The Truth About Taxes

[bluealberta]

So now you want taxes based on gender. You have got to be kidding. And please find me a conservative policy that supports your ridiculous claim. You won't because you you can't.

Your misconstruations have reached the point of total dishonesty, Blueboy.

Taxes based on income are not gender based.

As for your examples of Harperite policies, your daycare, anti-abortion, education, social assistance, alimony, and even pension proposals are unfair to women. They would take us back to the 1950's at best.

Your proposal is based on gender, its right there in the proposal. Provide quotes or links for all the things you mentioned that prove your points.. There is nothing in the conservative platform that are unfair to women.

You think that because you throw out these entirely untrue statements that everybody else will take them as facts, when there are no facts to back up your claims. Provide proof or stop the lies. And you can't because there is no proof of your claims anywhere. Your position is patheticm but predictable. :twisted:

 

[Derry McKinney]

Do you spend all of your money on drugs, Blueboy?

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes

Do you spend all of your money on drugs, Blueboy?

No. Just waiting for your proof of all your statements that conservative policies hurt women. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and when asked, you can't back up your big claims. Proof or be quiet.

 

[Derry McKinney]

Do you oppose the childcare program?

Yes you do.

Who does it help?

Mostly women.

Are your MPs still publicly promising to oppose abortion rights?

Yes they are.

Abortion is a women's rights issue.

Are Conservatives against more money for education?

Yup.

Education money helps women break the cycle of low wages.

Now none of those are gender specific, just like the NDP tax plan is not gender specific, but they do all affect women who hope to do more with their lives than stand in front a sink full of dirty dishes.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes

Do you oppose the childcare program?

Yes you do.

No I don't. I oppose the new one, because we already have existing daycare programs in place. I have been involved for 18 years in daycare, I know what goes on, you don't.

Who does it help?

Mostly women.

Actually, the existing programs assist families of all types.

Are your MPs still publicly promising to oppose abortion rights?

Yes they are.

Who and when recently? The policy convention proclaimed support of the status quo. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't mistake pro-life for anti-abortion, they are two separate issues.

Abortion is a women's rights issue.

I think abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and her partner, if applicable. I support abortion rights, but I don't support abortion as a method of birth control.

Are Conservatives against more money for education?

Yup.

Nope. Proof please, not just you inane statements. Why on earth would any party be against education. Your statement is without basis or facts and is totally immaterial.

Education money helps women break the cycle of low wages.

Agreed. That is why the conservatives support funding of education and lowering of tuition. However, it also helps men too, don't forget.

Now none of those are gender specific, just like the NDP tax plan is not gender specific, but they do all affect women who hope to do more with their lives than stand in front a sink full of dirty dishes.

I know no one who even thinks like that, so to insinuate it is a lie. If you don't like the proposal you posted which indicated that mens taxes would go up and womens taxes would go down, talk to the author. If womens wages go up, as we all want, yet the NDP proposes to reduce womens taxes, how does that jive with the tax system that increases taxes as income increases? You cannot have it both ways. If income for women go up, they will have to pay more under the current system. If on the other hand you propose that womens income increases, but their taxes go down, then that is tax by gender.

Your entire premise is false. As income goes up, so do taxes, regardless of gender. Your proposal is incorrect when it states it wants to lower taxes for women and increase them for men.

 

[Derry McKinney]

No I don't. I oppose the new one, because we already have existing daycare programs in place.

We have underfunded and inadequate systems. I really don't care if you think yours are adequate in Alberta or not, although I do recall a kid being locked out and almost freezing to death in your fine province this winter.

Actually, the existing programs assist families of all types.

There are more women with children than there are men. Welcome to the real world.

Who and when recently?

On one of the days your party voted to shut down the House instead of doin their jobs, it was reported that several Conservative MPs attended an anti-choice rally on Parliament hill. That is well after your convention and during a period when you were trying to force an election that nobody wanted.

The policy convention proclaimed support of the status quo.

Your convention decided not to change the status quo. That is not the same as supporting it. There was immediate opposition from within your party.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Then why did you say "support" instead of telling the truth?

Don't mistake pro-life for anti-abortion, they are two separate issues.

Anti-choice is anti-choice.

Proof please, not just you inane statements.

