Welcome to the TTP community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Federal Election 2015
- Thread starter PV
- Start date
Dude, sometimes you just need to hold your nose and vote for whoever stinks the least. You may want to consider your options for local MP instead of MLA, however...
Like my choice: Trump or Clinton. You guys have it easy.
But, at my house, if the Sheriff shows up, I can ask him if he has a lighter to torch my bong
Yes - Trump rules the roost and everyone is spending money with coaches on how to deal with him.
He honestly could be the next president. He represents everything the entire world hates about the US - richer than rich, the definition of arrogant, name calling schoolyard bully, chest beating dickhead.
My boss is a screaming, tea-bagging, right wing, religious supporter and even he is cringing.
When I asked him to visualize Trump in an international diplomatic role, he said that he would bring fear to the opponents, much like Putin does, unlike that spineless wimp, Obama (I see the arteries in his neck bulging). I paused and said, "is that really what the world needs"? I then broke out our company's ytd revenue chart by customer and started highlighting our successes and got the hell off the topic.
He honestly could be the next president. He represents everything the entire world hates about the US - richer than rich, the definition of arrogant, name calling schoolyard bully, chest beating dickhead.
My boss is a screaming, tea-bagging, right wing, religious supporter and even he is cringing.
When I asked him to visualize Trump in an international diplomatic role, he said that he would bring fear to the opponents, much like Putin does, unlike that spineless wimp, Obama (I see the arteries in his neck bulging). I paused and said, "is that really what the world needs"? I then broke out our company's ytd revenue chart by customer and started highlighting our successes and got the hell off the topic.
Last edited:
trece verde
Well-Known Member
Putin to Trump (through interpreter, of course):
красивые волосы , попка клоун
красивые волосы , попка клоун
- Admin
- #28
So IF re-elected, the CONS as federal government will donate up to $35M to the Terry Fox Foundation:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...e-not-political-insists-james-moore-1.3236608
This is pretty fcuking low IMHO
As a commentor said under the article, if the government wants to fund cancer research, they can fund cancer research - no need to give money to a charity.
And why don't they do this as a PARTY contribution?
So sick of these clowns.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...e-not-political-insists-james-moore-1.3236608
This is pretty fcuking low IMHO
As a commentor said under the article, if the government wants to fund cancer research, they can fund cancer research - no need to give money to a charity.
And why don't they do this as a PARTY contribution?
So sick of these clowns.
Rangerforever
Well-Known Member
Getting tired of the conservatives and their US Republican style tactics.
Its getting boring and embarrassing Stephen.
This one really does make them come off looking like complete tits.
Even the wife this morning, who doesn't vote, who doesn't have a scooby as to what a left wing or right wing stance is and which party represents what, who obviously doesn't pay one bit of attention to politics, even lamented on how poor of a PR debacle this was.
And, she's been looking good on the Yes Please thread as of late, I'll give her that too.
Its getting boring and embarrassing Stephen.
This one really does make them come off looking like complete tits.
Even the wife this morning, who doesn't vote, who doesn't have a scooby as to what a left wing or right wing stance is and which party represents what, who obviously doesn't pay one bit of attention to politics, even lamented on how poor of a PR debacle this was.
And, she's been looking good on the Yes Please thread as of late, I'll give her that too.
Now I have to find time to go back to that thread, thanks RF.
If it weren't for the Libs, and their leader's crazy statements and promises, this would be an easy button switch of votes for me. I don't like the Canada Stephen Harper is attempting to build.
And I hate to say it, but his party's outright refusal to consider legalizing marijuana is a major hot button for me, and one reason I may just switch my allegiances.
I mean, FFS, the debate can be won on a business level, on a crime management level, on a health level (yes), and on a cost reduction level. It's time we grew up as a Nation...and with the States immediately to our South now being legalized, there is simply no point anymore keeping up the charade.
But, the biggest statement coming out of their (Libs) ads right now that has me frightened is the one where Trudeau promises they will "Increase taxes to those earning over $200K, and eliminate income splitting."
I have no big issue w/ the first statement, and depending on the level of tax increase, I think most people earning over $200K wouldn't. Maybe I'm just naive and a bit to idealistic, but I truly don't think it'd be a big issue.
