Quantcast
Canada: from bad to worse. - Page 4 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 4
Results 61 to 77 of 77

Thread: Canada: from bad to worse.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    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.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,749
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    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

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    101
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

    Last edited by ZenOps; 03-19-2017 at 10:30 AM.
    0.5 gram microsd delivered by 12,000 pound combustion vehicle and driver.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,749
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    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.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mountains/Calgary
    My Ride
    Das Fahrenheit
    Posts
    2,125
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    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.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    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/...deas-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.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mountains/Calgary
    My Ride
    Das Fahrenheit
    Posts
    2,125
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    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.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    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.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mountains/Calgary
    My Ride
    Das Fahrenheit
    Posts
    2,125
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    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.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    101
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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 &quot;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.&quot; 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.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    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.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Upstairs
    My Ride
    Natural Gas.
    Posts
    13,332
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by killramos View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You realize you are talking to the guy who made his own furniture out of salad bowls right?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Upstairs
    My Ride
    Natural Gas.
    Posts
    13,332
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Rick Peterson is awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by killramos View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You realize you are talking to the guy who made his own furniture out of salad bowls right?

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,192
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    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?

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    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 &quot;well to do&quot; individuals joked with me saying &quot;ya you have the accountants number?&quot; 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".

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Which bad business practice is worse?

    By heavyfuel in forum General
    Replies: 26
    Latest Threads: 03-01-2012, 11:55 PM
  2. As bad as this is, it's not much worse than Top 40 Hip Hop

    By Canucks3322 in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 12
    Latest Threads: 04-17-2010, 12:08 PM
  3. best/worse kills of the year

    By 2000impreza in forum Street Encounters
    Replies: 85
    Latest Threads: 03-28-2004, 01:07 PM
  4. Why factory wheel gap looks worse with bigger rims

    By FiveFreshFish in forum Performance Modifications
    Replies: 8
    Latest Threads: 01-17-2003, 04:38 PM
  5. edmonton has the worse drivers?

    By 2000impreza in forum General
    Replies: 9
    Latest Threads: 07-11-2002, 12:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •