Canadian Economy - Buoyant

[fuji]

You demonstrated you do not even understand the importance of small business in our economy
I learned this fact in first year economics
You incorrectly stated they are insignificant

All sputter.

Meanwhile all one needs to do is google "importance of small business to the Canadian Economy" and count the number of articles

Gotcha. So I don't even think you really read the articles you posted. You just did the above, which explains why none of them have any relevance to the topic.

So you have proven once again that you are an economic ignoramus
And you think you know enough to develop national policy?
How about you stick to addressing the local pooper scooper laws. That's is more in line with your expertise

All sputter.

Lost of small business which are growing, some very quickly, some at a more moderate pace, some much more slowly

No shit. But that doesn't justify loopholes and that doesn't contradict the point I made: only thing that are growing drive growth, and those that are growing don't use the small business tax credit because they plow their earnings back into the business.

Bottom line is the links I provided prove small business are a very important part of Canadian Job creation

No one claimed otherwise, twit. Try arguing the debating point instead.

(only in Fuji Fantasy land do I lose that point are you going to hold another victory parade of one?)

The one you lost on is the point that only growing businesses drive growth.

Since your an economic ignoramus I will clarify the real point
in addition to small business being a very important driver of job creation, it is critical that any tax changes which may impact this group must be carefully considered, particularly the impact on job creation (only downside there)

It's been carefully considered: these loopholes are being used by people who operate small businesses ONLY to evade taxes that otherwise they would pay as employees.

Audits would be required to prove such misdeed, no need to screw over the vast majority of law abiding small business owners when audits are already available

Again, until you close the loopholes all the audits just door that they made use of a legal loophole. You have to close the loop holes for an audit to be meaningful.

Well you stated


Which was absolutely 100% incorrect and they are drivers of employment
How can I possible let you form an opinion / judgement when you do not understand the basic economic importance of this group and their very important impact on job creation
I had to help you learn so that you can make an objective informed decision





Hold on you explicitly stated
So I prove they in fact are drivers of employment . which was the point we were discussing
Then you retort it was not relevant to the conversation ?
How much more relevant can it be than disproving your statement which as you say "as the point we were discussing"???

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance


The only issue that matters is how many jobs will this tax change kill, so you misunderstanding of the important of this group on job creation was extremely relevant
If you are too stupid to put 2 & 2 together , whos fault is that ?





Too bad you were just so emphatic
Once proven to be ignorant of this issue you switch to



Too bad you do not get to define the parameters of the debate when it turns to shit for you

You lie with such ease.
Does that not bother you ?
Oh yes you have no integrity


I do not know about you but I am only concerned with how many jobs this change could kill



You have already displayed your ignorance wrt small business
There are 1.17 million in Canada, some will grow quickly, some not so fast
Growth is not the driver wrt how many jobs this tax change will cost
It is more a matter of how many small business will be adversely impacted and how much will be the incremental tax burden on each



It does prove you wrong about small business being drivers of employment , as you clearly stated


You are a know nothing
you did not know basic economics
You think you can control the FX market (with a throttle no less). What a joke
You wanted to tax the oil industry at a level exceeding their accounting profit. Moron
You wanted the government to sponsor the production of unwanted bastard children by welfare mommas. Another example of your stupidity
You openly admit plotting to screw your best friends wife - so thrustworthy
You want to impose the burden of carbon pricing on consumers while giving Chain a pass to increase its emissions
And you have never ever admit you are wrong , not once in 80,000 + posts. So much for integrity.


Fuji the fool



You have been schooled once again, but will not admit it because you lack integrity

At what cost to the economy?





Fuji
You can not keep up to me on an intellectual level
You just resort to ignoring the truth, trying to change the focus or redefining the topic. It is not working
Do you not think anyone notices, how you have never once admitted you are wrong in 80,000 posts
You are a professional bullshit artist and a dummy

All sputter. No content.

 

[JohnLarue]

All sputter.

Ponting out that you do not even understand the importance of small business in our economy is sputter?
I do not think so

Gotcha. So I don't even think you really read the articles you posted. You just did the above, which explains why none of them have any relevance to the topic.

You got squat.

How can you criticise me for not being relevant to the point when you try to change the point of discussion with each new post ?

