Comments by "Pac Man" (@pacman3556) on "CP24" channel.

  1. 194
  2. 169
  3. 58
  4. 46
  5. 44
  6. 41
  7. 40
  8. 35
  9. 35
  10. 34
  11. 33
  12. 31
  13. 31
  14. 30
  15. 25
  16. 23
  17. 23
  18. 23
  19. 23
  20. 23
  21. 23
  22. 22
  23. 21
  24. 21
  25. 20
  26. 20
  27. 20
  28. 20
  29. 20
  30. 18
  31. 18
  32. 18
  33. 17
  34. 17
  35. 17
  36. 17
  37. 17
  38. 17
  39. 16
  40. 16
  41. 16
  42. 15
  43. 15
  44. 15
  45. 15
  46. 15
  47. 15
  48. 15
  49. 14
  50. 14
  51. 14
  52. 14
  53. 14
  54. 14
  55. 14
  56. 13
  57. 13
  58. 13
  59. 13
  60. 13
  61. 13
  62. 13
  63. 13
  64. 12
  65. 12
  66. 12
  67. 12
  68. 12
  69. 12
  70. 12
  71. 11
  72. 11
  73. 11
  74. 11
  75. 11
  76. 11
  77. 11
  78. 11
  79. 11
  80. 11
  81. 11
  82. 11
  83. 11
  84. 11
  85. 11
  86. 11
  87. 11
  88. 11
  89. 10
  90. 10
  91. 10
  92. 10
  93. 10
  94. 10
  95. 10
  96. 10
  97. 10
  98. 10
  99. 10
  100. 10
  101. 10
  102. 10
  103. 10
  104. 10
  105. 10
  106. 9
  107. 9
  108. 9
  109. 9
  110. 9
  111. 9
  112. 9
  113. 9
  114. 9
  115. 9
  116. 9
  117. 9
  118. 9
  119. 9
  120. 8
  121. 8
  122. 8
  123. 8
  124. 8
  125. 8
  126. 8
  127. 8
  128. 8
  129. 8
  130. 8
  131. 8
  132. 8
  133. 8
  134. 8
  135. 8
  136. 8
  137. 8
  138. 8
  139. 8
  140. 8
  141. 8
  142. 8
  143. 8
  144. 8
  145. 8
  146. 8
  147. 7
  148. 7
  149. 7
  150. 7
  151. 7
  152. 7
  153. 7
  154. 7
  155. 7
  156. 7
  157. 7
  158. 7
  159. 7
  160. 7
  161. 7
  162. 7
  163. 7
  164. 7
  165. 7
  166. 7
  167. 7
  168. 7
  169. 7
  170. 7
  171. 7
  172. 7
  173. 7
  174. 7
  175. 7
  176. 7
  177. 7
  178. 7
  179. 6
  180. 6
  181. 6
  182. 6
  183. 6
  184. 6
  185. 6
  186. 6
  187. 6
  188. 6
  189. 6
  190. 6
  191. 6
  192. 6
  193. Small business owners don't seem to understand what is going on: 1- Small businesses follow business tax laws not personal income tax laws that the inclusion rate is on. 2- Small businesses make their money from selling a good or service which is 100% taxable not a capital gain. When small business owners pay themselves it is like a wage or salary so that is considered personal income that is 100% taxable. It is not a capital gain 3- Small business owners make their money including their retirement fund from the goods or services they sell. They save their entire life time from income earned selling a good or service. They shouldn't rely on the sale of their business for income (doesn't make sense how do you make a living if the thing you use to make a living needs to be sold) 4- the vast majority of assets in a business go down or depreciate over time. They don't usually go up. Equipment, cars, office furniture etc etc all depreciate over time. Owners are allowed to write off that depreciation on their income statement which lowers the amount they earn....in other words they are getting a tax break on the depreciation of their assets by lowering the taxable amount of income. Now they want a tax break on assets that go up also? 5- if someone actually is making a capital gain on the sale of their business then they should pay taxes on that gain. Everyone that works at a job has their income taxed and have their savings for retirement taxed. Even when people put the money in an RRSP it is taxed when it is removed so why should someone that owns a business be allowed a tax free retirement plan when everyone else has to pay tax? How is that fair? Even with the change to the inclusion rate instead of paying taxes on only 50% of their income (from the capital gain) they will now have to pay 65%. Everyone else pays 100% on their income. So it is about time they pay an equal share. 6- a capital gain is not realized until you sell the asset to determine what that gain is so people that own a small business will continue to operate their business as they always have been and it won't effect them at all. It is not until they sell the business that they determine what the value is and if it is a gain or loss. So nobody that needs their business to survive will close down their business because of this change. And when they do retire and sell the business if there is a gain then it goes to the points above- they should pay the same for their retirement fund as everyone else.
    6
  194. 6
  195. 6
  196. 6
  197. 6
  198. 6
  199. 6
  200. 6
  201. 6
  202. 6
  203. 6
  204. 6
  205. 6
  206. you are either confused or full of $hit. 1- Firefighters have never been told to deal with domestic disputes. If you call 911 for a domestic dispute (or any other emergency) the dispatcher automatically sends police, fire and ambulance so you are correct that fire (along with police and ambulance) are dispatched to a domestic disturbance call. However fire and ambulance crews are not trained to secure any crime scenes. Whether is is a domestic dispute, an armed robbery, a gang shooting etc fire and ambulance are specifically trained not to enter the crime scene until the police have gone in and secured the scene. Going into a scene before police not only can put their lives in danger but it can contaminate a crime scene. 2- no fire fighter does traffic stops. It is not part of their job. Not only would their traffic tickets not hold up in court but it is hard to believe their union would even accept the responsibility of doing traffic stops (1- they don't have time and 2- they are not trained in it). Are you really trying to suggest you have seen a fire truck full of fire fighters running down the highway pulling over speeders? 3- all 911 calls are "classified" or at least withheld from the public because what is said on those calls is evidence that can be used in court. Also why do you think you even have the right to listen to the calls? You are a pathetic nobody so why do you feel so special that you need to listen to the calls? 4- firefighters didn't go into the house. The police went in. They clearly say it was police that went into the house. Not once did they even mention anything about fire fighters. That is why it was police officers and not fire fighters that were shot. Did you even watch this video? You don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about.
    6
  207. 6
  208. 6
  209. 6
  210. 6
  211. 6
  212. 6
  213. 6
  214. 6
  215. 6
  216. 6
  217. 6
  218. 6
  219. 6
  220. 6
  221. 6
  222. 5
  223. 5
  224. 5
  225. 5
  226. 5
  227. 5
  228. 5
  229. 5
  230. 5
  231. 5
  232. 5
  233. 5
  234. 5
  235. 5
  236. 5
  237. 5
  238. 5
  239. 5
  240. 5
  241. 5
  242. 5
  243. 5
  244. 5
  245. 5
  246. 5
  247. 5
  248. 5
  249. 5
  250. 5
  251. 5
  252. 5
  253. 5
  254. 5
  255. 5
  256. 5
  257. 5
  258. 5
  259. 5
  260. 5
  261. 5
  262. 5
  263. 5
  264. 5
  265. 5
  266. 5
  267. 5
  268. 5
  269. 5
  270. 5
  271. 5
  272. 5
  273. 5
  274. 5
  275. 5
  276. 5
  277. 5
  278. 5
  279. 5
  280. 5
  281. 5
  282. 5
  283. 5
  284. 5
  285. 5
  286. 4
  287. 4
  288. 4
  289. 4
  290. 1:35-- BS not a new tax or 66% tax. It is an INCLUSION RATE. To explain (high level) how it works: Currently Person A earns $100K a year in income (wages, salary, sell of goods or services). 100% of that income is fully taxable. The tax rate is about 33% so Person A pays about $33K a year in taxes ($100K times by 33%) Person B earns the same $100K a year however they earn it from Capital Gains (buy an asset at low price and sell it higher price). The INCLUSION RATE is 50% which means person B is allowed to deduct 50% of their income and only pay taxes on 50% of their income. At the same tax rate of 33% Person B only pays $16,500 (100K minus 50K or 50%= 50K times by 33%) Person B pays half of what Person A pays even though they earn the same amount. How is that fair? What the changes does is Person A remains the same- nothing changes because their income is not capital gains and they pay $33K a year in taxes The change is to the INCLUSION RATE that Person B is allowed to deduct from their income. Person B can now only deduct 34% of their income (100 minus 66) instead of 50% so now they pay $21,780 (100K times 66% equals 66K that they claim as income times by 33% tax rate= $21,780) Person B after the change to the inclusion rate STILL PAYS LESS then Person A. Which is still unfair but at least they are starting to pay more of their fair share. High income earners like doctors, lawyers, skilled laborers, business owners etc etc ARE NOT EFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE because their income is through wages or salary or the sale of a good or service ALL OF WHICH ARE FULLY TAXABLE sources of income Only extremely rich people are effected by this and it is time they start to pay their fair share. Also NOTE- my example is on $100K to be more accurate this only applies to Capital Gains over $245K it doesn't even effect the first $100K In order to earn more than $245K a year in Capital Gains you need to have around $3M invested with an average rate of return at 8%. The average Canadian does not have $3M a year invested each and every year and don't make 8% each and every year. Only very rich people have this type of money to invest. The rest of Canadians need their money to pay for food, rent, mortgage etc. THIS WILL NOT EFFECT 95% of Canadians. IT IS TIME RICH PEOPLE PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE
    4
  291. 4
  292. 4
  293. 4
  294. 4
  295. 4
  296. 4
  297. 4
  298. 4
  299. 4
  300. 4
  301. 4
  302. 4
  303. 4
  304. 4
  305. 4
  306. 4
  307. 4
  308. 4
  309. 4
  310. 4
  311. 4
  312. 4
  313. 4
  314. 4
  315. 4
  316. 4
  317. 4
  318. 4
  319. 4
  320. 4
  321. 4
  322. 4
  323. 4
  324. 4
  325. 4
  326. 4
  327. 4
  328. 4
  329. 4
  330. 4
  331. 4
  332. 4
  333. 4
  334. 4
  335. 4
  336. 4
  337. 4
  338. 4
  339. 4
  340. 4
  341. 4
  342. 4
  343. I am not a tax expert and others here may have described it better than I can but currently only 50% of capital gains is taxed and it is taxed at the marginal tax rate that a person falls into. Example of you make $100K in capital gains you only pay taxes on half of that (or $50K) and of that $50K that you are taxed on you are only taxed at your marginal tax rate which would be around 33%. So if you make $100K in capital gains income you would end up paying around only $16-17K in total income taxes ($50K times by 33% tax rate). Now compare that to someone that earns $100K in income through a job. That same $100K is completely taxable and would be at the same marginal tax rate so someone earning $100K through a job would pay around $33K in taxes Both examples someone earns the same amount of money but in the first example someone that doesn't work but earns money through an investment pays about half of what an individual does making the same amount of money working at a job. What the govt would like to do is change the total amount of capital gains that can be taxed from 50% to 66% so the person that making money through capital gains pays taxes on $66K instead of only $50K thereby making them pay more in taxes or a closer amount in taxes then someone that actually earns the same amount through income or a job. The reason behind this is rich people tend to make more money through passive investments or capital gains vs the average employee that makes their money through working at a job. It is a way to make rich people pay more of their fair share (i.e. why should someone working a full time job pay more than a rich person not working at all for the same income). Nobody is going after a working person making $100K or more. And nobody is going give up 50% or 66% of their total income (whether a job or capital gains) in taxes. This is just decreasing the amount people can write off from their income because it is a capital gain. Yes I know this is very simple in terms. It is more complex and because it is a marginal tax rate 33% is just the final bracket. There are ranges (15% for under 55K, 20%- 55 to around 100K etc). Also people can put money into things like RRSP and other deductibles to help lower their income and tax rate etc. but this was just meant to be simple for explanation purposes.
    4
  344. 4
  345. 4
  346. 4
  347. 4
  348. 4
  349. 4
  350. 4
  351. 4
  352. 4
  353. 4
  354. 4
  355. 4
  356. 4
  357. 4
  358. 4
  359. 4
  360. 4
  361. 4
  362. 4
  363. 4
  364. 4
  365. 4
  366. 4
  367. 4
  368. 4
  369. 4
  370. 4
  371. 4
  372. 4
  373. 4
  374. 4
  375. 4
  376. 4
  377. 4
  378. 4
  379. 4
  380. 4
  381. 4
  382. 4
  383. 4
  384. 4
  385. 4
  386. 4
  387. 4
  388. 4
  389. 4
  390. 4
  391.  @UzumakiNaruto_  1- nobody ever said we should give homeless people a nice little condo. I have worked in homeless shelters. They pack those people in 20 to a room. When it is cold outside they have people literally lying on the floors in the hallways. Do you know how many people you could fit in a 50 story building? You could probably put every homeless person in Toronto into one building 2- " get a big warehouse and put up some drywall so that every person can get their own one room space" We already do that. Look up Seaton House- homeless shelter for men. There is an entire system of shelters ranging from near criminal men and women to families to beaten and abused women to old people. 3- "so many other people with jobs can't get one?" A lot of the reason why people with jobs can't get a condo is because of a lack of affordable housing. In the past the govt would build affordable housing/ buildings that would give people with low incomes places to live. The govt doesn't build enough buildings anymore but low income families have not gone away. Instead what the govt does is let low income families rent condos and the govt provides the landlord with subsidizes to cover the extra rent. A low income family will live in a new condo and pay a calculated rent from their own pocket based on income (say $500) but the landlord can rent the condo for $2500 (probably more) a month so the govt sends a cheque directly to the landlord for the extra $2000 This creates a situation in which we have a shortage of supply for people that do have jobs and drives up the price. Landlords can buy condos and rent them out with guaranteed income from the govt. If the govt built more low income housing to take people out of the condos then that would create more supply of condos. As a result the landlords or condo builders would need to adjust their pricing to fill those now empty condos. It is simple economics. Provide more supply and price will adjust until it equals demand. The govt can and should create more supply You can cry all you want but low income families will always exist. They need places to live.
    4
  392. 4
  393. 4
  394. 4
  395. 4
  396. 4
  397. 4
  398. 4
  399. 4
  400. 4
  401. 4
  402. 4
  403. 4
  404. 4
  405. 4
  406. 4
  407. 4
  408. 4
  409. 4
  410. 4
  411. 4
  412. 4
  413. 4
  414. 4
  415. 4
  416. 4
  417. 4
  418. 4
  419. 4
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422. 4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. 4
  428. 3
  429. 3
  430. 3
  431. 3
  432. 3
  433. 3
  434. 3
  435. 3
  436. 3
  437. 3
  438. 3
  439. 3
  440. 3
  441. 3
  442. 3
  443. 3
  444. 3
  445. 3
  446. 3
  447. 3
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 3
  461. 3
  462. 3
  463. 3
  464. 3
  465. 3
  466. 3
  467. 3
  468. 3
  469. 3
  470. 3
  471. 3
  472. 3
  473. 3
  474. 3
  475. 3
  476. 3
  477. 3
  478. 3
  479. 3
  480. 3
  481. 3
  482. 3
  483. 3
  484. 3
  485. 3
  486. 3
  487. 3
  488. 3
  489. 3
  490. 3
  491. 3
  492. 3
  493. 3
  494. 3
  495. 3
  496. 3
  497. 3
  498. 3
  499. 3
  500. 3
  501. 3
  502. 3
  503. 3
  504. 3
  505. 3
  506. 3
  507. 3
  508. 3
  509. 3
  510. 3
  511. 3
  512. 3
  513. 3
  514. 3
  515. 3
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519. 3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586.  @kdejvviihd6439  1- providing the service of a place to live is not housing hostage for your full earnings. If you are paying your full earnings to a landlord then you chose the wrong place to live. Providing a service like a place to live is no different than an accountant providing a service like maintaining a companies books. You don't seem to understand how economics works 2- who cares how landlords look at housing. They can look at it as an investment if they want too. While they are investing in a property they are providing you a place to live. 3- prices are determined by supply and demand just like anything else. Not by landlords. If landlords are creating demand then builders need to build more housing. Simple economics 4- Most boomers have probably already paid off their mortgages. They were extremely low compared to today's prices and they started their mortgages decades ago so most boomers have probably already paid off their mortgage. However your statement has no relevance at all 5- sure my statement was "simple". And yes housing is more complex then my simple statement made it out to be however I could write books on the topic. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of books on basic to complex economics that I could try to write here however for the sake of simplicity I put it in as simple terms as possible. I am more than willing to get more complex. However the more complex things become the less likely people reading it will understand and will go into little hissy fits.
    3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645.  @UzumakiNaruto_  1- "That's why what I proposed involves giving every homeless person their own room that's their own space" So you want the same thing except you want a sprawling warehouse instead a tower that can take up less of a footprint. But sure you can make arguments over towers also Also we already do have warehouse type of facilities. As already suggested just look up the Seaton house style of homeless housing. 2- "Did it ever occur to you maybe THAT'S WHY the system is dumb and is failing when you don't separate people and properly send them to the appropriate facilities and provide them with the proper services?" "Would it really be that difficult to send people who are simply down on their luck, but don't have any serious addiction or mental or violence issues to the facility I mentioned above where they can have their own space and get the services to get them back on their feet quickly?" You need to learn to read. We do do that. We do separate people There is a shelter for men that are just out of or nearly in prison (dealers, drug addicts etc) There is a shelter for women that is the same as men just out of or nearly in prision (addicts, prostitutes etc) There is a shelter for men and another for women that are in reform trying to enter back into society (just out of prison, just out of rehab etc) There is a shelter for women that were in abusive relationships. There is nothing wrong with them at all and many have jobs etc however they are fleeing from an abusive situation and need a place to live There is a shelter for families. There is nothing wrong with them they just fell on hard times (lost a job) and need a place to stay until they find a place to live There is a shelter for old men and another for old women. And although they are not considered shelters there is an entire system of of old age homes run by the city for people that cannot afford a retirement home on their own There already is a system that we separate people and provide them with shelter and help Again look up Seaton house and our homeless shelters in Toronto. 3- "You know what else would lower housing costs? BRING IN LESS PEOPLE INTO THE COUNTRY" So basically what you are saying is you are just a racist pile of dog $hit. 4- "they purchase that they don't live in and are simply using as income properties." That is somewhat what I said. When the govt pays landlords to lease their condos to low income families it reduces the supply of available condos to people that want to buy them and don't qualify for govt assistance. If the govt built more low income buildings and removed the people from the condos into the buildings it would open up more supply available to people that want to buy a condo and the market for housing would correct itself without the need for govt intervention. Again it is simple economics. Create more supply and remove demand and prices will adjust until supply and demand equal each other. It is basic economics 5- "Lowering the amount of people competing for homes" Yes exactly what I said by removing the people that are in condos that really should be in govt provided low income buildings. 6- "increasing the supply in new housing " Yes exactly what I said. Govt provided low income buildings will move low income families out of condos into the buildings and open up the supply of condos to those that want to buy them to live in instead of as an investment. 7- "they're probably using for income and investment would go a long way towards easing the housing problems that we have. That is more or less what I said. The only difference is this is a free market and a capitalist country so we cannot and should not encourage people to not invest. Everyone has the right to invest their money where they want too. However the govt can adjust the supply and demand factors of housing by creating more low income housing which will offset supply and demand creating less of an incentive for people to invest in condos to rent or lease. You say almost the exact same thing as I do you however want direct govt involvement where it isn't necessary and you are racist
    3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 3
  716. 3
  717. 3
  718. 3
  719. 3
  720. 3
  721. 3
  722. 3
  723. 3
  724. 3
  725. 3
  726. 3
  727. 3
  728. 3
  729. 3
  730. 3
  731. 3
  732. 3
  733. 3
  734. 3
  735. 3
  736. 3
  737. 3
  738. 3
  739. 3
  740. 3
  741. 3
  742. 3
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. Forcing grocery stores to donate excess food to food banks sounds good in theory but may actually backfire at helping people in need and lower income people (and even all consumers). If the govt forces grocery stores to start donating any excess inventory to food banks then grocery stores will stop "taking a risk" by bringing in a large amount of inventory that they may need to give away. They may start reducing the amount of inventory they carry which essentially cuts the amount of supply. Basic economics is when supply is cut but demand is not cut then prices increase. If stores stop carrying enough product for everyone then prices increase as more people "compete" for fewer goods. While it can be argued that grocery stores currently already throw out excess inventory so it shouldn't be any different whether it is thrown away vs given away by giving food away instead of throwing it away it creates an incentive for customers to not buy from the grocery store but wait until the grocery store donates it to the food bank then go get it for free from the food bank. In other words by throwing food away it reduces the supply available. By giving it away the supply is not cut it is just shifted from a store that sells it at a price to another outlet that sells it at a lower price (or in this case the food bank that gives it away at the price of zero). Another potential way to phrase what I am saying or look at it is currently food banks are in short supply so most people (maybe through altruism?) don't go to the food bank unless they absolutely need too. And if everyone did go to a food bank when it is in short supply then the food bank system would collapse. However if grocery stores start over supplying food banks it reduces the incentive for people to not go there (the "altruist" factor is removed) and the food bank becomes a good place to go to get free stuff. And with a vast supply the food bank is no longer at risk of collapsing. They could just give away as much as they wanted while grocery stores see sales drop. It is about trying to balance supply and demand. I am not saying my answer is absolutely correct but there will be economic factors that would come into play and change the balance of supply and demand when more free goods are introduced into the system. Simple supply and demand curves show that people (demand) goes towards the lower cost items so the lower the price...in this example no cost or free at the food bank would start to change the buying behaviours of consumers. As more consumers go to free items grocery stores would see lower demand (sales). Since they control supply in order to not lose demand they can try to "artificially" keep prices high by reducing the supply available (i.e. less supply left over going to food banks or less free food available). It would be interesting to see a more in depth economic study into how the balance would change and how suppliers would react if they were forced to create more "free" goods available to people. Another thought-- if we want govt intervention because we don't think that the supply and demand curves are not being properly balanced through the open market a better solution may be to break up the oligopolies that control our food supply. If we had a proper open free market then suppliers would enter and exit the market in order to meet the fluctuations in demand. We don't have a proper open free system in Canada. The vast majority of our production and whole sale of food is control by a small few companies-- large companies instead of small farmers now control a lot of our production/ agriculture, a few large companies like Kraft or Coca Cola etc control the vast majority of produced foods, there are only three large companies that own all the slaughter houses for meat production etc. And at the grocery store level there are only three major retailers- Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys- while there are lots of different store names "No Frills" "Food Basics" "Fresh Co" etc they are all banners owned by these major three. Break up the oligopolies that control our enter food system from production to retail sales and create a more open competitive market and the dynamics between supply and demand will change. That would probably do more to help lower prices and everyone then just donating to food banks but again that is just some high level thoughts. It would be interesting to see a more in depth economic study.
