Who benefits from a free economy? The banks? The corporations? Before I retired I was in the 50% tax bracket. Thats $.50 for every dollar I earned went to some form of tax. I defy anyone to give me an example of a bank or corporation that pays taxes on half their income. Free economy, what a joke.

'To that end, the CLC is running what it calls the Better Choice 2006 campaign, designed to explain the issues to union members.' if this is a legitimate attempt to let members make their own decisions i applaud the clc.
if.

Gary - when banks and corporations pay taxes, where do they get the money from?

Same place the individual gets his. Corps pay indivs, indivs shop at corps, indiv needs more stuff so borrows from bank, indiv now has less money to spend on corp stuff because has to pay bank, so indiv demands own corp give him more money for his work, corp doesn't have money because it sends it back to home country and those shareholders want every dime, so corp donates to gov't, gov't raises taxes on indivs to improve infrastructure needed by corp while lowering taxes on corp, indiv now on tightrope, debt higher than ever, no longer asking for more money, scared of losing job altogether, corp has lower taxes and sends even more money out of country, gov't needs more revenue and decides to lower taxes on foreign corps even more so that they will invest here and 'create' jobs, raises taxes on indivs instead and wonders why average person feels left further and further behind when any fool can see the economy is booming.

circle of life

From working people's capital which is their labour and the natural resources that belong to all of us as a God given right.

The days of people actually putting up capital to run an actually viable company are pretty well over. Warren Buffet has a very good article somewhere (I read it a while ago) about that and how it will mean a terrible depression soon enough.

Corporations and Banks have lots of money. They are wallowing in it these days. They have so much money, they need to spend their way out of it. Paying ever more higher salaries, bigger expense accounts. Bonuses to the highest paid, taking them even higher. Yet, they cry about taxes. Yes, NLN, the consumer pays the taxes in the end. They also pay for all those ridiculous high salaries for executives and management. They pay and pay and pay.

If the day comes that money stops paying for Beemers, second and third homes, private jets and whatever the flavour vacation of the month is, then I will support less tax on big business. Until then, pay up!

What annoys me is how the labour movement persists in referring to only those in unions as “working families”. As if those who toil in offices, retail or hospitality aren't facing the same financial challenges. Just because I believe in free enterprise, want to make my own way, and/or support the merit system for advancement and pay increase, I'm not working? I'll take my chances being on my own over the 'help' of a union boss any day.

No they don't

Oh Annie, please

Thats so 1990's Conrad Black. You will notice not even the mainstream media uses the term "union boss" anymore. Probably because they recogized that they looked foolish doing so.

in the sun this morning sinclair is at his best. spinning and twisting and implying and deceiving. the electorate punished Mulroney for free trade? conservative insiders claim a majority would be bad for the country? harper won't defend decent jobs, health care and education, women's rights? shameless garbage. this guy's out of control. (and very, very desperate.)

Annie... I hope you stay out of dangerous industries like coal mining where working together is critical for survival.

Its interesting how banks made so much money in the last 5 years. They hiked services astronomically. Someone tell me why it should cost a homeowner 8 grand to re-morgage for lower rates on a 120 thousand dollar morgage with the same bank? Bank fee's for any monetary transaction large or small, has become insidiously outrageous.

We don't have to say much else about corporations. If anyone out there in fantasy land is pro corp, go rent the DVD "THE CORPORATION". It's the best documentary I've ever seen. Not much on doc's but this one I had to see twice. (And its long and full of lots of dirt)

The thing that stinks with corporations, is the conflicts of interest within every institution we have now. Pick an institution. Government, healthcare, education, law... pick one and you'll find it. Dummies talk about union conflict of interests (and they, too, are there), thinking we'll forget about the rest?

Perhaps the greatest conflicts of interest are found in party politics. Show me how an MP can represent its constituents, its party and its leader all at the same time? How can an MP serve 3 masters at once? It simply can't be done, at the expense to the constituents and the democracy that put them there. Throw in some slimy corporate bought puppets and thieves, and we've got what we've got today, and in the future to come. A mess.

And it won't just be the fat cats who short everything to stave off bankrupcies, when the crunch comes. It'll be the seniors and children and the rest who didn't chose it, but are victimized by these choices to serve such conflicts of interest.

Its like this. There isn't a Con supporter or "free market" supporter who asks, "Geez, is the guy who buys this stock off of me at the peak going to take a bath?" "Geez is the guy who pays too much for my beater and my delapitated shack going to make it work?" "Geez, are those children of the future going to be happy inheriting a toxic dump site and bankrupt, corrupt sytem that we built from our own greed, ignorance and selfishness? And lets not forget we're proud of it!" No conflict of interest, here.

If there is a con supporter who isn't saying this, they'd better find a party that better suits them, if it can be found.

Of course they are referring to people who work for any employer.

Then you can't possibly vote for the Harper Conservatives because they do not believe in free enterprise, but rather monopoly capitalism.

You may want to ,make your own way', but why then do you want to take away other people's rights and exploit their labour? If you vote for the Conservatives, as we know from their counterparts and their stated ideology, that is what you are standing for because thier actions weaken human rights and the responsibility of business to be an accountable entity to their communities.

A merit system has everyone starting with the same resource. Stacking the deck in an obscene action that favours certain types of business or allows one group of people to exploit another is not a merit system, it is an oppressive system.

Then really take that chance of 'being on my own' and stop promoting the reduction and perhaps even elimination of human rights by aligning yourself with a sneaky gang that is promoting your self-interest at the expense of Canada's civil society.

If the glue of our civil society is dissolved there will be unintended consequences. Some of them will be unpalatable.

I wonder if it is a coincidence that the BC gov't is going after an Alberta Cosco's records (talk about the state being intrusive) or whether it is deliberate because of their fair business practice.

Jim Sinclair speaks out as an advocate for the rights of all working people Union or not.
Elliot it may be shameless garbage to you but it is the truth...

Frank and RRG - so how much of our annual productivity is shipped out of the counrty as you suggest? The company I work for was founded in Canada by a Canadian and pays all applicalbe Canadian taxes in additon to providing well paying jobs to many Canadians. When our taxes go up we either charge our customers more, pay our employees less our our owner gets a smaller return for his investment. It's not clear to me how that beneifts Canada.

RRG -

No two people in this counrty start with exactly the same resource. Even if they did, that's no excuse for requiring that every one realize the same outcome.

I really don't know what it is now, but 15 years ago it was 4 million per hour and foreign ownership has not exactly decreased.

In my opinion foreign ownership is not a good thing because its a temporary solution. At one time we certainly did need capital but supposedly we are now a member of the G8 and a pretty modern economy. We shouldn't need foreign interests to hire us to extract our own resources or run our shopping centres while taking all the profit from said operations home.

Money that leaves the country will not produce any multiplier effect, its gone. That profit taking taking represents lost opportunity, its turns us into renters on our own land because the profit from our own resources and labour is increasing the wealth of some other country, not ours.

Except corporate taxes are close to half of their 1970's levels. Personal taxes are going down as well. So whats your argument NL Nutter?

you missed the point jackrussell. what he said in that article IS NOT THE TRUTH. it's half-truths, deceptions, lies.

Annie,
Good for you. The reaction from most on the Tyee is predictable. Judging by the time of posts most are up posting till 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning then they sleep in till 10:00 or eleven then they post off and on all day again.
I don't think most work, but they have all the answers. Some are probably retired ex union workers and some are left leaning folks that don't work at all.
Rather than sit around all day and complain and blame the government for all the problems we face they could do more good by going and volunteering at someplace that needs help.
No I don't mean all those who post on Tyee, just a majority of those who post on Tyee, and its only my opinion.

PeteL -

If all taxes are going down how is the Liberal government able to spend $60 billion more per year than they did when they ended deficits in 97/98?

Annie, or you could listen to Barryjo who has never been capable yet of defending anything he has ever said. He likes to talk in cliches and gets his talking points from the Province.

I've heard that in the past 7 years the economy has grown. Its just a rumour.

This just in, Canada seems to have several magnitudes more money than it did in 1867. Obviously we all won the lottery and Ottawa is taxing us too much.

Frank:

If you don't mind my asking, if its my business to know... What is your official position on heavily weighted foreign developed Alberta oil, and the Klein goverments lowest oil and gas royalty percentage in the world?

And, technically speaking, honesty and corruption can be strange bedfellows. You know, "I'm honest in admitting my corrupt intentions." Question is, who would you prefer to sleep with? Honesty, corruption, or both? Humor me, just for the record. :-)

Frank - you may actually be starting to get the message. Economy is doing well, government revenues are up. Standard of living for the average Canadian is stagnant...oh wait, that's because all our productivity is being spent on your pet projects. I forgot that you're from the "bend over grab your ankles and take it deep from the government" school of thought.

brain,

Its pretty clear I think we should be extracting and profiting from our own resources and using them to feed our own economy first and foremost. Using fossil fuels creates external costs which should not be ignored but are under most economic models. I think those costs have to be balanced against the costs of not using the resource. I'm not a big fan of using fresh water to extract oil for example.

