Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 What people YOU! want to know is who's 90k Duffy wasted and why, and how deep into the PMO does it go. Alta. and BC already have carbon taxes. Works very well in both provinces. And if you're tracking embarrasing statements, try listening to Harper in QP sometime. So you think a Federal Carbon Tax to double up on it will be met well? El-Oh-El! JT has said nothing he'd do, other than maybe legalizing pot, that will make Canadians lives better. See his poll numbers as evidence of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 So you think a Federal Carbon Tax to double up on it will be met well? El-Oh-El! JT has said nothing he'd do, other than maybe legalizing pot, that will make Canadians lives better. See his poll numbers as evidence of this. He's also said he'd bring the OAP age back to 65 from Harper's 67 and that he'd chuck out the ridiculously expensive income splitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 He's also said he'd bring the OAP age back to 65 from Harper's 67 and that he'd chuck out the ridiculously expensive income splitting. That doesn't effect the average person. Retiring by 65 will likely be a pipe dream for people who will be effected by it now. Birth rates are dropping, people don't have pensions and people live a lot longer. It's a relic. Income-Splitting might be a vote winner, their internal polling must tell them it is. Regardless, not doing doesn't make anyone's life better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 That doesn't effect the average person. Retiring by 65 will likely be a pipe dream for people who will be effected by it now. Birth rates are dropping, people don't have pensions and people live a lot longer. It's a relic. Income-Splitting might be a vote winner, their internal polling must tell them it is. Regardless, not doing doesn't make anyone's life better. Not doing it will save putting a huge amount of taxpayer dollars in the pockets of people who don't need it which can then be better spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Not doing it will save putting a huge amount of taxpayer dollars in the pockets of people who don't need it which can then be better spent. Yeah, Taxpayers don't need that money the Federal Government takes from them. Just pay your taxes like a good monkey and put your child in daycare. Saying that a "taxpayer" doesn't "need" their own money is the type of Nanny State crap that makes me really believe the Liberals are completely out of touch with the average person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Yeah, Taxpayers don't need that money the Federal Government takes from them. Just pay your taxes like a good monkey and put your child in daycare. Saying that a "taxpayer" doesn't "need" their own money is the type of Nanny State crap that makes me really believe the Liberals are completely out of touch with the average person. Obviously you know nothing of how income splitting works. About 14% of families will qualify and they are those making a combined income of something north of 100k. Talk about being out of touch with the average person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Obviously you know nothing of how income splitting works. About 14% of families will qualify and they are those making a combined income of something north of 100k. Talk about being out of touch with the average person. Those are the people that pay a good chunk of the taxes in the first place. Regardless, it's not a wedge issue. If it was we would say JT actually benefitting from being opposed to it. Now if he wants to raise taxes, Now that'll be a wedge issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Those are the people that pay a good chunk of the taxes in the first place. Regardless, it's not a wedge issue. If it was we would say JT actually benefitting from being opposed to it. Now if he wants to raise taxes, Now that'll be a wedge issue. Carbon tax, as applied by BC, is revenue neutral and has reduced the provinces carbon footprint. Win/win. Harper calls the idea crazy. So much for the "progressive" part ov conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Carbon tax, as applied by BC, is revenue neutral and has reduced the provinces carbon footprint. Win/win. Harper calls the idea crazy. So much for the "progressive" part ov conservative. And Ontario is going to implement one too. So the Feds implementing one is just piling on. And if you believe it's ACTUALLY revenue neutral I have a $1 million dollars I'd like to give to you. They may soften the blow by lower income taxes but there's no way to make it revenue neutral, and if people did stop driving then the governments would lose out. That's a debate to be had in another thread though. Excellent job de-railing the thread. Can't talk about Federal Polls because your man JT is doing poorly so just talk about baseless accusations of a snap election. Slow Clap. Edited January 26, 2015 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 He's also said he'd bring the OAP age back to 65 from Harper's 67 Lies and fear-mongering from the Left again. OAS eligibility will not start to increase to 67 until 2023 and will not be fully phased in until 2029. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxes/canada-pension-plan-vs-old-age-security-the-differences-explained-1.1239963 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 And Ontario is going to implement one too. So the Feds implementing one is just piling on. And if you believe it's ACTUALLY revenue neutral I have a $1 million dollars I'd like to give to you. They may soften the blow by lower income taxes but there's no way to make it revenue neutral, and if people did stop driving then the governments would lose out. That's a debate to be had in another thread though. Excellent job de-railing the thread. Can't talk about Federal Polls because your man JT is doing poorly so just talk about baseless accusations of a snap election. Slow Clap. Nobody has stopped driving, they are just a little more careful about how they drive, combining trips etc. Ontario is planning to adopt the same revenue neutral plan BC