bishopshodan Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: You really want Jagmeet Singh or Jimmy Dhaliwal or whatever name he chooses next to be running the country? Thought you had a soft spot for the NDP? To follow up... What is with these party leaders? here and down south... If Aliens could see us then they would have a very low evaluation of us based on who we elect to lead. I mean, me and you arn't buds and I might vote for you over most of them. 1 minute ago, aGENT said: I don't like some of their platform. Particularly I think some of their economic ideas are at best naive. Also haven't cared for their about face on the carbon tax evidently only as a means to differentiate themselves from the Liberals, over sound policy. And despite his party's success in attaining goals under this minority government, I think Singh may be the worst leader out of a collection of actual turds of the three major, national parties. That said, I'd welcome a minority NDP government, if nothing else to force the other two parties to do better. Really if we're going to have shitty fiscal management under any of the three parties, we may as well get something out of it as citizens. And we stand a fat better chance of getting something for those tax dollars under the NDP, than we do the Liberals or especially the Cons. It's kind of sad those are our three options though. It seems the NDP could gain the most from a leader change. Many want JT gone, but even he does I think the damage is done for some time with the Libs. I dont know politics like you and I am sure the NDP has a lot of flaws. I'm just getting sick of the other two parties... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 8 minutes ago, JIAHN said: Boud's, here is some reality for you.......... My councilor in school......Ted Miller ( a very nice man, who kept me going to school!) ran and won the NDP riding for the federal NDP. He was fun of idea's and was very popular, inside local NDP circles for that reason. When he arrived in Ottawa, he was shown around, and shown where is seat was.........(back row, beside other newbies) he was then told not to speak at all, and vote as a block, with all the other NDP and guided to by then Ed Broadbent. He was then told by other MP's of other parties, that that is exactly what happened to them.....that my friend was his reality! Not surprised to hear that story. I will tell you another. I was chatting with my Regional District Director about 3 months after his election. I asked how his indoctrination went? New directors are put through a course on how the Regional District is set up and operates. He smiled and said that the bureaucrats threw so much at him that he could not comprehend the scope of the work involved. He said it was a clear attempt to make him defer to the admin on most decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 7 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: True, but I never actually said you or anyone else is advocating for more debt and deficits. The Conservative Party may continue to run a deficit in the future. As a matter of act, I'd be shocked if they didn't. $40-50 billion is too much of a debt burden to be able just to get rid of in a short period of time without wiping out all social programs. Problem is neither government will be wiping out the deficit anytime soon, if ever... Well can we agree that water's wet then? And maybe stop bringing it up as some argument "for" the cons/"against" the Liberals? They're both shitty with our tax dollars. The conservatives historically worse and far more prone to handing out tax dollars over to the wealthy, corporations (and frequently foreign ones at that, where the money doesn't even stay in Canada to @Boudrias earlier point). And more so at the expense of the lower and working classes that get their social safety nets slashed to pay for it. At least the Libs throw those groups some crumbs while doing so. We frankly shouldn't be rewarding either party with our votes. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 One of the very first things any conservative government does is to cut taxes to ultra wealthy and to corporations. The burden to compensate for those cuts falls on everyone else. Unless you are a millionaire, you're part of everyone else. I don't get how any honest working person could support that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: I dont know politics like you and I am sure the NDP has a lot of flaws. I'm just getting sick of the other two parties... Welcome to the club I just wish the federal NDP made themselves in to something more viable of an alternative. It's like ok, we can agree neither of the other two parties are great. They're bad and awful. Let's make a 3rd party but have rainbow unicorns for our economic plan and the biggest turd for our party leader! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 5 minutes ago, RWMc1 said: One of the very first things any conservative government does is to cut taxes to ultra wealthy and to corporations. The burden to compensate for those cuts falls on everyone else. Unless you are a millionaire, you're part of everyone else. I don't get how any honest working person could support that. It's like so COMPLETELY baffling right?! It's not even a difficult concept to visualize/understand, and yet MILLIONS of people ignore it and vote for them...? 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 36 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Tax loopholes are created by the CRA. The CRA is controlled by the government. So, anyone arguing that rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes should look at the government as to the reason why. Of course everyone is going to take advantage of tax loopholes if they exist, only a fool wouldn't. One question in my mind is: to what extent do the rich influence government policy - including (especially) CRA policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 (edited) 15 minutes ago, aGENT said: Welcome to the club I just wish the federal NDP made themselves in to something more viable of an alternative. It's like ok, we can agree neither of the other two parties are great. They're bad and awful. Let's make a 3rd party but have rainbow unicorns for our economic plan and the biggest turd for our party leader! SO are you saying rainbow unicorns cant deal with