CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

I am saying that I think I as the saver deferring a load of taxes, am getting too much for my level of income and the cost to government would be better allocated to helping those making say 50k save for retirement. Someone who can max their rrsp at the highest bracket shouldn't be considered a moderate saver.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 07:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 05:08

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

flashman posted:

I am saying that I think I as the saver deferring a load of taxes, am getting too much for my level of income and the cost to government would be better allocated to helping those making say 50k save for retirement. Someone who can max their rrsp at the highest bracket shouldn't be considered a moderate saver.

Yeah, you don't need to incentivize retirement saving for someone earning a moderate $100k+.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 10:34

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Hexigrammus posted:

I remember reading various pieces of their proposed legislation and thinking: "Why are they wasting tax dollars on this, it will never get past the Supreme Court." Missed my calling. I should have been a lawyer, apparently.

A powerless authoritarian tantrum continues to be a thing of beauty.

It's so stupid in fact that I'm forced to wonder if all that garbage legislation they passed was just an exercise in de-legitimizing the Charter (a favorite target of Conservative ideologues) and the Supreme Court. They're already bending over backwards to call it an 'activist' court, as though they can get some residual Canadian outrage from the pre-eminence of US Supreme Court politics this year.

e: I'm also enjoying the tantrum way too much. :fap:

# ? Apr 29, 2016 14:31

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

cowofwar posted:

Yeah, you don't need to incentivize retirement saving for someone earning a moderate $100k+.

Yes, you do.

RRSPs are good. TFSAs are good too. Better financial education would be even better. If people can't even understand the difference between marginal and average tax rates how are they supposed to understand the different tax implications of stuff like this?

Jordan7hm fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Apr 29, 2016

# ? Apr 29, 2016 14:37

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

It's so stupid in fact that I'm forced to wonder if all that garbage legislation they passed was just an exercise in de-legitimizing the Charter (a favorite target of Conservative ideologues) and the Supreme Court. They're already bending over backwards to call it an 'activist' court, as though they can get some residual Canadian outrage from the pre-eminence of US Supreme Court politics this year.

e: I'm also enjoying the tantrum way too much.

It has to have been. There's literally no way their policy advisors or legal staff didn't know for a fact that these laws would be overturned the moment someone so much as whispered them at a judge.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 14:40

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Option 1: incentivize retirement saving through tax deferment and other programs that predominantly benefit the wealthy who have a higher retirement saving participation rate anyways.

Option 2: eliminate RRSP, increase taxes, increase OAS, increase CPP contributions.

Option 2 benefits everyone more fairly.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 14:52

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

cowofwar posted:

Yeah, you don't need to incentivize retirement saving for someone earning a moderate $100k+.

Yes you do. Do you want the added indignity of paying for some rich gently caress's retirement as you work, just because they couldn't be arsed to save enough?

# ? Apr 29, 2016 14:53

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

He should already have paid for it (and a bunch of other people) through taxation.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 14:57

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

I saw the inside of every old folks' home in the city during my three years as a mortician's assistant. I know exactly what kind of care taxation without personal savings pays for. If you aren't going to invest in your own future then do future-elderly-you a favour and buy one of those plastic carbon monoxide hats.

(Not a suicide request, please do not actually kill yourself.)

# ? Apr 29, 2016 15:08

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

Apparently necessary reminder that low six digits isn't rich and your ire shouldn't be directed at someone who makes 2x or 3x what the average person makes, but at the people making hundreds to thousands times what the average person makes and actively squeezing more and more out of the rest of us, warping the economy, and destroying our global home

# ? Apr 29, 2016 15:10

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

flashman posted:

He should already have paid for it (and a bunch of other people) through taxation.

No, he should've helped pay for the retirements of people who had no reasonable chance of saving for it during their career, as well as many other things for the public good. Surely you'd rather foot the bill for a tax rebate than someone's whole retirement? Seems like a pretty good ROI from the taxpayers' perspective.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 15:13

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

cowofwar posted:

Option 1: incentivize retirement saving through tax deferment and other programs that predominantly benefit the wealthy who have a higher retirement saving participation rate anyways.

Option 2: eliminate RRSP, increase taxes, increase OAS, increase CPP contributions.