BUT...
~Increasing taxes to corporations is a BIG issue, on the economic front. That will only, and immediately, drive manufacturing South. Big trickle down effect.
~Eliminating income splitting is an even bigger problem.
The true economic engine of Canada is not in the big corporations, it's in the small corps...the family owned businesses that support the larger corps, owners and operators of retail spaces, that this is going to hurt. YES, that IS the middle class! I mean, he's playing a tune to a very resentful crowd, who in their minds see fat cat corporate leaders as the target, but they couldn't have this any more wrong.
RF, you are in taxes, whom will that policy affect most? Do I read this wrong?
If it weren't for the Libs, and their leader's crazy statements and promises, this would be an easy button switch of votes for me. I don't like the Canada Stephen Harper is attempting to build.
And I hate to say it, but his party's outright refusal to consider legalizing marijuana is a major hot button for me, and one reason I may just switch my allegiances.
I mean, FFS, the debate can be won on a business level, on a crime management level, on a health level (yes), and on a cost reduction level. It's time we grew up as a Nation...and with the States immediately to our South now being legalized, there is simply no point anymore keeping up the charade.
But, the biggest statement coming out of their (Libs) ads right now that has me frightened is the one where Trudeau promises they will "Increase taxes to those earning over $200K, and eliminate income splitting."
I have no big issue w/ the first statement, and depending on the level of tax increase, I think most people earning over $200K wouldn't. Maybe I'm just naive and a bit to idealistic, but I truly don't think it'd be a big issue.
BUT...
~Increasing taxes to corporations is a BIG issue, on the economic front. That will only, and immediately, drive manufacturing South. Big trickle down effect.
~Eliminating income splitting is an even bigger problem.
The true economic engine of Canada is not in the big corporations, it's in the small corps...the family owned businesses that support the larger corps, owners and operators of retail spaces, that this is going to hurt. YES, that IS the middle class! I mean, he's playing a tune to a very resentful crowd, who in their minds see fat cat corporate leaders as the target, but they couldn't have this any more wrong.
RF, you are in taxes, whom will that policy affect most? Do I read this wrong?
- Admin
- #32
For the middle class, I think the Libs platform comes out in the wash by eliminating income-spitting but increasing the family/child benefits per household?
For those that need it most, income-splitting is a non-issue I think and thus more benefits to them under these "promises".
A bit old, but here's an article explaining a bit more:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/trudeau-pledges-to-tax-the-rich-for-child-benefit-plan
For those that need it most, income-splitting is a non-issue I think and thus more benefits to them under these "promises".
A bit old, but here's an article explaining a bit more:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/trudeau-pledges-to-tax-the-rich-for-child-benefit-plan
Regs,
Completely disagree with you on the income splitting. It's a major issue for small business owners. But again, I ask guys like @Rangerforever & @Gurps what they think...how will their clients react? Could this potentially be burdensome on small business owners?
One other thing I completely forgot about was the increase to TFSA's. Again, backwards thinking. If he is trying to swing votes, he's doing a lousy job. All something like this does is motivate someone like Rangerforever to stick w/ the Harper regime, even though he knows it stinks.
Come right out w/ it, Justin...forget about the rest of the business of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Stop pissing half the potential voters off, and come forward w/ a dynamic proposal to Legalize and Tax the shite of of dope. Present a business argument that will inject $xB of dollars of taxes into the Government, and tell us how you'd spend it. Because right now, they are dancing around Pot as if it is a hot potato. Enough. Most smart, typical Conservative voters will see the truth to the social issues, and recognize the business argument for it...because when you get right down to it, the only, legitimate argument against legalization is the "what if you take all that drug money that is getting laundered through legitimate businesses" out of the economy. But by admitting that, you are admitting you are losing this battle against marijuana.
Completely disagree with you on the income splitting. It's a major issue for small business owners. But again, I ask guys like @Rangerforever & @Gurps what they think...how will their clients react? Could this potentially be burdensome on small business owners?
One other thing I completely forgot about was the increase to TFSA's. Again, backwards thinking. If he is trying to swing votes, he's doing a lousy job. All something like this does is motivate someone like Rangerforever to stick w/ the Harper regime, even though he knows it stinks.
