GET OUT and VOTE!! NDP Bitches!!!

[dirtsniffer]

just make sure you go vote tomorrow.

My prediction:
WR 40
NDP 25
PC 15
Lib 5
AB 2

[Sugarphreak]

....

[dirtsniffer]

They also predicted that they would get killed last time..

[rage2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
In my opinion, its not a fair share. Even having the flat tax based on percent, at the end of the day it still is disproportionately harder financially on the poorer folk than the more well off people.

I disagree here. It will affect both the same if both are irresponsible with their money. It's going to hurt a person making $30k a year who "needs" to pay for a smart phone, rent a place of their own, and living check to check as much as the person making $200k a year leveraged to his eyeballs in mortgage and car payments. A flat tax increase from 10 to 11% (with a 10k tax free base for simplicity sake) means an additional $200 a year for a $30k earner vs $1900 for a $200k earner. Living on the financial edge, it'll hurt both equally.

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
The systems we have in place have given everyone (including myself) a leg-up to get where we are today. If we need a bit more money to support them, I think it is in almost everyone's best interests to do so.

Not really, why should we help low income earners be more irresponsible with their money than high income earners? At the end of the day, you create your own financial hardship, regardless of your income level. If you make $30k a year, you shouldn't eat out, you shouldn't rent a place on your own, and properly control your finances. Want kids? Too bad. You're not entitled to have kids if you can't afford it.

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Rage, is 2% higher tax really going to affect your bottom line? Will you even NOTICE that money gone after the initial year? I know right now if somebody said 1% of my salary was gone, it'd be a pretty yawn moment.

Would it affect myself? Nope. But it sure would affect others. It would affect where I donate my money, where I invest my money, and where I spend my money. All of which affects others, as that money goes right back to the economy.

I think bottom line is, I'm sick of entitlement lol.

[FraserB]

PC - 39
WRA - 26
NDP - 20
Lib - 2

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by rage2


Not really, why should we help low income earners be more irresponsible with their money than high income earners? At the end of the day, you create your own financial hardship, regardless of your income level. If you make $30k a year, you shouldn't eat out, you shouldn't rent a place on your own, and properly control your finances. Want kids? Too bad. You're not entitled to have kids if you can't afford it.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. Do you think the Wildrose will do this? Without negatively affecting government services?

I'm saying that to maintain the levels we have are currently unsustainable. Are you saying that the entitlement itself needs to get cut back? What entitlement specifically and how? Honest questions.

[rage2]

All I know is reading the NDP platform is not doing any of this. And no, I never mentioned cutting back on entitlements. I said trim the fat from existing services and programs. The entitlement comment was from people who think we should take even more money from people that earn more.

[EM2FTL]

Originally posted by InRich


Thank-you for that comment. I do appreciate that. And yes I will do ANYTHING to keep my business going as strong as possible. Believe me its hard, dealing with trades alone is a nightmare!!! but on top of that keeping them busy is a while other story. if I gotta door knock 7 days a week (which I do btw) I'll do it to keep the leads flowing. Oh btw this year has been the hardest year in 8 YEARS. I'm already going to be laying off 25% of my work force, if the NDP get in, I can see my business suffering even worse. I know i
m a hot head when speaking on here, I'm just saying how I feel, no filter between my head and my mouth. Dont take it personally fellas. DO NOT VOTE NDP plz! Its tough for guys like me in the front line trenches.

I'm genuinely worried you're going to have a heart attack depending on the outcome tomorrow - please read this article and breathe deeply. It's from the Fraser Institute (your ideological brethren):

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploa...-the-1990s.pdf

[msommers]

I would absolutely love to "trim the fat" especially with AHS in mind. The problem is the fat is actually a lot of management controlling what to trim. So instead of trimming their brethren, they trim front-line workers and care goes further down meanwhile expectations consistently go up. I mean I completely get why people who have money want a system where they can just buy better care; 6 months for an MRI or tomorrow for $1,200!

I've said this before and I'll say it again, education and health care should not be the first targets to cut costs and quite frankly unless things are lavish and outrageous spending is going on, should never be cut.

The reality is for low income earners that you either want to be middle class or below the poverty line to qualify for social programs. People just above the poverty line I really feel for.

