Canadian Economy - Buoyant

[Frankfooter]

Better to try and bring one group up rather than steal from the other

Ok, so white families make 10x black families.
How are you going to bring up black family's incomes?

 

[fuji]

Fuji is being ignored but does not realize it
He has never admitted when he is wrong despite over 8,000 + posts and he lies
I will not waste any more time on him

Everyone with eyes can see you had no reply to any of the points. You are shutting up now because you've realized you can't actually continue the debate.

 

[FAST]

Yes it's a simple concept. One you have trouble understanding.

If its such a simple working concept,... then there wouldn't be ANY economic problems in the free world.

Because the fuji law of economincs,...,..."Somebody is going to supply the demand",.... would surely solve them all.

Along with a lot of sputter, and no content of coarse.

 

[JohnLarue]

Start with life expectancy.
Its a stat, and not something you can fake.

When formulation tax policy you do not start with life expectancy

That is irrelevant to taxation

I noticed you did not refute the possibility of most of your "studies" originate from the left with a well intended however pre-determined agenda

Do you accept that the life expectancy in the US is declining?

If you say so
actually I would have suspected it was increasing due to break through in medicines
Again it is irrelevant when formulating tax policy

 

[JohnLarue]

Ok, so white families make 10x black families.
How are you going to bring up black family's incomes?

Not my job
Nor is it the governments, other than to provide access to education
If black communities schools are underfunded relative to whites, that could be addressed, provided teachers are not paid excessively like here in Canada. Financial responsibility has to be a priority over any social agenda
If the drop out rate is higher , well the opportunity was thrown away

I do not support imposing quotas or other restrictions on employers

 

[Frankfooter]

When formulation tax policy you do not start with life expectancy

That is irrelevant to taxation

I noticed you did not refute the possibility of most of your "studies" originate from the left with a well intended however pre-determined agenda

1) Judging the effectiveness of private healthcare vs public using cost and life expectancy are solid mechanisms, and relate totally to your system of taxation. Discarding metrics because you don't like the results is a symptom of 'common sense' thinking, where dogma rules over evidence.
2) Studies coming from scientific bodies are not 'left' or 'right', they are scientific studies that look at evidence. Again, discarding metrics because you don't like the results is dogma.

 

[Frankfooter]

Not my job
Nor is it the governments, other than to provide access to education
If black communities schools are underfunded relative to whites, that could be addressed, provided teachers are not paid excessively like here in Canada. Financial responsibility has to be a priority over any social agenda
If the drop out rate is higher , well the opportunity was thrown away

I do not support imposing quotas or other restrictions on employers

So you accept systematic imbalances based on race and a declining life expectancy as acceptable, as long as taxes are low.
And yet being rich itself is not a sign of more intelligence or working harder, especially in a plutocratic system like the US (and to a lesser extent here). Another study looked at who was fostering the growing anti-vaccine wave, of which Trump is also a backer. They tracked it through twitter posts to being largely rich folk from five states.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617305221?via=ihub

Your dogma based view are very black and white. You don't accept taxation for anything, except maybe a little for education as long as its really cheap and nobody is paid well. But what about roads, police, army or even just governmental checks on the safety of products?

You don't have any answers on how to fix problems, only seem to want lower taxes regardless of whether they will cause more.

 

[fuji]

Not my job
Nor is it the governments, other than to provide access to education
If black communities schools are underfunded relative to whites, that could be addressed, provided teachers are not paid excessively like here in Canada. Financial responsibility has to be a priority over any social agenda
If the drop out rate is higher , well the opportunity was thrown away

I do not support imposing quotas or other restrictions on employers

Black schools are systematically underfunded in the US. US schools are funded by property taxes from the school's district. Schools in low income districts are as a result always underfunded, to the point of disrepair. Elsewhere in the same city a school in a high income district will have loads of money. The results in children's quality of education are dramatic, leading to a cycle of poverty in the low income school districts.

And no, parents collecting box tops doesn't fix that.

 

[JohnLarue]

So you accept systematic imbalances based on race and a declining life expectancy as acceptable, as long as taxes are low.

Please do not misrepresent me
I accept that when everyone is born they have the opportunity to make their life what they want it to be.
It does not always work out as expected however for most the wealth they accumulate is due to the choices they make and the effort they put into it.