Option 2 benefits everyone more fairly.

I really could've used your champagne socialist rhetoric when I was arguing against 150k electric car subsidies the other day

# ? Apr 29, 2016 15:13

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

It's so stupid in fact that I'm forced to wonder if all that garbage legislation they passed was just an exercise in de-legitimizing the Charter (a favorite target of Conservative ideologues) and the Supreme Court. They're already bending over backwards to call it an 'activist' court, as though they can get some residual Canadian outrage from the pre-eminence of US Supreme Court politics this year.

e: I'm also enjoying the tantrum way too much.

Did something good happen? I haven't seen anything yet today.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 15:26

Mr Luxury Yacht: Apr 16, 2012

RRSPs also have other uses thanks to all the random rear end programs that let you withdraw from it for other things.

i.e. the Lifelong Learning Plan has been pretty drat helpful to help me pay for going back to do my Masters.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 15:52

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

PT6A posted:

Surely you'd rather foot the bill for a tax rebate than someone's whole retirement? Seems like a pretty good ROI from the taxpayers' perspective.

Only true if you assume that the only reason someone is saving for retirement is the tax deferral.

16b a year from RRSP tax credits and a removal on the cap for CPP contributions could be a great start to making the CPP something everyone can retire on.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:07

yippee cahier: Mar 28, 2005

Brannock posted:

Apparently necessary reminder that low six digits isn't rich and your ire shouldn't be directed at someone who makes 2x or 3x what the average person makes, but at the people making hundreds to thousands times what the average person makes and actively squeezing more and more out of the rest of us, warping the economy, and destroying our global home

Everyone knows Uncle Moneybags is the enemy, but six figure folk are way overrepresented in government and seem more than happy with the status quo as long as they get to collect tax breaks purportedly for poor people. Their inoffensiveness becomes a problem when they subtly bend the dialogue to their favour. Apparently "housing affordability" means buying a detached home in Vancouver for your kids to live in while going to school, not the price of rent. I get it, it probably sucks to have a high paying job and not have every wish satisfied, but let's quit pretending that jacking the TFSA allowance helps someone in need and refocus government priorities on those who do.

I wouldn't say it's ire, just disappointment that we don't appear to be on the same team.They've had a taste of what the elite are having and don't want it to stop.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:11

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

yippee cahier posted:

?

What you posted is correct and all, I just wanna say your username is pretty good.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:16

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

The Wente pile-on continues

quote:

First, a bit of plagiarism of the selfie kind.

What has Canadian journalism come to? Judging by Margaret Wente’s experience at The Globe and Mail over the last few days, the business will soon be — if it is not already — held hostage by dreary dictatorial avatars of pretentious rules and political correctness.

If you are out of the loop, the whole sorry mess can be found with a quick Google of “Wente.” The Toronto-based columnist’s major alleged crime against journalism was her failure to put quotation marks around somebody else’s words, something that is now defined in the blogosphere as plagiarism — “an act of fraud,” according to one expert. Wente is being witch-hunted by a band of self-righteous, self-important, self-aggrandizing, mostly leftist critics. When it comes to vicious, mean-streak infighting, no business can match media columnists launching virtuoso putdowns of competitors.

All this happened initially more than three years ago, when Wente first came under attack from media moralists over alleged plagiarism. Now, the dogs of righteousness, those who don’t like her anti-feminist streak or her whip-cracking over the flabby flesh of environmentalists, are at it again. They claim to have identified fresh evidence that the Globe’s one and only female marquee columnist has breached the sacred bounds of journalistic ethics: She plagiarized.

The Globe itself fed the new anti-Wente frenzy by publishing two weasily “correction/apology” notices that apologized to two other American writers who did not ask for an apology and who do not feel an apology was necessary. But more of that later.

The real public attack on Wente came Tuesday from the CBC, via one of its top radio shows, As It Happens. In a six-minute interview, host Carol Off and guest John Miller launched a vicious rhetorical salvo that compared the Globe columnist to two of the most notorious journalistic fraud artists in modern U.S. history.

Miller, a retired professor and former chairman of the journalism school at Ryerson University — and operator of a blog titled TheJournalismDoctor — dodged and weaved through Off’s questions, ignoring facts and evidence in favour of his narrative. The Globe has a “very big problem on its hands,” Doc Miller said. “I’ll use the comparison to an American example. USA Today had a problem with its international reporter Jack Kelley about 10 years ago.” Kelley resigned along with two top editors at USA Today. Miller also compared Wente and the Globe to the case of Jayson Blair, a New York Times reporter who also took down two editors when his sprawling bouts of journalistic malfeasance were exposed in 2003.

If I were Wente, I’d be eyeballing a good lawyer to review Miller’s comments for logical malpractice.

Here’s how USA Today described Kelley’s misdeeds after a detailed investigation in 2004: “Kelley fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories, lifted nearly two dozen quotes or other material from competing publications, lied in speeches he gave for the newspaper and conspired to mislead those investigating his work.” His plagiarism included more than 100 instances of extensive use of quotes and passages from the work of others that he claimed as his own.

At The New York Times, in 2003 the paper ran a front-page correction detailing “widespread fabrication and plagiarism” by Blair. “He fabricated comments. He concocted scenes. He lifted material from other newspapers and wire services. He selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not.” The Times took 7,500 words to detail Blair’s massive trail of deceit.

For Doc Miller to see any link between Kelley/Blair and Wente is tantamount to promoting bogus journalistic ethics.

Nothing — repeat, nothing — in the allegations against Wente, even if they were true, is in any way comparable to the Kelley-Blair cases. Yet Miller wants Globe heads to roll.

The first new allegation against Wente was reported by Sylvia Stead, the Globe’s public editor, which is media jargon for meddlesome upholder of political correctness in the newsroom. Stead said she received a blog post from Carol Wainio, an Ottawa artist who posts blogs whose sole purpose seems to be attacking the likes of Wente and Christie Blatchford. Wainio’s blog referenced Wente 78 times in a few postings over the last couple of years.

Last Saturday Wainio claimed in a post that Wente had committed “plagiarism” in a column about the joys of technological innovation and the folly of the Leap Manifesto. In the column, Wente said that “Agriculture has always been the greatest destroyer of nature.” Wainio found that the very same words had been used in a report by Jesse Ausubel, head of the program for the human environment at Rockefeller University. It was plagiarism, said Wainio — even though Wente actually quotes Ausubel elsewhere and links to the very paper where the words “destroyer of nature” appear.

That’s it. That’s the Wainio evidence against Wente. Globe management bolted into action and issued a correction which said “The Globe and Mail apologizes to Mr. Ausubel.”

Not that Ausubel asked for one. In fact, he told the Toronto Star, “A lot of the column is not derived from my work. The link allows people to trace what is.” The Wainio blog post, Ausubel astutely observed, “seems to come from someone who had a prior dislike of Ms. Wente and continues to dislike her.”

So the Globe apologized to someone who did not ask for an apology over a phoney charge of using nine words in a context where the source is clear and linked. This is Canada’s Jack Kelley?

The next trumped-up Wente plagiarism allegation involved the use of eight words in a complex column last March on another politically incorrect subject, social psychology. Wente wrote that the prevailing wisdom in psych circles is that willpower is “like a muscle that can be exercised to exhaustion.” Willpower waning with use is apparently an old idea that is now subject to doubt — a topic Wente explored in her column.

The actual eight words are unimportant out of context. The allegation is that they existed prior to Wente using them in a news story on the same subject in Slate written by U.S. journalist Daniel Engber. So the Globe again apologized, this time to Engber — even though he did not ask for an apology and likely finds the whole conflict over his eight words, conveying an idea that is standard in the field, silly.

Back at the CBC and As It Happens, where silly is routinely blown up into an ideological battleground, Off tried to slide into left-right issue during her interview with Miller. What does he think of the idea, she asked coyly, that “because Margaret Wente writes from a right-of-centre position, that it’s people from the left — the liberal media — who are looking for things.”

Miller, an old media lefty who had just turned right-of-centre Wente into North America’s third most dangerous journalist after Kelley and Blair, said “that’s just a ridiculous argument.”

