Danielle Smith Defeated!

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by killerbren

I agree that the banking industry is absolute bull. Those guys make money hand over fist, and when they create a financial collapse and lose money, the government comes in an bails them out (us govt bailout).

Lets not get that confused with the tax on corporations though. If you increase corporate tax, you're increasing the tax for small, medium, and large businesses (not just the banks). To raise corporate taxes just to try and get more money from the banks, a lot of small businesses are going to get punished.

Depends on what small and medium business incentives are offered really. perhaps a progressive corporate tax structure is a better solution.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by roper1

Just flipped through the entire thread, where is our wise one Oko with his all-seeing, all-knowing insight on the unite-the-right ??

Just got up a little later than you. Scroll down. or up.

And I don't think I've said anything about unite the right. I'm glad the WR's are going down, especially Danielle

[Ricktye]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

"Free ride on the back of the common folk."??? Really?? What does that even mean.? Where do the corps get there money from?



There is one payer. Raise taxes he pays. Raise corp taxes the increase is passed on to the consumer....same guy pays.

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending management problem.

So, I take it you're a fan of the Prentice business model? Great!

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Depends on what small and medium business incentives are offered really. perhaps a progressive corporate tax structure is a better solution.

"Small business" corporations (defined by the tax laws) get much bigger exemptions, and pay tax at lower rates, than the others. And same goes for corporations that are not "foreign controlled". "Big" Canadian controlled corporations pay a higher rate. Big foreign controlled corporations pay the highest rates. For example, the chartered banks pay a fortune in income taxes.

By increasing corporate taxes (and there are comparative factors in the periodic adjustments that government can reasonably make - conceded) you do 2 things. First you lower the after tax profit, and thereby the dividend and capital returns to the shareholders, which in the case of most "big" Canadian corporations is .... guess who ... you and I, by and large. If you have a pension plan, or RSP's, or TFSA's, you are that "owner". It is "a wash". Second, you affect the competitive issue of where the corporation puts its HQ and operational components. They move under such circumstances, with consequent economic and job losses to the former residency. Why do you think that Quebec has such a relatively small number of provincially incorporated entities (Quebec businesses tend to incorporate federally), and Alberta has, relative to population, so many (federal incorporations are relatively rare here)? A very large part of this is corporate tax rates.

So, just keep hollering for government to shift the exact tax burden from you to the corporations - I guess if you don't read their annual reports, it is then hidden from you and you feel better about it (?), while you delete the cheese from your macaroni dish.

(Note: I separated the paragraphs, as requested, to make this easier to read and comprehend).

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Johnny Crouton. He spoke kina funny there, that fellow, an ee like to take out dee golf balls for good show you know. You know????....Johhny Crouton.

always said (long before he was PM) that Chretien came across to him as "the driver of the getaway car", and , with reference to the sponsorship scandal and similar corrupt politicking, it turned out that his impression was correct. The gang in question is what I now fondly refer to as the "Liberanos", and they haven't really changed.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

"Small business" corporations (defined by the tax laws) get much bigger exemptions, and pay tax at lower rates, than the others. And same goes for corporations that are not "foreign controlled". "Big" Canadian controlled corporations pay a higher rate. Big foreign controlled corporations pay the highest rates. For example, the chartered banks pay a fortune in income taxes.

By increasing corporate taxes (and there are comparative factors in the periodic adjustments that government can reasonably make - conceded) you do 2 things. First you lower the after tax profit, and thereby the dividend and capital returns to the shareholders, which in the case of most "big" Canadian corporations is .... guess who ... you and I, by and large. If you have a pension plan, or RSP's, or TFSA's, you are that "owner". It is "a wash". Second, you affect the competitive issue of where the corporation puts its HQ and operational components. They move under such circumstances, with consequent economic and job losses to the former residency. Why do you think that Quebec has such a relatively small number of provincially incorporated entities (Quebec businesses tend to incorporate federally), and Alberta has, relative to population, so many (federal incorporations are relatively rare here)? A very large part of this is corporate tax rates.

So, just keep hollering for government to shift the exact tax burden from you to the corporations - I guess if you don't read their annual reports, it is then hidden from you and you feel better about it (?), while you delete the cheese from your macaroni dish.

(Note: I separated the paragraphs, as requested, to make this easier to read and comprehend).

