err

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, they had a decent federal child tax benefit as part of their platform last election and didn't promote it that well... It looked like a really decent package ... Some of our conservative friends might not like it... unless they have kids....

The CMA is not "most doctors".... What the system needs is a government body willing to pay doctors a little better... rather than giving away all the tax dollars they can in subsidies to corporate Canada.....I personally don't think the family doctor is well enough paid....

When our dollar rises, we'll see the full benefit of NAFTA.... The low dollar has kept us steeped in business from the USA, but as our dollar climbs, so do our prices... at least from the USA's perspective....

If we turn off the tap, they'll pay attention. They're willing to let thousands of their own boys die to get their hands on Iraq's oil, and willing to kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners...

You think Alberta is somehow being gypped ??? Because of NAFTA, we have to pay through the nose for our own heating gas and oil..... and Alberta is getting all of the profits... like I feel sorry for them.... The USA likes NAFTA... There's only a few cases where there are difficulties with NAFTA, and those are the few products that Canada can produce more efficiently than the USA... softwood lumber, steel, and cedar shingles.... They should give up the softwood lumber duties... They lost their court case wrt these duties... but I think you'll find that Uncle Sam is a big bully... who won't follow the rules..... Like I said, the USA are just big bullies, and they need "suck-ups" like you to bend over for them when they feel like it.... People have no respect for people who don't stand up for themselves.... If the USA won't play by the NAFTA rules, then we shouldn't either... I think Jack's right....

If you read the National Post and the Globe and Mail, perhaps the Toronto Sun, you will not hear that the poor are paying their share. You'll hear about the poor companies, strangled by the burdon of taxation. The business world is going to continue to groan about the unfair burdon because they want to pay less taxes... Just as I've heard you groan about the taxes that you have to pay... One of the big differences is that business has means of hiding their income, "deferring" (escaping from) taxes, etc... As an example. In 1982, Shell Oil (Canada) reported income taxes of $152 million on $302 million profit for the year, showing a staggering tax rate of 54%. If you read further into their situation, you'll find that they managed to defer $199 million in taxes that year by writing off investments in plant and equipment at an artificially fast rate (2 yrs). This effectively wiped out the company's tax bill, and we ended up owing Shell $47 Million dollars... What you'll read in your right-wing press is that Shell paid 54% taxes, and is a huge contributor to our social safety net...

Does anybody remember Layton's promise right after the election that the Liberals would get no support from his caucus without solid strides being made in democratic reform? Bought off for a one-time cash payment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think Layton's actions appealed to the majority of Canadians.... He could have just played like Harper, but he came across as having positive intentions instead. Layton got his concession from Martin, and won a victory for Canadians. Given the positions of the three major leaders right now, only one shines through as honorable.... Jack Layon....

I don't think the NDP needs focus exclusively on the Liberals. I think the NDP has to stick to its own messages, and promote its own policies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes lets tax the guys that keep our economy going, great idea! Why not just resurrect the NEP? These stupid lefties that have their judgement so clouded with "social programs", they can't see what drives our economy!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> NAFTA works great, except in the few fields where Canada can actually outperform the United States. Softwood lumber is one of these... The USA feels that NAFTA tribunals only have valid findings when they are in the USA's favour... And they don't have to follow the rules. I agree with Jack Layton. If they aren't going to play by the rules, we'll certainly get their attention by pinching the oil pipeline a bit.... I cannot agree with Leader Circle, who thinks we should have our Prime Minister come back from NAFTA talks with stains on the front of his suit like Brian Mulroney did..... Bending over for them doesn't get respect or a positive result for Canada....

Nice quote, Mirror....

And the reason was that Ernie Eves couldn't (or wouldn't) live up to what conservatives had come to expect from their party. As much as people love to trash Mike Harris, his government set a conservative agenda and stuck to it. Under Eves that all fell apart. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't blame Eves.Harris jumped out of the driver seat just before the car was going to crash into the wall... Eve's didn't stand a chance... But then again, as Harris's finance minister, he didn't deserve one.....

