Social Justice

Corporations were conceived to provide limited liability for venture capitalists to invest in large high risk financial ventures. That is an interesting fact, a law designed to protect investors. Grand in concept, but look what we have done to it. The same thing applies to the banking industry, another grand concept, but look what we have done with it. What predates both things is government, where both things were legislated into reality. Our entire society now revolves around governments , business, and banks. These are the pillars for the foundation of our society, and all social designs, programs and services are structured around them. The salient point is that we have designed our way into a corner......things are the way they are. Taxes were created by governments to fund their operations, and income tax was created by government to pay government debt. While some may not see income tax as a problem, I do. Income tax discriminates against living citizens, who suffer from a withholding tax, and are denied the opportunity to invest levied taxes. Those funds withheld are a true reduction in disposable income, which by any definition is an impediment to any consumer spending index. In my view income taxes are regressive in economic terms. I believe income tax to be an issue.

That is not to say it can't be done though. In fact it has, burns much cleaner than gas and it a fraction of the cost. Like propane conversions you do lose some mileage.

Government all around the world is the same, and it is the very root of the paradigm confronting people today. The reality for government is not the reality for an actual person. Man created government, not government created man. Government is a thing given legal standing by man. This non living thing has been legislated to be treated under the law of the land in the same way a living person is. The same is true for corporations, they are given the legal status of a living citizen. They have all of the legal rights as any other living citizen. The relevance of this is that it is a fundamental precept upon which the rest of society has been based upon. It is flawed, it is a paradigm. Debt was not created by banks, I spoke figuratively. Yet since the creation of the modern banking system, governments have been in debt to banks. Commonly accepted public perception is that governments control their money supply through the issue of fiat currencies. If that is true then they should never have gone into debt in the first place because they could simply issue currency as they needed it. Since governments are in debt, they never were in control of the money supply, the money supply controls them. It is a paradigm. Taxation has numerous names all designed to create a revenue stream to fund the operations of government. While it is true that no money is actually removed from circulation in the process of taxation, the manner in which the government treats living and non living citizens is completely different. A withholding tax is applied to living citizens, not legal citizens and in a very real sense a living citizen has a personal loss of their own money supply whereas a legal citizen does not. It is a paradigm. The entire debate surrounding the current debt problems will lead to reforms in the central banking systems already in place. Those systems are in dire need of change five decades after leaving the gold standard. Today less than 10 percent of the entire money supply worldwide was created as hard currency, more than 90 percent was created as interest bearing debt. Currency is issued and regulated by governments and debt is issued by and regulated by private interest banks. The practical applications of the legislative efforts has created a system that leaves the governments responsible for the money supply without control of it. It is a paradigm.

As I understand the current constitution 7 provinces with 50% are required to agree with Parliament before any changes could be made. There are another ten governments who each have to approve the process at the provincial level. Given that the process is long and fraught with political impact, I would suggest the best course of action to be that of public mandate and referendum. Both Federal and Provincial governments should be compelled to use the next available First Ministers conference to formulate an aggressive mandate for constitutional reform. Since this process opens the constitution, all provinces can bring any matter regarding that constitution to the table at that time to be examined and abridged as required. In other words it opens the entire constitution. This would rapidly degenerate into constitutional debates further slowing the process. To that end I suggest a proposal to be put forward that would open the document for the specific purpose of Senate Reform. The proposal should merely indicate the desire of the House of Commons to approach the Provinces with a request for cooperation to reform the Senate. A single simple vote at a first Ministers conference will determine the outcome. With the consent of any seven Provinces with fifty percent of the population, work can go forward to create the desired changes, without that consent the attempt at reform will change. Legislation can then be written in the House of Commons to be ratified by each Provincial Legislature. Each provincial body could utilize a referendum to determine the question and then use Provincial Legislatures to adopt the majority will of their citizens as their vote. If there is will to change, then it can be done.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/08/14/business-eurozone-recession-ends.html It seems that the politicians and bankers believe that the worst is over in the EU. With two countries suffering from unemployment rates in excess of 25% and only two countries in positive growth European leadership seems strangely upbeat about their position.

The real question id one of personal rights, but the public wont go there........not with smokes and booze being the current problems that they are. They wont go the route of prohibition again because it didn't work the first time. The public will buy into a debt reduction scheme based on use of sin taxes. It comes down to reducing judicial expense while increasing government revenues.