    2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. For everyone trying to argue that this is a tax on the middle class and nobody should pay 67% tax needs to learn the tax system and stop listening to politicians that are lying to you to gain your vote. NOBODY pays 67% or 50% tax rate. This is the INCLUSION rate. The highest MARGINAL tax rate that anyone pays is 33% and this only applies to people making over $243K a year. The average person in our country only pays about 29% marginal tax rate To give you an example of how it works: If you make $100K per year at a job that income is 100% taxable. If you have a marginal tax rate of 33% then you pay $33K per year in taxes If someone makes the same $100K per year through capital gains they are allowed to deduct 50% of that income and only need to pay taxes on 50% of the taxes. So $100K times 50%= $50K in income that taxes need to be paid on. $50K times by the same 33% marginal tax rate= $16,500 So basically someone making 100K at a job has to pay $33K a year in taxes while someone making the same amount of money per year but in capital gains pays $16K a year half of what someone working a job does. The average worker does not make their money through capital gains they make it through a job so 100% of their income is taxed. The average rich person makes their money through capital gains so the average rich person is allowed to write off 50% of their income and pay taxes on only 50% of their income. The proposed increase is not on the taxes paid but on the amount that rich people (or people making money through capital gains) are allowed to write off. Instead of writing off 50% they are only allowed to write off 33% (meaning they have to pay taxes on 67% of that income which is still less then the 100% you pay on your income working at a job). So this is making rich people pay their fair share. Why should you pay tax on 100% of your income just because you got that money working at a job while someone else pays taxes on only 50% (or half their income) just because they made that money from passive income or passive investments? Another thing to note is the increase in the inclusion rate only applies to capital gains over $243K per year so this only effects the super rich. This will not effect 90% of our people. Stop being fooled. NOTE- my examples were very basic for math and explanation purposes. There are a wide variety of factors that effect income and what people pay. However many of those factors further help the rich. Example poor people are less likely to save in an RRSP while rich people use their capital gains and put them into RRSPs that further lowers their taxable income. Also rich people tend to earn more of their income through dividends then people working at a jog. And dividends are very similar to capital gains- dividends also have an inclusion rate of only around 60% (meaning people making money on dividends only pay taxes on 60% of those earnings). Overall the average rich person only pays somewhere around 25% of their income while the average middle class person pays around 30-33% and that is just income taxes. When you factor in all other taxes (GST, PST, Property taxes, gas taxes, liquor taxes etc etc etc) the average middle class person pays about 60% of their income to the govt (of all levels) through some form of tax while a rich person only pays around 40% or less. I don't recall the exact numbers but studies and reports have proven this. Why are we middle and working class people forced to pay 60% of our earnings in taxes while rich people only have to pay 40% of their earnings in taxes? It is time rich people pay their fair share.
    2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. @geekinasuit 1- people take risks and it is people that have money that can afford to take more risk....why should a rich person be allowed to pay less in taxes because he has the ability to play the stock market and take risks Also most rich people have advisors that lower their risks so they don't face the same risks the average person that doesn't have an advisor. Overall you want to take risks that is up to you. You make money great....pay taxes on it. What you don't realize is you lose money that is a capital lose and people get to write that off also. So either way someone pays less in taxes. Not really far to the working person 2- small business owners have nothing to do with this. they don't make their money from capital gains each year. 3- the govt gives plenty of breaks. And it seems the bigger the corporation the bigger the breaks.....you forgetting about corps like GM that took billions in loans so they wouldn't go bankrupt only to take the money then close the factories anyway? Look up how much money are these new car battery factories getting. The list goes on. 4- when you sell and retire you should pay taxes on that retirement fund. The rest of us work our entire life time paying taxes on our retirement funds or we pay taxes on our RRSPs when we cash them out so why should we pay taxes on our retirement while someone else pays less or has a tax free retirement? How is that fair? 5- stick to employment is a personal choice. Everyone makes their personal choice based on ones own needs, desires etc. How one makes a living is completely up to them.....the point is not how one makes a living but that we should all pay the same fair share in taxes on what we earn. Allowing people to write off income on capital gains over $243K a year not only makes the tax system less fair but it makes it more advantagous to rich people and makes the middle class pay more.
    2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. In theory the carbon tax is "good" at reducing pollution or climate change by making the things that create climate change more expensive (i.e. people will use less of it). However the thing our incompetent politicians didn't think through is there is no viable option. If things like electric cars were readily available at affordable prices that make it an easy swap to go from a gas car to an electric car then in theory this would be "good". The problem is we don't have anything to easily swap too. There is not an abundance of things like electric trucks or ships or planes so no matter what people will still need to use these carbon producing products. So essentially this is just a cash grab. Also our politicians are too inept to realize that things like cars now-a-days are far more fuel and emission efficient. Yes there is still room for improvement and in time we could with more options swap to other alternatives. However we could remove all carbon producing products from our lives and it still will not make a dent or have any impact on what the top 100 producing carbon companies in the world produce. I don't recall the exact number but it is something like 85-90% of all carbon production is produced by only 100 top companies in the world. Every single Canadian can stop driving tomorrow and it won't have an effect until these 100 companies from other countries stop their carbon production (and yes some are also inside Canada mainly in the Alberta oil sands). Until viable options become available that is affordable to everyone and the top 100 companies reduce their emissions then this tax is nothing more than a cash grab
    2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062.  @butwhytharum  yes sole proprietorship is one form of business. Partnership is another form of business. In both cases the business owner(s) (usually) pays themselves in some for of wages that is fully taxed. Another form of business is a corporation....business owners can pay themselves through dividends if they are a share holder. So you want to start talking dividends? Because dividends are like capital gains. Individuals are allowed to claim a certain percentage of income made through dividends on their PERSONAL income taxes. In other words just like capital gains there is also an INCLUSION RATE on dividends (not the total tax paid on a capital gain or dividend- that is the MARGINAL TAX rate) 1- dividends are not capital gains. So a change in the inclusion rate on a capital gain will still not effect the income of a small business owner nor will it effect the daily operation of the business 2- people are allowed to deduct somewhere around 35% of income from dividends from their PERSONAL income taxes. To put it into easy to understand examples: Person A makes $100K in salary or wages- that income is fully taxed at the marginal tax rate of about 33%- so they pay 100K times by 33%= $33K in taxes that they pay to the govt Person B makes the same $100K but from dividends. This person is allowed to write off 35% of that income and only pay on 65% of the income. So they pay the following- $100K times by 65%= $65K that they claim as income. If they fall into the same marginal tax rate they pay about 33% in taxes or $65K times by 33%= $21450 in taxes to the govt Looks like small business owner paying themselves in dividends is getting a tax break compared to the person making the same amount in wages However how is any of that relevant? This is about capital gains and capital gains regardless of the type of business is not realized until the asset is sold to determine if there was a gain or lose and what the amount is. How a business owner pays themselves annually, weekly, etc is not relevant. They are not paying themselves in the form of a capital gain. You don't seem to understand what a capital gain or what an inclusion rate is or how it is applied/ calculated on a PERSONAL (not business) tax form.
    2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. Anyone that believes this BS needs to learn your tax system and the difference between income earned through wages, salary or the sale of goods & services and a capital gain. I don't support Trudeau but this is not a political stance. This is fact on how our tax laws and personal income taxes work. Currently people that make over $243K a year in capital gains can claim 50% of that income as tax free income and pay taxes on only half that income. Compared to people that make income from any other form of income (wages, salary, sale of an item etc) that pays taxes on 100% of their income. Business owners do not make their money through capital gains. They are not effected by this change. They make their money through the sale of a good or services which is 100% taxable income. If you want to hate the liberals....go right ahead that is your right to free speech....but it doesn't change how our tax system works You want to talk political philosophy.....go right ahead.....but it has nothing to do with how capital gains on personal income works You can talk whatever you want but learn the tax laws and what capital gains are and what an inclusion rate is (not a tax rate). Don't let politicians (from any party) fool you into believing BS. Educate yourself and learn instead of just repeating what other people tell you so they can get elected. THIS WILL NOT EFFECT 95% of CANADIANS INCLUDING SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. THIS WILL ONLY EFFECT THE RICH AND IT IS TIME THEY START PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES.
    2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. Anyone that believes this BS needs to learn your tax system and the difference between income earned through wages, salary or the sale of goods & services and a capital gain. I don't support Trudeau but this is not a political stance. This is fact on how our tax laws and personal income taxes work. Currently people that make over $243K a year in capital gains can claim 50% of that income as tax free income and pay taxes on only half that income. Compared to people that make income from any other form of income (wages, salary, sale of an item etc) that pays taxes on 100% of their income. Business owners do not make their money through capital gains. They are not effected by this change. They make their money through the sale of a good or services which is 100% taxable income. If you want to hate the liberals....go right ahead that is your right to free speech....but it doesn't change how our tax system works You want to talk political philosophy.....go right ahead.....but it has nothing to do with how capital gains on personal income works You can talk whatever you want but learn the tax laws and what capital gains are and what an inclusion rate is (not a tax rate). Don't let politicians (from any party) fool you into believing BS. Educate yourself and learn instead of just repeating what other people tell you so they can get elected. THIS WILL NOT EFFECT 95% of CANADIANS INCLUDING SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. THIS WILL ONLY EFFECT THE RICH AND IT IS TIME THEY START PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES.
    2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278.  @garrettjames5673  1- 3D printers are not capable of printing the internal parts of a gun. You still need a legal gun for those parts And the vast majority of crime is committed with a standard gun 2- your example of 3D printed guns just reinforces that strict gun laws and banning guns works 3- we do ban lots of different types of knives. However comparing a gun to a knife is ignorant at best 4- zip guns are cheap guns made out of pipes. The guy in Japan had to be practically standing next to the other guy in order to kill him. They are cheap and not always accurate, don't hold as many rounds etc . They are not as comparable to a standard handgun. Your point is moot. It goes to point 1 above. The vast majority of guns used in crime are standard guns However like the 3D printed gun zip guns prove that strict gun laws and banning guns works 5- yes the Swiss have compulsory military training. You don't. Swiss training along with their mentality make them safer owning a gun. If you had to have mandatory military training I would be more open to gun laws however 1- Canadians would see that as against their rights to be forced into the military therefore the average Canadian is not trained the same way as the Swiss. and 2- Canada has more influence from the US. While Canadians are different people then the US there are some people or groups that share similar ideas as the US and we see a lot of US culture that many fools try to mimic in Canada. While Canadians are different then the US we still have our fools that are not capable of being responsible with a weapon. Comparing Canada to the Swiss is a completely different culture. If our culture we the same then things might be different here. Also the firearms that the Swiss own are the rifles they are assigned in their military training or for hunting. Most of their firearms are long barrel firearms. Not handguns. And they don't have a lot of concealled and carry permits. In other words they are not walking around the streets with hidden handguns. When they do bring them out they are easily seen
    2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. The people- "boo hoo we pay too much in taxes" Govt- "OK we have two hospitals both half empty. We will close one and use one to its full use and save money" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to close hospitals" Govt- "Ok then we will leave them open but we will have to borrow money to keep them open" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to go into debt or pay for anything" Govt- "Ok then we have to close a hospital" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to close a hospital" Govt- "Ok if you don't want debt and don't want to close a hospital then we have to raise taxes to pay for them" The people- "boo hoo we pay too much in taxes" Govt- "OK we have two hospitals both half empty. We will close one and use one to its full use and save money" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to close hospitals" Govt- "Ok then we will leave them open but we will have to borrow money to keep them open" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to go into debt or pay for anything" Govt- "Ok then we have to close a hospital" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to close a hospital" Govt- "Ok if you don't want debt and don't want to close a hospital then we have to raise taxes to pay for them" The people- "boo hoo we pay too much in taxes" Govt- "OK we have two hospitals both half empty. We will close one and use one to its full use and save money" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to close hospitals" Govt- "Ok then we will leave them open but we will have to borrow money to keep them open" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to go into debt or pay for anything" Govt- "Ok then we have to close a hospital" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to close a hospital" Govt- "Ok if you don't want debt and don't want to close a hospital then we have to raise taxes to pay for them" The people- "boo hoo we pay too much in taxes" Govt- "OK we have two hospitals both half empty. We will close one and use one to its full use and save money" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to close hospitals" Govt- "Ok then we will leave them open but we will have to borrow money to keep them open" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to go into debt or pay for anything" Govt- "Ok then we have to close a hospital" The people- "boo hoo but we don't want to close a hospital" Govt- "Ok if you don't want debt and don't want to close a hospital then we have to raise taxes to pay for them"
    2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401. 2
  1402. 2
  1403. 2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414. 2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. 2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 2
  1424. 2
  1425. 2
  1426. 2
  1427. 2
  1428. 2
  1429. 2
  1430. 2
  1431. 2
  1432. 2
  1433. 2
  1434. 2
  1435. 2
  1436. 2
  1437.  @UzumakiNaruto_  1- yes I know about the Pacific Mall. It was not in this video. You can argue that the Pacific Mall is not a good use of land space either. So what? A tower takes up a much smaller footprint. And with the homeless problem in Toronto it is not very feasible to buy or appropriate that much land. There is not that much land in the downtown core. But as I already stated in my original comment if we have space to build 10 towers on a small parcel of land one of those towers could easily be used for homeless people. It would be more feasible. We both want the same thing...a place for homeless people but building something like the Pacific Mall downtown is not feasible. Much easier to build tall buildings or towers. 2- I never said the Pacific Mall is the kind of space that should be given to shelters. As I already told you if you look up the Seaton house and Toronto Homeless shelter system the actually square footage to house homeless people is rather large. It would be comparable to the size of the Pacific Mall. Again you don't seem to understand how big the homeless shelter system is because it is spread across several buildings throughout the down town core and into the suburbs. It has been a bit of time since I have been in all the buildings but from what I remember: Seaton house for men was about 3 floors (maybe four) each floor was comparable in size to a small walmart or canadian tire store (like the walmart at Markham and Eglinton or canadian tire Markham and Lawrence) so that building by itself was I would estimate maybe 120,000 square feet. There is another building close in size the Seaton house for men but used for women. It was a bit smaller. Maybe 80,000 sqft There is another one for old men near Kingston Rd and Warden I would estimate around 5,000 sqft There is also another one for abused women and children in the downtown core near Seaton house I would estimate 5,000 sqft There is another one for men trying to reenter society and another one for women trying to reenter society. I would estimate each of those at about 10,00 sqft each total 20,000 sqft There is another one for families in an old converted motel on Kingston Rd near Galloway that is three or four levels high I would estimate at 40K sqft There is another one near Kingston Rd and Bellemy in that is also an old converted motel. Estimate 10K sqft. Total 280,000 sqft. Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. And those are just the ones run by the city of Toronto. There are a few other shelters I cannot remember and also lots of shelters run through charity organizations and churches Compare that to the Pacific Mall that is 270,00 sqft. 3- building a tower doesn't take many many years. If you ever go down town (or pretty much anywhere in Toronto) you can see condo towers going up in about 2 years. I know there is more time involved in the planning stages but homelessness and low income familes has been in existence forever and it is not going away so it will still be needed in a few years also. The longer we delay the longer it takes to build. If we start now we will have it sooner Also building a large warehouse type structure like a mall would take just as long and cost the same. The only difference between your "mall warehouse" and a tower is towers are built up into the air and take less space vs a warehouse that is built out to the sides on the ground and need more land....so what's your point? 4- "security guards can easily patrol the area"-- with proper security- guards, cameras etc anything can be patrolled and monitored properly. Without proper security or the wrong people any building can be a risk also....so what? It has nothing to do with the type of building 5- "f we do separate people then we're not doing it well enough"--- again you clearly haven't looked up Seaton house. The entire toronto homeless system is designed to separate people based on their needs. Criminal minded men should not be with abused women and families. Old men get and women get beaten up by the young men so we have separate houses for them. etc. There are different houses for each situation. Look it up. 6- "there's still so many people living on the streets"-- because homlessness is a complex issue. There are various reasons why people are still on the street. Just one argument alone is the condition of the shelters. Again try looking it up and going into the Seaton house.....not far off from prison. I cannot even begin to describe the smell. But your comment is not completely relevant anyway. The topic was low income families using condos instead of living in low income buildings. 7- "the system were working well then there should be almost no one on the streets except for the hardcore idiots" The system is working. There are thousands of people with a roof over their head and food because of these shelters. Nobody has ever claimed that homelessness would magically disappear because of a shelter. It reduces the amount of people on the street. You are seeing things in absolutes- either all in or all out and nothing in between If you don't think our system is working just look at places like skid row in LA and other areas in the US that don't have the same type of support. 8- "What a world we live in where saying you don't want to accept everyone from around the world into your country with virtually no limits is considered 'racist/xenophobic/discriminatory' etc." That is not what was said. Your comment implies that all immigrants don't work and will be in homeless shelters. That is far from the case. We have screening processes and most immigrants don't end up in homeless shelters. Again it is clear you have never been in homeless shelters. I have....it is a wide range of people in there and most are Canadian- not immigrants It is racist to believe that immigrants are the reason we have homelessness and to believe they will be the only ones that end up there. 9- "this common sense to stopping the world from demanding and pushing their way into Canada we have idiots like you crying racism." We do stop people from coming in. We have an entire immigration process. As a Canada that understands the rest of the world I welcome immigrants into our country- they are a benefit to our country and most are grateful for the opportunity we give them. I am not "crying" racism. I am pointing out your racism because you seem to be suggesting all our problems in our country are due to immigrants. 10- "Except what you're saying is incorrect and wouldn't happen in the real world because any new inventory freed up by moving people to newly built 'affordable housing', those freed up units would still go at a very high price" Clearly you don't understand basic economics. I tried to explain it to you in the comment you replied too. Building low cost housing creates more supply. More supply lowers prices until supply meets demand. Building one condo may do nothing to supply and demand. Build say two million low cost housing units that frees up 2 million condos it begins to have a different effect on pricing. Build say 200 million low cost housing units (as an extreme example) with only 38 million people in Canada that would pretty much crash the entire housing market across the entire country. Learn basic supply and demand curves and basic economics. 11- "You say that lowering immigration levels is 'racist"-- I never said that. I said the your reasoning on why we should lower immigration is racist. Your assumption is all immigrants are lazy, don't work and will end up in homeless shelters so we should not allow them in. That is racist. All immigrants are not lazy, unemployed and in homeless shelters. If the example was reversed and we let in only high level doctors and scientists would you still say the same thing? These people would work and provide massive benefits to our country. If you don't believe it just look at the people we brought in after WW2. German scientists etc that advanced our technology, aviation etc. Not all immigrants are top level scientists however not all are lazy unemployed homeless people. Again you see things in extremes with nothing in between. 12- "you'll NEVER build enough for everyone"-- you absolutely can. But it is complex topic so for many reasons we don't. Again learn basic economics and while you are at it look into our system of govt. 13- "You're pro mass immigration"-- you have jumped to conclusions and are not even on topic anymore. The topic is low cost housing. You just seem to like being racist and blaming others for your perceived problems. 14- "this doesn't even include the environmental impact"-- that is a ironic hypocritical statement. I proposed a tall tower (40, 50 etc) tall tower that sits on a very small footprint. You are the one proposing massive warehouse style buildings that contribute to the urban sprawl and uses massive amounts of land 15- "fight that super serious issue of climate change"-- we do fight climate change. Again you are seeing things in extremes. You see it as either all pollution or none. The topic of climate change is a complex topic and open for different interpretations. Can we do more? yes. Are we doing too little? maybe but it doesn't mean we are doing nothing. Changes in building technics and technolgy has changed dramatically over the last hundred years. And it is constantly evolving. Building a tower today will be far more efficient then it was 50 years ago. and it will only continue to evolve. 15- "Canada is so messed up and is going downhill" That is just your slanted twisted view based on your angry outlook on life. You want to blame others for your failures
