.

[Argus]

That's funny, economists tell us how successful the carbon tax has been here in BC. However, that's off topic.

The BC carbon tax is revenue neutral, which neither Ontario's version, nor Trudeau's version will be. In addition, BC is BC. It has neither the big oil production of other provinces, nor the big manufacturing of central Canada.

[On Guard for Thee]

You wouldn't be able to go to the hospital, or a school, or university, or any government agency or building, or be employed there. The ban was not merely for public service personnel it was for anyone interacting with them, and for ALL state agencies.

Well it didn't quite say that, for instance opt out's were provided for hospitals and universities, and elected officials were exempt. However, if it was so popular as you say, why did it cost the PQ it's power, and the bill to end up dead on the order paper?

[dialamah]

Why is telling the truth fear-mongering? Increasing taxes always cost jobs. That's especially so on business.

This is basic, bedrock economics, and the Liberals, both federally and provincially, in Ontario, are counting on the economic ignorance of people like you.

Buffett doesn't think that's true

""The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you," Warren Buffett, the world's third wealthiest person, recently told ABC News' Christiane Amanpour: "But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." Buffet joined more than 40 of the nation's millionaires -- part of a group called Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength -- to ask President Obama to discontinue Bush's tax breaks for the rich."

[The_Squid]

Are you so fundamentally ignorant that you don't understand the basic correlation between the input costs to a business, and the success and thus job creating ability of business?

lol

So you have no cite... of course it's "common sense"...

And you want to claim that someone else is ignorant? Blanket statements like "raising taxes kill jobs" is a simple-minded CPC talking point.

[Argus]

Well it didn't quite say that, for instance opt out's were provided for hospitals and universities, and elected officials were exempt. However, if it was so popular as you say, why did it cost the PQ it's power, and the bill to end up dead on the order paper?

It didn't cost the PQ its power. If it had the Liberals would not have introduced another one.

[Argus]

Buffett doesn't think that's true

""The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you," Warren Buffett, the world's third wealthiest person, recently told ABC News' Christiane Amanpour: "But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." Buffet joined more than 40 of the nation's millionaires -- part of a group called Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength -- to ask President Obama to discontinue Bush's tax breaks for the rich."

Buffet was speaking about the wealthy who pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes because they have so many available tax loopholes and so much of their money comes in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. He wasn't advocating increasing taxes on business. He's against raising the minimum wage, and one of his major holdings is Wal-Mart.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Further, despite the way you and others seem to be taking it, he's not giving away free money. Borrowed money has to be repaid eventually, and since he's spending it on expanding government programs, the only way to wind up paying for that in the long term is increasing taxes. As for the Ontario pension plan, that will unquestionably cost jobs. All payroll taxes cost jobs, because it means every time a business hires another person he has to pay more to the government for pensions, unemployment, workers compensation, etc.

This is basic, bedrock economics, and the Liberals, both federally and provincially, in Ontario, are counting on the economic ignorance of people like you.

False claim again and this proves you not me has economic ignorance. They spend the money on infrastructure programs not expanding government programs. Likely budget for departments remains frozen but investments will be made on Canada's crumbling infrastructure. You are either deliberately making a false statement or are ignorant.

As for borrowed money, That is exactly what Tories did in 2008. They borrowed money to spend on infrastructure to avoid a depression in Canada. And now Liberals planning to borrow (not as much as Tories but 10 billion dollars not 50 billion as Tories did in 2008) to invest in our crumbling infrastructure so that they create jobs for Canadians and kick start this dreadfully slow economy.. We are in an economic slow down and a boost is needed.

Edited October 11, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[The_Squid]

this thread has drifted away from the topic in a big way...

[On Guard for Thee]

It didn't cost the PQ its power. If it had the Liberals would not have introduced another one.

The PQ lost with the lowest % of the popular vote since their first run at office. The proposed bill 62 is quite a watered down version of 60.

[GostHacked]

Why is telling the truth fear-mongering? I

Ask yourself that question next time you tell someone they are fear-mongering when they tell you what your government is doing.

[Argus]

False presentation again and this proves you not me has economic ignorance. They spend the money on infrastructure programs not expanding government programs. Likely budget for departments remains frozen but investments will be made on Canada's crumbling infrastructure. You are either deliberately making a false statement or are ignorant.

Altogether, I calculate annual spending under the Liberals would be about $15-billion higher, on average, than under the budget plan. Of that total, little more than a quarter — about $4.2-billion a year — would be for infrastructure. And of that, two thirds is infrastructure only in the sense that easier EI payments are an investment: the party calls these “social infrastructure” (e.g., daycare centres) and “green infrastructure” (e.g., water filtration plants).

Whatever other benefits these may bring, they will do nothing to raise national output. We are not going to get rich looking after each other’s children.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-liberal-fiscal-plan-thats-all-for-show

In contrast to the $25-billion a year for families, the Liberals would be spending about $5-billion on “infrastructure,” more than pledged by the Conservatives. The gap between the two would hardly be enough to kick-start the economy “now,” as the Liberals claim.

Whatever the impact of the $5-billion, it represents only about 15 per cent of the Liberals’ planned additional spending, although listening to Leader Justin Trudeau and his candidates, the unwary might suppose the share to be much higher.

Put another way, the pledge to run deficits to kick-start the economy through infrastructure, which is the way the party presents the plan, is misleading because so much more money is being allocated on a plethora of new and existing programs or tax cuts.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/liberals-platform-promises-much-but-how-much-can-they-deliver/article26690262/

[dre]

Are you so fundamentally ignorant that you don't understand the basic correlation between the input costs to a business, and the success and thus job creating ability of business?

Nobody with even a passing understanding of economics would make the claim you did. Talk about ignorant.

The effect taxation levels have on business depends entirely on how taxes are allocated and what the money is spent on. Businesses thrive in modern nations with good infrastructure, low crime, low poverty, and an educated and healthy population. And staffing decisions are based almost completely on the demand for the widgets a given business produces and the near term projected demand for those widgets. No business is going to cut its labor force when demand is increasing or stable because of a small tax hike. They would make less profit if they did that.

[LesActive]

I spent the last week going through this whole thread (yes, I had time to kill) and I'm actually quite satisfied that I did. I've learned a lot about fear, including the term "metaphobe". I quite like that one.

IMO, tighty whitey of the old stock lost the debate (and the court challenge) so folks are STILL free to express their various faiths in harmless ways. Huzzah!

As much as I dislike the legal system, they got this one right. Bring on the ninjas!

Edited October 12, 2015 by LesActive

[poochy]

Nobody with even a passing understanding of economics would make the claim you did. Talk about ignorant.

The effect taxation levels have on business depends entirely on how taxes are allocated and what the money is spent on. Businesses thrive in modern nations with good infrastructure, low crime, low poverty, and an educated and healthy population. And staffing decisions are based almost completely on the demand for the widgets a given business produces and the near term projected demand for those widgets. No business is going to cut its labor force when demand is increasing or stable because of a small tax hike. They would make less profit if they did that.

This must be why so much production is moving to Mexico. The excellent infrastructure, the low crime rate, the low poverty, the...ugh.

[Argus]

Nobody with even a passing understanding of economics would make the claim you did. Talk about ignorant.

Clearly your knowledge of economics would need a few years of intense study even to be described as 'passing'.

The effect taxation levels have on business depends entirely on how taxes are allocated and what the money is spent on.

Drivel.

Businesses thrive in modern nations with good infrastructure, low crime, low poverty, and an educated and healthy population.

What has that got to do with the price of apples?

Spain has an educated and healthy work force with good infrastructure and low crime. Is business thriving? Is business thriving in Greece or Italy?

And staffing decisions are based almost completely on the demand for the widgets a given business produces and the near term projected demand for those widgets. No business is going to cut its labor force when demand is increasing or stable because of a small tax hike.

You leave out the impact of competition, which isn't surprising. It's a subject the Left tends to ignore all the time. It makes them uncomfortable even to talk about it.

So factory A makes widgets in Ontario and is subject to various payroll taxes, including the new Ontario Pension Plan, and the new Carbon Tax, as well as increased labour costs through a rising minimum wage. This factory competes with factory B in Louisiana and factory C in Singapore. Neither of them have to pay carbon taxes, have lower wages for their employees, cheaper energy prices, and much lower payroll taxes. Because of this they can produce widgets at half the price of Factory A, ship them to Ontario, and still sell them for 30% less than the factory in Ontario.

And you think this isn't going to affect demand and thus employment?

[PIK]

So we have this Muslim women, causing trouble and dividing the country in time for the election ,now we have this reporter just freed from Egypt crying. He even said he planned his return to Canada just as the election is going so he can now divide the country a little more with his crying. Time to shut this sickening Islamic crap once and for all.

[dialamah]

So we have this Muslim women, causing trouble and dividing the country in time for the election ,now we have this reporter just freed from Egypt crying. He even said he planned his return to Canada just as the election is going so he can now divide the country a little more with his crying. Time to shut this sickening Islamic crap once and for all.

