|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 15244
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:02 pm
Coach85 Coach85: BeaverFever BeaverFever: Coach85 Coach85: Did anyone expect Beaver to not support a Liberal-based policy?
You can be sure if this came from the Harper Tories, he'd be crying the blues about how this is bad policy.
It's bad policy. There's no other way to spin it. There you go with empty ad hominem attacks. I explain my argument thoughtfully and all you can come up with is empty personal attacks. Don't become another Martin. You don't have to look too far into my posting history to see I've been consistently supportive of taxes and ending tax loopholes for and the wealthy. INCLUDING an exchange you and I had just days before this announcement. To say I would oppose this id it came from a different party is FUCKING LUDICROUS and you should be ashamed of yourself for having to resort to such a pathetic empty canned and false rebuttal. Yawn. It's not an attack. It's a conversation in an open forum. The only pathetic thing here is your whining. If you can't handle opinions about your opinions I suggest you grow a pair and come back with your big-boy pants on. We recently had an exchange about the legalization of pot. Zero discussion about higher taxes or closing loopholes. I have looked into your posting history and 99.9% of the time, you've come to the defense of any political policy coming from the Provincial and Federal Liberals. Granted, you'll offer a glancing criticism of a policy while simultaneously praising it and then have the gall to claim you're somehow offering up a non-partisan opinion. You only offer "opinions of my opinions" as you're ignorant of the subject and you're forced once again to talk about me instead of the topic at hand. I'm not whining it's just pathetic and you're doing a disservice to the forum. Go check the thread about the Fraser Institutes bogus claim about Canadians spending more on taxes than necessities, or check any number of threads where I've consistently said I support higher taxes. Your insinuation that I've only just come to this opinion after this announcement from the Liberal party is an easily disproved lie. Here's what you don't seem to understand: I am a progressive, which means I tend to support progressives ideas and policies, whichever party purs them forward. Currently, that's the Liberal party, but that hasn't always been the case. I don't support right wing policies, regardless of who puts them out, usually that's the Conservative party but Liberals in the past also. You just can't seem to grasp that.
|
Sunnyways
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2221
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:38 pm
Gunter plays the struggling small businessman song of woe so movingly, and then quietly slips in a bit about the medical professionals who make out like bandits and don't have to suffer the vulgar indignity of competing on price in a free market. Nice play, Lorne! Keep this up and the CMA may do something very sweet for you. In my province, nearly every doctor who could incorporate has done so despite the cost which shows how beneficial it is. Contrary to what you might be hearing at the mo, some of our sky high income physicians work in hospitals, have modest real overheads and use hospital equipment for their work. Furthermore, like Ontario and unlike BC, their names do not appear in the Sunshine List which they would otherwise dominate because they are 'self-employed'. Regarding sickness and disability insurance, the OMA offers an excellent package to cover that. And about the pension, what would you really prefer - a nice big wedge in your own corporation or the dubious promises of a nearly bust province constantly liable to abrupt enhancement 'for sustainability purposes' in a downward direction? Morneau's reforms are reasonable - listen to him explaining them some time. Who can defend sprinkling, for crying out loud? That's just free money.
|
Coach85
Forum Elite
Posts: 1562
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:19 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever: You only offer "opinions of my opinions" as you're ignorant of the subject and you're forced once again to talk about me instead of the topic at hand. I'm not whining it's just pathetic and you're doing a disservice to the forum.
Just as you offered up your opinion to the opinion of the author in the OP, right? I did address the topic and your opinion. I said it was bad policy. Just as thousands of business leaders and associations from around Canada have already done. I'm not ignorant of the subject. Unless you're a small business owner, which clearly you are not, you're standing on the side of ignorance. Not me. I've been self-employed for the last 20 years. BeaverFever BeaverFever: Go check the thread about the Fraser Institutes bogus claim about Canadians spending more on taxes than necessities, or check any number of threads where I've consistently said I support higher taxes. Your opinion is that their claims are bogus. No surprise you'd argue against, they're 'right wing'. BeaverFever BeaverFever: Your insinuation that I've only just come to this opinion after this announcement from the Liberal party is an easily disproved lie. My point, not an insinuation, is that you'd come to the defense of this policy simply due to its source. Your posting history says that, not me. BeaverFever BeaverFever: Here's what you don't seem to understand: I am a progressive, which means I tend to support progressives ideas and policies, whichever party purs them forward. Currently, that's the Liberal party, but that hasn't always been the case. I don't support right wing policies, regardless of who puts them out, usually that's the Conservative party but Liberals in the past also. You just can't seem to grasp that. You've just proved everything everyone here has ever said about you. You won't support right-wing policies, even if they are 'progressive' because of your political ideology. You don't think anything progressive can come from the right wing. Here's what you don't understand. This "I'm not a partisan hack" mantra. Nobody is falling for it. Nobody.
