Again
An issue in the US somehow provides you with the excuse to steal other Canadians wealth ???
WTF ???
Canadian Economy - Buoyant
- Thread starter bver_hunter
- Start date
An issue in the US somehow provides you with the excuse to steal other Canadians wealth ???
WTF ???
What a dolt you are
Again you try to make it personal???
I do my best and hope to provide a comfortable life for myself and family. (I guess that makes me evil in your strange view of the world )
However If I do not make it to the top 10% I will not lose any sleep.
Besides give how the incremental tax rate is 57.7% for the top ten, there is diminishing incentive to take the risks required to join the top 10%.
That should help you to clue in, however I think your too slow to grasp the implication
Along with cancelled $1 B contracts, government employee wages and pensions which are ridiculously excessive, payouts to murdering terrorists and now payouts to native groups who will enrich just a few (i.e. the chiefs)
Oh yes a lot is used to pay the interest on the borrowings of past irresponsible governments
then there is the cost of sponsoring 50,000 refugees or subsiding Ontario hydro bills with money borrowed which the provincial tax payer will have to repay or the loan guarantees to Bombardier
There is more than sufficient tax revenue (we are taxed in aggregate in excess of 50%). The issue is irresponsible spending and a lack of respect for the taxpayer
How would it be financed ?
By spending less you dope
Los of room to save money with government, it just needs to be smaller and more financially responsible
I only used assets as I couldn't find stats for total income for the top 10%.
So lets use this number, since the Trudeau tax changes will only effect the top 1% who make $150,000 a year lets look at them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-rich-1-tax-income-1.3301268
That's a better ratio then your numbers, and its backed up.
So returning to earlier levels of taxation isn't outrageous or unprecedented.
In fact, more and more conservative economic think tanks are coming out and stating that taxing the wealthy will increase growth in the economy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/should-we-be-taxing-the-rich-1-more-1.3069170
If you're running your own business surely you understand that unless your clientele is entirely in the 1%, that giving your clients more cash will increase the chances that they can spend on your business.
So all this arguing to lower taxes for other people, when it won't effect you in the least?
If you're not in the top 10%, then these tax changes will help you, don't you know.
Unlike you I have the best interest of all Canadians and the Canadian economy in mind
Hopefully for the last time I will tell you that tax targeting the rich will have disastrous impacts on our economy
Again you avoid the question
Please answer
Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?
I suggest you investigate those assets a little further
No doubt they include a huge portion of the hundreds of Billions of dollars in government debt
In your rush to steal other peoples money, you would have cut off the governments primary source of debt financing
your understanding of what makes an economy run is non-existant
And that justifies stealing other peoples money how????
Why stop at $150,000 ??
why not expand it more until you are tax targeting Ontario teachers , say $90,000 ??
This is not about making things fair, you just want to punish those that are successful
why?
Again you avoid the question
Please answer
Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?
Look at the number of posts where you got personal with name calling and even more name calling. You are a dimwit if you do not know what personal means.
You will have a long, long, long way to go to make it to the top ten.
So sleep well as you wont have to pay those extra taxes. Also, no the top ten would care less about the high taxes. They know how to claw it back under numerous tax credits. They have a fortune tucked away in properties, stocks and incomes safely laundered away. You seem more concerned than them. Hilarious. As for your family, thank the notion that you live in a land where our children's education is free, as is our Healthcare and we have our streets and highways where the upkeep is second to no other nation. If what we did to our first nation's children was filed as a lawsuit south of our border, no doubt, the lawsuits would be in the billions. Off course you do not care about our indigeneous people just like Stephen did not care about the disappearance of their women and refused to start enquiries into what was occurring in their deaths. Mr Trudeau was elected on the platform of bringing in 25,000 refugees. Obviously, you have a short memory that Canada is a country of immigrants and refugees. The number brought to Canada pales in comparison to many of the EU countries. I agree that 10 million awarded to Khader was too high. No doubt of the Stephen Government acted more responsibly this would not have occurred and he would have served his term in Canada without the need for compensation.
