.

[g_bambino]

Those households making over 90 K a year (the rich) will have to finally pay their share to make all Canadians equal.

Mmmm.... The Great Banality. Sounds... boring.

[jacee]

Conservatives say Professional Agitators behind the RoboCalls Legal fight.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-say-professional-agitators-behind-robo-calls-legal-fight/article2443180/comments/

A very desperate argument. I doubt the courts will toss out the case based on this strategy. There could be many other ways to rule on the 7 ridings, but the Conservatives sound desperate.

I was amused by this comment.

“Unlike the epithets thrown at their political opponents, we aren’t being accused of being Nazi sympathizers, or terrorists, or being on the side of the child pornographers,” he said.

“I only wish the Conservatives had put as much time and effort into their investigation of the robo-calls scandal as they’ve put into chastising the Council of Canadians.”

"Desperate" is right!

The whole argument against the CoC-sponsored lawsuit is that it's opposition to the 'reigning' government which, last time I checked, we're still allowed to do in Canada! Before you know it, self-appointed King Stephen will be bellowing

"Off with their heads!"

The whole tone of their 'defence' is absolutely ridiculous.

But who am I to criticize the Conservatives for shooting themselves in the foot ... again!

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are asking a court to dismiss legal bids for new elections in seven ridings because they say, the group financing this is full of “professional agitators” who hate Tories and want to topple the government.

I see where they're going here ... in the direction of 'treason' ... trying to make it apppear that opposition to the party in power is unpatriotic at best, treasonous at worst, re-defining democratic protest and legal action, "radicals" and "terrorists" and "professional agitators" exercising their legal and democratic rights. How dare we!

Nobody's trying to 'overthrow government' (a 'treasonous terrorist activity') Harper Tories are not "the government". "Government" in Canada includes ... Parliament (HoC and Senate including all parties) Executive (PMO, PCO) and Judiciary.

Trying to topple the party in power is the name of the game in Canada. It's built into the system. If the party in power has lost the confidence of Parliament (representing all Canadians), then the government falls. Nothing wrong with that: It's part of the checks and balances built into the system to protect Canadians from rogue parties who overstep their mandate.

And certainly we have the right to challenge them in court for possibly illegal actions. I mean really! Harper thinks we can't raise legal challenges? He's totally out of line.

Obviously they have absolutely no defence re the actual issues. Resorting to smear jobs and threats betrays a poverty of legal defence.

We can't seek to legally overturn illegally obtained election results?

What planet are the HarperCons living on!

Edited May 25, 2012 by jacee

[Scotty]

The West is becoming more and more left-wing. next election you will see the "real" orange wave. We haven't seen a great leader in the likes of Mulcair in ages. Mulcair will make sure all Canadians are provided for. Those households making over 90 K a year (the rich) will have to finally pay their share to make all Canadians equal.50% of their income should be taxed in order to help those who need the help.

Household income over over $90 K just means two working parents making about $46k apiece. You think that is rich? Good luck with that!

What you're calling 'rich' are simply 'taxpayers', which is what the poorer people are NOT. And it is these people who fund all the services that people who earn less consume, even while they pay nothing themselves.

I think we need to amend the income tax system so that everyone has to pay at least something. Otherwise, if you contribute nothing, then you should not be considered a full citizen, and should not be allowed to vote.

[guyser]

Otherwise, if you contribute nothing, then you should not be considered a full citizen, and should not be allowed to vote.

Ok cool !

Since everyone contributes something, then everyone has a say.

[Canuckistani]

Household income over over $90 K just means two working parents making about $46k apiece. You think that is rich? Good luck with that!

What you're calling 'rich' are simply 'taxpayers', which is what the poorer people are NOT. And it is these people who fund all the services that people who earn less consume, even while they pay nothing themselves.

I think we need to amend the income tax system so that everyone has to pay at least something. Otherwise, if you contribute nothing, then you should not be considered a full citizen, and should not be allowed to vote.

Every working person pays EI and CPP - the regressive parts of the Income tax system. They pay all the other regressive taxes out there as well - HST, gas tax, property tax, etc.

I think his precription for a 50% tax at 90k is way too extreme, but the top two quintiles definitely need to be paying more income tax.

[Smallc]

Low income people don't really pay GST/HST. CPP isn't really a regressive tax, or a tax at all.

[Signals.Cpl]

I think the entire argument that socialist is trying to make is that we should tax the rich(employed) and give it to the poor(unemployed) so that everyone makes the same amount. Trust me, that doesn't work.

[Canuckistani]

We can round and round on that. Bottom line is that poor people take out more in govt services than they contribute. That's how it's supposed to be, that's how income redistribution is supposed to work.

[Signals.Cpl]

We can round and round on that. Bottom line is that poor people take out more in govt services than they contribute. That's how it's supposed to be, that's how income redistribution is supposed to work.

Yeah but as a result we should punish the workers who make a decent money

[Canuckistani]

Yeah but as a result we should punish the workers who make a decent money

What do you mean punish? If you don't take tax money from those who make decent money, where will the money to run a modern state come from?

Edited May 25, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Fletch 27]

Simple! All day-day care! After all, Its and essential service according to the Liberals and we can tax the pop and fries with Gravy they consume! Ooops, Its free as well... But essetial right?

What do you mean punish? If you don't take tax money from those who make decent money, where will the money to run a modern state come from?

[Canuckistani]

Simple! All day-day care! After all, Its and essential service according to the Liberals and we can tax the pop and fries with Gravy they consume! Ooops, Its free as well... But essetial right?

huh?