|
Posts: 11782
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:24 pm
I guess I'm a progressive too. I'm not gonna shit myself and go postal because people who make more than I ever did or ever will have to pay a couple bucks more. Woulda been nice to see some shaved off the other end for a change though.
|
Coach85
Forum Elite
Posts: 1562
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:37 pm
herbie herbie: I guess I'm a progressive too. I'm not gonna shit myself and go postal because people who make more than I ever did or ever will have to pay a couple bucks more. Woulda been nice to see some shaved off the other end for a change though. This doesn't affect only high-income earners and it's far more than "a couple of bucks". This is a simplistic approach to a plan that has many far-reaching consequences.
|
Posts: 65472
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:33 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever: Of course Lornes rant, like most right-wing rants doesn't provide you any actual facts or details of just what exactly these tax changes are. Like so much of the hot air that comes from the right these days, it's all just empty rhetoric trying to appeal to emotions. Here's the right-wing fanatics at the G&M to (not) back you up: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe- ... dmail.com&$1: Mr. Morneau announced in the budget back in March that the Liberals have not been pleased with some Canadians who are using corporations in their tax planning, and that changes would be made. The claim is that certain folks are using corporations to pay less than their fair share of taxes. While the proposed changes are meant to affect the wealthy, there will be no shortage of small-business owners, the backbone of the Canadian economy, who will be significantly worse off as a result.
|
Posts: 65472
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:34 pm
Looks like I got my money out of Canada just in the nick of time. ![Drink up [B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif)
|
Coach85
Forum Elite
Posts: 1562
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:11 pm
A good read: Response to Justin Trudeau comments “I want to be clear: people who make $50,000 a yr should not pay higher taxes than people who make $250,000 a yr"Highlight: $1: Let me make this as simple as possible. If a corporation has earned $250,000 then it will pay corporate tax in the amount of $37,500 at the low rate and as much as $67,500 at the high rate. Dividends are then distributed to shareholders whereby they pay tax again at the applicable marginal tax rate. An employee who earns $50,000 would pay approx. $8,000 in tax. Clearly, the situation as described by Justin Trudeau is false. There may be ways to mitigate the personal tax element but you can’t avoid the significant corporate tax bill. Once again, I emphasize that you are being misled by the Prime Minister of Canada. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/response ... -macintosh
|
Sunnyways
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2221
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:28 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson: BeaverFever BeaverFever: Of course Lornes rant, like most right-wing rants doesn't provide you any actual facts or details of just what exactly these tax changes are. Like so much of the hot air that comes from the right these days, it's all just empty rhetoric trying to appeal to emotions. Here's the right-wing fanatics at the G&M to (not) back you up: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe- ... dmail.com&$1: Mr. Morneau announced in the budget back in March that the Liberals have not been pleased with some Canadians who are using corporations in their tax planning, and that changes would be made. The claim is that certain folks are using corporations to pay less than their fair share of taxes. While the proposed changes are meant to affect the wealthy, there will be no shortage of small-business owners, the backbone of the Canadian economy, who will be significantly worse off as a result. The guy who wrote that piece is a tax accountant who will ply his trade regardless of who is in power, This is not simply a partisan issue. The Conservatives will run with it as far as they can but the really dangerous opposition will come from groups like the medical CMA which includes many Liberal voters and donors.
|
Posts: 1804
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:32 pm
Let me get this straight. Some businessman was paying his wife, even though his wife did absolutely nothing for the business. He claimed this as a business expense to reduce tax. The tax man now says you can only do this if your family member actually does work for your business. And this is what Conservatives are complaining about? Really? Seriously? Is that it?
|
Posts: 65472
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:38 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger: Let me get this straight. Some businessman was paying his wife, even though his wife did absolutely nothing for the business. He claimed this as a business expense to reduce tax. The tax man now says you can only do this if your family member actually does work for your business. And this is what Conservatives are complaining about? Really? Seriously? Is that it? Let me get this straight: Liberals think that women's work has no value and that if they're married to an entrepreneur then they don't have the right to the same pay and benefits as anyone else doing the same job? Why does the Liberal Party hate women?
|
Posts: 1804
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:12 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson: Let me get this straight: Liberals think that women's work has no value and that if they're married to an entrepreneur then they don't have the right to the same pay and benefits as anyone else doing the same job?
