Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I don't read anything that the Fraser Institute publishes. Quote
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I don't read anything that the Fraser Institute publishes. Good call... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Double Edited February 24, 2011 by Dithers Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I do use my head. Which is why I asked for evidence. Unfortunately, you failed to deliver. Note. I did NOT ask for evidence that we had an aging population. I asked for evidence of the economic benefit of immigration. I understand that the English language is complex and full of nuances. You didn't ask for evidence of that. You asked: "Evidence? Any at all?", clearly pleasing yourself with your witty one liner. Your entire point and set of assumptions are ridiculously ignorant. How was I to know which part to respond to? Now that you have qualified your question, I will qualify my reply with a study. http://economics.ca/cgi/jab?journal=cpp&view=v15n4/CPPv15n4p424.pdf The conclusion suggests, with a few caveats, that immigrant households are worth even more than non-immigrant households. Whether or not the caveats apply, the implication is clear, there is real value. With our baby boomers going into retirement, we will need more treasure to fund the services we cling to. You decide Scotty, immigration or even higher taxes. PS- As for your whining of disrespect, grow up. You were confrontational, and I responded with confrontation. Don't like your logic bubble being burst? Too bad. PPS-As for me talking to myself, too late. PPS- Feel free to morph your question again if you feel the need. I love playing whack-a-mole. Edited February 24, 2011 by Dithers Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) I don't read anything that the Fraser Institute publishes. Because... they've been found to have produced false statistics previously? They've been found to have doctored studies? You don't like what you perceive to be their political views? In other words, do you have any legitimate reason for such a bald statement? I read all evidence presented. I don't care if it's from the Toronto Star, which some sneer at, or the Toronto Sun, which some sneer at. I think the mature thing to do is examine the statements and look for logic and supporting evidence. To say "I don't read anything those people say" is to espouse an extreme ideological tilt that makes it impossible to even discuss political issues with anyone not your particular ideological tilt. Edited February 25, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Because... they've been found to have produced false statistics previously? They've been found to have doctored studies? You don't like what you perceive to be their political views? In other words, do you have any legitimate reason for such a bald statement? I don't read anything they publish because it is nearly the definition of ideological bias. I've read enough to know that. Quote
Bonam Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 I don't read anything they publish because it is nearly the definition of ideological bias. I've read enough to know that. Just because they have a certain "ideological bias" doesn't mean that numbers and data that they present can simply be dismissed out of hand. That kind of attitude also makes it essentially impossible for you to be convinced of a certain point regardless if the evidence exists. The only organizations likely to fund a study into the costs imposed by our immigration policy are likely to be "biased" from your point of view, and so you'll dismiss they're data out of hand. So you've cleverly insulated yourself from ever believing (or even reading) any data that might conflict with your already made-up opinion. That sounds to me almost like a religious belief, a complete faith in something along with the associated rejection of any contrary evidence as unworthy of your perusal. Quote
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) I don't read anything they publish because it is nearly the definition of ideological bias. I've read enough to know that. Really? What you have you read from them then? I'm interested in knowing since I like to constantly update my understanding of biases. And by the way, in my opinion the definition of ideological bias is anyone who says "I don't read anything those people publish". And by the way, you haven't produced a shred of evidence that immigration is in any way helpful to Canada economically. No one has. Edited February 25, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
guyser Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Just because they have a certain "ideological bias" doesn't mean that numbers and data that they present can simply be dismissed out of hand. Yes and no. They have been accused and rightly so for fudging numbers to suit their agenda. The schools report for one,the tax freedom day was another.(they fudged nbumbers that showed our actual tax freedom day was two months earlier) Stuff about no peer review, while they do, it seems , or rather appears selective to whom they give it too. Add on how they were founded, from a grant from the Mac-Blo giant and you come to this. Their oard of directors are all fairly well establisehd right leaning people, some of who really do have an agenda. However, to dismiss all of it out of hand would not be the best move. To each their own. Quote
