Beyond.ca

Registration is free! Car Forums - Member Rides Car Forums - Find other members Car Forums - Calendar Car Forums - Frequently Asked Questions Forum Rules and Regulations Car Forums - Search Logout
Beyond.ca - Car Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.9 Beyond.ca - Car Forums > Lounge > Society / Law / Current Events / Politics > Canada: from bad to worse.


Author
Thread
Buster
First Gear

Location: Calgary
What I drive: 2012 CTS-V Wagon, 2012 GL350
Posts/Day: 0.13
Trader Rating: (1)
User Rating: 97%


quote:

Originally posted by ZenOps
The US government is more appealing to some now.

At least they are honest about being racist towards true natives americans and sexist, and elitist. Why bother making laws for illegals when you can just kick them out? It does make sense in a nasty way.

Zuckerberg and Hawaii, lets just make it simple: Doesn't matter if your family has owned it for 40,000 years - the man with the most US dollars wins on forced sale (exactly how I imagine they justified taking Manhattan from the natives way back when)

Laws that are simple, but definitely favour one particular side over the other. I mean, did Hawaii even have US dollars for most of the last century?



I'm not sure how far ancient history goes in terms of determining the here and the now.

Also, any aboriginal claims are dubious to me - how can you determine a collective ownership based on race? That seems to utilize a tool (ie race) which we consider abhorrent in almost all other contexts. It's why I don't believe the current land claims and treaties are legitimate.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-16-2017 07:38 PM
Buster is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Buster Click here to Send Buster a Private Message Find more posts by Buster Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
 
J-hop
First Gear

Location: calgary
What I drive:
Posts/Day: 0.39
Trader Rating: (0)
User Rating: 100%


quote:

Originally posted by ZenOps


I'm saying the definitions, seemingly the same, mean completely different things to different people.

Kneehigh leather boots to a woman may seem fashionable, but to men born in the 1960's they are fuck me boots.

Dollar values to those who purchased $30,000 homes in the 60's that are now worth over $1 million (and taxed at that rate) well within the period of one lifetime may seem somewhat arbitrary and surprisingly meaningless.

160 acres of land to a millennial may be a hard concept to grasp as well. Perception of value to a millennial does seem almost entirely tied to flipping value for houses at least. See the forest for the wood, not the trees. See the cow for the steak not the milk.

If I told you that at the rate things are going, you will be paying $20,000 per year for car insurance, or $1 million to renounce a citizenship by the time you retire would you believe me?

And not to be too racist but: A lot of laws in Canada and the US are pertinent to white people and not so pertinent to natives or even black or Asians. The Native land treaties in the US are 100x less comprehensive than the lines draw out in Europe. Heck, they didn't even let Chinese women into Canada until 1950.

BTW: As far as I saw, Rob Anders only used 17 years worth of political power to improve the lives of titanium skins.



Ok but this is not a philosophical thread. We are talking about taxes. Which have nothing to do with your personal view of how different generations view primary residence. The CRA definition is all that matters to this thread. Create a different thread if you'd like to debate the opinions of different generations

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2017 02:05 AM
J-hop is offline Click Here to See the Profile for J-hop Click here to Send J-hop a Private Message Find more posts by J-hop Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Gestalt
Newbie

Location: Calgary
What I drive:
Posts/Day: 0.02
Trader Rating: (0)
User Rating: 100%


quote:

Originally posted by J-hop


Ok but this is not a philosophical thread. We are talking about taxes. Which have nothing to do with your personal view of how different generations view primary residence. The CRA definition is all that matters to this thread. Create a different thread if you'd like to debate the opinions of different generations



It was not philosophical, no. But worse tin foil.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2017 02:07 AM
Gestalt is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Gestalt Click here to Send Gestalt a Private Message Find more posts by Gestalt Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
ZenOps
Neutral

Location: Calgary
What I drive:
Posts/Day: 0.08
Trader Rating: (0)
User Rating: 99%


quote:

Side note: Its actually well within Queen Elizabeth II and Charles power to give every born Canadian 640 acres of land with mineral and water rights, if they wished to do so.

I mean really, its not like you can split up Canada to productive use for a few thousand natives.

The US already had its 270 million acre free land giveaway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

Its arguably one of the things holding back growth in Canada, the vast emptiness of it all. There is *no* incentive to be out in the middle of nowhere, even farmers kids are starting to re-absorb back into the cities.

__________________
Hi! I like shorts! They're comfy and easy to wear!

Last edited by ZenOps on 03-19-2017 at 05:30 PM

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-19-2017 05:22 PM
ZenOps is online now Click Here to See the Profile for ZenOps Click here to Send ZenOps a Private Message Find more posts by ZenOps Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
J-hop
First Gear

Location: calgary
What I drive:
Posts/Day: 0.39
Trader Rating: (0)
User Rating: 100%


quote:

Originally posted by ZenOps
Side note: Its actually well within Queen Elizabeth II and Charles power to give every born Canadian 640 acres of land with mineral and water rights, if they wished to do so.

