Election 2015

[rebusrankin]

What scares me about JT is that everything he is doing, admitting that he will run deficits, green energy plans is exactly what McGintey and Wynne did in Ontario.

[kelownabomberfan]

What scares me about JT is that everything he is doing, admitting that he will run deficits, green energy plans is exactly what McGintey and Wynne did in Ontario.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

[sweep the leg]

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.

So you agree it helps the wealthy?

[17to85]

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. 

 

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. 

[17to85]

 

 

I wish one of the parties (LIberals) had the stones to bring the GST back up to 7%. Such a stupid move by Harper to cut it. I'd like to see those two extra points added back to the GST and used exclusively for infrastructure. I would want oversight on those funds though, so nobody could pull a Selinger (PST hike) and spend it on whatever he wants.

No one is going to use revenue for one thing and one thing only and I honestly don't believe that it should be used like that. 

 

Why not?

 

Because I think trying to have certain taxes ear marked for certain things is too easy to have a surplus in one area and a deficit in another. Should treat taxes as general revenue and use it to fund everything. Just easier to keep it all straight and you don't find yourself in a situation where there's too much money for something so better spend it on something useless just to spend it. 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. 

 

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. 

 

 

This sums it up well for me.  I get into arguments with a Dipper I know who is adamant that income from stock options be taxed at 100%, all because one guy she knows made a bunch of money on stock options, and she hates that guy.  I point out to her that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have stock options, including even low income people I know who work for public companies, and policy aimed at going after a few rich guys that benefit ends up just punishing thousands of others who aren't rich, all out of pure spite and jealousy, with no real understanding of the taxation concepts behind why stock options are currently taxed at 50%.  It is always to no avail.  She is so blinded by hatred and jealousy she can't see the forest for the trees, which is a common trait among Dippers, I find.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.

So you agree it helps the wealthy?

 

hahahaha posted from my phone instead of desktop.  Freudian slip.  My parents are *not* wealthy.  lol

[sweep the leg]

 

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. 

 

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. 

 

You're big into generalizations. I'm not a low income earner, nor am I really a "lefty", and I'm not a fan of income splitting. I disagree with the idea of taxing households as a group rather than individuals. I know there are already differences in taxes for married vs. single people, but I'm not really sold on that either. It's not the worst idea ever, as I understand the thinking behind it. I just don't agree, and I actually benefit from it.

 

A story about people having more kids than they can afford won't persuade me. Seeing as how you like generalizations, the right likes keeping their women at home and want a tax break to pay for it.

[The Unknown Poster]

I actually VERY much dislike how the government decides when Im married and not me.  I had a **** of a CRA guy call me once and tell me if I lied to him, he'd have people rummage through my garbage to prove I was living "common law". 

 

And I bet we all know people, some on assistance, who have way more kids than they can afford.  I dated a girl on assistance years ago.  She had one child and lived in MB Housing complex.  She said people there were always getting pregnant because they wanted more money and bigger homes.

[kelownabomberfan]

I actually VERY much dislike how the government decides when Im married and not me.  I had a **** of a CRA guy call me once and tell me if I lied to him, he'd have people rummage through my garbage to prove I was living "common law". 

 

And I bet we all know people, some on assistance, who have way more kids than they can afford.  I dated a girl on assistance years ago.  She had one child and lived in MB Housing complex.  She said people there were always getting pregnant because they wanted more money and bigger homes.

 

ha that reminds me of my mom teaching elementary school in Winnipeg.  One of the most confusing days was "career day" as a lot of the kids in class were third generation welfare kids and didn't understand how or why people would have jobs when the government just sends you money if you don't work.

[Fraser]

 

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. 

 

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. 

 

 

or people who are single and have a good income and are tired of paying way more than their share/to raise everyone elses kids.

[Fraser]

 

 

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. 

 

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. 

 

 

This sums it up well for me.  I get into arguments with a Dipper I know who is adamant that income from stock options be taxed at 100%, all because one guy she knows made a bunch of money on stock options, and she hates that guy.  I point out to her that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have stock options, including even low income people I know who work for public companies, and policy aimed at going after a few rich guys that benefit ends up just punishing thousands of others who aren't rich, all out of pure spite and jealousy, with no real understanding of the taxation concepts behind why stock options are currently taxed at 50%.  It is always to no avail.  She is so blinded by hatred and jealousy she can't see the forest for the trees, which is a common trait among Dippers, I find.