[Fletch 27]

Taxes going to programs that are not needed. Do we need all-day day care? Or is that something thats a waste of taxes? Taxes are fine but dont waste them or flaunt them to buy the union votes.

huh?

[Signals.Cpl]

What do you mean punish? If you don't take tax money from those who make decent money, where will the money to run a modern state come from?

There is or at least should be a limit to taxation, I mean if I make 300 thousand dollars there should be a limit to taxation. Taxing me at 60 or 70 percent to support someone who makes less. I am all for taxing people based on their income, up to a limit.

[jacee]

Taxes going to programs that are not needed. Do we need all-day day care?

Only if employers expect people to work all day. Let me know when that changes, eh?

Edited May 25, 2012 by jacee

[Vendetta]

90k is not nearly rich. People in that tax bracket already get hit the hardest. Not everyone should live "equally". That does not motivate anyone to strive to improve their lot in life. Hard work should be rewarded with a higher standard of living. The scales at this time are tipped heavily in favour of the very wealthy. Pivate corporate interests are able to interfere with the democratic process and have too much influence over our government. The rich should definitely be giving more back to the society that they benefit the most from, but 90k is not even close to rich.

[Canuckistani]

There is or at least should be a limit to taxation, I mean if I make 300 thousand dollars there should be a limit to taxation. Taxing me at 60 or 70 percent to support someone who makes less. I am all for taxing people based on their income, up to a limit.

There is a limit. Currently in Canada it's 29 percent on income over 139k. So on your 300k taxable (don't forget all your tax breaks) income you would be paying about 76k in taxes for an effective rate of 25%. That's too low.

[Canuckistani]

90k is not nearly rich. People in that tax bracket already get hit the hardest. Not everyone should live "equally". That does not motivate anyone to strive to improve their lot in life. Hard work should be rewarded with a higher standard of living. The scales at this time are tipped heavily in favour of the very wealthy. Pivate corporate interests are able to interfere with the democratic process and have too much influence over our government. The rich should definitely be giving more back to the society that they benefit the most from, but 90k is not even close to rich.

A Canadian with an annual income of $89,000 qualifies for membership in the exclusive club that includes the top 5 per cent of the nation's earners.

I would say being in the top 5% qualifies as being rich. But that of course somebody that's super rich should pay a higher percentage of their income than somebody that just squeaked into the rich category. Or income tax brackets top out at 29% for income over 130,000. We need higher brackets for higher incomes.

[Signals.Cpl]

I would say being in the top 5% qualifies as being rich. But that of course somebody that's super rich should pay a higher percentage of their income than somebody that just squeaked into the rich category. Or income tax brackets top out at 29% for income over 130,000. We need higher brackets for higher incomes.

Within a limit, at some point people start wondering why they dedicate so much time and money going to school to get a high paying job and pay so much in taxes to live at the same standard as those who chose to forgo school.

[Canuckistani]

Within a limit, at some point people start wondering why they dedicate so much time and money going to school to get a high paying job and pay so much in taxes to live at the same standard as those who chose to forgo school.

I'm sure they would. Can you point to a country where that is the case?

[g_bambino]

If the party in power has lost the confidence of Parliament (representing all Canadians), then the government falls. Nothing wrong with that: It's part of the checks and balances built into the system to protect Canadians from rogue parties who overstep their mandate.

Sure. Except the Conservative Party holds a majority in the House of Commons. It's thus unlikely that the government will lose the confidence of the majority in that chamber. .....Unless, that is, the make-up of that chamber can be affected by outside, non-electoral forces, which is obviously what the lawsuit launchers are trying to do.

We can't seek to legally overturn illegally obtained election results?

When it's been determined the election results were reached illegally, sure. That hasn't happened yet.

[Signals.Cpl]

I'm sure they would. Can you point to a country where that is the case?

Many hardline communist countries that believed in equality for all, at some point the doctor begins to wonder why his living standard is only marginally better then the cleaning lady. IF we believe in equality and I make 300k and then the government take 60% in taxes then gives it to someone who makes say 50k/year because they are "poor" then how can you justify that I have tens if not hundreds of thousands in student loans and in some cases a decade of education to make only a good living and watch the government take a very large chunk because I am of the evil 5%. I believe in taxing corporations, and taxing the super rich but the reality is encouraging people to work hard to become something should be a priority rather then tell people that you can work hard and we will take your money and give it to someone who is not and did not work as hard as you.

[Signals.Cpl]

Only if employers expect people to work all day. Let me know when that changes, eh?

And how do you intent to pay for all day daycare?

[g_bambino]

And how do you intent to pay for all day daycare?

By blocking streets in protest until someone else pays for it, of course.

[Canuckistani]

Many hardline communist countries that believed in equality for all, at some point the doctor begins to wonder why his living standard is only marginally better then the cleaning lady. IF we believe in equality and I make 300k and then the government take 60% in taxes then gives it to someone who makes say 50k/year because they are "poor" then how can you justify that I have tens if not hundreds of thousands in student loans and in some cases a decade of education to make only a good living and watch the government take a very large chunk because I am of the evil 5%. I believe in taxing corporations, and taxing the super rich but the reality is encouraging people to work hard to become something should be a priority rather then tell people that you can work hard and we will take your money and give it to someone who is not and did not work as hard as you.

And what do hard line communist countries have to do with Canada?

Your example about 60% has nothing to do with Canada. The govt isn't giving somebody earning 59k money because they are poor - they're taking taxes from them. The govt is giving them, and you, a whole bunch of services - health care, education, military, policing and the courts, roads and infrastructure (which has been allowed to crumble), food safety (which has been cut back) etc etc etc.