I mean really, its not like you can split up Canada to productive use for a few thousand natives.

The US already had its 270 million acre free land giveaway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

Its arguably one of the things holding back growth in Canada, the vast emptiness of it all. There is *no* incentive to be out in the middle of nowhere, even farmers kids are starting to re-absorb back into the cities.



The queens role in Canada is not an absolute monarch. She absolutely does not have the power in a functional sense and likely doesn't even theoretically have the power given how our "monarchy" is structured.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-19-2017 11:15 PM
J-hop is offline Click Here to See the Profile for J-hop Click here to Send J-hop a Private Message Find more posts by J-hop Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Canmorite
Second Gear

Location: Mountains/Calgary
What I drive: Das Fahrenheit
Posts/Day: 0.48
Trader Rating: (5)
User Rating: 100%


quote:

Originally posted by A790

I used to be a conservative, then I was as liberal, and now I find I'm somewhere in the middle. Sadly, there isn't a party (federally) for me it seems. I'm not particularly impressed with Trudeau, nor was I with Harper.



Echo, echo. Give me a socially liberal, progressive fiscal conservative and I'd be the biggest cheerleader. I care about the economy and the environment, but I feel like I have to choose one or the other at the voting booth.

__________________

Originally posted by 89coupe
I do get great service there, especially when I mention my name, haha.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 04:54 PM
Canmorite is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Canmorite Click here to Send Canmorite a Private Message Find more posts by Canmorite Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Buster
First Gear

Location: Calgary
What I drive: 2012 CTS-V Wagon, 2012 GL350
Posts/Day: 0.13
Trader Rating: (1)
User Rating: 97%


quote:

Originally posted by Canmorite


Echo, echo. Give me a socially liberal, progressive fiscal conservative and I'd be the biggest cheerleader. I care about the economy and the environment, but I feel like I have to choose one or the other at the voting booth.



http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/opinion...ideas-1.4030656

Peterson is also pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage, pro-LGBT rights, pro-assisted-suicide. He is a progressive conservative, which might be unfashionable, but there are lots of them in this country.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 05:07 PM
Buster is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Buster Click here to Send Buster a Private Message Find more posts by Buster Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Canmorite
Second Gear

Location: Mountains/Calgary
What I drive: Das Fahrenheit
Posts/Day: 0.48
Trader Rating: (5)
User Rating: 100%


quote:



Thanks. Those particular points are great. However, I watched the 8 min interview with him on CBC and was impressed, until he said he wanted to eliminate corporate income taxes because the US plans reduce their corporate tax, in order to increase re-investment. The money will be pushed to shareholders most likely, or saved. Which is great for me and the company I work for, but what about the social programs others depend on? Where will that additional money come from? What about the national debt?

Also, against a carbon tax because he said "show me a correlation between carbon tax and reduction of C02 emissions, I'll look at it, but I haven't seen anything so far." Nothing on reducing C02, the issue of it, etc. Just anti-tax. No one likes taxes and it's an easy position to take.

Also, not thrilled on Marijuana legalization. Probably a strong conservative, but I'm not sold.

__________________

Originally posted by 89coupe
I do get great service there, especially when I mention my name, haha.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 05:18 PM
Canmorite is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Canmorite Click here to Send Canmorite a Private Message Find more posts by Canmorite Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Buster
First Gear

Location: Calgary
What I drive: 2012 CTS-V Wagon, 2012 GL350
Posts/Day: 0.13
Trader Rating: (1)
User Rating: 97%


quote:

Originally posted by Canmorite


Thanks. Those particular points are great. However, I watched the 8 min interview with him on CBC and was impressed, until he said he wanted to eliminate corporate income taxes because the US plans reduce their corporate tax, in order to increase re-investment. The money will be pushed to shareholders most likely, or saved. Which is great for me and the company I work for, but what about the social programs others depend on? Where will that additional money come from? What about the national debt?

Also, against a carbon tax because he said "show me a correlation between carbon tax and reduction of C02 emissions, I'll look at it, but I haven't seen anything so far." Nothing on reducing C02, the issue of it, etc. Just anti-tax. No one likes taxes and it's an easy position to take.

Also, not thrilled on Marijuana legalization. Probably a strong conservative, but I'm not sold.



So basically you want a politician that agrees with everything you agree with and disagrees with everything you disagree with. Unfortunately, you have to pick from a bunch of people who will differ from you in some regard. Just pick the one that's closest.