 

 

are you talking about capital gains? becuase I don't see how an employee of a public copmany would get stock options.

[HardCoreBlue]

 

I'm glad you asked KBF.

 

If you were glad I asked, then why didn't you answer the question?  Why are the other two guys better options?  Instead of just cutting and pasting rhetoric prepared for you by union-sponsored NDP propaganda arms, why not give me positive reasons why the other guys are better?  Starting off your entire post with more blarney about Harper being the worst prime minister ever just guarantees I am going to tune out whatever you have to say, as it is going to just be more biased left-wing crap.  When Harper goes on a train trip across Canada with his family, and is greeted at every whistle stop with people throwing eggs and yelling **** YOU!! at the train, like people did in 1982 with Pierre Trudeau, then I'd agree, Harper is in the same area code as Trudeau was in terms of being the worst.  Right now, he's not even in the same solar system as the suckage experienced by Canada under Trudeau.  And anyone who says otherwise is just wearing partisan blinders.

 

Geez man, it seems sometimes, not always, that anytime a person posts something that runs counter to what you believe, you respond with these type statements. The hypocrisy is dripping here.

I think some of of us take more of an eclectic approach to politics and sensitive issues by not branding our ideologies as left, center or right. We take it issue by issue using the best facts available to form our perspectives. We sometimes don't get it right but always try to take an evidence-informed approach, identifying any bias's we may have a long the way. We can't brand ourselves with only one political strip but we can always aspire to be a sound critical thinker hopefully adding value to the discussion.   

[Fraser]

 

 

I'm glad you asked KBF.

 

If you were glad I asked, then why didn't you answer the question?  Why are the other two guys better options?  Instead of just cutting and pasting rhetoric prepared for you by union-sponsored NDP propaganda arms, why not give me positive reasons why the other guys are better?  Starting off your entire post with more blarney about Harper being the worst prime minister ever just guarantees I am going to tune out whatever you have to say, as it is going to just be more biased left-wing crap.  When Harper goes on a train trip across Canada with his family, and is greeted at every whistle stop with people throwing eggs and yelling **** YOU!! at the train, like people did in 1982 with Pierre Trudeau, then I'd agree, Harper is in the same area code as Trudeau was in terms of being the worst.  Right now, he's not even in the same solar system as the suckage experienced by Canada under Trudeau.  And anyone who says otherwise is just wearing partisan blinders.

 

Geez man, it seems sometimes, not always, that anytime a person posts something that runs counter to what you believe, you respond with these type statements. The hypocrisy is dripping here.

I think some of of us take more of an eclectic approach to politics and sensitive issues by not branding our ideologies as left, center or right. We take it issue by issue using the best facts available to form our perspectives. We sometimes don't get it right but always try to take an evidence-informed approach, identifying any bias's we may have a long the way. We can't brand ourselves with only one political strip but we can always aspire to be a sound critical thinker hopefully adding value to the discussion.   

 

 

Well said. I also find KBF's notion that the NDP is the most intolerant political party laughable. Mostly because none of the  full on granola eating, folk fest going, hemp clothing wearing, CBC radio listening hippies that I’ve met have said anything half as intolerant of the conservative party as the stuff he spews about the NDP constantly.

[Noeller]

Income Splitting is just the small c conservative way of keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. I'm certainly no women's lib zealot, but I can't stand that kind of backwards thinking. There shouldn't be a special tax break to let women sit at home.

[17to85]

 

 

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. 

 

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. 

 

You're big into generalizations. I'm not a low income earner, nor am I really a "lefty", and I'm not a fan of income splitting. I disagree with the idea of taxing households as a group rather than individuals. I know there are already differences in taxes for married vs. single people, but I'm not really sold on that either. It's not the worst idea ever, as I understand the thinking behind it. I just don't agree, and I actually benefit from it.

 

A story about people having more kids than they can afford won't persuade me. Seeing as how you like generalizations, the right likes keeping their women at home and want a tax break to pay for it.

 

Why is that? When you get married or enter into a common law arrangement you already are combining into one person really. It's just a sensible thing to do. I don't really care if it is a tax break to keep women in the household and out of the workforce, that is a choice that couples make and there's nothing wrong with someone choosing to live that lifestyle. If one person can support both why not let one stay home and raise the kids themselves? Better than letting the government raise kids. 