Cancelled 1 billion contract, but saving $49 billion in the process was smart, especially with the ridiculous tax intended to be implemented on Bombardier by the US Government. The reason, is plain for all to see. Bombardier is now a competitive threat to Boeing just like Airbus. They have an aircraft C Series jet that is unique. In all fairness all governments whether Liberal or Conservative, have supported and subsidised their research. The Conservatives bailed out the car manufacturers. Curious, why you did not have them on your list. You mention Hydro but leave out the 100 billion to finance and build the 407ETR that could have been a flow of income into the Government coffers. But as usual it is a scandal that is not on your list. Again you get personal with your name calling nonsense. But take a look in the mirror and wave at that dope that will wave back at you. Yet the debt created by Stephen is far higher than that being amassed by Mr. Trudeau. The difference, Mr. Trudeau spelled out the spending on his platform, while Stevie Boy promised to grow the economy on tax cuts, that did not happen.
Your personal opinion is wrong, the studies and stats all show that you are wrongheaded.
I find it funny that the best you can do is to repeat the same line over and over again.
The most right wing monetary in the world says you are wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/26/imf-inequality-economic-growth
You're economic ideas are dated.
Sorry, Larue, but that's just idiotic.
If you are trying to claim that the 1% own the banks where government debt is held, then nothing would be smarter then to tax a bit of that to pay off the debt. That's just stranded money that you and I are paying, while the 1% let it sit and make money off it.
150k is the 1% cutoff here in Canada. That's a zone place to tax.
Awww Did I hurt your feeling?
??
Totally irrelevant , however as I said " If I do not make it to the top 10% I will not lose any sleep."
Bull shit
Being taxed @ 57.7 % means they are working for Justin and Granny Wynne, while taking the risks
Anyone with half a brain would be concerned about that
And you want to change that
And that makes it fair game for you to make a claim on it through taxation?
I do not think so
Oh they are concerned, perhaps they do not spend time on TERB
there is very little that is funny about this issue
Nothing is free
We pay more than 50% of our income in taxes one way or another
Our education system is more geared to enriching teachers than educating our children, our health care system is unsustainable and will fall apart in the next 20 years due to demographics
Second to none??
Holy irrelevant rambllings
A recent payout to a native group mostly went to enriching the chiefs , they shared very little with their tribe
So instead he brought in 50,000
As long as he spending our tax dollars , go big or go home.
That does nothing to address the costs
That does nothing to address the costs
Finally an intelligent statement
$1 would have been too high
Wow again you make an intelligent statement,
too bad you meant the intelligent part as a sarcastic statement
The $B contract cancelation fee was for the Ont gas generated power plants
The liberals have wasted so much tax payer money , its tough to keep track of their screw ups at the Federal and Provincial level
You do not know the whole story here
Bombardier has had its hand in the taxpayers pocket for decades
It is an issue with continually having PMs from Quebec
Bombardier has a duel class share structure which ensures control for the Beaudoin family
Our Federal government provides loan guarantees for Bombardier's customers - A very risky proposition given the number of airlines which have failed
Others including the US and Brazil see this as an unfair subsidy and they are correct
One bad act (loan guarantees) resulted in a reciprocating bad act (tariffs of 200+%)
the current Liberal government sees it fit to bend over backwards to support an old Quebec billionaire family, yet drives a huge economic project ($15+ B) Energy East into oblivion
Come on a leftie like you cant think too highly of that
The amount you truly understand is a joke
god your stunned
The message from the US was if you do not participate with $ only US production plants and only US jobs would be saved
He had very little choice
I did not think about an issue which happened 10 years ago, however if it will pacify you
The union behaviour in that case was shameful
their benefits package was the millstone around the industries neck, yet they refuse any of the blame
100 Billion??
I do not think so
Well they sold it to pay down some of the debt Bob Rae had borrowed
They also sold it for a profit
You try to insinuate my income, how I earn my living and how much tax I pay. That is very personal
Quite different from calling you a dummy, who can not write properly.
Please take a business writing course
nope I have my act together
Don't make me laugh Justin has not yet began to spend, as you pointed out
PM Harper ran a tight balanced budget until the 2008 recession, but you refuse to take that into consideration.
Why?
because you lack the ability to link cause and affect ?
do you have an alternative explanation ?
tl;dr:
Hey Larue, now even Goldman Sacs says that lowering taxes on the rich and corporations massively might only at best help the economy by 0.2%.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/354550-goldman-sachs-tax-cuts-would-only-boost-growth-02-points
Your '80's economic theories are getting a little stale.
You mean he coasted on the surplus and balanced budgets he inherited from the previous liberal governments. Until against the advice of all economists who saw the coming recession he cut HST and income taxes, creating a structural deficit
The banks do not hold Billions in government debt, their clients do
Banks use their capital to lend to companies and the general public
Banks facilitate and market government bonds, but do not generally do not take significant positions
Your understanding of how things work really is wanting
Expect for this little thing called property rights
You just prefer to ignore that don't you?
A smarter approach is responsible spending by government so they borrow less (or not at all)
if you were to tax government debt as an asset, what do you think will happen when the government goes to borrow more? (and they always do, because they are irresponsible)
Again your ready shoot aim thinking is missing the reaction to you proposed action
That is a really messed up way of looking at it
1. That money is someone else's asset, yet you think you can make a claim on it. That is called stealing Stop that !!
2. The debt only exists because governments have not been responsible with their spending, Yet you want to ramp that irresponsibility up
3. Bond holders have been gracious enough to provide loans to the government . They will be less than gracious if the same government turns around and taxes them on the loan they provided to that government !!!!!
Its the equivalent of you borrowing $10 from your brother and then kicking him in the nuts for holding paper on you
Really you have to be a whole lot smarter than that. Have you ever taken an economics or finance course?
4. Tax assets and watch how quickly assets move elsewhere. That will happen I guarantee it
3. Debt and loan , just like rich and poor have been around since coins were first minted, I suggest you finally figure this out , because you will not change the world and the changes you want will end in disaster
Bullshit
Who defined that number?
It is a politically defined cut-off, any lower and the liberals would start to piss their pants about taxing too many voters
"Making the tax system fair" what a pile of shit
Do you really think the financial crisis had no impact ?
just you wait, Justin will have to answer for shit out of his control and he will be held to the same ridiculous standards you loonies apply to Stephen Harper
In Justin's case a lot will be self inflicted
Last edited:
Stats.
Sorry if you don't like reality.
That was in reply to post #366, where you claimed the top 10% owned most of government debt.
Bullshit
Reality?????
You refuse to even consider the downside of taxing the rich on the economy and you think you can lecture me about reality???
No
Until you answer the question
"Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"
You should avoid using the term reality, because you are avoiding reality out of convenience or to conceal your true objective. Comrade !
Better dead than red
Lets see
You claim the top 10% own 60% of the assets
Since government bonds are assets , hence the top 10% are the primary lenders to the government
somehow you went from 10% to 1% and somehow determined incorrectly the banks hold much of the government debt.
Then somehow you decided it would be a good idea to tax those assets
This is where I explained (after I stopped laughing at you) that taxing assets would immediately eliminate the governments primary source of debt financing
They tried your really bad idea almost 100 years ago in Russia
It did not work out so well
Or do you dismiss this out of convenience as well
In addition if you were to tax government bonds, guess who holds the other 40%?
The pension plans and mutual funds that you and the middle class are counting on to finance their retirement.
That move would ensure a one term mandate and a place in political history as the worst idea ever
More ready, shoot, aim from Frank footer
I've weighed the downsides, which you claim is that the rich would flee. Of course the corollary to that is why don't they move all the time to places with the least taxes.
And I've posted stats, studies, reports from the IMF, statements from Goldman Sachs backing up my claims.
What I have been suggested is not redoing 'Russia from 100 years ago', just redoing tax rates on the 1% like it was 20-30 years ago.
And taxing bonds? Where did you get that from?
Not complicated.
The Government would not have the same revenues from taxes as before the US induced crisis.
And in fact, Harper was congradulated world wide for his handling of the crisis.
