# The Debate



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

So far bad moderation...Liz May gets hysterical...me wishing our Marge Simpson was a Lib or Conservative.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

LA-Washinton all tied 1-1, bottom of 5th....
....go Yankees!...


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

.....she's more like Lisa than Marge.....


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> .....she's more like Lisa than Marge...
> 
> Nope...Marg has the hairdo that rivals Jagmeet's style lol.
> 
> bleh ...no moderation...too much stupid Green Party...I'm off to watch Yellowstone...(good show)


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....Doh! now i get it....lol

Thought you comparing liz's earnestness to lisa's... lol

'ooo is da rude french guy, eh?


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Well that was lame... They didn't even get to make a closing statement? How are we supposed to hear their final message?

I think everyone did fairly OK, with a slight edge to Trudeau and Bernier for the best delivery, and a slight disappointment in Scheer. He appeared uninterested in his own arguments, and his attempt to feign passion just came off as aggressive and uncalibrated.

Singh and May and the other guy were blah - said nothing unexpected at all.

One thing was clear, there was not a single "Labour Party" up there to support Canadian workers and the interests of traditional middle-class Canadian families.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I think these kinds of debates are pretty pointless. I may be wrong, but I doubt that many people decide which party to vote for based on 40 second snippets and a bit of arguing.

I prefer longer format debates where more questions are asked and each candidate can give fully formed answers. The interruptions also ruin the whole thing.

Even with the short time periods, there seemed to be a decent amount of real issues discussed, such as party platforms (or lack thereof), differences in views on environmental issues, etc. But we already knew all these positions so I'm not sure what's novel here.

It probably hurt the Conservatives overall to have Bernier pitch his fringe views, even at one point attacking Scheer pretty directly. Ouch.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Open debate was stupid. Pretty sure political debates learned this lesson over 100 years ago. Everyone has the incentive to interrupt.

Shout out to Rosemary Barton though. Best moderator by far. 

Hey imagine a world where Canada had more than one debate in English. What a joke in some respects we can be. Even the Americans have more debates.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I found it revealing. Trudeau looked medicated - like a deer in headlights. Seemed to wake up 10 min before the end.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Singh had zing but made it clear that there are 'the people' and then there are 'the rich' who aren't people but despicable, non-contributing members of society who exist to fund his socialism.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

May will save the globe from the current crisis by gutting Canada. Oops, I guess that won't save the globe - now I'm confused.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

The PQ guy has better English skills than Bernier.
"Health and hair"? Oh, he said "health and air". 
Still just a bad loser


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Singh had zing but made it clear that there are 'the people' and then there are 'the rich' who aren't people but despicable, non-contributing members of society who exist to fund his socialism.



me i think jagmeet singh makes a lot of sense for one who knows to the marrow of his bones that he'll never serve as prime minister.

he's fallen back on the traditional gadfly role of the NDP. Keep focusing on ethical issues which canada should be attending to, with the goal of influencing, possibly even pressuring, the next elected gummint.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> The PQ guy has better English skills than Bernier.
> "Health and hair"? Oh, he said "health and air".
> Still just a bad loser



you wanna talk about language skills in the opposite lingo? y'oughtta heard andrew scheer portling around in french october 2nd :biggrin:


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I found it revealing. Trudeau looked medicated - like a deer in headlights. Seemed to wake up 10 min before the end.





OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Singh had zing but made it clear that there are 'the people' and then there are 'the rich' who aren't people but despicable, non-contributing members of society who exist to fund his socialism.


I'm sure I dislike Trudeau more than the average CMFer, but he clearly did fine, and his public speaking has improved greatly these past 4 years. He also played down the middle quite well I though (even if it's all phony).

Sheer was lackluster. Not into it. 

Singh barely even sounded like a socialists. Free prescriptions? Boring. 

Bernier - Not as charismatic as I thought he'd be for a guy speaking so boldly. His heart is clearly in it, but he's still stuck in a Milton Friedman world view. Only thing he'd accomplish is to "dismantle supply management", i.e. destroy Canadian family farms.

My prediction: Liberal majorty, NDP collapse into oblivion, Conservatives lose seats, Greens 1 seat as always.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

the interruptions were disturbing. I think they should have had some format like the 2 leaders could post videos with their platforms or lack of platforms but not attend in person.

then the minority parties could have at it with their sometimes farfetched ideas about how to improve the nation.

no pipelines. No immigration. Affordable housing. Guaranteed lifetime manna & prosperity for everybody.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

peterk said:


> My prediction: Liberal majorty, NDP collapse into oblivion, Conservatives lose seats, Greens 1 seat as always.


NDP collapse? I suppose it's possible, but I'd be surprised. I thought Singh was resonating with voters.

Trudeau really is looking like he's got the center balance. At one point, other parties were simultaneously criticizing him for supporting pipelines and opposing pipelines while talking over each other. In the mess of voices, Trudeau (barely audible) made a good point: this simultaneous opposition shows the Liberals have hit the middle ground.

He's right. Perhaps the only thing this debate impressed on me is just how evenly the left & right are dissatisfied with the Liberals.



humble_pie said:


> then the minority parties could have at it with their sometimes farfetched ideas about how to improve the nation.


Bernier made me laugh a bit with his single issue. It seemed like his answer to _everything_ was: less immigrants! This would have made a good drinking game (take a drink each time Bernier says we need to have less immigration)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What I learned from the debate....

Bernier is a kook.

May has good ideas but no idea how to pay for them. If she is right in her climate change forecasts we are doomed.

Singh is more popular than his party. He is intelligent, witty, funny and down to earth. People like him. Too bad about the party though.

Scheer has given up on gains in Quebec, otherwise he would not have attacked Trudeau on SNC Lavalin. He was taken to task by the Bloc leader for "not caring about Quebec jobs"

Quebec will not allow a pipeline across it's land. 

Doug Ford's reign of terror in Ontario was brought up several times.

Trudeau was confident enough to stand there, smile and he might as well been taking "selfies" in the audience while the others attacked each other.

Status quo result.........Liberals probably win a majority. Small chance of a minority.......depending on what happens in Quebec.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Doug Ford's reign of terror in Ontario was brought up several times.


Just so everyone understands. That is what it will look like to the governed if a leader ever decides to balance the budget. All the easy cuts have been done by the average leaders we have elected in the past. Now it appears, it is time for the harder cuts, if we want to stop spending our grandchildren's future.

I wish we had someone at the Federal level that would decide to do the right thing (balance the damn budget), over the politically correct thing, for once.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree there can be some spending cuts, but there is also the revenue side of the budget, and there needs to be a balance and sense of fairness to any changes.

For example...should we cut social benefits to one particular group and at the same time allow lower taxation on capital gains and Canadian dividend income for another group ?

On business news station CNBC, there was a discussion where they were discussing the "socialist" views of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are gaining popularity.

Jim Cramer became very sarcastic and said he felt really bad they were picking on the billionaire class. Whatever shall they do.........he said.

When other panelists suggested the system is controlled and gamed by the billionaires.........Cramer said that was exactly right.

He also pointed out the hypocrisy of earning huge amounts of money for doing nothing (capital gains) and paying lower taxes on it than people who go to work to earn their money.

When it was suggested that lower capital gains facilitates job creators, the panel laughed at the suggestion.....sure, like buying $60 million dollar airplanes and $100 million dollar yachts.

It was stated in the debate that 86 Canadian families own more wealth than everyone in 3 Atlantic Canada Provinces combined. 

Change is necessary.......but it must be balanced and well thought out. Favoring the billionaire class and asset holders over everyone else isn't an acceptable status quo anymore.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A Banksy painting came up for auction the other day........Chimps in Parliament.

The pre-auction price was listed at $1 million to $1.5 million dollars.

In a matter of minutes it auctioned for $12 million dollars. The wealthy have so much money they don't know what to do with it all.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

Hate Scheer with a passion but I felt he delivered the best punches. Trudeau was on the defensive all night and I felt he sounded like a broken record with his same songs.
I preferred the composure of Singh and passion that May delivered. Mad Max proved himself to be a complete tool, barking away like a Chihuahua.
Don't think yesterday's review will drastically change the polls


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

.....anyone else notice how da french guy referred to "Quebec, and the provinces" a few times, as if Kwee-bec had some elevated status, above 'the provinces'.....but wait..... they DO!......


....liz (lisa simpson) may came to me off as prob. the most intelligent of the bunch....too bad she's such s flake....



.....too bad no NL politician can speak french.....crosbie, williams, peckford, tobin, joey could have out-zinged any of 'em, in a shouting match showdown...lol


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_....too bad no NL politician can speak french.....crosbie, williams, peckford, tobin, joey would had a bit of life & out-finesse them all, in a talk-down shouting match!........lol_

No Jargey..........it is too bad more politicians don't speak the language of "down east" I used to so enjoy listening to John Crosbie.