In this post you state the point of discussion is whether or not small business are drivers of employment

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

I responded and proved unequivocally they are drivers of employment, once again proving you an idiot who does not understand the first thing about economics
My post was a direct rebuttal to your statement

In response rather than admit you were wrong, you say unless it is about tax loopholes it is not relevant to the conversation ???
WTF ????

Nothing in that link about the impact of tax on small business and certainly nothing there about the percentage of small businesses that exist just to abuse tax loopholes.
At least you tried to come up with a link, that's progress, but next time actually read your link and try and make it relevant to the conversation.

WTF ??? again

So your old trick of trying to redefine the conversation when you are shown to be economic fool is still not working
You remain an economic fool

Fuji the Fool

All sputter.

proving you to be an idiot is hardly sputter.

No shit. But that doesn't justify loopholes and that doesn't contradict the point I made: only thing that are growing drive growth, and those that are growing don't use the small business tax credit because they plow their earnings back into the business.

Growth is not the determining factor when examining the employment impact of small business
A small 10 person business may only add one or two hires every 3 or 4 years, but they are keeping 10+ people employed year after year after year

No one claimed otherwise, twit. Try arguing the debating point instead.

You most certainly did claim small business are a not important part of Canadian Job creation

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

God damn you are arrogant
Being incorrect and obnoxious at the same time is not a very good mix
Please see some professional help

The one you lost on is the point that only growing businesses drive growth.

Again growth is not the determining factor when debating if small business is an important part of the Canadian economy.
one of the linked articles is titled Small Businesses will Reclaim the Driver’s Seat Behind the Economic Engine, so yeah here is growth there

It's been carefully considered: these loopholes are being used by people who operate small businesses ONLY to evade taxes that otherwise they would pay as employees.

the proposal will make Income sprinkling illegal and will impact family business where the wify and kids do legitimate work. Those business will see a huge increase in their tax burden
Those who are evading taxes should be audited and prosecuted under current law.

The proposal will create a lot of collaterial damage for law abiding hard working small business owners
You know the ones about to Reclaim the Driver’s Seat Behind the Economic Engine

Again, until you close the loopholes all the audits just door that they made use of a legal loophole. You have to close the loop holes for an audit to be meaningful.

Bullshit
Have you ever been audited ?

All sputter. No content.

Says the king bullshit artist

What are you going to say is the point of the discussion in you next post?

 

[Frankfooter]

So you are saying Income Sprinkling will still be legal after the propose tax changes?
Then what is changing?

Why do I bother arguing with someone who didn't take the time to do basic research and instead just rants and raves?

Under the proposed new rules, an adult family member will be expected to contribute to the business, either in labour or capital, in order be exempt from the TOSI on income received. In other words, the amount received by such adult family members must be “reasonable.” There is a stricter test for 18-24 year olds. In a nutshell, if the amount isn’t reasonable, then a top rate of tax will apply, putting an end to current strategy of dividend sprinkling among non-involved family members.

http://business.financialpost.com/p...income-sprinkling-rules-mean-for-tax-planning

Wify and the kids can still have legit jobs where they actually work and get paid, its only when it looks 'unreasonable', as in pay for no work, that the CRA will look at it.

How many business owners do you really think rely that much on unfairly avoiding paying tax on their income?

 

[JohnLarue]

Why do I bother arguing with someone who didn't take the time to do basic research and instead just rants and raves?


http://business.financialpost.com/p...income-sprinkling-rules-mean-for-tax-planning

Wify and the kids can still have legit jobs where they actually work and get paid, its only when it looks 'unreasonable', as in pay for no work, that the CRA will look at it.

How many business owners do you really think rely that much on unfairly avoiding paying tax on their income?

Well I have to admit if this is the nature of proposed changes then it should not impact law abiding small business as previously expected
You may have got me on this one

however when I read
http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...-to-do-with-me

The government says it’s trying to fix three issues with the tax code. First, it will try to put a stop to “income sprinkling,” where money is transferred from a family member in a high tax bracket to one in a lower bracket, via wages in a corporation. Tax officials will have the difficult task of distinguishing between actual income based on a family member’s contribution to the business and money that is paid to avoid taxes

it looks very much like the government is about to make Income sprinkling illegal for all
it could very well be a question of who is interrupting the proposed changes properly

I will humbly defer to your interpretation until unless new information comes to light
you were right, I was wrong

Go ahead FrankFooter take your best shot. Attack me as you see fit. This does not happen often

 

[bver_hunter]

nobody ever started a business with the objective of redistributing wealth between classes
You sure have a very strange way of viewing issues comrade

Show me where I mentioned anything about redistributing wealth? Comrade!!