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Yes and no. They have been accused and rightly so for fudging numbers to suit their agenda. By anyone who has presented any actual evidence to that effect? The schools report for one,the tax freedom day was another.(they fudged nbumbers that showed our actual tax freedom day was two months earlier) The accusation in this regard came from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, did it not? They are essentially, the left wing counterpart to the Fraser Institute, and to my uncertain knowledge their reports have almost invariably disagreed with almost everything every conservative and centrist economic organization has ever written, as well as the budgetary figures for both Liberal and Conservative governments. However, to dismiss all of it out of hand would not be the best move. To each their own. I take anything the CCPA says with a very healthy grain of salt, but I'll at least listen to it. When it comes to economic studies there are all kinds of interpretations of data. Edited February 25, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 I take anything the CCPA says with a very healthy grain of salt, but I'll at least listen to it. I won't. I want numbers with context explained from a trustworthy organization. I have no need for ideological noise. Quote
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 And by the way, you haven't produced a shred of evidence that immigration is in any way helpful to Canada economically. No one has. The government's own data obviously shows that it's helpful. You're the one trying to prove something against the status quo here, not me. If all you can bring forward is biased data, then I'm definitely not convinced. That said, there are problems that immigrants have when they get here. That's why the new points system is being created. That's also why provincial control of immigration is increasing through nominee and work programs. Manitoba's program has been extremely successful in bringing immigrants for needed occupations. There is also going to be an increase in younger immigrants and a decrease in those above a certain age. These are helpful solutions. Simply saying that immigrants is bad, and that's that (it isn't bad, it needs tweaking, but it increases our economic activity [as our population has grown, so has this country's economic output] and increases our cultural diversity, both very good things for this country) isn't a solution or even an argument. That's basically where you (and Bonam) seem to be going with this. Quote
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Just because they have a certain "ideological bias" doesn't mean that numbers and data that they present can simply be dismissed out of hand. I don't read Fox News or the Sun either. Is that OK with you? I prefer to get things from unbiased trustworthy sources. Quote
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 I won't. I want numbers with context explained from a trustworthy organization. I have no need for ideological noise. And how many organizations do you rate as trustworthy? Even government reports have been known to reflect the political and ideological tilt of the minister. I regard the Fraser Institute as relatively trustworthy because, in part, they have established a reputation for being so, and that reputation would be damaged if they lied about easily verifiable figures. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 The government's own data obviously shows that it's helpful Really? What data? Did you also ignore that cite from Statistics Canada I posted because you suspect their ideological biases? You're the one trying to prove something against the status quo here, not me. If all you can bring forward is biased data, then I'm definitely not convinced. I don't think you can legitimately call data biased after stating you refused to read it. That said, there are problems that immigrants have when they get here. That's why the new points system is being created. In order to try and encourage slightly younger immigrants, yes, but in the report you refused to read they discussed this very thing, and dismissed it, as did the Rand Corporation whose quote you also decided to ignore. Unless truly massive numbers of immigrants are brought in, more than double the current rate, immigration will not substantially alter the aging of the population. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 I don't read Fox News or the Sun either. Is that OK with you? I prefer to get things from unbiased trustworthy sources. God? Personally, I don't know of any unbiased sources. Care to share? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 God? Personally, I don't know of any unbiased sources. Care to share? There may not be any completely unbiased sources, but, again, I don't get my news from Coast to Coast AM (well, except for the news section with reports from the CBC, DFP, etc.). I can choose where I get my information, and I'm unconvinced by anything that the Fraser institue does....unless you can explain to me how a country which taxes about 33% of GDP has a tax freedom day in June. Quote
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 But there is this from the Conference Board of Canada: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/524429 Quote