Come right out w/ it, Justin...forget about the rest of the business of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Stop pissing half the potential voters off, and come forward w/ a dynamic proposal to Legalize and Tax the shite of of dope. Present a business argument that will inject $xB of dollars of taxes into the Government, and tell us how you'd spend it. Because right now, they are dancing around Pot as if it is a hot potato. Enough. Most smart, typical Conservative voters will see the truth to the social issues, and recognize the business argument for it...because when you get right down to it, the only, legitimate argument against legalization is the "what if you take all that drug money that is getting laundered through legitimate businesses" out of the economy. But by admitting that, you are admitting you are losing this battle against marijuana.
Small business income tax has always been a interesting tax discussion...
I no longer work in public practice as RF does, however my thoughts:
1. The clients I used to work with, a increase in small business taxes would have no impact on how they run their business.
Now, this could be based on the type of clients we had. We generally had small business clients who were very profitable and stable.
The small business tax basically allowed them to keep money in the corporation and have it taxed at a low rate as they were wealthy enough and did not need to pull the funds out.
These were the clients Trudeau was referring to when he said some small companies are using the small business tax to shield income.
On the flip side, we had a few clients who drew out all the money or reinvested the earnings in the business. These clients would be effected by a increase in the small business tax as it would directly impact the bottom line.
Rangerforever may have a larger sample size to work with...
Based on the clients I used to work with a increase in the tax would have just meant thy would have less cash in the bank accounts and really that is it.
I will give a quick example:
Let's say a small business earns $600,000 net income.
The first $500,000 is taxed at 13.5% federally and prov included. Anything over that is taxed at a much higher rate.
So, that is $67,500 in tax on the first $500,000.
In order to avoid paying a high rate of tax on the remaining $100,000, we would set would be set up as a bonus to the shareholder of the company.
Generally, this would be taxed at normal personal tax rates.
However, if the shareholder has a spouse, they would then be able to split the $100,000 at $50,000 each, thus further reducing the tax bill as opposed to if they had to take in the full $100,000 in income individually.
If they buy RRSp's etc. they can even further reduce the bill.
So you can see from the above, that is a situation where a wealthy business owner who does not need the money or need to reinvest the funds can use the current system to keep their tax bills low and defer a large portion of tax and split a portion to his wife to bring down the bill.
On the flip side, a company that earns $300,000 and puts all that money back into the business to make it grow, they would be hurt by a increase in the small business tax rate as every percentage increase reduced how much they reinvest.
Thus, the question becomes, how many companies are actually in situation B* where they need to reinvest, and how many in A, where they save a large portion of tax.
Sorry for all the numbers...
I no longer work in public practice as RF does, however my thoughts:
1. The clients I used to work with, a increase in small business taxes would have no impact on how they run their business.
Now, this could be based on the type of clients we had. We generally had small business clients who were very profitable and stable.
The small business tax basically allowed them to keep money in the corporation and have it taxed at a low rate as they were wealthy enough and did not need to pull the funds out.
These were the clients Trudeau was referring to when he said some small companies are using the small business tax to shield income.
On the flip side, we had a few clients who drew out all the money or reinvested the earnings in the business. These clients would be effected by a increase in the small business tax as it would directly impact the bottom line.
Rangerforever may have a larger sample size to work with...
Based on the clients I used to work with a increase in the tax would have just meant thy would have less cash in the bank accounts and really that is it.
I will give a quick example:
Let's say a small business earns $600,000 net income.
The first $500,000 is taxed at 13.5% federally and prov included. Anything over that is taxed at a much higher rate.
So, that is $67,500 in tax on the first $500,000.
In order to avoid paying a high rate of tax on the remaining $100,000, we would set would be set up as a bonus to the shareholder of the company.
Generally, this would be taxed at normal personal tax rates.
However, if the shareholder has a spouse, they would then be able to split the $100,000 at $50,000 each, thus further reducing the tax bill as opposed to if they had to take in the full $100,000 in income individually.
If they buy RRSp's etc. they can even further reduce the bill.
So you can see from the above, that is a situation where a wealthy business owner who does not need the money or need to reinvest the funds can use the current system to keep their tax bills low and defer a large portion of tax and split a portion to his wife to bring down the bill.
