Rue Posted October 18, 2017 Report Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Argus said: What people? Good question. My people don't vote. They eat bones, pee on poles, and wag their tails. Edited October 18, 2017 by Rue Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 18, 2017 Report Posted October 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Rue said: M The 'M' people ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Rue Posted October 18, 2017 Report Posted October 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: The 'M' people ? Sorry I edited that. Quote
Benz Posted October 19, 2017 Report Posted October 19, 2017 On 2017-10-17 at 4:10 PM, Rue said: Benz I probably agree yes with what Garber and you say but I am reluctant to say who should speak French or English. I was brought up and always will believe they are equal languages of Canada and I should know both, I envy anyone who is good with languages. I pretty much agree with all of what you say really except for Parizeau. When asked to clarify his ethnique comment he said was referring to Greeks, Italians and Jews. All 3 of us knew that and we knew damn well he always hated our communities and hate is not a strong word. He did. He openly chastised us for being who we were. In fact when he made his clarification as to which ethnic groups he meant, he skipped the Chinese who believe me he insulted and applauded when they pulled down the signs in Chinatown. He also made a point of singling out 12 ridings in Cote St. Luc for voting no, he singled them out because that's where the Jews were. So let's not down play his bigotry and its against Italians, Greeks, Jews, Chinese, English speaking minorities of all kinds too, yes. I heard and read his speeches no different than you. He was a demagogue playing divisive politics. Hated him. Tell you what though you will not see me label Quebecois for him. That is b.s., just a wing of the party. Parizeau never resonated with his grassroots Pequistes. His feigned academic Parisenne drawl was ridiculed by Quebecois and France French people equally. I also notice that we seem to agree on every thing at the end, maybe even a little bit about Parizeau. I would like you to see his positon on another angle. Not that I am agreeing with him. As I told you, I blame his attiude and his strategy. There are nothing in what you say that justify accusations of racism and anti-semetism. I was not aware of what you are bringing me here. I did not know he targeted those specific groups, but I beleive you because it's logical to his sad phrase on that memorable night. The reason why Parizeau hated Jews, Greeks and Italians, is not because they were Jews, Greeks or Italians. It's not about the race or something like that. He hated those groups because they choose English over French and they masively vote liberals at all cost. Those 3 groups are very against the PQ and the sovereignist project and Parizeau does not accept that those groups take the side of the federal at the expense of Québec. I must admit that when I was young, I was also thinking like that. Later, I came to realise that hate does not help anything, not a single point. Those 3 groups are just assimilated and linked to the anglo community and that's it. They don't do that because they hate us like Parizeau thinks. Their loyalty goes to Canada before Québec just like any other anglo. Also, another reason why we should not be so angry about that, is that we have our own responsabilities in that outcome. Long time ago, when there was massibe immigration of Italians, the catholic churches rejected them from the french school systems. They said they had no money. So the Italians were forced to go into English schools. Very bad decision at that time and that caused the situation we have now. Back then, the churches had too much powers. They were in charge of the education system among other things. So, back to Parizeau. He hated those groups for the same reason a pro-cons hates the liberals, or a pro-liberal hates conservatives. It was not personal or racist. It was hatred based on partisanship. It is still bad and I still think he was wrong, but it's not the same as racism. If he was racist, he would have been with every one. Which was clearly not the case. Quote
