NDP Baby Bonus

[White Doors]

Tell me what you think about crime and what should be done about it. I most definely should not be sterotyping and sorry I have come out that way. It is not that simple. I certainly would like to prevent the causes of crime instead of having to put people in Jail. I apologise for any misunderstanding and look forward you input.

Crime? I think we should as a society orientate our sympathies to the victims of crime, not the perpetrators. A lot of the rhetoric you hear from the so called 'progressive' side sounds like the 70's when the rape victim was 'asking for it'.

I also think that we should have more liberalized laws allowing citizens to protect themselves.

Women aren't even allowed to carry pepper spray for chrissakes (unless it is properlya labeled 'bear repellant)

[kengs333]

And you hate maritimers. Wow, you must really hate Maritimers who have native ancestry.

lol

See, apparently you are so thin-skinned that you think this hurts my feelings or something but really all it does is show how morally bankrupt you are.

From what you post all you have going for you is that you are white and from Ontario.

Well, let me be the first to say congratulations! You rock man! Keep up the good work!

Does this mean that you're not "snickering" anymore, White Doors?

Oh, I think it bothered you--if it didn't, you're response wouldn't be of the nature it is. But I wasn't trying to "hurt [your] feelings" because I'm not into that kind of stuff. I was just trying to make a point, one that I wouldn't have to make if you could simply discuss issues in a rational, logical manner.

[White Doors]

Does this mean that you're not "snickering" anymore, White Doors?

Oh, I think it bothered you--if it didn't, you're response wouldn't be of the nature it is. But I wasn't trying to "hurt [your] feelings" because I'm not into that kind of stuff. I was just trying to make a point, one that I wouldn't have to make if you could simply discuss issues in a rational, logical manner.

Oh, I see!

And what point were you trying to make?

[Argus]

Oh, don't worry, Harper wants to lower corporate taxes, which is why we're already hovering near a deficit.

$2.9 billion doesn't even buy four Globemasters nowadays, so I would hardly think that it's "too much" of a cushion.

Lowering taxes on busineses stimulates the economy. Those businesses use the money to expand and hire more people. If you look around you'll find most countries, including those run by left wing governments in Europe, have been steadily decreasing their corporate tax rates. Some are half what ours is.

"hovering near deficit" means the books are balanced. Why you think the government should tax an extra ten billion dollars are so from us beyond their forecasted needs just in case they might need it for something down the road is beyond me.

[Argus]

You do the math bud. A lot of information out their on the internet. I made the point that those costs should be factored in and it could make sense too help lower income family even if you are heartless. Myself I do not want 14 year olds in Jail and am willing too pay my fair share to help these kids so they do not get too the point where incarceration may be necessary.

Do you imagine 14 year olds are getting arrested for stealing bread to eat and milk to drink? The ones Harper is talking about are the ones who get arrested for rape and murder, not schoolyard brawls.

Do you not want a 14 year old in jail for raping and murdering another 14 year old?

[Argus]

Tell me what you think about crime and what should be done about it. I most definely should not be sterotyping and sorry I have come out that way. It is not that simple. I certainly would like to prevent the causes of crime instead of having to put people in Jail. I apologise for any misunderstanding and look forward you input.

There are a lot of different causes for crime. If you're specifically talking about youth crime the biggest cause appears to be the lack of fathers. For example, most gang shootings in Toronto appear to be the work of Jamaicans, who are notorious for single mothers and absent fathers.

[DrGreenthumb]

Back to the thread topic, An NDP government will give working families 400 dollars for each kid under 19!!!!! They will get the money by NOT giving it to millionaire bankers and Oil company billionaires, as well as not wasting billions sending our young boys to be killed in a war in afganistan that will accomplish nothing. No more of YOUR money going into the pockets of Big OIL so they can give their CEO's millions of dollars in "bonus's" Good plan JACK, give Canadians their money back, stop letting the conservatives give hard working Canadians' money to billionaire oil and bank execs!!!

[independent]

Lowering taxes on busineses stimulates the economy. Those businesses use the money to expand and hire more people. If you look around you'll find most countries, including those run by left wing governments in Europe, have been steadily decreasing their corporate tax rates. Some are half what ours is.

"hovering near deficit" means the books are balanced. Why you think the government should tax an extra ten billion dollars are so from us beyond their forecasted needs just in case they might need it for something down the road is beyond me.