    2
  1438.  @UzumakiNaruto_  1- "What is this obsession with housing the homeless in the most expensive part of the city instead of building where there's space and land is cheaper?" We build housing for homeless people where the homeless people are located you dumb a$$. Not many homeless people in places like Vaughan or Pickering compared to downtown Toronto. Not many homeless people are going to get on a bus to go to the outer surrounding cities. However I would have to look into it further but from what I remember outer cities do have homeless shelters. They are just not as big because their homeless issue is not as a big 2- "plenty of empty warehouses and businesses that you can buy and renovate right now and get into service within a few months" Most in areas not suitable to address the homeless needs. And they are private businesses that will rent to other businesses. Or located in industrial types of areas zoned for industrial uses. Again not suitable for homelessness However your comments are way off topic. The topic is about building affordable housing for low income families so they do not need to live in condos. Low income families don't live in warehouses. They need the same type of housing that the rest of us need (close to transit, close to work, close to schools etc) they just need it as affordable. And by moving people out of expensive condos into affordable housing it creates more supply of condos available for people and thereby lowering prices. This entire topic was about affordable housing and condo prices and you hijacked into homelessness and you don't even understand the topic of homelessness either 3- " If you renovate things to the level of something close to Pacific Mall standards that would make it a very nice place to live long term for the homeless" There is no need. Did you even read the comment I wrote. There is an entire system of homeless shelters across Toronto and if you add up the square footage of them all it is at least the size of the Pacific Mall. 4- "having a Pacific Mall type layout lends itself to having people gather and make connections rather" Who says low income or homeless people want to "make connections"? They are people like everyone else. Low income families do make connections and go about their business like everyone else. You can make connections in a building if you want to. I live in a building and know my neighbours. My neighbours also know their neighbours more than I do because they choose to make a larger connection then I do. Everyone is different and will find connections based on their own desires. 5- "Many homeless apparently don't want to live by any rules that shelters might have" Yes exactly that is why we still have homelessness. While you see things in absolutes that there is either all homelessness or none at all the reality is that homelessness is a complex issue because each individual is different. Just because some people are still homeless doesn't mean we don't have homeless shelters or help people or that our system does not work 6- "Our system is working, but VERY inefficiently"-- by what standards are you basing that claim off of? Have you worked in homeless shelters? Have you done any research in shelters? Or my guess you are just running on pure emotions and what you feel? Any govt run organization or program is inefficient. Anything the govt does is inefficient. That is how the govt operates. You will never have an efficient govt because they play to people like you that run on emotion and feelings to gain your vote rather than what is really efficient. However the point still stands. We have shelters and they do work. 7- "$130,000 ON EACH HOMELSS PERSON PER YEAR"-- building warehouses won't change that. So what's your point? Also the real topic was getting low income families out of condos and into low income buildings so we can open the supply of condos to people that want to buy condos making them more affordable. You are way off topic 8- "audit to see where all this money is being spent and then have the system be reorganized" The govt audits everything every year including homeless shelters. Goes back to point $6. The govt is inefficient and useless at everything. You can audit all you want but the govt will always try to cater to everyone's needs instead of what is really needed. Besides what would an audit do? You may disagree with it and others may agree with it. There will always be people that disagree no matter how many audits are done. It is a big part of why the govt is so inefficient 9- "Where did I say all immigrants were lazy, don't work hard and end up in homeless shelters?" Your comments imply this. You mention lots of immigrants which suggest they are the ones using shelters and low income housing. Or why else do you mention immigrants? If you agree that they come here and are productive members of our society and live in homes then what it your point? How would they have any relevance to homelessness or low income housing if they are living in homes and condos like everyone else? In fact if they are productive members in our society then they contribute taxes like everyone else that is used for homelessness and low income housing 10- "plenty of issues that haven't been addressed"-- that was not the implication you gave. However you still continue to give the same racist implication that immigrants are a burden on our society. They are not. They are productive members of our society that provide jobs, work in jobs (many in which people living here won't do), pay taxes, buy products etc etc all of which grow our economy and provide revenue to our govt to build our infrastructure You also seem stuck in the idea that we are cramming more people in without taking any other factors into consideration. We take in more immigrants because the people that are already in Canada are no longer having the same amount of children as people in the past did. It was called the "boomer" or "baby boom" generation for a reason. That generation had lots of kids to replace the old people that were dying. Today's generations are getting older and dying and younger generations are not replacing or having babies at the same rate. What increases in immigration we have is offset by other factors. However that is all irrelevant because A- immigrants are not a burden but provide productivity to our country (and you seem to agree or were your comments just racist remarks?). and B- the topic is low income housing not immigration
    2
  1439.  @UzumakiNaruto_  11- "unchecked mass immigration of people into a country" Nobody has ever claimed this is happening. Again you are making a racist generalization that everyone is just showing up into our country. You seem to dim witted to understand we have Immigration laws and polices and everyone is screened before entering and living in Canada. Your hatred towards immigrants is blinding you from reality. 12- "you completely ignored the problem of increased resource usage, increased garbage output and increased carbon emissions" I didn't ignore it all. I addressed it in the comment you reply too. A- this is a completely irrelevant topic because the topic is low income housing not immigration and environment B- your comment is completely irrelevant because increased garbage output and carbon emissions, plastics in oceans etc etc etc are a world wide problem. These people will produce environmental issues no matter where they live. They can live in their country and produce emissions or our country and produce emissions. It doesn't matter.....air doesn't stop at borders....emissions from any country can float or transition to any other country. It is irrelevant where they live because pollution will not stay only where they live C- we do fight climate change and other environmental concerns. It is argumentative if we are doing to much or too little but we do fight climate change D- if you are talking locally (like garbage) then that is not an immigration problem it is a recycling, large company, packaging, inefficient govt etc etc etc etc problem Up to 95 to 97% of all consumer packaging can be recycled. There are numerous reasons why that doesn't happen and none of them are because of immigration E- if you are talking about issues like sanitation, sewers, electricity etc. Then we do have sanitation plants, we do have an over abundance of fresh water, we do have roads and sewers etc. so going back to points above immigrants are productive provide taxes that can be used to expand these services In fact we produce so much electricity in Canada that we have to pay the US to take it from us But all this is irrelevant. The topic is low income families living in condos that should be sold to people looking to buy condos 13- "NO ONE has the courage to tackle the issue of immigrants"--"certain groups of people causing the vast majority of crime and violence"--"non-white people are causing the vast majority of crime, violence and other problems in our nation" Oh how ironic your comments are. How stupid you look. On one hand you claim to not be racist but then go on to make racist comments that reconfirm what a racist pile of dog $hit you really are I am actually putting several spaces between this comment and the others so it stands out to show what a racist pile of $hit you really are. 14- "So just to be clear you think that having a 50 story building where hundreds of individual units each having their own bathrooms, kitchens and heating equipment is MORE efficient and is less wasteful than having a warehouse building with one large common kitchen to feed hundreds of people" People and families are not rats, or animals. People in low income housing have the same needs as you do. We already have thousands of low income housing units like this. Why are you so surprised. You don't seem to have a fu$cking clue how our system works. You should educate yourself before you keep crying about things. 15- "This isn't about 'all or nothing', this is about COMMON SENSE"-- yes you are right. But you don't seem to have any 16- "You can't hope to fight climate change, reduce resource usage and garbage output" Go back and read point #12. 17- "Most people in general aren't very mindful of reducing waste and their carbon footprint already"-- exactly this is what I said in point #12. It is not an immigration problem it is an attitude or individual problem (along with many other factors). You agree people within our own country are wasteful yet you seem to blame immigrants. That is racist. 18- " MORE people who will also no care about reducing waste" Who says immigrants don't care about the environment? That is just another racist assumption As I stated immigrants are productive. It is immigrants that built this nation and it is immigrants that work in fields like science that are helping to find solutions to environmental problems Also as I already stated environmental problems are world wide so there are people of all racists, backgrounds and skin colours finding solutions in countries around the world to environmental problems. You seem to think only white people in Canada care about the environment and are the only ones trying to find solutions. That is pretty racist. Overall you are way off topic. The topic was moving people out of condos into low cost housing so it gives more opportunity for people that can buy condos the opportunity to buy condos (i.e. create more supply to fill demand and reduce prices). Instead you went way off topic into racist little rants.
    2
  1440.  @UzumakiNaruto_  1- "Are you blind to simply putting up towers and throwing the homeless in there?"-- yes and no Yes we can put homeless people in there however the topic is putting low income families in there. We currently put low income families in condos which reduces the supply of condos available to people that can afford to buy them. Putting low income families into low income buildings will create more supply. More supply creates lower prices. You need to learn basic economics And you can cry all you want low income families have existed for ever and will always exist and they need a place to live also. The way they currently live in condos reduces supply and drives up cost 2- "led to neighborhoods being more dangerous"-- so not only are you racist but you are a bigot towards low income families Also going back to your other comment. if you believe that low income housing leads to more violence then why should the suburbs be "burdened" and expected to support it all. Let the downtown core have their share also. Why should it be a suburbs "problem"? 3- " you need to build it in such a way that you can closely monitor the progress of the people " Once again you prove you have never been in a homeless shelter. First we do have shelters that monitor the progress of the people. And support is available in the shelters for those that want it however Second as you already said these are individual adult people. We have no right to tell them what to do. If they want to come into the shelter and get help they can. If they choose not too we have no right to force them. They are independent free to be adults just like the rest of us 4- "you make it sound like the homeless are IMMOVABLE OBJECTS that cannot be moved around" You are a fu$cking idiot if that is what you took out of my comment. I clearly said we build shelters where the people are. The people move and live in downtown. I also said that we build low income buildings and homeless shelters all across the city. Some of it is needed down town where the people are. It goes back to point #2 above you seem to be a selfish prick that wants to push all the homeless "problems" or low income housing out to the suburbs and let it be their problem. We are a unified city and it is all of our problem and we need to build housing to fix that problem where it is needed and some of it is needed downtown. You sound like a self entitled prick. Little pretty boy rich boy that has been handed everything in life so you don't want to accept that others fall on hard times. You don't want to see that. You want to hide it and let it be other people's problems to deal with 5- "a fraction of trying to build enough condos/apartments"-- housing anywhere in the city is expensive. That is why we have a homeless problem and unaffordable housing. If it was that much cheaper in the suburbs then people would just buy houses or condos there. Low income housing is needed everywhere including downtown. Govt creates the laws, by laws and zoning laws that determines what is being built. If a developer wants to build 10 towers on a piece of land no matter where it is located the govt can easily make it a law to make one of those towers an affordable housing building which includes areas downtown where it is needed. A developer would still turn massive profits but if they don't like it then fu$ck them it is our city and we need to take care of our people so we can find another developer to build the housing we need 6- " people like you are the reason why we take forever to get anything done" Actually it is more like people like you that nothing gets done. You have no facts to support you. You have no idea what the fu$ck you are talking about. You are clearly running purely on your racist biased emotions and the govt plays to every single one of you fools instead of finding facts and making proper decisions. 7- "So because some portion of the government is corrupt and inefficient we should never try and overhaul it" You tiny mind clearly missed the point A- how are you coming to the conclusion the govt is corrupt? Sure there are examples like when the Liberal govt lied to us all and shut down a much needed power plant that cost us billions of dollars to please a few voters that show horrible poor decisions that waste our money (and reinforces point #6 above that the govt caters to self entitled pricks like you that act on emotion instead of facts) however what evidence do you have of corruption? If there is so much corruption why are we not seeing law enforcement doing their job? Are you claiming to be law enforcement that gives you some type of knowledge of this corruption? If so why are you not doing your job? If you are not law enforcement then we can only assume you are making $hit up again and running purely off your own emotions and biased outlook on life instead of facts B- your tiny mind seems to have missed the point that we do audit everything. You seem to $tupid to understand that we do audit programs but the govt will always be inefficient because they will also try to cater to everyone like you that runs on pure emotion and cries about everything instead of facts. The govt is inefficient because they follow self entitled di$cks like you instead of facts and reality 8- "I have to ask again do you live in the GTA and if so for how long?" I answered that question you dumb fu$ck. You never answered mine How does someone need to live in the city to understand homelessness and low income housing? However to answer your question again...yes.....48 years 9- " crime and violence hasn't gone way up in the past 10 or so years compared to 30-40 years ago." It hasn't. It has remained relatively flat over the years. And as someone that lives in the city I can tell you that my neighborhood has actually gotten even safer. My neighborhood the gangs were broken up decades ago and it is all new families (including many many immigrant families), new condos and homes, new parks. It is very safe You are just being a drama queen and the govt plays to those emotions making our govt inefficient However even if I accepted your lies then blaming an increase in crime just like blaming all low income families or homelessness on immigration is just racist. You just continue to show what a racist pile of $hit you are. If you are that upset over crime and homeless people down town then this is a free country. Instead of crying like an impotent di$ck on You Tube just leave. It is a free country go move somewhere else. Instead of trying to move "crime" and "homelessness" and low income families out of downtown why don't you leave? You are free to move anywhere in the country. 10- "The ENTIRE FOUNDATION of what Canada is today was created by mostly the English and the French' And the racism continues 11-" Native people who came over by land bridge from Asia many thousands of years ago did NOTHING to build the country we know today"-- you clearly don't understand history or how technology etc was created. You just continue to reinforce what an angry little pile of $hit you are 12- " you believe refusing mass immigration into one's country is 'racist' then you agree that" My God you are a fuc$cking idiot. We covered this topic extensively....try and follow along. We DON"T have mass immigration into our country you mo$ron. We have an entire system of laws, regulations etc that allow people into the country. We have an entire Immigration System and Policy. This has been repeated to you many times yet you still can't grasp it. Shows how fu$cking stupid you are. 13- why aren't hypocrites like you constantly criticising these 3 nations" Because the topic is low income housing in Toronto you dumb fu$ck. These are three other nations that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I could probably educate your dumb a$$ on those three countries also but it is not the topic and they have nothing to do with low income housing in Toronto Your comment just shows how ignorant and racist you are by projecting on to others that have nothing to do with the topic This also shows that you are a self entitled prick that is running purely on your emotions and not facts about the topic at hand 14- "Except you NEVER addressed this issue AT ALL" I went point by point through your comment about two comments ago. Go back and reread. Again if you didn't let your fragile little emotions get in the way of things you would have read and understood my comments. I would say try going back and rereading the comment again but you seem like too much of a big baby to want to read and learn. You just want to stomp your feet and cry. 15--"You have yet to state EVEN ONE POINT as to how Canada is suppose to reduce waste and emissions output while bringing in hundreds of thousands of people each year to increase that output. Please do so now as I'd genuinely like to hear it." I did outline this. Instead of crying and stomping your feet go back and read again you little baby. But to give you a little hint......emissions are a WORLD WIDE problem....try and understand what that means before you cry again Boo hoo you little racist. You keep stomping your feet and crying.
    2
  1441. 2
  1442. 2
  1443. 2
  1444. 2
  1445. 2
  1446. 2
  1447. 2
  1448. 2
  1449. 2
  1450. 2
  1451. 2
  1452. 2
  1453. 2
  1454. 2
  1455. 2
  1456. 2
  1457. 2
  1458. 2
  1459. 2
  1460. 2
  1461. 2
  1462. 2
  1463. 2
  1464. 2
  1465. 2
  1466. 2
  1467. 2
  1468. 2
  1469. 2
  1470. 2
  1471. 2
  1472. 2
  1473. 2
  1474. 2
  1475. 2
  1476. 2
  1477. 2
  1478. 2
  1479. 2
  1480. 2
  1481. 2
  1482. 2
  1483. 2
  1484. 2
  1485. 2
  1486. 2
  1487. 2
  1488. 2
  1489. 2
  1490. 2
  1491. 2
  1492. 2
  1493. 2
  1494. 2
  1495. 2
  1496. 2
  1497. 2
  1498. 2
  1499. 2
  1500. 2
  1501. 2
  1502. 2
  1503. 2
  1504. 2
  1505. 2
  1506. 2
  1507. 2
  1508. 2
  1509. 2
  1510. 2
  1511. 2
  1512. 2
  1513. 2
  1514. 2
  1515. 2
  1516. 2
  1517. 2
  1518. 2
  1519. 2
  1520. 2
  1521. 2
  1522. 2
  1523. 2
  1524. 2
  1525. 2
  1526. 2
  1527. 2
  1528. 2
  1529. 2
  1530. 2
  1531. 2
  1532. 2
  1533. 2
  1534. 2
  1535. 2
  1536. 2
  1537. 2
  1538. 2
  1539. 2
  1540. 2
  1541. 2
  1542. 2
  1543. 2
  1544. 2
  1545. 2
  1546. 2
  1547. 2
  1548. 2
  1549. 2
  1550. 2
  1551. 2
  1552. 2
  1553. 2
  1554. 2
  1555. 2
  1556. 2
  1557. 2
  1558. 2
  1559.  @robdavidson1983  1- it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 80% of guns are smuggled into Canada. But it doesn't matter. 80% or 90% there are still guns from Canada making it into the hands of criminals and while you may think 10-20% of crime and murder committed by Canadian guns is acceptable the vast majority of Canadians don't share your view. All lives count and the prevention of even one murder is a good thing. Reducing gun violence by 10-20% would also be great. Although more work would be needed 10-20% would be a great start 2- your example of smuggling guns is a great example that banning guns and strict gun laws work. Criminals have to smuggle in because it is difficult to get a gun here. Why should we losing laws? Or better yet why should we have hand guns at all? Banning hand guns will just make it more difficult to get a hand gun. Criminals smuggle guns when they can't get them here. If we add more guns to our society then it just makes it easier to get a gun here so smuggling would go down. The US has little to know laws regulating guns and it is a $hit show of gun violence there. And you want to bring that here? 3- nobody has ever said that banning guns would be the magic silver bullet that would end all crime. It is just one more tool to use to prevent and reduce gun violence. We also fight smuggling. We also fight gangs that smuggle and sell guns. But we also need more. We need better sentencing laws. Better social programs to prevent kids from getting into crime etc etc etc. 4- Criminals don't make their own guns. They get them from the supply of legal guns. So a smuggled gun started off legally somewhere. And as per points above when you have a vast supply of guns with little to know regulations it creates a $hit show of violence that we don't want here 5- Since criminals don't make their own guns but get them from the supply of legal guns you are not a very "law abiding" citizen if you let your gun fall into the hands of a criminal.