Whether some should be left in the ground or whatever depends on the resource. Whether its cod or salmon, the sustainability of the resource must come first. We don't have the right to destroy future generation's livelihood even if that means foregoing current profits.

So obviously I'm against foreign ownership of our resource extraction industry and also against the giving away of said resource for short-term gains.

As for honesty and corruption, I'm looking for the punch line. Can I say I know what I like when I see it?

redrivergirl, thanks for the comment about the BC Liberal government's run at Costco's BC members.

Call me a cynic but I do sense that a giant American retailer, who gets far too much assistance from both provincial and municipal governmentsin BC, is the one pushing for government action against Costco..

It sort of confirms my belief this provincial government has a love affair with wealthy people in Arkansas.

Barryjo, I don't know much about your wife, but given the little you have said, I suspect she is the brains in your grouping.

I'd encourage you to follow her advice and stay away from things that confuse and upset you.

It really is pretty obvious.

And you're voting against the party responsible?

How would that happen since my party isn't in power federally or provincially?

You should write fiction for Penthouse. I think it better to spend your time wondering why business is doing so well and many Cdns fear for their current and future prospects while feeling over-taxed and under-valued.

The Cdn happiness index is not measured by the profits at the TD or by brokers on the TSE. When Bay street is out of synch with main street you can't just pat peaople on the head and tell them that the guys with 50% of the wealth already need a tax break more than they do.

Allan,
I know for sure that I don't have all the answers and I do respect women and their opinions so I think I'll take your advice and listen to my wife.
Thanks Allan

Frank - the Liberals deserve credit for understanding that if you spend one less dollar then you take in you are in a surplus position. But then, my daughter in grade 3 understood that too. Tell me of 3 other policies from the Liberals that have led to economic prospereity.

Your party doen't have to be in power to be part of a speical interest group begging for more spending of someone else's tax dollars.

I think the businesses that are doing well rely on hard-working, productive Canadians to get the job done. The more you promote increasing the tax burden the less you value my work.

You want me to defend Liberals? Make up a little jingle for them? I realize you just got here but I've been hoping for the Libs to be defeated and hosed down for some time.

But anywho... deficit elimination. For me their economic success begins and ends there. I disagree with them most of the time.

There's quite a number of things I don't support my tax dollars going towards which they are in fact going towards but I don't get all whiney about it.

And businesses that aren't doing well rely on lazy, ill-educated, non-productive Canadians who should be taxed more so that the business you work for will be taxed less?

Frank - that's an irrational comment. I argue as much as anyone on this site for less taxation. Not jsut for me, for you, my business and your business. When it comes to governments, less is more.

It was the way you couched it. It'd be like me wrapping myself in the flag and singing Oh Canada because I like Medicare.

Anyway, it would be best to roll this back and decide amongst ourselves what our priorites are and how we'll pay for it.

Because I don't defend all taxation. I don't know anyone who does. I dislike regressive taxes and prefer progressive ones. I dislike the way my tax dollars are spent in some case but I support the concept of community and that I have to pay for other's people's crap sometimes so that they will pay for my crap too etc.

I do not think Canadians exist to serve business and the economy. I think economics is an artificial construct that we worship the way we'd worship a carved stone. What I mean by that is all too often people want to serve the economy instead of asking why the economy can't serve us. Economics should not be about a race to fell the last tree or land the last fish, it should be about sustainability and responsibility to the greater good. There should be no such accepted dogma as crap like the NAIRU, costs should not be externalized and ignored as if pollution drifts off into space, Cdns should not be marginalized by their fellow citizens who think I'm all right Jack so screw you.

Business survives on the public tit as I've outlined previously. Without infrastructure spending, social engineering, national glue etc there would be no businesses and we'd live by the law of the jungle. But if you're going to worship an economic theory that coddles some and ignores others then I will simply point that out and call for an end to all taxes so that I don't have to send my money to a gov't that will use it for the betterment of business conditions and not the conditions of the people. Because the downtrodden will be better off without taxes altogether.

barryjo

You seem to have such a low opinion of posters on the tyee but yet you love to come and read the posts and grace us with your presence, maybe you were not loved as a child or something. I don't know maybe to much time
at Wal Mart or maybe your just some weird guy who lives in his moms basement and enjoys poking fun at others. Whatever but please , we know you don't think very much of us but we love you and want you to get better. I am still holding out for you buddy.

P.S I am a white collar worker and very educated and make good money, my
kids are honor students and I live very well and I call call myself a socialist because
I give 2 sh**'s about my fellow man, I don't vote conservative because they usually end
up poor bashing , union breaking , anti immigrant homophobes who wreak the economy.

From BUSH, Baby BUSH, Reagan, Mulroney , Thatcher, and on and on, conservative gov's
leave a legacy of debt and misery. Harris left over 6 billion in debt when he was kicked out and all that suffering was for nothing. SO get stuffed with your uneducated stereotypes.

Frank - now you're making some sense. All I would add to your recent post is that business should also serve the needs of the populace. Therfore, the infrastructure spending makes sense.

I don't worship any economic theory except that governments, more and more, do a crapping job of wealth redistribution. It's degenerated into a race of tax dollar bribery and most of us lap it up as long as we get our share.

I'll repeat myself - less government spending is better than irrational government spending.

Frank is right on the money, corporations have been just shifting the tax burdon onto citizens, I hate those lazy wefare bums in Alberta

""Who shall the government help - low-income seniors or tar sands?" she asked at a news conference Monday. "I know who I would choose."

The oil industry denies it receives subsidies, but the debate turns largely on definitions.

In the period 1996 to 2002, the federal government spent $7.9 billion on subsidies for oil and gas producers, including $484 million to the tar-sands operations, according to a study done for the Pembina Institute, a non-partisan think-tank based in Alberta."

Stuart,
I said "I don't mean all that post on Tyee"
and that could include you. I do drop by and read the posts and they are mostly leftie oriented.
You guys are right, everyone else is wrong but I check it out every few days and its all the same all the time, you're right why bother.

Businesses don't generate their own income to pay taxes from thin air. When you insist on higher corporate taxes you are asking the company to either increase costs to consumers, reduce wages to workers or reduce return to shareholders. How does that make sense?

Just to throw out an analogy, let's say there's a 100 guys in the bush who pool their resources and build a road to the outside world. Business comes, all 100 apply and 90 of those 100 get good jobs extracting the local resources. The other 10 are marginalized and treated like they're worth dirt because they either don't work or work on the fringe. Soon the 90 resent having to pay taxes to support the families of the marginalized 10 or tell them to leave and find a job somewhere else.

Its my view, and I don't expect everyone to agree with it, that if we are in fact a community then all 100 have to share in the wealth and the jobs from that wealth and that the economic principles of said community must be sustainable over the long term because environmental costs cannot be externalized unless someone knows how we're all going to move to a new planet someday. If all 100 do not share in the wealth then the community only serves the 90 and the 10 should rebel.

Not all of it. Also, I don't think business does serve the needs of the entire populace.

Well ya, but we might disagree on what constitutes irrational.

Barryjo, obviously you meant me.

I find it extremely inappropriate that you are counting the hours when people are on line and making a statement like this.

There are tax breaks we can get rid of and apply the money to helping people, for an example the "business entertainment deduction" this is writing off the cost of restaurant meals and hockey tickets to the tune of over a billion dollars a year.

The people who qualify for this usually have incomes where they can afford their own meals. Getting rid of this break for the well off will not cause hardship for restaurants or hockey teams, what it will do is help these free-enterprisers provide a better product.

No more 9$ for a cup of soup.

Hockey teams will have to lower their prices so the average person may afford to go to games and the best seats won't all be "corporate.

We can also stop writing off "conferences" in Hawaii all this does is drive up the tourist costs for those who have to pay the whole shot themselves.

I don't see Stephen Harper getting rid of these any time soon. When Paul Martin lowered the write-off from 80% to 50% all the "free-market, free-enterprisers" screamed blue murder as they headed into Calgary's most expensive restaurants.

Finally! A good commercial from the libs. Paul Martin is sitting informally speaking about Canada. I have to say their other ones were not very good. I think they changed ad agencies from last election though. eek!

How much should the 100 share the wealth. Cause if I can get and equal share and work on my short game all day then I'm in.....

This question is the nub of most political discussions. You won't find many people who disagree on basic needs and society's obligations. We've been on a dangerous path over the past 40 years os degrading the value of individual initiative and work through excessive taxation that allows politcal parties to buy votes and although we might disagree on what is justified spending I think I'm correct is stating that less is better.

I don't have any qualms about insisting that governments rearrange their priorities rather than increase taxes.

I am puzzled by the silence of the retail industry and corporate employers over the possibility of private medical care/insurance.

If I have to buy 400$ a month of health insurance that is 400$ a month not going to new clothes, car, tv...

There will be pressure on employers to provide more health coverage at no small expense to them. GM and Ford had a press conference praising government healthcare for the cost saving for them.

