[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

IIRC, the tax rates are pretty different from one province to the other?  and the debt to dgp ratio too?

Well, BC has a PST, and Alberta does not.

BC has "progressive" income tax that starts at 5% and goes all the way up to 16.8% on income over $150,000.

Alberta's has provincial debt of $12.9 billion ($3100 per capita), while BC has total debt of $63.2 billion ($13,700 per capita).

[Grey Fox]

[Barrister]

Quebec's total debt is $204.8 Billion, per capita $25,000.

25.75% income tax on income over $100,000.

[viper37]

IIRC, the tax rates are pretty different from one province to the other?  and the debt to dgp ratio too?

Well, BC has a PST, and Alberta does not.

BC has "progressive" income tax that starts at 5% and goes all the way up to 16.8% on income over $150,000.

Alberta's has provincial debt of $12.9 billion ($3100 per capita), while BC has total debt of $63.2 billion ($13,700 per capita).

than BC should repay part of it's debt before spending anything else, imho.  And Alberta is still in a better position than BC.

[crazy canuck]

IIRC, the tax rates are pretty different from one province to the other?  and the debt to dgp ratio too?

Well, BC has a PST, and Alberta does not.

BC has "progressive" income tax that starts at 5% and goes all the way up to 16.8% on income over $150,000.

Alberta's has provincial debt of $12.9 billion ($3100 per capita), while BC has total debt of $63.2 billion ($13,700 per capita).

than BC should repay part of it's debt before spending anything else, imho.  And Alberta is still in a better position than BC.

Agreed.  And that is the plan of the government.

As for Alberta being in a better position, I hope they are not hurt to badly by the current slump in oil prices but I fear that the adjustment to lower revenues will be painful for them.

[dps]

You make it sound so nazi-ish.

It didn't take Malthus to make it sound that way;  it is kind of Nazi-ish.  It may not be totalitarian, but it certainly is authoritarian.

I do wonder sometimes if Grallon is right about you or you just simply can't understand.

I figure Malthus understands bigotry pretty well.

There are rules that applies for everyone.  Sometimes, we make exceptions, like for handicapped people, they don't have to stand in court (duh!). 

But religion is not an incurable disease.  If by law everyone is required to wear a helmet for protection, why should a Sikh be exempted from it?  If his religion is more important than his security or the security of everyone around him, he is a religious fanatic and I don't want him working for me.  Fortunately, they have been ruled against in this particular case. 

As for the kirpan, it's a bloody knife.  I certainly couldn't bring my knife in school.  Why should they?  Why make an exception?  Why not allow muslims to disrupt classes by holding their prayer whenever it's time?  Why make kosher food mandatory when you're in a public school because there's a dozen jewish students in a thousand souls school?  Why teach that humans were created by Eloims because otherwise we offend Raeliens?

I get it that religion is important to some.  It was important to my grandfather.  His religion mandated he attend Church every Sunday morning instead of working.  And he did it, most of the time.  Yet, he knew how to make compromises on his beliefs.  I didn't become a priest and he did worked on Sundays from time to time instead of going to Church.  But that's private sphere, not public.  A distinction some religious people seem unable to make. 

Did the state force your grandfather to work on Sundays?  Did it prevent you from becoming a priest?  If no, which I presume is the correct answer, then those were your personal choices which didn't directly harm anyone else.  That's fine--the state shouldn't infringe on people's personal choices. for the most part.  The problem is that you're wanting the state to infringe on other people's personal choices.  An important principle of freedom is that the state only do so when there is a clear need.  You want to by-pass that requirement. 

Take Lev Tahor.  Quebec was accused of racism, and some of you guys joined on the bandwagon.  Who was right in the end?  Wich was better you think, letting them leave for Guatemala with the kids or infringing on their religious beliefs?  People like you thought it was better to leave them to their religious beliefs, and I disagree.  If you come to live in Canada, certain things are expected of you.  Although it varies from province to province, I'm not aware of any public schools that teach creationism in biology classes, but I suppose it could exists outside of Quebec, you never know.

As for the comparison with language, French Canadians were granted various rights throughout history, mainly for fear of American expansionism toward to Canada, to keep the citizens inline.  We live in a democracy, and we are in a minority.  If Canadians want the end of official bilingism for Federal government, they can happily vote for it instead of bitching in the Globe&Mail and the National Post.  I will remind you, again, that English speakers have way more services available in their language than any french speaker outside of Quebec, even in bilingual provinces like New Brunswick and Ontario (to a certain extent).  The only thing they can't do is have an english only sign (and even then, many have found a way around it) and speak english only to their customers.  In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to enforce this by law as it's a basic sign of respect (are McDonald's customers greated in english while in Germany or Japan?), but it seems that with you guys, the simplest thing become a matter of human rights.

Well, yeah.  D'oh. 

Unfortunately, our Empire didn't prevail in the war, so we're left a minority here, and we have to survive somehow.  I've already stated the reasons why French is important in Quebec, it's more than just a matter of national identity, it's also a competitive edge to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours.  Without French, we'd simply be another Vermont, Quebec city would be another Burlington and there's be a significantly reduced interest to do business here.

I think most businesses would far, far rather do business in Vermont than Quebec, if their populations were the same.