As for eliminating corporate tax - this is something that people don't understand very well, and it's not usually explained very well. The economy is of a certain size. The government needs to run services, so needs to extract money from the economic activities of its citizens in some capacity. Where that tax is extracted is a worthwhile discussion. If Peterson says, "I want to extract 18% of GDP from the economy in taxes" he can do it by putting it all on a consumption tax, or all on corporate taxes or whatever. It doesn't mean he thinks the overall taxes should be cut by the amount that corporations are currently taxed. He just thinks the tax burden should land in a different spot. The point is a good one: at the end of the day the people are the ones who are taxed, a corporate tax is just a vehicle to tax the underlying shareholders. You can tax those people with consumption taxes instead.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 05:45 PM
Buster is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Buster Click here to Send Buster a Private Message Find more posts by Buster Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Canmorite
Second Gear

Location: Mountains/Calgary
What I drive: Das Fahrenheit
Posts/Day: 0.48
Trader Rating: (5)
User Rating: 100%


quote:

Originally posted by Buster


So basically you want a politician that agrees with everything you agree with and disagrees with everything you disagree with. Unfortunately, you have to pick from a bunch of people who will differ from you in some regard. Just pick the one that's closest.



Who doesn't.

Originally posted by Buster

As for eliminating corporate tax - this is something that people don't understand very well, and it's not usually explained very well. The economy is of a certain size. The government needs to run services, so needs to extract money from the economic activities of its citizens in some capacity. Where that tax is extracted is a worthwhile discussion. If Peterson says, "I want to extract 18% of GDP from the economy in taxes" he can do it by putting it all on a consumption tax, or all on corporate taxes or whatever. It doesn't mean he thinks the overall taxes should be cut by the amount that corporations are currently taxed. He just thinks the tax burden should land in a different spot. The point is a good one: at the end of the day the people are the ones who are taxed, a corporate tax is just a vehicle to tax the underlying shareholders. You can tax those people with consumption taxes instead.



I understand that much. However, a consumption tax is regressive as it hurts those at the bottom the most. Having to pay 20% instead of 5% is a huge change when you make <$30K a year. I don't know all the details, obviously, but I am weary about removing all corporate taxes and shifting to a larger consumption tax. Not against looking at it, though.

__________________

Originally posted by 89coupe
I do get great service there, especially when I mention my name, haha.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 07:25 PM
Canmorite is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Canmorite Click here to Send Canmorite a Private Message Find more posts by Canmorite Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Gestalt
Newbie

Location: Calgary
What I drive:
Posts/Day: 0.02
Trader Rating: (0)
User Rating: 100%


quote:

Originally posted by Canmorite


Thanks. Those particular points are great. However, I watched the 8 min interview with him on CBC and was impressed, until he said he wanted to eliminate corporate income taxes because the US plans reduce their corporate tax, in order to increase re-investment. The money will be pushed to shareholders most likely, or saved. Which is great for me and the company I work for, but what about the social programs others depend on? Where will that additional money come from? What about the national debt?

Also, against a carbon tax because he said "show me a correlation between carbon tax and reduction of C02 emissions, I'll look at it, but I haven't seen anything so far." Nothing on reducing C02, the issue of it, etc. Just anti-tax. No one likes taxes and it's an easy position to take.

Also, not thrilled on Marijuana legalization. Probably a strong conservative, but I'm not sold.

n

The answer is obvious. If companies do well, the economy does well, and everyone buys an I phone.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 07:42 PM
Gestalt is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Gestalt Click here to Send Gestalt a Private Message Find more posts by Gestalt Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Buster
First Gear

Location: Calgary
What I drive: 2012 CTS-V Wagon, 2012 GL350
Posts/Day: 0.13
Trader Rating: (1)
User Rating: 97%


quote:

Originally posted by Canmorite


Who doesn't.



I understand that much. However, a consumption tax is regressive as it hurts those at the bottom the most. Having to pay 20% instead of 5% is a huge change when you make &lt;$30K a year. I don't know all the details, obviously, but I am weary about removing all corporate taxes and shifting to a larger consumption tax. Not against looking at it, though.



You can still make consumption taxes progressive. We already do: food isn't taxable for GST, for instance. I could think of many ways to do it. Perhaps make clothes not taxable, etc.

Taxation doesn't just drain capital from the private sector, it also reduces economic efficiency as it costs many billions to administer taxes, and many more billions for corporations to pay for tax accountants/lawyers/etc. That's essentially cost with zero productivity attached to it. (Unless you think enriching KPMG is your idea of a good time, and that thousands of CRA employees are making a difference in the world.)

That doesn't even mention the impact it has on incentives for investment, capital flow, etc.