    2
  1560. 2
  1561. 2
  1562. 2
  1563. 2
  1564. 2
  1565. 2
  1566. 2
  1567. 2
  1568. 2
  1569. 2
  1570. 2
  1571. 2
  1572. 2
  1573. 2
  1574. 2
  1575. 2
  1576. 2
  1577. 2
  1578. 2
  1579. 2
  1580. 2
  1581. 2
  1582. 2
  1583. 2
  1584. 2
  1585. 2
  1586. 2
  1587. 2
  1588. 2
  1589. 2
  1590. 2
  1591. 2
  1592. 2
  1593. 2
  1594. 2
  1595. 2
  1596. 2
  1597. 2
  1598. 2
  1599. 2
  1600. 2
  1601. 1:35-- bunch of BS 1- there is no new tax nor is it a 66% capital gains tax. Nobody pays 66% tax on anything. This is an existing INCLUSION RATE on Capital Gains. Once the INCLUSION RATE is calculated then people pay their MARGINAL TAX rate to this inclusion. And the MARGINAL TAX RATE for even the highest income earners is about 33% (and that is marginal tax on their last dollar.....the rate is much lower on their first set of dollars that raises in increments- example they only pay 25% on the first $1 to $25K). The INCLUSION RATE has always existed on capital gains and it has always been 66% until the late 1990s early 2000s when the conservatives changed it. Going to 66% is just going back to what it was before and we never had issues before 2- The INCLUSION RATE is only applied to anyone that makes over $245K a year in Capital Gains. In order to make that type of money you need to have about $3M invested so it won't effect 95% of Canadians. And small business earn their income from the sell of goods and services that is 100% taxable income. This doesn't effect small business or anyone that makes under $245K a year in Capital Gains so it won't effect 95% of Canadians 3- An INCLUSION RATE allows people to write off part of their income so they pay less in income tax. The INCLUSION RATE should be increased. Why should someone making say $100K a year in income from salary, wages etc pay more than someone that made the same $100K a year in capital gains? Both people made the same amount of money so why should the first person pay more then the second person because they earned it differently? 4- Very few companies large or small make their money from Capital Gains. Capital Gains is the buy of an asset at a low price and then selling it for a higher price Assets for almost all companies (large or small) depreciate they do not go up in value they go down (cars, equipment, machinery etc all depreciate- there is specific lines on companies financial sheets that is dedicated to depreciation). And the income for just about all companies (large or small) is through the sale of goods or services which is 100% taxable income There are a few investment types of companies that do make money from capital gains (example property investment companies buy and sell property or investment firms buy and sell stocks) and they should be taxed. They are already allowed to write off 50% (going to 36%) of their income that they don't pay tax on.....how is that fair? Why should every person and company pay tax on 100% of their earning/ income but someone else gets to write off their income and pay less in taxes just because they earned it in a different way? Everyone needs to learn what a capital gain is and how it is different from income Everyone then needs to learn the difference between a TAX and INCLUSION RATE Then everyone needs to learn how an INCLUSION RATE is applied to people's income An INCLUSION RATE allows rich people to pay less then their fair share in taxes. It is time they start paying their fair share.
    2
  1602. 2
  1603. 2
  1604. 2
  1605. 2
  1606. 2
  1607. 2
  1608. 2
  1609. 2
  1610. 2
  1611. 2
  1612. 2
  1613. 2
  1614. 2
  1615. 2
  1616. 2
  1617. 2
  1618. 2
  1619. 2
  1620. 2
  1621. 2
  1622. 2
  1623. 2
  1624. 2
  1625. 2
  1626. 2
  1627. 2
  1628. 2
  1629. 2
  1630. 2
  1631. 2
  1632. 2
  1633. 2
  1634. 2
  1635. 2
  1636. 2
  1637. 2
  1638. 2
  1639. 2
  1640. 2
  1641. 2
  1642. 2
  1643. 2
  1644. 2
  1645. 2
  1646. 2
  1647. 2
  1648. 2
  1649. 2
  1650. 2
  1651. 2
  1652. 2
  1653. 2
  1654. 2
  1655. 2
  1656. 2
  1657. 2
  1658. 2
  1659. 2
  1660. 2
  1661. 2
  1662. 2
  1663. 2
  1664. 2
  1665. 2
  1666. 2
  1667. 2
  1668. 2
  1669. 2
  1670. 2
  1671. 2
  1672. 2
  1673. 2
  1674. 2
  1675. 2
  1676. 2
  1677. 2
  1678. 2
  1679. 2
  1680. 2
  1681. 2
  1682. 2
  1683. 2
  1684. 2
  1685. 2
  1686. 2
  1687. 2
  1688. 2
  1689. 2
  1690. 2
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756.  @Zreknarf  It is not an ad hominem attack. Calling you a little drama queen is a fact. 1- immigration was already about 300K per year so the increase is marginal 2- we may be increasing immigration but people also die each year (about 250 to 300K) and fewer Canadians already in the country are having fewer children so again the increase to our over all population is marginal 3- as much as you like to be racist and claim that immigrants are all lazy individuals that don't work that is not true. Immigrants pay taxes, create jobs, spend money etc that all contribute to a growing economy and the taxes go towards paying for things like more health care, more hospitals, more social services etc. 4- who says that none of the immigrants we receive will not be doctors? Again you seem to have the racist attitude that they will all be lazy unemployed bums. But reality we pick the more educated people and bring in doctors, nurses, engineers, etc. So you may not think we will be "producing" doctors internally but we can receive them through immigration 5- your point is moot anyway. First year enrolment in medical schools is up 85% since 1998. We are producing more doctors. You clearly don't understand basic supply and demand or simple economics. If there is an increase demand for doctors then there will be an increase supply for them. It is not just doctors. It is every profession. People need to work and they find it where the demand is. Don't believe it.....just look at what happened in the Alberta tar sands. People immigrated to Fort Mac from other places in the country then left when demand fell to go do other things. You are just a little drama queen overreacting and seeking attention because you clearly don't get it at home.
    1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965.  @chrispswann6825  the argument is that everything runs on gasoline, diesel or some other form of carbon producing type of energy. So it will either hit you directly...example making you pay more for gas to put in your car. Or indirectly by making everything else expensive. Example famers need diesel in their tractors to plow their fields. To recover the higher cost of diesel they will increase their prices, the truckers that pick up the goods farmers produce will have to pay more for diesel so they will also then mark up their cost to drive the product, processors will also need to raise their prices to cover their production costs etc....until it gets to the consumer where prices rise to cover all the increases in cost along the production line. An increase in food prices leads people to not be able to buy enough food to eat so they end up a food banks. While this is some what accurate it is simple in it's approach. We have had taxes on everything from the dawn of time. As price increases (through taxes or anything else) it either A- reduces demand- and the more elastic a product is the more demand falls. While food is "inelastic" many products are not so people will continue to buy food by forgoing other items (like a new car or new TV etc). Also there is some "elasticity" in the demand for food...people will stop eating out at restaurants, or buying brand names, or seek lower cost alternatives (find farmers markets, grow their own vegetables etc). B- supply increases- if there is a large demand and an increase in prices means an increase in profits then more "players" come onboard and start opening stores to sell groceries until the supply meets demand. Then "players" stop entering the market. It is simple supply and demand or basic economics based on the elasticity of demand I don't support the Liberals is what people also do not see is that Carbon Emissions are an "externality". And when the people that produce an externality are not made to feel the full cost of their externality they will continue to produce unchecked. Once the people responsible for that externality are held accountable for their actions they change their behavior and produce less of that externality. While that is simplistic terms and companies do find ways around things but in the long run changes do tend to happen. Taxes is just one way of trying to regulate externalities there are other ways like "shaming" people or playing with their morality (like throwing garbage on the ground or smoking in a crowded place). Also many people focus only on right now at this exact point in time with a negative outlook. There have been many times over the course of human existence that we faced crisis (everything to the ozone layer to too much horse poop in the streets) and people have always found innevative ways to deal with and solve the problems. Right now producing carbon is "cheap" and doesn't hold anyone accountable so people do it. By making it more expensive to produce carbon and holding people accountable for it then it motivates people to find innovative solutions from producing it. Things like this have been happening since the dawn of civilized humankind
    1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085.  @InADarkTavern  I agree transit development is good my main point is probably geared more towards our politicians and their way of thinking vs expanding transit in general. Our politicians constantly overlook areas like Scarborough even though it is the largest borough in the city (maybe second?) but will spend money going into Mississauga (or Vaughn etc) that are not even part of the city. It is good to expand transit but the people chose to live outside of the city knowing exactly what transit was like it was their choice. If funds were unlimited I would agree...expand everywhere. However when funds are limited and we are already in deficits etc then it would be better to spend inside our city and provide for those already living in the city first. It may seem selfish but my tax dollars should be used to expand transit for my use not so someone can move outside the city..pay their taxes elsewhere then ride the ttc into the city. Not sure I am describing it correctly but same thing applies to highways...which (off topic) is why it was a great thing that the province took back responsiblity of the DVP and Gardiner. Why should Toronto residents pay the full cost for a highway that people that chose to live outside the city use to come into the city. Same as TTC. If you choose to live outside the city then find a way on your own to get into the city...if not then live inside the city and use TTC. Scarborough is way underfunded and way underdeveloped when it comes to transit but money is always spent in the west or north to bring people that chose to live outside the city into the city.
    1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583.  @Streetbob-si8yj  1- the vast majority of guns are legal handguns not 3D printed 2- you cannot 3D print the internal components of a gun. You still need a real gun or the components of a real gun to 3D print a gun 3- smuggled guns from the US start off just as legal in the US as they do here 4- nobody ever said anything about rifles or shotguns. Your point is moot. The topic is handguns 5- so what if 11 guns were found attached to a drone? That is a good thing. It proves we do more than just ban guns. We also have border control and they also (as you admit) help stop and reduce gun violence. That is good. You would be a fool to think it wasn't good 6- If you are referring to the mass shooter in Nova Scotia he had his friend legally bring in the gun. It was a legal gun that he gave to his friend who then shot a lot of people. The sad thing is nothing happened to the friend that gave him the gun which proves that gun owners are not responsible or held accountable therefore they should not have the privilege of owning a deadly weapon. 7- Legal gun owners absolutely are part of the problem. Criminals get their guns from legal guns. Without the legal gun there would be no gun you label "illegal". 8- what govt? How do you jump to the unfounded conclusion anyone listens to the govt? The simple fact you seem to the govt is the only source for information shows how little you know and how poorly educated you are. 9- I have looked up the statistics. They all prove that banning guns and strict gun laws works. 10- your references to 3D printed guns or smuggled guns does nothing to help your argument. They hurt your argument. 3D printed and smuggled guns only reinforces and proves that banning guns and strict gun laws works.
    1
  2584. 1
  2585.  @theholydarkpope6972  1- yes criminals do what they please....that is why they are criminals. Are you not aware of what the word "criminal" means? Criminals are far less dangerous without a gun 2- the guns from the US started off just as legal there as they do in Canada And referencing guns from the US does nothing to help your argument. It actually weakens your argument. Smuggled guns proves that strict gun laws and banning guns works 3- nobody ever said taking away guns from everyone would end all gun violence. however it does greatly reduce it. Any comparison of countries that do ban guns and have strict laws to a country like the US that has little to no laws and a vast supply of guns proves this to be true 4- What is wrong with police having guns? Police are not considered citizens when they are on duty and they don't take their guns home with them at night and tuck them under their pillows when they are off duty. Are you suggesting you are afraid of the police and need a gun to protect yourself from them? Are you suggesting you want to shoot police? 5- how is my logic flawed? I address every point anyone makes. I have yet to see anyone refute any of point made. Instead all I see are people like you that just continually repeat the same thing over and over as if repeating your BS will somehow make it true. 6- the world is disarming. At least in the first world they are. Goes back to point above. Any comparison of any first world nation to a country like the US proves they are much safer countries and it is because they are disarming or have strict laws. However your point is moot. This is Canada not other countries.
    1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. Anyone that believes this BS needs to learn your tax system and the difference between income earned through wages, salary or the sale of goods & services and a capital gain. I don't support Trudeau but this is not a political stance. This is fact on how our tax laws and personal income taxes work. Currently people that make over $243K a year in capital gains can claim 50% of that income as tax free income and pay taxes on only half that income. Compared to people that make income from any other form of income (wages, salary, sale of an item etc) that pays taxes on 100% of their income. Business owners do not make their money through capital gains. They are not effected by this change. They make their money through the sale of a good or services which is 100% taxable income. If you want to hate the liberals....go right ahead that is your right to free speech....but it doesn't change how our tax system works You want to talk political philosophy.....go right ahead.....but it has nothing to do with how capital gains on personal income works You can talk whatever you want but learn the tax laws and what capital gains are and what an inclusion rate is (not a tax rate). Don't let politicians (from any party) fool you into believing BS. Educate yourself and learn instead of just repeating what other people tell you so they can get elected. THIS WILL NOT EFFECT 95% of CANADIANS INCLUDING SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. THIS WILL ONLY EFFECT THE RICH AND IT IS TIME THEY START PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES.
    1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. Staples employees will not have any access at all to Service Now information. It is a Kiosk (like an ATM machine) that is being put in stores. Service Now customers use the kiosk to update their info (update Health Cards, driver licenses, etc). It is similar to you using a bank machine at a bank. You use the machine without any interaction from an employee. And the kiosks are completely independent from the store. The kiosks have completely different data and information lines and work off a completely different mainframe. Nothing is accessed or wired through Staples data or mainframes (the two systems are not even designed to interact with each other. Different programs, languages, platforms etc). The only thing that Staples is doing is providing space inside their store to put a Kiosk they have nothing else to do with it. The kiosk is still monitored and serviced by Service Now employees. The difference is a kiosk only requires one (or two) employees to monitor several kiosks and the kiosk takes up very little space meaning very little rent is paid for the space. Versus operating a full "store" style Service Now outlet that requires several full time employees and a large amount of rent for a full store space. And Canadian Tire, Walmart, and other hunting and fishing stores already sell hunting and fishing licenses. There are at least two "mom and pop" shops near where I live in Toronto that sell fishing license (I don't hunt so not sure about hunting licenses but I believe they may have them also). And there are lots of little bait shops I go to that sell fishing licenses.
    1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878.  @darrylrossetti394  1- I never said that strict laws doesn't work. I clearly said they do. However since we still have gun violence it clearly is not enough so banning guns adds in another tool to help reduce the supply of guns and therefore reduce the amount of violence 2- comparing Sweden to other countries is naive: A- People in Sweden only get a firearm by purchasing the firearm they receive from years of professional military training (I believe it is at least two years). Sweden doesn't give out guns randomly to any wanna be "hero cop" that wants to pretend they are some bad ass military personal that likes getting a boner playing with a deadly weapon. B- the vast majority of firearms in Sweden are long barrel firearms that are not part of this topic. Canada is not banning long barrel fires. C- Sweden still has far fewer firearms compared to the US. Sweden has 23 guns per 100 people USA has 120 guns per 100 people. The US has more guns then people Also Sweden has fewer guns per capita then Canada Canada has 34 guns per 100 people. Also when you compare gun deaths per capita of Sweden to other European nations that have a lower per capita guns per person rate Sweden has a much higher rate of gun deaths. Sweden is not a good example. A comparison of all countries of guns per capita to gun deaths per capita the higher the guns per person rate is the higher the guns per death rate it is. Simple statistics proves that the more guns in a society the more gun deaths occur. 3- as explained above yes less guns clearly proves less violence. However if you disagree then explain why the US is the most dangerous place when referring to gun violence and they have the most guns....explain how more guns means less violence when the US proves you wrong? If more guns means less violence then why is the US not the safest place on Earth?
    1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067.  @arielkalon  1- Canadians are not armed to the teeth. There are approximately 1 million hand guns in Canada. Considering that most gun owners making comments pluralize the amount of guns they have it suggests that most gun owners have more than one gun. So for argument sake let's say each gun owner has an average of two guns that would mean that there are approximately 500k hand gun owners in Canada. There are about 37 million people in Canada. 500K is no where near the majority of Canadians armed. 2- the US has somewhere around 400 (or 420?) million guns. There are more guns then people. The US doesn't compare to Canada (or any other country in the world) when it comes to gun ownership. The US has more guns then the next 5 countries combined. 3- gun violence including murder and attempted murder is far higher in the US then Canada and all other countries. The US has more gun violence then the next 5 countries combined. 4- who cares about the media. They are full of $hit. I listen to facts. And facts are the US has far more guns and violence then Canada. They have far more guns and violence then 5 countries combined 5- who cares what why the Colt 45 was named? How is that relevant at all? 6- the idea of you using your gun to protect someone is a complete joke. First of all you are far more likely to shoot yourself or your family with your gun then some "big scary" criminal. Second you are not a trained law enforcement professional. You have no right to pick and choose who you think is a criminal that you get to shoot and murder. 7- nobody has mislead you on your right to bear arms. We don't have a right to bear arms. This is Canada not the United States. You only have a privilege to own a gun. All Canadians however have a right to live in a free and safe society. Your privilege ends when it infringes on other people's rights. You should take your own advice and read the Magna Carta and our Constitution and Bill of Rights. No where in any of them do you have a right to own a gun.
    1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143.  @MV-wb2cz  1- we covered the topic of "name calling". Calling you a drama queen is not name calling. It is stating a fact. Tell me you are stupid without telling me you are stupid by not knowing the difference between "name calling" and fact Also you should look up the word "irony". Pretty ironic you are so upset you think someone is calling you a name while you call others a name. 2- where am I incorrect? Where am I wrong? I addressed your entire comment point by point. You are the one that was not able to refute them. Seems you are the one that is wrong and incorrect. 3- I did prove to you that what I said was true. First it is simple supply and demand or basic economics. Again you seem to be the stupid one for not understanding simple economics. Second I gave you real life examples to support it. 4- I never said borders should be wide open. I don't know how you jumped to that unfounded conclusion. Not once did I ever say we should get rid of screening processes or just let anyone and everyone in. In fact I said the exact opposite. I said we do screen people and we do take the best options like doctors, nurses, engineers etc. You are the one that seems to think that just random people show up and they are all lazy unemployed bums 5- what does drinking alcohol have anything to do with this topic? How do you jump to the unfounded conclusion that I drink or don't drink? However since you mentioned it I did have a friend that had a heart attack and the doctors encouraged him to drink a glass or two of wine a day. So yeah alcohol like immigration when monitored by educated experts and in moderation it can be a good thing.
