Canadian dollar likely to trump US greenback

[Smallc]

This argument isn't going to go anywhere. You're a libertarian, and I'm a liberal. I simply don't agree with your world view...lucky for me, most Canadians see things more my way than yours.

[Bonam]

This argument isn't going to go anywhere. You're a libertarian, and I'm a liberal. I simply don't agree with your world view...lucky for me, most Canadians see things more my way than yours.

Haha, you fall back on this statement so often in these arguments. The ultimate collectivist trump card, "we have more guns".

[Smallc]

But unfortunately for you, that is the reality in a democratic society. You as a minority, are protected from some things, but on other issues, the majority of people gets what they want. Libertarians can kick and scream all they want, but it really doesn't do any good.

[Smallc]

Anyway, it looks like Ontario will be alright even with the high dollar:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100311/economy_growth_100311/20100311?hub=TopStoriesV2

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Anyway, it looks like Ontario will be alright even with the high dollar:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100311/economy_growth_100311/20100311?hub=TopStoriesV2

That high dollar isn't helping the west either.

[M.Dancer]

That high dollar isn't helping the west either.

And for the same reason....oil sold to the US is sold in US $$..then converted back to loonies...

[blueblood]

But unfortunately for you, that is the reality in a democratic society. You as a minority, are protected from some things, but on other issues, the majority of people gets what they want. Libertarians can kick and scream all they want, but it really doesn't do any good.

Trudeaus social experiment continuing to bear fruit.

Using the power of democracy when it suits you best...

Until they take their money and do their business elsewhere, resulting in a poorer Canada. If you think wealthy business people like being gouged 44% at tax time, plus corporate taxes all in the name of being a good Canadian you need to get out more because we know that wealthy people don't get the same benefit out of gov't services as poor people per tax dollar spent. Same goes for Alberta and its equalization payments. Why you guys want to cook the golden goose is beyond me?

I don't think I'm among the minority in Alberta...

[Smallc]

We have (or will very soon) have the lowest business taxes of the worlds large industrialized economies. Despite your griping, our taxes aren't very high at all, and we have fiscally responsible governments for the most part.

Alberta is only one province, and spreading it's citizens tax dollars among other provinces isn't going to cook it. The very idea of government services is to help the people who can't necessarily afford everything. That is the price of living in a society such as this one. Libertarians live in a fantasy land that cannot exist in reality.

[Shady]

Hahaha that is what they were saying in FDR's days, and then again in Reagan's.

Really? When did they talk about interest payments equalling one third of the entire budget? When was that again?

You think that debt would catch up with them but they still have a real long way too go to catch up to Canada's debt to GDP Shady.

Really? Hmm, American GDP is about 14 trillion dollars. Congress just passed a new debt ceiling of 14 trillion dollars. Canada has a GDP of about 1.5 trillion dollars. Canada has a debt of 500 billion dollars. You do the math.

And that's not even counting America's $110 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Shady

[blueblood]

We have (or will very soon) have the lowest business taxes of the worlds large industrialized economies.

Thank you Mr. Harper. Keep at it.

Despite your griping, our taxes aren't very high at all, and we have fiscally responsible governments for the most part.

Says the person not paying 44%.

Alberta is only one province, and spreading it's citizens tax dollars among other provinces isn't going to cook it.

Alberta is poorer because of it.

The very idea of government services is to help the people who can't necessarily afford everything.

help those by punishing others, brilliant.

That is the price of living in a society such as this one. Libertarians live in a fantasy land that cannot exist in reality.

And society has an obligation to reward those that do succeed in order to provide incentive to be more prosperous. The Americans taught the brits that lesson. It isn't fantasy land, it's called nature, time to read up on some Darwin.

[Smallc]

Thank you Mr. Harper. Keep at it.

Yes, well, we'll see how that goes.

Says the person not paying 44%.

Like I said, our taxes aren't that high.

Alberta is poorer because of it.

And Canada is richer for it.

help those by punishing others, brilliant.

It's not punishment. It's part of living in a society.

And society has an obligation to reward those that do succeed in order to provide incentive to be more prosperous. The Americans taught the brits that lesson. It isn't fantasy land, it's called nature, time to read up on some Darwin.

Our society rewards everyone. People who are able to succeed are simply expected to give more back because they enjoy more benefits.

[blueblood]

Yes, well, we'll see how that goes.

Better than a tax hike

Like I said, our taxes aren't that high.

29%+17.4%. Your right, they're higher.

And Canada is richer for it.

No, that's shadow accounting. Taking money from one place to another isn't creating wealth, it redistributes it.

It's not punishment. It's part of living in a society.

Taking my money that I earned by force because I happen to earn more than some people is punishing me for making more money. Where is my incentive to generate more wealth when people like you want to take it away from me?

Our society rewards everyone. People who are able to succeed are simply expected to give more back because they enjoy more benefits.