This is another trade advantage the conservatives would eliminate.

MORE POLL ENTERTAINMENTS (3 POLLS):

I see Allan Gregg's newest Strategic Counsel Poll in today's Globe has #s mysteriously out of sync again with two other polls. Gregg puts the Cons 16 points ahead of Libs nationally, while 2 other polls , EKOS and CPAC-SES both put the Cons a mere 6 points ahead of Libs. That's one heck of a discrepancy! Previous Globe/Gregg articles reporting on their polls suggested to me they have an agenda to make the Cons look more popular than they actually are, although even Gregg's latest poll grudgingly reveals the Cons down 1 point and the Libs up 1 point from the prior poll.

As Red River Girl pointed out on another thread, Gregg and the Globe have a bit of a history of abusing polls to push agendas. She mentioned pro-BC Liberal polling during our last BC Prov. election that gave #s way out of whack with other polls and with the election results.

Gregg is a disgrace to his profession. There are a couple of marketing research/opinion polling organizations that most Cdn rsrch cos. belong to. CAMRO is one that pops to mind. One of the purposes of it is to help ensure ethical standards are followed. Presumably cos. that breach CAMRO standards can be turfed out of the org., which would make the cos. look bad in the eyes of potential clients. Perhaps Mr. Gregg's co. deserves to have a complaint lodged for unethical polling and poll reporting!

The latest EKOS in today's Star puts the Cons ahead 6 points over the Libs.

CPAC-SES agrees with EKOS, giving the Cons the same 6 point lead.

I see CPAC-SES puts Ontario at a virtual dead heat, with the Cons a single point ahead of Libs. Some prof. who specializes in polls, who apparently has a very good track record, mentioned last week that the Cons could not possibly win a majority without having a decisive (he said 15%) lead over the Libs in Ont. Obviously they will be no where close to that mark by Monday. Notice that Gregg/Globe avoids divulging Ontario #s and the significance they would have in revealing a Cons majority to be out of reach. Apparently,it wouldn't fit their agenda to do so!

CPAC-SES has good news for the NDP, at least in Western Canada. The NDP has risen steadily over most of the past week from 14% all the way to 24% support today in W. Cda.
http://www.sesresearch.com/election/SES%20CPAC%20January%2018%202006E.pdf
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137624637022&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060119/SMARTPOLL19/TPNational/TopStories

Mel - In theory any increase in direct costs to these employers could be offset by a reduction in taxes that currently pays for our "free" Health Care.....

But let's face it. Most people looking for improved effectiveness in Health Care expenditures are not advocating an American system. They're advocating keeping the single payer system and expanding the range of service providers to improve effeciency.

Allot of folks cry over Air Canada getting subsidies, all the parties have their favorite companies etc, I say these should be up for public debate and requirements should be put on the companies etc, if I go for a bank loan the bank has conditions for me to follow so I can have the money etc, I think Air Canada's books should be opened to the public so the public knows its getting good value for its
money, they may have to scrap the Golf Tournament or maybe the public will feel the organization is to top heavy . Maybe the CEO should not make 300K plus per year plus benefits.

TELUS purchased a cell phone company in ONT ( I forget the name) well within a year the shareholders and pension's of employees crashed over this bad deal, the corp execs all got their bonuses etc for putting together the deal. This is why they want less gov , they want low taxes and less gov so they
can screw around without protections in place. Anyone knows power unchecked will do things as
cheaply as possible without public protections, their may be some industries that the public just says maybe we should not be helping out this unsustainable practice etc. But you see corp Canada's worst nightmare would be a more democratic system where we got better value for our dollar, imagine people saying crazy things like, hey why do I pay so much tax while Shell Oil pays only around 14% and is making billions. Or why should Shell not pay the cost of the cleaning up the mess they made or some heath care costs associated with the mess they made, in short make them pay the true cost of doing business. I hate these socialist companies
like Shell

Right on Mel, your absolutely right on. This is a great issue to illustrate taxation fairness.

In Vancouver the Canucks are all sold out. All the good seats are taken up by business interests.

If you walk up and try to get a scalpers ticket 30 minutes before a game, nosebleed's behind the net are $125 each for Calgary. What you do though is wait till the national anthem is over and get your tickets from the bleeders.

I absolutely resent paying / subsidizing tax relief for those f***er's season tickets. My son has seen just two NHL games live in his life. Lots of kids will never see an NHL game in person.

Noleftnutter, the problem the right-wing has had pushing privatisation of our healthcare system is they can't tell us how it will save money!! Or how the poor will have the same quality of care.

Also noleftnutter do you want your doctor trying to sell you tests and drugs you don't need to improve his bottom line?

We have the one of the best systems going and if we can subsidise restaurant meals and hockey tickets we can afford our health.

Ya, well, me too. My view in that case would be that employment has to be shared. Share the work as opposed to simply sharing the wealth.

I don't see any reason to devalue initiative. Its my view that it is in fact individuals who are taking it on the chin for excesses in other spheres.

I don't have to take more than a couple of minutes to point out examples of Cdn resources not being used to benefit the community as a whole but instead are sold off for the financial improvement of only a small segment.

The current system creates great wealth yet leaves too many people marginalized, too many average joes walking a tightrope as they try to balance their taxes and debt load with what they need to survive, too many people gaining no benefit whatsoever from national resource sell offs and increasing foreign ownership of everything from corporations to beachfront property..

Too bad election campaigns are simply watching the polls and people make up their minds based on ads. There has been no real policy discussion during or between elections in this country for some time.

Corp Canada wants a few things

1) They want the lowest tax rate, they don't mind shifting more cost to the average
Canadian if they have to .

And yes nutter, the sky will not fall if those shareholders, the ones not doing the work get less returns. ( your argument is also flawed) people who pay less tax and take home more money buy more things and increase shareholder value in the long term . But most companies today only see short term market trends. Corp Canada loves to promote
fear whenever we talk of increasing business tax to lower personal tax.

2) They want less government, silly regulations get in the way, unsafe (as in the forestry sector in BC, 42 dead this year and over 200 injuries) unclean and unregulated baby is the way to go.

3) But they also want no public debate regarding subsidies etc. they preach free market economics but with out
socialistic values they would collapse as unsustainable. Kind of like right wingers, they are the rugged individual
but don't mind using the benefits this society has to offer. and they are many.

The disappearance of good union jobs both in the private and public sectors means the stay-at-home spouse has to go out to work to sustain the family income.

Getting 25$ a week will not change this dynamic.

Frank: Thanks for the comments to my post. You could wait to see honesty or corruption up close, but your post suggest's that you already choose before hand.

Nevertheless, I would like to volunteer a change to your 90/10 analogy, if you don't mind, concerning those who contribute to the inner workings of things. Since there is a large number of retired seniors and children in this country, and since there is a % of disabled and poor, the unemployed and, yes, too, those who don't want to contribute or work (not to be confused with all of the unemployed), the percentages should be changed, with the same analogy in mind. The question from there, should be revisited. Which percentages have the right to rebel and why?

Bobb999:
You are dead on with Globe and mail bias. Would should be mentioned, what we don't know, is that the business section of the globe is one of the best sections of reporting in Canadian media. The business section of this country is also pushing heavily for the Cons on Canadian stock channels, and any other media outlets they can find. Why? Corporate cut backs. Con promises of less government paving the way for corporate agenda's. Con tax breaks for the rich, from income tax to capital gains.

Are corporations here and abroad buying this Globe and mail propaganda? It's highly likely. You know, all it takes these days is an RCMP complaint. I wonder...

So far, its textbook Con strategy. Tell everyone what they want to hear. To the rednecks they say, "You can keep your guns and we'll keep those minorities in check."

To the religous groups, they say "we will push your moral agenda straight to constitutional changes." You know, gender inequality, banning gay marriages, relaxed labor laws, that sort of thing. When Harper was the president of the National Christian Coalition, the same church organization that prohibited Political parties from having to report party fund contributers last year... funny how no one's mentioning that dot to connect.

To the business world, its "less government control, more perks, tax cuts and capital gains cuts across the board. Lets not forget the tax increases to the poor to help us pay for it!"

To the provinces, its "Equalization. Correct the fiscal imbalances!"

To the U.S., its "We love your country more than ours! We'll help you fight the next war. No to Kyoto! Yes to star wars! Please allow us to kiss your ass and lick your boots!"

To their soft vote, its "Don't fear a majority government. We have liberal senators and judges to keep us checked and balanced!"

This one is the biggest lie of all. For as much as there is biggoted, rednecked, so called Christian, American loving, tax cut lovin, less government lovin, media bought and paid for support out there for this bunch of clowns, the actual lie at the end is the one that pisses me off.

Cons can court the weak and dimwitted all they want with their truths, but when they lie to those who would flirt with naive, dangerous change...
Where is Jack Layton's voice for change? Thanks for slamming and bringing down the Libs to watch the Cons take over. Thanks, Jack, for your ominous silence with the lives you were entrusted to defend.