    1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159.  @butwhytharum  I addressed #6 First the business gets favorable tax rates by writing off the depreciation of their assets. They are already getting a tax break on those assets Second the assets tend to go down meaning a capital loss not a capital gain (if they didn't go down they wouldn't be claiming depreciation). Third if someone is selling their business and making a lot of money from that sale to use for their retirement then they should pay taxes on that gain. Essentially what is trying to be argued is the owner is using their business as a retirement fund. The rest of us that work for a living pay taxes on our savings throughout our entire working lives. And anything that we put into RRSPs are taxed when we withdraw them. So why should a business owner have a tax free retirement fund when the rest of us are taxed our entire lives on our retirement fund (or if it is an RRSP taxed when withdrawn)? How is that fair? And to continue on that thought......when individuals that are taxed on their income it is 100% taxed (i.e. we make 100K we are fully taxed on that amount) however by claiming a capital gain the business owner is only taxed on half of that gain (i.e. if they make the same 100K but through a capital gain they only have to pay taxes on $50K compared to workers that have to pay taxes on the full 100K)-- how is that far? Why should they be able to write off half of their retirement fund and pay tax on only half of it when the rest of us have to pay on the full 100% amount? Also the capital gain is not realized until the owner sells the business. So this wouldn't effect the daily operations of any business at all. Nor would it effect any income they earn over the duration of their operation. That money is made through selling a product or service which is 100% taxable income- not a capital gain that is effected by an inclusion rate. It makes no sense at all for a successful business to close operations because of a change in the inclusion rate on a potential capital gain made through its sale years or decades into the future. No business owner would close their business that is their source of income today because of an unknown gain some time way in the future In other words- using basic numbers as an example- if you are a 30 year old (or any young age no where near retirement) business owner making $150K a year (or any amount that you feel sufficient to make a living and keep the business open) would you close that source of income that you live off of because in thirty or forty years you will have to maybe have to include 15% more of the income from the sell of that business on your tax form? Not likely. You will keep operating your business as usual. This won't effect the daily operation of business at all.
    1
  3160. 1
  3161. I addressed #6 First the business gets favorable tax rates by writing off the depreciation of their assets. They are already getting a tax break on those assets Second the assets tend to go down meaning a capital loss not a capital gain (if they didn't go down they wouldn't be claiming depreciation). Third if someone is selling their business and making a lot of money from that sale to use for their retirement then they should pay taxes on that gain. Essentially what is trying to be argued is the owner is using their business as a retirement fund. The rest of us that work for a living pay taxes on our savings throughout our entire working lives. And anything that we put into RRSPs are taxed when we withdraw them. So why should a business owner have a tax free retirement fund when the rest of us are taxed our entire lives on our retirement fund (or if it is an RRSP taxed when withdrawn)? How is that fair? And to continue on that thought......when individuals that are taxed on their income it is 100% taxed (i.e. we make 100K we are fully taxed on that amount) however by claiming a capital gain the business owner is only taxed on half of that gain (i.e. if they make the same 100K but through a capital gain they only have to pay taxes on $50K compared to workers that have to pay taxes on the full 100K)-- how is that far? Why should they be able to write off half of their retirement fund and pay tax on only half of it when the rest of us have to pay on the full 100% amount? Also the capital gain is not realized until the owner sells the business. So this wouldn't effect the daily operations of any business at all. Nor would it effect any income they earn over the duration of their operation. That money is made through selling a product or service which is 100% taxable income- not a capital gain that is effected by an inclusion rate. It makes no sense at all for a successful business to close operations because of a change in the inclusion rate on a potential capital gain made through its sale years or decades into the future. No business owner would close their business that is their source of income today because of an unknown gain some time way in the future In other words- using basic numbers as an example- if you are a 30 year old (or any young age no where near retirement) business owner making $150K a year (or any amount that you feel sufficient to make a living and keep the business open) would you close that source of income that you live off of because in thirty or forty years you will have to maybe have to include 15% more of the income from the sell of that business on your tax form? Not likely. You will keep operating your business as usual. This won't effect the daily operation of business at all.
    1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222.  @youtubeisbiasedandsucks  1- legal gun owners are a huge part of the problem. If not for the legal gun owner there would be no "illegal" guns. Legal gun owners provide the supply of "illegal" guns 2- crime is not on the rise and your comment about policies are open for interpretation. I don't support the Liberals and tend to agree we should be harder on criminals but that is not the only way to solve a problem. Gun crime is complex and requires different approaches. 3- you are forgiven for not conducting a poll however you are not forgiven for making $hit up. If you didn't take a poll then don't claim to know what everyone else thinks or supports 4- I am not a liberal nor do I support them. I am not sure how you jump to that unfounded conclusion. However that comment does support #3 above that you are just full of $hit and making things up about what they think or what they support. 5- why does it matter where someone lives? How is that relevant at all to the topic? 6- Do you know how many criminals commit violent crimes while out on bail? Based on your other comments (and going back to point #3 and #4) you are probably making $hit up and don't have a clue However how is your comment even relevant to the topic? 7- I highly doubt you were a constable. And if you were then who cares? How is that relevant? 8- who cares what political party you support? How is that relevant? 9- wtf are you babbling on about offending someone's sister? No idea what you are talking about or how that is even relevant.
    1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264.  @tomzoltan8095  depends on what their income is. That is why they are raising the capital gains tax. If someone makes $100K at a job then the entire $100K is considered income and they are taxed on the full $100K. Example their marginal tax rate would be around 33% so they would pay around $33K in income taxes. However if a rich person makes the same $100K but in capital gains then they are allowed to write off 50% of that income and only pay income tax on half that money. Or only pay tax on $50K. Example if they also fall into the same marginal tax rate of 33% because they only pay tax on $50K then the person making money from capital gains is only around 16-17K Since rich people tend to make more of their money through capital gains then the average working person then using this example rich people through capital gains credits pay less in taxes then the average working person. By changing the amount that people claim as a capital gains credit it changes the amount or makes it more fair the amount a person making income through capital gains will pay in taxes. Dividends from things like stocks also works very similar to capital gains (you only have to pay tax on somewhere around 60% of money you earn from dividends). Rich people also get paid in stocks and dividends at a far higher rate then the average working person also. So when you factor in dividends and capital gains the average rich person pays far less in total income taxes on a percentage bases then the average working person On a total money collected by the govt then sure you can argue rich people pay more the average or poor people. As an example using random numbers rich people may pay $50B in total collected taxes while average to poor people pay $40B in total collected taxes. But on a % of income bases rich people pay far less in total of their income in taxes then average to poor people I don't recall the exact numbers but it is somewhere around the average worker pays 33% in taxes on just their income tax form while the average rich person pays around 25% of their income in taxes on just their income tax form. (it all depends on capital gains taxes, RRSP deductibles, dividends etc all of which are easier for a rich person to take advantage of). If you factor in things like GST, PST, property tax etc etc etc. All the other taxes that are not part of your income tax form then once you factor that into the equation the average working person has to spend the vast majority of their income to survive so they end up paying somewhere around 60% of their total income in taxes to the govt (in some form whether is direct income tax or other forms like GST, PST, property tax etc.) While the average rich person doesn't need to spend as much of their income and passively save money (which includes tax write offs like RRSP) so they pay less in other forms of taxes. I believe it is somewhere around 45% of their total income goes to the govt in various forms of taxes. So in conclusion the average rich person doesn't pay the same amount of their income in taxes then the average worker. They may more in dollars then the average worker but they don't pay their fair share in terms of percentage of income. Average employee at the end of the year only gets around 40% of their income after all taxes to do what they want with compared to the average rich person that gets to keep around 55% of their income after taxes to do what they want with My examples are very basic for communication purposes. And I would have to find all the reports but they are out there. I believe there are also videos here on You Tube you can watch that examples it better then I can.
    1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381.  @basildraws  1- all guns start off legally somewhere. 2- Even your fellow gun nut jobs claim that there are some gun owners that lose their guns. You even state "or the lockers of other gun owners" so you completely agree that gun owners are not responsible and supply criminals. Who gives a $hit about you as an individual. If all you gun whack jobs all agreed that the gun owner that lost their gun should be put in jail for the same length of time as the criminal that uses it (i.e. if a murderer is given life then the gun owner also gets life) then I would be more open to views because you hold the individual responsible. However you can't agree and as a whole (as you agree) you cannot keep our society safe. Therefore if you cannot keep our society safe you should not have the privilege of having a deadly weapon in our society. I also state "open" for views but not really that open. You have no need to have a deadly weapon in our society. Just because you get a boner hold a deadly weapon doesn't mean that our rights should be infringed on. Just because it hasn't happened to you yet it doesn't guarantee it won't happen. Other gun owners also swore they kept their guns safe. 3- I worked for a company that sold guns. You would be surprised how many get stolen or go missing each year 4- A smuggled gun starts off just as legal in the place it was smuggled from 5- smuggled guns does nothing to help your argument. It only proves you wrong. Smuggled guns proves that strict gun laws and banning guns works 6- millions of guns in the hands of owners does contribute to gun violence. You admit other gun owners lose their guns to criminals which they use to commit gun violence. Had the legal owner not had the gun there would have been no gun in the hands of the criminal and no gun crime committed. As simple look at the US proves this is true 7- The only "tactic" used to "justify" this law is all of our rights as Canadians to live in a safe and free society.
    1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1
  3392. 1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. 1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. 1
  3418. 1
  3419. 1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447. 1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. 1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. 1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. 1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619. 1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622. 1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626.  @sk8snwmx  1- I stand corrected. There are so many of you whack jobs claiming you need guns for protection I may have mixed you up with another whack job However we can both now agree that the idea of using a gun for protection is ridiculous and there is no need to mention it again and not a valid argument for owning a gun 2- using a gun for target shooting is even less of a valid argument. You have no right to make our society more dangerous just so you can get a little boner playing with a deadly toy 3- How do you jump to the unfounded conclusion that I don't know about gun laws. 4- I stand corrected. There was a gun whack job making threats to me that started the "I am going to beat you up" argument and I believe I confused you with the other gun whack job. 5- again you jump to unfounded conclusions about what political belief I hold (or maybe I am confusing you with the other whack job). Don't know how you jump to the unfounded conclusion of what my political beliefs are. And not sure how this is political in anyway. Everyone no matter what party they support has the right to live in a free and safe society. 6- "shill" yeah sure. When gun whack jobs resort to stupid little catch phrases like "shill" it means they have no argument. What's next "sheep"?? If you really believe that the govt is going around paying people to talk to you on YouTube then that is a sign of delusional mental health issues. Gun laws or no gun laws someone with a mental health issue should never be allowed to hold a deadly weapon. You don't seem fit to be allowed to have the privilege of owning a gun.
    1
  3627. 1
  3628. 1
  3629. 1
  3630. 1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633. 1
  3634. 1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 1
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659.  @canadiansfor2A  Your logic and reasoning is all messed up: 1- "Every firearm could be banned today in the US and firearm crimes would go up, not down." This is open to interpretation depending on the time frame you give and you comment has no validity. A- The US has so many firearms that banning them today would take a 100 years to just get rid of the existing guns in their society. However if the production of guns were stopped today then given enough time enough guns would be removed from society and gun crime would drop B- we are not in the US. This is Canada and in Canada we do not have the same supply of guns in our society that the US has. If Canada bans guns it would take far less time to remove existing guns from our society. C- as mentioned to you many times that you either ignore or are too $tupid to understand. A simple look at countries that have banned guns and have strict gun laws proves you absolutely wrong. Any look at countries that have banned guns with strict laws has clearly shown a drop in the amount of gun violence. Even statistics within the US during times with stricter gun laws vs times with less strict gun laws shows a decrease in gun violence when there are strict gun laws in place and that is without even banning guns. Statistics from within the same country you use as an example proves you wrong and shows that stricter laws works at reducing crime. 2- "criminals would simply smuggle them into the country" Again your logic is wrong and your point is invalid: A- if the US the biggest supplier of guns banned guns then where are you suggesting they would smuggle their guns from? Most countries get their guns from the US not the other way around. If all countries got rid of guns there would be no place for people to smuggle them from (that is extreme there would still be sources but nothing like the vast supply the US has- in other words smuggling would become much more difficult) B- Again this is Canada not the US. And the fact that Canada smuggles in a lot of guns just reinforces that banning guns and strict gun laws works. When you talk about smuggled guns it does nothing to help your argument. It actually hurts your argument. Criminals get their guns from the easiest sources possible. If Canada were like the US criminals would just walk into the local Walmart and buy or steal a gun. The fact that they have to go all the way to the US then add another layer of risk/ criminal activity by risking the chances of getting caught smuggling something into the country proves that not having a vast supply of guns (like sitting in our local Walmarts) proves that banning guns and strict laws works. Every time you mention smuggling you just reinforce and prove that strict laws and bans works. If not then criminals would just get them inside our country without the risk or time of going all the way to the US. 3- "criminals don't care or follow our laws" Uh yeah....that is why they are criminals....are you not aware of what the word "criminal" means? 4- " will always find ways to hurt and kill people." That is open for interpretation. While it is true that criminals hurt and kill people we don't need to make it easier to hurt and kill people. We don't need to give them a vast supply of guns to choose from. A ban on guns will reduce the supply and make it harder for criminals to hurt and kill someone. Just because criminals won't change their behaviour doesn't mean that we have to make things easier for them to invoke their behaviour. And as part of the open for interpretation the harder we make it for people to become criminals the less potential criminals we have. The more guns you give people the easier it is for them to use it and become a criminal. There are hundreds of examples of people that were "nice guys" but in the heat of anger had a gun in their hand and used it to hurt or kill someone thus making them a criminal. Or lots of people that planned out a murder because they had access to a gun and thought they could get away with it. Take away the potential opportunity to give someone the chance to use a gun for criminal activity and criminal activity (or total criminals) is reduced. There are hundreds if not thousands of fist fights every year that end with people walking away as free citizens. Take those same people and give them a gun instead of just fists they become murderers or criminals To put it in another perspective suicide works in a similar way. People with guns are far more successful at killing themselves then people without guns because a gun is a quick fast decision to make. Take away the gun and the person is less likely to commit suicide because they have time to think or less successfully or less likely to die. 5- "It's better that law-abiding citizens be able to defend themselves from criminals" This has been proven to be absolutely false. The idea of you needing a gun for protection is absolutely ridiculous. You are far more likely to shoot yourself and/or your family then you are some random criminal You also don't have the right to pick and choose who you think is a criminal that you get to murder. 6- "'Im not sure where you two live,but it takes 30 plus mins for police to arrive where I live" I am going to say you are full of $hit and it all depends on why you call 911 A- police (and other emergency responders) respond based on the level of emergency called in. If you call in for a shoplifting incident or a minor fender bender traffic accident you probably will have to wait 30 minutes or more because it is a low priority call. However if you call in a mass shooting or gun shoots fired call it is high priority and police arrive fast. B- the average response time Canada is somewhere around 6 to 8 minutes. If we take your lie as truth and it takes 30 minutes for police to respond to a shooting in your area then it just reinforces the points made above. If it takes 30 minutes for police to reply to a shooting in your area then that would mean you are in some very remote area which means it is even more unlikely that you would ever need to defend yourself from some random criminal. Living in some extreme remote area you would be even more likely to use that gun to kill yourself or your family then some random criminal. 7- "A criminal or muiptle could break into my home kill me and my family and be long gone by the time the police arrive." If you are as law abiding citizen as you claim then police response time is moot. If you are law abiding you would have your gun locked in one safe and your ammo locked in another safe. A criminal would shoot you long before you could open two safes and load your gun then aim and shoot. You are not very law abiding if you keep your gun tucked under your pillow "just in case" However as already stated it is extremely unlikely you would ever be in that situation to begin with. You are far more likely to shoot your family then defend your home from a random burglar. (also burglars usually try to enter when nobody is home and look to steal things for money not go in while people are home and start killing people) 8- "When you have secs to live or die police are always mins away." You will never be in that position....your point is moot.....go back and read points above they all apply here.
    1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666. 1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679. 1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692. 1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 1
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705.  @ezhang128  Not sure what you were hoping to accomplish but you just supported and proven everything I just said: 1- "They suggest a longtime friend in Houlton gifted him one handgun " So you completely agree and prove that legal handgun owners let their guns fall into the hands of criminals. You also fully support that there are no repercussions for the gun owner 2- " he took another from that man's home." So you fully support and agree that criminals don't have to just buy guns from gun owners but they can get them in other ways and the gun owner was not held responsible because they let their gun fall into the hands of a criminal 3- "He also arranged to purchase a high-powered rifle for cash after attending a gun show in the town" So you agree and fully support and prove that criminals don't always use "illegal" guns. They can and do also buy them. You also prove that the store owner that is a legal gun owner let a criminal get a gun and the legal gun owner was not held accountable in any way. 4- "The shooter, who didn't have a firearms licence, smuggled the guns into Canada. Based on American law, he should never have been able to obtain them in the first place" So you fully support and agree that strict gun laws and banning guns works. You prove that when a country has poor laws a criminal can get their hands a on weapon. 5- "He did acquire the gun illegally"- unless he stole it which you prove he didn't then he bought it legally. The store sold it to him And you have just proven that there are no repercussions to the legal gun owner (i.e. the store) for not doing the right thing. According to you the store broke the law and nothing has happened to them. So you just proven that gun owners are not held accountable for their actions so they should not have the privilege of having a gun 6- "your lefty ideology"- not sure how you jump to any unfounded conclusions about anyone's political belief. And not sure how anyone's political belief supports or proves anything. Just because someone wants to make society safer doesn't mean they have to be left right or indifferent. But it does prove that you are not using logic but going purely off your emotional political viewpoints. 7- "Anything perceived to be dangerous: knives, gasoline, rat poison, cars etc should be banned" Comparing a knife, gasoline, rat poison to a gun just shows how ignorant and foolish you are. And by claiming we should ban other items because they are dangerous admits you agree that guns are dangerous. And since you proven that gun owners are not responsible enough or held accountable for having a deadly weapon in our society then they shouldn't have a deadly weapon in our society. 8- "all criminal were once innocent citizens." A- when you have no logic don't try to presume my logic. Not once have I ever said that a criminal is innocent B- however you are correct all people are innocent until they commit a crime so a criminals at some point in time were innocent until they committed a crime. That is how they became a criminal Do you not understand the difference between citizen and criminal? C- according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the thing you try to argue gives you your rights) states all people are innocent until proven guilt. So technically all people even criminals are innocent until the face a jury or are prosecuted by the court system You can't use the Charter of Rights to support you then ignore it when it doesn't. Rights don't only apply to you. 9- "Therefore all citizen are potential criminals" You are absolutely correct. All citizens are capable of becoming criminals. You don't know what is in the mind set of the average citizen. I am not saying all citizens are criminals but all citizen have the potential to break the law. It could be something really minor like "I am just going to shop lift this little item" or "no one will see me run this red light" all the way up to murder. Every person being interviewed after a murder will always say "He was such a nice guy. I would never have thought he could do something like this". That is what they said about the Nova Scotia murderer. His friends as you admit gave him guns because they never saw him as a murderer. Not every citizen is a criminal but everyone under the right circumstances has the potential to break the law or become a criminal. Not saying they all would but the potential is there. Not sure what you were trying to prove but all you did was prove that criminals get guns from legal gun owners and legal gun owners are not held accountable when that gun is used in a crime.
    1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709. 1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. 1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716. 1
  3717. 1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. 1
  3728. 1
  3729. 1
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 1
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. 1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. 1
  3760. 1
  3761. 1
  3762. 1
  3763. 1
  3764. 1
  3765. 1
  3766. 1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773. 1
  3774. 1
  3775. 1
  3776. 1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782. 1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787. 1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798. 1
  3799. 1
  3800. 1
  3801. 1
  3802. 1
  3803. 1
  3804. 1
  3805. 1
  3806. 1
  3807. 1
  3808. 1
  3809. 1
  3810. 1
  3811. reduces the cost of rent and wages operating full size retail outlets. Saves taxpayer money. And Staples employees will not have any access at all to Service Now information. It is a Kiosk (like an ATM machine) that is being put in stores. Service Now customers use the kiosk to update their info (update Health Cards, driver licenses, etc). It is similar to you using a bank machine at a bank. You use the machine without any interaction from an employee. And the kiosks are completely independent from the store. The kiosks have completely different data and information lines and work off a completely different mainframe. Nothing is accessed or wired through Staples data or mainframes (the two systems are not even designed to interact with each other. Different programs, languages, platforms etc). The only thing that Staples is doing is providing space inside their store to put a Kiosk they have nothing else to do with it. The kiosk is still monitored and serviced by Service Now employees. The difference is a kiosk only requires one (or two) employees to monitor several kiosks and the kiosk takes up very little space meaning very little rent is paid for the space. Versus operating a full "store" style Service Now outlet that requires several full time employees and a large amount of rent for a full store space. As the guy states at 3:8- this is not a first time they have done this. There are already Kiosks in other Retailers (I believe Canadian Tire has two in the Toronto area and maybe some more in the Ottawa area). There have been no privacy issues before.
    1
  3812. 1
  3813. 1
  3814. 1
  3815. 1
  3816. 1
  3817. 1
  3818. 1
  3819. 1
  3820. 1
  3821. 1
  3822. 1
  3823. 1
  3824. 1
  3825. 1
  3826. 1
  3827. 1
  3828. 1
  3829. 1
  3830. 1
  3831. 1
  3832. 1
  3833. 1
  3834. 1
  3835. 1
  3836. 1
  3837. 1
  3838. 1
  3839. 1
  3840. 1
  3841. 1
  3842. 1
  3843. 1
  3844. 1
  3845. 1
  3846. 1
  3847. 1
  3848. 1
  3849. 1
  3850. 1
  3851. 1
  3852. 1
  3853. 1
  3854. 1- we do spend money on stopping illegal guns coming across the border you du$mb a$$....why is it all you gun nuts all seem to think the govt is not capable of doing more than one thing at a time? 2- criminals get their supply of guns from the supply of legal guns. They are not very well controlled if they are making it in to the hands of criminals 3- nobody is giving anyone any false sense of safety. It is proven that removing guns from a society makes that society safer 4- yes they increased front line border police and that increase in staff led to more guns seized at the border. Border police stopped nearly double the amount of guns than the year before However it is hilarious that you are too $tupid to see your own conflicting statements. You start off by stating that we should spend money on border patrol/ police then go on in the next sentence to directly contradict what you said by stating more money was spent on border patrol/ police 5- police do not state that these laws do NOTHING to help them. They agree that removing guns in away from society whether it is from border patrol or from within our own borders is beneficial because they agree with point #2 above that it is proven that removing guns from a society (both external and internal) makes that society safer 6- list all these criminals that are out on bail that have shot all these policemen on duty?? Because if I remember correctly the kid in Innisfill just shot police on duty using his legally obtained firearm. There was also another incident that just took place (I will have to look it up) in which the person also used his legal firearm to shoot police that were on duty. 7- your claims about smuggled guns does nothing to support your argument. In fact it goes against your argument. Smuggled guns proves that strict gun laws and banning guns works.
    1
  3855. 1
  3856. 1
  3857. 1
  3858. 1
  3859. 1
  3860. 1
  3861. 1
  3862. 1
  3863. 1
  3864. 1
  3865. 1
  3866. 1
  3867. 1
  3868. 1
  3869. 1
  3870. 1
  3871. 1
  3872. 1
  3873. 1
  3874. 1
  3875. 1
  3876. 1
  3877. 1
  3878. 1
  3879. 1
  3880. 1
  3881. 1
  3882. 1
  3883. 1
  3884. 1
  3885. 1
  3886. 1
  3887. 1
  3888. 1
  3889. 1
  3890. 1
  3891. 1
  3892. 1
  3893. 1
  3894. 1
  3895. 1
  3896. 1
  3897. 1
  3898. 1
  3899. 1
  3900. 1
  3901. 1
  3902. 1
  3903. 1
  3904. 1
  3905. 1
  3906. 1
  3907. 1
  3908. 1
  3909. 1
  3910. 1
  3911. 1
  3912. 1
  3913. 1
  3914. 1
  3915. 1
  3916. 1
  3917. 1
  3918. 1
  3919. 1
  3920. 1
  3921. 1
  3922. 1
  3923. 1
  3924. 1
  3925. 1
  3926. 1
  3927. 1
  3928. 1
  3929. 1
  3930. 1
  3931. 1
  3932. 1
  3933. 1
  3934. 1
  3935. 1
  3936. 1
  3937. 1
  3938. 1
  3939. 1
  3940. 1
  3941. 1
  3942. 1
  3943. 1
  3944. 1
  3945. 1
  3946. 1
  3947. 1
  3948. 1
  3949. 1
  3950.  @TizTime  1- so the question remains valid....what excess deaths? Wtf are you babbling on about? 2- the reason why they are privatizing surgeries was explained. It is sad you cry about things that you don't even understand. You (and even I) may not fully agree with the reason but they did provide a reason why they were privatizing surgeries. It is not a sign of a collapsed or failed system 3- depends on what you mean by "out of country workers"- everyone needs to have some form of legal requirement to work inside Canada. However simple answer to your question is we hire based on supply and demand. If there is not enough supply within our country to fill the demand we hire from outside. It is basic supply and demand. It is not a sign of a failed system. 4- you would need to list what hospitals you refer too that converted to clinics. In my area and in the larger region around me not a single hospital was converted to a clinic. In fact hospitals in my greater area are expanding, upgrading or even replaced with brand new hospitals. But to answer your stupid question like hiring people (and everything else) the supply of hospitals is based on demand. Again it is simple economics. Simple supply and demand curves. Not a sign of a collapsed system (in fact supply and demand curves create a more efficient system) 5- I do listen to a variety of sources I then use my educate to determine what is factual and logical and what is not true. It is clear you don't really listen to any factual sources and you don't have any education to see that you swallow bull$hit 6- I am not angry with anyone. I am more than willing to talk with anyone that has an open mind and willing to learn. However Freedumbers and other delusional conspiracy theoriest are none of that. They are close minded and cling to their belief no matter how wrong they are. They will accept lies and discard truth if it conflicts with what they believe in. So only thing I can do is point out where they are wrong and laugh at their stupidity. Which one are you? Based on the nonsense you spewed out and the way you seem to want to cling to it I am thinking you are a freedumber but maybe I am wrong. Maybe you will accept fact and where you have made mistakes.
    1
  3951. 1
  3952. 1
  3953. 1
  3954. 1
  3955. 1
  3956. 1
  3957. 1
  3958. 1
  3959.  @Imsobering7970  then you should read my example again and understand it better. My example (which is how our tax system works) it is great to invest in our country because you only pay 33% tax on half of what you earn vs working a job in our country in which you pay 33% tax on every single penny you earn (well close to it factoring in the marginal tax rates set out in the income tax form). It is far better to earn money through capital gains, dividends and investment then it is through slaving away in a salt mine because you pay far less taxes as an investor then you do as a worker. And this is only considering direct income tax. When you start to factor in all other forms of taxes like property tax, GST, PST, Carbon Tax, gas taxes, liquor taxes etc etc. The average worker pays a fair higher total amount of their income in taxes each year then the average rich person The average rich person doesn't need to spend as much of their income each year as the average worker does so they pay fair less of their total income in taxes like GST or sales tax (or other taxes). This then creates the situation where a rich person can take advantage of even more tax credits by saving in things like RRSPs or invest more in dividend producing stocks or capital gains. When the average rich person does spend their money then because things like GST or PST are fixed percentages then the total amount a rich person does pay is equal too the amount the average worker pays (example of both buy a bottle of alcohol they both pay the exact same amount in taxes but the total percentage of each others income is different) Overall it is way better to invest and earn dividends and capital gains then it is to work. Unfortunately most of us are not in that situation and we have to work. It is rich people that can passively invest so they end up paying far less percentage of their income. Or in other words....rich people don't pay their fair share......raising the allowable amount that capital gains can be taxed from 50% to 60% makes rich people pay more of their fair share....which should expected. We are all equal in this country.
    1
  3960. 1
  3961. 1
  3962. 1
  3963. 1
  3964. 1
  3965. 1
  3966. 1
  3967. 1
  3968. 1
  3969. 1
  3970. 1
  3971. 1
  3972. 1
  3973. 1
  3974. 1
  3975. 1
  3976. 1
  3977. 1
  3978. 1
  3979. 1
  3980. 1
  3981. 1
  3982. 1
  3983. 1
  3984. 1
  3985. 1
  3986. 1
  3987. 1
  3988. 1
  3989. 1
  3990. 1
  3991. 1
  3992. 1
  3993. 1
  3994. 1
  3995. 1
  3996. 1
  3997. 1
  3998. 1
  3999. 1
  4000. 1
  4001. 1
  4002. 1
  4003. 1
  4004. 1
  4005. 1
  4006. 1
  4007. 1
  4008. 1
  4009. 1
  4010. 1
  4011. 1
  4012. 1
  4013. 1
  4014. 1
  4015. 1
  4016. 1
  4017. 1
  4018. 1
  4019. 1
  4020. 1
  4021. 1
  4022. 1
  4023. 1
  4024. 1
  4025. 1
  4026. 1
  4027. 1
  4028. 1
  4029. 1
  4030. 1
  4031. 1
  4032. 1
  4033. 1
  4034. 1
  4035. 1
  4036. 1
  4037. 1
  4038. 1
  4039. 1
  4040. 1
  4041. 1
  4042. 1
  4043. 1
  4044. 1
  4045. 1
  4046. 1
  4047. 1
  4048. 1
  4049. 1
  4050. 1
  4051. 1
  4052. 1
  4053. 1
  4054. 1
  4055. 1
  4056. 1
  4057. 1
  4058. 1
  4059. 1
  4060. 1
  4061. 1
  4062. 1
  4063. 1
  4064. 1
  4065. 1
  4066. 1
  4067. 1
  4068. 1
  4069.  @Generik97  huh you seem too stupid to be able to form one thought so to try and address all that babbling you spewed out over multiple comments and spread out over several hours: 1- not sure what you are trying to argue about "straw purchases". All guns start of legal somewhere. How they get into the hands of a criminal is irrelevant. Had the gun not been legally in our society in the first place it would not have been in the hands of a criminal 2- nobody ever said that criminals would be completely stopped. What banning guns does is add one more tool to help prevent criminals from getting guns or make it harder to get guns. And your example of smuggling just reinforces that. 3- "it defeats the entire purpose" just because something is not 100% effective does not mean that it is effective. We still have car accidents so you think we should ban seat belt laws and other traffic laws? 4- "leaves the law abiding vulnerable to the whims of criminals" We covered this. You seem to $tupid to grasp that you are far more likely to shoot yourself or your family then a criminal Also you have no right to pick and choose who you think is a criminal that you can shoot. That would make you an anti vigilant and an anti vigilant is just as dangerous as a criminal 5- "Pew Pew control"-- that just shows your immature mentality. 6- "1. What is your point about stores?" Since you seem to $tupid to grasp it I will try again....STORES ARE LEGAL GUN OWNERS. When you stated that the person from Nova Scotia bought a gun from a store or that criminals buy guns from stores it proves that legal gun owners supply criminals with guns 7- "If criminals can still obtain them thru other means no matter how many barriers you put in their way then what is the point of restricting their lawful possession" This is just a repetition of point #4 above. Nobody ever said it would be the magic silver bullet to end all crime. It is just another tool to reduce and prevent crime. Again we still have car accidents. Doesn't mean we should throw away all traffic laws 8- "is factually not true. For example if a pistol has a barrel that measures 105 mm (4.13 in) or under it is automatically classified as prohibited in Canada" No idea what you are trying to prove. A gun is a gun. All your comment has done is prove that we do ban some guns. And we ban them because they are a deadly dangerous weapon that is used to kill people in our society. So we should continue that and ban all guns...so what? What's your point? 9- "Control is a waste of resources that can be better used to solve the underlying societal issues causing the problem" This is mostly a repetition of point #4 and #7. It is not a waste of resources. It helps prevent crime. However I completely agree with you on the last part of your statement. As I said banning guns is not the only way to fight crime. We also have better border control, we could have better gang task forces, we could have better sentencing laws, we could have better social programs. These are all tools that when added together help fight crime. If we ban guns eliminating the internal source for guns we can then shift resources to better focus on the other tools. however when we still have an internal source it also needs to be addressed. 10- "I'm trying to figure out what your point is." The point is very straight forward. All guns start off legally. Remove the "legal" guns then it removes the supply available to criminals to become "illegal" guns. The less "legal" guns in our society the less "illegal" guns we have 11- " if something is being used for an illegal purpose then it by definition cannot be legal" Sure once a criminal uses something for a crime you label it "illegal" but they got it from a legal source. Similar to making meth. You can purchase all the ingredients legally. But as soon as you make it into meth it becomes "illegal" You are the one that seems to lack any common sense 12- "yet we don't irrationally demonize, control or ban them" We demonize, control and ban lots of things. Is this your first day on Earth? 13- "They are not a privilege and are in fact right" This is Canada not the USA. It is not a right to own a gun. It has always been a privilege. However it is a right that Canadians are allowed to live in a safe and free country. Your privilege ends when it infringes upon everyone else's rights. Rights apply to everyone. 14- "We have the natural right to defend ourselves" Depends on what you mean. I don't believe there is anything in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms about your right to defend yourself. However you can defend yourself. But you don't have the right to own a gun. Your argument is repeating the points above. You don't have the right to pick and choose who you think is a criminal that you can shoot. Most of what you wrote was just repeating the same point over and over just in different phrases.
    1
  4070.  @Generik97  once again you seem to dim witted to be able to form one coherent thought but instead had to babble out the same repetitve nonsense over a few hours: 1- "I don't care what your arguments" Of course you don't that is typical of you gun nut fools. You think you are correct but when proven wrong you close your mind and cling to your little fantasy. That is called ignorance (ignorance at it's highest levels) 2- "violate our basic natural and human rights." We covered this topic. There is absolutely nothing in our laws or society that gives you the right to have a deadly weapon in our society. Absolutely no right to make our society a more dangerous place. This is Canada you fool. We don't have the right to bear arms. 3- "Simply owning a weapon and carrying it on you doesn't violate any actual human or natural rights" It violates our right that is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be able to live in a free and safe society. We covered this topic. A gun is not a right. Freedom and safety are a right. Rights do not only apply to you. Your rights end when they infringe on other's rights A gun is not even a right 4- "Ultimately your world view will collapse thanks to the internet and 3D printing" No it won't. And internet and 3D printing has nothing to do with this conversation 5- "I can not under any circumstances see any justification for authority to infringe upon individual rights, freedom or liberty" You are absolutely correct. It goes directly back to point #3 above YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN BUT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND A SAFE SOCIETY YOUR RIGHTS CANNOT INFRINGE ON MY RIGHTS It is funny how you fu$cking idi$ot gun nuts all seem to think rights only apply to you RIGHTS APPLY TO EVERYONE!!! NOT JUST YOU And owning a gun is not a right 6- "Every single atrocity in human history has been justified in the name of the common good" No it hasn't. You can try to argue some twisted people have tried to make claims their actions have been for the common good but then you would be getting into a philosophical argument. Nobody supports Hitler or think that what he did was for the common good of man. Nobody supports people like Pol Pot or Lenin or Mao and think they did what they did for the common good. You are one sick fu$ck if you think mass genocide was for the greater good of man However what you wrote has nothing to do with you making our society more dangerous. What you wrote has nothing to do with this topic. 7- "reasonable enough justification to violate individual rights, freedom or liberty NOBODY HAS TAKEN YOUR RIGHT AWAY. But it is funny you want to take away my rights.
    1
  4071. 1
  4072. 1
  4073. 1
  4074. 1
  4075. 1
  4076. 1
  4077. 1
  4078. 1
  4079. 1
  4080. 1
  4081. 1
  4082. 1
  4083. 1
  4084. 1
  4085. 1
  4086. 1
  4087. 1
  4088. 1
  4089. 1
  4090. 1
  4091. 1
  4092. 1
  4093. 1
  4094. 1
  4095. 1
  4096. 1
  4097. 1
  4098. 1
  4099. 1
  4100. 1
  4101. 1
  4102. 1
  4103. 1
  4104. 1
  4105. 1
  4106. 1
  4107. 1
  4108. 1
  4109. 1
  4110. 1
  4111. 1
  4112. 1
  4113. 1
  4114. 1
  4115. 1
  4116. 1
  4117. 1
  4118. 1
  4119. 1
  4120. 1
  4121. 1
  4122. 1
  4123. 1
  4124. 1
  4125. 1
  4126. 1
  4127. 1
  4128. 1
  4129. 1
  4130. 1
  4131. 1
  4132. 1
  4133. 1
  4134. 1
  4135. 1
  4136. 1
  4137. 1
  4138. 1
  4139. 1
  4140. 1
  4141. 1
  4142. 1
  4143. 1
  4144. 1
  4145. 1
  4146. 1
  4147. 1
  4148. 1
  4149. 1
  4150. 1
  4151. 1
  4152. 1
  4153. 1
  4154. 1
  4155. 1
  4156. 1
  4157. 1
  4158. 1
  4159. 1
  4160. 1
  4161. 1
  4162. 1
  4163. 1
  4164. 1
  4165. 1
  4166. 1
  4167. 1
  4168. 1
  4169. 1
  4170. 1
  4171. 1
  4172. 1
  4173. 1
  4174. 1
  4175. 1
  4176. 1
  4177. 1
  4178. 1
  4179. 1
  4180. 1
  4181. 1
  4182. 1
  4183. 1
  4184. 1
  4185. 1
  4186. 1
  4187. 1
  4188. 1
  4189. 1
  4190. 1
  4191. 1
  4192. 1
  4193. 1
  4194. 1
  4195. 1
  4196. 1
  4197. 1
  4198. 1
  4199. 1
  4200. 1
  4201. 1
  4202. 1
  4203. 1
  4204. 1
  4205. 1
  4206. 1
  4207. 1
  4208. 1
  4209. 1
  4210. 1
  4211. 1
  4212. 1
  4213. 1
  4214. 1
  4215. 1
  4216. 1
  4217. 1
  4218. 1
  4219. 1
  4220. 1
  4221. 1
  4222. 1
  4223. 1
  4224. 1
  4225. 1
  4226. 1
  4227. 1
  4228. 1
  4229. 1
  4230. 1
  4231. 1
  4232. 1
  4233. 1
  4234. 1
  4235. 1
  4236. 1
  4237. 1
  4238. 1
  4239. 1
  4240. 1
  4241. 1
  4242. 1
  4243. 1
  4244. 1
  4245. 1
  4246. 1
  4247. 1
  4248. 1
  4249. 1
  4250. 1
  4251. 1
  4252. 1
  4253. 1
  4254. 1
  4255. 1
  4256. 1
  4257. 1
  4258. 1
  4259. 1
  4260. 1
  4261. ​ @thimblemunch24 So what? Who cares what your definition of income is? You need to learn the difference between income from work compared to income from investments and more specifically money earned through capital gains on investments. There is a big difference between the two. If you can't figure out the simple difference between income people making working at a job (salary, wages etc) compared to income earned from a capital gain then you have no input on the topic because it is clear you do not know enough about the topic. You don't even know the basics of the topic. 1- on percentage bases I don't believe businesses pay more than personal income (I would need to go back through stats but I am pretty sure the marginal tax rate on a business is not 33% or more) 2- your comment is completely irrelevant because business do not make their income from capital gains. This goes to the entire point that starts off this reply.....learn the difference between income from things like wages, salary or in the case of business the sale of a good or service compared to a capital gain Businesses make their income from selling goods or services. They are not making their yearly income from a capital gain. Businesses lose money on their assets and slowly write them off through depreciation. You are clueless if you think that a business buys an assets like a truck or car and makes money on it when they sell it several years later when the average person loses money on that same truck or car the minute they drive it off the lot. Everyone pays taxes. Everyone pays sales taxes, Everyone pays income taxes. We all pay taxes. And on a percentage bases of income it is middle and working class that pay the most. Time rich people start paying their fair share.
