|
bunnyofdoom posted:Hahahaha DDM is so hosed. Judge is already pretty much saying his testimony was bullshit. Ruling DDM is full of it is a start, but it doesn't mean he'll be convicted.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Here is a CBC article on income splitting, and a relevant infographic on how it works: I notice they did not bother to show an example of when it doesn't work, i.e. if you and your spouse land in the same tax bracket. So if you and your spouse both make less than $43,953, or both make between $43,953 and $87,907 annually, your net benefit will be approximately $jack poo poo. But I do notice that it's full of quotes about tax fairness, and how it is so unjust that couples with one partner working part-time or unemployed have to pay MORE TAXES than a couple making the same combined income while both working full time jobs. That's just UNFAIR. Precambrian Video Games has issued a correction as of 15:22 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Hahahaha DDM is so hosed. Judge is already pretty much saying his testimony was bullshit. Seeing him go to jail would be delicious. eXXon posted:Here is a CBC article on income splitting, and a relevant infographic on how it works: It's sad because it actually benefits me and my partner but I cannot morally accept it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Now DDM is looking royally hosed. E: I just pictured DDM seeking a pardon down the line and finding out he can't get one due to changes brought in by the conservatives hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Guilty!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
He might be convicted but  if you actually think he'll serve a day in jail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Guilty! So does this mean he's out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
He gets removed from office if he gets sentenced to two years or more. Of course, the honourable thing to do is resign regardless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Elections Canada posted:Anyone convicted of having committed an offence that is considered to be an illegal practice under the [Elections] Act is not entitled to be elected or sit in the House of Commons for a period of five years from the date of conviction Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Can DDM sit in the house while undergoing the appeals process?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Hmm, parliamentary censure, repeated rebukes by the PMO for being bad at math, hiding military expenses in future budgets, outright buying the votes and donations of wealthy citizens through a 5 billion dollar tax break, robocall-scam and a complete misunderstanding of the constitution and charter. Now a conviction for abuse of spending laws. Better vote for the Conservatives again. The Liberals are adscam, and the NDP will take all of my money and invest it in needles for poor people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Hmm, parliamentary censure, repeated rebukes by the PMO for being bad at math, hiding military expenses in future budgets, outright buying the votes and donations of wealthy citizens through a 5 billion dollar tax break, robocall-scam and a complete misunderstanding of the constitution and charter. Now a conviction for abuse of spending laws. Their base only cares about rules when they can be used to attack their adversaries. See also: Ford bros.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Hmm, parliamentary censure, repeated rebukes by the PMO for being bad at math, hiding military expenses in future budgets, outright buying the votes and donations of wealthy citizens through a 5 billion dollar tax break, robocall-scam and a complete misunderstanding of the constitution and charter. Now a conviction for abuse of spending laws. I just don't know what a SOCIALIST party would do to Canada... I don't trust them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:He gets removed from office if he gets sentenced to two years or more. What is this "honourable" word you use? Whatever it is we don't do it anymore. We make tearful apologies on the floor and carry on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
haha gently caress you DDM probably my least favourite person in politics (not including Pierre) edit: poo poo, they were guilty on all counts. He's boned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
eXXon posted:But I do notice that it's full of quotes about tax fairness, and how it is so unjust that couples with one partner working part-time or unemployed have to pay MORE TAXES than a couple making the same combined income while both working full time jobs. That's just UNFAIR. Uh, I know you're being sarcastic, but that actually is unfair though? I think the whole thing is stupid, and income splitting in general is completely ridiculous and I don't support it, but if you're going to implement it, implement it for ALL married couples, whether or not they have kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
How much bread and hockey tickets could I buy with all that extra moola I'd be getting if I had kids?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Uh, I know you're being sarcastic, but that actually is unfair though? It's not unfair -- one couple has a person with 20-40 more hours per week to take care of their child (which is required to participate in income splitting) while the other has to pay for daycare. It's more or less subsidizing daycare but only for families with a high-earner. The whole situation is really funny (and depressing) to watch from the party/ideology that routinely accuses the left of trying to buy poor people's votes with social programs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Hey there all you Ottawa kids, the Mulcairs are handing out candy at Stornoway this afternoon at 5:30! I suggest you dress as the spookiest thing imaginable: a STRONG STABLE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY IN 2015 to really spook ol' Tommy! A Prime Minister Trudeau costume would also suffice. In fact it might be better because then you can go to 24 Sussex and scare Steve Harper as well. Happy Hallowe'en!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Hey there all you Ottawa kids, the Mulcairs are handing out candy at Stornoway this afternoon at 5:30! Typical NDP, just giving away free stuff to random strangers and expecting us taxpayers to foot the bill.  Children should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a job in a coal mine if they want candy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Uh, I know you're being sarcastic, but that actually is unfair though? If both partners are working full-time, then yes, it's somewhat unfair. If one gets the benefit of only having to work part-time or not at all, then no, it isn't really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