I believe that emergency services are not paid well enough. They offer their lives in service to citizens and they deserve more than merely good pay. These jobs save lives, period. Nothing being more precious than our lives, that said they are worth it.

The whole mess needs urgent attention. Harper is likely not the guy who can pull it off.

The reason that weed will get legalized is that government needs to reduce expenses and raise revenues, that is the long and short of it. It is mentally not physically addictive, and has attracted many citizens to its effects. The public no longer views consumption as as much of a problem as it was and it has become more socially acceptable,

I am not at all positive that fracking represents the end to conventional oil. Natural gas does not provide all the products that oil does. In addition don't forget methane ice on the shelf, a virtually limitless supply of natural gas for domestic consumption and export. There are lots of alternatives to oil, but none as economically viable. Both the EU and America have long and difficult paths to follow as the Chinese become the worlds largest market and worlds largest exporter; As this takes place Chinese dependence on foreign supplies will limit their growth and consume available supply causing a rise in price. Fracking growth will continue but will never cause the downfall of conventional oil.

Pot represents the biggest revenue windfall the government has seen since the creation of income tax.

The Senate could be used as it is in the United States. There it is used to protect the rights of each State in the union. It is a means of off setting representation by population with representation by region, it works well for them in the manner they designed it to. To do that here would be difficult, yet not impossible.

i see this debate has evolved I am compelled to respond, Let me begin by stating that before there were banks there was no debt. The original bank, Bank of England, lent money to the Crown on request and to this day the Government of England has owed the Bank of England a great deal of money that it has yet to repay. A great deal of time and a great deal of paid interest has been allocated to this debt. Fast forward to today and the entire system of government is buried in debt world wide. Debt is a very real issue, it has been since its inception and society has been conditioned to tax and spend their little hearts out. Each calculated tax dollar is removed from circulation in principle. That is a big deal, a very big deal. Removing currency from circulation translates into a a shrinkage of the money supply which by definition creations inflationary pressure. That form of pressure once exerted has been historically proven to be detrimental in its impact to income tax rates. Each rise to the consumer price index combined with a corresponding rise to taxation rates creates steps of disposable income reductions that are not recoverable from anywhere but the upper class. In very real terms the vast majority of the public are detrimentally impacted through this process. The bottom line to the majority of the public is very simply disposable income. Rising debt levels create increasing taxation which reduces disposable income and detracts from consumer spending. One way of describing the problem is to clearly state that we are taxing ourselves into debt. You can run an army of economists, lead by a heard of accountants to use a veritable plethora of media to prove how well the system works. It does work if you are the bank, most of us are not the bank. The system does not work, unless you are just reading numbers. In the real world a family does not last long borrowing more than it earns, but in the unreal world of the international monetary and financial systems, it does. The burden of debt repayment is not important to the government because the government is not a real person. A real person suffers consequences for their actions but governments do not. The reality of national debt is that it is an impediment to rises in the national standard of living. In my mind the role of government is to lead the population in an effort to raise the standard of living not detract from it. Any citizen raising a family can attest to the fact that increased taxation is a very bad idea. I find it strange that anyone would actually support the concept of government removing even more money from their pockets, but I guess they are the ones that can afford it. Let me finish my response with this thought; We are taxing our way into poverty because we can. We are indeed that stupid.

Well said! My poor attempt at humour has been exposed. I apologize for the incident. I should have said that collectively the opposition does not have the political ability to sustain a motion of non-confidence. I should not have suggested they were not smart enough to figure out how to do it on their own.

I must disagree, I think you are in error. Take the Alberta oil sands for an example, strange but true.....the oil sands vary in depth below the surface across the map. That right, from the Rockies to Saskatchewan..and beyond in fact. The land above it is contaminated and not suitable for habitation in many places. The contaminated soil leaches out to effect ground water tables, this is a natural state in Alberta. The process of extraction while entirely dirty from start to finish in most peoples minds in fact actually clean up the mess as they produce the extracted material. The largest waste product of with the greatest volume is clean sand, go figure. There is an enormous amount of energy and water that are used to extract the products from the raw material, which of course both of which have adverse environmental effects on their own. That said, the environment is cleaned up through the open pit mining process, you get what you pay for in simple terms. The real down side of oil sand development is the intensive use of water, which in the extraction process itself becomes contaminated. Fortunately all oil sand leases contain land recovery plans, which are unfortunately not properly enforced. Alberta is unique in that one respect of oil sand development.