2010s to be Canada's Decade

[punked]

which gear is your NDP revisionism in today? Your "stole' assertion would seem to counter the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada - yes? Would you like to withdraw your improper assertion... or would you like a link to the Supreme Court ruling (7 to 0) that held the Liberal government was within its rights to divert EI contributions to pay down the deficit from 1996-2001. Your choice... your withdrawal or the link... your choice.

No I would not like to take it back. Over the Martin years, the benefits were cut to EI repeatedly so that those who payed into an INSURANCE program could not take part in it. At the same time they were using the funds from this INSURANCE program to pay down the debt. If you want to call it a payroll tax and use it as a tax then fine, don't take my money though tell me it Insurance for unemployment then not give it to me when I am out of work. It is wrong on so many levels. If you would like however I will rephrase from "stole" instead I will say what the Liberals did was wrong, and short sighted. Does that make it better? Not in my eyes.

You also don't mention that the Supreme court did find the Liberals set the EI rate illegally high in the ruling or did that fact escape you. You know because they were setting high to use the fund to pay down the debt instead of pay workers.

Edited May 29, 2010 by punked

[Guest TrueMetis]

The amount of money made. Canadians make on average more money per week than Americans.

You also have to factor in how far that money goes though.

[Smallc]

You also have to factor in how far that money goes though.

Yes, and according to a couple of articles I read, before tax, Canadians are now better off. It really depends on what the exchange rate is from day to day right now. We pay about 7% more for stuff, we pay about 5% more tax, and we make at times up to 1/3 more money. After tax, we're slightyly worse off most of the time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, and according to a couple of articles I read, before tax, Canadians are now better off. It really depends on what the exchange rate is from day to day right now. We pay about 7% more for stuff, we pay about 5% more tax, and we make at times up to 1/3 more money. After tax, we're slightyly worse off most of the time.

...and Canadians have access to fewer goods and services for those dollars.

[Smallc]

Here is the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/money/moneytalks/2009/06/michael-hlinka-a-closer-look-at-canadas-standard-of-living-numbers.html

I'm guessing the $2 figure is a typo.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

...and Canadians have access to fewer goods and services for those dollars.

I guess I should tell my wife and all her friends to stop bothering to go shopping across the border. All the savings are apparently imaginary!

Seemed real to me, I must admit. Milk and eggs for about a third of what we pay here. Shoes for less than 25%, with a much better variety and selection.

Tops Supermarket must use air-borne drugs in their store to fool all the Canadians. I have a mental picture of Smallc standing at the Rainbow Bridge waving at the returning shoppers, shouting "You didn't save any money! Things are cheaper at home! I have statistics to prove that your savings are all imaginary!"

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm guessing the $2 figure is a typo.

It doesn't matter....if Canada's dollar maintains or exceeds parity with the USD, there will be a price to be paid on the export side. That's why these kind of comparisons are superficial....the Canadian economy is more dependent on exports.

[Smallc]

When you can find me where I said that things were cheaper here, I'll give you a shiny loonie. Things are, on average, according to the latest reports, 7% more in Canada. Canadains though, now make more money than Americans and we have a more favourable exhange rate than in the past. That makes things even cheaper in the US for us, because our dollar is worth more, and we make more money. That said, the price disparities are often not what you're making them out to be.

I will say one thing about people like your wife though. They make the rest of us have to pay higher taxes, because they spend their money in another country, and they do their best to aviod paying any duty or tax at the border.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

...Tops Supermarket must use air-borne drugs in their store to fool all the Canadians. I have a mental picture of Smallc standing at the Rainbow Bridge waving at the returning shoppers, shouting "You didn't save any money! Things are cheaper at home! I have statistics to prove that your savings are all imaginary!"

Very funny image, but I routinely interact with Canadians for the sale of items that are not imported or distributed in Canada no matter what the price. They will ask for a purchase to be made "states side" and shipped for an undervalued declaration to help beat the onerous taxes and carrier fees. It's not just Canada, as Europe has the same issue for some products because of the way world markets are carved up and guarded for protected distribution.

[Topaz]

Yep Stole 50 billion from the EI fund and payed 50 billion down the debt. Now how did he do it? I mean honestly I could be finance minister if that is how you balance the books. I bet they could pay down the whole debt if they started stealing from CPP but then when people need it where will it be? Short sightedness.

