Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "Pierre Poilievre outlines plan to lower the federal deficit | FULL INTERVIEW" video.

@jayd6098 False, Jay. The reduction" will split according to the angle of the elasticity curve. Currently there is a housing shortage, (in part caused, imho, by speculators investing in houses to be switched into a new rental market) so inelastic supply meets hard necessity-driven demand, and no, the tax reduction will be mostly a give-away to current owners.
1
@carmine6871 "Taxes on houses arguably make up a quarter of the..." Somebody seems to have erased that argument and the evidence for it from your post, Carmine. You did have an argument and evidence for it, didn't you, Carmine? It is just terrible that such an unfortunate thing should happen to all your logical argument and evidence, Carmine. Could you perhaps report the, Carmine? "We'd all love to see the plan." By the way, you say " The top 20% of earners pay more than 2/3rds of all income tax revenues already. " What country are you talking about? If it's the United States the percentage would be 61% of the tax on about 50% of the income -- assuming you believe everything they and the Fraser Institute say about their income, that is. <koff. choke> Must have been something I ate. does anybody have a glass of water. Oh, yeah, taxes: Considering that the bottom ten or twenty percent are bloody poor, that strikes me as a small step in the right direction. Assuming they and the Fraser Institute are telling the truth, that is. But of course we all know the rich are all honest and the Fraser is the very model of a modern major Institute. Uh, Carmine? The evidence?
1
@LivingLifeInToronto " cost 0.05 cents in those times" Um, 0.05 dollars, maybe? But what's a 9,900% error among business-friendly Liberals? You don't mention the amount. My family bought milk from a guy with milk cans in a little wagon pulled by a nice dog. He ladled it out into our milk jug, and we prayed that the stuff wouldn't give us lock-jaw, trichinosis, or the frivelling heebie jeebies, the way it seemed to do to all our conservative neighbours. A good deal of what we are paying for today is the amortisation of genuine costs on superb measures of progress. And rigid and frequent government supervision of the food supply has been a large part of that progress.
1