It would be ridiculous were it not for the pile of evidence that Miller and the CBC, joined by others on the left — BuzzFeed, The Tyee, Canadaland — are on a witch hunt against a Canadian columnist whose views they do not share, and who writes about subjects and viewpoints that they would rather not be aware of.

As I’ve said before, the journalistic wrongs Wente is being accused of are insignificant and are mostly a matter of technique and perhaps sloppiness on her part. It is malicious, ideologically driven nonsense to claim otherwise.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:31

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

yippee cahier posted:

Everyone knows Uncle Moneybags is the enemy, but six figure folk are way overrepresented in government and seem more than happy with the status quo as long as they get to collect tax breaks purportedly for poor people. Their inoffensiveness becomes a problem when they subtly bend the dialogue to their favour. Apparently "housing affordability" means buying a detached home in Vancouver for your kids to live in while going to school, not the price of rent. I get it, it probably sucks to have a high paying job and not have every wish satisfied, but let's quit pretending that jacking the TFSA allowance helps someone in need and refocus government priorities on those who do.

I wouldn't say it's ire, just disappointment that we don't appear to be on the same team. They've had a taste of what the elite are having and don't want it to stop.

The government's mandate isn't to help the poor. The government is made up of MPs. Each MP's job is to represent their constituents who are going to bellcurve and be overwhelmingly average (not even average but average voters which is probably a little richer than average). The tax breaks aren't purportedly for poor people because the focus is average voters. The government will never focus on poor people. They'll have occasional high profile, low value programs so that average people can vote for them and feel progressive. The Liberals just ran a hugely successful campaign on helping the Middle Class, which they defined as individuals earning 90k-200k instead of the poor and Canadians loved it.

It isn't that the government doesn't care about the poor, it's that everyone around you who's not poor doesn't really care and those people intersect with the people who make up the government.

Postess with the Mostest fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Apr 29, 2016

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:36

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

And this is why all Canadian journalists deserve to live out of social housing and eat out of dumpsters

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:37

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

https://twitter.com/thefutureyousee/status/725679345797369856

OH Ryan Cleary

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:40

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

Government salaries are better than the private sector (by a lot) at the low end, but worse than the private sector (often by a lot) at the high end. 100k is a dumb arbitrary number to be concerned about. The admin assistant making 80k bothers me more than the lawyer making 110 (actually neither bother me because I don't begrudge other wage-slaves their income).

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:40

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

In the last election I supported getting rid of the boost to the annual TFSA contribution because it seemed like there were a number of experts that were alarmed about how much it was going to cost the government, and the primary point of the policy seemed to be to starve future federal governments of revenue and further limit the ability of future federal governments to provide services. However, as a saver, I of course really liked the higher TFSA limit. I would love to see the $10k TFSA limit come back, but in a way that wouldn't limit government revenues so much to make it impossible for the federal government to fund new social programs. Maybe I'm just asking for new revenue sources in compensation?

Something I like about the $10k TFSA is that it's an option to save for retirement that is available to people that are not going to buy a house. We've noted in the Canadian housing gongshow thread that the government provides all sorts of incentives to get people to buy housing. It would be good to see some balance. Ideally someone who opts to rent for life could retire comfortably just the same as someone who invested their savings into a home.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:50

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Femtosecond posted:

Ideally someone who opts to rent for life could retire comfortably just the same as someone who invested their savings into a home.

Ideally, the housing market would get unfucked so people see owning a house as a way to have a place to live, instead of some stupid way to save for retirement or invest.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:52

Dr. Stab: Sep 12, 2010; 👨🏻‍⚕️🩺🔪🙀😱🙀

bunnyofdoom posted:

https://twitter.com/thefutureyousee/status/725679345797369856

OH Ryan Cleary

Hmm Why won't people vote for me as a conservative in virginia waters, when I was an NDP in mount pearl a month ago.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 16:54

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Good things can come out of down east, too.

quote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/gerard-comeau-border-alcohol-ruling-1.3554908

A New Brunswick judge has ruled the province's restrictions on bringing alcohol into the province for personal use violate the Constitution's free-trade provisions.

Provincial court Judge Ronald LeBlanc ruled Friday in the case of a retired steelworker who was charged under the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act for bringing 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor into New Brunswick. In a decision that took 160 minutes to read, LeBlanc dismissed the charge against Gerard Comeau of Tracadie N.B., in a case that was being watched closely as a constitutional challenge that could impact provincial liquor laws across Canada.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation had previously said it expects the case to end up before the Supreme Court of Canada, regardless of how LeBlanc ruled on Friday.

Comeau was charged in 2012 for bringing 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor into New Brunswick from Quebec and stands to be fined $292.50. Under Section 134 of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act, the amount of alcohol a person can bring into the province for personal use is limited to one bottle of wine or liquor, or 12 pints of beer.

New Brunswick's law � like those in other provinces � gets its power from a 1928 federal statute called the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, which mandates alcohol can only move into or out of a province with the permission of its liquor control board.

During Comeau's trial in Campbellton, N.B., NB Liquor vice-president and chief financial officer Richard Smith testified that the removal of provincial barriers to liquor transportation across borders would be devastating to the Crown corporation responsible for New Brunswick liquor sales.

A Toronto lawyer who has written extensively about interprovincial alcohol trade said at the time of Comeau's trial that the case could upend Canada's current laws governing movement of alcohol across the country.

"It could have enormous implications for Canadians," said Ian Blue of the Toronto firm Gardiner Roberts.

The Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation provided a lawyer for Comeau's legal team. Executive director Marni Soupcoff expects the case to eventually end up before the Supreme Court.

"As a country, we've moved forward in so many other ways, but we are stuck on this issue," Soupcoff stated at the time of the trial. "And I think there are a lot of vested interests that do well with the status quo in place.

"The status quo provides a lot of money for provincial governments, so I don't think there's been a lot of incentive to change.� But that could change if the Constitution protects free trade between provinces."

Hopefully this at least sharpens the nails we have set aside for Brewers' Retail's coffin.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 17:18

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

Ikantski posted:

The Liberals just ran a hugely successful campaign on helping the Middle Class, which they defined as individuals earning 90k-200k

Ikantski's overall point is absolutely right, the government has no incentive to actually do anything about the poor and the working class, because most of us who vote don't actually care about them beyond a vague sense of guilt and a weak sense of responsibility, and a government generally reflects its constituents. That's a problem with perhaps no easy solution, especially since it's pretty much democracy working-as-intended. I want to go after the middle class thing though because it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I've posted about it several times before, sorry for bringing it up again.

I think the Liberals are right to refer to 90k-200k as middle class, and I find the pushback against that terminology to be a little worrying. People who earn less than that are working class / the poor. The sooner we come to terms with this the more effective leftist economic messaging will be. If you're making fifty thousand dollars a year you are working class. If you're making twenty-five you are poor and I hope you somehow manage to get all your needs met. Obviously this varies from region to region and I hope this doesn't kick off a two-page derail comparing wages in Alberta to New Brunswick to Vancouver, but the general idea I hope is clear.

I think it's important to have a proper frame of reference for where we all fit in this economic reality, and part of having a proper frame of reference means using accurate and descriptive terminology. If we started calling the working class "the god-like class" or something similarly grandiose then that would shift our/society's perception of their economic struggles. It is similarly strange to me to call people who have managed to secure a comfortable life but not much more beyond that "the rich", and people who struggle to pay for urgent eye surgery "the middle class".

Being able to have a secure, clean, attractive home to return to at the end of the day, having your children go to good schools, being able to afford good and timely health care, good quality clothing and food, time off to relax, work on your hobbies, or travel -- when did this become "something only these darn $90k-200k rich fucks can afford" instead of "our baseline expectation for living in a powerful Western society"? The reaction to the shocking revelation that the government pays its employees properly should have been "Wow, private employers are seriously underpaying many of their wage slaves (i.e., us)" and not "Those darn fat cats living large off taxpayers' money!"

Looking up some numbers it seems like there's about ~3 million people in Canada earning $100,000 or more in wages. That only ten percent of the country is earning enough money to guarantee a comfortable living (obviously you can live comfortably on less than that, but at that level financial emergencies tend to permanently screw things up) should be worrying, and calling them "the rich" helps to gloss over that twenty million Canadians are earning less than $50,000 and very likely having trouble making ends meet and that the median income is somewhere in the mid-30s. Around eighty percent of Canada lives in urban areas: take a moment and imagine living in Toronto or Vancouver on 33 a year.