I had a friend and his wife from "down east". Brilliant storytellers they were in that special accent and wording they possessed.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

sags said:


> _....too bad no NL politician can speak french.....crosbie, williams, peckford, tobin, joey would had a bit of life & out-finesse them all, in a talk-down shouting match!........lol_
> 
> No Jargey..........it is too bad more politicians don't speak the language of "down east" I used to so enjoy listening to John Crosbie.


"pour me another tequila, Shelia"
"quieten down, you"


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL..........ah, memories


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> A Banksy painting came up for auction the other day........Chimps in Parliament.
> 
> The pre-auction price was listed at $1 million to $1.5 million dollars.
> 
> ...


So what? It's their money and they can do what they want with it.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Just so everyone understands. That is what it will look like to the governed if a leader ever decides to balance the budget. All the easy cuts have been done by the average leaders we have elected in the past. Now it appears, it is time for the harder cuts, if we want to stop spending our grandchildren's future ...


Average leaders in Ontario have made the easy cuts?
Not that I can recall ... or maybe it's the four times the easy cut amount being wasted in other areas that cover the cuts up.


Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Average leaders in Ontario have made the easy cuts?
> Not that I can recall ... or maybe it's the four times the easy cut amount being wasted in other areas that cover the cuts up.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Easy cuts are ones that no one really cares about and hence no one would be expected to remember them.

My point is that the cuts we need will certainly not be easy. They will affect children. They will affect seniors. They will affect sick people. They will affect the environment. They will affect middle class families. They might even affect puppies. We have all been spending more then we make like drunken sailors for too long. When it is corrected, it will feel like we are all being spanked...and perhaps it should. It will certainly not be received well. 

The sooner it happens, however, the better it will feel and the less people that will get hurt.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Andrew Scheer spent most of his time attacking Trudeau. Even Andrew Scheer couldn't think of many good things to say about Andrew Scheer or the Conservative platform.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> On business news station CNBC, there was a discussion where they were discussing the "socialist" views of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are gaining popularity.
> 
> Jim Cramer became very sarcastic and said he felt really bad they were picking on the billionaire class. Whatever shall they do.........he said.


I think one has to read the writing on the wall. I have told wealthy American friends the same thing; I expect that higher taxes (for the wealthy) are coming to America. Higher capital gains taxes will eventually come too.

This is one of the risks in stock investment after all. An investor is compensated for these kinds of risks. Just look at the huge boost in performance in recent decades going back to the 1990s (I'm including Clinton years) with all the favours extended to the wealthy asset holders: low corporate taxes, low capital gains, and more tax cuts under Trump. People may forget it now, but capital gains taxes have been steadily reduced since the mid 1990s.

Those Trump tax cuts for the corporations were significant. The US company I worked at immediately saw a big boost in net income with the tax changes. In fact I think they immediately paid out a few hundred thousand $ to executives. Corporate-centered tax cuts, which is what we've been getting for 30 years, always mean $ flows to the very wealthy.

All of those moves over the last ~ 30 years have created both huge benefits for asset hoarders, and the wealthiest tier in society which has executive & top management jobs. For example it's a big reason why everyone sits around CMF and talks about 90% stock allocations and getting rich off dividend stocks.

I expect it to change within my lifetime. I have done my investment & financial planning with the expectation of higher taxes on dividends and capital gains. And I certainly haven't tried to use corporate structures to shield my passive wealth, as many in Canada try to do. Trudeau wisely closed one of those loopholes by the way -- which is something the rich really hate him for.

Previously, many wealthy people in Canada were using a private corporation structure (CCPC) to store their stock & bond investments to avoid paying regular taxes on the gains. When the Liberals got into power, Trudeau changed the treatment of these to discourage the practice. The Conservatives are picking up votes from many doctors and rich people who feel they are entitled to continuing shielding their investments from regular taxes.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-angry-doctors-kelowna-1.4278453

Doctors have been told that the CCPC technique they were using was kind of like their pension plan, a compensation for the fact they have to build up their own retirement savings. Conservative tax experts convinced doctors that *they deserve this loophole*. And now they want it back! Boy did they get angry about fair taxation. I admire Trudeau for standing up to these pressures and doing what was right.

Isn't that always the case though? Once rich people get a new goodie, like a tax shelter or a special discount on capital gains, they feel entitled to it and scream bloody murder if it's taken away.

The Conservatives will help the very rich by reducing their taxes. This is the reason this party exists.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Conservatives continually call the wealthy tax dodgers "small businesses" because it sounds better than "wealthy tax dodgers".

They aren't small businesses. They employ very few (often family members) or nobody. They are very clearly tax dodges set up by expensive accountants and tax lawyers.

Former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was heard to lament every time they closed a tax dodge, the accountants came up with a new one. The government was playing whack a mole.

When the big cheaters were caught, they would threaten to tie up CRA resources for years, so they were able to negotiate a sweet deal and pay a paltry amount of their taxes.

Maybe the Conservatives should hold a fundraising telethon for rich people and oil companies, if they feel so bad for them.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fstamand said:


> Hate Scheer with a passion but I felt he delivered the best punches. Trudeau was on the defensive all night and I felt he sounded like a broken record with his same songs.
> 
> I preferred the composure of Singh and passion that May delivered. Mad Max proved himself to be a complete tool, barking away like a Chihuahua.




the point of a national debate is never for the leader of a national party to get up as did andrew scheer last night & foul the sandbox with cheap six-year-old insult after insult after insult aimed at his rival.

apart from rolling back carbon taxes, the flimsy rest of what scheer divulged last night about his platform sounded like tweaked & recycled liberal policy. Immigration same same. Pipeline same same. Taxes scheer will favour the super rich. He'll support gummint largesse by stopping foreign aid & re-routing those dollars to domestic Conservative projects.

maxim bernier was the ultimate kook. Agitated, interrupting, off the track like some old auntie who's starting to mentally slip. Why has bernier brought back the infamous lucien bouchard slipped-down-on-his-forehead hairpiece that's dyed such an unreal shade of bright chestnut brown? as with bouchard, you can see bernier's bald scalp above the rug.

obviously building: the bromance between justin trudeau & jagmeet singh. Singh falling over himself to praise trudeau's political initiatives. If they get it together & the liberals score a minority gummint, the Lib/NDP combo will be invincible.


i thought elizabeth may, jagmeet singh & yves-francois blanchet were terrific. Possibly because all three have the luxury of knowing they'll never sit as PM, they'll never be held accountable for what they recommend, therefore they are free to call for any plans they think are best regardless of the costs.


blanchet is being put down here in cmf forum because of his accent. But to me he's a good next-door neighbour who i've come to to know very well. We talk regularly, look after the block together.

blanchet showed repeatedly that he's a good politician who listens to others with respect. He understands canadians' point of view. He doesn't agree because he's always going to put quebec first, but last night he showed that his strategy is civilized. Getting along with blanchet is doable.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> ... blanchet is being put down here in cmf forum because of his accent...


Not sure if you are referring to my 'accent' post Humble but I was not slagging him. I thought he was very well-spoken. I thought it noteworthy that the leader of the nation of Quebec is more understandable in english than Bernier, a wannabe leader of the nation of Canada.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

humble_pie said:


> the point of a national debate is never for the leader of a national party to get up as did andrew scheer last night & foul the sandbox with cheap six-year-old insult after insult after insult aimed at his rival.


Sure -- I totally agree. In debates however, tactics are common to destabilize others, which Scheer excels at. He traded his airtime that would have been nicely spent discussing his "platform". I think Trudeau was trying to keep his cool but he got caught in his game at many levels.

But yeah "I'm taller than you" rhetoric are very childish. Not every Canadian sees it that way however, because it creates the drama that the debate needed.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Not sure if you are referring to my 'accent' post Humble but I was not slagging him. I thought he was very well-spoken. I thought it noteworthy that the leader of the nation of Quebec is more understandable in english than Bernier, a wannabe leader of the nation of Canada.




i glimpsed several negative messages going on about yves-francois blanchet's frenchness & his quebecness. 

the point i'd hoped to post was that, when one brushes aside the anti-quebec prejudice to look carefully at blanchet the politician, one sees a mature political creature who'll stick to his sovereignist knitting in the final analysis but who'll collaborate reasonably & respectfully with others along the way. Did blanchet not have, IIRC, the best if not the only plan for ending the transfer & equalization payments which albertans hate so much?

IMHO blanchet is far less radical than elizabeth may, our National Treasure.

all told, it was canada as a country that came out ahead last night imho. We may be headed straight for government by one of the Two Doofii, but the supporting second rank of candidates showed themselves to be mostly intelligent, likable & responsible politicians.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I thought the Bloc had a way to link transfer payments to climate change, not actually eliminate transfer payments.