Lets say, Martin didn't pay off the debt the PC created . How much would the interest and the debt be now with the Tories 54 Billion,... over 100 billion added to the national debt. Its costing us a billion a yeasr in interst alone on the national debt. Where do you think the Tories got the 40 billion to pay down the debt? The court said once the money goes into general fund, the seating government can do whatever if wants with it and its not ours anymore as far as EI.

[Topaz]

I'm not a positive and here's why, there's at least, 500,000 unemployed, some have gone through EI, even took training and haven't found jobs as yet. Once you reach 50, its harder to find a job, companies don't want you. So then welfare, bankruptcy, losing one home you worked so hard for, divorces, etc. all this is happening to people where the jobless rate is high. Some who are 60 and jobless are turning to CPP, were you do lose 30%, and its taxable and just hope you have a company pension to help from living on the street. Until the 2 level of governments do something about companies leaving here for Mexico especially, the middle class is going to be wipe out and everyone then will be working for 10.hr. Someone asked Tory MP about jobs going south and all the member said was that they can't so anything about that because its a 'global" market now. No help from THIS government.

[punked]

Only 39% of the unemployed can claim EI, down from the 80-85% which was the number in the 80s. 75% of workers in Ontario don't get to claim EI either.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/346309

Listen I have no problem with a tax, be it a payroll tax, or an income tax. Especially to pay down the debt BUT and this is BIG BIG BUT, don't call an Insurance. If I pay into an Insurance for Unemployment then it should used ONLY for unemployment. Period end of story. It is a bunch of BS that the Liberals made it so the unemployed can't get EI then used the EI fund to get rid of the debt. That is a direct hit at workers and it is WRONG.

[Topaz]

Only 39% of the unemployed can claim EI, down from the 80-85% which was the number in the 80s. 75% of workers in Ontario don't get to claim EI either.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/346309

Listen I have no problem with a tax, be it a payroll tax, or an income tax. Especially to pay down the debt BUT and this is BIG BIG BUT, don't call an Insurance. If I pay into an Insurance for Unemployment then it should used ONLY for unemployment. Period end of story. It is a bunch of BS that the Liberals made it so the unemployed can't get EI then used the EI fund to get rid of the debt. That is a direct hit at workers and it is WRONG.

Correct me IF I'm wrong but what the Tories are going to do is setup an EI fund put 2 Bil in it and the rest goes to general fund. As the boomers retire there will be less money coming into the EI or general fund, so how will they get the debt paid off?

[punked]

Correct me IF I'm wrong but what the Tories are going to do is setup an EI fund put 2 Bil in it and the rest goes to general fund. As the boomers retire there will be less money coming into the EI or general fund, so how will they get the debt paid off?

I believe the Conservatives are going to set up a board which (unlike the Liberals) will actually project where EI premiums should be set so their is no longer a surplus to go into the general fund. Remember the Supreme court found that the Liberals were setting EI premiums to high, just so they could collect more to use it as a tax. In 2011 that should change. Although I would still like for government to say taking money out of the EI fund is wrong.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0341-e.htm

[Jack Weber]

When you can find me where I said that things were cheaper here, I'll give you a shiny loonie. Things are, on average, according to the latest reports, 7% more in Canada. Canadains though, now make more money than Americans and we have a more favourable exhange rate than in the past. That makes things even cheaper in the US for us, because our dollar is worth more, and we make more money. That said, the price disparities are often not what you're making them out to be.

I will say one thing about people like your wife though. They make the rest of us have to pay higher taxes, because they spend their money in another country, and they do their best to aviod paying any duty or tax at the border.

The reason we pay alittle more is occasionally from transport costs and our socialized health care system.It's a hit that I'm generally prepared to take.The larger issue of wage stagnation,and the root causes of it,is the culprit for why oue dollar goes less and less farther(to rip off a phrase from Taps Friendly Mayrket...Where your Dahllar goes Fayther)

By the way,small...I live closer to the Rainbow Bridge than Bill does,and I was in the 'Falls yesterday...I did'nt see you there,did I?

[Smallc]

By the way,small...I live closer to the Rainbow Bridge than Bill does,and I was in the 'Falls yesterday...I did'nt see you there,did I?