Rue Posted October 19, 2017 Report Posted October 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Benz said: I also notice that we seem to agree on every thing at the end, maybe even a little bit about Parizeau. I would like you to see his positon on another angle. Not that I am agreeing with him. As I told you, I blame his attiude and his strategy. There are nothing in what you say that justify accusations of racism and anti-semetism. I was not aware of what you are bringing me here. I did not know he targeted those specific groups, but I beleive you because it's logical to his sad phrase on that memorable night. The reason why Parizeau hated Jews, Greeks and Italians, is not because they were Jews, Greeks or Italians. It's not about the race or something like that. He hated those groups because they choose English over French and they masively vote liberals at all cost. Those 3 groups are very against the PQ and the sovereignist project and Parizeau does not accept that those groups take the side of the federal at the expense of Québec. I must admit that when I was young, I was also thinking like that. Later, I came to realise that hate does not help anything, not a single point. Those 3 groups are just assimilated and linked to the anglo community and that's it. They don't do that because they hate us like Parizeau thinks. Their loyalty goes to Canada before Québec just like any other anglo. Also, another reason why we should not be so angry about that, is that we have our own responsabilities in that outcome. Long time ago, when there was massibe immigration of Italians, the catholic churches rejected them from the french school systems. They said they had no money. So the Italians were forced to go into English schools. Very bad decision at that time and that caused the situation we have now. Back then, the churches had too much powers. They were in charge of the education system among other things. So, back to Parizeau. He hated those groups for the same reason a pro-cons hates the liberals, or a pro-liberal hates conservatives. It was not personal or racist. It was hatred based on partisanship. It is still bad and I still think he was wrong, but it's not the same as racism. If he was racist, he would have been with every one. Which was clearly not the case. Specific to Parizeau you made some interesting comments. Appreciated. Yes I forgot about that part of the Italian history in Quebec. Good point. Don't want to derail the topic. Appreciated your response. Quote
peoples advocate Posted October 19, 2017 Report Posted October 19, 2017 On 2017-10-18 at 1:30 PM, Argus said: What people? Political parties in both the USA and Canada only represent the wealthy if you believe otherwise then you can not be reasoned with because you have become one of the sheeple . Quote
peoples advocate Posted October 19, 2017 Report Posted October 19, 2017 On 2017-10-18 at 1:30 PM, Argus said: What people? Exactly Quote
Argus Posted October 19, 2017 Report Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, peoples advocate said: Exactly You're not answering the question. Who are these people who are not represented by a party? Edited October 19, 2017 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
peoples advocate Posted October 20, 2017 Report Posted October 20, 2017 On 2017-10-19 at 5:09 PM, Argus said: You're not answering the question. Who are these people who are not represented by a party? Do you believe that a party represents your best interest ? People come on this site and talk as though they are intellectual and it is so far from the truth. I would bet that if you were honest you would have to admit that these politicians that you are always debating about care nothing about the average person. At the next election ask people on the way into the polls if they understand what the platforms are that have been put forth I think you would find very few know and some may ask you what a platform is. Lords and surfs people still the same Quote
Jariax Posted October 21, 2017 Report Posted October 21, 2017 On 10/11/2017 at 4:41 PM, PIK said: Taxing small business out of business. No one has EVER gone out of business because income taxes were too high. They are charged on profits, which means that until you pay all your expenses, COGS, employees, and all the salaries, you still don't pay any taxes. And you're only paying taxes if you have some left over after that. Quote
Argus Posted October 21, 2017 Report Posted October 21, 2017 18 hours ago, Jariax said: No one has EVER gone out of business because income taxes were too high. They are charged on profits, which means that until you pay all your expenses, COGS, employees, and all the salaries, you still don't pay any taxes. And you're only paying taxes if you have some left over after that. Disagree. Companies can go out of business and do all the time because, while profitable, they are not profitable ENOUGH. By way of comparison. I can invest my money in Company A, which will return 10% profit per year, or Company B, which returns 3% profits per year. If I can't get a higher return from Company B I will close it down and invest my money in Company A. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Omni Posted October 21, 2017 Report Posted October 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, Argus said: Disagree. Companies can go out of business and do all the time because, while profitable, they are not profitable ENOUGH. By way of comparison. I can invest my money in Company A, which will return 10% profit per year, or Company B, which returns 3% profits per year. If I can't get a higher return from Company B I will close it down and invest my money in Company A. If the company is not profitable ENOUGH, then shutting it down is a choice made by the owners, not because they are forced to by taxation. Quote
