehicles in Alberta and given the breadth of discussion I have had with my investment adviser, it amazes me I had never heard of it if it had been available to me.
-
I actually have a business.
Why do you make tons of stupid assumptions about me, why not keep this focused on the issue rather than poking at me.
I guess I don't see what you consider the issue to be.
-
Thanks for not answering the question, and applying a totally different situation.
Actually no those two retirement plans means 0 contribution to cpp for those earnings. The same as every other item listed.
Each has 0 CPP contribution required.
Also yes you can write yourself a cheque to pay for business expenses which are deducatable including capital acquisitions for your business, which includes entertainment, luxury, and office equipment, meals and travel.
Start a business, do whatever finagling you want to do but if you pay yourself a salary, or give yourself any money above real business related expenses and not deduct CPP as prescribed by law in the same manner as any other emloyee, plus contribute an equal amount from the corporation you are in violation of the law. I can not conceive of any way of legally arranging things to get a living wage out of a company without having to contribute CPP. The majority of my friends and associates were also self employed, one man private corporations or partnerships. Most of them worked out of their homes. Most of them paid highly trained tax consultants. And all paid CPP.
-
You can pay if you like but if you ever tried to collect they would tell you that you don't qualify as a director/president of the corporation and refund your premiums. The taxes paid by the corporation offset the lower tax rate on dividend income so your total tax bill (corporate+personal) is roughly the same as if you paid yourself salary (this assumes you qualify for the small business tax credit).
Self employed are not allowed dividends.
The only real benefit of running your own small corporation comes from the freedom of being your own boss.
Actually, what I found was best is that the type of consulting work I did it was feast or famine. During feast times I could retain earnings in the company, pay the relatively low small business corporate tax and pay myself a modest salary. Then during the famines I would continue paying myself from the retained earnings. Thus my corporation has a far larger investment portfolio than I do personally. It became effectively another RRSP, that is deferring paying income tax when my income was high and thus paying a lower rate by giving myself a lower income.
-
The CRA rules are carefully set to ensure that one person owning a company pays basically the same taxes as an employee whether the money is paid out as dividends or salary. CPP contributions are doubled but you don't pay or collect EI. The only difference is you can deduct legitimate business expenses but that is hardly a benefit since you are actually spending money to make money.
I'm not sure if this is true for self employed, but I have been president of a private corporation and that has been my only source of income since 1996. Being in an arms-length relationship with the corporation, paying EI is at my discretion. But CPP is mandatory, and the corporation must contribute an equal amount. I'm not sure if the EI situation is the same with the self employed but one must pay a double CPP if self employed.
As far as dividends go, again the amount the individual is taxed on dividends depends on the taxable income of the individual. With modest income dividends are effectively taxed at a very low rate which escalates at a far greater rate than income tax as taxable income increases. And keep in mind these dividends are paid with after tax money from the corporation's perspective. I'm not sure a self employed person can dividend themselves at all.
(I may be president, but I'm also janitor. My corporation is totally a one man band.)
-
No I asked
Ok tell me after his private pension contributions and paying family members and employee sharing plan contributions, capital acquisitions and business expenses and the $3500 basic deduction would guyser need to pay in cpp contributions?
Not what he pays cpp for, I asked how much we would pay if he paid into those things.
If he pays into a private pension, doubtful for someone self employed or a one man corporation, the rules would be the same as for any employee, and I believe in those instances again the payment would be double. Capital aquisitions make no difference and the basic deduction works the same as for any employee. How much depends, as it does with you on how much salary or wages he gives himself.
Of note here, one can't just write cheques to yourself from the company. The CRA deems that to be salary and it is taxes as such, including all relevant payroll taxes.
-
Economists criticized the move but not for the reasons you state. Economists do not like income taxes and think a stable tax system needs to derive a large chunk of revenue from value add consumption taxes. If there was room to reduce taxes it should have come off income tax instead of the GST.
Amen, brother. I would suggest all of you read up on FairTax at this link
-
HST is applied provincially.
In Ontario,PST previously only applied to goods.(provincial sales tax)
But now,HST(gst+pst) applies to services.
Previously,on goods in Ontario,there was a total(GST+HST) at 15%.It is now at 13%.Therefore encouraging spending and more debt!
At the time the conservatives did this they were harshly critisized by many economists that this move would only further burden the debt load carried by the middle class.
Flarehty = hypocrite
WWWTT
Not often you hear someone blatantly saying lowering taxes is bad. Very silly IMO.
-
Ok tell me after his private pension contributions and paying family members and employee sharing plan contributions, capital acquisitions and business expenses and the $3500 basic deduction would guyser need to pay in cpp contributions?
If he pays himself an income, he has to pay CPP X2. If he, on paper pays his child a salary, he has to deduct the CPP form the kids salary and pay the company portion. With the same deducteble and the same max as any other salaried worker. He could not pay it if he gets his money out as a dividend, assuming he is incorporated, but dividend expenses are not deductible for the corporation. Assuming he doesn't cheat, reasonable home office expenses is about the only break above what a "normal" employee gets. And keep in mind that capital aquisitions are not a deduction, they must be depreciated over time And things like a company car carries such a tax liability that very few companies have them any more as it is not a real benefit for the workers.
-
why the hell would you pay CPP for your business, do they get pensions too?
Employees profit sharing plan (EPSP) No
Employment of your child or a person that you maintain if no cash remuneration is paid No
Retiring allowances (also called severance pay) No
Retirement compensation arrangements (RCA) No
Spouse or common-law partner, employment of, if you cannot deduct the remuneration paid as an expense under the Income Tax Act No
Employment of your child or a person that you maintain if no cash remuneration is paid No
All assets that are expenses for the company such as capital aquisitions, company expenses are write offs to the limit.
Tips and gratuities (direct tips or gratuities - not controlled by the employer) No
- Advances or loans equal to the workers' compensation award
N
Plus a $3500 basic deduction of CPP contrituions on his $20800 income? I think he just isn't maximizing his income strategy for his business.
If you don't pay both CPP contributions you are in violation of tax law. You don't have a choice, unless you consider fines and ultimately jail as a choice.
-
So is living paycheck to paycheck without a house to sell/get sold. Atleast you have the capital investment if you are renting to own as opposed to renting.
People really should start with a low costing house though, this pretty much means moving outside the city in urban centers, and building your own via groups like habitat for humanity, but people who can be anywhere, there are houses for $25,000 and less available.
The mortgage issue is two fold. 1. not enough public land for social housing. 2. not enough government investment into social housing. 3. people not willing to live in social housing over owning their own properties.
I think though that the government should just let private business operate. If banks fail they fail. It is the free market. The strong and prudent will survive. It is basically the public sector saying how the private sector should behave, that is command economics, a puppet show.
My life experience suggests to me that if you are a fan of government "investing" in social housing you will be the first to demand the government bail out the banks and the individuals who overextend themselves for fear that they might actually have to live with the logical consequences of their actions.
-
When I first started voting, more years ago than I like to think about, it seemed your MP was important. Through the years the power has been more and more centralized in the respective party leader's master's hands. Individual MP's are mere puppets voting as directed.
A sad tale.
Sequestration Demagogy
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Since either you don't know how to follow a link, or you refuse to in fear of having your worldview destroyed let me quote from the CBC story.
And from post #14 by bush_cheney2004 (I haven't explored how to multiple quote yet).
Seems pretty clear.