Well at least you have good class in women... the liberals on the other hand.....

It's been said that in politics there are "...few accidents in the rise of great men to power." The big question here is just WHO the Liberal's next "great man" is going to be? It's NOT going to be Dion, nor Ignatieff, nor Rae, that's for sure. They're all just 'seat-warmers'.

It's also been said that, "Every great leader has been a curse to humankind." And I think there's more than a little truth in that, especially when it come to Liberals.

Even if, here in BC, our "far from great leader" of the same ilk has been the biggest curse this Province has ever been afflicted with.

socredible,I hope that you are not implying that the great leader we have here in BC is Liberal. He is even further right then the great leader that we have in Ottawa.

Cheers

You got that one right Bridge!

That's what he calls himself, Bridge. Of course, I think he's been known to play a little fast and loose with the truth at times. And that's probably a good example of another one of them.

But, on the other hand, he does seem to have a thing for 'carbon taxes' lately, just like the 'real' Liberal guy in Ottawa does.

Strange metamorphosis. Whatever do you suppose ever happened to Gordo's one time chant of, "Tax cuts work!"?

How would we know? Aside from the initial 'one' that was given, (stupidly, I thought~ if he wanted 'stimulus' for a moribund economy at that time he should've cut the Sales Tax), virtually every other tax and fee has risen since he took office.

My guess is that Gordo's crowd have co-opted the "Liberal" moniker in just about the same way a lot of them once used the "Social Credit" one.

It just happened to be the most marketable label-of-convenience to get elected under at the time, and they really cared no more about the 'principles' originally behind "liberalism" any more than they did for the ones behind genuine "social credit".

They're like that Senator from one of the south-eastern US States who concluded a long-winded re-election campaign speech with " ...and them's my principles, folks. And if you don't like 'em, I'll change 'em!" Just like him, they stand for nothing in the hopes we'll fall for anything.

Ignatieff is the only honest liberal in Ottawa IMO.

Socred'ish, I disagree with you on the sales tax.

I think any income under $250,000 should not be taxed at all as a livable income. I think this should be offset with revenue neutral consumption taxes whether it is the carbon tax or some other form of sales tax.

I person should have a right to keep what they earn and pay taxes only when they choose to make a purchase transaction. This way we can build an economy of savings and investments... an economy that would see sovereignty and freedom dominate.

The income (slave) tax economy on the other side of the curtain is one of debt control by bankers for the dependents that are meek for their investments.

Yamcharger on another thread talked about who is going to invest in our economy if not for the multinational corporations (insinuating we should bow for their generosity)? Indeed who will invest in our economy if we don't have an economy built on savings and investment of our own middle class?

I do not capitalize political parties because they are not a person, place, or thing and I sure hope they are not a religion. People need to understand there is a difference between religion and political parties and I do try to highlight this by not capitalizing political parties and capitalizing religion.

I do this because a religion for those that believe in its creed is a person, place, and thing all in one.

A political party however never should be those things... even for those that are in complete agreement with the policies of any given ideological political organization engaged in the pursuit of political office.

A BC liberal, is not a federal liberal, is not an Quebec liberal. A Catholic however is a Catholic and a Jew is a Jew because they have a book of god that binds their faith. All political zionists are not religious Jews, and yet religious Christians and Jews can be zionists (this is very important for anything political involving the Middle East).

Separating political ambition from religious devotion is one of the most important issues of our time and this will never take place as long as we put political parties on the same plane as religions.

AIMHO

PS capitalized Party I think is acceptable and possibly a good solution as it is generic and does not connote fixed rigid ideology and the heretic implications of rigid ideology on a level of gods word.

I actually like the idea of the BC liberal Party , or the n.d.p Party, or the conservative Party.

I'll continue to do that and I hope others will follow.

Socred'ish I think you should have '---' the 'liberal' rather than the 'real'. Just my opinion.