----------



## tdiddy (Jan 7, 2015)

james4beach said:


> Doctors have been told that the CCPC technique they were using was kind of like their pension plan, a compensation for the fact they have to build up their own retirement savings. Conservative tax experts convinced doctors that *they deserve this loophole*. And now they want it back! Boy did they get angry about fair taxation. I admire Trudeau for standing up to these pressures and doing what was right.
> 
> Isn't that always the case though? Once rich people get a new goodie, like a tax shelter or a special discount on capital gains, they feel entitled to it and scream bloody murder if it's taken away.


Sorry James but this is a bit off the mark. In Ontario the physicians were specially offered this in lieu of fee increases, its not some conspiracy theory from "conservative tax experts". How do they go talking about ultra rich (ie Morneau) to doctors anyway? It is because Trudeau wants class warfare, it wins votes. Not everyone knows a Morneau type but mostly everyone has a doctor, easy tangible target to see; his techniques were despicable. You can admire Trudeau all you want, but he actually didn't stand up to us at all, the changes that were passed were much more tolerable  Sure Canada could benefit from comprehensive tax review, and some of these CCPC changes would have reasonably been suggested, but probably also limit on capital gains exemption for primary residence, clawing back OAS much faster; tax increases for middle class to fund social programs (we have nearly the lowest tax rate among developed nations for middle class families yet these same voters want socialism); a much steeper inheritance tax. Vilifying one segment of the population may win votes but it degrades society.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I think one has to read the writing on the wall ... Higher capital gains taxes will eventually come too ...
> People may forget it now, but capital gains taxes have been steadily reduced since the mid 1990s.


Aren't you being American specific here? Or maybe corporate tax rate specific?

Canadian CG taxes were most likely *increased* in the '90s. 

Canada didn't have CG taxes until 1973 while the US has had them since the 1870's. Until 1988 the inclusion rate was 50% then 66% until 1990 and then 75% until 2000. The missing part is the MTR but I suspect the jump of 25% in the inclusion rate beats any decreases in the MTR handily.

The 2000 reversion to a 50% inclusion rate is a reduction but after that, the CG rate seems to be increasing, not decreasing. 




james4beach said:


> ... Those Trump tax cuts for the corporations were significant. The US company I worked at immediately saw a big boost in net income with the tax changes. In fact I think they immediately paid out a few hundred thousand $ to executives. Corporate-centered tax cuts, which is what we've been getting for 30 years, always mean $ flows to the very wealthy.


We are talking Canada so have there been the same corporate tax cuts in Canada?




james4beach said:


> ... I expect it to change within my lifetime. I have done my investment & financial planning with the expectation of higher taxes on dividends and capital gains.


I hate to tell you but looking at Ontario's MTR from 2004 to 2019 for capital gains taxes - the bottom MTR has risen about 1% while the top end has risen about 3.5%. BC's about the same and Quebec shows a rise as well.

Nothing as drastic as the inclusion rate going from 50% to 66% to 75% and back but an increase, no the less. 
Essentially there are bumps up are '73, '88 and '90 for the inclusion rate compared to one or two bumps down. 

I don't see how two bumps down matches up with "capital gains taxes have been steadily reduced since the mid 1990s".


For eligible dividends, it fits the "steadily reduced" better with Ontario being -11% for the low end and +8% on the top end. BC and Quebec are similar.


Cheers


*PS*
This spread in the CG MTR rates likely doesn't tell the whole story for Ontario as they have gone from eight levels to eleven levels, probably adding some extra CG taxes to the mix.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tax 100% of capital gains and dividend income at the same rate as people pay from their wages from working. It isn't a difficult or complicated concept.

The capital gains tax has been all over the place over the years, There were personal capital gains exemptions of this and that, but it has always been a way to enrich those who owns assets.

The theory that capital gains holders are job creators is total BS. The only thing they create is more wealth for themselves while doing nothing.

As Jim Cramer and the others noted.....special treatment of capital gains and dividends was created by those with lots of capital gains and dividends......surprise, surprise.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The world has changed in the last 3 years, and the change is gathering forward momentum.

The next generation isn't interested in the pitiful bleatings of the old guard. They demand wholesale changes to economic systems and will steamroll anyone who gets in the way.

The old guard best move along to avoid getting run over.

Canada is no different, except we are further down the continuum to socialism. Canadians have long accepted socialist programs as beneficial to them and society.

The only question is how far Canada will go and which politicians will lead them there. Democratic socialism is the future.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One issue that I think was settled during the debate was there will be no new west to east pipelines. Quebec politicians are on very firm ground with their voters by ruling pipelines out.

The Trudeau government is going to work towards a consensus with indigenous groups and BC citizens, but if there is no consensus there won't be a TM expansion.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> Tax 100% of capital gains and dividend income at the same rate as people pay from their wages from working. It isn't a difficult or complicated concept ...


The results will be interesting as I suspect a lot of people would pull their money out of the market where they pay the same taxes as interest but have far more risk.
Not sure how all those pension funds would do either - maybe some reductions of benefits.



Cheers


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> I thought the Bloc had a way to link transfer payments to climate change, not actually eliminate transfer payments.


Yes, not unlike their self-indulgent carbon tax proposal. _... a tax of $30 per tonne__ on greenhouse gases in provinces where emissions per capita are higher than average. This would increase to $200 per tonne by 2030. The charge wouldn’t apply in “greener” provinces like Quebec._

They conveniently ignore the mercury, environmental, and indigenous issues streamrolled over by Hydro-Quebec over the years to develop their 'green' hydro energy. And the difference in resource endowment across the country is just c'est la vie. An LNG pipeline to their benefit is fine, but an oil pipeline to the benefit of Canada is not, etc.

The bloc does their job well - they look solely after the interests of a sovereign Quebec and couldn't give a damn about the rest of Canada. It's unfortunate and it contributes strongly to the anti-Quebec sentiment that waxes and wanes across the country.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

> Tax 100% of capital gains and dividend income at the same rate as people pay from their wages from working. It isn't a difficult or complicated concept ...





Eclectic12 said:


> The results will be interesting as I suspect a lot of people would pull their money out of the market where they pay the same taxes as interest but have far more risk.
> Not sure how all those pension funds would do either - maybe some reductions of benefits.
> Cheers


It's not 'difficult' to realize that sags has no understanding of why CG's and dividends are justifiably treated differently by the CRA than wage income. It's sad to read such utter financial ignorance coming from a senior posting on CMF.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It would mean double taxation if the dividend tax credit was removed. Although I'm sure most of JT's voter base have no dividends it would most likely be an unpopular policy to add to the election promise BS bucket.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Aren't you being American specific here? Or maybe corporate tax rate specific?
> 
> Canadian CG taxes were most likely *increased* in the '90s.


Yes maybe I'm focusing too much on American stats. You are correct that the Canadian capital gain tax policy has been more fair over the decades. The inclusion rate did go up in the 1990s... you are right.

The Canadian federal corporate tax rate on the other hand has steadily declined over the last 40 years, with an especially sharp drop since 2000. This trend does closely mirror US corporate taxes.

So while I was incorrect about capital gains (appears this policy has been stable for a long time), the corporate tax rates have come down a lot.

Large corporations enjoy a highly advantageous position in the current environment. Investors in equities should also be taking this into account as they consider possible future returns.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> It's not 'difficult' to realize that sags has no understanding of why CG's and dividends are justifiably treated differently by the CRA than wage income. It's sad to read such utter financial ignorance coming from a senior posting on CMF.


Yeah, there's not even any use in explaining it. Sigh.........

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

I watched the debate and thought the whole format was poor.

The amount of wasted time-overhead talking to people in Yellowknife or some bar somewhere, combined with a studio audience and multiple moderators added nothing other than to shorten the time to listen to the candidates. 

The result was asking a question of how to solve world hunger, and by the way, you have 40 seconds to answer - ridiculous.

They had 2 hours of time. Put those six candidates in a closed room around a large table with one capable moderator (Rosemary Barton) and you go around the table and give each person 10-15 minutes to make their pitch with no interruption. Then have a short one on one debate the last half hour. Done. Instead, we had a TV gong show.

Trudeau looked more passive than usual and just repeated his standard memorized lines over and over. 
Scheer seemed to have been coached to be tougher, but he came across rather wooden. His zinger about Trudeau being obsessed with provincial politics was good though.
Blanchet. Why was he there. This wasn't the proper venue for separatism talk. It was just a silly distraction.
Jagmeet Singh. Nice guy, wrong party.
Elizabeth May. Single minded obsession with the weather would destroy the country. Reasonable people know this.
Maxime Bernier was the only one telling the truth. People can't handle the truth. They would rather be fed balony. Unfortunately the truth doesn't win elections. 
Maxime Bernier’s full post-debate scrum was interesting.

ltr


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

My assessment of the debate, for what it's worth:

Bernier - Not very inspiring. Missed his chance to soften his stance slightly or at least explain some of his more contentious positions in a way that might appeal to a broader range of Canadians.
Trudeau - Didn't perform up to expectations. Wasn't able to satisfactorily explain inconsistencies such as mixing belief in an environmental crisis and buying pipelines or being a staunch indigenous supporter and some of his actions. 
Singh - Was the best performer, even though I don't personally agree with his policies. If this translates into votes it could be bad news for the Liberals.
Scheer - Significantly overplayed his opening comment and should have saved it for later in the debate. However, I think he performed better than was expected but expectations were rather low.
May - Became tiresome relating every single issue to the environment. Outclassed on the issues she cares about by Singh. 
Blanchet - Did what he had to in order to appeal to Quebec voters. 

Format of the debate - absolutely horrible. Leaders did not have time to properly answer or respond to questions and this resulted in them talking over one another. Where is Steve Paiken when you need him?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> The results will be interesting as I suspect a lot of people would pull their money out of the market where they pay the same taxes as interest but have far more risk.
> Not sure how all those pension funds would do either - maybe some reductions of benefits.
> 
> 
> ...


You think interest has equalled capital gains or dividend payments in capital appreciation ? That is called the tax tail wagging the dog.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> It's not 'difficult' to realize that sags has no understanding of why CG's and dividends are justifiably treated differently by the CRA than wage income. It's sad to read such utter financial ignorance coming from a senior posting on CMF.


Right......people can move their money into savings accounts.........LOL.

You would rather earn 1% from interest and pay the taxes than 4% in dividends and pay the same level of taxes ?

What have equities returned over 10 years again compared to interest ?.........thought so.

I think it is you who needs a financial education.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, there's not even any use in explaining it. Sigh.........
> 
> ltr


Tell me all about the mythical "job creators".

The same people who espouse that nonsense, said the world would fall apart when the CPP was enhanced and when the minimum wage was raised.

So far their ability to forecast is rather dismal.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

... keep digging the hole deeper


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

doctrine said:


> Everyone has the incentive to interrupt.


To be effective in parliament, they need to know how to do that


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> To be effective in parliament, they need to know how to do that


You can't interrupt in Parliament?


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

Does anyone really believe Canadians can change the climate by increasing taxes on it's citizens ? I do like the idea that we cut some of our funding to other countries though, I am of the belief that charity begins at home and we should use Canadians' taxes to improve Canada, as well as get the budget in check, before we go throwing money around to be wasted elsewhere.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Canada could go to zero emissions and not make an iota of difference in climate change. Carbon taxes will never get us to zero net emissions. Net zero by 2050 is just another 'smoking dope' hallucination.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mechanic said:


> Does anyone really believe Canadians can change the climate by increasing taxes on it's citizens ? I do like the idea that we cut some of our funding to other countries though, I am of the belief that charity begins at home and we should use Canadians' taxes to improve Canada, as well as get the budget in check, before we go throwing money around to be wasted elsewhere.


I'd suggest the morons who think blocking traffic and spray painting the earth "for the environment" likely think so.
I don't think we should take advice from them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is no need to look anywhere else than the scientists and experts.

https://www.ipcc.ch/

https://climate.nasa.gov/

https://www.noaa.gov/categories/climate-change

Or business leaders and insurance companies.

http://www.cia-ica.ca/ccsc-resources

http://www.ibc.ca/on/resources/medi...-report-confirms-increase-in-extreme-rainfall


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

agreed that carbon taxes will not mean eliminating catastrophic forest fires or floods in canada tomorrow; but canada needs to reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to hold up its head & compete among progressive nations.

right now it's said that, per capita, canada is the worst polluting nation on the planet. We need to improve that profile some.

carbon taxes may not turn out to be a workable modality to persuade canadians to consume less fossil fuel after all. We need to keep going with other modalities, but in the meantime let's give carbon taxes a reasonable try.

arguing "There's no climate change" or "Other nations pollute far more than canada so why bother to do anything" are not arguments that resonate with me.

.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Right......people can move their money into savings accounts.........LOL.
> 
> You would rather earn 1% from interest and pay the taxes than 4% in dividends and pay the same level of taxes ?
> 
> ...


I won't comment on capital gains, since the right level of taxation can be debated without any consensus, but with dividends, one must realize that the corporation has already been taxed BEFORE a dividend is ever available to be paid. The current tax system for dividends has been set up to ensure that this income, earned inside a corporation, does not get double taxed. Now one can simply ignore that and tax it twice but the result would be a tremendous reduction in investment, since the return on it would be too severely reduced and better alternatives for that investment elsewhere would soon show up.

One must also remember that no one gets employed and very little economic activity happens, until some investor somewhere decides to invest capital into something. Any disincentive directed to that investment will correspondingly reduce economic activity and the corresponding prosperity that it could create, very quickly. The fact that someone might actually be making a lot of money on the investment should not distract a society from the benefits capital investment provides.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Would not the same "double taxation" argument apply to a company that pays taxes and then their employee pays taxes ?

Is it fair that people working paying a higher rate of taxes on their income than than person who collects dividend income by doing nothing ?

Perhaps the solution is to lower the taxes paid on employment income, but then the same "double taxation" on dividends argument would apply.

I don't agree that investors themselves create jobs or economic activity. It is demand for products and services that does that.

Investors enter where there are existing opportunities to cash in on demand. They spend their capital extracting the cash from the demand opportunity.

I do acknowledge that Jim Cramer and the panel were mostly focused on discussing the inequality of taxes on capital gains.

Maybe I am wrong on dividends, but it still doesn't seem to make sense that people doing nothing for money pay lower taxes than someone slaving at a job every day.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Would not the same "double taxation" argument apply to a company that pays taxes and then their employee pays taxes ?
> 
> Is it fair that people working paying a higher rate of taxes on their income than than person who collects dividend income by doing nothing ?
> 
> Perhaps the solution is to lower the taxes paid on employment income. That will involve spending cuts nobody wants to make.


I can't believe you're even asking that question.
Salary is an expense, you take that out of revenue before you get to corporate profit. 
You only pay income taxes on profit. 
If you only charge corporate taxes,and have no employment taxes you'll just shift corporate structures in funny ways, look at income trusts. 

These aren't simple issues, but there is a logic.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

"Double taxation" appears to be a concept applied primarily to dividend income.

Canadians pay double, triple, quadruple taxes all the time. We earn money and pay income taxes. 

We buy goods and services and they pay taxes, they buy goods and services and they pay taxes.......and on and on.

I buy a new car and pay taxes. Someone buys the car from me and pays taxes. Someone buys the car from them and pays taxes.

It appears double or more taxation is predominant throughout the economy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Income vs consumption. Taxes are different types of taxes. The double taxation of income is the issue with dividends. 
We want to be fair on how we treat tax dollars. 

Personally I'd like zero corporate taxes, until removal from the domestic corporate entity. 
Also get rid of sales tax.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

tdiddy said:


> Vilifying one segment of the population may win votes but it degrades society.


It was obvious that Morneau was out of his depth on CCPCs. I think the $50k income limit is too low, especially in a bull market. Your other suggestions are all good areas to investigate.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Spidey said:


> My assessment of the debate, for what it's worth:
> 
> Bernier - Not very inspiring. Missed his chance to soften his stance slightly or at least explain some of his more contentious positions in a way that might appeal to a broader range of Canadians.
> Trudeau - Didn't perform up to expectations. Wasn't able to satisfactorily explain inconsistencies such as mixing belief in an environmental crisis and buying pipelines or being a staunch indigenous supporter and some of his actions.
> ...


&#55357;&#56397; I suspect that Blanchet and Singh will get some undecided voters and that will be good for the country because it will force the Liberals to listen (actually hear) and reduce pandering.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> �� I suspect that Blanchet and Singh will get some undecided voters and that will be good for the country because it will force the Liberals to listen (actually hear) and reduce pandering.


vu du quebec - i don't believe that blanchet picked up a single vote from the english debate. Nor do i think he will wow additional new voters in the french debate coming up tomorrow night.

where would blanchet get new votes from? quebecers who intend to vote bloc are already committed. IMHO there are none to be added.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> You think interest has equalled capital gains or dividend payments in capital appreciation ?


Too bad the CMF search doesn't work ... IIRC, James has been saying this for quite a while when encouraging an asset allocation that is less equities and more FI.

I'm guessing you don't agree with him.




sags said:


> Right......people can move their money into savings accounts.........LOL.
> You would rather earn 1% from interest and pay the taxes than 4% in dividends and pay the same level of taxes ?


People already do when there is a short time to when the money is needed or one has retired.

Not sure why one would choose such low interest rate but keep in mind that equities are volatile. That 4% that's taxed the same can easily be more than wiped out by getting back 25% less than one paid. It would reduce one's overall taxes though. :rolleyes2:





OptsyEagle said:


> I won't comment on capital gains, since the right level of taxation can be debated without any consensus, but with dividends, one must realize that the corporation has already been taxed BEFORE a dividend is ever available to be paid ...


Not sure that will matter much when theme is how CG and dividend taxation is unfair to employed Canadians ... despite them benefiting from it through their choices, their pension plan, CPP etc.