And that's the type of problems that put you on the trolley tracks to a collapsed country (eg USSR). In Alberta everyone pays the same provincial tax, which is most fair. Just because somebody gets ahead doesn't mean you should kick them out at the knees.

Edited March 11, 2010 by blueblood

[Smallc]

Better than a tax hike

We'll see about that. Taxes can only fall so far.

29%+17.4%. Your right, they're higher.

You don't pay the highest tax rates on all of your money. At 126K you'd pay about 40% with 0 credits.

No, that's shadow accounting. Taking money from one place to another isn't creating wealth, it redistributes it.

I didn't say it was creating wealth, but Canada is served by having all people within in the country having equal opportunity to receive government services.

Taking my money that I earned by force because I happen to earn more than some people is punishing me for making more money. Where is my incentive to generate more wealth when people like you want to take it away from me?

Because you still make more money, even if it's being taxed at a higher rate. You're still better off.

And that's the type of problems that put you on the trolley tracks to a collapsed country (eg USSR). In Alberta everyone pays the same provincial tax, which is most fair. Just because somebody gets ahead doesn't mean you should kick them out at the knees.

I disagree, that isn't the most fair....and I'm not a communist. I'm not even a socialist. Canada isn't either. Not even close. You aren't being kicked out at the knees, you are simply repaying society.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Smallc

[Guest TrueMetis]

And society has an obligation to reward those that do succeed in order to provide incentive to be more prosperous. The Americans taught the brits that lesson. It isn't fantasy land, it's called nature, time to read up on some Darwin.

Darwin's survival of the fittest in the case of humans ment those that work together the best do the best. Maybe your reading about the wrong Darwin? (well actually his last name was Galton but he was Darwins cousin)

[blueblood]

We'll see about that. Taxes can only fall so far.

Then its trim the fat time.

You don't pay the highest tax rates on all of your money. At 126K you'd pay about 40% with 0 credits.

True, but I'd still get hit with 44% on a sizeable portion. Even 40% is ridiculous.

I didn't say it was creating wealth, but Canada is served by having all people within in the country having equal opportunity to receive government services.

By "Canada" you mean the ones with their hands out? People do have an equal opportunity, go where the money is, there's nothing in the charter that says you are forced to stay in one spot.

Because you still make more money, even if it's being taxed at a higher rate. You're still better off.

Not as well off as I would be with lower taxes.

I disagree, that isn't the most fair....and I'm not a communist. I'm not even a socialist. Canada isn't either. Not even close. You aren't being kicked out at the knees, you are simply repaying society.

But people like you put it on the trolley tracks and move it closer that way. Here's the ffairness of a flat tax, everyone gets gov't services, they pay the same rate. Lower incomes are paying their fair share since they use more services than higher incomes. The higher incomes are free to spend/save/invest their money which helps inprove the economy versus having money go to the government and having a sizeable portion wasted. Outstanding. That's fair for everyone, not just the lower income earners like the rest of provincial tax set ups.

So let me get this straight, I use less gov't services, but I have to pay more money than other people who use more of them because I make/spend/invest more? That is literally punishing me for contributing more and a double standard.

[Smallc]

That is simply the way society works. Even with a flat tax, you're still paying far more at the high end than someone at the lower end because your 10% amounts to much more. Like I said, your idea of a society really can't work. Society needs to be supported by the people in it. That society in turn needs to support its most vulnerable. That's the way egalitarian democracies function, and that's why we live in such a peaceful prosperous civilization in the west and in some other places.

[Bonam]

Like I said, your idea of a society really can't work. Society needs to be supported by the people in it. That society in turn needs to support its most vulnerable.

See, if it was really about supporting the vulnerable, I don't think nearly as many people would have a problem. I understand the need to provide care for orphans, for the elderly, and for the disabled.

But the reality is that a big chunk of our social spending is used not on those groups, but on the lazy, the drug addicted, the reckless or negligent, the failed businessmen, the smokers (healthcare), and even the criminals. This is what I find objectionable, not supporting the vulnerable (which is fine).

[bush_cheney2004]

... That's the way egalitarian democracies function, and that's why we live in such a peaceful prosperous civilization in the west and in some other places.

....except for the places "we" choose to bomb, invade, and sanction...so peaceful!

[Smallc]

See, if it was really about supporting the vulnerable, I don't think nearly as many people would have a problem. I understand the need to provide care for orphans, for the elderly, and for the disabled.

But the reality is that a big chunk of our social spending is used not on those groups, but on the lazy, the drug addicted, the reckless or negligent, the failed businessmen, the smokers (healthcare), and even the criminals. This is what I find objectionable, not supporting the vulnerable (which is fine).

I think that many would disagree with your definition of vulnerable. People with drug addictions for example, or people who have mental illnesses such as depression....people with addictions. These are all vulnerable people with recognized disabilities and conditions. People who fail, well, what should we do with them? Should we let them starve? Should we let their children starve? Now there are lazy people, but, how do we easily make the distinction? The answer is, we can't.

