Say hello to the new boss (Carney), same as the old boss.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I never said anything like that. LOL you must be losing the argument, you're coming up with more and more fake things to argue.

What the fùck do you expect will happen if you cut your pay and increase your expenses?

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

For example you keep referring to an increase in revenues as a 'reduction'.

You're completely retarded if you seriously think that.

 

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What the fùck do you expect will happen if you cut your pay and increase your expenses?

 

 

What the f^ck do you think will happen when you increase your pay and decrease your expenses? 

You're the only one pretending anyone's pay will get cut. The gov't will make more money, Not less. I tried to explain this to you in simple terms but you're struggling.  If you can make 5 dollars from one person or 3 dollars from 2 people, you actually have MORE money doing it the second way. 

Why am i having to expain to you that 6 is a larger number than 5? Why didn't you learn that in school?

So the gov't makes MORE money... and then CUTS spending on things like 25 billion dollars worth of 'consultants' that carney just hired to do work the gov't workers are supposed to be doing, and so the gov't makes more money and has LESSS expenses 

You somehow believe this is a terrible thing, 

Quote

You're completely retarded if you seriously think that.

Every intelligent person everywhere knows this to be true. I posted a number of articles for you that explained it. 

So that would be the sound of your credibility hitting the pavement from about 30 stories up  

When you make it more attractive to do business in Canada, more people do business. That means more people working, making more money, and paying MOAR in taxes. 

It's really not that complex. When you're older and start going to grade school they'll explain this to you. 🙄🙄🙄

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

The gov't will make more money, not less

By taking in less...LMAO!

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

When you make it more attractive to do business in Canada, more people do business. That means more people working, making more money, and paying MOAR in taxes. 

Yes I've seen the ingredients that go into the kool-aid.

I simply haven't seen any examples of it working in practice. If it was that simple there must be plenty.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

By taking in less...LMAO!

Sigh. By taking in more. 

6 is bigger than 5  

You're going to realize how stupid you've been any minute now. And then you'll try to play it off that you were just joking as always.  And everyone here will know you weren't, and that you're actually this stupid 😆🤣😁😂😉

Quote

Yes I've seen the ingredients that go into the kool-aid.

I'm surprised you mommie trusts you to make it yourself  

I know you can't read the economic stuff i linked to. That's fairly complex stuff and way beyond you. But having more customers paying you actually does mean more money  LOL

Imagine not knowing this   

[eyeball]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I know you can't read the economic stuff i linked to.

That's fairly complex stuff and way beyond you.

From your stuff...

Regardless of opinion, tax cuts reduce government revenues and lead to budget deficits or growth in government debt.

 Duh....just like I said.

However, by lowering personal and corporate income tax rates and shifting more of the tax burden to a sales tax harmonized with the federal GST, the provinces could lower the economic cost of raising tax revenues.

Shifting taxes doesn't reduce government revenue.

In economics, the Laffer curve illustrates a theoretical relationship

Got any real life examples of this theoretical relationship?

Let me guess, you never actually read your stuff did you? Trust me, it's not that complex at all

LMAO!

 

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

From your stuff...

Regardless of opinion, tax cuts reduce government revenues and lead to budget deficits or growth in government debt.

 Duh....just like I said.

 

 

LOL ahhh.... no.  You cut out the part where it said: "Those who oppose cuts say ...."

And you missed the part that says:  cuts increase an individual or family's disposable income, spur spending, and help grow the economy.

 

Reducing marginal tax rates to spur economic growth is a commonly used policy with the notion that lower tax rates will give people more after-tax income that could be used to buy more goods and services.

This is a demand-side argument to support a tax reduction as an expansionary measure. Reduced tax rates may further boost savings and investment, leading to further production and reduced unemployment.

Lowering taxes raises disposable income, allowing the consumer to spend more, which increases the gross domestic product (GDP).

 

And that increases tax revenue. 

So you might see a very temporary drop in the short term, followed by an increase in revenues. 

 

As i said.... i knew you wouldn't be able to understand what i posted 

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

BWAAAAHAHAAHHAAHAHAH!!!!     

you were literally crying when ..

And your guy lost too. ...

Nope, never cried...just laughed...at your feeble attempts at deflecting your loss.

Nope...my guy was the winner...even if by only one vote means he won and you LOST.

