CanucksCorner.com Forums

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:20 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 9:40 pm

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:36 am Is this true of Poilievre?

His position on taxation is that the middle- and working-classes should take on all of the tax burden for society because if we try to tax the super-wealthy or corporations they'll leave Canada?

Do you think the super wealthy should pay a higher percentage than everyone else?

Is it fair to penalize someone for being successful?

The wealthy, while able to find ways to shelter portions of their the income from taxation, already do pay more. It's simple math.

Lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains tend to benefit the wealthy. So generally they will pay a lower percent of tax on their income.

But they pay more. 20% of $500K is a fucking dump truck more than 20% of $50K.

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 9:49 pm

UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 3:48 pm I don't think there's any serious intention to make Canada or parts of Canada part of the United States--unless there were provinces that overwhelmingly wanted that and then it would be a sticky wicket.

But Canada, Greenland, Panama, they are all part and parcel of the same thing. The US is worried about its security, control of the seas, dominance in the hemisphere, and Chinese and or Russian incursions. This becomes more important as Russia and China pose a greater threat and Europe can't recognize this threat it poses to itself (Vance's points).

Do you have a link to Vance's points on that?

Just wondering if that statement means that Europe can't recognize the threat that Russia and China post to Europe. "This threat it poses to itself".....is that Europe posing a threat to itself that it doesn't see?

Not trying to pick on grammar. I personally think that some of the EU's immigration policies have left them open to being "conquered" from within without even realizing it......so a threat to itself. But they also don't seem to have the will to field a military that can defend Europe.....so the whole Russia/China thing.

I mean the west of Europe poses to itself, not Russia poses to the rest of Europe.

Vance discusses immigration as an issue, but it’s beyond that and extends to criminalization of speech, conscience, canceling unwanted election results, lack of democratic responsiveness, and demonizing (or banning) populism.

The whole speech is worth watching. Many European leaders are shocked and appalled. And guilty.

https://www.youtube.com/live/pCOsgfINdK ... qb55LuaZQI

UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 11:32 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 9:49 pm

UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 3:48 pm I don't think there's any serious intention to make Canada or parts of Canada part of the United States--unless there were provinces that overwhelmingly wanted that and then it would be a sticky wicket.

But Canada, Greenland, Panama, they are all part and parcel of the same thing. The US is worried about its security, control of the seas, dominance in the hemisphere, and Chinese and or Russian incursions. This becomes more important as Russia and China pose a greater threat and Europe can't recognize this threat it poses to itself (Vance's points).

Do you have a link to Vance's points on that?

Just wondering if that statement means that Europe can't recognize the threat that Russia and China post to Europe. "This threat it poses to itself".....is that Europe posing a threat to itself that it doesn't see?

Not trying to pick on grammar. I personally think that some of the EU's immigration policies have left them open to being "conquered" from within without even realizing it......so a threat to itself. But they also don't seem to have the will to field a military that can defend Europe.....so the whole Russia/China thing.

I mean the west of Europe poses to itself, not Russia poses to the rest of Europe.

Vance discusses immigration as an issue, but it’s beyond that and extends to criminalization of speech, conscience, canceling unwanted election results, lack of democratic responsiveness, and demonizing (or banning) populism.

The whole speech is worth watching. Many European leaders are shocked and appalled. And guilty.

https://www.youtube.com/live/pCOsgfINdK ... qb55LuaZQI

Thanks for the link.

The thought of Trump being President concerns me less than the thought of Vance being President. He's the perfect fucking VP. It's actually hilarious, but I think Trump has an excellent sense of humour.

Save the Billionaires. They love you!

Yet another sitting Liberals MP and cabinet minister announces she will not be running in the next election.

Just what does Liberal internal polling show?

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:21 pm

rats19 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 9:58 pm Shouldn’t the majority who is also the majority of usage of all things … pay the majority…

So smokers and obese people should pay more for healthcare?

Absolutely. If you don't take care of yourself, smoke, eat stuff that is bad for you (I'm talking about something more than the occasional burger), drink excessively, use drugs (I'm not talking about the occasional pot smoker), being a couch potato and doing no exercise, then yes, you should absolutely pay more for health care. You are at a greater risk of heart problems, cancer, etc. Now I'm not talking about people that work out somewhat and are a bit over weight.

And this is coming from someone in their 70s.

Being a political neophyte is catching up to Carney.

Several gaffs and outright lies are showing up the next day in Conservative advertising.

His CBC interview with Rosemary Barton contained a few outright lies and when the questioning became as pointed as CBC gets with a liberal, Carney's face furrowed and the answers became vague and rambling. "Trust my experience" is not an answer, it is a request for a blank cheque.

In English at a BC rally he says he will use governments emergency powers to get pipelines and resource projects going. In Quebec, in French, he says no pipelines without Quebec Provincial approval.

Rookie mistakes.

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:46 pm

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:20 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 9:40 pm

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:36 am Is this true of Poilievre?

His position on taxation is that the middle- and working-classes should take on all of the tax burden for society because if we try to tax the super-wealthy or corporations they'll leave Canada?

Do you think the super wealthy should pay a higher percentage than everyone else?

Is it fair to penalize someone for being successful?

The wealthy, while able to find ways to shelter portions of their the income from taxation, already do pay more. It's simple math.

Lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains tend to benefit the wealthy. So generally they will pay a lower percent of tax on their income.

But they pay more. 20% of $500K is a fucking dump truck more than 20% of $50K.

So you're not even in favour of a flat tax (which is generally a %, as in your example), you want a flat amount?

In 2020, total Federal Tax was $166.75B and about 32M adults, so that's about $5200 per person.

I personally wouldn't mind that, but those on the low end of the scale would have a much higher tax burden.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 9:23 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:46 pm

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:20 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 9:40 pm

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:36 am Is this true of Poilievre?

His position on taxation is that the middle- and working-classes should take on all of the tax burden for society because if we try to tax the super-wealthy or corporations they'll leave Canada?

Do you think the super wealthy should pay a higher percentage than everyone else?

Is it fair to penalize someone for being successful?

The wealthy, while able to find ways to shelter portions of their the income from taxation, already do pay more. It's simple math.

Lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains tend to benefit the wealthy. So generally they will pay a lower percent of tax on their income.

But they pay more. 20% of $500K is a fucking dump truck more than 20% of $50K.

So you're not even in favour of a flat tax (which is generally a %, as in your example), you want a flat amount?

In 2020, total Federal Tax was $166.75B and about 32M adults, so that's about $5200 per person.

I personally wouldn't mind that, but those on the low end of the scale would have a much higher tax burden.

No. I didn’t say I want a flat amount. I’m saying that under the current percentage system the wealthier you are the more total you pay in actual dollars. Many people (the Jagmeets and Justins) gloss that over in order to make the average joe lose sight of that.

Although as you say, I’d be fine if my total federal tax was $5200.

Green Party, after a year of consultation, has a new logo.

https://x.com/Bret_Sears/status/1891898747547713826

Philip Cross takes down Mark Carney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOQlypAZN34

Freedland on CTV - "Pierre Poilievre is not the guy who can do it. He is maple syrup MAGA. All he wants to do is imitate Trump. And I don't think Canadians trust him to stand up to Trump.”

https://x.com/FreelandHQ/status/1891836217504723232

Pierre Poilievre is now being referred to as "Timbit Trump".

Mark Carney mania is catching fire!!!!!

https://x.com/RodKahx/status/1891951965782896665

You'd think you would be tired of yourself by now.