Your point is not relaavant

Yes it is not relaavant, it is relevant.

However he did not campaign on taxing income trusts as that was not a serious issue until after the election
I doubt the question was ever asked during the campaign
When faced with a new and unexpected problem he acted and acted appropriately
The same could be said about his reaction to the 2008 financial crisis . He did not campaign on deficit spending, however When faced with a new and unexpected problem he acted and acted appropriately

Trudeau promised fair taxes, and he is keeping his promise and ensuring the removal of income sprinkling.

You were Ok right up to the point where you mentioned loophole
Closing legitimate tax planning tools does not help Canadian business
Again "Fairness " must be weighed against the economic cost

Removal of income sprinkling is not going to affect the businesses that you were so worried about.

 

[bver_hunter]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3753014/exports-business-investment-broadening-bank-of-canada/

A senior Bank of Canada official said Monday the central bank is seeing encouraging signs that exports and business investment are broadening and strengthening.
In a speech to the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority (SREDA), deputy governor Timothy Lane said international trade is key to Canada’s economic growth potential.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...ys-exports-and-business-investment-broadening

The Bank of Canada will be closely monitoring the recent surge in the Canadian dollar, given that its recent rate hikes were influenced by strength in exports and business investment, according to an official at the country’s central bank.
Deputy Governor Timothy Lane said the central bank has been raising interest rates in the “context” of stronger exports and business investment and policy makers will be “paying close attention” to how the economy responds to higher borrowing costs and a stronger Canadian dollar following rate increases in July and earlier this month.

 

[fuji]

Ponting out that you do not even understand the importance of small business in our economy is sputter?
I do not think so

Your opinion is not content. It's hot air. Sputter.

You got squat.

How can you criticise me for not being relevant to the point when you try to change the point of discussion with each new post ?

More sputter.

In this post you state the point of discussion is whether or not small business are drivers of employment

I responded and proved unequivocally they are drivers of employment, once again proving you an idiot who does not understand the first thing about economics
My post was a direct rebuttal to your statement

The specific topic is whether closing loopholes that allow small business owners to write off a crazy amount of stuff would impact growth.

That means we are talking about a segment of small businesses and not all of them. Specifically the segment which both uses those loopholes AND which drive growth.

The point I made was that this segment is minescule. The businesses it applies to are not driving growth because they are not growing themselves. We know that they aren't because they aren't doing the things that growing businesses do.

Specifically they are not plowing their income back into the business as you would expect any company to do.

For a specific example any company that rolls money into passive investments by definition thinks its own cost of capital is lower than the stock market. But cost of capital should be much higher for a growing small business, its opportunities should be much more rewarding than the publicly traded market by definition.

So those who use that loophole are not growing the economy, they are parking employment income in a fake small business in order to game the tax code.

Thus your references, which discussed the undisputed contribution of all small businesses, are totally irrelevant to the discussion of this non growth segment targeted by the specific change in the tax code we are discussing.

In response rather than admit you were wrong, you say unless it is about tax loopholes it is not relevant to the conversation ???
WTF ????

The discussion is about the tax code change twit.

WTF ??? again

So your old trick of trying to redefine the conversation when you are shown to be economic fool is still not working
You remain an economic fool

Fuji the Fool


proving you to be an idiot is hardly sputter.

All sputter.

Growth is not the determining factor when examining the employment impact of small business

Yes it is. A non growing business is stagnant and by definition not creating jobs.

A small 10 person business may only add one or two hires every 3 or 4 years, but they are keeping 10+ people employed year after year after year

That's a business growing at 4%, it would be better for the economy to shutter it and redeploy that capital to larger corporations which grow faster than that. More jobs would be created that way.

A small business should really be growing three times that fast, and the good ones are (or plan to be).

You most certainly did claim small business are a not important part of Canadian Job creation

I most certainly did not, your inability to read and comprehend English is your problem. I said the small businesses that claim these tax loopholes don't contribute to growth. Not all.

God damn you are arrogant

That's because I'm smarter than you and I know it. I'm arrogant because I'm used to being right.

Again growth is not the determining factor when debating if small business is an important part of the Canadian economy.