uses. The Alta. model is a good one as well though were they take the proceeds and plow them into renewable enrgy developement. You know, that stuff Harper reckons is "crazy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Nobody has stopped driving, they are just a little more careful about how they drive, combining trips etc. Ontario is planning to adopt the same revenue neutral plan BC uses. The Alta. model is a good one as well though were they take the proceeds and plow them into renewable enrgy developement. You know, that stuff Harper reckons is "crazy". It's easy for Ontario to do it now that prices are low BTW. Wynne cowardly backed off a transit tax last year facing an election and now that we're seeing gas prices we never thought we'd see she wants to tack on a Carbon tax. That's not leadership, that's reactionary and irresponsible. Continue to derail the thread though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Lies and fear-mongering from the Left again. OAS eligibility will not start to increase to 67 until 2023 and will not be fully phased in until 2029. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxes/canada-pension-plan-vs-old-age-security-the-differences-explained-1.1239963 How is quoting the governments stated plan "lies and fear mongering"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 How is quoting the governments stated plan "lies and fear mongering"? Because he hasn't done it yet. It's a plan to do it. He hasn't stolen a cent out of grannies pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Because he hasn't done it yet. It's a plan to do it. He hasn't stolen a cent out of grannies pocket. So it sounds like you have doubts about the plan as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) So it sounds like you have doubts about the plan as well. I have doubt about how anyone in this generation short of trust fund kids and civil servants are going to be able to comfortably retire. And I'm part of that generation. It's more a culprit of demographics though. People are living a lot longer than these pension plans were designed for. Burying your head in the sand wont fix the problem. It's certainly not a problem you can put at the foot of the CPC and it's certainly not going to be solved by a provincial pension plan. Perhaps we need Another period of industrial expansion necessitated by a World War followed by dramatic and unsustainable growth in population in the developed world. Edited January 26, 2015 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) He's also said he'd bring the OAP age back to 65 from Harper's 67If he really said this then he is a loon that does not understand basic economics and it would be a disaster with him in charge of the budget. I suspect he had some caveats that make it less insane than it sounds. Edited January 26, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I have doubt about how anyone in this generation short of trust fund kids and civil servants are going to be able to comfortably retire. And I'm part of that generation. It's more a culprit of demographics though. People are living a lot longer than these pension plans were designed for. Burying your head in the sand wont fix the problem. It's certainly not a problem you can put at the foot of the CPC and it's certainly not going to be solved by a provincial pension plan. Perhaps we need Another period of industrial expansion necessitated by a World War followed by dramatic and unsustainable growth in population in the developed world. Take the money earmarked for income splitting and bolstr the pension plans. Much better use of public money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) If he really said this then he is a loon that does not understand basic economics and it would be a disaster with him in charge of the budget. I suspect he had some caveats that make it less insane than it sounds. It'll balance itself! Incontheevable! Edited January 26, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 If he really said this then he is a loon that does not understand basic economics and it would be a disaster with him in charge of the budget. I suspect he had some caveats that make it less insane than it sounds. Apparently you haven't followed what Harper did with the budget surplus he was handed when he first came to power, if you want to talk about budgetary didasters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I'm surprised Trudeau's "hidden agenda" hasn't yet been brought up...........I wonder how popular the Liberals plan of tapping CPP as piggybank for their election promises will be among Canadians.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Apparently you haven't followed what Harper did with the budget surplus he was handed when he first came to power, if you want to talk about budgetary didasters. Yep, if only Paul Martin was still in power Canada would have kept balancing the books through the 2008 recession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Yep, if only Paul Martin was still in power Canada would have kept balancing the books through the 2008 recession. I guess we'll never know. We do know what Harper did though. How many millions on this stupid economic action plan? which went absolutely nowhere. And Harper is supposed to be an economist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I guess we'll never know. We do know what Harper did though. How many millions on this stupid economic action plan? which went absolutely nowhere. And Harper is supposed to be an economist. Are you on crack? The Stimulus spending was a requirement of not bringing the government down a month after the 2008 election. Of course Ignatieff no wait Stephane Dion would have done Stimulus spending right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Are you on crack? The Stimulus spending was a requirement of not bringing the government down a month after the 2008 election. Of course Ignatieff no wait Stephane Dion would have done Stimulus spending right. How did stimulus spending have anything to do with the gov being or not being brought down, speaking of being on crack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.