|
vyelkin posted:L The best part quote:For NHL players considering playing in Toronto, establishing U.S. residency can be easier because the Leafs tend not to make playoffs, allowing players to get back to the U.S. in April. U.S. residency is harder to maintain for players with the Canadiens, whose season is more likely to be extended by playoffs
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
Guess who's baaaaaack.   http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pamela-wallin-can-resume-sitting-in-senate-when-parliament-reconvenes-1.3297189?cmp=rss
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:The best part hahahahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:The best part Won't someone think of the hockey players making $33m over 6 years 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
The Rebel is great and its comment section is great 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
quote:Evening all,
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Won't someone think of the hockey players making $33m over 6 years It's not the players that suffer most, it's the teams. If they have to pay higher wages to get the same talent, that means they're under a lower salary cap than the US teams, making them less competitive. Players won't sign contracts with huge tax burdens, having the same effect. Without some kind of relief from the league it could mean bad times for Canadian teams.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
And if the teams suffer, how will we live with ourselves? Better start giving them free tax payer funded stadiums
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:It's not the players that suffer most, it's the teams. If they have to pay higher wages to get the same talent, that means they're under a lower salary cap than the US teams, making them less competitive. Players won't sign contracts with huge tax burdens, having the same effect. Who gives a gently caress, they're all millionaires, I'm not going to shed a single tear for those greedy toothless idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:It's not the players that suffer most, it's the teams. If they have to pay higher wages to get the same talent, that means they're under a lower salary cap than the US teams, making them less competitive. Players won't sign contracts with huge tax burdens, having the same effect. Oh. Yeah, that definitely makes it a national issue, then. Maybe there could be a special tax exemption for professional sports teams?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Without some kind of relief from the league it could mean bad times for Canadian teams. Oh no! My Leafs might not win the cup. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:It's not the players that suffer most, it's the teams. If they have to pay higher wages to get the same talent, that means they're under a lower salary cap than the US teams, making them less competitive. Players won't sign contracts with huge tax burdens, having the same effect. yeah because alberta had such great teams before
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Who gives a gently caress, they're all millionaires, I'm not going to shed a single tear for those greedy toothless idiots. Three Canadian hockey teams up and folding would have no impact whatsoever besides the jobs of a few people you're angry at for being young, rich, and good at something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
YeOldeButchere posted:Oh. Yeah, that definitely makes it a national issue, then. Maybe there could be a special tax exemption for professional sports teams? That would be pretty unpopular because not everyone gives a poo poo about sports (unless you're being ironic) and billionaire owners losing their toys isn't exactly a sympathetic story when people don't have doctors or electricity. They'd have to negotiate some kind of quid pro quo with the league. MLSE, the Canadiens and the Canucks aren't going anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Three Canadian hockey teams up and folding would have no impact whatsoever besides the jobs of a few people you're angry at for being young, rich, and good at something. ...they're not going to fold because they have to pay 4% more income tax, are you for real? I'm not angry at anyone, I just can't understand how you can defend literal multimillionaire athletes in this case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
im sure that the barely literate monkeys who smash eachothers heads in for money are going to understand what tax brackets even mean
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Tax-and-spend liberal elitist eggheads are out of touch with the concerns and priorities of the common people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:That would be pretty unpopular because not everyone gives a poo poo about sports (unless you're being ironic) and billionaire owners losing their toys isn't exactly a sympathetic story when people don't have doctors or electricity. They'd have to negotiate some kind of quid pro quo with the league. Let me put it this way instead: round up every NHL player, mine every credit card/CSIS/retailer transaction log to find out who bought anything related to professional sports, and send those people to gulags up north. Then use them for resource extraction, and maybe medical experimentation so that we can get those holographic slave doctors mentioned a while back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:...they're not going to fold because they have to pay 4% more income tax, are you for real? I'm not angry at anyone, I just can't understand how you can defend literal multimillionaire athletes in this case. The athletes don't need defending because they won't suffer; they just won't sign here (if the tax increase would even make the tax rate here higher than in the states, which it may very well not). The teams could suffer. The salary cap is 71.4 million. If Canadian teams have to raise the salaries they pay by four percent, that's $2.9 million they aren't able to spend (roughly the league average salary for one player). If the league came up with a rule that said Canadian teams had to have one fewer player than American ones, there'd be issues. E: But taxes are a part of doing business in Canada and if a change that small breaks the bank then maybe don't build your corporate plan on eggshells. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Hahaha and I thought you were trolling
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:Oh no! My Leafs might not win the cup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Oh my god. The Senate Liberal Caucus is threatening to withhold support for legislation unless JT agrees to name one of them Government Senate Leader and put them in Cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
 I hope this results in a drive to end the senate
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Oh my god. lmao Aren't there like 50 empty vacancies? He should just appoint everyone who's ever run for the Radical Marijuana Party to the Senate immediately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Senator May, this way please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
There are only 22 vacancies, so even if he fills them it's not enough to pass a law without support from current senators.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
not to mention JTs promises of patronage-free, non-partisan senate appointments
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Woah, there are still three senators who were appointed by Trudeau Sr.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Just abolish the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Just abolish the Senate. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Oh my god. He should call their bluff. If they obstruct too much, they'll be lynched in the streets. It's not like the Canadian people are overly fond of senators to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Yeah, but it's not like the Canadian people will actually do anything about it regardless of how they might feel about the senate, so...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
PT6A posted:He should call their bluff. If they obstruct too much, they'll be lynched in the streets. It's not like the Canadian people are overly fond of senators to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
The Honorable Senators should like to Honorably go fill each other's Honorable back chambers, in my view.,
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:The Honorable Senators should like to Honorably go fill each other's Honorable back chambers, in my view., I think most of them already are, at least if they're following the British aristocratic tradition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
you could probably get some sort of amendment removing the lifetime appointment and/or a clause to allow senators to be removed by the house through, don't change the seat numbers, just throw the current group out and start fresh
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
But guys the Senate does good work
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
It has been at the vanguard of innovative and groundbreaking policy proposals that our country desperately needs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:L I guess this is why Gretzky was stumping for HarperCo during the election. Not that he's been relevant to anything other than being rich for years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
Just saw a little CBC clip pop up on facebook looking back at the Quebec sovereignty referendum. I was too young to pay much attention to it back in 95, so I'd never seen this before. It's from the concession speech from whoever this guy was that presumably was heading up the vote to  .Guess you guys aren't kidding about the Quebecois being racist as hell: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 02:37
|
|