    1
  4262. 1
  4263. 1
  4264. 1
  4265. 1
  4266. 1
  4267. 1
  4268. 1
  4269. 1
  4270. 1
  4271. 1
  4272. 1
  4273. 1
  4274. 1
  4275. 1
  4276. 1
  4277. 1
  4278. 1
  4279. 1
  4280. 1
  4281. 1
  4282. 1
  4283. 1
  4284. 1
  4285. 1
  4286. 1
  4287. 1
  4288. 1
  4289. 1
  4290. 1
  4291. 1
  4292. 1
  4293. 1
  4294.  @garrettjames5673  1- the vast majority of crimes are commited with handguns. not 3D guns 2- your example of smuggling guns, gun parts and 3D guns only reinforces that strict gun laws and banning guns is effective and works. Every time you mention it you only reinforce that the thing you are arguing against i.e. banning guns- is a good thing and works 3- The Swiss are highly trained. Unless you are willing to be forced against your will to sign up for mandatory military service then you cannot compare Canada to the Swiss. Nor can you compare our culture to theirs. you are also seem to not understand that the vast majority of Swiss firearms are the rifles they used during their mandatory military training....not hidden or concealed firearms 4- Just because your name goes into a registry doesn't mean that a criminal is not capable of getting your gun 5- "our governments dont follow through in convictions" I agree. I already stated banning guns is not the only thing we do to prevent gun violence. There are many tools we put into place and another example is sentencing laws. I agree our courts are a joke and let criminals free. This person should never have been let out with his criminal record. But so what? A person without a record can pick up and use a gun also. Just because our sentencing laws are a joke doesn't mean we should make more guns available to people to use in crime And as I already said. It is not all about you. Nobody is going after just you. There are many tools used to fight gun crime. Banning guns and strict laws are just one tool. 6- "got his hands on one smuggled from the states" I have already stated that we also have border guards that fight smuggling guns. What's your point? Banning guns inside our country is just one tool to reduce guns available to criminals. We also fight smuggling guns You don't seem to understand that we are capable of fighting gun crime in more than just one way You seem to be making this all about you. And your example goes to the point above. Smuggled guns just reinforces the fact that gun laws and bans are effective and works. Every time you mention a smuggled gun you just reinforce what I state. 7- "Same with the Nova Scotia shooting" The gun in the Nova Scotia shooting was a legally purchased gun that the owner gave to the shooter.....that just reinforces exactly what I said. Gun owners are not responsible enough with their guns to keep them from getting into the hands of a criminal And it also reinforces that the sentencing laws are no good. There was absolutely no reprecussions to the legal gun owner for giving his gun away. He is just as guilty as the shooter. He should be sentenced also. He should be held accountable. 8- "We need to crack down on our borders" I completely I agree. I have repeated it numerous times that border patrol is another tool to fight gun crime and we should have better border control However if we ban guns making it almost impossible to get guns within the country then it makes it easier to increase border control because we will not need to split our resources looking internally and externally. We can focus our resources purely on externally 9- "100,000 train cars coming through the states into Canada they can only check 10% that leaves a massive amount unchecked" So what? Goes to the point above. Nobody says we are not also policing our borders. And the topic of border patrol still does not give you the right to have a deadly weapon in our society or help contribute to the problem 10- "how about banning drugs" We do ban drugs. That is why they are illegal. However that point is moot. Comparing a gun to drugs is ignorant at best. 11- "Did you hear about the drone caught in a tree on the Windsor side with a duffel bag full of glocks stuck in a tree" And border control got it....so you are saying you agree border control can be effective. But still a moot point...goes to the points above. 12- "So rather then spending upward of 1.5 billion on buying legally purchase firearms from legal owners why not use that money to strengthen our borders in our border crossings?" A- not only did we increase spending to buy back guns but we did also increase spending on border patrol. Border patrol stopped nearly double the amount of guns coming into the country then last year. B- you keep repeating border control as if we don't have border control. We do monitor our borders. Just because we have smuggled guns doesn't mean we should make it easier to get guns by increasing our supply here internally C- this goes back to the points above. If we spend money and ban guns internally then we can shift our resources to prevent smuggling. Right now our resources are split between internal and external. You are correct if we control the guns internally then we could shift and put more focus on externally. You don't seem to understand that banning guns is not the only thing being done. We also fight smuggling so not sure why you keep mention it. Also smuggling guns just reinforces that strict gun laws and banning guns works. Every time you mention smuggling you just further disprove your own argument.
    1
  4295. 1
  4296. 1
  4297. 1
  4298. 1
  4299. 1
  4300. 1
  4301. 1
  4302. 1
  4303. 1
  4304. 1
  4305. 1
  4306. 1
  4307. 1
  4308. 1
  4309. 1
  4310. 1
  4311. 1
  4312. 1
  4313. 1
  4314. 1
  4315. 1
  4316. 1
  4317. 1
  4318. 1
  4319. 1
  4320. 1
  4321. 1
  4322. 1
  4323. 1
  4324. 1
  4325. 1
  4326. 1
  4327. 1
  4328. 1
  4329. 1
  4330. 1
  4331. 1
  4332. 1
  4333. 1
  4334. 1
  4335. 1
  4336. 1
  4337. 1
  4338. 1
  4339. 1
  4340. 1
  4341. 1
  4342. 1
  4343. 1
  4344. 1
  4345. 1
  4346. 1
  4347. 1
  4348. 1
  4349. 1
  4350. 1
  4351. 1
  4352. 1
  4353. 1
  4354. 1
  4355. 1
  4356. 1
  4357. 1
  4358. 1
  4359. 1
  4360. 1
  4361. 1
  4362. 1
  4363. 1
  4364. 1
  4365. 1
  4366. 1
  4367. 1
  4368. 1
  4369. 1
  4370. 1
  4371. 1
  4372. 1
  4373. 1
  4374. 1
  4375. 1
  4376. 1
  4377. 1
  4378. 1
  4379. 1
  4380. 1
  4381. 1
  4382. 1
  4383. 1
  4384. 1
  4385. 1
  4386. 1
  4387. 1
  4388. 1
  4389. 1
  4390. 1
  4391. 1
  4392. 1
  4393. 1
  4394. 1
  4395. 1
  4396. 1
  4397. 1
  4398. 1
  4399. 1
  4400. 1
  4401. 1
  4402. 1
  4403. 1
  4404. 1
  4405. 1
  4406. 1
  4407. 1
  4408. 1
  4409. 1
  4410. 1
  4411. 1
  4412. 1
  4413. 1
  4414. 1
  4415. 1
  4416. 1
  4417. 1
  4418. 1
  4419. 1
  4420. 1
  4421. 1
  4422. 1
  4423. 1
  4424. 1
  4425. 1
  4426. 1
  4427. 1
  4428. 1
  4429. 1
  4430. 1
  4431. 1
  4432. 1
  4433. 1
  4434. 1
  4435. 1
  4436. 1
  4437. 1
  4438. 1
  4439. 1
  4440. 1
  4441. 1
  4442. 1
  4443. 1
  4444. 1
  4445. 1
  4446. 1
  4447. 1
  4448. 1
  4449. 1
  4450. 1
  4451. 1
  4452. 1
  4453. 1
  4454. 1
  4455. 1
  4456. 1
  4457. 1
  4458. 1
  4459. 1
  4460. 1
  4461. 1
  4462. 1
  4463. 1
  4464. 1
  4465. 1
  4466. 1
  4467. 1
  4468. 1
  4469. 1
  4470. 1
  4471. 1
  4472. 1
  4473. 1
  4474. 1
  4475. 1
  4476. 1
  4477. 1
  4478. 1
  4479. 1
  4480. 1
  4481. 1
  4482. 1
  4483. 1
  4484. 1
  4485. 1
  4486. 1
  4487. 1
  4488. 1
  4489. 1
  4490. 1
  4491. 1
  4492. 1
  4493. 1
  4494. 1
  4495. 1
  4496. 1
  4497. 1
  4498. 1
  4499. 1
  4500. 1
  4501. 1
  4502. 1
  4503. 1
  4504. 1
  4505. 1
  4506. 1
  4507. 1
  4508. 1
  4509. 1
  4510. 1
  4511. 1
  4512. 1
  4513. 1
  4514. 1
  4515. 1
  4516. 1
  4517. 1
  4518. 1
  4519. 1
  4520. 1
  4521. 1
  4522. 1
  4523. 1
  4524. 1
  4525. 1
  4526. 1
  4527. 1
  4528. 1
  4529. 1
  4530. 1
  4531. 1
  4532. 1
  4533. 1
  4534. 1
  4535. 1
  4536. 1
  4537. 1
  4538. 1
  4539. 1
  4540. 1
  4541. 1
  4542. 1
  4543. 1
  4544. 1
  4545. 1
  4546. 1
  4547. 1
  4548. 1
  4549. 1
  4550. 1
  4551. 1
  4552. 1
  4553. 1
  4554. 1
  4555. 1
  4556. 1
  4557. 1
  4558. 1
  4559. 1
  4560. 1
  4561. 1
  4562. 1
  4563. 1
  4564. 1
  4565. 1
  4566. 1
  4567. 1
  4568. 1
  4569. 1
  4570. 1
  4571. 1
  4572. 1
  4573. 1
  4574. 1
  4575. 1
  4576. 1
  4577. 1
  4578. 1
  4579. 1
  4580. 1
  4581. 1
  4582. 1
  4583. 1
  4584. 1
  4585. 1
  4586. 1
  4587. 1
  4588. 1
  4589. 1
  4590. 1
  4591. 1
  4592. 1
  4593. 1
  4594. 1
  4595. 1
  4596. 1
  4597. 1
  4598. 1
  4599. 1
  4600. 1
  4601. 1
  4602. 1
  4603. 1
  4604. 1
  4605. 1
  4606. 1
  4607. 1
  4608. 1
  4609. 1
  4610. 1
  4611. 1
  4612. 1
  4613. 1
  4614. 1
  4615. 1
  4616. 1
  4617. 1
  4618. 1
  4619. 1
  4620. 1
  4621. 1
  4622. 1
  4623. 1
  4624. 1
  4625. 1
  4626. 1
  4627. 1
  4628. 1
  4629. 1
  4630. 1
  4631. 1
  4632. 1
  4633. 1
  4634. 1
  4635. 1
  4636. 1
  4637. 1
  4638. 1
  4639. 1
  4640. 1
  4641. 1
  4642. 1
  4643. 1
  4644. 1
  4645. 1
  4646. 1
  4647. 1
  4648. 1
  4649. 1
  4650.  @lisad4013  1- yes laws make things legal or illegal. A gun from the US started off as a legal gun. It absolutely matters where it was "born". If it was not for the "legal" gun we would never have had an "illegal" gun used in a crime or murder 2- you labelled someone that has a license as a legal gun owner. Therefore someone that doesn't have a license you would have to label as illegal gun owner or are you suggesting they are also a legal gun owner The guns that were used in murder absolutely purchased somewhere as a legal gun. They were purchased from stores. Are you suggesting that stores deal in illegal guns? Smuggled= a gun that was legal somewhere and purchased from a store somewhere. Also not all guns are smuggled. However every time you mention smuggled guns you just further reinforce that strict gun laws and banning guns works. 3- It doesn't matter if someone is alive or dead it doesn't mean that their gun cannot fall into the hands of a criminal. I know they do. I worked for a company that sold guns and you would be amazed at how many guns were stolen or went missing. Doesn't matter if the gun is on record or not. A registered gun will not stop a criminal from obtaining it. Smuggled is not the key word. Every gun is starts of legally registered somewhere. However every time you mention smuggled guns and put so much focus on it it only reinforces the strict gun laws and banning guns works. 4- we already ban AK47s and other military assault weapons. And we don't have anywhere near the same mass shootings that involve these types of guns that the US has so it proves that banning guns works We are talking about the ban on handguns. Those are the main types of guns used in crime and those are the guns that the govt wants to buy back and ban. And since we agree that banning AK47s is effective at slowing gun violence banning and removing more guns like hands guns will just further slow the spread of gun violence. Are you not aware of the laws? Do you not read the comments made by other gun whack jobs crying about losing their handguns? Do you even live in Canada? Yes I know gun laws and it is good we are making them stricter and banning more types of guns. A gun is a deadly weapon that is designed to kill and we don't need that in our society. We don't need people like you making our society more dangerous.
    1
  4651. 1
  4652. 1
  4653. 1
  4654. 1
  4655. 1
  4656. 1
  4657. 1
  4658. 1
  4659. 1
  4660. 1
  4661. 1
  4662. 1
  4663. 1
  4664. 1
  4665. 1
  4666. 1
  4667. 1
  4668. 1
  4669. 1
  4670. 1
  4671. 1
  4672. 1
  4673. 1
  4674. 1
  4675. 1
  4676. 1
  4677. 1
  4678. 1
  4679. 1
  4680. 1
  4681. 1
  4682. 1
  4683. 1
  4684. 1
  4685. 1
  4686. 1
  4687. 1
  4688. 1
  4689. 1
  4690. 1
  4691. 1
  4692. 1
  4693. 1
  4694. 1
  4695. 1
  4696. 1
  4697. 1
  4698. 1
  4699. 1
  4700. 1
  4701. 1
  4702. 1
  4703. 1
  4704. 1
  4705. 1
  4706. 1
  4707. 1
  4708. 1
  4709. 1
  4710. 1
  4711. 1
  4712. 1
  4713. 1
  4714. 1
  4715. 1
  4716. 1
  4717. 1
  4718. 1
  4719. 1
  4720. 1
  4721. 1
  4722. 1
  4723. 1
  4724. 1
  4725. 1
  4726. 1
  4727. 1
  4728. 1
  4729. 1
  4730. 1
  4731. 1
  4732. 1
  4733. 1
  4734. 1
  4735. 1
  4736. 1
  4737. 1
  4738. 1
  4739. 1
  4740. 1
  4741. 1
  4742. 1
  4743. 1
  4744. 1
  4745. 1
  4746. 1
  4747. 1
  4748. 1
  4749. 1
  4750. 1
  4751. 1
  4752. 1
  4753.  @averagesukifan4074  1- July= 4 weeks August= 4 weeks Christmas= 2 weeks March Break= 1 week Total= 11 weeks- or almost 3 months Factor a few days in June, Sept, stat holidays, PA days etc and that is approximately 3 months Do you not understand what the word "approximately" means? 2- I have plenty of family members and friends that are teachers. Not a single one of them works the summer Sure a few teachers will work summer school but A- they get paid for that time- they are not working those summers for free so what is already a higher than average pay is now made higher. The pay teachers make is based on the approx. 9 months of the year they work. Any extra time they work in summer is extra pay. Teachers make more in 9 months work then the average person does in 12 and they want more? Out of touch with reality B- The majority of teachers don't work summers. It is only a few and from the experiences I have seen they tend to be the "newer" teachers that are trying to get full time positions, make a little more money, give them selves a better reputation to be able to move schools or grades etc. The vast majority of experienced teachers don't work summers 3- How do you jump to the unfounded conclusion of who I vote for or that I am conservative? And how is that even relevant to teachers being greedy and wanting to take more of my hard earned money through the taxes I pay I pay taxes like everyone else. I want my taxes to go towards the services I need not into the pockets of greedy teachers. 4- When have I ever said I was anti education? I am all for educating our people. The better educated our society is the better production etc we have. I am anti greed. 5- not sure what you mean by "pro truck" I can only assume you mean the truck demonstrations held in Ottawa. If that is what you mean then no I am not "pro truck" freedumbers are a bunch of fools. However whatever anyone's thoughts are on freedumbers is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The topic is govt incompetence and union greed. And we as tax payers should not fund either. And sure not everyone should be a truck driver but why are you disrespecting people that drive trucks? They are hard workers and make a good living. And they are not greedy holding people hostage like the teachers.
    1
  4754. 1
  4755. 1
  4756. 1
  4757.  @Geoffzilla  who says they are understaffed? Unions will tell you they are understaffed because they want more. Govt will tell you schools are overstaffed or under utilized because they want to save? Who you going to believe they are both lying for their own purposes. But: 1- you are generalizing and schools need to be looked at on a individual bases. A school in one city may be under utilized while a school in another area may not be. This is supported by the simple fact that in my area two schools (in Toronto a major city) were shut down because they were under utilized and not enough children going there. So how could those schools be understaffed? 2- why is saving my tax money a bad thing? Why should I pay to have three people do the job of one or two? It is a free market system if people working in schools they feel are understaffed and they are over worked they have just as much rights as anyone else in the work force to move to a different job. 3- just because you think they are understaffed doesn't mean that there are people willing to work the jobs. Who are you claiming is not hiring new people to properly staff the schools? If you think it is the govt then why are teachers not asking for more hires in their contract. Instead of asking for a personal raise in their wages why are they not asking for some of that money to be used to hire new employees to ease their workload? It is because they prefer to put the money in their own pocket then share some of that money or give someone else an opportunity. If they were that over worked they would fight just as hard for new employees to help as they are fighting for money for themselves. If you think it is the teachers (which do the hiring through school boards) that are causing schools to be under staffed then that is a problem they directly brought upon themselves and have no right to complain about a problem they created for themselves. And it goes to the point above. Instead of taking money for themselves why wouldn't they use it to hire more people....because they rather be greedy and have it themselves.
    1
  4758.  @Comrade_Jacky  1- The fact that they won't give it back just reinforces how incompetent they are. They should never have took it in the first place and now they want more 2- what does health care system have anything to do with this video? 3- wealth transfer is even further from the topic of this video 4- children do get a good education. Canada is one of the best education systems in the world. And teachers obviously get paid more than enough or they wouldn't become teachers or existing teachers would leave the profession for higher paying jobs. Teachers are some of the highest paid public employees. When teachers cry that they don't make enough that is their way of trying to guilt you into putting more of your tax dollars into their pockets. They are greedy. There union and pension funds are more of a large conglomerate corporation then any type of entity out to protect or care for workers rights. The Teachers Unions and Pension Funds are the exact corporate wealth you are crying about But this isn't about teachers. CUPE is not teachers. 5- yes there are problems in every system. Could it be better...sure. Could it be worse....a look at many different countries says it could be a lot worse. 6- I don't know what your little rant about capitalism is supposed to achieve. We live in a capitalist society. If you don't like it you could go to one of the many other countries that are far worse then we are that are hinted at in point #5 above. 7- Depends what you mean by "profit driven models" A wide open free capitalist society that allows corporations do to whatever they want is a big problem but we don't have that in our country. A union is a good example of holding corporations in check. I never said I don't support unions. They have their function in society. However: A- unions in a private sector is different from unions in a public sector. If a union in the private sector demands too high of a wage then the company either goes out of business or passes the higher wage onto the customer through price increases and the customer then adjusts their spending accordingly. Example if a company is making soap for $1 a bar and the union wage drives costs up to $1.50 per bar then I as a consumer will seek a different company's soap However CUPE is using my tax dollars for their increase. As a tax payer we should have a say in the process. I prefer that money in my pocket then someone else's pocket. 8- I do know how democracy works. It goes back to the point above- a democracy allows me the voice to say what should be done with my taxes. And we do have that voice. We do have that right to protest, vote, run for office etc. You are also confusing capitalism with democracy while they tend to be related capitalism is a form of economic system. Democracy is a form of politics You don't seem to understand either.