The biggest barrier is political will, and the plebs who have "corporations are greedy, and must pay for their evil" mentality.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 08:08 PM
Buster is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Buster Click here to Send Buster a Private Message Find more posts by Buster Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
ExtraSlow
Third Gear

Location: Food Court Wifi
What I drive: 2010 Recession Fighter LX
Posts/Day: 1.12
Trader Rating: (27)
User Rating: 101%


quote:

Know what else is regressive, having a bunch of complex loopholes on income taxes that mean those who can afford to hire experts ususally end up paying the least tax.

Generous personal exemption and a flat (or flatter) tax structure would be progressive in my mind.

__________________
Make fun of me in the 2017 Tow Rig thread!

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 08:15 PM
ExtraSlow is offline Click Here to See the Profile for ExtraSlow Click here to Send ExtraSlow a Private Message Find more posts by ExtraSlow Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
ExtraSlow
Third Gear

Location: Food Court Wifi
What I drive: 2010 Recession Fighter LX
Posts/Day: 1.12
Trader Rating: (27)
User Rating: 101%


quote:

Rick Peterson is awesome.

__________________
Make fun of me in the 2017 Tow Rig thread!

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 08:20 PM
ExtraSlow is offline Click Here to See the Profile for ExtraSlow Click here to Send ExtraSlow a Private Message Find more posts by ExtraSlow Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
rx7_turbo2
First Gear

Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
What I drive:
Posts/Day: 0.22
Trader Rating: (3)
User Rating: 97%


quote:

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Know what else is regressive, having a bunch of complex loopholes on income taxes that mean those who can afford to hire experts ususally end up paying the least tax. .


Any examples in Canada? I'm not being a dick, it's just when I was younger and more naive I said a very similar thing at a dinner party I was at and it caused a significant amount of laughter. Some of the more "well to do" individuals joked with me saying "ya you have the accountants number?" I'm not saying there aren't ways to use the system in your favour and maybe the individuals I know don't use the right accountant, but I'm not sure it's as rampant as some people think.

__________________

Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
Before I start pwning all the members with my findings.


Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
Plus, is it true you can feed a pig elephant dong and it will still grow and build meat?


Originally posted by Toma
rx7_turbfoags best friend

Toma the homophobe?

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 10:50 PM
rx7_turbo2 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for rx7_turbo2 Click here to Send rx7_turbo2 a Private Message Find more posts by rx7_turbo2 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Buster
First Gear

Location: Calgary
What I drive: 2012 CTS-V Wagon, 2012 GL350
Posts/Day: 0.13
Trader Rating: (1)
User Rating: 97%


quote:

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

Any examples in Canada? I'm not being a dick, it's just when I was younger and more naive I said a very similar thing at a dinner party I was at and it caused a significant amount of laughter. Some of the more "well to do" individuals joked with me saying "ya you have the accountants number?" I'm not saying there aren't ways to use the system in your favour and maybe the individuals I know don't use the right accountant, but I'm not sure it's as rampant as some people think.



It's not. It's far more difficult to use tax shelters than people think. And the government is constantly doing away with them. They also invented GAAR...which basically is a rule that if the government thinks you are avoiding tax they can tax you anyway.

But the problem with income tax is not generally the "loopholes" idea. Rather it's the fact that the income tax is designed to allow certain constituencies to avoid paying it. I'm referring to credits and deductions that we all consider "legitimate".

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-20-2017 11:23 PM
Buster is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Buster Click here to Send Buster a Private Message Find more posts by Buster Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Buster
First Gear

Location: Calgary
What I drive: 2012 CTS-V Wagon, 2012 GL350
Posts/Day: 0.13
Trader Rating: (1)
User Rating: 97%


quote:

Trudeau took a bunch of the tax increases that were in store off the table. Good news: taxes are not going up. Bad news: our deficit will get worse. Canadians just can't help themselves but to spend on wasteful public services.

Anyway...I suspect they had this all ready to go, and then Trump started announcing tax breaks, and Canada would get smoked if we tried taxing capital, while the Americans are in the process of becoming MORE friendly to economic growth. Capital would have flowed out of Canada.

Report this post | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-22-2017 10:03 PM
Buster is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Buster Click here to Send Buster a Private Message Find more posts by Buster Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
The time now is 11:13 PM (GMT) Post New Thread   
 
Last Thread   Next Thread
Beyond.ca - Car Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.9 Beyond.ca - Car Forums > Lounge > Society / Law / Current Events / Politics > Canada: from bad to worse.



Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread


Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
 

Google
 
Web beyond.ca

Terms of Use - Contact Us - Advertising Info - Archives - Car Blog

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.9
Copyright ©2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Bringing Car Enthusiasts together in discussion on our car forums

Page Statistics : Page generated in 0.10034299 seconds (73.94% PHP - 26.06% MySQL) with 43 queries.