And I will also add that unlike a majority of anglos, I strongly disagree that language is simply a tool like a hammer or a skillsaw.  I also strongly disagree that we should tend toward mono-lingualism around the world.

I don't know that "a majority of anglos" would agree that language is simply a tool.  I know that I don't, though I would say it's primarily a tool.

[viper37]

As for Alberta being in a better position, I hope they are not hurt to badly by the current slump in oil prices but I fear that the adjustment to lower revenues will be painful for them.

well, they have room to manoeuver.

[viper37]

It didn't take Malthus to make it sound that way;  it is kind of Nazi-ish.  It may not be totalitarian, but it certainly is authoritarian.

State exists to impose limitations on individual behavior so we can live together in harmony.  It is a necessary evil.
Religious radicalism is a problem.  We can wait until it blows in our face like some European countries and we have extreme-right wing parties facing muslim extremists committing anti-semitic acts with christian right wings alternating between one site or the other, or we can fix the problems before they even happen.

I figure Malthus understands bigotry pretty well.

Really?  I though he was agnostic.

The problem is that you're wanting the state to infringe on other people's personal choices.  An important principle of freedom is that the state only do so when there is a clear need.  You want to by-pass that requirement. 

I do not want the State to infringe on any other people's personal choices, but at the same time, I do not want the State to make exceptions to the laws&rules for some particular group just because they happen to believe in something that is contrary to our laws&rules.

I also want the State to fight religious fanatics poisoning the life of every moderate, a position that the Muslim Canadian Congress has.  I think, in a time where we are fighting religious fanatics that hates our way of life, people who slaughter moderate muslims (and people of other religion) for being too soft, at a time where we complain the Muslim community is not doing anything to stop this, we should be listening to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzP9WoMLph8#t=17

I think most businesses would far, far rather do business in Vermont than Quebec, if their populations were the same.

True, wich is why it's important to keep a distinct culture.  You don't beat Wal-Mart by offering the lowest price when you're a SMB, you beat them by offering better quality products, better service and better customer experience.

[Razgovory]

So, we judge countries today for their actions 200-250 years ago?  Want to try that with the US?

Certainly.  You had your fucking chance to be independent in 1776, but you clung to British Monarchy then, so cries of independence and British colonialism fall on deaf ears.

[Valmy]

So, we judge countries today for their actions 200-250 years ago?  Want to try that with the US?

Certainly.  You had your fucking chance to be independent in 1776, but you clung to British Monarchy then, so cries of independence and British colonialism fall on deaf ears.

Viper was there?  That frigid northern cold really does keep you well preserved.

[crazy canuck]

So, we judge countries today for their actions 200-250 years ago?  Want to try that with the US?

Certainly.  You had your fucking chance to be independent in 1776, but you clung to British Monarchy then, so cries of independence and British colonialism fall on deaf ears.

Wait, Viper is as old as Grumbler?

Assuming Viper is as old as Grumbler 1776 isn't the date that would have been the most significant in regard to being free of the British Monarchy 

[Neil]

Hopefully the new crisis will convince Alberta to abandon the flat tax to raise revenue.  And I'm all for another round of brutalizing the teachers union. 

[crazy canuck]

Hopefully the new crisis will convince Alberta to abandon the flat tax to raise revenue.  And I'm all for another round of brutalizing the teachers union.

Yeah, your tax system doesn't make much sense.  Middle income earners pay more tax than they would if they lived in BC or Ontario but I suspect the flat tax was sold as being a lower tax overall - and overall if you are a high income earner a flat tax works well.

middle-income Albertans would pay less in some other provinces: A $75,000 salary commands 10 per cent tax in Alberta, 7.7 per cent in B.C. and 9.1 per cent in Ontario.

Wealthy Albertans who earn more than $150,000 pay 10 per cent income tax, while in B.C., they would pay nearly 17 per cent, and in Ontario, 13 per cent

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Flat+bites+working+poor+pretty+hard+Prentice+says/10749423/story.html

[Malthus]

Tighty-whities screw up Commons vote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pat-martin-says-tight-underwear-led-him-to-leave-seat-during-vote-1.2963294

"I can blame it on a sale that was down at the Hudson's Bay [Company] – they had men's underwear on for half price. I bought a bunch that was clearly too small for me and I find it difficult to sit for any length of time," he said.

[Jacob]

Though if you read the article, the underwear comment was actually a cheeky (ahem) retort rather than a description of facts.

"Some Conservative MP got his knickers in a knot, I think, about the fact that I stepped away from my chair for a couple of seconds, and so, you know, I believe that his point of order was tongue in cheek and it warranted a cheeky response," Martin told host Evan Solomon, while admitting that a sale of 50 per cent off is like "catnip to a Winnipegger."

"But ... that's not why I left my seat in the House of Commons, I left to go and have a chat with the Speaker and I think Mr. Galipeau overreacted heavily by saying I should forfeit my vote for having the temerity to ask the Speaker a question during a vote," Martin said.

"It was a cheeky answer to what I thought was a cheeky question," Marin said. "But it begs the question, I mean, a lot of the grumpiness in the House of Commons might be traced to the fact that MPs are buying one size too small in their knickers."

Martin said that in the end, at least his vote was allowed to stand.

"Let's face it, I was caught with my pants down for stepping away from my seat briefly," Martin said.