Mel from Calgary, there is a very enlightening health column by Andre Picard in today's Globe.

He talks about (get this) the two Fraser Institute researcher in Calagy who did a comparison on private-vs-public health care.

The long and short of the study suggested it can only happen if additional funds are pumped into health through the private care route.

However, he notes the addition personal costs would be more than most, who might try priavate care, are willing to pay while actualy services wouldn't really be much better so the only way the two-tier system can work is by short suiting one or the other.

And if the wealth lobby, which certainly has Harper's ear, pushes loud and long enough take a guess which tier will be gutted.

uh oh Annie. You've made the socialists angry. They don't like it when people think for themselves and want to be independant.

You're supposed to want to join a union, let some union boss speak for you, and pay your dues without question so they can be used for political action against the governemnt or whoever doesn't bow to the fat cat union bosses demands.

Don't feel bad. The lefties on this site believe that choosing to not be a victim, working hard to get ahead and being successful means that you should share that success with everyone else who can't be bothered to work that hard.

Just remember the socialist mantra: "set expectations low to avoid disappointment".

Thanks Dr Phil, very enlightening, very 90's.

You're confusing socialists with your mother

Some people amaze me. Lying Brian ran up massive debt in this country. He was Conservative. Fiscal resonsible, I don't think so.

Diefenbacker screwed the aviation business, bought nuclear weapons without really kowing they where nuclear. Hey he was Conservative as well. Did any one from A.V Roe vote for him, they voted with their feet and went south to run the space programs.

Joe Clark was Conservative and didn't know his way out of town and his team couldn't count.

This new group of conservatives are changing their stories even before the election. Same sex marrages for example was passed in the house after deabte. Now the guy is telling us today we would be revisiting that issue. The death penaltly will be back and the right to chose for women will disappear.

So do thinking people get concerned? You bet.

One guy was going on how he was in a 50 percent tax bracket when he retired. Lots of people never got up there, working full time.

I pay my taxes and I expect a government to provide services for those taxes. Otherwise why did I ever start paying the temporary income tax brought in in 1917 to help pay for the first world war.

Get Harper and you are willing to help George Bush do wars as a junior partner. ( The Iraq was is now estimated to cost 2 trillion dollars. Are we willing to pay for such adventures. If some folks want to get involved. Go join the US army. They are running out of recruits.
But heck if we buddy up enough we could see Harper doing the Brina thing of singing along with the president.

Why is that people vote against parties and not for them? I may be a little slow but have been supporting the same one for around 30 years and see no reason to change.

brain, I don't think the analogy can be stretched that far. What are your thoughts on community responsibility?

Redrivergirl,
I didn't mean you, I just meant a majority of posters, I just noticed from about five in the morning when I get up until about 6:45 when I leave for work the Tyee arm chair quarterbacks are silent, it starts later in the day and goes all hours of the day and into the late night.
Not that it matters in way or the other, I'm not sure why you would find that extremely inappropriate.

Poindexter

as if unions ever have the ear of government(even when the NDP is in power). Corporations always have the red-phone to power.

as if big unions are big compared to corporations.

If it was true that unions were powerful we would have better labour laws than we do.

From 6:45 till I leave for work I'm having a shit shower shave and shoeshine so I look and smell nice while walking the wheel all day. Same as you eh barryjo?

kettle says to pot.

Mel if the NDP is in gov't then the unions are in gov't.

I would say big unions are comparable to corporations. Tens of thousands of members, an executive structure, and the need to recruit more members to stay in business. Oh I mean to fight for their rights.

And those big unions wield a lot of power. Look at the BCTF, HEU etc. They extort money from their members, and then wage political war on a gov't that doesn't share their philosophy.

Don't fool yourself. Unions are just like corporations.

Giving an extra 100$ to a 10 workers in Canada is assured of being put back into the economy. Giving 1000$ to a shareholder in London or New York has no guarantee of reinvestment.

Guess which ones unions are working for and which ones corporations are lobbying for.

If workers have money to spend then corporations will want to be here.

Frank: I'm just a little blabby. Your analogy works on its own, for the most part. I could give it to you long or short, but you've already addressed my views for the most part, so I'll keep it short.

It is about environmental sustainability as you've mentioned and it begins with community environments, et.el. our own back yards and the towns and area's we live in, but as you well know, air, earth, water, sun, these environments are shared, and so, while immediate community concerns absorb our time as it should, it doesn't end there. I've got to go, so...

PeterL,
Lots of kids will see the Canucks games scalpers or not.
If my kids are in town I buy tickets from a broker as the price of time spent with my kids is priceless and one way we do it is enjoying a hockey game.
What, your kid will never see another game on your dime because you resent big business, funny logic.

berryjo:

Funny logic? In a marketplace increasingly marked by cartels and price-fixing (under the guise of "de-regulation", occasionally we get a chance to vote with our feet.

Boycotting NHL games is just such an opportunity.

Oh, and it's also a chance to educate one's children about corny things like justice and the courage to go against the grain when this seems a prudent thing to do.

josephine
Go ahead and boycott that game, the arena will still be full.
If you like hockey and you got the dough why not go, if you don't, staying home and watching the game on TV with the kids is just as exciting and rewarding.
The market regulates the price of tickets, its a little thing called supply and demand.
I like to educate my kids by telling them we live in a capitalist country and the way it works is that if I can't afford something and I really want it I work more or get a second job so I can have it.

barryjo:

The market regulates the price of NHL tickets? You must be kidding.

barryjo wrote:

yes, the market does regulate price of the tickets. However, it is amazing what a corporation may write of as expenses and or barter for services. Ultimately, if it is a write-off we pay for it as taxpayers.

I wonder if a worker at Safeway buys a better fitting pair of shoes the save her back can write them off, or can a teacher who buy a computer to prepare for his lessons write of the cost purchase? Hmmmm, I am not so sure.

No, Canuck tickets for Telus are more important I suppose.

I guess if material things are that important to you....

So be it.

barryjo educates his/her kids

I hope you also educated your kids about how thousands of hard working Canadians, who can't afford the NHL tickets, are subsidizing the scumbags who use the cost of their Canuck tickets as tax deductions. Can you educate me as to why that ought to be permitted?

Waiting for your enlightenment....

Barryjo, don't try to win this one. Remember who you're talking to here. The Tyee socialists can't comprehend the way a capitalist society functions, and they can't understand why you would work harder for something when that other guy who has more could just give it to you.

There is no understanding of business principles, it's all about 'you have more than me so I should have some'. Thankfully this site is a freakish socialist anomoly that's fun to poke and not a reflection of the majority of Canadians feelings...

Grub,
Its called capitalism, the government allows deductions for business entertainment purposes, why not its part of doing business.
Why shouldn't it be permitted, businesses use them to bolster relations with customers which can help improve their bottom line which keeps the employees working.
You guys would be happy if big business paid all the taxes and the workers got a break, I understand that but if we put the screws to big business they would just fold their tents and go elswhere and then where would we work.
It is already happening in certain industries.

poindexter,
You are right, if these guys ran the country it would be a welfare state and we would all be starving but we would somehow have to pay our union dues, just in case a miracle happened and the economy jumpstarted itself.

Or we could elect the NDP, and they could legislate and tax the hell out of every industry from forestry to construction.

And because the companies are just dying to do business in an over-regulated, expensive, un-cooperative environment, most would close head offices, scale back, and employment and population would plummet as everyone headed for Alberta. Oh wait, that did happen in the '90's.

But I guess the average Tyee Socialist's solution would be for the gov't to own all industry, unionize everything, and just provide us proletarians with the meaningful, safe and high paid employment we so depserately need.

Thank God for capitalism.

dropping in from alberta long enought to take issue with what poindexter says

"as everyone headed for Alberta. Oh wait, that did happen in the '90's"

actually albertans were heading for B.C. until the late 90s as there was no work here. I know lots of them who moved to B.C. then back to Alberta in 99...

Take another look: The Alberta disadvantage Stephen Hume Vancouver Sun

EDMONTON - Premier-elect Gordon Campbell having raised expectations of substantial tax cuts in order to make British Columbia more competitive, I expect we are now in for another round of finger-wagging comparisons with Alberta, the land of milk, honey and oil-soaked cowboy boots.

However, if all roads lead to the heaven where Stockwell Day ran the treasury in the view of corporate-backed economic think tanks like Vancouver's Fraser Institute -- which has been urging the Liberals to do major tax surgery on grounds Alberta is so much better off -- not everyone here is of like mind.

The Alberta-based Pembina Institute, a non-partisan, citizen-based think tank, published a fascinating study in April based on an accounting not simply of the traditional economic indicators, but by combining them with other signals of the province's health.

Using indexes developed for the World Bank's "Total Wealth" accounts, the UN Human Development Index and the U.S.-developed Genuine Progress Indicators, Pembina Institute researcher Mark Anielski's team looked at what might be thought of as a "ghost economy" which rarely makes the traditional accounting ledgers and is generally ignored by the neo-con bean counters who are so mesmerized by tax dollars they seem blind to everything else.