[InRich]

Gotta admit. Rage your a pretty smart guy we should play poker together sometime and chit chat might be fun

[Ergo-Sun-Tzu]

Based on statistical analysis done by threehundredeight.com, and if this analysis is done correctly, the NDP might form the government tommorrow. However, if it is wrong, either the PC or Wildrose will form tomorrows government. But mind you the poll may be wrong.In some cases, like the last Alberta election, the polls had the Wildrose in the lead; however, the PC won a majority. "The vote and seat projections in the central columns reflect the best estimates based on the available polling data." from threehundredeight.com.

I would also like to point out certain facts, threehundredeight.com analysis are created from various polls done by various organizations like EKOs, Nanos, etc.

The full report done by threehundredeight.com on the Alberta Election Seating and Voting probability results: http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/alberta.html

[403Gemini]

Scares the shit out of me that these KIDS may be running our province in 2 days....

http://www.albertandp.ca/joncarson
http://www.albertandp.ca/michaelconnolly
http://www.albertandp.ca/thomasdang
http://www.albertandp.ca/catherineharder
http://www.albertandp.ca/jessicalittlewood
http://www.albertandp.ca/hannahschlamp
http://www.albertandp.ca/grahamsucha
http://www.albertandp.ca/tristanturner

[dirtsniffer]

Exactly. The biggest budget these kids have dealt with is their fucking allowance. How about finding some candidates with life experience. The lady in my riding has been a gardener in the Okanogan for 20 years. We're so fucked if they win.

[Ergo-Sun-Tzu]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
Exactly. The biggest budget these kids have dealt with is their fucking allowance. How about finding some candidates with life experience. The lady in my riding has been a gardener in the Okanogan for 20 years. We're so fucked if they win.

Healthcare, and Education seems to be their motto, if they do win, I suppose you can try and find a job there. If not join the picket line for EI; however, considering Stephen Harper made it difficult for people to get EI, you may want to consider going to a drop in centre for the homeless for some food and shelter, or getting your food at the local Calgary Food Bank.

[[GaGe]]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
Scares the shit out of me that these KIDS may be running our province in 2 days....

http://www.albertandp.ca/joncarson
http://www.albertandp.ca/michaelconnolly
http://www.albertandp.ca/thomasdang
http://www.albertandp.ca/catherineharder
http://www.albertandp.ca/jessicalittlewood
http://www.albertandp.ca/hannahschlamp
http://www.albertandp.ca/grahamsucha
http://www.albertandp.ca/tristanturner

Yeah that's scary. The Edmonton South-West guy is a computer science student lol.

Maybe I should've run for NDP.

[themack89]

Originally posted by rage2
I disagree here. It will affect both the same if both are irresponsible with their money. It's going to hurt a person making $30k a year who "needs" to pay for a smart phone, rent a place of their own, and living check to check as much as the person making $200k a year leveraged to his eyeballs in mortgage and car payments. A flat tax increase from 10 to 11% (with a 10k tax free base for simplicity sake) means an additional $200 a year for a $30k earner vs $1900 for a $200k earner. Living on the financial edge, it'll hurt both equally.

Not really, why should we help low income earners be more irresponsible with their money than high income earners? At the end of the day, you create your own financial hardship, regardless of your income level. If you make $30k a year, you shouldn't eat out, you shouldn't rent a place on your own, and properly control your finances. Want kids? Too bad. You're not entitled to have kids if you can't afford it.

Your assumption makes your argument really convenient. I mean, assuming both poor and rich economic agents are living to the extreme end of their means, a proportionate tax adjustment will affect both equally.... yes. The comparison is not apples to apples though when you consider that the poor person can only choose from a very limited list of lifestyles before reaching that "financial edge" as opposed to the rich person who has considerably more choice.

So, if neither are living on the financial edge, it certainly does NOT affect them the same. Depending on how you perceive the possibilities frontier (which, normally exhibits concavity). The more you expand ones income, their choice expands exponentially.

Your second paragraph is more ignorant to the fact that we live in a lottery and tournament style economy. It is easy to speak that way when you have been lucky through the course of your life--lucky to end up where you are, regardless of how much you perceive your success to be strictly a result of how "hard" or how "smart" you worked. Try to consider, objectively, how many subtleties you stumbled across--people you met, right place right time, those who failed before you making the tiniest mistake, etc. Consider how much society as a whole could benefit if we remove luck from the filtering system (indirectly this is done through income redistribution, i.e. higher taxation at the upper ends)... I don't want to use any specific examples or they might get twisted.

Actually, this reminds me of a thought that used to often cloud around in my mind: money is an arbitrary measure of entitlement (maybe this is what you were saying?). Husband and Wife X may be lucky enough to be in a socioeconomic status which would allow them to have a family whereas Husband and Wife Y are not. But, what if objectively Husband and Wife Y are genetically superior? They have perfect eye sight, they are attractive, they are smarter, stronger, faster--only they had not stumbled upon a decent inheritance or simply were not as lucky in their ventures due to off timing, wrong place wrong time, etc. If society had a choice as to where to re-distribute wealth and resources to move someone from the "too bad no kids" bracket to the "have $ to have kids" bracket.... What would they do?

It is all too easy to forget that equality does not yield justice. It's also easy to forget socioeconomic status is largely a function of luck.

[Toma]

Ahhh, yes, Attribution Theory, Self Serving Bias, and Fundamental Attribution Error....

The plague of mankind everywhere, especially the righties lol

But this is no place for such nonsense. Shouldn't we be talking about steak, and what we had for dinner last night?

Please get out and vote "tomorrow".

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by themack89


Your assumption makes your argument really convenient. I mean, assuming both poor and rich economic agents are living to the extreme end of their means, a proportionate tax adjustment will affect both equally.... yes. The comparison is not apples to apples though when you consider that the poor person can only choose from a very limited list of lifestyles before reaching that "financial edge" as opposed to the rich person who has considerably more choice.

So, if neither are living on the financial edge, it certainly does NOT affect them the same. Depending on how you perceive the possibilities frontier (which, normally exhibits concavity). The more you expand ones income, their choice expands exponentially.

Your second paragraph is more ignorant to the fact that we live in a lottery and tournament style economy. It is easy to speak that way when you have been lucky through the course of your life--lucky to end up where you are, regardless of how much you perceive your success to be strictly a result of how "hard" or how "smart" you worked. Try to consider, objectively, how many subtleties you stumbled across--people you met, right place right time, those who failed before you making the tiniest mistake, etc. Consider how much society as a whole could benefit if we remove luck from the filtering system (indirectly this is done through income redistribution, i.e. higher taxation at the upper ends)... I don't want to use any specific examples or they might get twisted.

Actually, this reminds me of a thought that used to often cloud around in my mind: money is an arbitrary measure of entitlement (maybe this is what you were saying?). Husband and Wife X may be lucky enough to be in a socioeconomic status which would allow them to have a family whereas Husband and Wife Y are not. But, what if objectively Husband and Wife Y are genetically superior? They have perfect eye sight, they are attractive, they are smarter, stronger, faster--only they had not stumbled upon a decent inheritance or simply were not as lucky in their ventures due to off timing, wrong place wrong time, etc. If society had a choice as to where to re-distribute wealth and resources to move someone from the "too bad no kids" bracket to the "have $ to have kids" bracket.... What would they do?

It is all too easy to forget that equality does not yield justice. It's also easy to forget socioeconomic status is largely a function of luck.

So your upset life isn't fair?

[themack89]

Originally posted by Nitro5
So your upset life isn't fair?

To an extent, yes... Aren't we all?

I am more upset that we have been trained to think that any unfortunate individual in society is entirely at fault for their position in life, and the same for the fortunate. Honestly I was raised to think this way, it took a long time to learn other perspectives.

I am appreciative though how you pandered my response from the emotional angle and did not challenge my reason. Does that mean it was a reasonable statement?

Disclosure: I'm totally neutral to all parties because I think they are all crooked in different ways. If it were up to me, I'd look at countries with the highest quality of life / median happiness of citizen and copy whatever they do. Of course, only doing comparisons to other countries who face winters comparatively as harsh as ours (bad weather tends to bog people down).

[ZenOps]

This vote could have small impacts on the UK vote as well. If a solidly right colony can go left, then surely the crown can as well.