I don't think so....I'm pretty much smack dab in the middle of Manitoba right now...working 7 days a week trying to decide on my future.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Smallc

[Argus]

Lets say, Martin didn't pay off the debt the PC created

While Mulroney was not my guy the PCs didn't create a bloody thing. The Mulroney Tories managed to get their budgetary spending down to the point where the only borrowing which needed to be done was to pay the interest on the debt Trudeau created. Trudeau doubled spending his first term in office, then doubled it again his second term. He increased the national debt, in a time of economic boom, by 1200% Then he left that debt to Mulroney at a time of international recession when interest rates were shooting into the high double digits.

It is that debt, and the interest on it, which burdened the Mulroney government, and all successive governments.

. How much would the interest and the debt be now with the Tories 54 Billion,... over 100 billion added to the national debt.

All of the debt added during the Mulroney years was because of borrowing needed to pay the high interest fees on the Trudeau debt. There was no way to get the deficit under control under the end of the international recession.

The court said once the money goes into general fund, the seating government can do whatever if wants with it and its not ours anymore as far as EI.

Just cause something is legal doesn't make it right. The "Unemployment Insurance" program had regular deductions, just like any other insurance program. What the government did was to take the accumulated amount away from the UIC fund, then drastically reduce benefits, and use that money to help pay down debt. Sure it was legal. But only a fool would give them credit for reducing the debt when it was nothing more than a slight of hand with the books that screwed over the unemployed.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Argus

[Sir Bandelot]

The "Unemployment Insurance" program had regular deductions, just like any other insurance program. What the government did was to take the accumulated amount away from the UIC fund, then drastically reduce benefits, and use that money to help pay down debt. Sure it was legal. But only a fool would give them credit for reducing the debt when it was nothing more than a slight of hand with the books that screwed over the unemployed.

Well I do give them credit, regardless of whether you consider me a fool we all benefit today from the good work that Martin did. The unemploymeny insurance fund had a big surplus, and Martin used the money tp pay for the debt and other things as well. He did reduce the premiums somewhat, but also saw an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game, use some of the extra money as a safety cushion for a possible future recession, so that Canada would be in a good position to ride that out. In doing so he gave Canadians an advantage, and that's where our current situation comes from today.

Meanwhile I'm sure sme of you wouldn;t mind to have dumped the money into the pockets of thousands of people, who want to collect pokey money. I applud the tougher stance on unemployment. There should only be minimal coverage, as long as there's jobs out there, go and get them. Put down the beer, and take a bath. Get off your duff young man.

The money had to come from somewhere, it is not "slight of hand". Real debt was really paid down. Far better than giving it to mismanaged auto companies and banks, I think.

Meanwhile what have we here... a government that seems to be doing its best to undo the advantage Canada has had.

[Sir Bandelot]

I bet they could pay down the whole debt if they started stealing from CPP but then when people need it where will it be? Short sightedness.

The irony of what you said is not lost here. The CPP fund was saved by Paul Martin. He had the forethought and wisdom to take necessary steps to stave off a crisis, before it became out of hand.

For his work he was given international recognition as one of the worlds top leaders. Something the current leadership has no sense of. There's your "short sightedness".

It's too bad Paul Martin was undermined by Chretiens corruption and vindictiveness as he retired, because he is exactly the kind of leader Canada should have.

[Topaz]

The irony of what you said is not lost here. The CPP fund was saved by Paul Martin. He had the forethought and wisdom to take necessary steps to stave off a crisis, before it became out of hand.

For his work he was given international recognition as one of the worlds top leaders. Something the current leadership has no sense of. There's your "short sightedness".

It's too bad Paul Martin was undermined by Chretiens corruption and vindictiveness as he retired, because he is exactly the kind of leader Canada should have.

I agree with you on Martin and he had the other country's respect, and the Tories are bring in that payroll tax upping the EI premium.

[waldo]

Paul Martin............ isn't he the guy who improperly took money from the EI fund and put it towards other things? Is that what made him a financial genius?

Yep Stole 50 billion from the EI fund and payed 50 billion down the debt. Now how did he do it? I mean honestly I could be finance minister if that is how you balance the books. I bet they could pay down the whole debt if they started stealing from CPP but then when people need it where will it be? Short sightedness.

which gear is your NDP revisionism in today? Your "stole' assertion would seem to counter the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada - yes? Would you like to withdraw your improper assertion... or would you like a link to the Supreme Court ruling (7 to 0) that held the Liberal government was within its rights to divert EI contributions to pay down the deficit from 1996-2001. Your choice... your withdrawal or the link... your choice.