Seems more to point to address corporate tax rates and tax avoidance issues than getting worked up about something all benefit from in one way or another.
https://projects.thestar.com/canadas-corporations-pay-less-tax-than-you-think/




sags said:


> Would not the same "double taxation" argument apply to a company that pays taxes and then their employee pays taxes ?


No ... salaries are deducted from the corporation's income, same as union dues or moving expenses are deducted from employment income.
https://quickbooks.intuit.com/ca/resources/pro-taxes/tax-deductions-employee-salaries/




sags said:


> ... Is it fair that people working paying a higher rate of taxes on their income than than person who collects dividend income by doing nothing ?


Those buying shares are taking the risk that the business does well, same as a silent partner in a hair salon or restaurant.

Last I checked, employees get their agreed salary and GIC buyers get their capital back - the dividend investor may get less or may get more, without anywhere near the certainty of the other two.




sags said:


> ... I don't agree that investors themselves create jobs or economic activity. It is demand for products and services that does that.
> Investors enter where there are existing opportunities to cash in on demand.


What they do is provide cash that the company may or may not use effectively.

Going back to the hair salon silent partner, where the usual lending sources have already said no - the silent partner is a way for the needed cash to be raised. Equity investors provide the same thing where the business can then use whatever means is cheaper to get the cash they need.



Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Would not the same "double taxation" argument apply to a company that pays taxes and then their employee pays taxes ?
> 
> Is it fair that people working paying a higher rate of taxes on their income than than person who collects dividend income by doing nothing ?
> 
> ...


Employees are not double taxed. They pay income tax once on each dollar earned. They are a different and separate entity to the person that owns the business. Let's not get distracted.

Of course one needs demand before investments are made. My point was that the investments are made longggggg before any employee would ever agree to work for a company. How long would you work for a company that had no money in the bank? Not long. Maybe one day after the first missed paycheque.

I think, the fact that someone makes a lot of money for what you see as nothing, is at the core of your opinions. Whether it is fair or not can be debated until the cows come home and no one will change their original opinions. I am not concerned about fairness. I am concerned about maximizing the prosperity for the most people in a society. I did not say that prosperity would be shared equally. All I am saying is that the society will have significantly more prosperity if one does not reduce the incentive for the people with the money to invest it in that society. Better to have a job and pay taxes on that employment income at some rate that many might find too high, then to not have a job at all. And that too high, is only an opinion, that can also be debated until those same cows come home, with no change to anyone's original suggestions.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Jim Cramer and others on CNBC questioned the fairness of the different tax rates, so it appear that it isn't universally accepted as an example of fair taxation.

Without fairness in the taxation structure the system will fail at some point. It concerns the "upper level" financial experts that we may be reaching that point.

Elizabeth Warren just passed Joe Biden in the US popularity polls and is the #1 contender for the Democrats. Polls also show she will easily beat Trump.

It may be a sign of the times.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

^ You are listening to American talking heads on American TV and commenting on Canadian conditions?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Of course........if the elephant rolls over we get crushed.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Without fairness in the taxation structure the system will fail at some point. It concerns the "upper level" financial experts that we may be reaching that point.


but fairness is just an opinion, of which everyone will have one, all slightly or significantly different.

I wouldn't focus on that. It would lead you down a road going nowhere.

Sags, I have said many times. Your suggestions are noble and come from a kind heart, but just don't work in the real world of so many people all with diverse personalities and opinions and motivations. I wish your ideas would work, but wishing doesn't make is so.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Elizabeth Warren just passed Joe Biden in the US popularity polls and is the #1 contender for the Democrats. Polls also show she will easily beat Trump.
> 
> It may be a sign of the times.


Hillary was also given a 96% chance of winning by the polls up to the day of the election. Biden and his family is now known as corrupt and is sadly showing signs of advanced age....it's not surprising that he is slipping in the polls. Sanders just had a heart attack and his health is in question. The field is weakening and Warren just picked up the slack.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

It seems to me the easiest/fastest way to decrease our 'per capita' pollution number is to increase immigration and promote larger families.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Retired Peasant said:


> It seems to me the easiest/fastest way to decrease our 'per capita' pollution number is to increase immigration and promote larger families.


hehe, good one RP.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

One perspective of the Debate... https://business.financialpost.com/...GVKt51zpiNZamKGMuRPxh-pQkI#Echobox=1570617817 But of course he will be labelled right wing due to his association with the FP/NP and before that some time with the Globe.

To be fair and help the leftists here from hyperventilating, here is Chantal Hebert's perspective. Can't quote behind the paywall of the Red Star, so will go with the St Catharines Standard instead https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca...n-debate-means-a-minority-is-now-more-likely/


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> Hillary was also given a 96% chance of winning by the polls up to the day of the election. Biden and his family is now known as corrupt and is sadly showing signs of advanced age....it's not surprising that he is slipping in the polls. Sanders just had a heart attack and his health is in question. The field is weakening and Warren just picked up the slack.


Hillary says she would beat Trump again, if she runs in 2020. Didn't sound like it was totally out of the question!


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> vu du quebec - i don't believe that blanchet picked up a single vote from the english debate. Nor do i think he will wow additional new voters in the french debate coming up tomorrow night.
> 
> where would blanchet get new votes from? quebecers who intend to vote bloc are already committed. IMHO there are none to be added.


I don't pretend to understand eastern politics but at least Chantel agrees with me:


Chantel Hebert said:


> Singh on Monday and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet last week both gave debate performances liable to solidify and expand their respective parties' support. As a result, with less than two weeks to go, Trudeau's road to a second majority remains muddy.


This from the Red Star!


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> OnlyMyOpinion said:
> 
> 
> > sags said:
> ...


You've figured out that for capital gains, the differences between Canada and the US tax systems make the comments applicable to both?

Canada ties the rates for capital gains to the tax brackets where the US uses a separate/lower schedule when holding shares for one year plus. Income tax rates only apply for short term holds.

Canada lumps in capital gains so that other income is bumped up into higher tax brackets while the US ensures that capital gains are treated separately (i.e. don't result in a tax bracket increase).


Without checking out details like this and others more thoroughly - it seems like there may be an apples to orange comparison.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The basic concept is the same regardless, so the comparison is more like a Delicious apple or a MacIntosh apple. They are both apples.

The concept is that people earning income through work should not be paying a higher rate of taxation than somebody collecting passive income for doing nothing.

It is not a new discussion. Warren Buffet and others have talked about the inequality of taxation due to sources of the income for years.

Buffet talked about the inequality of his secretary paying a higher rate of taxation than he does.

There are lots of articles describing how people can structure "tax free" income and avoid social benefit claw backs with income streams other than employment income.

Accountants and tax lawyer earn a good living structuring people's income to pay less taxes.

People talk about "logic". Where is the logic to taxing employment income at a higher rate than other forms of income ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is noticeable how wealth inequality, income distribution and climate change seem like "odd" topics on CMF but they are being discussed a lot in the general public.

In fact, they are among the top issues for Canadians heading to the polls.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The basic concept is the same regardless, so the comparison is more like a Delicious apple or a MacIntosh apple. They are both apples.
> 
> The concept is that people earning income through work should not be paying a higher rate of taxation than somebody collecting passive income for doing nothing.


Since when is being the investors that make all these companies possible "doing nothing"?

The whole point of capitalism is to efficiently and effectively allocate resources.
Effective resource allocation is WHY capitalism creates wealth, and why so many people get such a high standard of living.

The fact that you think one of the most important economic activities is "doing nothing" is part of the problem.
I can't believe a senior member at a financial forum would say such a thing. We desperately need to improve financial literacy.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

^ LOL. It appears from your quote from Sags that he has no idea how the economy works. Likely never took economics nor understands how $1 invested can generate ~$7 of direct and indirect economic impact. 

The more efficient the capital is deployed, the more effective (multiplier effect) that dollar has in the economy. Where does he think the capital the passive investor invested in the first place (to get passive income) comes from in the first place? Example: There is a reason why **** holes like Sudan have no GDP. There is no capital invested in the country to generate wages, goods and services to create yet more investors! This is typical NDP speak.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Quoting a post by Sags and a few others negates the power of my ignore list...please stop.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> There is a reason why ***** holes like Sudan* have no GDP. There is no capital invested in the country to generate wages, goods and services to create yet more investors!


What a shallow assessment of Sudan's situation. Stated with the poetic language of a capitalist.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The latest Liberal misstep lol...

*"“Those in the black community have told me how much more love they have for the prime minister. He wanted to have a black face, he took great pride in it too."
*Liberal MP Judy Sgro


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> I don't pretend to understand eastern politics but at least Chantel agrees with me:
> This from the Red Star!



normally a good source although that particular Hébert column was wishy-washy imho

but we are on the same spectrum, she says singh & blanchet will "solidify and expand their respective parties' support." I agree w solidify but so far am not seeing the expand part. Maybe i will after the french debate tomorrow night though.

