Not in DC. I can walk to the hospital faster'n the ambulance can get there. Which is convenient, because I'm usually all set up to get all the signatures I need while they're still admitting the schmuck.
Liberals now pulling away from Cons into majority territory
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Mea culpa, you're absolutely correct.
Hopefully hard on the conscience!
How stupid is that. Typical Liberal, doesn't want the taxpayer to keep his own money.
why are you in favour of a stupid Harper Conservative proposal that (per CD Howe) only benefits 15% of Canadian families... and of those, nearly half the benefits would flow to those who (probably) need the benefit the least... those making more than $100,000 per year. No benefits for those who, apparently, don't meet the Harper Conservative definition of a family (i.e., 2 working parents with children under 18years. Per the Harper Conservative Finance Department: "the income-splitting proposal will cost the treasury about $2.4 billion in foregone revenues in the current fiscal year, and an average of about $2 billion per year over the next five years"... bye, bye surplus on a hyped proposal that offers no benefits to the vast majority of Canadians! You know, "not a wise investment for Canadians"!
The simple truth is letting parents keep their money to find their own day care
solutions is a flexible means of family support, while the plan to create cheap day care spaces actually is disproportionately beneficial to well-off professionals that do not really need the help.
If you are a part of the working poor, you know that most lower paid jobs in retail, in food service, in hospitality, in maintenance and cleaning, in security, etc etc etc occur at night, evenings, weekends when established day care simply does not exist. Therefore gov't plans to produce cheap daycare spaces are completely useless to those that need them most, whereas helping those people with cash allows them the flexibility to pay non-standard child care workers (friends, relatives etc).
Simple as that.
the topic at hand was income splitting; you're quoting me speaking to income splitting... and you're talking about what?
Seeing every topic as a good opportunity for a hobbyhorse ride is pretty common around here.
Sigh
Income splitting as proposed by the Harper gov't is intended to allow families with children to split incomes so they can save tax dollars and use them for child care. That is why the proposal is limited to families with children.
This is a proposal that clearly is intended to be the Conservative alternative (with other programs) to Mulcair's universal daycare program (which was stolen from the Liberals)
even if one accepted that talking-point premise, what percentage of the actual number of 2 working parent with children under eighteen families are eligible? But hey now, the Harper Conservative income splitting proposal doesn't create any new actual child-care spaces, right? With a cap at $2000 (which means the vast majority of those even eligible won't realize the max cap benefit), what does it actually do for child-care that, typically in large urban centres, can be in the area of $1000-to-$1200 per month... notwithstanding "no new spaces"!
It was all part of the same tax reform announcement. And why should the so called rich have to pay more taxes or get less benefit than the poor?
Buddy and the rest of the leftards see income splitting as a bennie to those that don't need it (nice of them to make that determination, eh?) and worse, as a penalty to those that don't get the max advantage.
What these folks are deliberately ignoring is that the demographic that sees the max bennefit are the same ones that pay into the highest tax bracket, biggest property taxes (dollars wise) and just as importantly, do not use the social systems for support, assistance, etc.
I posted an article about Beer Economics (or some such name)... You have seen it before - buddy is the epitome of that example... Screams like a banshee when he feels he's dealt an unfair hand while at the same time, demanding benefits that are not equally distributed to all.
again, the topic was income splitting! And why should the so-called poor-to-middleclass get little to no benefits under that Harper Conservative income splitting proposal? What's the deal with the very limited/precise Harper Conservative definition of a family?
If that was actually the case, it wouldn't apply to people with kids that are....say....16. Most 16 year olds I know do not require day care.
leftards? Is there any moderation on this board, of any kind? The way youse guys throw out the insults I truly wonder? A proper proposal shouldn't skew benefits in the direction of higher incomes to the outright exclusion of the majority of Canadians.
The only moderator that comes around with any regularity is one of the worst offenders. Don't expect much
You really aren't listening are you??
The Conservative move will benefit Moms that choose to raise their own kids, instead of turning them over to an expensive and inefficient, government program, and it will do so in a couple of ways. First, a stay-at-home Mom (or Dad) will realize a $2000 benefit. As well, many stay at home Moms (like my daughter-in-law) take in a couple of kids from friends or relatives to supplement their otherwise non-existent income. Income splitting will help them as well.
Once again, conventional child care spaces disproportionally benefit those well-off professionals that do not need support, as the working poor do not work 9-5 Monday to Friday, when day care spaces are usually available.
So the choice is between a rigid gov't program that most benefits well-to-do professionals and creates another huge gov't bureaucracy to get overly involved in our lives, or a flexible program that allows the working poor to keep more of their money and supports a private, flexible system of care for children.
Easy choice.