For those fed up with Harper's undemocratic behavior, tell your MP

[Smallc]

I like paying taxes (although, I don't necessarily want them to increase much), because I like the country that those taxes help to create.

[blueblood]

I like paying taxes (although, I don't necessarily want them to increase much), because I like the country that those taxes help to create.

Wouldn't a better idea be growing the economy and thus growing the tax base which means lower taxes for everyone?

Instead of paying more tax, you have more money to do what YOU want with it.

[Smallc]

I'm not opposed to that at all. What I am opposed to is constantly lowering taxes to the point where we can no longer deliver the social services that currently exist.

[blueblood]

I'm not opposed to that at all. What I am opposed to is constantly lowering taxes to the point where we can no longer deliver the social services that currently exist.

What if some of those social services are monopolies and/or wasteful and would better be served by the private sector.

[ToadBrother]

What if some of those social services are monopolies and/or wasteful and would better be served by the private sector.

And what if the private sector can't?

[Smallc]

I would need proof that a ) those services would be delivered with the same breadth and depth by the private sector, and that b ) the private sector can actually do things more efficiently than the public sector. For example, I wouldn't want a private transit system. I also wouldn't want a private police force. I'm not opposed to more private for profit delivery within health care if it can be done cheaper and better. If not, I'm opposed to it.

I don't oppose government just because, and that's something that many conservatives and libertarians do.

[Alta4ever]

I like paying taxes (although, I don't necessarily want them to increase much), because I like the country that those taxes help to create.

The country already was created, besides that taxes do not create nation, it is the people who creat the nation.

All that has happened is those taxes have created a philosphy of entitlement and dependancy.

[Smallc]

The country already was created, besides that taxes do not create nation, it is the people who creat the nation.

Without taxes a nation can't run its affairs.

All that has happened is those taxes have created a philosphy of entitlement and dependancy.

No it hasn't. So many people get up every day and go to work...even those who don't live in Alberta, despite the belief of some of you.

[Hydraboss]

Without taxes a nation can't run its affairs.

True. I know of no one that is opposed to all taxes. Just the ones that allow lazy-ass, useless twits to live off of my hard work.

No it hasn't. So many people get up every day and go to work...even those who don't live in Alberta, despite the belief of some of you.

Agreed. There are lots like that. It's a remarkably easy number to figure out. Go back two years to when the economy was smoking hot. The number of people on EI at that time = the number of people who are leaches on society (there were jobs, just nobody willing to take them). Add probably 50% of the scum collecting welfare and you have your number. Take that number and total the amount of dollars in benefits we pay to keep those life forms from having to work and divide that number into the number of people who actually pay taxes (above the tax free line). Bam! Reduce income taxes by that amount.

Now, about those other government expenditures........

[Moonlight Graham]

No he and the government have a good reason for doing it, just one you don't agree with.

I'm neither a mp or PMSH, I don't know why only speculation. That said prorogation, is a part of our constitution democracy it has been used by many every governing party. When parliament is prorogued it effective halts all legislative ability, you should be happy the conservative government is unable to pass conservative legislation until march, you should be elated.

You just said Harper had a good reason for doing it, then you fire back that you have no idea why he did it.

You want the reason? The Afghan torture investigation.

If Harper was so valid for proroguing parliament this time, why did he do it on a day where the public and the media would be extremely pre-occupied with holiday celebrations? Many Canadian journalists don't even work on Dec. 31st, and many newspapers such as the Ottawa Citizen do not release a newspaper on Jan. 1. How convenient. This is the political behaviour of someone who has something to hide.

Proroguing Parliament is fine, but doing so for selfish political gain is B.S.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

OMG! They might even get to 200,000! You know what happens when they reach 200,000? NOTHING!!!

It might get on the news, as the page has already. It delivers a message of protest. That's the function it serves. It's basically an online petition.

[Alta4ever]

You just said Harper had a good reason for doing it, then you fire back that you have no idea why he did it.

You want the reason? The Afghan torture investigation.

If Harper was so valid for proroguing parliament this time, why did he do it on a day where the public and the media would be extremely pre-occupied with holiday celebrations? Many Canadian journalists don't even work on Dec. 31st, and many newspapers such as the Ottawa Citizen do not release a newspaper on Jan. 1. How convenient. This is the political behaviour of someone who has something to hide.

Proroguing Parliament is fine, but doing so for selfish political gain is B.S.

So in the opinion of the government or PMSH I bet to them it was good reason as I've said before its perspective, to you or nick, waldo,topaz, eyeball, that don't like the reasons put forth, but then again all of you spit venom at harper all the time, so in your perspective no reason given will be a good reason.

[Alta4ever]

Proroguing Parliament is fine, but doing so for selfish political gain is B.S.

So you must disagree with all the parties in sitting in parliament since they all do their best to maniplute the message, the agenda, and national events for their own selfish political gain.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Alta4ever

[William Ashley]

Without taxes a nation can't run its affairs.

Absolute lie.

You clearly don't understand the historic progression of the nationstate, and how it got to where it is. All the nation is, is people who actively participate. With a failure of centralized government it goes back to the people who hold and can raise support. Taxes are just a way of getting people to pay for things where they don't know what they are paying for. There are plenty of alternatives to taxation. Part of the issue was "public works projects without money in the bank".

Countries with a centralized bank have an unlimited amount of currency.

