guyser Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 You and Guyser went into areas that take a lot of time, cites, and effort to prove you guys wrong. This is why I have a condenser mic on order and will be hosting a podcast on the subject with a guest. You are applying 'simple logic' to everything but haven't taken time to research the nuts and bolts of the situation in Alberta. Neither has most of the media. You have yet to prove anything wrong to me mike. Go ahead and do so in your "simple logic" , which I happen to agree with. Or even go back to post #8 in this thread and answer the question of why you purposely omitted something that went against you? Obfuscate ...lie...lie ...obfuscate, I dont know mike which is it? Or answer the question about which countries that are terrorist states , are flooding our shores. It is such "simple logic" that I even gave you the cite to save you time. But no......nothing. Thats ok, it's what I expect from you. Vote next time, then you will have your say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Can we find a way to reap the benefits and avoid the pitfalls? Yes. All you have to do is take on a policy that most other countries use. If you want to come here, an employer must sponsor you in. For instance, if you want to live in Dubai, you must have a company sponsor you in. You will have a work permit, then be allowed to live there while you are working. You are never allowed to apply for citizenship. If you are fired or your permit expires, you get kicked out. Again, most EVERY COUNTRY has a policy like this. Most simply don't allow any immigration at all. You might be able to go to Japan to teach english or such, but that's it. Even goign to France is near impossible. Frances problem is refugees and family sponsorship policies which are too soft. Now Canada. Canada has a point system which says as long as you can pass a medical exam and English test, you can come and just 'live here' with no job prospects. You can practice the point exam online. Falsify your documents, and come here easily. Once here, you are entitled to all the services that us as Canadians have been paying into our whole lives for. Then you are free to sponsor in your family from back home and the cycle continues. Your ailing, elderly parents will be able to come here with no english test. I have a friend working on getting his parents over now. They are elderly, retired, and are of no benefit to Canada. I'm not trying to be mean, just truthful. (i know people get touchy over that statement). When his parents come, they will not contribute. They will use our healthcare system, then we'll all listen to the news where we'll hear about how poor the healthcare is getting. After a while his parents will soon be enetitled to social secrurity where tax payers will be paying to give them a monthly check as the country slowely and shurly starts to crumble. This situation happens day after day with people wandering out of pearson airport to re-unite with their family and just live here in Canada. No job prospects, no nothing. Just enetitlement and advantage of the easiest system in the world. And factually, this HAS gained the Liberals party status and has ensured that they are in power this long. The above story happens in maybe 3 countries in the world. Almost no country allows the above to happen becuase it's simply illogical and self-damaging. Our immigration system, and then political system desperately need to be overhauled to save our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 The population of unpopulated areas of Canada with our own is an interesting idea, Capricorn. But I think it would be a tough sell too. How can you convince people to have more children? There would be an interesting topic in itself. It would require a great deal of creativity because there are a multitude of reasons why people are having less children. It costs less to raise less children. It requires more time to raise more children. The expense of raising children is higher now too, because I think we have higher standards in a lot of ways. Two working parents, fast-paced world. I am not saying its a great idea or a bad idea. I am not saying its impossible. But it would be interesting to see how you could overcome the fact the people simply do not want to have children. In fact, even though I rarely start a thread, I think I will take the opportunity with this one. In what section of the forum would it belong under? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Let Immigration Canada dither it's way through the process and start allowing Employers to hire qualified people with work visas? Yes no? YES. However, the above situation would still not be applicable in the US, France, etc. You just can't let anyone in on a work permit or the employers would make sure all our employees come from Jamaica or Haiti so they can pay them less. While we need work permits, you need a policy around that too. But yes. Work permits ARE what is needed to solve our problems. And yes, the demand for jobs, even in alberta, are LOW PAYING, part time jobs. In US, France, anywhere else, you would have to prove that you could not hire a Canadian to do the work. Frankly I'm shocked that companies in Halifax would stoop so low as to hire an underclass to work in fields when you guys have such a high unemployment rate. That is shameful. Don't tell me the kids wont work, they will, the jobs are just no longer available