Anielski, who isn't some Commie wacko, teaches at the University of Alberta's business school, is a senior fellow at a U.S. economic policy think-tank in Oakland, California, and co-authored the U.S. GPI report for 1999. While his study found that Alberta is still a pretty good place to live overall, he identifies some profound disconnects between the reality of life there and what's perceived to be lite-tax heaven by the neo-conservatives in other jurisdictions.

The Pembina study looked, for example, at how much time individual Albertans are now able to allocate to paid work versus the time available for parenting; how much time must be spent commuting versus time available to care for elders; how much time is left for housework versus time available for volunteering in the community, from coaching little league baseball to working a shift at the food bank.

It ran a social capital account which measured the health of households and communities in terms of crime, poverty and family breakdown; a human health and wellness account which charted trends in life expectancy, premature mortality and suicide; an environmental account which tracked air quality, water quality, hazardous wastes and impacts on habitats and wilderness; and finally, it correlated these with traditional measures of financial accounting including the growth in gross domestic product, trade, disposable income, weekly wages, consumption expenditures, taxes, savings, debt, and public and private infrastructure service values.

The picture that emerged was quite different from the orthodox view that's portrayed through the rose-tinted glasses worn by the so-called "Alberta advantage" gang. "While Alberta may have one of the lowest provincial tax regimes in Canada," the study says, "data from the Alberta Economic Accounts and from Statistics Canada reveal that the total of all government taxes paid by Albertans has increased 494 per cent since 1961 (in constant 1998 dollars) -- from $870 per capita in 1961 to $5,172 per capita in 1999. Albertans paid more in taxes in 1999 than they spent on housing, utilities, food, and clothing combined."

The Pembina Institute study found that while real provincial GDP per capita rose 36 per cent between 1982 and 1999, disposable income (adjusted for inflation) and real weekly wages per average Albertan had still not recovered to the highs reached in 1982.

While personal consumption expenditures per Albertan have risen, they were increasingly financed through debt rather than through income. In fact, personal and household debt has increased so much since 1982 that for the first time in history it surpassed real disposable income in 1997, sitting at 109 per cent of disposable income in 1999.

Meanwhile, savings have fallen from their peak in 1982 and are exceeded by the total of all government taxes and fees paid per Albertan, the study says. Where the average Albertan spent nine per cent of income on taxes in 1961, that same Albertan spent 20 per cent of income on taxes in 1999. And where 0.8 per cent of income went to service household or personal debt 40 years ago, today that same household spends 8.7 per cent.

"Indeed, Albertans report feeling the most financially stressed of all Canadians," the study says "According to a 1999 poll by the Canadian Council for Social Development, 23 per cent of Albertans reported that they would not have enough savings to last beyond one month of expenditures."

The study also found that while premature mortality from all forms of disease, like cancer, heart disease and other ailments was declining across Alberta, the province's rate of suicide is now one of the highest in Canada --127 per cent of the national average -- particularly in Calgary where it is now the leading cause of premature death for males aged 10 to 49.

There are higher levels of divorce, gambling and auto accidents, the study says, and while the province has developed a successful facility for disposing of toxic waste, its benefits have actually been offset by increases in the amount of toxic waste produced by industry.

The real question that arises out of this report, is why our accounting practices seem incapable of reporting the social assets and liabilities of our lives with the accuracy they bring to the purely financial assets and liabilities? Indeed, what happens it seems, is that traditional accounting practices actually distort perceptions of reality when it comes to human lives. How on Earth did we come up with a system that rates a car wreck or an AIDS patient as a positive contribution to the gross domestic product because each one generates a host of services and consumption?

It makes serious food for thought as we prepare for the barrage of statistics we'll soon be getting to convince us that things are just awful here in B.C. and we have to follow the lead of those brilliant Albertans or perish like the dinosaurs.

The above story is one I sent to a friend in Calgary it was written around may 2001, it is worth reading before you believe the rightwingnuts rantings about less taxes and pay as you go.

Spend some time here and you can see the so called alberta advantage in action just make sure you don't fall into a pothole!

Yes, people who are better than either of you at forming and defending an argument. But not to worry, I have faith you two can wrap yourself in ideology and defend the fact people who can't afford Canucks tickets are subsidizing those who can.

If you don't like it here go hang out on Free Dominion, a right wing forum where they don't allow lefties on the site. Too worried about their precious little conservative minds being exposed to the real world I guess. They prefer a closed loop.

Wow, NLN, you do live in fantasyland don't you?

I know this doctor, who won't charge you to much, who will look at your overly large right nut, and tell you what is wrong with it.

poindexter wrote:

Nice generalization. Or is it that many people on the Tyee see that "the other guy" is watching how hard you are working, and looking for a way to use the system to put a higher price and restrict your access to what you already have? Hmmmm, water, clean air, a place to live?

It is your right to do this, but I think that there are other things that are higher up on that list.

barryjo says

Utter nonsense! It is part of doing business BECAUSE government tax regulations allow it to be part of doing business. Tell me, how in hell can you do business while watching a hockey game? Couldn't that be done better in an office?

If you want to discuss business over lunch: fine. But please pay for your lunch the way everyone else is expected to. If you want to pick up the tab for the other guy, that's your decision, but it is not a business decision.

It is disingenuous of those who bemoan the tax burden they bear for numerous and sundry social programs to be the first to step up to the trough for their own welfare handouts: cheaper hockey tickets by way of tax deductions.

For sure it has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

Mel - what about Canadian shareholders like the OTF, other union pensions, your mutual funds, my stock et al? No point in paying fair return to them?

It’s actually quite sad that some right wingers just love to pay taxes and don’t mind
A welfare state, barryjo and other chicken littles on the site so scared to adjust or
Change anything , trumping the message of their masters and looking up to Elitist and hoping one day for their little piece. Barryjo ,

Hey kids, open you mouth real wide and give our masters everything they need via
Right wing gov and one day kids , it you behave you will eat the crumbs, watch
Daddy now, open your mouth real wide and you can catch a few crumbs

Check out the welfare bums in Alberta

Corporations with their political handmaidens in step have lowered that tax rates to around
14% over the last 2 decades while downloading the Burdon onto Canadians etc,

I know you folks think that’s how a good economy works but sorry, how did the country survive Say for the first 100 yrs of confederation when they had to pay their fair share.

So the corp’s want low tax rates(they want to make billions more while we pay the short fall via increased taxes)

They want unlimited welfare cheques to keep running, see gas and oil above And they don’ t want to answer to anyone via government oversight and regulation.

Alberta does not have a surplus , they own us 7.9 – 10 billion that the Canadian tax payer
Shelled out to them. Ralf Kline may hate the homeless and have a few to many drinks but is
The typical hard core welfare bum. God I hate freeloaders.

The MSM and corp’s like to have these scenarios of the sky falling as know but come on, Canadians are smart people (due to a socialist education system) and we can run a company if say poor Telus leaves town, in fact

The biggest welfare bums not only rob our public purse their not that important

70% of all employment is created by small to midsize business, so I say lower the tax rates by 7% to all Canadians and lower small and midsized business tax, cut the welfare and increase tax for the big players,

The MSM has pumped fear over unions also, so much hate, gee these massive corp’s not like unions and the ability for people to have a collective voice to make their lives better. Every benefit we enjoy today was afforded by the union movement. Barryjo and others forget that while they teach their kids to open wider ./

Congratulations barryjo.

I see you have convinced Poindexter that you actually make some sense.

Hey maybe there's hope for you yet.

Take Poindexter's post and show it to your wife, who seems to have a better understanding of you than either Poindexter or yourself.

Perhaps you can convince her you aren't making a fool out of yourself. But take a breath and count to 10 before you say anything so she'll not notice how confused you are for at least 10 seconds.

Hmm. Was it the 'free market' that engineered the player's salary caps? Right.

Allan,
Your insults about my intelligence say a lot about the person you are.
I am not the smartest person in the world, nor do I want to be, once one thinks he knows everything learning becomes an impossibility.
Feel free to insult me all you want, at least you'll hopefully be leaving others alone while you are busy doing that.
Redrivergirl,
It was the free market that engineered players salary caps. The owners in a lot of buildings were losing money and the consumers (hockey fans) weren't willing to pay more so the owners had to have a showdown with the players.

Brain:
The biased/misleading Globe election reporting
that you, I, allan, red river girl and others have noticed and commented on, must be obvious to just about everyone else too! Who do they think they're fooling? I'm wondering if the Globe/Gregg agenda to present a false picture of Conservative strength hasn't backfired on them!

Finally, today, even Gregg admits the Cons have lost strength the last few days, and suggests a majority is now unlikely.

I noticed CPAC's new poll #s show the Libs have
taken the lead away from the Cons in all important Ontario with 39% Lib support to 36%
Cons!

Some wag noted that the Cons' momentum started to falter right after the Globe endorsed them!
How funny. Perhaps the Globe/Gregg onslaught instead of aiding the Cons, has instead frightened voters away from the specter of a Cons majority and are now shrinking away from the Harper bogey which the Globe unwittingly painted a picture of, by exaggerating their strength!