No matter what you d, what you say or how hard you try,... PP st the election for the conservatives and even his seat and what do the conservatives do?  Oh, they throw out a loyal MP to give it to the LOSER,  PP  LOL

4 time in a row you lost...  Ha Ha Ha

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL ahhh.... no.  You cut out the part where it said: "Those who oppose cuts say ...."

And this was preceded by: "Advocates of tax cuts argue..."

You're pretending the word regardless wasn't used immediately following both statements - that no matter what's advocated or opposed, tax cuts reduce government revenues. As your other sources show, all the ifs, ands or buts following that reality are theoretical.

It's really typical of you to put out sources that hoist you on your own petard, often within the very first paragraph.

 

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

As i said.... i knew you wouldn't be able to understand what i posted 

And as I said....I knew you never bothered to read what you posted in the first place.

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So that would be the sound of your credibility hitting the pavement from about 30 stories up  

You'd need to go back in time about ten years to hear that. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope, never cried...

LOL we all watched you, it was like watching a 5 year old who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas   Everyone kept saying how weird it was that the libs formed gov't but for some reason you were more upset than any of the conservatives   

I guess you're just a really emotionally "sensitive" little guy   I hear puberty can be like that for some guys, you hang in there, it'll get better! 

 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And this was preceded by: "Advocates of tax cuts argue..."

Yep.   Of course the other two links i posted went on at length about why i'm right and you're a dumbass   So you ignored those entirely.

So what you did is read the first line, fail to actually read or understand ANY of what i posted, and then misunderstood it and posted it thinking it supported your statement. 

Fail   This is why you always wind up looking stupid. You never actually take the time to UNDERSTAND what was you've read or what you're talking about. 

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's really typical of you to put out sources that hoist you on your own petard, often within the very first paragraph

Kid, it doesn't. Your problem is you only read the first paragraph 

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And as I said....I knew you never bothered to read what you posted in the first place.

Did you say it to the mirror? Because you're the only one who didn't read  

if you did you'd realize that what it says is that tax cuts reduce revenues when they happen BUT increase economic activity, create jobs and raise the Gdp, all of which INCREASES tax revenue. 

You're still trying to figure out that 6 is bigger than 5 i see   

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

what it says is that tax cuts reduce revenues when they happen BUT increase economic activity, create jobs and raise the Gdp, all of which INCREASES tax revenue. 

I asked you if you had any real world examples of this happening.

Like I said, I've seen the kool-aid ingredients and theoretical results of bringing them together before. If it was this simple the entire planet would have been farting in silk years ago.

But now the world is going into an economic downturn.

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

I asked you if you had any real world examples of this happening.

 

There's a  dozen or so specifically mentioned in those links i posted. Along with analysis. 

Sigh.  I love that you pretend to read this stuff and then just completely admit you never read the stuff. 

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Like I said, I've seen the kool-aid ingredients

What you seem to have actually meant was you've ignored all the facts presented to you and prefer to lie in order to preserve your echo chamber confirmation bias 

The facts are there, the math is there, i even included the formulas they use to calculate the top of the curve, real world examples are there, it's all there. 

And you'd have to be short bus stupid not to realize that if taxes and costs are too high business goes elsewhere and we make less revenue. 

 

[ExFlyer]

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL we all watched .....

 

Oh stop!!!

We all watched you have your meltdowns and hissy fits and deflection bursts and could not stand the fact I am living in your head.

Get over your loss and it will lift the weight of having to spread BS as you have.

There is nothing so sad as watching a LOSER like you keep on denying the LOSS

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh stop!!!

 

that's what we said. But you just kept on crying and melting down.  None of us could figure it out. I proposed that maybe you needed your diaper changed but that was pure speculation.  

You really do make an ass of yourself pretty regular. 

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

that's what we said. .

Tsk Tsk Tsk...such a loser trying to make himself look good....

Like your hero PP...You LOSE You FAIL!!! LOL

Suck it up buttercup...you are a LOSER and cannot ever win LOL

[CdnFox]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Tsk Tsk Tsk...such a loser trying to make himself look good....

LOL kid,  you make yourself look so bad that EVERYONE looks good by comparison  No effort needed   LOLOLOL

Glad you seem to have stopped crying finally.  Was it the diapers?

[eyeball]

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The facts are there, the math is there, i even included the formulas they use to calculate the top of the curve, real world examples are there, it's all there. 

