Ways for the provinces to make more revenue.

[yam]

Sounds great -

However, are the best people going to go to a temp agency for a job in relation to job security and perhaps the lack of benefit packages. . .retention package - not familiar with this term - but you mean an extended agreement say for six months or a a rear?

If only temporary positions (despite possible extensions) are offered it normally reflects the economic confidence of the company and a hire and fire resolve in the face of pending down turns.

Im just feeling my way here in the face of oil projections, supply and demand issues - the relation to employment and contracts.

[geoffrey]

The only reason temp agencies are doing well is they can't find anyone to work permanent admin jobs at $45-50k a year. It's actually that bad.

If you wanted a permenant job, nice hours, good benefits, nice pension, you could have it tomorrow, just walk into some place with an inkling of knowledge about anything admin and you'll have it.

[yam]

So people must be able to afford to live well on part-time/or short term earnings i guess - which is a good thing - to have the choice. Not so long ago people were demanding security of a job with its benefit packages.

[geoffrey]

So people must be able to afford to live well on part-time/or short term earnings i guess - which is a good thing - to have the choice. Not so long ago people were demanding security of a job with its benefit packages.

Oh it's true. Such jobs do exist in Alberta, don't worry, you can have it if you want.

But most people moving here now aren't looking long-term, they are looking for their piece of the boom pie, which can be huge, but it comes with uncertainity about tomorrow.

Most people would take the extra $10k/year right now with no job security. It's a very unique sociology experiment in Calgary right now I'll tell ya that much.

[Big Blue Machine]

Instead of cutting the GST, why didn't the feds just giver the provinces the amount created by the 1%?

[Riverwind]

Instead of cutting the GST, why didn't the feds just giver the provinces the amount created by the 1%?

Because that just perpetuates a broken system. If the provinces need revenue then the province should raise its sales tax by 1%. Politicians should be responsible for collecting the tax money they spend - that is the best way to ensure accountability.

[Charles Anthony]

If the provinces need revenue then the province should raise its sales tax by 1%. Politicians should be responsible for collecting the tax money they spend - that is the best way to ensure accountability.

Exactly.

However, that also sounds like a justification for cancelling equalization payments. What if the province needs more revenue than it can generate?

[geoffrey]

If the provinces need revenue then the province should raise its sales tax by 1%. Politicians should be responsible for collecting the tax money they spend - that is the best way to ensure accountability.

Exactly.

However, that also sounds like a justification for cancelling equalization payments. What if the province needs more revenue than it can generate?

Then it's overspending and needs to rethink it's politics.

What if you need more revenue than you can generate? Do you expect me to transfer my funds to you?

[Charles Anthony]

Then it's overspending and needs to rethink it's politics.

I agree.

What if you need more revenue than you can generate? Do you expect me to transfer my funds to you?

I do not expect you to give me anything.

Are you ready to lift all barriers to trade between provinces and nations?

[geoffrey]

What if you need more revenue than you can generate? Do you expect me to transfer my funds to you?

I do not expect you to give me anything.

Are you ready to lift all barriers to trade between provinces and nations?

I am 100% behind trade liberalisation in all forms. Should be no restrictions on who I want to do business with, it's better for business and consumers both.

[LonJowett]

I am 100% behind trade liberalisation in all forms. Should be no restrictions on who I want to do business with, it's better for business and consumers both.

And yet you're opposed to the trade of cannibis.

Which is the perfect way for provinces to make more revenue.

No matter what the cost of enforcement, even though your arguments are purely economic and rarely based on "goodwill."

No restrictions for business, but more restrictions on women's bodies.

It's very confusing.

[geoffrey]

I am 100% behind trade liberalisation in all forms. Should be no restrictions on who I want to do business with, it's better for business and consumers both.

And yet you're opposed to the trade of cannibis.

Which is the perfect way for provinces to make more revenue.

No matter what the cost of enforcement, even though your arguments are purely economic and rarely based on "goodwill."

No restrictions for business, but more restrictions on women's bodies.

It's very confusing.

Of course there has to be legal restrictions on criminal elements. What about child sex slaves and explosives? What about dangerous pathogens? Be realistic, I'm talking about legal clean trade.

[Big Blue Machine]

Any idiot could have realized that he was about talking clean trade.

[Slavik44]

Of course there has to be legal restrictions on criminal elements. What about child sex slaves and explosives? What about dangerous pathogens? Be realistic, I'm talking about legal clean trade.

Personally I would say the line should be drawn when inherrent to the purchasing or sale of a good the freedom and liberty of other individuals is put at risk. I don't think there is much debate concerning a child sex slave...slave isn't exactly a word that we associate with freedom. Explosives? probabley depends on the explosive, but generally speaking if you are storing nitroglycerin in the back of your car while driving through city traffic, you are posing a serious threat to other people. Pathogens-disease causing agents- yep I would consider that a threat to my safety, security, freedom, and well life. Pot???? uhmm, nope. It is somewhat debatable as to the affects of marijauna on the individual but in and of its self the smoking of marijauna posses very little if any threat to my security or your security. If you disagree with smoking Marijuana don't smoke it, I don't smoke pot and don't plan on it. Like most other Humans I have a brain and am capable of using it every now and then. I would say it is even more morally reprehinsible when you suggest you have the right to take ownership over my brain and my body, and make personal decisions on my behalf about what goes into my body. Unless inherrent to my actions is a threat against your safety and security I cannot see why you have any right to take ownership over my body. Should I be asking you wether I should eat Cherios or Corn flakes in the morning aswell?