GWiz Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 The government's own data obviously shows that it's helpful. You're the one trying to prove something against the status quo here, not me. If all you can bring forward is biased data, then I'm definitely not convinced. That said, there are problems that immigrants have when they get here. That's why the new points system is being created. That's also why provincial control of immigration is increasing through nominee and work programs. Manitoba's program has been extremely successful in bringing immigrants for needed occupations. There is also going to be an increase in younger immigrants and a decrease in those above a certain age. These are helpful solutions. Simply saying that immigrants is bad, and that's that (it isn't bad, it needs tweaking, but it increases our economic activity [as our population has grown, so has this country's economic output] and increases our cultural diversity, both very good things for this country) isn't a solution or even an argument. That's basically where you (and Bonam) seem to be going with this. Might be a good point to mention that Manitoba has Canada's lowest unimployment rate (around 5%) as well as a significant housing shortage (which means jobs to build more houses)... A Win-win one could say... Just Sayin' Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 There may not be any completely unbiased sources, but, again, I don't get my news from Coast to Coast AM (well, except for the news section with reports from the CBC, DFP, etc.). I can choose where I get my information, and I'm unconvinced by anything that the Fraser institue does....unless you can explain to me how a country which taxes about 33% of GDP has a tax freedom day in June. Federal taxes can be at 33%. Mine are quite a bit higher, I'm afraid. But you have to add in provincial taxes, as well as sales taxes. None of us really add up how much we spend on provincial and federal sales taxes in a year. If we did we'd be a lot angrier. On top of that there are taxes on the goods we buy which we don't even see because they were paid at some earlier level of production, distribution or transportation. For example, just off the top of my head, the taxes on the fuel needed for the trucks which ship your goods to the store. Those taxes become part of the cost of that product, and thus are passed on to you. Oh, and let's not forget municipal taxes. I have to send a check to the city for several thousand dollars every year. In other words, it complicated. And if you really disagreed with when Tax Freedom Day was you ought to have read the background on the report to see their figures. But I bet you didn't do that, did you? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Federal taxes can be at 33%. The total tax load of the Canadian economy is 30 - 33%, as measured by the OECD and the Heritage Foundation in the US (I wouldn't trust those numbers from the latter, if not for the former). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Quote
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 In other words, it complicated. And if you really disagreed with when Tax Freedom Day was you ought to have read the background on the report to see their figures. But I bet you didn't do that, did you? I know then numbers are wrong. There's no way that the average Canadian pays almost 45% tax, especially given the tax load of the economy and the fact that most taxes are personal (meaning corporate taxes change the numbers very little). Quote
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 But there is this from the Conference Board of Canada: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/524429 You dismiss the Fraser report because of perceived bias and then you embrace a report by a business advocacy group? Yes, as I previously admitted, big business loves immigration. It even loves refugees. You'll note the report called for more refugees... Why? Because it helps keep wages down. The report you refer to was financed by the following organizations. Lead Investors KPMG LLP Ontario Ministry of Finance RBC Financial Group Scotiabank Sustaining Investors Alberta Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Bombardier Inc. Brookfield Lepage Johnson Controls Ltd. Business Development Bank of Canada Deloitte & Touche LLP E.H. Price Limited EnCana Corporation Government of Saskatchewan Hydro-Québec Industry Canada Infrastructure Canada Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. Microsoft Canada Co. National Bank of Canada Nexen Inc. Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Rio Tinto Alcan Siemens Canada Limited SNC Lavalin Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Sustainable Development Technology Canada Symcor Inc. TELUS Communications Company Viterra It's always good to know who's paying for a report, if at all possible. Now, unlike yourself, I actually looked at the report. It's a pretty breathlessly one sided call for more immigrants in order to serve business better. There are no downsides mentioned. There's nothing in the report about overcrowding, pollution, the cost to government of the immigration system, nor, by the way, is there any actual evidence in there, any demographic data, for example, that I could find, on which they are basing their desire for more immigration. Teh Fraser report, on the other hand, uses government demographic data and illustrates the various effects of different levels of immigration. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 You dismiss the Fraser report because of perceived bias and then you embrace a report by a business advocacy group? Yes? And? They've never lied to me, as far as I know. Quote
Scotty Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 I know then numbers are wrong. There's no way that the average Canadian pays almost 45% tax, especially given the tax load of the economy and the fact that most taxes are personal (meaning corporate taxes change the numbers very little). You don't know that at all. The average Canadian salary is what, about $45,000? So let's see, if we figure the federal tax load is 33%, and the person owns a house which requires a $2500 (that's on the low side) municipal tax payment, then their tax rate is already up past 38%. Add in provincial taxes, then sales taxes. How much of our income do we actually pay in sales taxes? If we say 5% then we're already up to 42%, and personally, I think we pay more than 5%. I think it's probably closer to 10%. Anyway, I don't see the 45% figure as necessarily outrageous. I'd have to look at the data - which is what you should have done. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.