Sure kid, you didn't know figures lie and liars figure?

Testimonials from ordinary people that read something like 'Hey, we're all farting in silk because this kool-aid is the real deal' would be a lot more convincing.

[ExFlyer]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL kid,  you make yourself look so bad that EVERYONE looks good by comparison  No effort needed   LOLOLOL

Glad you seem to have stopped crying finally.  Was it the diapers?

poor little guy.

So sad, so sad 
No retort or you still trying to insult 

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure kid, you didn't know figures lie and liars figure?

 

Whatever happened to 'follow the science'  

But i love your double flip there :  SHOW ME EXAMPLES  ... 'ok, here's examples'  EXAMPLES ARE USELESS!!!!!  

LOL.  sorry that the facts upset you but your feelings don't change the facts. 

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Testimonials from ordinary people that read something like 'Hey, we're all farting in silk because this kool-aid is the real deal' would be a lot more convincing.

For you? I'm sure. I mean you ARE a leftie liberal, so that pretty much sums up ALL your data  

24 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

poor little guy.

So sad, so sad 

Not sure what body part you're talking to  now but that's probably inappropriate.    

Quote

No retort or you still trying to insult 

LOL you're getting worked up, your English skills are slipping  

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not sure what body part you're talking to  now but that's probably inappropriate.    

LOL you're getting worked up, your English skills are slipping  

Body part????  Where is that simple little mind taking you... sad sad little guy?? LOL

I simplify the  because I know yuo have difficulty keeping up with big words LOL

[taxme]

20 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Not fighting conservatives at all.

Just reminding them that they lost the election...for the 4th time and now have 4+ years before they have a chance of losing for  the 5th time

maybe, if they can n a real leader, they may have a chance but, the leader they have now lost a 28 point lead in less than 5 weeks LOL

No fight...just fact

The conservatives lost because the imbeciles that voted for the lieberals like you fell for the Corney lieberal and lieberal MSM lies and bullshit about Trump and made it appear as though the conservatives were all for Trump taking over the country. 

What Canada needs is a Trump that says what needs to be said. Stop this massive 3rd world immigration invasion for one thing. PP knew that the housing shortage was all due to massive immigration, but yet, he kept his mouth shut and said nothing about it, the coward. Talk about cutting taxes, cutting big government, and eliminate all programs and agendas that try to limit freedom of speech and assembly.

PP should have brought up about what the commie lieberals did during the truckers convoy which was to freeze bank and credit card accounts of those truckers and trucker supporters. PP did not make the lying lieberals look bad. He just left them off the hook. PP knew that Corney was a WEF globalist shill and should have said so, the coward. Canada lacks a person like Trump who is willing to take on the lying lieberals and say it as it is. 

Anyway you won so you can keep gloating about it. I hope that Alberta will be able to one day put Canada to rest because the old Canada is gone for good. 🥂Works for me. 😁 

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Body part????  Where is that simple little mind taking you... sad sad little guy?? LOL

 

Well you're always having these weird sexualized fantasies so god knows what you're talking about when you refer to your "poor little guy".   

Hey - nothing to be ashamed of. I'm sure someone will appreciate it. if you pay them enough. 

[ExFlyer]

31 minutes ago, taxme said:

The conservatives lost because the imbeciles...

...

...

Anyway you won so you can keep gloating about it. I hope that Alberta will be able to one day put Canada to rest because the old Canada is gone for good. 🥂Works for me. 😁 

What a lot of blather and excuses about the losing team.

The conservatives lost, even though they had a 28 point lead going into the election, because they found out the imbecile is Polievere.

Yes, the liberals won and I do not have to gloat, I just have to remind some of you who is sitting in the seat of power LOL

For sure, Old Canada is gone, Carney kept saying that and PP did not want to admit and that is why most Canadian voted for the Liberals

Edited Tuesday at 07:53 PM by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well you're always having these weird sexualized fantasies so god knows what you're talking about when you refer to your "poor little guy".   

...

Wow, you have really fallen off the wall LOL Can't humpty dumpty put you together again?? LOL

"weird sexualized fantasies"????  Where is your head at to come up with that??

Oh and, the "poor little guy" is you. If addressed to it is about you. I realize it need to be explained to you with your reading comprehension and all   

Surely your retorts can be more imaginative that you have displayed lately? You have become so benign.