[17to85]

 

 

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. 

 

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. 

 

 

or people who are single and have a good income and are tired of paying way more than their share/to raise everyone elses kids.

 

Well us single people already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes and that's never going to change so I see no real point in bitching about it. 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

 

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy.  My parents are wealthy and it benefited them.  Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. 

 

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. 

 

 

This sums it up well for me.  I get into arguments with a Dipper I know who is adamant that income from stock options be taxed at 100%, all because one guy she knows made a bunch of money on stock options, and she hates that guy.  I point out to her that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have stock options, including even low income people I know who work for public companies, and policy aimed at going after a few rich guys that benefit ends up just punishing thousands of others who aren't rich, all out of pure spite and jealousy, with no real understanding of the taxation concepts behind why stock options are currently taxed at 50%.  It is always to no avail.  She is so blinded by hatred and jealousy she can't see the forest for the trees, which is a common trait among Dippers, I find.

 

 

are you talking about capital gains? becuase I don't see how an employee of a public copmany would get stock options.

 

 

No I am talking about when you exercise stock options.  The difference between what you pay for the stock and what it is trading for on the stock exchange is taxed as income, but 50% of it is non-taxable, to give those who don't want to exercise and sell, but just exercise and hold, a break.  It makes perfect sense. 

 

And I'm not sure what you mean by no employees of public companies get stock options.  I've been an employee of several public companies, and I always have gotten stock options.  A friend of mine has a big public company in Calgary and he makes sure everyone in his company, from the guys at the top all way down to the guys that work on the shop floor get stock options in his company, so that they can participate in the growth of the company and feel like they have a sense of ownership.  It's a great policy, and a great way to retain good employees.  Punishing them all with horrible tax policy just because you hate a rich guy who also received options is just so ass-backward, but that's the NDP way. 

[iso_55]

 

 

 cut 36 billion for health care over 10 years.

 

 

that's a deal breaker for me.

 

You shouldn't take that at face value. The Conservatives are still increasing health care spending each year, they just cut the amount of increase each year. It's still increasing funding. If health care is such an important issue I suggest taking more of an interest in provincial politics since it is a provincial responsibility. 

 

 

 

 

The more I'm reading lately, the more I think the NDP numbers are going to start falling off hard as we get closer and closer to the election. I think it's going to start becoming a 2-horse race again between the Grits and Tories...

I dunno man, polls show Quebec is still fully on board with the NDP and now BC seems to be joining their party. Damned granola eating hippy tree huggers and french losers. 

 

 

 

Hey man, we've rejected those Dipper-doughbrains in four provincial elections in a row now.  You should be the one talking, with all of that ugly orange crap currently sitting in Edmonton as your government.

 

Hey don't blame me, my riding elected a conservatives and the wild rose candidate came in second. It's the nutjobs in Edmonton and inner city Calgary largely responsible for that clusterfuck. 

 

Nah, I'd say AB PC corruption & entitlement, Prentice calling an election a year early despite a fixed election date with opposition parties in a flux leadership wise & not expecting an election for another year, Prentice telling Albertans to look in a mirror &  blaming everybody for the financial mess in the province but himself & his gawd awful party, freezing funding to education & health care & 44 years in power thinking they will never lose was the true clusterfuck that brought the PC's down. Prentice campaigning on bringing in a budget of tax hikes & budget cuts that nobody liked. The NDP was in the right place at the right time as voters said No Way & brought down the mighty PC party.. But don't blame me as I voted Wild Rose.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Geez man, it seems sometimes, not always, that anytime a person posts something that runs counter to what you believe, you respond with these type statements.

 

 

I asked a simple question - what are the other two guys doing that is better than this Harper guy - and all I got was another barf-back of the same tired propaganda that I've seen on a dozen other sites.  I don't  care about all the bad stuff Harper has supposedly done, I want to know that the other two guys aren't going to be even worse.  So it may be counter to what I believe to just continue to post the same nonsense over and over again rather than post positive stuff about the other two guys when asked for positive stuff about the other two guys, but so what.  That's my opinion, take it or leave it.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Nah, I'd say AB PC corruption & entitlement, Prentice calling an election a year early despite a fixed election date with opposition parties in a flux leadership wise & not expecting an election for another year, Prentice telling Albertans to look in a mirror & the PC's blaming everybody for the financial mess in the province but himself, freezing funding to education & health care & 44 years in power thinking they will never lose was the true clusterfuck that brought the PC's down. The NDP was in the right place at the right time.

