Liberals want Ottawa to cough up cash for Coptic churches

[msj]

It's a fair question, to see if the government, which owns the facilities, are indirectly subsidizing themselves by paying themselves some money to maintain the facilities to which they own. Kind of like GM using their profits to maintain their factories and pay their employees.

Socratic? Perhaps. But what discussion is entirely free of Socratic-ness?

Okay, I think where we're mixed up is that I'm talking about amateurs - as in true amateurs like the local hockey teams and the local hockey rink.

Those teams raise thousands of dollars each year (mostly from parents and then friends/family through the sale of various pieces of crap and through bottle drives etc).

They then pay fees to the rinks to use ice time.

This clearly mitigates the taxpayer subsidy of the ice rink as the users, one way or another, are paying a substantial amount (I know, I have seen the financial statements for the rink and the hockey leagues) to the ice rink.

And, no, these leagues are not charities - they do not issue charity receipts for donations.

[charter.rights]

Here is one: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-3.3/

However, once that money leaves your hands, it isn't yours anymore so you aren't actually paying for someone elses sports and hobbies, "we" are. Big difference.

In reality the tax scheme doesn't take money from us. It takes it from our employers BEFORE we get our hands on it. While it is our assessment the responsibility for tax collection lies almost solely on the business. Don't believe me? Just look at who CRA goes after if taxes in the required quantity or are not remitted on time.

The same goes for sales taxes where it is the vendor that is assigned the responsibility for collecting taxes. Even though they say that we the consumers are paying it, the ultimate responsibility falls on the business. Who cares if it appears on our sale receipt...it comes out of the store's cash register when it is finally paid to the government.

Municipal taxes are a direct tax on the other hand but that is an exception rather than the rule.

Tax is merely a slight of hand anyway since we are indebted to the government the minute we are born and they really can't tax tax from the nothing we actually have.

[Shwa]

In reality the tax scheme doesn't take money from us. It takes it from our employers BEFORE we get our hands on it. While it is our assessment the responsibility for tax collection lies almost solely on the business. Don't believe me? Just look at who CRA goes after if taxes in the required quantity or are not remitted on time.

The same goes for sales taxes where it is the vendor that is assigned the responsibility for collecting taxes. Even though they say that we the consumers are paying it, the ultimate responsibility falls on the business. Who cares if it appears on our sale receipt...it comes out of the store's cash register when it is finally paid to the government.

Municipal taxes are a direct tax on the other hand but that is an exception rather than the rule.

Tax is merely a slight of hand anyway since we are indebted to the government the minute we are born and they really can't tax tax from the nothing we actually have.

Of course, I was using the example figuratively to try and form a similar reference in reply to the other poster (and I am not sure why I would, but I did). In a similar way I use the concept of "money" which is itelf just another abstraction for value.

[kimmy]

I never even mentioned school taxes. But while on the subject. That too is crewed up. Houses don't need education - people do. Why are school taxes directly based on house taxes???? Each individual should pay school taxes EVENLY. There are cases where one person living on small pension pays six times more school taxes as six individuals crammed into one house.

Proximity to schools is a factor in property values, so it might be reasonable to suggest that people with houses near schools pay extra tax.

Weird thread drift, btw. Whatupwitdat?

-k

[Saipan]

What's illegal in Canada, guns arn't

Many are. And for the rest to carry them for defence specifically is illegal.

is body armour..

Illegal.

odd wouldn't you say.

Lot of ideas by Liberals are odd.

You just need to reserve armour peircing ammo to police and home owners.

Simply full metal jacket (FMJ) are legal. Surplus military ammo, cheap for target practice. Illegal for hunting. Dangerous in residential area.

The inaction of the police to investigate ongoing crime is to say the least - not very good when it involves public safety.

Too late. Investigation often means you're cold, covered with white sheet, and yellow ribbon around your house.

And people can too if they apply.

http://canadacarry.com/

In theory only. You won't find anyone who has such permit. Just to own handgun take more than a year - provided you're member of a club in good standing. THEN the handgun permit. And only straight to shooting range and back, in locked case.

I say in theory 'cause it's the same as "sustenace hunting and fishing" open to all races [theoretically] but anyone except indians would be sent to jail if he tried.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Saipan

[wyly]

Agreed.

But I'd go further and take away their tax exemptions and not allow donors tax receipts.

Then they truly would be paying their own way in the world.

yup

[Saipan]

The last I checked WE had to pay for Dustpan's healthcare...

1) Despite your name calling I paid more than most Canadians. I came as ready made taxpayer, instead helpless burden on the state.

2) Helthcare is for everyone. Hockey is not.

[dre]

If someone had suggested firstly that an unnamed political party was interested in funding security cameras for an unnamed religion that was being persecuted, then I suspect everyone would have reserved judgment until hearing more details.

No me. My decision was made after reading the title. We cant afford to spin up special spending programs, every time some minority is attacked around the world that also happens to have members living in Canada. We already spend a mint on dealing with those kinds of issues.

If those places need a bit of extra police attention they can borrow the deadbeat morons that sit around at the intersection by my house making sure I didnt have a glass of wine with dinner.

[dre]

Completely different.

To the extent that the Pope is blamed, he is the head and figurehead of a specific organization.

Some Canadian Muslim is not, and that you despise him doesn't change that fact.

Can you believe you actually had to explain that? Youre a patient man BM. You oughtta be an elementary school teacher!

[jbg]

I can't really guess at how real the danger might be. Our security people believe they have the situation in hand, and maybe they do, or maybe the Liberals are correct in saying that more should be done.

However, clearly what makes the Coptic churches different from others is that Islamists have singled out the Coptic church for violence right now.

The correct approach in any civilized society is for the government to protect churches that are likely to come under attack; not to give the churches money to install their own equipment.

[dre]

The correct approach in any civilized society is for the government to protect churches that are likely to come under attack; not to give the churches money to install their own equipment.

The correct approach in any civilized society is for the government to protect churches that are likely to come under attack; not to give the churches money to install their own equipment.

Yup, I agree. Authorities SHOULD be on the look out for violence against organizations that are likely to be targetted, and we should try to provide an environment thats safe for ANY organization. If we think someone (or group) faces an elevated threat level we should help them... both by affording them temporary protection, and by trying to hunt down any "threateners" that are within our jurisdition.

Thats why we have police...

Edited January 10, 2011 by dre

[Saipan]

No me. My decision was made after reading the title. We cant afford to spin up special spending programs, every time some minority is attacked around the world

So why spending $2 Billions on long gun registration because someone was attacked?

[dre]

So why spending $2 Billions on long gun registration because someone was attacked?

Apples and oranges.

[Saipan]

Apples and oranges.

We spend less on those. Thanks to our higher dollar.

[dre]

We spend less on those. Thanks to our higher dollar.

My Uncle Pete has red tennis shoes.

[Saipan]

My Uncle Pete has red tennis shoes.

Is he gay?

[bloodyminded]

Can you believe you actually had to explain that? Youre a patient man BM. You oughtta be an elementary school teacher!

Good of you to say, my man, but really I'm just (more or less) patient today. Just one of those days. Sadly, it's not always so.

My vote for most patient is Michael Hardner.

[Saipan]

Thats why we have police...

They have hard time to protect themself. Never mind anyone else.

That's why they carry guns.

[PIK]

Mark Holland , I have not fully read it ,but I understand his animal cruelty bill will put most farmers out of work.