If I were running a business and I can run it with 25 people and I they drop my taxes why would I hire more people? It would not be sound financial practice to hire more people than required. If you drop taxes companies can have more money to mechanize therefore needing less people. In the the rail industry profits continue to rise and employment goes down. companies are driven to increase profit by reducing staff. It only works for companies that are boarderline profitable and that would only result in a lot of low paying jobs. Companies will continue to try to sell people on 'if you drop taxes we can create more jobs" because they that way they can pocket more money. Companies should as good corporate citizens pay for their share of the Canadian infrastucture.

[Argus]

If I were running a business and I can run it with 25 people and I they drop my taxes why would I hire more people? It would not be sound financial practice to hire more people than required.

Because that's the way business works. Business, especially larger ones, are always seeking to expand, to increase production, sales, market penetration. The more profitable they are, the more they want to expand. A company which wants its stock prices to grow needs to show how it will make MORE money next year and the year after that. You don't make more money by sitting still. And companies are owned by shareholders - often hundreds of thousands of them - who want their share price to grow. Either companies spend that money in order to increase share price or they hand it back to shareholders as dividends - in which case they're taxable.

[Argus]

Back to the thread topic, An NDP government will give working families 400 dollars for each kid under 19!!!!! They will get the money by NOT giving it to millionaire bankers and Oil company billionaires, as well as not wasting billions sending our young boys to be killed in a war in afganistan that will accomplish nothing. No more of YOUR money going into the pockets of Big OIL so they can give their CEO's millions of dollars in "bonus's" Good plan JACK, give Canadians their money back, stop letting the conservatives give hard working Canadians' money to billionaire oil and bank execs!!!

This message brought to you by Joseph Stalin, Che Guevera, Fidel Castro and every other misguided Socialist and Communist who never understood how economies or businesses operate and resent them for their perceived wealth.

Let me quote from John Ivison in the Post yesterday.

There is near unanimity these days among economists and politicians that corporate tax cuts improve productivity, attract foreign investment and increase the national wealth. A recent OECD study suggested that a decrease in corporate income tax has a stronger positive effect on GDP per capita than a similar decrease in personal income tax. Gary Doer, the NDP Premier of Manitoba, seems to believe that keeping corporate tax rates competitive is a sound investment -- his province's corporate rates are set to move to 12% from 14% by 2012, making them one of the lowest in the country.

---

The NDP leader says corporate rates have been reduced enough already, but an OECD bar chart I looked at suggests Canada is still lagging far behind some of our closest competitors. The chart showed Japan, the United States and Germany to Canada's left -- regimes with higher corporate income tax rates than our cumulative federal and provincial 2007 rate of 35%. To our right in descending order were France, Belgium, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, Luxembourg, Australia, the U. K., Mexico, Norway, Sweden, South Korea, Finland, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Greece, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Turkey, Poland, Slovakia, Iceland and Ireland, which has a rate of just 12.5%. This picture is constantly changing--and not for the better. Presidential candidate John McCain is promising to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 25% if he wins, so our comparative advantage over the Americans would be lost if the tax cuts promised by the Tories are cancelled.

Pretty much says it all

Edited September 30, 2008 by Argus

[CrazeeEddie]

By some miracle if Jack gets in, he won't be able to represent working families anymore. Because nobody will be working.

Seriously though, more money for kids? There should be none. Having children is a choice and those who choose to do it should accept the consequences/responsibilities alongside the benefits. It's not like the system doesn't discriminate against the single/childless enough already.

Where as now, more people are working... longer hours, for less money.... which pays for even less because of rising food/ gas/ living costs....

And you understand that the reason this was implemented was to ensure that the population continues to increase. After all, a nation with no population is also a nation with no workers.

Of course, I understand that the right seems to have issues with the concept of seeing beyond their own lives/ wealth.

However, $400 per child? It was meant to be an incentive, not a career

[Renegade]

And you understand that the reason this was implemented was to ensure that the population continues to increase. After all, a nation with no population is also a nation with no workers.

There seems to be a presumption that increased population is a good thing. Is it? There are many serious negative consequences of never-ending population growth.

There is also no indication that there would not be stable population growth even without this initiative.

However, $400 per child? It was meant to be an incentive, not a career

Maybe no incentive is needed. Why would we want to incent people who can't afford to have kids to have them?