I almost wonder if it's because the truly rich have become so drat effective at distancing themselves from the rest of us and living in their own worlds, that we've forgotten what actually rich people look like. Easy to go "The guy across the street has more money than me!" when you will never ever ever meet someone like Sheldon Adelson or Paul Allen or the Irvings in person -- or even any of the thousands of somewhat-less-ultrarich blueblood families of the world that go unnoticed.

yippee cahier posted:

I wouldn't say it's ire, just disappointment that we don't appear to be on the same team. They've had a taste of what the elite are having and don't want it to stop.

Part of the blame, I think, is that us in the working class generally view them as The Rich and Not On Our Team, and another part probably goes to the truly rich who tell them "Oh yes, of course, you're rich too

" and helping to further that divide. Squabbling between the 0.5x, 1x, and 3x classes means we're not unified against the 2000x to 50000x behemoths stomping around in our global economy.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 17:38

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

flakeloaf posted:

Good things can come out of down east, too.

Hopefully this at least sharpens the nails we have set aside for Brewers' Retail's coffin.

This development is great. I wish suffering on all the lovely wine importers that send different products to different markets, all with no way for me to get around it. Hopefully this will force better behaviour on them.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 17:56

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

All of you assholes acting like the current RRSP/TFSA system benefits the average Canadian in any way are probably making twice or higher the average Canadian yearly wage and have never had to do anything as drastic as moving in with a roommate or selling a personal belonging because something as simple as unexpected vehicle repairs started you on a debt spiral.

Most people don't have the money to put into savings in the first place.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:05

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

EvilJoven posted:

All of you assholes acting like the current RRSP/TFSA system benefits the average Canadian in any way are probably making twice or higher the average Canadian yearly wage and have never had to do anything as drastic as moving in with a roommate or selling a personal belonging because something as simple as unexpected vehicle repairs started you on a debt spiral.

Most people don't have the money to put into savings in the first place.

But if we keep incentivizing investment eventually the incentives will be so powerful the working poor will clue in and choose to have disposable income they can invest with and better themselves.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:11

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Let them eat cake

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:16

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

Let them put 30% of their cake aside so they can eat their cake later at a lower tax rate.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:19

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

EvilJoven posted:

Let them put 30% of their cake aside so they can eat their cake later at a lower tax rate.

Let cake be taxed at a lower rate than bread because there is more risk involved.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:22

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

We must encourage the middle 10 percent of our society to save with schemes that improve in value the more you earn.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:22

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

EvilJoven posted:

All of you assholes acting like the current RRSP/TFSA system benefits the average Canadian in any way are probably making twice or higher the average Canadian yearly wage and have never had to do anything as drastic as moving in with a roommate or selling a personal belonging because something as simple as unexpected vehicle repairs started you on a debt spiral.

Most people don't have the money to put into savings in the first place.

Oh Christ, between you and Rime, the hand-wringing never ends. Sad!

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:33

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

flashman posted:

We must encourage the middle 10 percent of our society to save with schemes that improve in value the more you earn.

Lower capital gains rates would help the poor get a leg up on their retirement investments.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:35

Ambrose Burnside: Aug 30, 2007; pensive

defending people making 200k+ as "middle class" is the stupidest loving rock to die on. that's a shitload of money, i cant even imagine what id do with that much money

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:38

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

If you make over 100k and you think you need or deserve tax credits you are a greedy baby.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:38

Fried Watermelon: Dec 29, 2008

flakeloaf posted:

I saw the inside of every old folks' home in the city during my three years as a mortician's assistant. I know exactly what kind of care taxation without personal savings pays for. If you aren't going to invest in your own future then do future-elderly-you a favour and buy one of those plastic carbon monoxide hats.

(Not a suicide request, please do not actually kill yourself.)

Doctor assisted euthanasia is my retirement plan.

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 05:08

Tan Dumplord: Mar 9, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Fried Watermelon posted:

Doctor assisted euthanasia is my retirement plan.

Activated charcoal and a small room is all you need for The Big Sleep!

# ? Apr 29, 2016 18:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »