Topaz Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Posted June 23, 2011 After listening to the debate on this topic in the House, anyone watching would have to say the government and Canada Post are outline on this. How can any worker in this country hope to have a fair and in good faith bargaining when Canada Post is backed up by the government. Canada Post offers one wage and then the government comes in at a lower wage increase. The governemnt should stay out of it. As long as the mail was being delievered 3x a week, mail was getting through and most were happy but Canada Post, who then decides to lock out the workers and stop mail from being delievered. What makes this laughable is the Tories stand up and say they looking after the taxpayers and spending their money wisely. Really?? The Tories have been using that phrase a lot in the House and who in their right mind would believe it, we all know different. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) The government constantly runs to the aid of business with their bailout packages and now their union busting back to work legislation. Hell, I'm not so much mad at the back-to-work legislation as I am the government legislating the pay increase. That's just ridiculous. How about a bailout package for the people? You keep reducing taxes for the corporations to make them competitive. How about reducing the taxes for the people to allow them to buy the things they value. It's time to stop with the supply-side myth and start focusing on helping out the demand-side. Edited June 23, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Moonbox Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Canada Post offers one wage and then the government comes in at a lower wage increase. The governemnt should stay out of it. As long as the mail was being delievered 3x a week, mail was getting through and most were happy but Canada Post, who then decides to lock out the workers and stop mail from being delievered. The government should stay out of the business of a Crown Corporation? News for you Topaz: We pay taxes to support Canada Post. The notion that Canada Post's largely unskilled and uneducated workforce should have free reign to disrupt a relatively vital Crown Corporation and try to force taxpayer to pay wages and benefits that are unavailable in the private sector for the same qualifications is a JOKE. What makes this laughable is the Tories stand up and say they looking after the taxpayers and spending their money wisely. Really?? The Tories have been using that phrase a lot in the House and who in their right mind would believe it, we all know different. Topaz I see your use of logic has not improved over the last several months. Whether or not you disagree with the Tories' spending up to this point does not in any way disprove the fact that they saved us money by not allowing a union of losers to shake us down for wages they don't deserve. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Why have an executive board then? Why don't we just make the cabinet the executive board of Crown Corporations then? Quote
Boges Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Why have an executive board then? Why don't we just make the cabinet the executive board of Crown Corporations then? Don't tease me. That would save so much taxpayer money. Quote
Topaz Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Posted June 23, 2011 Moonbox, since you are saying the government has a right to interfere into the talks because tax payers money is used, THEN, they must also agree that the government can interfere with private companies who are given loans to keep the company going when a strike happens? One, because they got taxpayers money and two, because of the economy effect on the region of a long strike. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 Topaz I do agree with that. I was disgusted with the way the auto bailouts happened and it's one of the reasons I'm not really all that thrilled with Barack Obama. He and Harper sold out taxpayers to bail out (hold back your shock) the idiotic pension plans of the unions that ran their respective companies into bankruptcy in the first place. The shareholders and creditors of GM and Chrysler ended up with next to nothing. The Unions somehow got away clean. I found it rather fascinating how Barack Obama's biggest campaign contributor was the UAW and how he then proceeded to fleece the taxpayers who elected him to scratch the back of the union that funded his election bid. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Topaz Posted June 24, 2011 Author Report Posted June 24, 2011 Why doesn't Canada Post, stop the lockout, let the workers go back to work and keeping on talking with the union? Is it that they know they have the government on their side and the power. During the debate, it came out that any savings to the Canada Post , the CEO can get it in bonuses. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 I want my little royality cheaque from 1997...and I want it now - I am out of smokes! Quote
Triple M Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 The government constantly runs to the aid of business with their bailout packages and now their union busting back to work legislation. Hell, I'm not so much mad at the back-to-work legislation as I am the government legislating the pay increase. That's just ridiculous. How about a bailout package for the people? You keep reducing taxes for the corporations to make them competitive. How about reducing the taxes for the people to allow them to buy the things they value. It's time to stop with the supply-side myth and start focusing on helping out the demand-side. I would like to see more tax cuts for average people as well but lets not forget that their has been some tax relief over the last 5 years in terms of the GST/taking people off tax rolls. With that being said I would argue that the avg Canadian overall has seen little reduction overall. Quote
Topaz Posted June 24, 2011 Author Report Posted June 24, 2011 Canadians are paying more in taxes and the middle-income is trying to keep heads above the water. The government by reducing the corp.tax more and more, they won't have the revenues coming in so that means more taxes for us. Sure the Tories brings in tax splitting for the seniors but I bet they are still paying more in taxes. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tax-man-to-hit-canadian-workers-harder-in-2011/article1851480/ Quote
Moonbox Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 Corporate tax rates are widely considered by economists to be one of the least efficient taxes there are. What's the wisdom in taxing the productive and wealth-generating ententies. Lowering tax rates for corporations actually DOES help generate jobs and it also increases corporate profit which, believe it or not, does not all go to greedy CEO's and rich shareholders. Huge amounts of that profit are reinvested in the form of retained earnings, which help the company expand, purchase assets and grow further (thus generating even more jobs). I'd rather see that money spent on corporate tax cuts, which will help create wealth in Canada, as well as lower prices, than on the pensions, benefits and salaries of people whose main job qualifications are the ability to read addresses and move their legs. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Evening Star Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 Corporate tax rates are widely considered by economists to be one of the least efficient taxes there are. I'm no economist but what I've read is much less clear-cut than this. I've seen economists argue both sides. I actually do think, in general, that business taxes should not be too onerous and would favour higher personal income taxes and inheritance taxes. However, our corporate taxes are already comparatively low, relative to other countries'. It's hard to say whether we'd benefit from lowering them any further at this point. Quote
RNG Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 I'm no economist but what I've read is much less clear-cut than this. I've seen economists argue both sides. I actually do think, in general, that business taxes should not be too onerous and would favour higher personal income taxes and inheritance taxes. However, our corporate taxes are already comparatively low, relative to other countries'. It's hard to say whether we'd benefit from lowering them any further at this point. Realizing full well that some will argue, bringing up points not related to this, but look at Ireland before they let their banking stupidity ruin them. One of the lowest corporate taxes in the developed world, and they attracted industry and were a booming economy. The fall had nothing to do with corporate tax, it was because of lack of regulation of the finance sector. The thing that gets me the most is most "lefties" to use Derek L.'s term can't seem to understand that corporations, companies, conglomerates, whatever you want to call them get their money from you. If the government takes more of their money, they just take more of yours. You don't win, and sometimes you lose because they move to where the taxes are lower, and you lose jobs and that jurisdiction gains jobs. Think about it. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
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.