No one is debating that. We're debating the elimination of some specific tax loopholes.

one of the linked articles is titled Small Businesses will Reclaim the Driver’s Seat Behind the Economic Engine, so yeah here is growth there

Relevance?

the proposal will make Income sprinkling illegal and will impact family business where the wify and kids do legitimate work. Those business will see a huge increase in their tax burden

It'll eliminate fake companies where people split what is really their own income between multiple people. I know. I used to run a small business and I did it. I made everyone related to me a shareholder, claimed almost everything I did as an expense, "hired" my girlfriend and my brother and overpaid them for the work they did, all so I could get the income I actually earned out without paying the same taxes as I would have otherwise. And all that's perfectly legal and passed audits.

That's what needs to be shut down.

Those who are evading taxes should be audited and prosecuted under current law.

It's not illegal. These are legal loopholes, audits will just confirm that people are using them to avoid taxes but until you change the law that's not illegal.

The proposal will create a lot of collaterial damage for law abiding hard working small business owners
You know the ones about to Reclaim the Driver’s Seat Behind the Economic Engine

Sputter.

Bullshit
Have you ever been audited ?

Yes. Both in my own business and I've participated in audits for various large employers.

Says the king bullshit artist

What are you going to say is the point of the discussion in you next post?

More sputter.

 

[Frankfooter]

Well I have to admit if this is the nature of proposed changes then it should not impact law abiding small business as previously expected
You may have got me on this one

Thank you, very big of you to say so.
Admitting you were wrong elevates my opinion of you, so well done.

however when I read
http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...-to-do-with-me


it looks very much like the government is about to make Income sprinkling illegal for all
it could very well be a question of who is interrupting the proposed changes properly

I will humbly defer to your interpretation until unless new information comes to light
you were right, I was wrong

Go ahead FrankFooter take your best shot. Attack me as you see fit. This does not happen often

I won't attack you, I can see the confusion coming from the way the article was written.
But it was Post article written to rile up the believers, there is a goal there.

I'd put the blame with the Post author, whose goal was to fight the changes, not to report the news accurately.

 

[JohnLarue]

Thank you, very big of you to say so.
Admitting you were wrong elevates my opinion of you, so well done.

I won't attack you, I can see the confusion coming from the way the article was written.
But it was Post article written to rile up the believers, there is a goal there.

I'd put the blame with the Post author, whose goal was to fight the changes, not to report the news accurately.

That is gracious of you. I have been pretty aggressive and brutally blunt at times
You took the high road. Well done. I have to respect someone who does that

The second sentence in the Post quote did cause me to pause. They said the Liberal intent was to end Income sprinkling. That sound like make "it illegal" to me

The author of your article is a tax professional and appears to have read the proposal. so he appears far more credible at this time



David Rosenberg is a smart cookie and he is no fan of thee changes
The conservatives are digging their heals in
This will not unfold as expected

 

[JohnLarue]

.

The discussion is about the tax code change twit.

That's the third time in about four posts you have changed what you say is the point of the discussion

First you say

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Ie drivers of employment is Fuji's choice for what the discussion is
Then you say

Nothing in that link about the impact of tax on small business and certainly nothing there about the percentage of small businesses that exist just to abuse tax loopholes.
At least you tried to come up with a link, that's progress, but next time actually read your link and try and make it relevant to the conversation.

Then you say the percentage of small business that exist to abuse tax loopholes is the relevant conversation
ie abused tax loopholes is now the only acceptable issue which is relevant to the conversation. Fuji declares it, so therefore it must be so

Lets see drivers of employment vs abused tax loopholes ???
Those appear to be very different subject matters to unilaterally switch between, within the time frame of 2 posts. By self serving declaration as well

and now

The discussion is about the tax code change twit

You unilaterally declare the only acceptable topic is a different but intertwined subject, with a much wider scope

you do this to avoid answering for your mistakes (i.e. the importance of small business in the economy)

Please be clear on this
You do not get to dictate the limits of the conversation to me
You have some difficulty being precise with your unilateral declarations.
Got it?
good!