Your party is against tuition freezes and does not support more federal funding for education. In the provinces you have a long-term record of cutting education spending all the way back to the primary level.

Why on earth would any party be against education.

Conservatives are stupid? I can't tell why, but I'm not the one supporting them.

Your entire way of thinking is false. You are living a lie.

 

[bluealberta]

No I don't. I oppose the new one, because we already have existing daycare programs in place.

We have underfunded and inadequate systems. I really don't care if you think yours are adequate in Alberta or not, although I do recall a kid being locked out and almost freezing to death in your fine province this winter.

The programs in the country are fine, no matter what type of spin you put on it. And I recall a native woman being killed by a bunch of white kids in your fine province. So what? There are problems everywhere.

Actually, the existing programs assist families of all types.

There are more women with children than there are men. Welcome to the real world.

I believe "families of all types" would include single parent families of either gender.

Who and when recently?

On one of the days your party voted to shut down the House instead of doin their jobs, it was reported that several Conservative MPs attended an anti-choice rally on Parliament hill. That is well after your convention and during a period when you were trying to force an election that nobody wanted.

It was a pro-life rally, so quit trying to spin it as anti-something. You can support abortion rights and be pro-life at the same time.

The policy convention proclaimed support of the status quo.

Your convention decided not to change the status quo. That is not the same as supporting it. There was immediate opposition from within your party.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Then why did you say "support" instead of telling the truth?

I believe the exact wording was they support the status quo on abortion rights. What is so hard about that for you?

Don't mistake pro-life for anti-abortion, they are two separate issues.

Anti-choice is anti-choice.

Gee what a smart turn of prose. But doesn't answer the statement.

Proof please, not just you inane statements.

Your party is against tuition freezes and does not support more federal funding for education. In the provinces you have a long-term record of cutting education spending all the way back to the primary level.

You are wrong about the federal party, and Klein has just frozen tuition. And I think you really should do a little more research, the last few years has seen massive amounts of money put into the Alberta education system. Why? Because we have no debt, something we all sacrificed to get. Now the money is going into the province instead of international bankers.

Why on earth would any party be against education.

Conservatives are stupid? I can't tell why, but I'm not the one supporting them.

Then I guess you must be a conservative. Of course they are not against education, and you still have not provided any facts to back up your stupid statements.

Your entire way of thinking is false. You are living a lie.

You have not provided any articles, policy statements, or links to back up any of your assertations (funny how that word begins). Unless you can do that, your opinions are just that, so quit trying to pass off your ill thought out opinions as facts.

 

[Derry McKinney]

The programs in the country are fine, no matter what type of spin you put on it. And I recall a native woman being killed by a bunch of white kids in your fine province. So what? There are problems everywhere.

Most people don't agree that the existing programs are fine, which is why the NDP amendment to the budget was so popular with voters everywhere but Alberta.

I have no idea what a 30 year old murder has to do with child-care, or why you didn't use some sort of more recent example...it isn't like we are short of them.

The example I used of the child being accidentally locked outside of a daycare facility is an example of underfunded, undersupervised child care failing to provide even minimum protection to a child.

I believe "families of all types" would include single parent families of either gender.

Your proposed policies would help those with more resources more. Tax breaks for the rich (usually men) and little or nothing for those who need it most (dispropotionately single women with children).

It was a pro-life rally, so quit trying to spin it as anti-something. You can support abortion rights and be pro-life at the same time.

It was an anti-abortion rally and your MPs chose to attend after voting themselves a day off at taxpayer expense. Spin it however you want, that's the reality.

I believe the exact wording was they support the status quo on abortion rights. What is so hard about that for you?

The wording was that the CPC would not introduce a motion to change the status quo on abortion. That is far different than supporting it and purposely left the option of private members that could be supported by the party as an option.

Gee what a smart turn of prose. But doesn't answer the statement.

Anti-choice is anti-choice.

You are wrong about the federal party, and Klein has just frozen tuition. And I think you really should do a little more research, the last few years has seen massive amounts of money put into the Alberta education system. Why? Because we have no debt, something we all sacrificed to get. Now the money is going into the province instead of international bankers.

Harper has been vehement in his opposition to the amendment that gives more money to education. Klein underfunded education, along with everything else that never got him a kickback from the oil industry, in order to pay off your debt a few years earlier.

You have not provided any articles, policy statements, or links to back up any of your assertations (funny how that word begins).

A perfect example of your underfunded education system. "Assertations" isn't even a word.

You have provided nothing to refute anything that I've said. Nothing.

 

[bluealberta]

The programs in the country are fine, no matter what type of spin you put on it. And I recall a native woman being killed by a bunch of white kids in your fine province. So what? There are problems everywhere.

Most people don't agree that the existing programs are fine, which is why the NDP amendment to the budget was so popular with voters everywhere but Alberta.

I have no idea what a 30 year old murder has to do with child-care, or why you didn't use some sort of more recent example...it isn't like we are short of them.

The example I used of the child being accidentally locked outside of a daycare facility is an example of underfunded, undersupervised child care failing to provide even minimum protection to a child.

I believe "families of all types" would include single parent families of either gender.

Your proposed policies would help those with more resources more. Tax breaks for the rich (usually men) and little or nothing for those who need it most (dispropotionately single women with children).

It was a pro-life rally, so quit trying to spin it as anti-something. You can support abortion rights and be pro-life at the same time.

It was an anti-abortion rally and your MPs chose to attend after voting themselves a day off at taxpayer expense. Spin it however you want, that's the reality.

I believe the exact wording was they support the status quo on abortion rights. What is so hard about that for you?

The wording was that the CPC would not introduce a motion to change the status quo on abortion. That is far different than supporting it and purposely left the option of private members that could be supported by the party as an option.

Gee what a smart turn of prose. But doesn't answer the statement.

Anti-choice is anti-choice.

You are wrong about the federal party, and Klein has just frozen tuition. And I think you really should do a little more research, the last few years has seen massive amounts of money put into the Alberta education system. Why? Because we have no debt, something we all sacrificed to get. Now the money is going into the province instead of international bankers.

Harper has been vehement in his opposition to the amendment that gives more money to education. Klein underfunded education, along with everything else that never got him a kickback from the oil industry, in order to pay off your debt a few years earlier.

You have not provided any articles, policy statements, or links to back up any of your assertations (funny how that word begins).

A perfect example of your underfunded education system. "Assertations" isn't even a word.

You have provided nothing to refute anything that I've said. Nothing.

And you have provided the same old cliches, extremist statements, and total left wing spin AGAIN. You don't like Alberta? Fine, stay away, we will all be happier. And you still have not provided any policy statements at all regarding the conservatives to back up any of your claims.

And pro-life does not mean anti abortion, no matter what kind of a twist you want to put on something.

 

[Derry McKinney]

You really have nothing, do you, BA?

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes

You really have nothing, do you, BA?

When you get me policies that make your point, I will concede the point, but until then, you are the one with nothing other than extreme left wing cliches. And to get back to your post, which you have cleverly tried to get away from my points about it have still not been refuted by anything other than you cliches either. So, other than cliches and outlandish statments, it appears that you are the one with nothing. :twisted:

 

[The Philosopher]

To be fair, the original post gave tones of statistics. Bluealberta pulled out a bunch of them that favored Conservatives. Instead of working with those numbers and other numbers the debate has turned from the statistical tax break of families to "but who's going to be poor." It's obvious that Bluealberta realizes that tax cuts for the rich will not be tax cuts for the poor.

The model is that a tax cut for the rich helps keep Canada competitive against the out-migration that is present in America (they rarely cut corporate tax as we do). Conservatives support this tax cut and Liberals support this tax cut. The NDP is the only one that doesn't. Not to form an ad populem BUT, the NDP lacks credibility as a financial party considering they are socialists.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes

To be fair, the original post gave tones of statistics. Bluealberta pulled out a bunch of them that favored Conservatives. Instead of working with those numbers and other numbers the debate has turned from the statistical tax break of families to "but who's going to be poor." It's obvious that Bluealberta realizes that tax cuts for the rich will not be tax cuts for the poor.

The model is that a tax cut for the rich helps keep Canada competitive against the out-migration that is present in America (they rarely cut corporate tax as we do). Conservatives support this tax cut and Liberals support this tax cut. The NDP is the only one that doesn't. Not to form an ad populem BUT, the NDP lacks credibility as a financial party considering they are socialists.

Part of my point is that using percentages on tax cuts is a smoke screen. Lower income families pay lower taxes, and in some cases, none at all. Therefore, the amount of tax cuts affecting lower income people will, by necessity, be small. Our policies over the years have reached this point, which is a good thing. When you get to zero, it is hard to cut any more.

In addition, the support programs that are in place have got to be taken into consideration when tax cuts are discussed. Otherwise, the true picture is not being discussed.

 

[Derry McKinney]

The NDP's record of fiscal responsibility is as good or better than the record of the Conservatives, Philospher. Check the records. Don't go whining about Bob Rae either, he served one term.

You've never made a point, BA. What you've done is yark (that's a combination barking and "yacking" off).

 

[Twila]

Part of my point is that using percentages on tax cuts is a smoke screen. Lower income families pay lower taxes, and in some cases, none at all.

A total smoke screen for sure. Especially if you do the math. taking 49% from a person making 6 figures a year will still leave them with a fair chunk of change. Take 49% from somebody making 30000 a year.

As for not paying income taxes I believe your are allowed to earn up to $7000/year without paying income tax. Not much of an income....certainly can't live on it. Even in low income housing which charges 30% of your gross income you can't live on that.

 

[Derry McKinney]

Conservatives don't bother with small change though, Twila. They make a whack of money and expect to keep it all. Of course their habits pollute more, require more infrastructure, contribute less, and are completely unsustainable unless you are insane enough to buy into the doctrine of unlimited growth with limited resources, but don't ask questions. If you do ask questions you are a commie or something.

 

[Twila]

Yeah. I've been a commie for a long time now. It comes with being left handed and not dispising Fidel Castro.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes

Part of my point is that using percentages on tax cuts is a smoke screen. Lower income families pay lower taxes, and in some cases, none at all.

A total smoke screen for sure. Especially if you do the math. taking 49% from a person making 6 figures a year will still leave them with a fair chunk of change. Take 49% from somebody making 30000 a year.

As for not paying income taxes I believe your are allowed to earn up to $7000/year without paying income tax. Not much of an income....certainly can't live on it. Even in low income housing which charges 30% of your gross income you can't live on that.

You are right. However, family income under the $40k mentioned in the original post pays little to no income, depending on a other circumstances, kids, etc. Also depends on whether the income is self employed or not. My main point is there are far too many variables and circumstances to make the claim that the NDP program benefits more than the conservative program, which the original article did. And the other programs available to lower income families make up part of the overall equation.

Our tax programs have changed over the years to reflect a lower tax rate for lower income families. Again, any cuts from lower income families will be smaller, because the amount they are cut from is smaller. This does not mean I am against further cuts, far from it. But the thread was not about that, it was about the comparison between the two programs. The NDP program wants to increase taxes on men, lower it on women, and increase it on families making over $150k. The gender issue is puzzling, because if one of the goals is to increase womens wages, laudable, then how do the NDP propose to justify lower taxes for women who are making the same as men? Gender tax reductions are unworkable.

 

[Derry McKinney]

It isn't a gender tax, Blue. You've been told that, it's been explained to you, so now you are just making shit up.

Women will pay less, as a group, because women disproportionately fall into the lower wage category. Men will pay more, as a group, because more of them fall into the higher wage category.

Are you capable of comprehending that, or did Ralphie's underfunding of education include the removal of all common sense as well?

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes

It isn't a gender tax, Blue. You've been told that, it's been explained to you, so now you are just making shit up.

Women will pay less, as a group, because women disproportionately fall into the lower wage category. Men will pay more, as a group, because more of them fall into the higher wage category.

Are you capable of comprehending that, or did Ralphie's underfunding of education include the removal of all common sense as well?

Ah, the usual, attack Ralph, Alberta and Albertans. Why don't you just take the post off if you don't want to use the figures in it.

If your goal is to increase wages paid to women, how can the taxes fall if the wages go up under our current system? If on the other hand your goal is to increase womens wages, again a laudable goal, then how can womens taxes go down if you achieve the goal of increased wages? Or are you giving up on the idea of increasing womens wages. Your article was very clear: Increase taxes paid by men, lower taxes paid by women. Can't be done if you also want to increase wages paid to women, unless you are proposing a gender tax.