So, I would agree with much of what you have to say about the dangers of a Harper gov't - except that without a majority, they won't have a chance to implement much in the way of radical legislation. Fortunately, a minority is almost certain to be Monday's result. Phew.

Hey. Can we talk about what Hargrove meant? I think that Hargrove was saying, elect a Liberal government instead of a Conservative government.

As if the NDP have no aspirations to form a ruling party.

Which, I must say, they have not. At least not under McDonough and the other one, whatserface. Or for that matter, here in BC.

Layton, I think, has the ambition to be Prime Minister, but when he was directly asked in debate, he sidestepped ("we want to elect as many members as possible -- so we can help working families..." zzzzzzzzzzz).

In other words, everyone assumes that the NDPs are just out for a couple of seats here and there and think of themselves as no-hopers for the prime ministership. I know that's what I think. I see that that's what Buzz thinks.

What do you think?

No, Barryjo. In the free market, some owners who couldn't afford the salaries would have had to sell or go broke. The market was determining the salaries.

Instead they got together and enacted the opposite of the free market. Perhaps even a wage control without the price control. Also, they are receiving gov't subsidies. Again, not the 'free market'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

http://www.leagueoffans.org/nhllockoutstatement.html

barryjo; i wouldn't worry too much about allan. he, along with stuart, frank, and wallace, have absolutely no understanding of politics as they apply to economic principles in an efficiently funcioning society. rather they are mimics who tout the lefty dogmatic blather ad infinitum. none of it means anything but it sounds good in the commercial drive coffee shops.

Free Market? In the US (the world's torch bearer/exemplar
of the Free Market within Democracy) seems to have turned into a bizarre parody of a free mkt!
-Where lobbyists working on behalf of monied interests are free to buy and sell Congressmen/women and Senators on behalf of their clients.

One small example of how this US "free mkt" works:

Polling shows a large majority of Americans want to see a national health plan (something similar to what Cda has).

Why then are most US politicians against such a plan,and therefore against the wishes of their constituents? Well, in the words of John Kerry,
a national health plan is "not politically popular" (though it's generally popular among voters).

Reading between the lines, the implication is
that big health sector stakeholders (insurers, drug cos.,hospitals, etc,) have been actively engaged in the political free mkt and have purchased politicians, via campaign donations, to act as their "clients" to work on their behalf. to block health reform and pass laws favouring their health industry clients.

The current Abramoff scandal is just the tip of the iceberg, revealing how deep and wide financial corruption in US politics is.
Even if the illegal aspects of political favours and lobbying start to get cleaned up,
there will still remain lots of similarly unethical activity which conveniently falls within "legal" boundaries.

I'm afraid the Democrats are bought and sold
in this free mkt arena almost as much as the Repubs are, as Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore and others have been saying for years. Notice US mainstream media virtually blacklists these and other critics of the US political "free mkt". Even Nader, who used to get some coverage as a Pres. candidate seems to be back on the blacklist.

The Libs here in Cda seem to have taken inspiration from our neighbors to the south,
as evidenced by the rackateering sponsorship program.

Harper claims to have dozens of corruption inhibiting measures ready to implement, yet his own election war room has at least half a dozen prominent registered lobbyists working on the Harper campaign. Don't you think they'll be expecting pay offs for the clients they are lobbyists for? Hey, it's a free market!

Hey Bobb999 - Aren't you free to get all the other lefties that agree with your point of view and do your own lobbying?

Eddy Haskel - exactly right. I've done time in the mines as a teenager making a stake, ( the company was always trying to slack off on safety, and the worst were those little expletives who were part of junior management and trying to make a name for themselves by cutting costs. Safety costs money and slows things down, you know...) and later suffered the joys of being "part of management" (i.e. labour laws don't apply: seven days a week, unlimited overtime on straight salary, with no benefits, and if you don't like it... ). Anyone want to know what a union card does for you I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Annie, you have your current level of remuneration because there are unions, even if you aren't a member. Because there were people willing to fight for something other than their own right to do over someone else.

Red River girl - I recommend "Fooled by Randomness" by N.N. Taleb.
Good read on greed, survivorship bias, luck, how we handle such things, and other aspects of "free" markets that they never learned about.

I keep hearing the line from Fiddler on the Roof: "When you're rich, they think you really know...."

R. Smiley

Say, wasn't that Martin crying out in Oshawa that we will never give up our auto industry jobs? The one industry that cannot survive Peak Oil?

NoLeftNutter:
Of course. Like I say, it's a free market, even in Canada!

To be fair to Harper he does say he is going to
ban (or maintain the ban that Chretien surprisingly enacted before stepping down) all corporate and union donations to political parties, which I agree with.

As it is now, there remain loopholes open to abuse. For instance a company might decide it wants to support a party but it's not allowed to make direct donations. Beyond a CEO making a personal donation himself, the CEO could
urge co. employees to donate generously to a chosen party. The employees could then be reimbursed with a "bonus" payment. It amounts to the same result as the co. donating directly.

The political "free mkt" always seems to find a way to reassert itself!

So we can add hockey to the list of things barrtjo doesn't understand and Elliot to the list of things that can't be understood.

Well put Frank.

I was just going to assure poor old Barryjo, it's not his smarts I chuckle over, rather his tendency to rattle off things like "well, that's Capitalism" just about predictably whenever the responses overtake him.

Actually Barryjo adds a lot more sincerety and substance to debates here than elliot, who seems to have lost his way to somewhere and thinks we are all holding him here.

It's that victim thing for elliot.

He thinks he's been taxed far too much for far too long and now he's attached himself to a progressive web site filled with people who want to take away all those free hockey tickets and other perks you get for being a corporate brownnoser.

He would like to be cut adrift from the Tyee, but fears what we leftie, pinko, socialist Friends Of The Venesuelan Revolution might do in his absence.

Do you think he's caught on to our Canadian Revolution plans yet? That would get him heading back south pretty fast, I'll bet.

okay, all you right wingnuts.

Listen carefully,

It is not capitalism that the left are against. NOT Capitalism. It is capitalism with greed, no integrity and lack of concern over the environment and employee welfare that we can't stand for. Simple enough???

allan, that would be why NoRightNutter has avoided this one. He's smart enough to distance himself from declarations like subsidized hockey tickets are required by capitalism to prevent it from self-destructing. I'm sure he asked himself why those guys have to call themselves conservatives.

Good call NLN.

All the comemnts here go to show how totally out of touch with reality the NDP is. All they now are is a mouthpiece for the public sector unions. The fact they have never forned a government says it all.

Working Man, did you catch Ed Broadbent's press conference today?

Hey here's a guy who's retiring (trust me on that one Working Guy), yet the media is at his beck and call.

Not because he's some rabid conservative demanding more tax cuts for the wealthy, but one very savvy politician.

He can bring passion to an issue yet speaks with the clarity required to cut through the bs so often passed off as wisdom in Ottawa.

In fact, the last time I saw that much respect for a politician by politicans and the media is when Stanley Knowles was still doing duty.

Another NDPer by the way.

These are common sense people, Working Man, not looking to feather their nests or soil someone else's.

I do wonder how many other politicians in Ottawa had to cool their heels while the scribes listened to Broadbent rather than taking in yet another breakfast of BS provided by some political lightweight, who's cabinet job is about to disappear.

Perhaps I stretched that a bit WM, but hey, we're talking creme-de-la creme of politics here.

And in pink underwear too Working Man. Don't ya love it.

Frank,
I understand hockey very well. thank you, as for the way the tax system works I understand that all too well.
The issue with tax breaks for businesses who declare a deduction for entertainment purposes is not right, I never said it was, I merely said that is how the income tax sytem works, it is geared and shows favouritism towards business, its called capitalism.
Like it or not no party will change it, the lobbiest for big business will make sure of that.
Allan, no responses on the Tyee overtake me, I expect them and appreciate the different points of view.

Working Man still repeating the only phrases in his vocabulary? You'll have to do better than that if you want to prove you're not a cheap program that regurgitates the same lines every week.

He's full of wisdom, oh please tell us again, make it a hat-trick, how Ed Broadbent is the candidate in Ottawa Centre this election.

I beg to differ. The following statement of yours implies quite strongly you do think its right.

In a free market you don't prevent ownership paying a player what that ownership thinks he's worth. Would you consider it a free market if the City of Vancouver told the ownership of the Canucks what they could charge for their product?

As for some cities not exactly being hockey markets, well, in a free market teams would be free to move to where the fans are instead of the NHL deciding where teams should be to maximize the chances, however slim, of getting a tv contract.

As for hockey fans not showing up, they certainly were in places like Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto. Do you believe the fans of those cities should be penalized? Because although they have to pay higher ticket prices than the fans in other cities their team can't put a better product on the ice since every team has the same salary cap. That might be fair to the small number of fans showing up in many US cities who want to see their team do as well as Vancouver but how is it fair to the fans in Vancouver?