PS pas d'un oeue pour Chantal, seulement des aaah


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> > There is a reason why ***** holes like Sudan* have no GDP
> ...




ah, the ineffable supremacy of the white male multinational executive as he surveys his minions & colonies .each:


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> > There is a reason why ***** holes like Sudan* have no GDP. There is no capital invested in the country to generate wages, goods and services to create yet more investors!
> ...


I don't see how it is poetic. The reality is quality of life is highly correlated with investment. If you want a high quality of life for people, you want capital investment. 

Jurisdictions with poor opportunities get less investment and have similarly low quality of life for the people. 

You want poverty, chase away investment.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I don't see how it is poetic. The reality is quality of life is highly correlated with investment. If you want a high quality of life for people, you want capital investment.
> 
> Jurisdictions with poor opportunities get less investment and have similarly low quality of life for the people.
> 
> You want poverty, chase away investment.


That was the point that James missed entirely. Not only does one want capital investment, one has to create the environment for that capital investment to be made in the first place, and to provide the confidence that the business environment will hold long enough to make a profit on that investment. Leftists don't understand what it takes for business to take on the risk of investment. 

I have no regrets standing up for and defending business interests (albeit with social conscience) in this country on a relentless basis. It will continue to make this country far richer in so many ways, social programs, health, education, infrastructure, etc, etc, etc. There are dozens of countries that cannot, or will not, create the right environment for capital investment.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> The reality is quality of life is highly correlated with investment. If you want a high quality of life for people, you want capital investment.
> 
> Jurisdictions with poor opportunities get less investment and have similarly low quality of life for the people.




entire continents have received gazillions of investment dollars from white colonial capitalist powers for hundreds of years

has it helped? 

many of those regions are worse off today than they have ever been, due to over-population, climate change, drought, starvation, tribalism, prevalence of modern weapons supplied by western capitalists. Yemen, sudan, somalia, syria, afghanistan, al quaeda are examples.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> What a shallow assessment of Sudan's situation. Stated with the poetic language of a capitalist.


I agree James. I wouldn't have expected that from Alta. Just because the US President uses names like that, no need to do it here.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Not disparaging the Sudanese (who leave Sudan if they can), but wiki describes a **** hole:

_According to the Corruptions Perception Index, Sudan is one of the most corrupt nations in the world. According to the Global Hunger Index of 2013, Sudan has an 'Alarming Hunger Situation.' It is rated the fifth hungriest nation in the world. According to the 2015 Human Development Index (HDI) Sudan ranked the 167th place in human development, indicating Sudan still has one of the lowest human development rates in the world. Almost one-fifth of Sudan's population lives below the international poverty line which means living on less than US$1.25 per day.

"Islamisation" encouraged by president Al-Bashir alienated many researchers: the official language of instruction in universities was changed from English to Arabic and Islamic courses became mandatory. Internal science funding withered. According to UNESCO, more than 3,000 Sudanese researchers left the country between 2002 and 2014.

Sudan has a life expectancy of 64.5 years (62.9 for males and 66.1 for females). Infant mortality in 2016 was 44.8 per 1,000.

UNICEF estimates that 87% of Sudanese women and girls between the ages of 15 to 49 have had female genital mutilation performed on them._


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

agent99 said:


> I agree James. I wouldn't have expected that from Alta.


Remember I used "such as Sudan" There are dozens of **** hole countries who can't, won't and don't necessarily want to save themselves. None of them are going anywhere until they can make significant progress towards rule of law, reducing corruption and a host of other vile behaviours. Why would corporations invest?

China seems more willing to invest given their penchant for longer term strategic purposes and ability to state fund adventures, but at a significant price. I've seen it in Vietnam earlier this year where China ring fences its investments with a Chinese logistics chain. That doesn't help the local economy and only serves to buy Bentleys for government officials. The locals are very bitter. I doubt Chinese investment is any different elsewhere.

The western mining industry seems to have been the most willing to develop a mine under the most distressing conditions, but even then few of them are all that successful. Mining companies have mostly destroyed shareholder value.

Added: The whole point of this conversation is that countries have to create the business environment for corporations to invest substantial capital. Without it, there will be no circulation of the money stream, no economic multiplier and no GDP. It is as simple as that.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

sags said:


> It is noticeable how wealth inequality, income distribution and climate change seem like "odd" topics on CMF but they are being discussed a lot in the general public. In fact, they are among the top issues for Canadians heading to the polls.


Only in your own mind I'm afraid.

In fact that nefarious CBC just had 6 young voters on a segment. They didn't mention inequality or income _re_distribution or climate change as top issues. What was important to them, just starting out in their careers was high taxes and high housing costs. 

You'll be surprised to learn that most Canadians don't expect the government or a union to look after them. They want a fiscally responsible government and a healthy economy that let's them advance under their own efforts.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A person working creates wealth with their labor. A passive investor is a non working capitalist who personally does nothing to create wealth.

They "rent" their money to someone (a working capitalist) who uses it to pay people for the labor that creates wealth.

By the metrics of some posters.........Justin Trudeau must be an outstanding job and wealth creator because of his trust fund.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Capitalists are only interested in exploiting the resources (physical and labor) of poor countries. They are doing it all over the world.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Andrew Scheer says he will cut foreign aid. Of course he will. That is what Conservatives do.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is nice to see some posters have finally come to understand that money injected into the economy has a positive multiplier effect.

They must agree that government spending in the form of a universal basic income would generate great economic prosperity.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> It is nice to see some posters have finally come to understand that money injected into the economy has a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> They must agree that government spending in the form of a universal basic income would generate great economic prosperity.


Your logic misses a few steps.

First government spending means they have to take from the people and spend it somewhere else, instead of where the earner was going to. 
There is no additional injection, it's just redirection. So there is no new money.

Secondly Goverment spending is almost always a less efficient way to spend it.

Thirdly Labour is what actually creates value, we need it. We can't have everyone staying home watching TV.
A sufficiently high UBI will be a massive deterrant to getting a job, and this is a problem.

Finally we can't afford it. We can't even get politicians to raise the basic personal deduction to a living wage, because they "can't afford it".
The only government actually trying is the Ontario PC's, who created a credit so that those making $30k pay no provincial income tax.

For some reason the UBI proponents aren't even willing to cut taxes to the living wage, where will they get the money to fund UBI?
The average Canadian is already at a 50% tax rate,


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Remember I used "such as Sudan"



actually altaRed named Sudan directly




AltaRed said:


> There is a reason why **** holes like Sudan have no GDP


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> The basic concept is the same regardless, so the comparison is more like a Delicious apple or a MacIntosh apple. They are both apples.
> The concept is that people earning income through work should not be paying a higher rate of taxation than somebody collecting passive income for doing nothing ...


LoL ... if you look back over history, the concept is that the rich used to be almost exclusively be the only ones that participated in ownership. As indicated earlier, taking on risk isn't "doing nothing".




sags said:


> ... It is not a new discussion. Warren Buffet and others have talked about the inequality of taxation due to sources of the income for years.
> Buffet talked about the inequality of his secretary paying a higher rate of taxation than he does.


Sure ... but a large part of this inequality is that the US capital gains/investment income is typically not subject to the tax rates that were raised. In Canada, when the tax rates rise, those investors you are complaining about also have their taxes rise.

The US group has no change when income tax rates increase while the Canadian group *does*.




sags said:


> ... Where is the logic to taxing employment income at a higher rate than other forms of income ?


Same logic as why GICs are taxes higher - there's less risk versus an investor.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> > ... Example: There is a reason why **** holes like Sudan have no GDP. There is no capital invested in the country to generate wages, goods and services to create yet more investors!
> ...


Not sure what you are saying here ... is it that Sudan's a good place to invest?
There's certainly a large disparity between Canada hitting $14 Billion USD foreign investment in Q2 2019 versus Sudan hitting $109.5 million.

If you disagree with the assessment - details would help versus labels.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Not sure what you are saying here ... is it that Sudan's a good place to invest?
> There's certainly a large disparity between Canada hitting $14 Billion USD foreign investment in Q2 2019 versus Sudan hitting $109.5 million.


Do the foreign investment figures include some, or any, ODA amounts? Sudan itself gets about $1B in annual ODA, most of which is humanitarian assistance with a fraction of it in economic development assistance, infrastructure, etc? None of which actually is business investment that has some hope of generating sustainable ongoing income and economic multiplier effects.

In any event, there is a weird fixation with Sudan here. One could pick any one of dozens of countries that have minimal commercial foreign investment (other than ODA) due to lack of a suitable business environment. 

<OT> If we handed over Canada to the NDP or the Greens for the longer term, we might eventually have to look for ODA in 20 years as well. Given how the NDP damaged the economies of BC (twice*), ON and MB more recently, and SK historically, it is pretty clear who we do NOT want in power. There is a reason for mostly fiscal conservative gov'ts in most provinces of Canada today. </OT>

* The jury is out on the economic impact of the most recent NDP-Green coalition (3rd NDP gov't in the history of the province). We won't know until we can look back in hindsight a few years after the bums are kicked out. Looks like I will need to support the Liberals to help throw the bums out in 2021 if they don't somehow fall in the interim.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

I don't think ODA amounts are included ... or at least, I find no indication in the article.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sudan/foreign-direct-investment

I should clarify that it might be a bit of a mismatch in that the $109.5 million is for Q2 only. The yearly average from 2003 to present is reportd to be $424.57 USD Million. 
A bit better but still a drop in the bucket compared to other countries.