The government tries to impose an illegal ban on somebody and when they lose in court, twice, they start rhetoric about how they're going to change the law to ban the niqab during ceremony, and when they think they have support for that, they then offer to ban the niqab in public service and set up a Muslim-targetted tipline, but its Ishaq who is being divisive? And here I thought Conservatives felt it was important for people to take responsibility for their own actions. Guess not, eh?

I can see why you don't like Sisi throwing people who are convicted of crime in Egypt back to a country where they hold citizenship; no doubt you only think thats ok if Canada does it. Just think... If Harper had lifted a finger to help Fahmy, he might have had a few more votes. But hey, it works for me if Fahmy helps rid us of Harper.

[poochy]

The government tries to impose an illegal ban on somebody and when they lose in court, twice, they start rhetoric about how they're going to change the law to ban the niqab during ceremony, and when they think they have support for that, they then offer to ban the niqab in public service and set up a Muslim-targetted tipline, but its Ishaq who is being divisive? And here I thought Conservatives felt it was important for people to take responsibility for their own actions. Guess not, eh?

I can see why you don't like Sisi throwing people who are convicted of crime in Egypt back to a country where they hold citizenship; no doubt you only think thats ok if Canada does it. Just think... If Harper had lifted a finger to help Fahmy, he might have had a few more votes. But hey, it works for me if Fahmy helps rid us of Harper.

It's obvious you're just here politicking, but have you yet clarified your chicken and egg opinion on how it is our society that is inferior by wanting to defend the hard won independence of women? Im sure we would all enjoy watching you twist yourself into a pretzel while trying to explain how it is that our culture is inferior for disliking a practice of another culture that clearly treats half of it's members as lesser human beings. Yes, we are truly inferior for not embracing their bigotry, lol. Some of you just can't be for real.

[dialamah]

If our culture decides to legislate what women cannot wear, they are doing the same thing as countries such as Saudi Arabia do when they legislate what women can wear. If Saudi is an inferior country because it legislates what women can wear, then so would Canada be if it legislated what women cannot wear.

Fortunately Canada hasn't done so, and I have high hopes it won't actually happen.

Edited October 13, 2015 by dialamah

[poochy]

Ah, so when we decide so legislate equal pay for equal work we are somehow restricting the rights of women who may want to work for less because their husbands or male dominated culture tells them they shouldn't make as much as a man as they are lesser human beings, thus making us 'inferior' or at least no better than the people who want to subjugate them in the first place. I see, your simply an advocate for the unfettered subjugation of women, that's your idea of freedom.

What other activities used to curtail the rights, freedoms, or general human equality of any group are you an advocate for, and how do those activities make those cultures at least equal to others who want those people to have the right to be treated as a full human being? Or knowing they have the freedom and security from reprisals that allows them to do something even as abhorrent as showing their face in public?

Edited October 13, 2015 by poochy

[PIK]

Our ancestors came here to get away for oppressive traditions and now we want to bring those traditions here? There is no religious reason to wear them and when Muslims countries don't allow it why are we? Can you people not put away the hatred for harper and look at what you are proposing. This is just a start of a attack on our way of life and it needs to be stopped in its tracks.

[PIK]

The government tries to impose an illegal ban on somebody and when they lose in court, twice, they start rhetoric about how they're going to change the law to ban the niqab during ceremony, and when they think they have support for that, they then offer to ban the niqab in public service and set up a Muslim-targetted tipline, but its Ishaq who is being divisive? And here I thought Conservatives felt it was important for people to take responsibility for their own actions. Guess not, eh?

I can see why you don't like Sisi throwing people who are convicted of crime in Egypt back to a country where they hold citizenship; no doubt you only think thats ok if Canada does it. Just think... If Harper had lifted a finger to help Fahmy, he might have had a few more votes. But hey, it works for me if Fahmy helps rid us of Harper.

As it turns out harper did make the calls, he just did not run to the nearest camera to tell the world what he did. That is how harper works. Get you facts straight.

[dialamah]

As it turns out harper did make the calls, he just did not run to the nearest camera to tell the world what he did. That is how harper works. Get you facts straight.

Cite, please. Else I'll assume this is not true.

[Keepitsimple]

Cite, please. Else I'll assume this is not true.

As PIK says - Harper doesn't run to the cameras......it's just not his style.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper held a low-profile phone call last week with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi to discuss the case of Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy, an Egyptian government official says.

The phone call, which took place last Thursday, appears to be the first time Mr. Harper has addressed the matter with the Egyptian president by phone. Mr. Harper has faced significant pressure in recent weeks to intervene on Mr. Fahmy’s behalf as his case continued to drag through the Egyptian courts.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-called-egyptian-president-about-fahmys-case-official-says/article23344506/

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Avoid thread drift.