 

But don't blame me as I voted Wild Rose.

 

 

Excellent synopsis.  And I snorted and laughed when you said the last sentence, as you sound like every Albertan I met this summer.

[Fraser]

Kep seeing people whine about income splitting and how its just for the wealthy. My parents are wealthy and it benefited them. Unless we have a new definition of "wealthy"

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth.

The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less.

This sums it up well for me. I get into arguments with a Dipper I know who is adamant that income from stock options be taxed at 100%, all because one guy she knows made a bunch of money on stock options, and she hates that guy. I point out to her that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have stock options, including even low income people I know who work for public companies, and policy aimed at going after a few rich guys that benefit ends up just punishing thousands of others who aren't rich, all out of pure spite and jealousy, with no real understanding of the taxation concepts behind why stock options are currently taxed at 50%. It is always to no avail. She is so blinded by hatred and jealousy she can't see the forest for the trees, which is a common trait among Dippers, I find.

are you talking about capital gains? becuase I don't see how an employee of a public copmany would get stock options.

No I am talking about when you exercise stock options. The difference between what you pay for the stock and what it is trading for on the stock exchange is taxed as income, but 50% of it is non-taxable, to give those who don't want to exercise and sell, but just exercise and hold, a break. It makes perfect sense.

And I'm not sure what you mean by no employees of public companies get stock options. I've been an employee of several public companies, and I always have gotten stock options. A friend of mine has a big public company in Calgary and he makes sure everyone in his company, from the guys at top all way down to the guys that work on the shop floor, so they can participate in the growth of the company and feel like they have a sense of ownership. It's a great policy, and a great way to retain good employees. Punishing them all with horrible tax policy just because you hate a rich guy who also received options is just so ass-backward, but that's the NDP way.

Ok you you know one place that gives is janitors stock options? Most places just give them to executives. Unless you are talking about a share ownership plan then I agree. Stock options aren't even taxed preferentially unless they are out of the money and if they are in the money they should be taxed as income cause thats what they are. Not really sure what you arw getting at.

[iso_55]

 

 

Geez man, it seems sometimes, not always, that anytime a person posts something that runs counter to what you believe, you respond with these type statements.

 

 

I asked a simple question - what are the other two guys doing that is better than this Harper guy - and all I got was another barf-back of the same tired propaganda that I've seen on a dozen other sites.  I don't  care about all the bad stuff Harper has supposedly done, I want to know that the other two guys aren't going to be even worse.  So it may be counter to what I believe to just continue to post the same nonsense over and over again rather than post positive stuff about the other two guys when asked for positive stuff about the other two guys, but so what.  That's my opinion, take it or leave it.

 

You don't have to justify anything to anyone here, kbf. You're doing fine. Please continue to carry on.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Ok you you know one place that gives is janitors stock options? Most places just give them to executives. Unless you are talking about a share ownership plan then I agree. Stock options aren't even taxed preferentially unless they are out of the money and if they are in the money they should be taxed as income cause thats what they are. Not really sure what you arw getting at.

 

 

It sounds like you've spent too much time being lectured to by unions and leftist teachers/professors, who haven't actually ever been in the real world, or have a vested interest in lying to you to make you think that all corporations and management are evil and greedy.  "Most places just give them to executives".  No, that's just plain not true.  At all.  Have you ever worked for a public company?  I spent 15 years in high tech, and every high tech company I worked for, public and private, made sure that all employees, from the secretary to the top, received a chance to share in the big prize if the stock price went up, via stock options.  I know that the NDP like to peddle the fallacy that only "fat-cat" CEO's get stock options, but this is just plain a giant load of bullshit.  Almost as big as saying that the Conservatives have cut $36 billion from health care spending. 

 

And stock options are taxed as income, but only 50% of the gain is taxable.  There are valid reasons for this, but of course, if you believe the NDP garbage that "only the rich benefit" from stock options, it makes it an easier sell to the jealous and naive that they should be taxed at 100%.  This is unnecessarily punishing hundreds of thousands of people, for no reason.  This is one of the many reasons why I think the NDP is a giant smoking pile of hot garbage. All they do is lie.  Constantly.