Re: ... there is a weird fixation with Sudan here. 

Seems to be an over reaction to choice of language as so far, the comments are about choice of language/what was named as opposed to details or discussion that contradicts the need for foreign investment.


Cheers


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

> Seems to be an over reaction to choice of language


Sensitivity from some because it is a term Trump used. 
IMO it was an inappropriate term for a US President to use (or it used to be).
But inappropriate on CMF? Not at all. It was used accurately here in contrast to the preponderance of inaccurate comments that appear here daily.

Added: I'd be interested if those offended offered an alternative descriptor.
Perhaps "unstable, corrupt, economically-challenged, high-mortality, low-FDI, high-FGM" countries like...


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Whatever one wishes to characterize an unfavorable business environment. Too much political correctness sensitivity in my opinion, or as is often the case in these threads, individuals wishing to pick a fight for personal reasons rather than consider the real point of the message.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

My point was that AltaRed was illustrating a kind of callousness that old fashioned capitalists are famous for. This is exactly the kind of aristocratic tone that makes the wealthy unpopular -- everywhere.

AltaRed's words also echo the kind of thing that "old school" capitalists say even domestically that makes them increasingly hated. To paraphrase: there's a problem in society? The solution is obviously not enough corporations! Not enough money. Not enough big business.

Sudan and African countries obviously have all kinds of problems, including past European colonization, which disrupted many aspects of their socieites and put in place tribal conflicts that have caused persistent strife. That's a similar problem to what Europe & America is doing to the middle east. It's obviously very complex, and is about far more than the *lack of investor money*.

A reduction of these problems down to "they don't have enough $ or enough investors" is a ridiculous, almost comical summary of their problems -- but it's exactly what money obsessed capitalists do.

I didn't take offence to his particular words. I'm drawing attention to the style of thinking AltaRed has, the tone of the very wealthy, pro-corporate capitalists. The ridiculous notion that a few giant companies, and investor money, would solve everything.

It's not only tone-deaf, it's delusional.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> ... A reduction of these problems down to "they don't have enough $ or enough investors" is a ridiculous, almost comical summary of their problems -- but it's exactly what money obsessed capitalists do...
> I'm drawing attention to the style of thinking AltaRed has, the tone of the very wealthy, pro-corporate capitalists. The ridiculous *notion that a few giant companies, and investor money, would solve everything*...


Nobody is reducing anything down to a simple dollars and investors solution. What an obscenely simplistic generalization. I challenge you to find one of these despicable capitalists who thinks this way. 

You seem to be becoming progressively unhinged in your thinking, or perhaps we've just never known much about your worldview.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The ridiculous notion that a few giant companies, and investor money, would solve everything.


That is just as ridiculous as a few large government bodies with taxpayer money will sol e everything. 

What needs to happen is that we have to Allow individuals to solve their own problems, and get out of their way.

It's laughable that any large faraway institution can effectively understand and act for for a large diverse population.

That's why big government and big corporations are a problem.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> You seem to be becoming progressively unhinged in your thinking, or perhaps we've just never known much about your worldview.


Smarten up, OnlyMyOpinion. Everyone who doesn't think like you isn't "progressively unhinged".

I probably have a lot more global experience than you, and have seen capitalism in play in many different contexts and countries. My circles are made up of wealthy people who have huge amounts of capital. You could benefit from learning a thing or two from me.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Well, that is a really off-the-rails assessment James. You are the one fixated on 'old school' capitalism, 'old fashioned' capitalists, big business, 'giant companies', 'obsessed capitalists' and 'very wealthy pro-corporate capitalists'. Those are your choices of words and frames your state of obsession. Hyperbole, if not irrationality.

I doubt any government cares whether it is big corporations or small businesses that make the investments. It is the aggregate capital investment by a wide range of businesses seeking a return on their investment (and thus who are capitalists by definition) that make the difference in sustainable GDP growth. None of that will occur without the proper business environment no matter what the human condition . You are really stuck in some paradigm that makes no logical (economic) sense.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> I probably have a lot more global experience than you, and have seen capitalism in play in many different contexts and countries. My circles are made up of wealthy people who have huge amounts of capital. You could benefit from learning a thing or two from me.


I know you are not referring to me in this quote, but you don't seem to have learned much from that experience OR your views are severely tainted by the US military-industrial complex. Private capital investment, whether domestic or foreign, is about a return on investment.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> I probably have a lot more global experience than you, and have seen capitalism in play in many different contexts and countries. My circles are made up of wealthy people who have huge amounts of capital. You could benefit from learning a thing or two from me.


If you have global experience they you'd know that socialism has a 100% failure rate and the only time that small amounts of socialism can work is when it is supported with capitalist money.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I didn't take offence to his particular words.


I did when Trump used them. And I did again when Alta chose to use the same words. The words are vulgar, and tell us something about the person using them. I just can't imagine anyone I know and respect using those words in any context. 

Furthermore, there is just no need to demean other countries just because they are poorer and have less capable leaders than we do. Its like demeaning a tramp of street dweller. Sure they could have done better with their lives, but they are what they are. We should try and help them, not demean them.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Geez, you folks are sensitive. Shithole was a metaphor for complete lack of a suitable business environment for attracting capital investment. Would you like it better if I said 'basket case' or 'hopeless' or 'incompetent' or 'unattractive'? It is a matter of degree and the very worst cases cannot attract virtually any investment to grow their GDP. It's a continuim from the likes of Sudan, Haiti, and Zimbabwe to countries like Eire, Canada and USA at the other end. The UK has been trying very hard the last 3 years to drop down the scale.

In the case of companies operating in many countries, they include political, rule of law and fiscal risks in their economic assessments to decide where it is prudent to invest limited capital. It is particularly important for businesses that have a lot of capital at risk (cash in red) for a long period of time before a profit is achieved. If a country wants to grow their GDP, they must provide an attractive enough business environment to attract capital. Socialists have no concept of those basic truths.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Geez, you folks are sensitive. Shithole was a metaphor for complete lack of a suitable business environment for attracting capital investment. Would you like it better if I said 'basket case' or 'hopeless' or 'incompetent' or 'unattractive'? It is a matter of degree and the very worst cases cannot attract virtually any investment to grow their GDP. It's a continuum from the likes of Sudan, Haiti, and Zimbabwe to countries like Eire, Canada and USA at the other end. The UK has been trying very hard the last 3 years to drop down the scale..


Sheesh, sensitive indeed. It's the standard liberal insistence on political correctness and their fake outrage at anything that disagrees with their perfect world view.

I guess I have to come up with a new word for these kinds of places, because shithole is my go to word for anywhere that's dysfunctional and nearly completely devoid of any cultural, economic, or career opportunities. You've already mentioned most of the candidates.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

French debate starting soon...


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

I am really disappointed in the attitudes of some here. But so be it. There is nothing liberal or political about basic decency. No need to descend to vulgarity to make a point. Those who have, obviously know nothing at all about the region they are demeaning. 

Africa is the next frontier that is and will attract investment. It is those with blinders in the West that will miss out. China, India, Middle East and some Europeans will be there. This is not just my view. Those wishing to learn something about sub-saharan Africa might be interested in this pdf by Deloitte:

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...inance/ng-investing-in-sub-saharan-africa.pdf

Excerpt:


> With the combined African economy expected to grow
> at double the rate of advanced economies between
> 2014 and 2019, the potential investment opportunity is
> unquestionable.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It depends on where in Africa. Some countries will rise to the top because governments, especially its leadership and institutions, will do what it takes to make the business environment positive enough to attract foreign capital. Others will wallow and continue their tribal warfare for decades to come. Until governments truly represent the people and are inclusive with all their ethnic groups, there is no reason for any investor to take capital risk. FWIW, there may be hope yet for Sudan given South Sudan is now a separate nation and there is a transitional government in place in Sudan. It may take a decade yet to gain traction for capital investment.

You miss the point about private companies investing vs sovereign entities. Countries like China, Russia and the Middle Ease are using state sponsored companies to make the investments. They can take the write offs by simply printing more money for them. Publicly traded companies answering to shareholders like you and me cannot take major write offs without potentially risking the company.

Good examples: Angola which went through a civil war, but rose from the ashes. Namibia which is making great strides. Maybe Tunisia now that it came out of the Arab Spring in a positive manner. Can't say the same for Libya, Mali, etc. IOW, it depends.

Added: Anyways, this discussion is getting weary and off-topic for what is supposed to be about our election debates.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Regarding the Leaders' Debate in French, happening now:

The two American candidates (Scheer and May) have poor French, which can be expected I suppose.