eXXon posted:If both partners are working full-time, then yes, it's somewhat unfair. If one gets the benefit of only having to work part-time or not at all, then no, it isn't really. "the benefit"? What if, like many people in her situation, its not really a choice or "benefit" to have to work part-time? Or what if the rest of that time is spent raising kids anyways? Like, I don't support tax income splitting just because its another Conservative tax break they throw out as a bone to get votes, without substantially changing anything. It doesn't mean however that tax income splitting isn't fair or right. It seems to be pretty fair to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:It seems to be pretty fair to me. Think harder Homer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Alctel posted:haha gently caress you DDM One down, 160 to go (ignoring potential contributions from the other parties). drat, where's that Nelson emote? :HaHa: I'm wondering if he'd be convicted under the new act? Not sure if I want to poke that 284 page pile of poo poo again to find out. One thing this conservative government has done is convince me I'm a bigoted arsehole. Normally I reject out of hand any candidates for boards, local elections, whatever that have "lawyer" on their resume. Between court decisions defending Canadians' rights against authoritarians and the Trinity Western vote I feel owe an apology to lawyers and the judges they spawn. I'll change my ways and evaluate the whole candidate and not just the degree. Expect for economists (gently caress Harper). And chiropractors (gently caress Harper's cabinet). And religious fundamentalists (see above). And naturopaths (loving anti-science witch doctors). O.K., guess I'm still a bigoted arsehole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:"the benefit"? What if, like many people in her situation, its not really a choice or "benefit" to have to work part-time? Or what if the rest of that time is spent raising kids anyways? Not having to work is always a "benefit" of not having a job, regardless if it's by choice or not. This is a nasty tax break which will of course benefit the wealthiest (who are most likely to have single earner households) at great expense to the rest of us. If you are trying to help families then subsidize something which everyone can access equally. flashman has issued a correction as of 18:44 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
I don't think disliking fundies and various flavours of witch doctors is bigoted or prejudicial. Indeed, you are not pre-judging them, but rather judging them based on their beliefs, which is a perfectly reasonable thing. This is why I get offended by the suggestion that disliking people based on their religious beliefs is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
I don't think it's particularly bigoted to have a negative kneejerk reaction to lawyers, bankers and businessmen getting into politics. Few people go into those professions who aren't obsessed with wealth, power, prestige, or any combination of those, and those who do rarely turn to politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:"the benefit"? What if, like many people in her situation, its not really a choice or "benefit" to have to work part-time? Or what if the rest of that time is spent raising kids anyways? To put this in a less snarky way, imagine the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Spouse A earns $50,000, Spouse B earns $50,000. No income splitting. posted:A classic two-earner set up. Both spouses are working, but this means children in the home will in all likely hood require professional child care services, which has a cost. What it costs is irrelevant to this example, but in the wider political debate it is important, because it's very expensive. Scenario 2: Spouse A earns $100,000, Spouse B earns $0. No income splitting. posted:In this case, Spouse B is available to take care of children in the home. Spouse A does end up paying a higher marginal tax rate, but this is offset by the fact that this couple does not need to pay for child care. Regardless of Spouse B's thoughts on the matter, not needing to pay for that care is still an economic benefit. Scenario 3: Spouse A earns $50,000, Spouse B earns $50,000, income splitting allowed. posted:Because both couples are already earning similarly sized incomes, income splitting does not allow them to obtain a lower marginal tax rate. Child care services still required. This is identical to Scenario 1. Scenario 4: Spouse A earns $100,000, Spouse B earns $0, income splitting allowed. posted:In this instance, Spouse A is allowing to split their income evenly with Spouse B. Together they are paying exactly the same tax bill as the couple in Scenario 1. However, Spouse B is still available to provide childcare services in the home. So they are enjoying a lower tax bill, and still do not need to purchase child care. This is why income splitting is said to be disproportionately favourable to families that feature a large single income (it should also be noted that most Canadian families are dual income, rather than single income). This is why it's unfair. PittTheElder has issued a correction as of 19:05 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Justin Borque will go to jail and stay there until he is either one hundred years old or dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Living with a family and thus benefitting from economies of scale is an economic benefit, therefore I think I as a single person should pay tax at a lower rate than a family would. (Note: I'm not seriously advancing this position, just pointing out that it could be considered "fair") The problem with "fairness" is that you can come up with arguments to justify whatever it is that benefits you the most in the first place. It's not objective in the least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