Political ideologies are the decision making tools IMO that is used to guide policy, and religion is the belief system of values that directs that tool.

The two should never be confused because a tool can be altered when it needs to be altered to meet new realities, whereas a belief system should be a foundation of rock that gives insight into how one can predict how the tool would be used. Understanding this all starts in how people identify the difference between the two.

Eagle, the reasons I said that there should have been a cut to the Sales Tax instead of to the Income Tax are as follows.

The desire at the time was to 'stimulate' a BC economy that was moribund as a result of a fall-off in commodity prices due primarily to the 'Asian meltdown' and various other factors. Not the least of which were some of the inanities initiated by the NDP as it tried to learn to govern.

To properly stimulate any economy there must be an increase in CONSUMER spending.

Preferably in a manner that results in a REDUCTION of overall prices paid by the CONSUMER. Otherwise inflation negates the benefits of any stimulus.

A Sales Tax cut that is 'visible', as any cut to BC's Sales Tax would be, reduces the total price paid by EVERY consumer every time he buys something that's taxable.

It is a tax cut that's ONLY effective if the money is spent here in BC, primarily on CONSUMER goods, though to a considerable extent it also reduces the overall cost of taxable CAPITAL goods, too.

The savings for most people through Gordo's Income Tax cut were not large unless they were earning a high income.

If they WERE earning a high income, their propensity to spend on consumer goods is considerably lower than that of those earning a more average income.

The reason is simple ~ they've already bought many, or most, of the taxable consumer goods they need or want. Once you've got your four poster bed, and the mahogany dining room set, the new cabin cruiser, or jet-boat, or motor-home, and a Cadillac or Mercedes, etc., it's going to be awhile, if ever, before you buy another one.

The well-to-do don't, as a general rule, spend endlessly. They "invest" their surplus funds, to try to make more. And, at the time of Gordo's tax cut, BC was way down the list of places that looked like a good spot to park your surplus dough for a "globally competitive" return on it.

I would say my income was about average, and the difference between my take-home pay before and after Campbell's income tax cut amounted to $ 9 per week. That's around $ 450 per year, which, as I recall, was what the predicted average saving would be.

The rise in Medicare premiums, coupled with the reduction in medical services covered, an increase in driver's licence renewal fees, a half per cent INCREASE in the Sales Tax, (later removed), more and higher environmental levies, etc., etc., to name just a FEW of what came later, MORE than removed my savings in the reduction of Income Tax. And then some.

"Tax cuts work!", alright, but they ONLY work the way they're supposed to if we actually get one. A real one, not what Gordo gave us.

Now having said that, so far as taxes in general are concerned, with the present flaw in cost-accountancy as it applies to the WHOLE economy remaining uncorrected, virtually ALL TAXES ARE ROBBERY.

Again the reason is simple. We are being taxed, however it's done, on incomes which have ALREADY APPEARED in a "cost" of some good or service.

All "costs" enter "prices", and are liquidated on the sale of the product when the principal portion of the Bank loan from which they originated "out of nothing", as the saying goes, is repaid, and goes back to the "nothing" from whence it came.

When you remove in tax a portion of the 'money' that's been paid out as an 'income' to someone, you are making the already existing disparity between the rate of flow of 'incomes' and the rate of flow of 'prices' even greater. (It's "already existing" primarily because of ongoing generic 'labour displacement' throughout the whole economy.)

The only way that disparity can be alleviated, at present, is by increasing new credit issued from the banking system as debt. But, as each new debt is "costed" into some future production, that only defers the problem.

If this problem were corrected, I would have no objection to a flat-rate income tax coupled with a sales tax to fund the services best provided by government.

Neither, if we properly correct the flaw I mentioned would amount to any more than a small fraction of what we're currently paying.

With that flaw uncorrected, however, we're in the wonderful position of collectively never being able to get out of debt, and an ever greater percentage of our incomes will continue to be eaten up in taxes for which the services provided will continually become less and less.