 

[Frankfooter]

David Rosenberg is a smart cookie and he is no fan of thee changes
The conservatives are digging their heals in
This will not unfold as expected

From what I've read the liberals first floated a plan to tax stock options, which would primarily have hit only upper income CEO's heavily but foolishly succumbed to pressure and instead came up with the present options. They will do some good, but they wouldn't be nearly as effective as what they had first floated, despite the complaints from internet type startups.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/re...29337792/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

[fuji]

That's the third time in about four posts you have changed what you say is the point of the discussion

First you say


Ie drivers of employment is Fuji's choice for what the discussion is
Then you say


Then you say the percentage of small business that exist to abuse tax loopholes is the relevant conversation
ie abused tax loopholes is now the only acceptable issue which is relevant to the conversation. Fuji declares it, so therefore it must be so

Lets see drivers of employment vs abused tax loopholes ???
Those appear to be very different subject matters to unilaterally switch between, within the time frame of 2 posts. By self serving declaration as well

and now

You unilaterally declare the only acceptable topic is a different but intertwined subject, with a much wider scope

you do this to avoid answering for your mistakes (i.e. the importance of small business in the economy)

Please be clear on this
You do not get to dictate the limits of the conversation to me
You have some difficulty being precise with your unilateral declarations.
Got it?
good!

I'm not changing the topic. I'm simply winning the debate, here is the original post we were discussing:

Another set of pronouncements, without any facts, reasons, or arguments. You're just spewing your Ayn Rand nonsense none of which you really understand.

Closing tax loopholes that are used by the rich to avoid paying is a good thing.

What true small business sinks money into passive investments? None. Real small businesses should have an expected return on capital greater than the stock market and would be expected to invest any free cash back into their own operations.

Moreover the tax on money extracted from a small business is only very indirectly related to hiring. The growth driving small businesses hope to become large businesses so wouldn't ordinary report profit anyway, they're reinvesting, and the short term tax rate is irrelevant to their long term plan to become big business.

Even for small businesses that have no reasonable prospects for growth it's not going to be an employment driver. These would be basically employment vehicles for their own owners and their families, convenience stores and such. It won't change their employment decisions.

Yes you can come up with cases, but they would be exceptions, as a rule the effect well be quite muted.

On the flip side there is real value in stopping tax cheats who use fake business setups to avoid their fair taxes.

 

[JohnLarue]

I'm not changing the topic. I'm simply winning the debate, here is the original post we were discussing:

Three different self-serving declarations defining different subjects as the topic of discussion
And now you refer back to one of your post and declare this is what we are discussing.
That is the definition of changing the subject.
It is also very self-serving
You make these declaration or Fuji proclamations unilaterally of coarse, because you think it allows you to avoid dealing with your clear and non- debatable lack of understanding about Canadian Small Business and economics

You lost the debate right here

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

They are significant drivers of employment. That has been proven.
Or do you care to back up you claim with some references supporting your position that they are not drivers of employment

Once again you have been proven to be the economic fool we know you are and unqualified to dictate anything to anyone. Your opinions on matters related to small business are of zero value
Do not try to dictate what the subject matter is again

 

[fuji]

Three different self-serving declarations defining different subjects as the topic of discussion
And now you refer back to one of your post and declare this is what we are discussing.
That is the definition of changing the subject.
It is also very self-serving
You make these declaration or Fuji proclamations unilaterally of coarse, because you think it allows you to avoid dealing with your clear and non- debatable lack of understanding about Canadian Small Business and economics

You lost the debate right here



They are significant drivers of employment. That has been proven.
Or do you care to back up you claim with some references supporting your position that they are not drivers of employment

Once again you have been proven to be the economic fool we know you are and unqualified to dictate anything to anyone. Your opinions on matters related to small business are of zero value
Do not try to dictate what the subject matter is again

Point carried: the loopholes being closed will not impact the segment of small businesses that drive growth. Trudeau's plan is a good one.

Your responses are all either meaningless sputter or off topic. No one is disputing that small businesses create jobs. We're disputing that those claiming tax credits for passive investments, etc, create jobs. You've failed to present even a SINGLE point against closing these loopholes.

 

[JohnLarue]

Point carried: the loopholes being closed will not impact the segment of small businesses that drive growth. Trudeau's plan is a good one.

Your point was

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

and you were vey specific that was the point of discussion
Your point however was wrong

Too bad after 80,000 + posts your mental defect still prevents you from admitting your were wrong
Even when it is staring you in the face
You really should see some mental health professionals as I am sure this type of behaviour can adversely impact many things in real life

Your responses are all either meaningless sputter or off topic.

As you define on topic ?
It was made very clear to you that you do not get to make that call
You try to change the point of discussion as you need to in order to avoid your mistakes
Nope Not off topic

No one is disputing that small businesses create jobs.

You did
Explain this quote or shut your gob

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

We're disputing that those claiming tax credits for passive investments, etc, create jobs.

no you were very specific

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Fuji the Fool sitting in his corner wearing his dunce cap

 

[fuji]

Your point was

and you were vey specific that was the point of discussion
Your point however was wrong

Too bad after 80,000 + posts your mental defect still prevents you from admitting your were wrong
Even when it is staring you in the face
You really should see some mental health professionals as I am sure this type of behaviour can adversely impact many things in real life


As you define on topic ?
It was made very clear to you that you do not get to make that call
You try to change the point of discussion as you need to in order to avoid your mistakes
Nope Not off topic


You did
Explain this quote or shut your gob



no you were very specific


Fuji the Fool sitting in his corner wearing his dunce cap

I was very specific. You lost. It's clear from the context of the posts you quoted that we were always discussing small businesses that claim the tax loopholes.

 

[JohnLarue]

I was very specific.

Yes you were

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

That has been proven wrong and then you contradicted yourself

No one is disputing that small businesses create jobs.

Two very contradictory statements from you
Yet you refuse to explain yourself
Is it because you would have to admit for the first time in 80,000+ posts you were wrong ?
Or
Is because you are a no-mind who really does not understand the economics of Canadian Small Business and just state your opinion as fact willy nilly like, only to change your opinion when it suits you?
Or
Is it because you are a pathological lair ?

You lost.

In your dreams
This is far from over and you certainly have proven nothing, other than you are an economic know nothing

It's clear from the context of the posts you quoted that we were always discussing small businesses that claim the tax loopholes.

Strange
You insisted (absolutely insisted) small business employment was the issue of discussion

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Then you say the percentage of small business that exist to abuse tax loopholes is the relevant conversation
And you change the subject matter twice more, unilaterally and of coarse self serving

as expected you lack the integrity to address a very straight forward and direct question

Fuji the Fool sitting in his coroner wearing his dunce cap

 

[fuji]

Yes you were


That has been proven wrong and then you contradicted yourself


Two very contradictory statements from you
Yet you refuse to explain yourself
Is it because you would have to admit for the first time in 80,000+ posts you were wrong ?
Or
Is because you are a no-mind who really does not understand the economics of Canadian Small Business and just state your opinion as fact willy nilly like, only to change your opinion when it suits you?
Or
Is it because you are a pathological lair ?




In your dreams
This is far from over and you certainly have proven nothing, other than you are an economic know nothing


Strange
You insisted (absolutely insisted) small business employment was the issue of discussion


Then you say the percentage of small business that exist to abuse tax loopholes is the relevant conversation
And you change the subject matter twice more, unilaterally and of coarse self serving

as expected you lack the integrity to address a very straight forward and direct question

Fuji the Fool sitting in his coroner wearing his dunce cap

Your inability to comprehend English is one of the reasons why you say so many stupid things. The word "they"clearly refers to the subject of the discussion: small business that would claim the tax benefits Trudeau is elimination.

You still have not advanced a single point. You lost. You have had no reply at all to the arguments presented.

 

[JohnLarue]

Your inability to comprehend English is one of the reasons why you say so many stupid things. The word "they"clearly refers to the subject of the discussion: small business that would claim the tax benefits Trudeau is elimination.

You still have not advanced a single point. You lost. You have had no reply at all to the arguments presented.

No No

You were very specific when you proclaimed three different subject matters
One of them:

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Showed you to be an economic moron

You have yet to address this i.e., admit you were so very wrong
we are waiting
Of coarse that would require you have this thing called integrity

your behaviour is absolutely despicable

Fuji the Fool siting in his corner wearing his dunce cap

 

[K Douglas]

You claimed that Canadians wouldn't support taxing the rich.
I gave you two polls proving you are wrong.
Now you say polls are 'dubious'?

Sorry larue, the basis of your argument was just shot out from under you.

Canada already taxes the rich. Large. For example if you earn $500K annually in employment income in Ontario you are paying an average tax rate of 47%. In Quebec and Atlantic provinces it's closer to 50%. For me this is bordering on theft. Especially the way the governments squander our tax dollars.