On the flip side, a company that earns $300,000 and puts all that money back into the business to make it grow, they would be hurt by a increase in the small business tax rate as every percentage increase reduced how much they reinvest.
Thus, the question becomes, how many companies are actually in situation B* where they need to reinvest, and how many in A, where they save a large portion of tax.
Sorry for all the numbers...
Here is the statement Justin made and the heat he took for it. However, if you run the numbers, his comments are valid for some companies...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ness-tax-rate-to-avoid-taxes/article26306519/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ness-tax-rate-to-avoid-taxes/article26306519/
Rangerforever
Well-Known Member
Taxing corporations more is stupid move.
Even on the big business side, bringing Burger King to Toronto through Tim Horton's for example proves how favourable our corporate taxes are here and how it encourages investment in Canada.
Both from a domestic and non-resident front.
The greatest growth I have seen in BC Business is when we punted the NDP and lowered BC corporate taxes.
Slam dunk IMHO.
Income splitting for families is fcuk all right now.
It's like a max $2K/year saving and the only time I see it work to its potential is the husband who makes $100K and the wife who makes $0 for example, and they get the full $2K credit.
Most of us have blended spousal incomes and the credit most times I see is sweet FA.
This was another Conservative bullshit tactic to get us all wet and worked up over "Ooh, Ahh, Income Splitting!!"
So I could give a shite if Justin or Tom nix that.
I'd still prefer we have it obviously, only that its mice nuts in the big picture.
Now, senior citizen pension income splitting?
Take that off the table Justin, you're fcuking crazy.
Taxing fat cats more personally and giving more to the middle class?
The Socialist in me says 'Meh, Ok'.
I don't think it would be fair at all on a $3B dollar for dollar exchange though that Young, Dumb and full of Cum is saying.
But, some maybe?
And, the BC Libs increased us already provincially over $150K for a 2 year temporary measure, (Fingers crossed) and as much as its cost a few people a couple of bucks, they can certainly afford it at that level.
And, there's been no squawking at that at all because its a limited group of people.
Centre-Right baby, Centre-Right.
Even on the big business side, bringing Burger King to Toronto through Tim Horton's for example proves how favourable our corporate taxes are here and how it encourages investment in Canada.
Both from a domestic and non-resident front.
The greatest growth I have seen in BC Business is when we punted the NDP and lowered BC corporate taxes.
Slam dunk IMHO.
Income splitting for families is fcuk all right now.
It's like a max $2K/year saving and the only time I see it work to its potential is the husband who makes $100K and the wife who makes $0 for example, and they get the full $2K credit.
Most of us have blended spousal incomes and the credit most times I see is sweet FA.
This was another Conservative bullshit tactic to get us all wet and worked up over "Ooh, Ahh, Income Splitting!!"
So I could give a shite if Justin or Tom nix that.
I'd still prefer we have it obviously, only that its mice nuts in the big picture.
Now, senior citizen pension income splitting?
Take that off the table Justin, you're fcuking crazy.
Taxing fat cats more personally and giving more to the middle class?
The Socialist in me says 'Meh, Ok'.
I don't think it would be fair at all on a $3B dollar for dollar exchange though that Young, Dumb and full of Cum is saying.
But, some maybe?
And, the BC Libs increased us already provincially over $150K for a 2 year temporary measure, (Fingers crossed) and as much as its cost a few people a couple of bucks, they can certainly afford it at that level.
And, there's been no squawking at that at all because its a limited group of people.
Centre-Right baby, Centre-Right.
Thanks Gurps.
That's the kind of information that is important...so to the question, "How many"?
I'd argue a potentially HUGE number, because a small business is anyone from a local corner grocery store, to a small home improvement contractor, to a boat window manufacturer. You name it. What I'm arguing is that the threshold of- $500K- is a great place to be, but many aren't there perpetually, or will never even get there. Businesses with many employees (12-15) may never even get there, depending on their business model. Some may get there only in certain economic environments that cater to their businesses.