Also, I noticed that the leaders in this debate are much more explicitly challenging the energy lobby, and saying they will not bow to the industry (except for Scheer of course). They didn't sound so bold in English.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Hate to ruin your worldly socialist perception - but Scheer is not American, he was born and grew up in Ottawa and went to French immersion school. His French is not 'poor'. May and Singh's French on the other hand is poor.

Much more explicitly? Go back to smoking your weed, oh worldly sage.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Singh's French is much stronger than Scheer's. Singh is not only fluent, but he seems very comfortable speaking.

Yes Scheer grew up in Ottawa, with one American parent, but it does not appear that his household took French very seriously. His French is indeed poor, and he struggles.

These are minor issues, obviously. Just making some observations.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe it isn't his language skills as much as the absence of viable policies that makes Scheer look so weak.

Attacking Trudeau whenever asked questions on his own policies, has been noticed by the media and public and is hurting Scheer's credibility among voters.

A negative campaign didn't work for Harper in 2015 and it isn't working for Scheer in this election.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

sags said:


> Maybe it isn't his language skills as much as the absence of viable policies that makes Scheer look so weak.
> 
> Attacking Trudeau whenever asked questions on his own policies, has been noticed by the media and public and is hurting Scheer's credibility among voters.
> 
> A negative campaign didn't work for Harper in 2015 and it isn't working for Scheer in this election.


Totally agree. It seems that cons always try to bully through elections.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Added: Anyways, this discussion is getting weary and off-topic for what is supposed to be about our election debates.


It may be getting weary for you Alta, but it is *NOT* off topic. Policies for foreign aid vary a great deal from party to party. 



> Since the 1950s Canada has been distributing cash, goods and services to poorer nations around the world. In 2012 the federal government's foreign aid spending totalled $5.67 billion (2.5 per cent of all federal spending). There is considerable debate about both the effectiveness of foreign aid and whether it should be used for purely humanitarian purposes, for economic development purposes, or to further Canada's strategic and commercial interests abroad.


Canada does provide help to companies who wish to invest in foreign countries. It also provides a great deal of humantarian and other aid to developing countries. This program could be impacted depending on which party gets elected in a few weeks time. 

https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/assets/pdfs/publications/sria-rsai-2017-18-en.pdf


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Foreign aid (ODA) is very different from capital investment by private industry based on economic principles which is where the EDC comes into it. Sustainable GDP built on economic principles is the latter and that has been the focus of my posts. I've not been discussing ODA at all. Folks are really confusing the two. Surely those participating in this discussion should know that. Eclectic12 knows that from posts #106 and #108 for example.

If you really want to focus in on ODA, one can simply go to https://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/aid-at-a-glance.htm and pick the chart and country you wish. That is a different discussion. 

Added: Since some folks here had their knickers in a knot about Sudan, here is the chart for you https://public.tableau.com/views/OE...=yes&:showTabs=y&:toolbar=no?&:showVizHome=no Insert Sudan in the upper left....

The vast majority of Sudan's ODA was humanitarian. 0.15% of the aid was for Economic Development and 1.84% was for Production. These latter points are where economic and presumably profitable investments by private industry comes in in the form of Foreign Investment. Eclectic12 quoted something like $200M for the 2nd Q and that correlates close to $1B or so on an annual basis I've seen elsewhere.

Foreign aid has nothing to do with Foreign Investment by private industry.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Foreign aid (ODA) is very different from capital investment by private industry based on economic principles which is where the EDC comes into it. Sustainable GDP built on economic principles is the latter and that has been the focus of my posts. I've not been discussing ODA at all. Folks are really confusing the two. Surely those participating in this discussion should know that. Eclectic12 knows that from posts #106 and #108 for example.


OK, so I guess you are saying subject was off YOUR topic? There have of course been many other posts here about foreign aid in general. How that continues depends to large extent on party elected and should be of concern to voters and is ON topic in this thread.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

agent99 said:


> OK, so I guess you are saying subject was off YOUR topic? There have of course been many other posts here about foreign aid in general. How that continues depends to large extent on party elected and should be of concern to voters and is ON topic in this thread.


<Sigh> The discussion on capital gains and capital investment started around post #80 when Sags apparently had no Econ101 understanding of what really generates GDP, and Mr. Matt responded, and I chimed in on how capital investment was critical to economic multipliers, and thus GDP overall. And that capital would go to wherever it was most profitable to do so. Most of the posts following that were related to the theme of foreign CAPITAL investment. That has no relationship to foreign aid. You can talk about foreign aid all you want, but no one should confuse that with foreign CAPITAL investment.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Well, back on the real-world topics, Canada's unemployment rate dropped even further today (September report) with mostly full time jobs added. Overall employment is up 2.4% since a year ago.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Talking about capital investment again, good ol' Singh just announced he will fund his $30B of social programs by increasing taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals. Now that is a really bright way to drive away capital investment to other countries and impact our GDP growth. These idiots didn't take Econ101 either. 

We can probably forget about 5G build out too given the NDP and Liberal penchant for reducing cellphone bills.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Singh's French is much stronger than Scheer's. Singh is not only fluent, but he seems very comfortable speaking.
> 
> Yes Scheer grew up in Ottawa, with one American parent, but it does not appear that his household took French very seriously. His French is indeed poor, and he struggles.
> 
> These are minor issues, obviously. Just making some observations.


I don't think it fair to criticize lack of fluency in French as much as it was unfair to mock Stephan Dion for his English. If it is serviceable (can understand and be understood), that should be enough.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some people seem to have their Econ101 knowledge rooted in books by Milton Friedman in the 1960s. Perhaps they don't know what a colossal failure his theories were.

The new economic theories are much improved. Economic experts like Elizabeth Warren are leading the change to a different future.

A new economic theory is going to be implemented and Canada will follow the US lead. 

https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/experts/ewarren


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> <Sigh> You can talk about foreign aid all you want, but no one should confuse that with foreign CAPITAL investment.


Still weary eh?  Just in case you missed it: 



> Since the 1950s Canada has been distributing cash, goods and services to poorer nations around the world. In 2012 the federal government's foreign aid spending totalled $5.67 billion (2.5 per cent of all federal spending). There is considerable debate about both the effectiveness of foreign aid and whether it should be used for purely humanitarian purposes, for economic development purposes, or to further Canada's strategic and commercial interests abroad.


I am out of here - got to go install new belt on wife's car! Just one more post


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Well, back on the real-world topics, Canada's unemployment rate dropped even further today (September report) with mostly full time jobs added. Overall employment is up 2.4% since a year ago.


Hey James - Don't you realize that that is just Fake News put out to influence the election


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Well, back on the real-world topics, Canada's unemployment rate dropped even further today (September report) with mostly full time jobs added. Overall employment is up 2.4% since a year ago.


A couple of years ago, the Trudeau government said they would spend to invest in Canada's future. Today the positive results are visible for all to see.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

> A couple of years ago, the Trudeau government said they would spend to invest in Canada's future. Today the positive results are visible for all to see.


And without Doug Ford their job numbers would be zip.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

> Economic experts like Elizabeth Warren are leading the change to a different future.


The link properly identifies her as a lawyer and consumer advocate, not an 'economic expert'. 
Now I understand better where your dividend knowledge comes from.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

james4beach said:


> I think one has to read the writing on the wall. I have told wealthy American friends the same thing; I expect that higher taxes (for the wealthy) are coming to America. Higher capital gains taxes will eventually come too.


I still think higher cap gains taxes are coming to the US, but I figured the situation in Canada wasn't quite the same.

Today, the NDP announced they intend to change the capital gains tax inclusion rate from 50% to 75%. This is a bit of a surprise to me because I didn't perceive capital gains as particularly unfair in Canada
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-pbo-costing-1.5317604



> That inclusion rate would increase from 50 per cent to 75 per cent, returning the rate to where it was before 2000. Unlike some of the NDP's other planned tax moves, it would affect more than just the super wealthy.


The fact remains, a social shift is happening. Increasingly, people want things like this -- whether it's justified or not. Most Canadians don't have a ton of non registered investments and unrealized cap gains. They probably hold most of their investments (if they have any at all) in an RRSP or TFSA.

Like I said earlier, this is something people should consider in their investment strategies. If you are sitting today on 500K of unrealized capital gains, you might want to start realizing some of that "while the getting is good", because if current social trends continue, I think these kinds of taxes will increase.

Note that a Conservative government will not change that social trend either. In fact, if Conservatives continue to give big advantages to the very wealthy and large corporations, social pressure will increase. This is exactly what happened in the USA.

By the way, remember that you can 'flush out' the unrealized cap gains by doing something like selling your securities if markets drop a bit, and then buy a correlated -- but distinct -- broad index ETF such as XIU, XIC, CDZ, ZLB, all of which are different from the standpoint of the superficial loss rule.


----------