And yes, I think some of you have a problem with every dollar of government spending.

You say you are willing to see damage to an economy that is supported by and supports 14M people in Ontario alone if it helps your personal position. After finding that out, it cements my belief that I wouldn't want you anywhere near social policy planning. What you find objectionable seems to be supported by society at large, and I'm quite thankful for that frankly.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

....except for the places "we" choose to bomb, invade, and sanction...so peaceful!

Compared to say, WWII era, yeah, it's peaceful and prosperous.

[Bonam]

I think that many would disagree with your definition of vulnerable. People with drug addictions for example, or people who have mental illnesses such as depression....people with addictions. These are all vulnerable people with recognized disabilities and conditions. People who fail, well, what should we do with them? Should we let them starve? Should we let their children starve? Now there are lazy people, but, how do we easily make the distinction? The answer is, we can't.

And yes, I think some of you have a problem with every dollar of government spending.

You say you are willing to see damage to an economy that is supported by and supports 14M people in Ontario alone if it helps your personal position. After finding that out, it cements my belief that I wouldn't want you anywhere near social policy planning. What you find objectionable seems to be supported by society at large, and I'm quite thankful for that frankly.

Yes I am well aware that my position is not held by the majority of Canadians. That does not make it less valid, only less popular, despite you constantly bringing this point up.

As for your points about starvation... people are not going to starve in Canada except under very exotic circumstances. There is a wide range of ways for people to get food for extremely cheap or even for free, through voluntary charities and programs like food bank, etc.

In regards to people with addictions, they made a choice and have to realize that there are consequences, among them, poverty, if in their drug-soaked state they are unable to hold a job. Why should others have to pay for someone to buy drugs? This is money going straight from government to organized crime and is perhaps the most deplorable of all the types of spending that we have.

[blueblood]

That is simply the way society works. Even with a flat tax, you're still paying far more at the high end than someone at the lower end because your 10% amounts to much more.

Which is less than this current dinosaur tax system we have today.

Like I said, your idea of a society really can't work. Society needs to be supported by the people in it.

The only society that hasn't worked is the communist society that takes your do-gooder attitude and makes it central policy. The numbers don't lie, gouging people that succeed hurts far more than leaving some people impoverished.

Do you think I bury my money in a hole in the ground? I support society by buying, saving, and investing. Which is far more efficient and beneficial than the bloated government and their pathetic civil service.

That society in turn needs to support its most vulnerable.

No, "society" needs to look after itself, that philosophy of yours has been tried and failed.

That's the way egalitarian democracies function, and that's why we live in such a peaceful prosperous civilization in the west and in some other places.

We have succeeded in the west not because we "help" the less fortunate, but in spite the less fortunate. We succeed in the west because we have rewarded success far more than other countries in the world. What has made western civilization more successful the acceptance of banking, or the government/church forcibly taking money and "supporting its most vulnerable"?

[bush_cheney2004]

Compared to say, WWII era, yeah, it's peaceful and prosperous.

Oh sure...so peaceful...like these:

Cold War

Korean War

Vietnam War

Falklands War

Gulf War

Kosovo War

Iraq War

Afghanistan War

[Smallc]

Which is less than this current dinosaur tax system we have today.

The only society that hasn't worked is the communist society that takes your do-gooder attitude and makes it central policy. The numbers don't lie, gouging people that succeed hurts far more than leaving some people impoverished.

No, you don't realize what the numbers show. The numbers show that we do best when we find the proper balance between capitalism and communism...between conservatism and socialism.

Do you think I bury my money in a hole in the ground? I support society by buying, saving, and investing. Which is far more efficient and beneficial than the bloated government and their pathetic civil service.

And in this society, you support both the private sector and the government...because that is what is proven to work.

No, "society" needs to look after itself, that philosophy of yours has been tried and failed.

social liberalism hasn't failed to any degree. It is widely practiced in Europe...and Canada.

We have succeeded in the west not because we "help" the less fortunate, but in spite the less fortunate. We succeed in the west because we have rewarded success far more than other countries in the world. What has made western civilization more successful the acceptance of banking, or the government/church forcibly taking money and "supporting its most vulnerable"?

Do you think that we would be successful if the under class was constantly rising up to fight for what they wanted and needed? No, we wouldn't be. If we didn't support societies most vulnerable, that's where we would be.

[Smallc]

Oh sure...so peaceful...like these:

Cold War

Last time I checked that was over

Korean War

Over

Vietnam War

Over

Falklands War

Over

Gulf War

Over

Kosovo War

Iraq War

Almost over...hopefully

Afghanistan War

Wow...one war...ah, I'll give you two. Good show.

You do realize that almost none of those places are in the west, right? Lets forget that for a second though...it still stands, we live in a relatively peaceful world when we look back at history...and most of these were quite small wars.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc