She forgot to,add….

I hope the weather is nice for all you I have put out of work so when you stand in line at the soup kitchen you don’t get to cold…

For those who can afford it in this over taxed high cost of living province.

Always the negative

Call the election already. We want the NDP running this province. Just think how good it will be. The HST EXTINQUISHED Christy fired. Corporate taxes back in place. Thanks for nothing snooki. This election you and your HST lovers are going to be EXTINQUISHED. Maybe then we can afford to live here again. Go NDP.

Who did she put out of work?
What over taxed cost of living?

You guys writing from Ontario!

The ‘cost of living’ is indeed overtaxed, Cougs78. And the Liberals have been just as guilty at overtaxing it as the NDP were when they were in office. And there’s no evidence this is about to change. Or even any initiative on their part to see whether it could be changed.

Gordo’s original slogan was, “Tax cuts work.” And they do, when we actually get some and business activity increases as a result. But not when far more is exacted through things like the HST, Carbon Tax, ever increasing MSP premiums, etc., etc., plus increased charges by every monopoly Crown Corporation. Ones that the BC public must bear.

While it may very well be true that for the majority of us our ‘standard of living’ has increased over the last decade, the rise in average indebtedness is a perfect indication that our ‘cost of living’ has exceeded that. And the ability to repay that indebtedness continues to decline. And what are we offered by ANY of those Parties that hope to lead us? More of the same. Why should we ever vote to approve THAT?

Not sure if matty is serious our if he is just trying to make NDP supporters look like morons.

Not going to argue with you Socredible! Some people take advantage of all the great opportunities we are presented with in this province and country! The rest complain about the government!

Hey folks, it is a Thanksgiving Day message from the Premier.

Give thanks.

We could be economically worse off by living in Nunavut. Or PEI. Or Tennessee. Or Madagascar.

But we don’t. We live in BC. Many, like me, out of choice.

I know I am not going to be waterboarded today. I give thanks for that. ;-)

Its interesting how most ndp,ers think we shouldnt pay taxes ,yet they want all the services. Also they have no respect for businesses. No businesses, no jobs.
Short and simple, ndp get in, BC is in trouble.

“Its interesting how most ndp,ers think we shouldnt pay taxes”

I find it interesting to see that you think that way. That is not the history of the NDP or typical left of centre governments in my experience. As I see it, the key difference is who gets to pay the most taxes and how that is done.

Typical left wing government taxes those who have a better ability to pay more than those who do not.

Right of centre governments tend to require less taxes those who have the ability to pay because they typically invest, run businesses and create jobs. That way there are more people who “work”, get paid, and thus can also pay taxes. Problem with that is that the trickle down effect isn’t trickling down as much as it used to some decades ago, so the divide between the well to do and the not so well to do is getting wider.

So, may it is time for a bit more yang than yin in what should be a balanced yin and yang world.

Left of centre governments believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul. A policy that can’t help but be popular with Paul, even if it eventually reduces Peter to a greater poverty than Paul believes he’s suffering from now. Which is all it really ever seems to do, since the Pauls of our world never seems to come up as far or as fast as Peters come down whenever or wherever a Left-wing government takes office.

Right of centre governments try to protect Peter, tell Paul that no one should ever be made comfortable without being made thoroughly uncomfortable first, and if he’d only work longer and harder he could get up to where Peter is all on his own.

Even if by then Peter is so much further ahead of him again it seems like he’ll still never catch up. And, generally speaking, he won’t. Small wonder poor old Paul gets frustrated, and eventually comes to feel that sharing his wretched position with Peter would be just desserts enough, even if it doesn’t advance him any further economically. After all, we all know “misery likes company”, don’t we? And if life is so materially hopeless for him, well, it should be equally materially hopeless for everyone else, too.

Sadly, neither Peter nor Paul are ever able to separate the ‘moral’ philosophy of a long by-gone era from the ‘economic’ reality of today. A ‘re-distribution’ of “money” through taxation or by other means will NEVER solve the problem Paul faces, the one which he hopes to inflict on Peter as well, so long as “money” in its totality is collectively insufficient relative to the “price values” of all goods and services priced in “money”. So Left of centre governments fail, despite their best intentions, to do anything much more than spread the poverty they should be trying to eliminate, but instead satisfy themselves in representing.

Sort of biased, isn’t it Socredible?

I could very easily rewrite the entire thing in parallel but opposing fashion.

I’ll just give you a taste of the last sentence:

So Left of centre governments fail, despite their best intentions, to do anything much more than spread the poverty they should be trying to eliminate, but instead satisfy themselves in representing.

So Right of centre governments fail, despite their best intentions, to do anything much more than focusing the wealth they should be trying to eliminate, but instead satisfy themselves in representing.

It is an Alice in Wonderland world after all …. ;-)

We could still have BC Rail done without the olympics, without the sae to sky hiway, roof on the dome?, and spent the taxpater money more wisely. But the NDP wqern’t in so we have to wait until May 13 hopefully sooner.

“It is an Alice in Wonderland world after all …”
—————————————-

Sometimes seems that way, doesn’t it? The Left holds that the “poor are poor because the rich are rich”. And the Right, for want of knowing any better, says, “Who cares?”, and then tries its best to confirm it!

It’s actuality the Left’s position is utter nonsense, and could only be true in some world where the actual ability to ‘produce’ was physically limited, and what was produced was all hogged by the ‘rich’.

We could say such a condition might also exist if the quantity of money were fixed and invariable, as if by the laws of Nature. And if one person, or persons, had “too much”, then other people might have “too little”. But if the quantity of money is NOT fixed and invariable?

If we actually lived in that kind of world, then sure, the ‘poor’ might have the same kind of justification in demanding the ‘rich’ share their wealth that a group of people lost in the middle of the Sahara Desert might have in demanding whatever water they had remaining amongst them be equally shared.

It’s a matter of survival, and unless one or more of their number altruistically gives up their share of that water to increase the chances that others might have a better chance of surviving until they’re rescued, their best chance for all to survive is to share.

But if that same group of people were adrift in a lifeboat in the middle of Lake Superior, again unsure of when they might be rescued, and one of them suggested to the others that, “We’d better ration our water,” the rest would look at him like he was nuts!

For they’ve got the largest body of fresh water in the world under their keel, and they couldn’t drink it dry in a thousand years!

And that’s just about where we are with this notion that the ‘re-distribution’ of a systemic INSUFFICIENCY (of ‘money’ itself, relative to total ‘price values’ of actual goods and services expressed in money) will cure anything. It won’t.

We should be facing reality. Our capacity to PRODUCE already far and away exceeds our necessity, and in the majority of instances, even our desire, to CONSUME.

And we keep adding to that productive capacity! Not mainly because we “need more stuff”, but because we need an excuse to distribute incomes in a world that still demands that we should “…let no man eat unless he has first worked.” It’s inane.

It counters the advantages all technological progress has enabled, and perverts what should be a mere means to an end, ‘work’, (to secure for ourselves our daily material needs and desires in the most efficient manner possible), into an end unto itself. Witness the current fixation on ‘jobs’ amongst politicians who never hope to have to do any of the things they’re so anxious to set others to work at.

Now a not too large segment of the population has enough money to buy an ocean going luxury yacht. If we were to tax away their money to the point where none of them could any longer afford to buy such a thing, all that would happen would be that those kind of boats wouldn’t be made any more. And those who were employed making them will be unemployed.

It won’t ever improve the lot of those who can’t afford such a boat now, if they aspire to have one. It simply means no one will have one.

And this simple example can be extrapolated across a whole gamut of goods and services. In the end, all might be ‘equal’. Equally poor. That’s what the Left would have in store for us, and the Right unwittingly aids and abets them in, every chance it gets.

Come on, surely you can do better than the yacht example.

The yacht buyers are taxed so that they can no longer buy yachts, thus putting yacht manufactures out of business and their workforce out of a job.

But the yacht buyers are making their money art some other enterprise which is being taxed. The tax money does not disappear into thin air. It gets applied to some other enterprise which could be either government or private. It could be into research, into providing adequate food, shelter, etc. for those who do not have adequate food, shelter, which then employs people to grow the food, transport the food, sell the food, etc.

When you start a change, you have to follow the change through all the way. If it is a good reinvestment it will generate more turning over of the dollar than yacht building. If it is a poor investment, it will do the opposite.