the economy? They seem pretty magical to me, thought they were powerful AF But for real, the opportunity seems there for them to make some real ground and give us an option. As you say, drop the man of the people and put some work in. They could make ground. Edited May 18 by bishopshodan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 45 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: I wish all the party leaders would bugger off. I just think the NDP has done well, with what they have, at Fed level. With all the divide, maybe they could take a swing... If you could bring Jack Layton back to life, they would actually have a shot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 (edited) 50 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: Thought you had a soft spot for the NDP? To follow up... What is with these party leaders? here and down south... If Aliens could see us then they would have a very low evaluation of us based on who we elect to lead. I mean, me and you arn't buds and I might vote for you over most of them. It seems the NDP could gain the most from a leader change. Many want JT gone, but even he does I think the damage is done for some time with the Libs. I dont know politics like you and I am sure the NDP has a lot of flaws. I'm just getting sick of the other two parties... We'd probably be BFF's in real life. Trust me when I tell you that. The problem with CFF or the old CDC or social media in general is that it is harder to communicate and get a handle on people over words on a screen. Much better to be able to have a conversation face to face. I'm sure if we met face to face we'd have alot more in common and we wouldn't have as many misunderstandings as we do through our computer screen. It wouldn't even surprise me if we actually shared some acquaintances or even friends since you were in the Downtown Vancouver club scene for such a long time. Heck, I might even be friends with Rupert if we met in real life. That misunderstanding that we had weeks ago probably could have been resolved over a cold beer together... Edited May 18 by Elias Pettersson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: You really want Jagmeet Singh or Jimmy Dhaliwal or whatever name he chooses next to be running the country? He's a better option then vermin like Poilivre. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 27 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: We'd probably be BFF's in real life. Trust me when I tell you that. The problem with CFF or the old CDC or social media in general is that it is harder to communicate and get a handle on people over words on a screen. Much better to be able to have a conversation face to face. I'm sure if we met face to face we'd have alot more in common and we wouldn't have as many misunderstandings as we do through our computer screen. It wouldn't even surprise me if we actually shared some acquaintances or even friends since you were in the Downtown Vancouver club scene for such a long time. Heck, I might even be friends with Rupert if we met in real life. That misunderstanding that we had weeks ago probably could have been resolved over a cold beer together... Thanks for saying that. I bet we would get along well. I agree with a lot of what you post in the hockey side, not as much over here. But it means a ton for you to communicate with me again. I have said many times that we all need to keep talking. You always come with a lot of info and thoughtout points. Your contributions make this site better. And with this post of yours, it make me think that just maybe the divide can be overcome in this great country. People talk about grass roots, there is nothing more grassroots than talking with a friend or neighbour about important issues that effect us all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 1 hour ago, UnkNuk said: One question in my mind is: to what extent do the rich influence government policy - including (especially) CRA policy? Well the rich include the politicians so I would say they influence government policy in a great way. Trudeau and PP and even Jimmy Dhaliwal all benefit from current CRA guidelines and from all those tax loopholes. There really isn’t a party of the “people” any longer. Jack Layton was probably the last politician that you could trust who you could say was for the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 5 hours ago, bolt said: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-government-kpmg-consulting/ A failed Liberal Government that doesn't have a clue how to spend money effectively. Is this the same kpmg that Harper and poilivere used to fight the cra against finding Canadian millionaires and billionaires who were guilty of tax evasion? https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/harper-government-partnered-with-industry-group-battling-cra-over-kpmg-case-1.3257994 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: Is this the same kpmg that Harper and poilivere used to fight the cra against finding Canadian millionaires and billionaires who were guilty of tax evasion? https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/harper-government-partnered-with-industry-group-battling-cra-over-kpmg-case-1.3257994 fun story, Harper consolidated federal consulting to ensure that a much smaller number of firms got most of the work. Some work in fact was set aside only for a few of the larger firms with basically no competition. We survived it because we're very niche, but a lot of the medium sized firms got decimated with Harper basically eliminating real competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 4 hours ago, bolt said: https://dailyhive.com/canada/canada-worst-standard-of-living-declines-four-decades It's no coincidence, that this happened on the Liberals watch. (They have admitted they don't think about monetary policy) A few bread crumbs created from excessive debt isn't enough to change my mind to vote for them. We're much worse off since 2015. You keep saying we..... 