And yet being rich itself is not a sign of more intelligence or working harder

Bullshit
With the expectation of inheritance, I have yet to meet a lazy or stupid self made successful business man / woman.

, especially in a plutocratic system like the US (and to a lesser extent here). Another study looked at who was fostering the growing anti-vaccine wave, of which Trump is also a backer. They tracked it through twitter posts to being largely rich folk from five states.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617305221?via=ihub

Oh a study! Yippee
What in the world do anti-vaccines have to do with tax policy ?
Your study is irrelevant

Your dogma based view are very black and white. You don't accept taxation for anything, except maybe a little for education as long as its really cheap and nobody is paid well. But what about roads, police, army or even just governmental checks on the safety of products?

I have been very clear on what the role of government should be
It includes health care , education, defence, law enforcement prisons, promotion of trade and infrastructure,
Regulation of medicines and some products ? OK sure

However , and I can not stress this enough. Its role does not include wealth redistribution

You don't have any answers on how to fix problems, only seem to want lower taxes regardless of whether they will cause more.

You do not consider (or even want to consider) that your fixes will cause more damage than good
Besides, the issue you want to fix : inequality is not fixable.
There have been rich and poor since before the first coin was struck and there will be rich and poor long after you have tried (unsuccessfully) to play Robin Hood

You could try to tax the rich until they left or put their money to sleep
The government would just mismanage the funds, making incremental improvements for the poor who would not make the changes in choices that are required to become independent
Meanwhile the economy is permanently damaged

The other issue is dependency and I have seen this first hand several times
People receiving handouts or government money become dependant on it, yet do not make the changes required to avoid needing that same handout next month

 

[JohnLarue]

It looks like the liberal proposed tax changes are none too popular


https://globalnews.ca/news/3777797/bill-morneau-town-hall/
Taxpayers take turns to grill Bill Morneau on Liberal small business tax proposal


https://globalnews.ca/news/3771614/...-grief-over-tax-reform-its-because-of-dr-bob/
Why are Trudeau’s MPs giving him grief over tax reform? It’s because of Dr. Bob

I would hope that the Liberals would treat this consultation period as an opportunity to learn, reflect and then scrap this dangerous assault on small business
However they will not and instead will arrogantly pass the bill into law

 

[guelph]

It looks like the liberal proposed tax changes are none too popular


https://globalnews.ca/news/3777797/bill-morneau-town-hall/
Taxpayers take turns to grill Bill Morneau on Liberal small business tax proposal


https://globalnews.ca/news/3771614/...-grief-over-tax-reform-its-because-of-dr-bob/
Why are Trudeau’s MPs giving him grief over tax reform? It’s because of Dr. Bob

I would hope that the Liberals would treat this consultation period as an opportunity to learn, reflect and then scrap this dangerous assault on small business
However they will not and instead will arrogantly pass the bill into law

Much of the noise in opposition is coming from Accountants and Lawyers who had a great run of expensive business reorganizations to get put structures in place to get access to these "loop holes" now clients will be thinking twice about spending 20 or 30K on the reorganizations

 

[JohnLarue]

Much of the noise in opposition is coming from Accountants and Lawyers who had a great run of expensive business reorganizations to get put structures in place to get access to these "loop holes" now clients will be thinking twice about spending 20 or 30K on the reorganizations

Loop Holes ??

Lets not forget it is the taxpayers money and the government is making a claim upon it
legitimate tax deductions and business structures were put in place because they promote economic activity and the tax code recognizes the economic benefits as well as some of the challenges small business have.

My understanding is these changes may affect up to 50,000 small businesses, primarily professionals including doctors.
That is a lot
Female Doctors do not get maturity leave
Income sprinkling enabled them to reduce their tax bill in order to save for an extended leave of absence from their practise to have a child
Now they may need to choose between their profession and having a family

For a self declared feminist Justin is sure trying to screw a lot of lady doctors

This is liberal ready, shoot, aim policy making at its worst

 

[guelph]

Loop Holes ??

Lets not forget it is the taxpayers money and the government is making a claim upon it
legitimate tax deductions and business structures were put in place because they promote economic activity and the tax code recognizes the economic benefits as well as some of the challenges small business have.

My understanding is these changes may affect up to 50,000 small businesses, primarily professionals including doctors.
That is a lot
Female Doctors do not get maturity leave
Income sprinkling enabled them to reduce their tax bill in order to save for an extended leave of absence from their practise to have a child
Now they may need to choose between their profession and having a family

For a self declared feminist Justin is sure trying to screw a lot of lady doctors

This is liberal ready, shoot, aim policy making at its worst

Female Doctors can choose to pay into EI and get the same benefits as any one else

Income sprinkling has never been legal the expense is not deductible from income as the expenditure was not laid out to earn income

The economic activity has not come about

 

[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

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

Larue, it took about 4 or 5 pages of back and forth before you understood and admitted that the changes are not going to effect legit business practices.
But here you are today going back to your same previous claims.

Loop Holes ??

Lets not forget it is the taxpayers money and the government is making a claim upon it
legitimate tax deductions and business structures were put in place because they promote economic activity and the tax code recognizes the economic benefits as well as some of the challenges small business have.

My understanding is these changes may affect up to 50,000 small businesses, primarily professionals including doctors.
That is a lot
Female Doctors do not get maturity leave
Income sprinkling enabled them to reduce their tax bill in order to save for an extended leave of absence from their practise to have a child
Now they may need to choose between their profession and having a family

For a self declared feminist Justin is sure trying to screw a lot of lady doctors

This is liberal ready, shoot, aim policy making at its worst

 

[JohnLarue]

Larue, it took about 4 or 5 pages of back and forth before you understood and admitted that the changes are not going to effect legit business practices.
But here you are today going back to your same previous claims.

I had not heard the story about the female doctors at that point
I had also not head this was going to impact 50,000 small businesses until recently. That is a lot

Back to the point,
There is some serious opposition to these changes and a large number of Canadians are furious about this latest tax grab
This is far from over

 

[JohnLarue]

Female Doctors can choose to pay into EI and get the same benefits as any one else

It is not as simple as that
Paying EI and qualifying are two separate actions

Income sprinkling has never been legal the expense is not deductible from income as the expenditure was not laid out to earn income

It is legal, otherwise there would be no need / desire to change the laws

The economic activity has not come about

prove that

 

[JohnLarue]

Here is the study referenced in the article that says US life expectancy would be about 4 years longer with more liberal social policies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616305858

I've got science on my side.
Beats your personal opinion.

Lets take a closer look at your "Science"
How are they funded ?
Who is vetting their work?
What are the qualifications of the authors?
What economic training do they have?

sociologist's determining economic policy?
I do not think so

As shown previously, we had higher taxation on the super rich in previous decades.

That was the US, not Canada
The US does bot have the level of taxation Canadian are cursed with

They didn't leave then.

That does not mean they will not leave now
Different times, different set of people

Your hypothetical question is based on a faulty premise, and as such isn't worth considering.

No you will not consider them because it does not support your objective "Wealth Redistribution"

A simple question
Would you still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy?
A simple Yes or No answer is all that is required

 

[Frankfooter]

Lets take a closer look at your "Science"
How are they funded ?
Who is vetting their work?
What are the qualifications of the authors?
What economic training do they have?

sociologist's determining economic policy?
I do not think so

Now that's funny, you say 'lets take a closer look' and then all you do is ask some questions without taking 5 minutes of googling to back them up.
Lets just say if that's what passes as research in your books, then obviously all of your arguments are based on your own fairly extreme personal views.

 

[JohnLarue]

Now that's funny, you say 'lets take a closer look' and then all you do is ask some questions without taking 5 minutes of googling to back them up.
Lets just say if that's what passes as research in your books, then obviously all of your arguments are based on your own fairly extreme personal views.

Your article
You provide its validation

If it is the same set of clowns who blame obesity on inequality and being forced to eat fast food I say their studies are of negligible value when determining tax policy

Also you completely avoided answering a simple question

A simple question:
Would you still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy?
A simple Yes or No answer is all that is required

 

[Frankfooter]

Your article
You provide its validation

All the answers to your questions are with the study.
Why don't you read it.

You won't read it, claim its wrong and won't back up your claims by even reading the study or checking its sources.
That's dogma, your attempt at arguments read like a religious wingnut defending their beliefs.

dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə/Submit
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Are all your claims based only on this dogma you call 'common sense'?