Point being, by taking away the income splitting, you take away a small business person's ability to build their small "fortune"...which is murder on the election campaign. When I say fortune, I say that very sarcastically. Small business people are building their own retirement funds; they can't rely on a government pension, or even a (these days rare) corporate pension. They are on their own. Now his proposed government will take away the small business person's ability to get just a little ahead?
I know that optically this is aimed at "the rich", but in reality, it actually hurts a huge segment of that middle class.
That's the kind of information that is important...so to the question, "How many"?
I'd argue a potentially HUGE number, because a small business is anyone from a local corner grocery store, to a small home improvement contractor, to a boat window manufacturer. You name it. What I'm arguing is that the threshold of- $500K- is a great place to be, but many aren't there perpetually, or will never even get there. Businesses with many employees (12-15) may never even get there, depending on their business model. Some may get there only in certain economic environments that cater to their businesses.
Point being, by taking away the income splitting, you take away a small business person's ability to build their small "fortune"...which is murder on the election campaign. When I say fortune, I say that very sarcastically. Small business people are building their own retirement funds; they can't rely on a government pension, or even a (these days rare) corporate pension. They are on their own. Now his proposed government will take away the small business person's ability to get just a little ahead?
I know that optically this is aimed at "the rich", but in reality, it actually hurts a huge segment of that middle class.
Thanks RF. Maybe not as impact full as I thought and I am worked up about mice nuts.
Back to my point, OK, so a couple of thousand bucks...maybe not that big a deal, but at that level, now you are taking a couple of thousand bucks out of one pocket, and you will be replacing some of it w/ child care tax benefits in another. The the lone wolf in me says, "Why would I support that? My children get older every year, and it affects me less and less?"
You know, I question the strategy.
At worse, WORSE, if Trudeau had run a safe, beige campaign, he'd be in as official opposition in a minority government. But I suspect, the Torries have been doing enough on their own to disenchant many a central-right thinking voter to switch to Libs. Me included.
But now?
A lot of his shite scares me going forward, and if / when he touches the tax rates of corporations, and talk of the income splitting, shows of a lack of- dare I say it- maturity to the overall needs of a country. We NEED the jobs the larger corporations support. Sure, we need the taxes, but any idiot will see that the corporate taxes aren't the big boon to the government, it's the taxes of the employees they collect on.
It's enough to have me swinging back to the Conservative side.
And again, if the dumb hippy would just come out and campaign for marijuana, and a plan to pay for all his programs, and then some, with newly created tax revenue...well you'd have my vote, Justin. You dumb, handsome hippy.
Back to my point, OK, so a couple of thousand bucks...maybe not that big a deal, but at that level, now you are taking a couple of thousand bucks out of one pocket, and you will be replacing some of it w/ child care tax benefits in another. The the lone wolf in me says, "Why would I support that? My children get older every year, and it affects me less and less?"
You know, I question the strategy.
At worse, WORSE, if Trudeau had run a safe, beige campaign, he'd be in as official opposition in a minority government. But I suspect, the Torries have been doing enough on their own to disenchant many a central-right thinking voter to switch to Libs. Me included.
But now?
A lot of his shite scares me going forward, and if / when he touches the tax rates of corporations, and talk of the income splitting, shows of a lack of- dare I say it- maturity to the overall needs of a country. We NEED the jobs the larger corporations support. Sure, we need the taxes, but any idiot will see that the corporate taxes aren't the big boon to the government, it's the taxes of the employees they collect on.
It's enough to have me swinging back to the Conservative side.
And again, if the dumb hippy would just come out and campaign for marijuana, and a plan to pay for all his programs, and then some, with newly created tax revenue...well you'd have my vote, Justin. You dumb, handsome hippy.
Fully agree Dude, and that is the dilemma.
Assuming that the large majority of companies are small companies that do draw the money and do reinvest, they they would be penalized for government polices that go after the minority of companies who use the small business rate to defer/minimize taxes.
Assuming that the large majority of companies are small companies that do draw the money and do reinvest, they they would be penalized for government polices that go after the minority of companies who use the small business rate to defer/minimize taxes.
I wonder what the research is telling the parties about legalizing marijuana, and what the majority of people feel about it? I ask because, with the exception of it being written on Trudeau's platform, it hasn't been a big topic of discussion for any of them. Or am I spending too much time on TTP, and not enough on CBC?