Why does the Liberal Party hate women? We agree on a lot of things. However, if a woman does work at home, then that's personal work for the household, not the business. If a husband works and wishes to pay his wife for housework, that's between the two of them. I know a couple where the woman was controller for all the franchises in our city of a fast-food chain, the man was foreman at a factory. She got paid more, so when they had children, he stayed home until their children were old enough for school. Then he returned to work. Fine. That's between them, it has nothing to do with the fast-food chain. The latest government decision says if a business owner's family members do real work for the business, then they can be paid. If they don't, then they can't. That's simple. House cleaning and taking care of children helps the family, but has nothing to do with the business. I also knew a small business where the owner/founder was president, and his wife was controller. That means his wife actually did real work. In that case the spouse's salary is allowed. Because she did real work. Actually the moron screwed around, had a baby with a younger woman, causing his marriage to break up. His wife insisted he buy her half of the company; she left. He was financially strapped, the company went down-hill fast after that. But she deserved a salary as long as she was controller. Why is that so difficult to understand?
|
Posts: 15244
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:36 pm
Coach85 Coach85: BeaverFever BeaverFever: You only offer "opinions of my opinions" as you're ignorant of the subject and you're forced once again to talk about me instead of the topic at hand. I'm not whining it's just pathetic and you're doing a disservice to the forum.
Just as you offered up your opinion to the opinion of the author in the OP, right? I did address the topic and your opinion. I said it was bad policy. Just as thousands of business leaders and associations from around Canada have already done. Nice try. The author's opinion is the topic of this thread, I am not the topic of this thread. You offer no explanation as to why you think it's "bad policy". Yet how many words did you dedicate to the topic? This-is-bad-policy is four words. How many words have you dedicated to discussing me? It's flattering that I loom so large in your psyche but really not healthy behaviour. Get a hobby. $1: I'm not ignorant of the subject. Unless you're a small business owner, which clearly you are not, you're standing on the side of ignorance. Not me. I've been self-employed for the last 20 years. Well then why don't you redirect your focus from me and enlighten us all about how these particular tax loopholes are essential to you. $1: Your opinion is that their claims are bogus. No surprise you'd argue against, they're 'right wing'. Unlike you, I offered ample evidence of how their methodology is lacking - as but one example their inclusion taxes paid by business in their calculation of the family tax bill - and you failed to provide any rebuttal. $1: My point, not an insinuation, is that you'd come to the defense of this policy simply due to its source. Your posting history says that, not me. It's a false accusation you trot out time and again whenever you're too ignorant to debate the subject. I've been pretty consistent about WHAT I believe in, even the topic has nothing to do with any political party. I want you to take a pause and consider this: I have a left-wing ideology. It stands to reason that I'm more likely to agree with policies that also have left-wing ideology. You wrongly mix cause and effect to allege I have no left- right ideology whatsoever and just support anything the Liberals so regardless od whether it's left or right. Who knew! I'm not a leftist after all! Some CKAers will be shocked to learn this! If the Liberal party becomes "Conservative lite" as they did under Chretien, Martin and Ignatieff, they won't have my support, just as they didn't then. I could care less about the Liberal Party. For the time being they are doing things I like and have consistently written about in this forum for ten fucking years. $1: You've just proved everything everyone here has ever said about you. You won't support right-wing policies, even if they are 'progressive' because of your political ideology. You don't think anything progressive can come from the right wing. Progressive means left wing, which is the opposite of right wing. When the Conservative Party adopts progressive policies, as in the case of Ontario's Patrick Brown, by all accounts they are moving the party to the left and making it less "right wing" Oh and by "everyone" in this forum you mean the 4 or 5 members of the conservative rat pack who are a thousand times more partisan than I ever am.
|
Posts: 15244
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:40 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson: BeaverFever BeaverFever: Of course Lornes rant, like most right-wing rants doesn't provide you any actual facts or details of just what exactly these tax changes are. Like so much of the hot air that comes from the right these days, it's all just empty rhetoric trying to appeal to emotions. Here's the right-wing fanatics at the G&M to (not) back you up: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe- ... dmail.com&$1: Mr. Morneau announced in the budget back in March that the Liberals have not been pleased with some Canadians who are using corporations in their tax planning, and that changes would be made. The claim is that certain folks are using corporations to pay less than their fair share of taxes. While the proposed changes are meant to affect the wealthy, there will be no shortage of small-business owners, the backbone of the Canadian economy, who will be significantly worse off as a result. Yeah so?
|
Posts: 15244
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:42 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson: Winnipegger Winnipegger: Let me get this straight. Some businessman was paying his wife, even though his wife did absolutely nothing for the business. He claimed this as a business expense to reduce tax. The tax man now says you can only do this if your family member actually does work for your business. And this is what Conservatives are complaining about? Really? Seriously? Is that it? Let me get this straight: Liberals think that women's work has no value and that if they're married to an entrepreneur then they don't have the right to the same pay and benefits as anyone else doing the same job? Why does the Liberal Party hate women?Jesus, you are awful.
|
|
Page 2 of 3
|
[ 44 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
|
|