Scotty

I don't discount that politicians have an agenda, and so we can't entirely rely on their numbers. However, I don't discount that economists can, too. Economists also have ideological biases - just like politicians. And we need to know who's paying these economists for their opinions. God knows we saw enough drivel coming from paid economists prior to the near banking collapse, all telling us what how marvelous deregulation and credit default swaps were.

I am quoting Canada Census figures. And you? What exactly are you providing other than insults and sarcasm? Never mind. I'm done with you. People like you can't be dealt with in any sort of mature fashion, and this forum doesn't allow me to tell you what I think of you.

That still doesn't work. The statement was it would rise from $38 billion currently to $108 billion in 2030. So maybe I'm not a math genius, but I can see that 11+31 does not equal 108, even without a calculator.

I don't know. It seems to me that OAS is not designed for poverty. That's the GIS. It also seems to me that the threshold for claw-back is far too high. At the same time, it does indeed reward those who saved nothing at the expensive of those who sacrificed in order to save for retirement. You can call it whatever you want, but there's no denying that.

Perhaps not, but the earlier statement was that it was currently at $38 billion. So who's telling the truth?

I don't know about municipal or provincial employees, but I question how generous federal public service pension are given that some of what they would otherwise get is clawed back in accordance to what they get from CPP. Do any other pension plans do that?

If they only start clawing back at $68,000 I think we're being far too generous. I'd lower that cut-off to $50,000 just to start.

I agree. I would have preferred we pay off our existing debt first, and even then, with no debt, if the economy was in okay shape I'd have continued the taxes at that level to build up a nice little nest egg which could be used in bad times.

I would have said no too, until I saw the numbers... Now I don't see how it's avoidable.

I suppose all your sneering mockery might be considered clever, by some, if you were at least being sarcastic towards something I said, or at least implied. But it really doesn't take much in the way of brains to make up things I never said, then mock them. Basically, you're just revealing you can't cope with anything I actually said so have to make shit up. But that's par for the course for you shrill, politically correct types. I don't know. Are you under the illusion British Columbia and it's miniscule population were of any significance as far as Canada's culture was concerned? About that time you had a population smaller than New Brunswick, and at a par with PEI. I don't make things up. I was quoting census numbers. But your entire answer is nothing but the self-righteous ranting of a politically correct whiner who can't stand the thought someone might have said that this or that minority group had less importance in Canada's history than might be generally assumed. God! Your eyes must have bugged out in horror at the mere suggestion!

No. Just pointing out how ludicrous your believe that they have nothing to lose is. Most of the world is worse off than natives are. And unlike natives, they don't have the option of moving to Toronto or Vancouver or Winnipeg any time they want.

Uh, rebuilding is exactly when you want to invest money. That's when you get the biggest payback... Further, the tax rates were high in the sixties, too, and the seventies, compared to now, and yet America prospered, and there was lots of investment. . Oh. It is? So like, you mean you can invest in other countries and not pay taxes? Like Germany, for example? They seem to be doing pretty well, bussinesswise, and their capital gains tax is 28%

No doubt the leader of the American Nazi party has convictions too...

I can dump a bucket of water on your head and you can disagree that you're wet but your disagreement is not going to change reality.

Funny how there was so little need for that in the past. Capital gains taxes in the 50s were higher than they are now. And the taxation rate for dividends that Romney makes such good use of (15%) is a modern invention, brought in by the Republicans (of course)in 1986. But of course, without those low rates there was simply NO investment in America in the fifties! Everyone knows that! Who would bother when you had to pay taxes on it!?

Not less. Far less. Not only do they have often have no freedom to speak of, but no government assistance or guarantees for food or shelter at all. It's a hardscrabble existence, to say the least. And if you don't make it, then you die, and no one in official circles is going to care, much less cry that you weren't provided with a nice house and food, and education for your kids, and medical care, etc. etc.

That is also the situation here in Ottawa.

Tough. Canadians are tired of violent criminals getting a little slap on the wrist then a hug from you liberals and sent back on the street to hurt more people. Uhm, okay. It's going to put more in prison but put more on the streets too? Interesting logic. That might well be one of the dumbest narratives I've ever read here. You ought to get some kind of prize.

I have yet to see you write on any subject with actual evidence of knowledge. You wave Stats Canada's statements in the air when it supports your narrative. When it doesn't, meh, just ignore it, right? It's all part of the infatuation the Left has with criminals. They're all good lads, just misunderstood by a cruel society. Oh if only those evil conservatives would stop putting them in prison and give them a hug instead! All they need is a little understanding! Cry for them, Cyber. Cry hard.

Nothing left to lose? Are you under the impression the poor natives are shuddering under the jackboot of brutal dictatorship? Let them go to Brazil or Nigeria and watch the crowds of people living in tin shacks picking through garbage in desperate search of food and tell me they've got nothing to lose.

What I'm saying is that most municipal governments are supported by local ratepayers. Even if you don't own land in a city you still pay municipal taxes on your rented home or apartment, and you actually pay at a higher rate than homeowners. It doesn't seem to me that in all the discussions about local government and it's federal funding there's been any mention of any funding by the community itself.

Perhaps the editor in question lost his toolbox somewhere.

No, in fact, he fails to do that. He mocks the decision on the apparent presumption that bureaucrats will be required to randomly retire old regulations without actually considering which need to be kept around. Of course, another possible interpretation is that he believes all regulations are good, and that even with thousands of them, finding one or two which no longer are needed would be a monumental task...

Yes, he is. Who do you think supports a 'party of the stupid'?

Difference between being pragmatic and ideological too.