Why not simply socialize the entire league? Put the whole NHL under one company or gov't, same salary cap, same ticket prices everywhere? What actual difference would it make compared to what we have now?

Frank,
I should clarify, I don't think the process of being able to have a tax deduction for hockey tickets would be unfair if it was across the board. If you let business do it let private citizens do it, if not forget about it.
I know many companies that do it as a legitamite form of liasing with customers to foster business relationships and I know of many who abuse the process.

barryjo, please explain why anyone should get a writeoff for going to a hockey game.

While you're at it why does Vancouver Canucks hockey club also get welfare payments when individuals who have to feed themselves and their families are being told to get real?

I speak of the provincial lottery funds this club of millionaires owned by billionaires
enjoy, while so many non-profit agencies that actually work with desperately poor and needy humans are told to do bottle drives or car washes to help ensure children get fed.

I realize it's the Capitalist system, so you won't have to use that excuse again.

Besides when you do, you only acknowledge how terribly unfair the Capitalist system is to those who toil for wages.

Take a look at it. The business guy can take his clients to the game in his luxury car, which is a tax write off as is the gas, oil and other auto needs.

If the same guy claims he does some
work from his home, at least part of his mortgage and every expense from municipal taxes to the electrical, even groundskeepers to flowers that decorate his secretary's desk are in effect paid for by you and I.

Rather, why are wealthy business owners allowed to wine, dine and entertain their clients and then turn around and expect it all to be paid for by their competitors or worse, the general public who will never get a free lunch out of anyone?

The most galling part is that if you operate a business you can hire an accountant to do your income tax filing and then charge the total cost of that work against the following years taxes.

An hourly paid worker can hire an accountant as well, but there is no chance of having the costs kicked back to him/her.

Given that Stephen Harper is an accountant and thus benefits quite well from this unfair system, I have absolutely no hope he'd look to reform that mess, no matter what he calls himself.

Allan,
You are right, it is the capitalist system that seems unfair to employees in particular but it is what it is and none of the parties running will change that.
A totally socialistic society is not in the forseeable future.
You have every right to start a small business and take what you preceive is the advantage of an unfair tax system, I can tell you as a small business owner, the grass is definetely not greener on the other side. Long hours, no pension and up and downs in the economy etc.

Barryjo, why do you assume that people who disagree with your world view about business, don't own their own businesses?

Many people who are socio-democrats are also business owners.

One reason business owners dislike this 'new' way of 'doing business' so much is because they want to be able to 'compete' and keep their soul at the same time.

The owner of Cosco, Jim Sinegal, as well as Buffet, Soros etal are examples of big-business owners who disagree strongly with these 'new' business practices. Did you know there is an organization of extremely wealthy people in the US who are fighting for higher taxes? Taxes that will sustain their country and not cause undue suffering to the citizenry?

responsiblewealth.org

Many people in business don't like being pushed into unethical business practices.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/costco_employee_benefits_walmart.html

Redrivergirl,
Did I say I assume people who disgree with my world views about business don't own their own businesses?
I know most of those on the Tyee don't own their own businesses. Most socio democrats don't own their own businesses, although some probably do, most are actually union workers, and no, I am not inferring anything negative about union workers.
Tell me redrivergirl, what do you do for work?

And Frank, the reason I repeat this is that you people do not get it; you have never, ever formed a federal government. Your party is losing ground despite the massive cash the union bosses pump into it, coming directly off worker's pay cheques.

Monday will be yet another big disappointment for the NDP. However, they will be unable to realise why. Looking at the fossils in the "labour movement" and those running for the NDP might provide a clue but I doubt you'll catch on.

The information below more than confirms that the NDP is out of touch reality and that all the money funnelled (often against their will) from worker's paycheques has be completely unsuccessful:

Federal election results 1962–2005

Year tot elected # votes %of total
1962 217 19 1,044,754 13.57%

1963 232 17 1,044,701 13.24%

1965 255 21 1,381,658 17.91%

1968 263 22 1,378,263 16.96%

1972 252 31 1,725,719 17.83%

1974 262 16 1,467,748 15.44%

1979 282 26 2,048,988 17.88%

1980 280 32 2,150,368 19.67%

1984 282 30 2,359,915 18.81%

1988 295 43 2,685,263 20.38%

1993 294 9 933,688 6.88%

1997 301 21 1,434,509 11.05%

2000 298 13 1,093,748 8.51%

2004 308 19 2,116,536 15.7%

The NDP now has the same number of seats it had in 1962.

Maybe you people are doing something wrong?

Barryjo, I don't have to work for money. However, I am a writer, a wife, a good friend and a contributor to my family and community. Even so, even if I was not, what are you saying, Barryjo? That I am less than you? That I have no right to a world view and to public services, or Canada's social safety net?

What do you do, Barryjo? You say you own your own company. What is your product or service. I'm not asking for the specific name, because I repect your anonymity, just the industry. Have you repaid the gov't, with interest, for your time on welfare, now that you own your own business? Actually, Barryjo, the whole point of the social safety net is that now you are no longer in need of help it is your turn to help others via your taxes.

This is a completely ridiculous statement. How do you know most on the tyee don't own their own businesses?

Of course socio-democrats own their own businesses! What the heck do you think Canada is? I know your fascistic friends have temporarily gained ascendancy and control of the public airwaves, but still, Barryjo, many business owners don't buy into your ideology?

Anyway, Barryjo, I can see you don't want to hear any viewpoint than the one you already possess. It wouldn't matter if innocent people, including children, didn't have to pay the price of your world view, but they do and are.

...many business owners don't buy into your ideology.

As evidenced by the links I provided. Why not take a look.

Maybe you people are doing something wrong?

Actually, Workingman, because most parties in Canada held values very close to those held by the NDP during the last forty years, this comparison isn't quite valid. If one looks at the world wide response to the Laissez Faire Capitalism across the border, we can see a rise in Socialist governments. As times here get more difficult, the NDP party will rise. If they don't make ground this election, it will be because people are trying to beat Harper and here in BC, don't understand that would mean voting for the NDP in many ridings.

I didn't vote NDP for years because they weren't dramatically different than any gov't I knew. This is no longer the case.

This was your implicit contract when you took the money, Barryjo. Just as it was/is for Canadian professionals of all stripes including physicians who were educated in the heavily subsidized public university system.

Rerivergirl,
I only asked what you did for work to prove a point. I presume you are like most who use this site, non business owners. I said in my last post that some socio democrats own their own businnesses, but a majority don't. And no I don't think I am any better than anyone else, I am just grateful to be alive.
My business is a social enterprise and all the profits we make go back into our mission, which is to help alleviate poverty, homelessness and/or addiction.
All of our intiatives provide environmental solutions and many divert re-useable materials from our landfills.
I pay taxes and I help many others to get back on their feet so they can pay taxes and it is my way of repaying my debt to society.
We are starting a new initiative soon and will need some volunteers to get it off the ground, are you interested.
It might help you get rid of some of that anger you seem to possess, your mad at someone, redrivergirl, and it aint me cause you don'e even know me.

red, I look at those links and all they are is the same old same old prattle from the same old squealing lefties, people who cannot win elections. Both sites are American and as much as I despise Bush and company, the Democrats are as hopelessly out of touch with reality and wedded to interest groups of whack-jobs as the NDP are.

Further, I have spent most of my life being self-employed. Business circles tend to be lacking lefties because we know the value of a dollar. I am all in favour of paying people their due because to do otherwise is simply bad business practice.

Old fashioned "sky is falling" rehetoic from the left is utterly discounted but 90% or so of the population because they see it for what it is; rhetoric of people looking for excuses for lack of personal success.

Laughable. We have the lowest umeployment rates in years. I might add that 1993 was about the worst year, economically, that Canada has had since 1939 and the NDP polled its worst ever results.

Dream on and don't bogart that joint!

Again, you erroneously, assume that I don't volunteer or help others because I am not down in your business doing it.

Nothing worse than an angry women, Barryjo, right?

Yes, I am angry. This is my country. I love my country. I am angry that another homeless person died from being outside last night and there is no outrage. It barely makes the news because among other reasons a 'controlled' news cycle. I'm angry that so many, who received so much from Canada, are adopting a harmful world view and imposing it on others through dishonesty and subterfuge.

I am angry that my beautiful city is turning into a ugly junkyard and the fresh sea air no longer blows clean into our bedroom window at night.

I'm angry that people who possess very little are having their dignity robbed from them along with their meager existence. I'm angry that of the 43 deaths in the forest industry this past year, we don't know one name and one story of them as individuals. At least we know the miner's names.

I'm angry that values I care about such as social justice, equality and equity are being undermined and in some cases eliminated. I'm angry that it is being done, in some cases, in Jesus's name. Which is blasphemy according to any value within the bible that I've ever discerned.

I'm not angry at you, Barryjo. Even though you seem quite judgemental of me and others and assume so much that isn't so about others and their circumstances. I don't take it personally.