Thanks, I know how smart you are, and those slander filled rants of yours just doesn't do you much justice.

secondly, I cashed my union pension when I quit and used the money to move here. I have some CSBs I was planning on using for a DP on a house, but those plans have changed. i should track them down and see if theyve matured go on an extended vacation for some tropical fishing, but beyond that I do not gamble on the markets. Sorry, but it's a system I have no desire to participate in so how stock dividends and prices get effected are of no consequences to me personally. I prefer to have a wealth of experiences not paper or digital wealth.

I may not be a religious person but I do believe that the 7 sins are the most harmful behaviors to oneself and ones community, Greed being currently represented in the multi trillion dollar derivative bubbles hanging over the world brought to us by those fine people playing games with the market.

As for corporations moving offshore, free trade encourages that more then higher taxes. With proper use of Tariffs and Duties that should never be a concern and would create jobs instead of seeing them exported.

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

And when Harper "got us through" the recession in 08-09 with a minority and prorouged parliament twice was he not resting on the groundwork the previous liberal government set down? Is there not a huge pile of Action Plan signs sitting in dumps around the country now too? There was at least 6 back home for a small walking trail that Economic stimulus plan built... and at least a dozen on the seirra road out of Ft. Nelson for the paved road to nowhere...

Notice how I didn't slander or use insults to raise a point, you should try it someone might pay attention to what you have to say. Actual breaks between paragraphs wouldn't hurt either.

Just trying to educate the uninformed on a little history that I have actually lived through, with a little honest invective and opinion inserted. How is that slanderous or insulting (well, maybe a little "insulting" to the over sensitive).

You are quite right on how the "action plan" publicity stuff is pure political BS in many cases. I resent, as a taxpayer, paying for political advertisements with my tax dollars, and the government subsidizing anything that is essentially private in benefit terms. So, I gather that, like me, you believe that government should refrain from such activities, and that you have let your MP know exactly what you think about it (?).

And, actually, and unfortunately, as historical fact, the CPC took their political advantage cues from the Crouton Liberanos in this regard. Were you vocally opposed when they did exactly the same things? Or are you just exercising the propogandist "divert, divert" approach to defending the indefensible?

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Thanks, I know how smart you are, and those slander filled rants of yours just doesn't do you much justice.

secondly, I cashed my union pension when I quit and used the money to move here. I have some CSBs I was planning on using for a DP on a house, but those plans have changed. i should track them down and see if theyve matured go on an extended vacation for some tropical fishing, but beyond that I do not gamble on the markets. Sorry, but it's a system I have no desire to participate in so how stock dividends and prices get effected are of no consequences to me personally. I prefer to have a wealth of experiences not paper or digital wealth.
My investments (I'm lucky enough to have saved enough for retirement) are very conservative. I have no faith in the "markets" in general.

I may not be a religious person but I do believe that the 7 sins are the most harmful behaviors to oneself and ones community, Greed being currently represented in the multi trillion dollar derivative bubbles hanging over the world brought to us by those fine people playing games with the market.
I'm a proud "non-theist", but I think basic "Christian" principles are common sense, and I'm glad that they are the basic foundation of our rule of law system. And the greed involved in manipulation of the "market" is, indeed, disgusting to me - I just don't know how it can be, or whether it should be, regulated out of existence. Maybe a little exercise of common sense on the part of the "plebes" would contain it (how likely is that?).

As for corporations moving offshore, free trade encourages that more then higher taxes. With proper use of Tariffs and Duties that should never be a concern and would create jobs instead of seeing them exported.

But, on this one, sorry; I think you are completely wrong. "Free trade" in our context, has nothing to do with corporations "moving offshore". They were doing that, where it made economic sense, at a similar or greater rate prior to the US-Canada agreement, or NAFTA (with Mexico included).

NAFTA actually encourages them to locate in the North American locale which provides the business with the best business efficiencies and net profit environment. There are "winners" and "losers", and one does empathize with the "little guys" who are/were affiliated with the losers. But Canada, in pure economic terms, has benefitted way more than the US (tariff free access, in many areas, to the world's biggest comsumption market, at a level which almost no one else has). Our negotiators were simply better than their "opponents", and deserve huge accolades.

And Mexico has been a huge beneficiary - not just in pure economic terms for its relatively "poor" populace, but in terms of business standards having to meet qualifying standards, in environmental matters, in terms of labor standards, etc. Their situation is still far from up to our "standards", and the continuing corruption of their institutions, due largely to the drug trade, is disappointing. But, in pure net-net economic terms, they have benefitted immensely - I don't begrudge this even if it has occasionally been at the expense of some Canadian jobs - at least we have a social safety net in such respects, which they do not. They need a "hand up", and what they make of it is up to their populace, in the end.

Where tariffs and duties "create jobs" it is an artifice that just results in everyone else subsidizing same. Our over-protected dairy industry is a prime example of government leading the participants to inevitable economic disaster due to complete ingrained reliance on protection by the Mommy Government umbrella. At some point it has to cease this reliance, and a lot of the industry will be devastated - though those (and there are many) in the industry who have distaste for over-regulation, and are prepared for real economic freedom, will thrive.

Basically, it is a question of whether one wants the economic freedom to decide one's own fate in the competitve business world, or wants a Mommy Government protective umbrella, at huge cost to the tapayer, to rely on. I'll take the freedom route every time, and eschew any government involvement. But ...? What do the majority really want?

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

But, on this one, sorry; I think you are completely wrong. "Free trade" in our context, has nothing to do with corporations "moving offshore". They were doing that, where it made economic sense, at a similar or greater rate prior to the US-Canada agreement, or NAFTA (with Mexico included).

NAFTA actually encourages them to locate in the North American locale which provides the business with the best business efficiencies and net profit environment. There are "winners" and "losers", and one does empathize with the "little guys" who are/were affiliated with the losers. But Canada, in pure economic terms, has benefitted way more than the US (tariff free access, in many areas, to the world's biggest comsumption market, at a level which almost no one else has). Our negotiators were simply better than their "opponents", and deserve huge accolades.

And Mexico has been a huge beneficiary - not just in pure economic terms for its relatively "poor" populace, but in terms of business standards having to meet qualifying standards, in environmental matters, in terms of labor standards, etc. Their situation is still far from up to our "standards", and the continuing corruption of their institutions, due largely to the drug trade, is disappointing. But, in pure net-net economic terms, they have benefitted immensely - I don't begrudge this even if it has occasionally been at the expense of some Canadian jobs - at least we have a social safety net in such respects, which they do not. They need a "hand up", and what they make of it is up to their populace, in the end.

Where tariffs and duties "create jobs" it is an artifice that just results in everyone else subsidizing same. Our over-protected dairy industry is a prime example of government leading the participants to inevitable economic disaster due to complete ingrained reliance on protection by the Mommy Government umbrella. At some point it has to cease this reliance, and a lot of the industry will be devastated - though those (and there are many) in the industry who have distaste for over-regulation, and are prepared for real economic freedom, will thrive.

Basically, it is a question of whether one wants the economic freedom to decide one's own fate in the competitve business world, or wants a Mommy Government protective umbrella, at huge cost to the tapayer, to rely on. I'll take the freedom route every time, and eschew any government involvement. But ...? What do the majority really want?

The rest of the equation is that duty and tariffs have the effect of making things more expensive. So in this protective environment, all products become increasingly more expensive, after all the government is protecting industry from most of the competition in the world. I never understood exactly why the left feels the need to make things more expensive. How exactly does that help anyone?

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

He also spent the surplus, and erased all the debt the Cretien/Martin government was able to pay off, promising a return to a balanced budget next year after another election and just like the Alberta PC was probably expecting to do it on the back of $100 oil.

don't get me wrong, I'm all for the cut in GST, and was shocked the liberals were reelected after not abolishing it back then. However the direction the nation is heading under Harper is not where I like, 13 years engaged in foreign conflicts, increased globalization, subservient to US foreign policy and lop sided so called free trade(liberals are equally guilty of this) agreements.

I believe in a Canada, for Canadians. Not a Canada for foreign ownership and private funny money.

Oh, I don't care how many paragraphs you decide to type, just would like to see spaces between them. walls of text are hard on my eyes.

Were you actually paying attention to politics in 2009 and 2010? Harper had a minority government and was forced by the opposition parties to spend Canada out of the recession. He actually spent much less than they had wanted him to. He has done more good than any of the alternative parties would have and he would have done better with a majority, which by the way Cretin had. Furthermore the 13 years engaged in foreign conflicts were also initiated by the lieberals, he did not initiate free trade and has really done nothing to enhance it. We are also no more "subservient" to US policy than we were under Cretin, the only difference is that the current MPs don't make fools of themselves stepping on US president dolls.

[Kanonfodder]

Another big ol derail. Closef