to them because 'others' are working there. This is not the case with illegal mexican workers becuase there are just so many jobs in the US that there are no shortages for young people. Halifax and the east coast does NOT have this problem and amongst the highest unemployment rates in North America. What's wrong with you people?? lol.. why would you take money OUT of your economy and give it to foreign nationals to send home when your unemployment is so high.. i mean gawd.. i never heard something so stupid!! Wow!! lol!!!! omg.. wow Anyhow, in France, you also have to additionally prove that you are paying the employee a HIGHER salary than the average Frenchman gets for the same position in order to ensure that the employer is not bringing in an underclass. It's not easy to come as a foreign worker. Regardless, if there are *real* shortages for work, these jobs will get filled where they are needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAlbertan Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 How ridiculous. Why do we have to "grow?" Ridiculous?? Oh my god, you have got to be kidding.You are smarter than that. Surely I dont have to spell out to you why growth is important. Continuing to fill Canada with immigrants does not help the economy in any way, and simply claiming it does doesn't make it so. And claiming it doesn't does not make it so either. Case in point. Alberta needs workers, the economy is flying there. if there is not sufficent numbers going there to work then jobs get stopped. Jobs stopped means money lost, money lost means those that fund these projects (foreigners) spend elsewhere.Add in all the tie-ins and Geoffrey aint drivin no BMW We all lose. Money gone means apt bldgs, houses stop being built, business stop producing because trickle down effect is gone. $30,000 in incediary spending comes with every house sold and closed on the market. Reno's etc fills that $30G. 92,000 homes sold in BC alone in 2006. Do the math How did your average house price in BC get to be $400, 000 ? How did you manage to make money on your house last year, which is a very safe assumption on my part? Immigration, thats how. I would rather see Americans be brought into the country to work than some immigrant from overseas....don't care what colour they are. Take care of us and our own first (and yes, that includes CURRENT immigrants). It is possible to support the cessation of immigration without being racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 The population of unpopulated areas of Canada with our own is an interesting idea, Capricorn. But I think it would be a tough sell too. How can you convince people to have more children? There would be an interesting topic in itself. It would require a great deal of creativity because there are a multitude of reasons why people are having less children. It costs less to raise less children. It requires more time to raise more children. The expense of raising children is higher now too, because I think we have higher standards in a lot of ways. Two working parents, fast-paced world. I am not saying its a great idea or a bad idea. I am not saying its impossible. But it would be interesting to see how you could overcome the fact the people simply do not want to have children. In fact, even though I rarely start a thread, I think I will take the opportunity with this one. In what section of the forum would it belong under? At the risk of sounding like a neanderthal, if couples could afford to have one of the two parents stay home with the children, that would be the ideal. You're absolutely right. Financial constraints on families are just too great at the present time to make this viable. I know many couples who would love to have more children but simply cannot afford it. Yes, there are couples who absolutely do not want children. I have no problem with that yet I believe they are in the minority. I dream of the benefits this would bring to children, parents and society alike. I think a thread on domestic population growth initiatives in the federal politics forum would be appropriate because that is the level at which action on this issue would have to be initiated. Of course, the question of Québec opting out of ensuing initiatives in the ROC could remain in the background. : Go for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 nah you dont sound like a neanderthal, i quite agree. i am not about to tell couples that one should stay home, but i think the family unit is better than state-run daycare (gives me chills). but then we have to solve the problem of the fast-paced society we live in. in fact for me that would be an even better topic. how can we make life simpler? how can we reduce the speed of the treadmills we put ourselves on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 but then we have to solve the problem of the fast-paced society we live in. in fact for me that would be an even better topic. how can we make life simpler? Wow, you are an ambitious lad. Good for you. If we want to slow down the pace, what are we willing to give up? We ran head first into it and now we reap the downside. I maintain that solidifying the family unit, making it economically feasible and adding more participants into this unit would definitely make life simpler and probably more comfortable. Question is, where is the will? Speaking of a more simple life, you know what people today have forgotten? The more children in a family, the lesser chance there is that aging parents will end up in long term care homes or palliative care. There's one way to reduce the cost of elder care in our ailing health system. In other words, the family "group" takes care of their own. But I digress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 nah you dont sound like a neanderthal, i quite agree. i am not about to tell couples that one should stay home, but i think the family unit is better than state-run daycare (gives me chills). but then we have to solve the problem of the fast-paced society we live in. in fact for me that would be an even better topic. how can we make life simpler? how can we reduce the speed of the treadmills we put ourselves on? Agree. I also think if you're gonna have kids, only to give em away to daycare and not raise them yourself, what's the point? Imo, it is optimal if one parent (the choice of which rests with any given family) stays home most of the time (could have a part time job maybe) and raises the kids, at the very least until the age when they start going to school. I also think it is possible in our current society to achieve this, assuming that the parents are willing. If the other parent (the one that remains working full time) is a professional, and the family is living in a reasonably fiscally prudent way, there's enough money to pull it off. I think the problem isn't so much that people can't afford to raise kids on just one salary, but more that very often these days both parents place a high importance on their career, and neither wants to put it on hold for years to raise kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 If the other parent (the one that remains working full time) is a professional, and the family is living in a reasonably fiscally prudent way, there's enough money to pull it off. I think the problem isn't so much that people can't afford to raise kids on just one salary, but more that very often these days both parents place a high importance on their career, and neither wants to put it on hold for years to raise kids. I agree with you in some ways more than I'll lead on here, but I'll play the devil's advocate right now. You do realise that very few of us live the professional life. Most Canadian families barely scrape $67k a year (the average) in household income. That isn't much money when your raising a family. That's two incomes. I have no idea what it's like to live like that. I suppose you don't either. I won't pretend to. Let's cut that income in half... no... let's take 70% considering one partner likely makes more. Now we have a family living off $47k a year before taxes. I couldn't do that as a single person, no way in hell. I couldn't expect a family to even try. The reality of the situation is that two incomes are needed today to raise a family in most cases. We that were so privledged to have our mothers stay home are a more rare breed than ever. My mom stayed at home until I was done high school (I have younger siblings). Most mothers can't stay home past their maternity leave without risking financial disaster. Alot of this isn't about career ambition, but neccessity. Are mothers the best child care workers for their kids? Absolutely. But it's just not possible today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 You do realise that very few of us live the professional life. Most Canadian families barely scrape $67k a year (the average) in household income. That isn't much money when your raising a family. That's two incomes. I have no idea what it's like to live like that. I suppose you don't either. I won't pretend to. Actually I do indeed have an idea of what it is to live like that. When we came to Canada, my mom didn't work, and my dad's salary started at around $60k a year (as a computer programmer) before increasing to a higher level after several years. No, you can't buy a big house in West Vancouver or anything like that, but you can live just fine. Now we have a family living off $47k a year before taxes. I couldn't do that as a single person, no way in hell. I couldn't expect a family to even try. A single person can live just fine on $25k a year. I've lived just fine on $30k a year before, while being a student, and still managed to save some of that income in investments. If a person can't live on $47k a year by themselves, I really gotta wonder what they are trying to buy. People need to live within their means. Sure, for a family, a total income of $47k would be tough, but how many families are there where one income earner brings in $60k+ by themselves? I'd guess there are millions of such families in Canada, or at least hundreds of thousands. I think career ambition is a big part of it, perhaps not for the majority of the population, but for a substantial chunk of it. Of course, the desire to buy things that aren't really needed is another motivator. If people want to buy a $2 million dollar home in Vancouver for example, and buy 2 $80000 cars for their family, then yeah, they'll probably need two incomes, but there are ways to live without buying things like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 but then we have to solve the problem of the fast-paced society we live in. in fact for me that would be an even better topic. how can we make life simpler? how can we reduce the speed of the treadmills we put ourselves on? You sound like a typical dreamy lib who doesn't understand the economy and the way the world works. Canada and our little dumb nanny state isn't going to solve the problem of our 'busy society'. That's the problem with you guys, you think your leaders can tweak little laws and shape scoiety. It doesn't work. Canada is a slave to the US and rest of the world. Our politicians compete on how well they can stay in power and lie to us. I love they way you sit here and think we can 'figure out new ways' to change the world. Yeah. Just like Canada is going solve the middle east conflicts, cure aids, and set a 'stage for the world'. blah blah. Get with it. Canada needs to halt immigration so all of us can have personal wealth. That is the only real answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I also think it is possible in our current society to achieve this No it's not. Our grandparents had many children becuase 1 person can stay home and look after all the kids. Muslim women have a staggeringly high unemployment rate at over 50% and thus stay at home and have many kids. Me and my fiance however are both working people and must return to work after 1 year. We'll have no choice but to put our kids in daycare which wil cost us $40 a day. It's either that or we loose our house and car. We can only afford to this once or twice and that's it. NOW, if I was working a job and my house was worth half the price and such and we were wealthy here beside the uS, then yes I would love to have 4 kids or so and build a real family unit. But no. We don't have that luxury living here. Things are too expensive. I'm too busy sharing my wealth with people wandering out of pearson airport who are busy re-uniting with their family and filing new spsonsorship application while they give us the finger when we're not looking and call white girls whores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Now we have a family living off $47k a year before taxes. (question for Geoffrey) Hey Geoffrey, Why is it that our income has been saturated so low in Canada for the average family? I'd like to know why. I'm waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Now we have a family living off $47k a year before taxes.(question for Geoffrey)Hey Geoffrey, Why is it that our income has been saturated so low in Canada for the average family? I'd like to know why. I'm waiting. Big question, if I had the answer I'd be rich. Corporate welfare, restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian enterprises, unions and oppressive taxation is essientially it though, specifically who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Me and my fiance however are both working people and must return to work after 1 year. We'll have no choice but to put our kids in daycare which wil cost us $40 a day. It's either that or we loose our house and car. Coulda bought a smaller house in a cheaper neighbourhood and a cheaper car. Or you could get a second job to get extra money while your fiance stays home (or the other way around, depending which of you is more likely to get more money). Or your parents or your fiance's parents could pitch in, since they no longer have kids to take care of in their own homes (or at least fewer than before, I assume). Or you could work really hard and try to persuade your boss to give you a raise. Or you could just see if you can work overtime on a regular basis. Or you could start a home business, or learn about the stock market and make extra money that way. Or you could take some education in the evenings that would get you a degree that would let you get a higher paying job. And daycare, come on, seriously, that's what grandparents are for ;p Now, I'm not specifically suggesting that you do any of the above, as I'm sure you and your family probably considered all kinds of options and I don't know nearly enough about the specific situation to offer useful advice, but imo, it is possible. I've seen it done first hand, not only in my own family but in others as well, and this is talking Vancouver, which is one of the most expensive cities to live in in North America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Muslim women have a staggeringly high unemployment rate at over 50% and thus stay at home and have many kids. Citation please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I hear that Stay at Home moms are undervalued....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) Get with it. Canada needs to halt immigration so all of us can have personal wealth. That is the only real answer. Get with it is right. As in get a clue. Just how do you plan on achieving personal wealth? For most it is making wise investments in the market and thru the rising prices on homes. To make a wise investment one needs to know where the growth/value is. And to grow a business/market (that you invested in) means to expand and find new markets. To grow wealthier in the housing market means there has to be demand. To have demand means there is pressure, and that pressure comes from people getting wealthier ad wanting a new house. Prices rise and everyone who owns then has more equity. With the report out yesterday that boomers wil retire in massive numbers and that businesses will have to entice workers not to retire or find themselves losing market share, means we have to find ways to fill those positions. And one of the best ways to fill that is through immigration. Same way we filled the prairies over a hundred years ago. Stop immigration like you and others want? Prepare to lose value in the house you cant afford now, and lose hope for your future. I think this is so timely. "Why do you want to destroy Canada ?" Wonderful utopia you espouse. I dont want it. Edited July 20, 2007 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 mike i never said it was possible to solve the problem. you are jumping to conclusions again. but it is not a bad direction in which to look. you see capricorn said we should create population with our own birth rates and so i point out that people are not going to want to do this for various reasons. that means those reasons are obstacles, so i am simply pointing that out. if you want to compell people to have the standard old fashioned family unit how would you go about it. this is not a liberal ideal either. it is a conservative one. but you cant enforce it, so i am asking in what ways you could possible compell people of free will toward his proposed solution. i never said his solution was the right one. i am interested in how he would go about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 You sound like a typical dreamy lib who doesn't understand the economy and the way the world works. Canada and our little dumb nanny state isn't going to solve the problem of our 'busy society'. That's the problem with you guys, you think your leaders can tweak little laws and shape scoiety. It doesn't work. Canada is a slave to the US and rest of the world. Our politicians compete on how well they can stay in power and lie to us. I love they way you sit here and think we can 'figure out new ways' to change the world. Yeah. Just like Canada is going solve the middle east conflicts, cure aids, and set a 'stage for the world'. blah blah. Get with it. Canada needs to halt immigration so all of us can have personal wealth. That is the only real answer. In fact if you had bothered to try to understand what I am saying, you would have seen that I was building up to the question of the Nanny State? When I said "treadmills" I was getting to the question of whether outsourcing responsiblities to the state has actually made life any easier. Or will public daycare actually make life easier? I am not trying to tweak laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 You see Mike I am of the same opinion as you are that having state run programs left and right and special laws to engineer society are not beneficial. I feel that in the end people who promote such things create a treadmill for everyone, so that we have to keep up in order to keep it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Big question, if I had the answer I'd be rich. Corporate welfare, restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian enterprises, unions and oppressive taxation is essientially it though, specifically who knows. hehhee.. do you think that also it's maybe we have an access labour pool? Basic supply and deman? If you take our healthcare out of the picture, we would have on-par taxation comparable to the US. Alabama 4.000% Alaska 0.000% 0% - 7% Arizona 5.600% 0% - 5.125% (4), (7) Arkansas 6.000% California 6.250% Colorado 2.900% Connecticut 6.000% (10) Delaware 0.000% (3) District of Columbia 5.750% Florida 6.000% (10) Georgia 4.000% (10) Hawaii 4.000% (5), (10) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) What tax is that? How about Alberta: 0% Sales. 10% Flat Income with a $14,899 exemption. The 3rd lowest corporate rate in North America. Last time I checked, we have universal health in this province too. -- By the way, your wrong about your Colorado tax rate. Their system is different than ours. The breakdown, for someone in Denver is: 3.26% City sales tax 2.9% State sales tax 4.63%of your federal taxable income, regardless of income level flat tax Someone making $75,000 a year in Alberta and Colorado, saving $10,000 in RRSP's in Canada and tax shelters in the US for a pre-tax income of $65,000 pays: In Alberta: Income tax: 65,000-14,899 = 50,101 *.1... total of $5,010 in taxes. In Colorado (we'll assume $12,000 in mortgage payments, sales tax exempt): Income tax: 65,000 *.0463 = 3,009 Sales tax on consumption: 49,991 * 0.0616 = 3,079 Total of $6,088.00 in taxes. -- So what up MikeDavid? What up? You gave a very unfair comparison by picking the lowest tax jurisdictions in the US and I shot that down. Now compare New York with Alberta. Or the full tax burden in California. You'll find very quickly that the US isn't the tax haven it claims to be for individuals. Sure. Quebec's taxes suck but that's a democratic decision. They aren't much higher than the some of the blue US States. Edited July 22, 2007 by geoffrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Nads Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 In response to the original poster, yes there are indeed terrorists in Canada but instead of wondering when they are going to strike we should be thinking about how to flush them out and how to prevent them from striking. From what I hear, the main reason they haven't struck in Canada is out of fear of being caught. That's right but before you let out a chuckle, consider the reasons why they would fear getting caught. These people don't care about the possibility of dying. They do not fear torture. The reason they fear getting caught is because they have big plans and they do not want to get caught before the major terrorist plots are carried out. This is troublesome and this is why we need to flush them out quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.