Jariax Posted October 21, 2017 Report Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Argus said: Disagree. Companies can go out of business and do all the time because, while profitable, they are not profitable ENOUGH. By way of comparison. I can invest my money in Company A, which will return 10% profit per year, or Company B, which returns 3% profits per year. If I can't get a higher return from Company B I will close it down and invest my money in Company A. 'Shutting down' because there are better opportunities, isn't quite the narrative that small business owners are trying to paint, when they talk about not being able to stay in business any longer. That being said, companies can go out of business because of payroll taxes, and other various expenses. That's what we should be focusing on eliminating, not income taxes. Edited October 21, 2017 by Jariax Quote
dre Posted October 21, 2017 Report Posted October 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Argus said: Disagree. Companies can go out of business and do all the time because, while profitable, they are not profitable ENOUGH. By way of comparison. I can invest my money in Company A, which will return 10% profit per year, or Company B, which returns 3% profits per year. If I can't get a higher return from Company B I will close it down and invest my money in Company A. The link between changes in tax policy and economic growth is tenuous based on the data available... even non-existant. GNP growth is not correlated with shifts in tax policy at all, in fact some of the strongest growth in GNP has happened during periods of high taxation. Year Real GDP growth Effective rate on capital income Statutory rate 1947 -0.9% 38.0% 1948 4.3% 38.0% 1949 -0.5% 38.0% 1950 8.4% 42.0% 1951 7.5% 50.8% 1952 3.8% 52.0% 1953 4.5% 52.0% 1954 -0.6% 58.0% 52.0% 1955 7.0% 44.0% 52.0% 1956 2.0% 46.0% 52.0% 1957 2.0% 48.0% 52.0% 1958 -0.9% 47.0% 52.0% 1959 6.9% 45.0% 52.0% 1960 2.4% 42.0% 52.0% 1961 2.3% 42.0% 52.0% 1962 5.9% 35.0% 52.0% 1963 4.3% 34.0% 52.0% 1964 5.6% 31.0% 50.0% 1965 6.2% 29.0% 48.0% 1966 6.3% 30.0% 52.8% 1967 2.5% 33.0% 52.8% 1968 4.7% 37.0% 52.8% 1969 3.1% 45.0% 52.8% 1970 0.2% 42.0% 49.2% 1971 3.3% 38.0% 48.0% 1972 5.2% 38.0% 48.0% 1973 5.6% 38.0% 48.0% 1974 -0.6% 42.0% 48.0% 1975 -0.2% 44.0% 48.0% 1976 5.2% 40.0% 48.0% 1977 4.5% 40.0% 48.0% 1978 5.4% 46.0% 48.0% 1979 3.1% 45.0% 46.0% 1980 -0.3% 48.0% 46.0% 1981 2.5% 38.0% 46.0% 1982 -2.0% 35.0% 46.0% 1983 4.4% 34.0% 46.0% 1984 6.9% 33.0% 46.0% 1985 4.1% 33.0% 46.0% 1986 3.4% 33.0% 46.0% 1987 3.1% 33.0% 40.0% 1988 4.0% 33.0% 34.0% 1989 3.5% 33.0% 34.0% 1990 1.9% 31.0% 34.0% 1991 -0.2% 30.0% 34.0% 1992 3.3% 30.0% 34.0% 1993 2.8% 31.0% 35.0% 1994 4.0% 30.0% 35.0% 1995 2.5% 31.0% 35.0% 1996 3.7% 31.0% 35.0% 1997 4.4% 31.0% 35.0% 1998 4.3% 30.0% 35.0% 1999 4.7% 30.0% 35.0% 2000 4.1% 31.0% 35.0% 2001 1.1% 30.0% 35.0% 2002 1.8% 29.0% 35.0% 2003 2.5% 23.0% 35.0% 2004 3.4% 26.0% 35.0% 2005 3.0% 30.0% 35.0% 2006 2.6% 35.0% 2007 1.9% 35.0% 2008 -0.3% 35.0% 2009 -3.5% 35.0% 2010 3.0% 35.0% Quote The top statutory corporate tax rate has been falling since the early 1950s. The top corporate tax rate was 52 percent throughout the Eisenhower administration—17 percentage points higher than the current top rate of 35 percent. U.S. GDP grew by almost 4 percent annually in the 1950s compared with a 1.8 percent growth rate in the 2000s. On the surface, it would appear that more robust economic growth is associated with higher corporate tax rates. Further analysis, however, finds no evidence that either the statutory top corporate tax rate or the effective marginal tax rate on capital income is correlated with real GDP growth. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 22, 2017 Report Posted October 22, 2017 50 minutes ago, dre said: The link between changes in tax policy and economic growth is tenuous based on the data available... The link between Canadian and U.S. data is also tenuous at best. Canada relied far more on foreign capital investment than did the U.S. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
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.