The only single-earner families I've ever known are rich people because who else can afford not to work and have kids. So this is basically another tax break for the rich. Wouldn't a childcare system be of greater benefit to "working canadians" ?? I know a lot of two income and single parent families who are locked into poverty or at least severe financial stress because of childcare costs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The only single-earner families I've ever known are rich people because who else can afford not to work and have kids. So this is basically another tax break for the rich. Wouldn't a childcare system be of greater benefit to "working canadians" ?? I know a lot of two income and single parent families who are locked into poverty or at least severe financial stress because of childcare costs. I'd agree with this. I'm not saying that income splitting is something that we ought to implement, just that arguments for fairness could theoretically be advanced on either side. I'd also like to point out that a lot of the hypotheticals have been focused on either even splits or one spouse not working at all. To use the combined income of $100,000 again, what if both parents are working full-time, with one making $30,000 and the other making $70,000? They have the same requirement for childcare as the couple who are each making $50,000, so they aren't deriving an economic benefit from the fact that one of them makes a higher income in the same way the single-earner family is. Is it fair that the 70/30 family pays more income tax than the 50/50 family? PT6A has issued a correction as of 19:18 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Hexigrammus posted:And chiropractors (gently caress Harper's cabinet). what the hell did they ever do to you? I know not everyone uses a chiropractor but they're not criminals in back alleys bending you into a pretzel as a way of mugging you. Do you hate massage therapists too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:I don't think it's particularly bigoted to have a negative kneejerk reaction to lawyers, bankers and businessmen getting into politics. Few people go into those professions who aren't obsessed with wealth, power, prestige, or any combination of those, and those who do rarely turn to politics. You're an idiot. You think of the 1000's of lawyers who work for legal aid, or the worker's advisor or similar bodies, or the traveling crowns in the north, or most rural sole practitioners, or lawyers who work for the attorneys general are "obsessed with wealth, power and prestige?" Or these guys? http://www.dal.ca/faculty/law/alumni-friends/alumni-awards/weldon-award-for-unselfish-public-service.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The only single-earner families I've ever known are rich people because who else can afford not to work and have kids. So this is basically another tax break for the rich. Wouldn't a childcare system be of greater benefit to "working canadians" ?? I know a lot of two income and single parent families who are locked into poverty or at least severe financial stress because of childcare costs. You haven't met a lot of single-earner families? MANY families I know wound up sizing down, moving out to the rural area (cheaper housing) or renting instead of owning and just cutting back on things severely so they could manage a single-income household so one of the parents could stay home. This is NOT about a tax break; this is about fairness. Nearly every tax benefit or credit you get is based on household income yet you're taxed on individual income. IMO if married (or common-law) couples (with children or without) are judged for tax benefits based on household income, they should also pay income tax based on household income (this is what income splitting really should be). If Couple A has two earners earning $100k and $20k, they should pay the same income tax as couple B which has $60k and $60k. The interesting part is each couple spent about $12k on daycare costs, couple B gets a much bigger refund than couple A because the lower-earning spouse (even if they earn $0) has to claim it. Either way, I dislike the way the Cons approached "income splitting" or this "fairness" garbage. I have no idea why its restricted to families with children. I have no idea why it's not just "joint filing" because everything else is "joint" anyway... Tasha has issued a correction as of 20:31 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Aces High posted:Do you hate massage therapists too? Chiropractors are glorified massage therapists at best, and at worst they are morons cracking babies spines and claiming that adjusting subluxations can cure your diabetes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Chiropractors are glorified massage therapists at best, and at worst they are morons cracking babies spines and claiming that adjusting subluxations can cure your diabetes. Adjusting the bones of something that doesn't have all its bones seems very strange.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Uh maybe we should stick to shunning him for being a massive creeper who beats women instead of stigmatizing anxiety disorders and therapy for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
The government won't be issuing visas to anyone from Sierra Leone, Liberia, or Guinea, due to Ebola. The Canadian Press posted:TORONTO - Canada is following in Australia's footsteps and is suspending visa applications for residents and nationals of the West African countries battling Ebola. I don't know how long it takes to process a visa application, but gently caress you anyone who had applied for one before today, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Leofish posted:The government won't be issuing visas to anyone from Sierra Leone, Liberia, or Guinea, due to Ebola. I assume this is just to spite all of those experts advising that this is pointless and a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:58
|
|