Government at its core should be legislating and moderating the economy. Part of the reason for taxation is to give people things they otherwise wouldn't have access to independently. In the past it took great patrons to do public works - the likes of the rotheschilds, or the construction of versaille. The modern structure of government is only a few hundred years old, with its roots in the middle ages. Fact is though it takes social unity and you either need an ideal or leaders to do that.

All a nation needs is common objectives and cooperation.

You might wonder why such large deficits are being run though, why not just let the money lenders employ people and save the future tax payer. If they can't be employed for gain, why do it?

Why is the government responsible for peoples street roads, or their water supply, etc.. These are things the public has choice. Sure I totally think that essential public services should be protected, fact is though, if a private company can make money off these essential needs, then so can the government, and taxation need not be the way. THe government could charge fees. Having access to all the natural resources of the nation, Canada is emmensely wealthy, and has absolutely no need to tax, if it managed its own resources rather than having private companies derive billions of wealth. Likewise if the government instituted a ban on private banks, it would be the only source for banking in the country. Fact is this isn't the way it is, BUT and a big but, Canada has no need to tax if it opted to handle its wealth and resources rather than giving them to private persons.

Edited January 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[Guest TrueMetis]

Absolute lie.

Going to name a counter example?

[Smallc]

Really? And so how would they function?

[Hydraboss]

Absolute lie.

True. Just look at the bang-up job Somolia is doing.

Are you on drugs? How, exactly, does any government function without some kind of tax base? Who pays the President? Who pays the guy who cleans the President's office?

[Alta4ever]

True. Just look at the bang-up job Somolia is doing.

Are you on drugs? How, exactly, does any government function without some kind of tax base? Who pays the President? Who pays the guy who cleans the President's office?

Every country has had some form of revenue generation ours in the begining was mostly funded on export tarifs, and an excise tax.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Alta4ever

[William Ashley]

Going to name a counter example?

To restate above -

1. Reduce the governments duties and let the public pay for what they want. (reduction in the cost of government to "essential services")

2. Charge fees for service such as road usage, public health, etc.. (public ownership, with service fees based on usage tolls, service charges)

3. Direct cooperative projects in which the government gets a royalty. (re: crown corporations)

4. Monopolies on near gaurenteed wealth generators such as natural resources and banking finance - regulation of the internal economy and price controls, and minimum wage legislation. Controlled economy vs. laissez faire - on wealth sources (see the wealth of nations)

5. Confiscation material wealth (ex. police siezures of criminals property, restricting wealth from leaving the nation or wealth transfers, and having funds revert to the state on the death of an individual)

6. Establishing bonds based on ROI in which the government gets a share of ROI with the investment matched to any inflation or valuation of the funding.

7. Having madatory work periods or service periods (conscript service, levee, etc..)

8. Instituting voluntary offices with no pay or offices with pay for required operational costs only.

the list goes on and on... and none of these require taxation.

Ask yourself how banks and major industries make money and it is a good indication of how the government can make money. The way and means to generate wealth is nearly universal. Overspending and indebting yourself at an interest way like governments and misusing creditcard holders is not the way to make money 99.9% of the time.

The reality and global political situation is another matter in what would be most effective in the case of Canada.

The simple matter is there are lots of ways to be profitable for a government. Since WWI it has been through institution of taxes - this was meant to be temporary but is still around 100 years later.

Edited January 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[Guest TrueMetis]

To restate above -

1. Reduce the governments duties and let the public pay for what they want. (reduction in the cost of government to "essential services")

Most services (including roads) would fold pretty quick then.

2. Charge fees for service such as road usage, public health, etc.. (public ownership, with service fees based on usage tolls, service charges)

You mean like a Tax?

3. Direct cooperative projects in which the government gets a royalty. (re: crown corporations)

Something that we already have.

4. Monopolies on near gaurenteed wealth generators such as natural resources and banking finance - regulation of the internal economy and price controls, and minimum wage legislation. Controlled economy vs. laissez faire - on wealth sources (see the wealth of nations)

Something that already exsists.

5. Confiscation material wealth (ex. police siezures of criminals property, restricting wealth from leaving the nation or wealth transfers, and having funds revert to the state on the death of an individual)

1) already exsists to a degree 2) would destroy foriegn investment 3) Is just plain wrong.

6. Establishing bonds based on ROI in which the government gets a share of ROI with the investment matched to any inflation or valuation of the funding.

Don't know what you mean by that.

7. Having madatory work periods or service periods (conscript service, levee, etc..)

Something 90% of people would be against.

the list goes on and on... and none of these require taxation.

The thing you listed either are taxes, are already done, or would not work.

And none of them give me an answer to the original question of name a nation that works without a tax base.

8. Instituting voluntary offices with no pay or offices with pay for required operational costs only.

Ya I'm sure so many people would be willing to work for no pay /sarcasm

Ask yourself how banks and major industries make money and it is a good indication of how the government can make money. The way and means to generate wealth is nearly universal. Overspending and indebting yourself at an interest way like governments and misusing creditcard holders is not the way to make money 99.9% of the time.

The Government collects taxes because it offers a service, a service that we all use you can not tell me you don't use any of the government services, odds are you use most of them.

Edited January 9, 2010 by TrueMetis

[msdogfood]

I'm not the one defending it. Shouldn't it be that the people supporting the decision to prorogue should have to answer why march and not january?

because of the olympics i guess!

[msdogfood]

In King Harper's own words:

yes

[msdogfood]

I don't believe so.

thay do!

[Smallc]

thay do!

He wasn't talking about during prorogation either.

[msdogfood]

Equalization = BAD !!

not if you need the Minny!