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 3 hours ago, Boudrias said: My question would be why do the 'tax loopholes' exist in the first place? Usually tax breaks are used to encourage private investment. If they are not doing that job well enough then remove them from the tax code. I don't think citizens can condemn people or corporations for utilizing tax incentives. I would certainly agree with a better explanation by government on why they exist and a accurate measurement of the effectiveness. Perhaps another question to address is why capital is leaving Canada to the tune of + $100 billion a year? Been happening for decades. If it is to invest in American operations I would question the effectiveness of NAFTA. IMHO Canada has to have an industrial strategy that both the Liberals and CPC agree to pursue over multiple administrations. The Americans are far more consistent in their priorities than we are. On what basis do you determine gouging? Levi has jeans made in 3rd world countries and sell them for $100's in Canada. Is that gouging? People love to say the grocery stores are gouging us. There is no doubt that their pricing has gone up. What is the fair return for this industry? All are public companies and their profits are available to view. I won't buy their stock as their growth is poor and their ROI is poor, their dividends are not particularly good. Maybe the telcos are. They charge a lot. I was surprised that the Rogers purchase of Shaw was allowed. Bottom line was that Shaw was in financial trouble. Just reading the other day that Telus is investing $100's of billions into their infrastructure across the country. I think Corporations are gouging us requires more detail. For all the grief I give you The times I agree are the times you fucking nail it across the board 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIAHN Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 2 hours ago, aGENT said: I don't like some of their platform. Particularly I think some of their economic ideas are at best naive. Also haven't cared for their about face on the carbon tax evidently only as a means to differentiate themselves from the Liberals, over sound policy. And despite his party's success in attaining goals under this minority government, I think Singh may be the worst leader out of a collection of actual turds of the three major, national parties. That said, I'd welcome a minority NDP government, if nothing else to force the other two parties to do better. Really if we're going to have shitty fiscal management under any of the three parties, we may as well get something out of it as citizens. And we stand a fat better chance of getting something for those tax dollars under the NDP, than we do the Liberals or especially the Cons. It's kind of sad those are our three options though. Not that I disagree with you But, isn't it sad that we live in one of the best countries i the world and still most of us feel this way.... I mean, really think about it! Do we expect too much? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 15 minutes ago, JIAHN said: Not that I disagree with you But, isn't it sad that we live in one of the best countries i the world and still most of us feel this way.... I mean, really think about it! Do we expect too much? I have a theory, that if everybody just turned off the news, stopped reading most web sites, and newspapers that: 1 the world would not end 2 we would all feel better about almost everything. Bad news sells, unfortunately, so we get more and more bad news and less good news. Whole lot of negativity is being thrown at us, and most are unable to stop feeding on it. Truly Canada could be listed as top 3 in every significant beneficial trait; and some people would be angry, to the point of threats, that we aren't #2 on the list. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 17 minutes ago, Gurn said: I have a theory, that if everybody just turned off the news, stopped reading most web sites, and newspapers that: 1 the world would not end 2 we would all feel better about almost everything. Bad news sells, unfortunately, so we get more and more bad news and less good news. Whole lot of negativity is being thrown at us, and most are unable to stop feeding on it. Truly Canada could be listed as top 3 in every significant beneficial trait; and some people would be angry, to the point of threats, that we aren't #2 on the list. The drawback of that approach though is that due to the sudden slowing down of information transmission (flawed and tinted - and in some cases, perverted or intentionally mis-told - as it was), people would also be overly insulated and presumably ignorant about the current happenings of the world (bad or negative as they were). We'd be less inclined to make decisions that would benefit society and other members of our species, because perspective would be both narrowed to only what we can see, hear, or encounter locally, and those decisions we'd make would be poorly informed due to the lack of bigger-picture details. I think what's missing (or what's being lost over time) is the ability to discern between fact and opinion, and the ability to separate objective from bias. Critical thinking is perhaps what's becoming lacking as time goes on, and I'm not sure that removing the primary conduits of information transmission would necessarily fix that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 1 hour ago, JIAHN said: Not that I disagree with you But, isn't it sad that we live in one of the best countries i the world and still most of us feel this way.... I mean, really think about it! Do we expect too much? Too much? I don't think so. We're a wealthy country (and lucky to live in it) but we do need to ensure that wealth is responsibly managed. That our people are cared for, our land and water aren't polluted in the name of progress or profit, that our rights are protected. I certainly don't share the current Conservative sentiment that Canada is "broken". We certainly aren't in comparison to most of the developed world after a global pandemic, global aging population, corporate profiting, climate change (floods, fires, crops) two idiotic "wars", inflation etc. It's a bit of a shit time globally TBH (especially for younger folks who haven't had time to build wealth) but as tough as that is, it has very little to do with the current minority government in Canada. This is still a very good country despite those very real, but global, problems. And the problems we do have, are largely made worse by Conservative governments historically. Unless people think they're magically going to do 180's on climate change, tax cuts for the wealthy/corporations (and slashing funding to social safety nets for the not wealthy to pay for them), being anti-union/labour etc are going to improve their lot. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 7 hours ago, Boudrias said: My question would be why do the 'tax loopholes' exist in the first place? Usually tax breaks are used to encourage private investment. If they are not doing that job well enough then remove them from the tax code. I don't think citizens can condemn people or corporations for utilizing tax incentives. I would certainly agree with a better explanation by government on why they exist and a accurate measurement of the effectiveness. Perhaps another question to address is why capital is leaving Canada to the tune of + $100 billion a year? Been happening for decades. If it is to invest in American operations I would question the effectiveness of NAFTA. IMHO Canada has to have an industrial strategy that both the Liberals and CPC agree to pursue over multiple administrations. The Americans are far more consistent in their priorities than we are. On what basis do you determine gouging? Levi has jeans made in 3rd world countries and sell them for $100's in Canada. Is that gouging? People love to say the grocery stores are gouging us. There is no doubt that their pricing has gone up. What is the fair return for this industry? All are public companies and their profits are available to view. I won't buy their stock as their growth is poor and their ROI is poor, their dividends are not particularly good. Maybe the telcos are. They charge a lot. I was surprised that the Rogers purchase of Shaw was allowed. Bottom line was that Shaw was in financial trouble. Just reading the other day that Telus is investing $100's of billions into their infrastructure across the country. I think Corporations are gouging us requires more detail. Good post, three things I wanted to mention. I bought and sold Loblaws shares all day for a few days this week and made hundreds a day, I will hold em now till dividend day in June and then seesaw them for a few weeks on their way down a bit. Tax loopholes exist because conservatives love their CEO buddies and generally control the house for half the years, and when the Liberals take over, they are generally well off people too, so why change it? The final one though, 100 billion a year of capital has fled Canada for decades? Nope. Just isn't rue. You are talking trillions in your rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 6 hours ago, Optimist Prime said: Good post, three things I wanted to mention. I bought and sold Loblaws shares all day for a few days this week and made hundreds a day, I will hold em now till dividend day in June and then seesaw them for a few weeks on their way down a bit. Tax loopholes exist because conservatives love their CEO buddies and generally control the house for half the years, and when the Liberals take over, they are generally well off people too, so why change it? The final one though, 100 billion a year of capital has fled Canada for decades? Nope. Just isn't rue. You are talking trillions in your rhetoric. It may not be $100 billion per year, but it is quite significant since the Trudeau government took over… https://financialpost.com/opinion/canada-lost-225-billion-foreign-investment-since-2016 That balance has been growing more negative over the years. Even during the Harper years of 2010-15, though our resource sector was strong, our FDI balance was negative US$7.4 billion, meaning we were a net capital exporter. But during the Trudeau years of 2016-2022, FDI inflows fell 15 per cent while outflows rose 16 per cent. The negative FDI balance was -US$23.9 billion per year, three times higher than in Harper’s final five years. From 2016 through 2022 close to $225 billion in capital was lost as more direct investment left the country than came here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 3 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: It may not be $100 billion per year, but it is quite significant since the Trudeau government took over… https://financialpost.com/opinion/canada-lost-225-billion-foreign-investment-since-2016 That balance has been growing more negative over the years. Even during the Harper years of 2010-15, though our resource sector was strong, our FDI balance was negative US$7.4 billion, meaning we were a net capital exporter. But during the Trudeau years of 2016-2022, FDI inflows fell 15 per cent while outflows rose 16 per cent. The negative FDI balance was -US$23.9 billion per year, three times higher than in Harper’s final five years. From 2016 through 2022 close to $225 billion in capital was lost as more direct investment left the country than came here. That is a substantial difference, and not quite in the way the spin makes it sound. If I invest in Skye Biosciences, which I did, an american company, I am happy to report the penny stock is up around 12 dollars a share now. The money I bought in with 'fled the country' but the money I will spend on a new kitchen cabinets/countertops project when I sell those shares is right back in our 'Canadian' pockets. It isn't an 'end of the world' scenario, and by your own admission in the post I am quoting, it isn't specific to the Trudeau Liberals. Happy to see you back down from the two trillion number though and come in at a more scientifically backed 225 billion. In fact, come to think of it, if Foreign Direct Investment flowing into Canada is dwarfed by Foreign Direct Investment flowing out of Canada: doesn't that really mean to show that Canadians are getting richer to the point of being able to invest outside our borders? If my brother in law makes 250 a year and invests 100k of that outside of Canada, 'buying up the world', how is that bad for Canada? Foreign Capital Gains is even higher taxed.... lol lastly, the most recent numbers from the article you are quoting say less than 20 billion in 2023..so it is trending lower year over year since you said the average is 25 billion. It is funny that one can manipulate the narrative by selective choices in which sentence to quote. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 6 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: It may not be $100 billion per year, 'may not' funny stuff. Hey- why let the facts get in the way? 1 1 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.