I am frustrated at what you write because you've identified yourself as one who was vulnerable in many ways and still is in the way of sobriety, yet you seem to be unable to consider the ways that your ideology is harmful to others and potentially yourself.

But, live and let live, as they say. I really don't want to get personal. Often online conversations can become intense when face to face people would be quite pleasant and even get along well. There's no real way of telling. So, many blessings to you, Barryjo.

Why? Because we've divided one full time job into three part time ones?

I hope you are right about the economy doing well. The last thing I want to see is the US economy tank, both for personal reasons and because I recognize the suffering it would mean. Having said that, the economy has been artificially kept afloat during at least the last five years and probably much longer and has to pop eventually. This time it will pop and our nation won't own our resources, nor our hard assets. This is not a happy future for anyone.

Redrivergirl,
You had mentioned that when I was in my addiction, which is a disease, I was a drain on the system and now that I am healthy I should pay the system back, which I do.
What would you say to those who smoke to much get cancer and are a drain on the system and then get healthy again. Or someone who gets really ill because they overeat and need to be off work, seek medical attention and are a drain on society and then loose weight and go back to work. What about the reckless driver who gets hurt in a car accident?
Should they all pay back the money that the government had to pay out to them and for medical services for them?
Or is it just drug addicts that should be on the hook for government dollars spent on their behalf while they are in crises for something that is preventable and if so do you think thats fair?

Barryjo, I think I've been unclear and perhaps it's easy to misunderstand what I'm writing.

I don't think you were ever a drain on the system. I think you are a valuable human being because you are a human being and that you have Divine rights because of that. You have the right to dignity. The right of safety and belonging. The right not to be scapegoated.

I don't think you should pay the gov't back.

Perhaps I am older than you and the language that used to used to be about the 'social safety' net was different. The idea with the 'social safety net' is that human beings have value and no one should die from lack in our society. For no reason. Even if they are just too lazy. (personally I don't believe this is ever the case. I believe there are things we can't see about others that contribute to them being unable to do what most can do. If they were wealthy their motives for not working would be never questioned. In fact, many would be fawned over in the best restaurants and things like that, not scapegoated) By society saying that everyone has this right, it isn't saying they are right to 'be lazy'. This says that we in society have an obligation to everyone within the society. This has benefits to all of us in society because it lessens crime. We don't have to see terrible birth defects as one sees in India and places without a universal health care system, we have a reasonable chance of personal safety etc. And, many more reasons. Plus, we can be reminded that we are an abundant people and have enough to give other people.

Part of the social safety net means if one gets a terrible illness one doesn't have to go bankrupt. In the US under many plans you lose your insurance - they just won't renew it - if you get cancer, for instance. If you have asthma, that is considered a pre-existing condition and thus you can't get covered by an HMO at an affordable cost. Here, if one can't work and loses everything,one doesn't have to live under a bridge. We all pay taxes for other people to be safer, but also for us if we lose our money in the stock market, or if someone steals it from us when we're 80 and too out of it to understand what is happening, etc, we will have some small measure of safety.

What I was saying is this...

At the time you received the money the unspoken contract was if and when you were able to be a taxpayer, that your taxes would go to another person in need. It is a contract. There is a fairness in that that is not replicated by 'charity'. So, my point isn't that you are bad, or not worthy of receiving help when you needed it. It is that now your end of the contract is others via the same way you received it, will be helped.

I think I've been very unclear and I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was accusing you of being a drain on the system.

Take care.

Redrivergirl,
I was exactly that, a total drain on the system and I have and continue to pay back in many ways. I wasn't contributing anything to it socially or financially, I was taking and taking.
Enough about this, I will say one thing in parting, I have been asked why I give so many a second chance. My answer, In most cases they never had a first one.
I had a real tough life but some of the women and men I sit down and talk to suffered horrible,horribe abuse worse than I did. Errin got buried today, she was twenty one and one of the sweetest girls we ever met, what a waste. Last month it was Jordan 20, he was a real shining star, he helped me more than I could ever help him.
I'm sick of watching people die, it makes one feel so powerless in spite of all we try to do.
There is only one day in our lives that matters and thats today, thats all we've got.
God bless

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Then again, it has been a long as I can remember.

Working Man says The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Boy what a dummy you are,Ive been out side for an hour watching to see the sky fall, that wasn't the sky falling,it was[/B]"night falling"[B] duuuh.

And so do the other parties for the most part. Less probably because of the Bloc. As I've pointed out to you before, very little changes on the Cdn political scene.

The Libs have always ruled regardless of the quality of their platform or leadership. The Cons, regardless of their policy or leader changes have only taken power when people were tired of the Libs and just wanted a change. That's it. Does anyone seriously believe Stephen Harper would be on the cusp of a majority if he was still leading a party called Reform and Belinda's boyfriend was leading the PCs? Does anyone seriously believe Harper is a better leader than Robert Stanfield?

No other party, and there have been many, has ever or will ever, crack the top two. The NDP tomorrow could adopt the exact same policies as the Libs. No matter what the Libs put in their platform the NDP could copy it. They could also have a better public speaker as leader and the Libs would still win.

Its just inertia. No other party besides the Libs and Cons will ever form gov't in my lifetime.

If you really think its about policy and platform I've got a bridge to sell you and the Greens.

Excellent observations, Frank. The Liberals have only ever been voted out when people wanted change. When that change occured, people realised that they were the better choice.

The Liberals are political masters. They know which way the wind blows and change their policies to reflect what voters want. Both the Reform Party and the NDP do not practice this; they are stuck in ideaology.

A few months with Herr Harper and crew will have many Canadians realising their mistake.

Working man, tune into CBC tomorrow evening and listen to guest pundit Ed Broadbent.

You might even learn something.

I understand Paul Martin is planning a long holiday very soon. Does that mean he'll be tossing out the old chameleon suit?

Rumour is he's heading to South America to get some advice on winning elections in the 21st century.

Thanks WM,

What other reason is there to exist? The Cons will always be the safety valve when the Libs have been in power too long.

NDP, Reform, Green, United Farmers, Creditistes, Canada Action, Christian Coalition, Nationals, Rhinos, Flying Yogis etc have no hope of power ever and exist only because it provides a vehicle for ideology.

If those parties didn't exist, voter turnout would drop harshly and the different ideologies that they represent would never be discussed in public forums.

As for the Libs, one could make the argument that there is no reason to have elections in Canada. We could simply let the Libs rule for 10-15 years and the Cons for 2-4 because no amount of scandal or bad policy will ever generate any long term change in voting patterns that upset that rough balance between the two and the rest of the pack.

The NDP, as a party, being more successful than all the rest of the 3rd parties combined have hopes of one day replacing the Libs on the spectrum. I would not want to see this ever happen because then you'd get a Blair-type labour party which for all intents and purposes is Liberal.

So what's the point of replacing the Libs if to do it you have to be Libs? Another left-wing party would have to be created to replace the NDP.

I don't find Harper to be scary in the sense of ordering children into the fires of hell or anything but he is scary in terms of wanting to remake the federal-provincial balance. I prefer a strong central government, those that don't would find less to fear from Harper except on social issues.

If Harper can be held to a minority gov't with a life-span of around 2 years I think his election can be seen in a positive light. The Libs do need some time to remake themselves and I expect the side of the Libs that is closer to the NDP to once again regain power. Probably reducing the NDP to 8-10% of the popular vote in the process but no matter, the NDP has already proven it is nothing if not resilient.

allan, how do you make it to the last Wednesday every month?

Very well said.

Working Man, get some original material or we're going to cut you off here at Tyee.

We don't mind whackos, as your type keep us amused between Liberal scandels, but you have now accused about half the posters here of collecting welfare.

What's your little problem there WM?

By the way, be sure to give all those young apprentices you employ (lol) sufficient time to vote and quit trying to get them to tell you how they plan to vote.

Firing someone for voting their choice is really tacky.

It's like taking millions of Canadain tax dollars supposedly to fight a separatist referendum and then giving all the dough to your Liberal buds in the ad business.

Tacky, tacky, tacky.

One more sleep allan. Don'r be too disappoined tonight.

If Harpers Consevatives get in with a majority, it won't be long before we'll be bringing our men & women home in body bags!

Cut the "sky is falling" drama. Even if Herr Harper forms a majority, very little will change.

Never mind their not being friendly to organized labour, but the Conselfservatives are downright beastly to un-organized labour. In fact, anyone who hasn't got $500,000 will not fare well with Harper in the PM seat.

Lots will change with Harper in control--except the corruption. That should increase---but it will be with American companies, instad of Canadian ones. No Canadian will benefit with these rightwingnuts in power.

I assume you mean in the day to day life of people?

Because under a majority Harper wil be able to throw out the Canada Health Act and the CBC among others, enshrine the rights of property in the Constitution, move taxing power from the feds to the provinces and leave us in 4 years with 10 practically separate countries where the rights of corporations will trump gov'ts ability to act in the interests of the public.

For most people that will not make any difference in their daily lives but it means eroding the Canada I want.