No I would not like to take it back. Over the Martin years, the benefits were cut to EI repeatedly so that those who payed into an INSURANCE program could not take part in it. At the same time they were using the funds from this INSURANCE program to pay down the debt. If you want to call it a payroll tax and use it as a tax then fine, don't take my money though tell me it Insurance for unemployment then not give it to me when I am out of work. It is wrong on so many levels. If you would like however I will rephrase from "stole" instead I will say what the Liberals did was wrong, and short sighted. Does that make it better? Not in my eyes.

You also don't mention that the Supreme court did find the Liberals set the EI rate illegally high in the ruling or did that fact escape you. You know because they were setting high to use the fund to pay down the debt instead of pay workers.

and you continue your revisionism... you obviously know nothing of the actual facts, of the actual Supreme Court ruling. As I stated, the period of contention over transfer of EI funds to general revenues was 1996-2001. Perhaps you could advise how the setting of the EI rate for the years 2002, 2003 and 2005 has anything to do with the concern over a transfer of EI funds in the years 1996-2001. You can also spare me the broad based NDP rhetoric about, "balancing the federal books on the backs of the unemployed"... however, if you'd like to actually step up and critique the 1996 Employment Insurance Act, on it's merits or lack thereof... perhaps looking at 2001 amendments that reflected a re-evaluation of certain aspects of the earlier changes introduced in 1996, that certainly would be a step forward - something beyond your revisionism and rhetoric.

[Argus]

Well I do give them credit, regardless of whether you consider me a fool we all benefit today from the good work that Martin did. The unemploymeny insurance fund had a big surplus, and Martin used the money tp pay for the debt and other things as well. He did reduce the premiums somewhat

Somewhat? That's like saying Hitler somewhat reduced the numbers of Jews in Germany. They slashed benefits to the bone, and made it all-but impossible for most workers to ever collect. That's where your "surplus" comes from.

Nor did he "pay for the debt". What he did was the equivalent of taking money out of your investments and using it to pay off a debt. The key here is the money was already there, and could have been used at any time to pay the debt, or could have simply been allowed to accumulate. It takes no great wizardry to cash in your investments and pay the bank. But doing so isn't always wise.

, but also saw an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game, use some of the extra money as a safety cushion for a possible future recession, so that Canada would be in a good position to ride that out.

What safety cushion? The money was already there. If he hadn't spent it on the debt we could have used it last year instead of borrowing more money. I see no huge advantage either way, depending on what rates of interest we were getting.

I applud the tougher stance on unemployment. There should only be minimal coverage, as long as there's jobs out there, go and get them. Put down the beer, and take a bath. Get off your duff young man.

If you want to call the money coming off your cheque taxes then fine. But it's supposedly for an insurance fund in case you become unemployed. Yet if you do become unemployed you have little chance of collecting it. Why? Because the money is being used as welfare subsidies in Atlantic Canada and for west coast fishermen. It was envisioned as insurance for regular workers. But it's become a subsidy for workers who only work a couple of months a year to qualify. And that's not the lazy workers idea. It was the Liberals who came up with it.

[Smallc]

What safety cushion? The money was already there. If he hadn't spent it on the debt we could have used it last year instead of borrowing more money. I see no huge advantage either way, depending on what rates of interest we were getting.

You're kidding, right? If we hadn't paid the money on the debt, our interests costs would have been higher, meaning that we would have had less money to spend each year. I don't think it's that difficult a concept to understand.

[Argus]

You're kidding, right? If we hadn't paid the money on the debt, our interests costs would have been higher, meaning that we would have had less money to spend each year. I don't think it's that difficult a concept to understand.

That's because you don't understand much about money. Are you aware, for example, that some borrow money in order to invest it? Think about it a moment. If you're paying 5% on what you borrow, and your investments are returning 8% per year, then why on earth would you cash in your investments to pay off the loan?

[Smallc]

Much of the money that Canada has borrowed is at higher interest rates than we can get today. That's because Canada has a better credit rating than in the past, and because interest rates are lower than ever. Like I said, you just don't get it.