The reality is, I don't have the time to spend scouring for studies, as you obviously do... What I thought that I did demonstrate is that the rich aren't so hard-up as the Fraser institute would portray them.... There are more than enough loopholes intentionally left in the system for them... Why don't you, who has ample time with nothing better to do, go and look up how much surplus there is in EI, premiums, and then look up who pays them..... Why don't you look up GST, and see if you can find some distributions of its sources... You'll find that businesses pay GST only on their profits.... but people pay it on just about everything they buy... And you know this how??? They use accountants... That's an accountant's job... they can lose their license to practice if they don't do their job properly.. You avoid the point that in your example that by evading taxes you are being criminal Actually, my finances are completely legitimate. My accountant makes sure of it. I pay him a fortune to... maybe he's the criminal.... You seem to ignore the fact that there are all kinds of deductions and credits which are targeted at the poor (disability tax credit, old age security, gst tax credit, child tax benefit, property tax rebate, sales tax rebate, equivalent-to-spouse deduction, etc) You're talking about the trickles for the poor, vs the rivers for the rich.... And who are they working "under the table" for ??? Recommended reading: "Behind Closed Doors" by Linda McQuaig, talks about our tax system....

Just like ATM machines have nothing to do with the fact that banks now run with half of the staff that we once were familiar with.... So if there weren't the "self-checkout" stations, would they have, perhaps 12 cashiers instead of 10 ??? Of course not... But they might not have to replace somenone who quits, or who comes to work too late a few times... I think I understand..

Yep, the same legal tax loopholes that all businesses make avail of.... The fact that I may choose to put some of my 'tax savings' into what I feel are worthy causes probably distinguishes me somewhat from the majority.... I know that people who subscribe to the conservative that you advocate would "choose" not to help others, just their own self-centred interests. I couldn't help but notice how you changed the word "charities" to "programs"... Did you learn this type of mild deception from your Fraser Institute??I advocate publicly funded social programs, and recommend that the government fix the tax system so that it is fairer to the lower and middle income citizens. ... the majority of the population. You proport to advocate a "choice" for people who "don't want to pay" for health care, but it's only really a choice for the rich.... So I don't see that it's one that we should promote... You'd probably feel that you had more freedom of choice if you were taxed more fairly. That is, if some of the tax loopholes to the wealthier (and corporate Canada) were tightened, you wouldn't have to pay as much tax, and could enjoy a much better standard of social services. You would have more "choices" if you had a few more dollars left in your pocket....

Didn't you read my post. The Fraser institute completely turns a blind eye to the benefits to the rich, and goes on to portray them as victims.... Which is a big lie. I think I answered it clearly... What's your point? That the poor shouldn't pay for all the government services they consume??? If the poor are really paycheque to paycheque, a large percentage of their major expenses (food, rent) are free from GST & PST. Show me a dollar amount that the average poor person is paying and I will show you that he is consuming far more in services than he is ever paying for. Does it not seem logical to you that the wealthy consume more in society (eg bigger houses, more expensive cars, etc) and so the dollar amount of taxes they pay are more? There are actually a few points here... First, the regressive 'value-added' taxes are not accounted for by the Fraser institute.... Again, they turn a blind eye to a huge reality so that their position seems more credible. The rich do somewhat consume more.. but they get to write them off substantially too. Like I said, I always drive a new car... It's a business expense... so I get the GST back.... I don't pay tax on my cars... I dont pay tax on service, and I don't pay the GST on my gasoline... I get it back... You don't... Is that fair... Does you precious Fraser institute talk about stuff like that... I don't think so... And then, the 'bigger houses'. You'll have to admit that they appreciate in value (most of the time). And when these rich folk sell their houses, often earning hundreds of thousands of dollars mark-up.... do they pay taxes on this income.... NO... they dont. Instead, the government collects this money (that they gave as a tax break on the capital gains) in the form of income taxes and value-added taxes.... The wealthy all use accountants. It is an accountant's job to minimize taxes payable to their client. So yes, I would say that nearly all wealthier people get out of paying large chunks of what you seem to be assuming that they pay in taxes.... Sure they pay taxes, but their incomes are brought down substantially because their accountants are doing thier jobs. They aren't being criminals... They're making avail of the loopholes in the system.... legally... Loopholes that aren't big enough according to your precious Fraser institute... loopholes that aren't really available to the lower income segment of the population... Actually, if you are self-employed you get all these advantages. You have to make enough money to avail of the benefits though.... I thought I gave you an example of one small fish... There's an ocean out there with an awful lot of bigger fish... Their ability to evade taxation puts a much greater burden on the lower income categories, and that has been my point...

Didn't you get the sarcasm in my post. I'm constantly being told by right-wing posters that the rich pay too much, and that the poor are taking all the money. I don't like getting into my personal situation, but felt that it was the only way that I could get through to the individual. It is common practice, and my accountant (who thinks I'm nuts) assures me that if I feel bad about a system that is so heavily weighted in favour of the fortunate, that I should still maximize on my tax savings and put the savings where my heart tells me is the right place... So, as I had alluded to in previous posts, I donate generously to a number of charities, political organizations, and other "lefty causes" that I get pleasure from helping. It would be safe to say that I donate a lot more than other people in my income range... I have actually forced my accountant not to hide all the income he can, (actually, I specify the minimum amount of tax to show) because I believe all Canadians should contribute through the regular channels. I think it is wrong that so many loopholes are available for the wealty.... I'm better off than the majority, but I don't even fit into what I would call the "wealthy" category.... Where the biggest tax savings are found. And I sense from you rant above, that you think that I advocate higher taxes for the poorer class... You obviously haven't been listening to me. You couldn't be further from the truth. I advocate less tax breaks for the wealthy, (including capital gains and investment income) and advocate a fully paid for set of social services for all citizens, not just the poorer.... If the governement would remove some of the capital gains tax shelters alone, they could afford these programs without increasing the tax burden on the poorer and middle classes.

I can think of a few regular posters in these forums who would think so... but then again, they can't imagine themselves on the "unfortuante list"...

Reposted for clarity (I goofed up the quotation marks last time)... sorry. So if you've got some real evidence that the rich are not paying more than their share, lets see it. Otherwise, I think we can all conclude this is more conjecture on your part without any basis in fact. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Faser institute is only respected by mindless right-wing neo-cons like yourself. Where's my proof... In my previous email, I mentioned capital gains.... free, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax free money for the wealthy of Canada every year... not counted as income, so it they mustn't get it... right... Then we have the "value added" taxes, where the poor in Ontario pay between 8 and 15% of what they have left of their cheques on GST, PST... The wealthier class, who do not live paycheque to paycheque pay considerably less as a percentage... GST and PST amount to HUGE sums of money... not accounted for by your precious Faser institute... Then there's "real income" your precious Fraser institute doesn't talk about the truth for the wealthier... who have so many tax shelters, they can appear to be in the middle classes (or deciles, if you want to use your precious Faser institute's terminology). I'm not just speculating due to some cleverly worded paper that I read. I'll give you an example.... For the past 15 years, I got a brand new car about every 2 years. I, or sorry, my company, leases them. Of course, I get free gas, insurance, license plates, and service with that. Of course it's not counted as income. It's a cost... a tax write-off. And who pays for that.... You could say "the rich".... but, let's go on further. In order to reduce the tax that my company pays, my wife is on the payroll, even though she does not work, and has not needed to work for the past 15 years.... but she pays tax on her income.... And net, I pay less... Why... because I'm in the class that pays the most taxes, right.... but let's go on.... Because my wife is an "employee", there is nothing untoward about us going on a few "business trips" to Boston every year, all expenses paid, nice hotel, etc... That isn't taxed... It's not taxable income... It's an expense... that I can write off... and result in paying less taxes.... so who has to take up the slack.... I could go on for quite some time about how it is so easy for higher income earners to "milk" the system that is designed for the wealthier... and I can still manage to slide into the 5th and 6th decile, as your precious Fraser Institute would call it. I didn't write this to "piss you off", or in any way flaunt, because flaunting certainly isn't in my nature. However, you should see that from what I've describe above, I get to hide over $50K of real income every year. And I'm just a small fish... Most of the folks with whom I do business do a lot better than that... Your precious Fraser institute doesn't even mention these kinds of possibilities, so they just don't exist, do they.... I shouldn't be taxed more... they should cut my taxes more to make a better climate for my business... Maybe you should pay more taxes to help in that respect....

So if you've got some real evidence that the rich are not paying more than their share, lets see it. Otherwise, I think we can all conclude this is more conjecture on your part without any basis in fact. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Faser institute is only respected by mindless right-wing neo-cons like yourself. Where's my proof... In my previous email, I mentioned capital gains.... free, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax free money for the wealthy of Canada every year... not counted as income, so it they mustn't get it... right... Then we have the "value added" taxes, where the poor in Ontario pay between 8 and 15% of what they have left of their cheques on GST, PST... The wealthier class, who do not live paycheque to paycheque pay considerably less as a percentage... GST and PST amount to HUGE sums of money... not accounted for by your precious Faser institute... Then there's "real income" your precious Fraser institute doesn't talk about the truth for the wealthier... who have so many tax shelters, they can appear to be in the middle classes (or deciles, if you want to use your precious Faser institute's terminology). I'm not just speculating due to some cleverly worded paper that I read. I'll give you an example.... For the past 15 years, I got a brand new car about every 2 years. I, or sorry, my company, leases them. Of course, I get free gas, insurance, license plates, and service with that. Of course it's not counted as income. It's a cost... a tax write-off. And who pays for that.... You could say "the rich".... but, let's go on further. In order to reduce the tax that my company pays, my wife is on the payroll, even though she does not work, and has not needed to work for the past 15 years.... but she pays tax on her income.... And net, I pay less... Why... because I'm in the class that pays the most taxes, right.... but let's go on.... Because my wife is an "employee", there is nothing untoward about us going on a few "business trips" to Boston every year, all expenses paid, nice hotel, etc... That isn't taxed... It's not taxable income... It's an expense... that I can write off... and result in paying less taxes.... so who has to take up the slack.... I could go on for quite some time about how it is so easy for higher income earners to "milk" the system that is designed for the wealthier... and I can still manage to slide into the 5th and 6th decile, as your precious Fraser Institute would call it. I didn't write this to "piss you off", or in any way flaunt, because flaunting certainly isn't in my nature. However, you should see that from what I've describe above, I get to hide over $50K of real income every year. And I'm just a small fish... Most of the folks with whom I do business do a lot better than that... Your precious Fraser institute doesn't even mention these kinds of possibilities, so they just don't exist, do they.... I shouldn't be taxed more... they should cut my taxes more to make a better climate for my business... Maybe you should pay more taxes to help in that respect....

Man you are naive. If your job were to be replaced by a high-tech machine, would you be happy... then you could take every day off... wouldn't that be cool... You could spend all day on the internet spreading you wisom to the world.

The ball's in your court... kick it off.... (but I fear that Renegade is on a roll...) Maybe he should start a new thread on the benefits of sticking it to the unfortunate....

Not any better or worse than it is now. It is just one line item on your tax return which would result in less taxes if you opt out. Your already required to prove you are part of the system now, by having to show your health card. It is easy enough to know if that card is valid or invalid. How is it (at least in Ontario) we can track choice of school to which we pay education taxes? So your saying we can't keep track of one binary choice to opt out of medicare? C'mon, a weak argument at best. Well, there's medicare, welfare, UI, child support, and so many more programs that you conservatives would want to opt out of if we were to open pandora's box. If that number were to grow to 10, there would be over a 1000 permutations to consider (actually 1024). For every extra combination, you double the complexity of the accounting. Of course I'm aware that the people who supply the majority of funding for the system would opt out. It proves my point. They would opt out because they are better off without it. What your really saying is that medicare is better because it is yet another redistribution scheme from the wealthy to the poor. You have basicly admitted that the people who fund medicare are better off, in terms of the medical benefits they get, without it. (why else would they opt out?) It is only the people who don't provide much of the funding who are better off getting "free" healthcare. You have the naive conception that we have a progressive tax system in this country. On paper, we theoretically have a progressive INCOME TAX system. However, we pay a large value added tax (GST, PST) With these taxes, you are taxed on how much you spend. Poorer and middle income families spend all of their income, and live cheque to cheque... The value added tax is applied to 100% of their income. The wealthy, on the other hand, pay the value added tax on the smaller portion of their income than do the poor, and hence, are taxed at a lower rate. Business owners and shareholder class do not pay EI... the working class do... Not to mention the capital gains tax exemptions that benefit primarily the rich. When their assets (homes etc...) appreciate, they are not taxed on their income from this. The wealth have all kinds of tax write-offs that the poor do not have, and the reality works out that proporitonally, we have a regressive tax system, where the poor pay a greater percentage of thier income in taxes than do the rich. Then consider the number of poor vs. the number of rich. In Canada, 50% of the wealth resides with 1% of the population. The majority of Canadians are in the middle and lower income brackets, and I think that if you research the numbers, you'll find that the poor and middle income earners pay most of the taxes in this country.

Actually the analogy is akin to a radio. I can choose to buy it with the car, buy it aftermarket, or not buy it at all. Again you avoid the question of how welfare contributed to the money I earn, because you can't answer it. One nice thing about the Canadian car lot, is that there's radios in all of the cars... So if you're so cheap and mean that you can't play music for your fellow man, maybe you should go to the US car lot, where it's "survival of the fittest".... And if you need help, tough shit for you if you can't afford it. I'm sure your world would be very different if we didn't have any social safety net in this country. Maybe your boss once needed to make avail of it, or your wife's parents, (assuming you have one). So many people have made avail of the social safety network, not because they are parasites (as you would call them), but because of unfortunate and unforseen events has necessitated it. Because the social safety net has been in place for so many years, a lot of people's lives have been significantly improved, leading to the 'better country' that you now live in. You could similarly argue that the discovery of penicillin hasn't affected your life, and I cannot concretely say that it has... but your world would certainly be different without it.... (and not necessarily better). It's always clear when you have no argument to present as your tactic at that point is to resort to name calling. Go ahead. It doesn't bother me. Just calling a spade a spade. Why must you try to twist what someone else says. I would not give away my last dollar, or make my family suffer unnecessarily in my quest to assist my fellow citizens. However, I do get pleasure from helping other people when I can. I never claimed to be Jesus Christ, Mother Theresa, or the like, but you don't have to be one of those to want to help your fellow man.

I was talking about the "auto-checkout" lines that are replacing jobs in Home Depot, along with a number of grocery stores. It's too late for the ATM machine... they've replaced half of the people who worked in the banks. Back to the auto-checkout... I will choose to use a human teller every time, over a machine. If the delay is long, then I'll complain to managment, and tell them that if the delays are too long, I'll go to their competitor. Even though the jobs are low-paying jobs, they're still jobs. You can argue that it's better to get the product cheaper by not having the teller there, but then you have to pay for that dreaded UI, or even better, your favorite, welfare.....

Yes, and perhaps you should load your purchases in your horse-drawn carriage because you know those new-fangled cars, they just steal jobs from the buggy makers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you get your seeds from Mark Emery???