    1
  4759. 1
  4760. 1
  4761. 1
  4762. 1
  4763. 1
  4764. 1
  4765. 1
  4766.  @Tjd1982  the "rest of us" meaning the rest of us taxpayers that paid into that surplus. And sure we are getting some of it back in services and infastructure but if the govt has a surplus that means we are not getting our full value back. To put it in another context if you go to a store and use a $20 bill to buy a $15 item don't you expect the store to give you back $5 because you are buying something worth $15 not $20? Wouldn't you be upset if the store took that extra cash for themselves or raised the price of the $15 dollar item to $20 dollars to force you to give them the extra $5. Or forced you to buy an item worth $5 that you don't want? If the govt is running a surplus then it means they are collecting more money from taxpayers then they are spending. And as a taxpayer I want my money back. Sure I could suggest I want more services but the govt is incompetent and I know better what I want to do with my money then the govt. The govt always fu$cks up what people want (you can hear it in these comments) Person A may want more roads because they drive Person B may want more public transit because they use the bus to commute Person C may want to give CUPE more money Person D doesn't want to give them more money etc etc etc etc Each individual knows exactly what they want to buy in for their own personal needs. Give each individual their money back and they will spend it in the best possible way to fit their needs. Give the money to the govt and they will try to please everyone and they will take a mix and mash of Person A, B, C and D wants and needs and blend them into a mash of little points to try and please everyone but nobody ends up fully satisfied.
    1
  4767. 1
  4768. 1
  4769. 1
  4770. 1
  4771. 1
  4772. 1
  4773. 1
  4774. 1
  4775. 1
  4776. 1
  4777. 1
  4778. 1
  4779. 1
  4780. 1
  4781. 1
  4782. 1
  4783. 1
  4784. 1
  4785. 1
  4786. 1
  4787. 1
  4788. 1
  4789. 1
  4790. 1
  4791. 1
  4792. 1
  4793. 1
  4794. 1
  4795. 1
  4796. 1
  4797. 1
  4798. 1
  4799. 1
  4800. 1
  4801. 1
  4802. 1
  4803. 1
  4804. 1
  4805. 1
  4806. 1
  4807. 1
  4808. 1
  4809. 1
  4810. 1
  4811. 1
  4812. 1
  4813. 1
  4814. 1
  4815. 1
  4816. 1
  4817. 1
  4818. 1
  4819. 1
  4820. 1
  4821. 1
  4822. 1
  4823. 1
  4824. 1
  4825. 1
  4826. 1
  4827. 1
  4828. 1
  4829. 1
  4830. 1
  4831. 1
  4832. 1
  4833. 1
  4834. 1
  4835. 1
  4836. 1
  4837. 1
  4838. 1
  4839. 1
  4840. 1
  4841. 1
  4842. 1
  4843. 1
  4844. 1
  4845. 1
  4846. 1
  4847. 1
  4848. 1
  4849. 1
  4850. 1
  4851. 1
  4852. 1
  4853. 1
  4854. 1
  4855. 1
  4856. 1
  4857. 1
  4858. 1
  4859. 1
  4860. 1
  4861. 1
  4862. 1
  4863. 1
  4864. 1
  4865. 1
  4866. 1
  4867. 1
  4868. 1
  4869. 1
  4870. 1
  4871. 1
  4872. 1
  4873. 1
  4874. 1
  4875. 1
  4876. 1
  4877. 1
  4878. 1
  4879. 1
  4880. 1
  4881. 1
  4882. 1
  4883. 1
  4884. 1
  4885. 1
  4886. 1
  4887. 1
  4888. 1
  4889. 1
  4890. 1
  4891. 1
  4892. 1
  4893. 1
  4894. 1
  4895. 1
  4896. 1
  4897. 1
  4898. 1
  4899. 1
  4900. 1
  4901. 1
  4902. 1
  4903. 1
  4904. 1
  4905. 1
  4906. 1
  4907. 1
  4908. 1
  4909. 1
  4910. 1
  4911. 1
  4912. 1
  4913. 1
  4914. 1
  4915. 1
  4916. 1
  4917. 1
  4918. 1
  4919. 1
  4920. 1
  4921. 1
  4922. 1
  4923. 1
  4924. 1
  4925. 1
  4926. 1
  4927. 1
  4928. 1
  4929. 1
  4930. 1
  4931. 1
  4932. 1
  4933. 1
  4934. 1
  4935. 1
  4936. 1
  4937. 1
  4938. 1
  4939. 1
  4940. @fi It is true. Watch the news more often. Scarborough is in the title of every "bad" thing that happens in Scarborough while anything else happens in the rest of the city the borough is not mentioned once. I remember once two people were shot and killed in one part of the city (if I remember correctly North York) and it was not even top news and North York was not mentioned once. However on the same day a kid was stabbed and lived in Scarborough and it was top news, Scarborough was repeated multiple times and the report came on every few mintues. Just the other day an accident happened on the 401 at Brimley and they repeated "Scarborough" multiple times with Scarborough in the title. It didn't even involve people from Scarborough it was a part of the 401 that just happened to be through Scarborough involving people that could have lived anywhere in Canada. If something happens on the 401 anywhere else in the city they say 401 with the main road it was near. Happens all the time. I have never heard them state "York" or "East York" or "North York" and it is very rare they say "Etobicoke" but they will always say "Scarborough". In fact whenever anything happens east of Yonge Street or in East York they will say East End. Scarborough is the East End not East York but East End gives the impression it is in Scarborough. And it is clear they didn't change their policy to only say the location not the city because this guy starts off the segment stating "Scarborough". I have looked it up and I am not playing the victim. You need to pull your head out of your back side and face reality.
    1
  4941. 1
  4942. 1
  4943. 1
  4944. 1
  4945. 1
  4946. 1
  4947. 1
  4948. 1
  4949. 1
  4950. 1
  4951. 1
  4952. 1
  4953. 1
  4954. 1
  4955. 1
  4956. 1
  4957. 1
  4958. 1
  4959. 1
  4960. 1
  4961. 1
  4962. 1
  4963. 1
  4964. 1
  4965. 1
  4966. 1
  4967. 1
  4968. 1
  4969. 1
  4970. 1
  4971. 1
  4972. 1
  4973. 1
  4974. 1
  4975. 1
  4976. 1
  4977. 1
  4978. 1
  4979. 1
  4980. 1
  4981. 1
  4982. 1
  4983. 1
  4984. 1
  4985. 1
  4986. 1
  4987. 1
  4988. 1
  4989. 1
  4990. 1
  4991. 1
  4992. 1
  4993. 1
  4994. 1
  4995. 1
  4996. 1
  4997. 1
  4998. 1
  4999. 1
  5000. 1
  5001. 1
  5002. 1
  5003. 1
  5004. 1
  5005. 1
  5006. 1
  5007. 1
  5008. 1
  5009. 1
  5010. 1
  5011.  @flexxgym350  it seems that every thing was given to you if you think that everyone is like you. You are detached from reality and self entitled What does it matter how many hours I work? Your question is completely irrelevant. However to answer your question when going through school as a kid I worked a minimum of 40 hours plus went to school 40 hours. You are not the only one that worked hard. YOur thought that you are the only hard worker just reinforces that you are self entitled Lots of people work two jobs, go to school etc. You are too self entitled to see that times have changed. Every thing you claim you did I also did. I worked hard also the difference between you and me is I am not self entitled and realize times have changed. You on the other hand have your head up your a$$ Also if you have been working 2 full time jobs plus a part time job then you just reinforce the Title and Point of the video. If you think needing to work 2 full time jobs and a part time job (100 hours a week) while your wife does the same (another 100 hours or 200 hours total) just to get by makes you comfortable you just reinforce what a dystopian nightmare things are becoming. My parents at your age my mother stayed home while my dad worked one full time job for a total of 40 hours to have the exact same things you have that you and a partner need to do working 200 hours. AND my parents did it living inside Toronto. You need to work 5 times the hours the generation before you had to work to get the same things AND you had to move outside Toronto to do it. You reinforce exactly what this video is stating and contradicting yourself. Also this video is about single income earners. By bringing your wife into the equation and including her income you just further reinforce that minimum wage for a single income earner is not possible to live comfortable. Not everyone has a wife or partner they can rely on. The fact you have a wife and think everyone else should also just reinforces what a self entitled pri$ck you are. You also don't know the trades work. Not once did I ever say "not work" What I clearly said is trades is like all other jobs. You don't just walk in off the streets and just start working at $50 dollars an hour. It takes years to get to that level and you can't survive on minimum wage for years in order to get to that level. Again you clearly have your self entitled head up your a$$ And my mindset is great. As I stated I have much the same as what you have however unlike you I am not a self entitled di$ck and realize that things have changed and that not everyone has the same opportunities as I had. There are millions of people that work hard every day but don't have the same opportunities. The simple fact that you are bragging about how much money you make per month just reinforces what a self entitled out of touch di$ck you are.
    1
  5012. 1
  5013. 1
  5014. 1
  5015. 1
  5016. 1
  5017. 1
  5018. 1
  5019. 1
  5020. 1
  5021. 1
  5022. 1
  5023. 1
  5024. 1
  5025. 1
  5026. 1
  5027. 1
  5028. 1
  5029. 1
  5030. 1
  5031. 1
  5032. 1
  5033. 1
  5034. 1
  5035. 1
  5036. 1
  5037.  @ralphkilloran8065  1- we already do protect citizens from becoming drug dependent. It is arguable how well it works because we still have drug dependency however we also don't have massive out of control dependency that sees everyone involved in drugs. So could it be better.....sure. But could it be worse......sure. Fact will always remain drugs will seep into our society 2- legalizing drugs with certain restrictions and providing safe injection sites does make things easier however "make things easier" is also arguable. Once someone is on drugs a safe house provides a place for them to seek help for treatment and it also provides medical help in the event of overdose. I would not argue we should legalize hard drugs like we did with marijuana that would create a big incentive for people to go out and try it just because it is now legal (so giving the impression it is not that bad). However legalizing drugs or providing access to addicts in restricted quantities can help reduce the amount of overdoses because the qty would be enough for the addicts needs but not enough to overdose. Can help reduce the quality issues so addicts can get pure or clean drugs not something that would be laced with toxins or fentynal or other items that can cause death. And it can help addicts get through the painful symptoms of withdrawal as they seek help. Also legalizing drugs can reduce the black market which would also reduce all the other crimes that go along with a black market. We should not legalize hard drugs and just start selling it in corner stores like we do with beer and alcohol but we should have proper restricted access to addicts that are seeking help 3- I agree drug use and homelessness is often linked but not always. I knew people that were addicts that had homes and became addicts through pain killers etc. I also used to work in Toronto homeless shelters and there was a large drug problem (some turned to drugs after becoming homeless other became homeless because of drugs but I agree they are often linked) 4- I agree politicians don't care. All they care about is themselves. They will tell people what they want to hear to get elected but they don't care about you me or anyone but themselves. Anyone that believes a politician (from any level of govt or any political party) is just fooling themselves. 5- I agree we should reach out to people before they become addicts however the drug issues is complex. It is not that easy. Fact remains we will always have drugs in our society so it is great to reach out to people to prevent drug addiction however the fact will remain we will also always have addicts and once we have addicts we need to address the drug problem from that side also. Which includes restricted access to drugs as a way for addicts to get help, prevent overdose etc. The problems with places like Seattle (from what I understand I may be wrong) is that there is little to no restrictions. It is legal with the assumption that an addict will seek help on their own. If it is restricted meaning the addict can get access to it however it is limited in qty to prevent overdose and linked to the addict seeking proper help then we need to look at that type of approach because no matter what we will always have addicts and our current system of putting them on jail then back out on the street where they can't get a job or help isn't working either.
    1
  5038. 1
  5039. 1
  5040. 1
  5041. 1
  5042. 1
  5043. 1
  5044. 1
  5045. 1
  5046. 1
  5047. 1
  5048. 1
  5049. 1
  5050. 1
  5051. 1
  5052. 1
  5053. 1
  5054. 1
  5055. 1
  5056. 1
  5057. 1
  5058. 1
  5059. 1
  5060. 1
  5061. 1
  5062. 1
  5063. 1
  5064. 1
  5065. 1
  5066. 1
  5067. 1
  5068. 1
  5069. 1
  5070. 1
  5071. 1
  5072. 1
  5073. 1
  5074. 1
  5075. 1
  5076. 1
  5077. 1
  5078. 1
  5079. 1
  5080. 1
  5081. 1
  5082. 1
  5083. 1
  5084. 1
  5085. 1
  5086. 1
  5087. 1
  5088. 1
  5089. 1
  5090. 1
  5091. 1
  5092. 1
  5093. 1
  5094. 1
  5095. 1
  5096. 1
  5097. 1
  5098. 1
  5099. 1
  5100. 1
  5101. 1
  5102. 1
  5103. 1
  5104. 1
  5105. 1
  5106. 1
  5107. 1
  5108. 1
  5109. 1
  5110. 1
  5111. 1
  5112. 1
  5113. 1
  5114. 1
  5115. 1
  5116. 1
  5117. 1
  5118. 1
  5119. 1
  5120. 1
  5121. 1
  5122. 1
  5123. 1
  5124. 1
  5125. 1
  5126. 1
  5127. 1
  5128. 1
  5129. 1
  5130. 1
  5131. 1
  5132. 1
  5133. 1
  5134. 1
  5135. 1
  5136. 1
  5137. 1
  5138. 1
  5139. 1
  5140. 1
  5141. 1
  5142. 1
  5143. 1
  5144.  @UzumakiNaruto_  1- "How can you build supposed 'affordable housing' in the most expensive parts of the city" We covered this you dumba$$. If 10 towers can fit on a small plot of land then one or two can easily be used as low cost housing. There are numerous places throughout the city that low cost housing is mixed in with condos. Half of Scarborough is like this 2- "Why would you not find places that are actually cheap to buy," The answer to that question is in the comment you replied to. We build where low income people need to live. By your flawed reasoning land is the cheapest in the remote areas of Nunavik or the Yukon....by your logic we should build warehouses in the middle of nowhere and expect low income families to live there. 3- "Why is it mandatory for homeless to be downtown" It isn't you dumb a$$. We have low cost housing spread all over the city. We build where low income families need to live. There is lots of development downtown, there are lots of low income families that could live downtown so we could build low income housing down town. You seem to dim witted to understand how our job market and housing markets work 4- "Why do homeless and their advocates have so much power" They don't. If you think they have more power than large corporations etc then you are a fool. Again you clearly have never been in a homeless shelter if you think they weld the most power in the city. 5- "There are PLENTY of places out in the suburbs that are more affordable and are suitable" First of all there already is a ton of low cost housing in the suburbs. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about Second we build where needed. Some is built in the suburbs some is needed downtown Third why should the suburbs be the one to have all the low cost housing? Downtown can handle some of the cost and some of the housing 6- "We should stop letting these people and their supporters to dictate what they want" This is just a repeat of point #4. You are a fool if you think they dictate anything 7- "Its not working well by the standards that we still see a ton of bums in our parks" So basically you are basing your entire argument off your angry little emotions without any real knowledge of the topic 8- "so picky and choosy as to what help they'll accept" This just reinforces that not only have you never been in a homeless shelter but you have no understanding at all about homelessness 9- "I don't know how long you've lived in Toronto/GTA" How is it relevant how long someone lived in the city to understand homelessness? But if you really want to know...48 years 10- " things are much, MUCH worse now than they were 20-30 years ago." No it isn't again you are just reacting on your angry little emotions because you don't really understand the topic 11- "You need to do audits to find the source of the problems" We already covered this topic. We already do do audits. The govt has always been and always will be inefficient because they play to the emotions of people like you that don't understand topics instead of actually dealing with the topic. 12- "Right now we sure as hell don't punish anyone nearly enough even when the corruption and guilt is obvious." What guilt? Are you pretending to be a police officer or forensic account now? 13- "Why don't you go look at all the places in the GTA with existing low income housing and see what the demographic breakdown is like?" So you are just confirming again that you are a racist pile of dog $hit 14- "That if you see facts that you don't like or align with your narrative" I have no narrative. I just stated facts that seemed to have gotten you all upset. I am still waiting to hear what facts you have. It seems you have none because you don't know anything about the topic 15- "you'd talk about immigrants separately by race/ethnic groups" So you just continue to prove you are a racist pile of dog $hit 16- "How ABSOLUTELY RACIST OF US to even DARE try and want to preserve our nation and not see it get worse" Yes you are correct that is racist. Our nation was built by immigrants 17- "Many Canadians aren't having kids because they don't have the time and money to have kids" So you agree our population is not growing by people already within our country. You support my claims 18- "The government and businesses wants educated people to take as little time off to have kids as humanly possible" The govt and business have nothing to do with an individuals choice to have children. This is not the book "1984". This is a free country You just continue to prove what an angry little person you are with such an angry little view and opinion on everything. You seem to want to blame everyone for your own failures 19- "immigrants to be our baby factories", "-- huh wow how racist and Orwellian you are. 20- "Native people", "these people often don't work and receive plenty of government checks", "ven minorities can't breed as fast as native people" Wow your racism and hatred just continues to grow and spread. You really are a pile of dog $hit 21- "Not every immigrant that comes to Canada has money to burn" And the vast majority are not the lazy unemployed homeless people that your twisted angry hatefilled belief is trying to make them out to be 22- "Our taxpayer money. " Yes that comes from everyone including the hardworking immigrants that are productive members of our society and help build our nation 23- "exactly spring chickens and in the best of health. " Absolutely amazing how your angry, hatred and racism just keeps spreading 24- "again all this doesn't even include the increased garbage and carbon emission output" We covered that topic extensively you seem too dim witted to understand that many enviromental problems are world wide not contained to just the area that someone lives in. And I also covered local concerns also. You just prove that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to environmental issues also You are so racist and angry you are not even on topic anymore. You just went off on a long winded racist rant. You are one sad pathetic angry little person.
    1
  5145.  @UzumakiNaruto_  1- "Even if you moved every single low income family into supposed 'affordable housing', you're only getting a temporary bump in supply before its swallowed up by buyers and the neverending train of new immigrants/refugees arriving into the country" Clearly you don't know economics Also odd you say that when your racist belief is that it is immigrants that are the ones using low income housing not buying condos. 2- "If you're bringing in several hundred thousand people into the country EVERY SINGLE YEAR" We have brought in several hundred thousand people for the last 50 to 100 years. We have had housing shortages and abundances during all those years. It had nothing to do with immigration but economics. You just like being racist and blaming immigrants for all your own failures 3- "Low income housing in itself IS NOT leading to worse neighborhoods and higher crime rates. Its the KINDS OF PEOPLE who live in that low income housing" That is just a twisted way of saying you think low income housing causes crime. You are a bigot towards poor people and a racist towards immigrants 4- "you're solution is temporary and does nothing to fix the problem long term" My solution was to build more low income housing. My solution was if you can fit 10 towers on a piece of land then one of them can be used for low income housing. With the rate we are building condos we can also build a lot of low income housing at the same time. So my solution is long term. Buildings last a long time...or long term. You refused to accept that and cried like a little baby. 5- "This is why you HAVE TO lump all immigrants together" So just more angry racism because you are a failure in life 6- "You keep saying we need to build shelters where the homeless are except you can't understand that PEOPLE ARE MOBILE AND CAN BE MOVED. " People move to where they need to go you fool. If moving is that easy then why didn't you answer my question....Instead of trying to move an entire mass of people and the infrastructure that goes with it why don't you move? It is a free country and you seem unhappy where you live so you move 7- "move them into the suburbs " We already covered that topic.....if you think that low income housing causes crime then why should it be a suburbs 'problem" Let downtown handle some of the problem also....they are part of the city also 8- "where its cheaper and more economical" We covered this topic also you dumb a$$. It is not cheap to live in the city and we have lots of low income housing throughout the entire city including the suburbs. Half of Scarborough is low income housing and it is not cheap to live in Scarborough. As per point above. It is an equal unified city. Some people are downtown and some are in the suburbs so let downtown build some low income housing also 9- "Why do we even bother building expensive transit if the goal isn't to connect the city together" Your question answered itself. It is to provide transportation. But homeless people don't have money to ride the bus to and from the downtown core and a shelter in the suburbs everyday. That is why we build the shelter downtown where they are. But we also have some shelters in the suburbs where other homeless people are (I listed a bunch of shelters with their locations) 10- "You're literally seeing right now Doug Ford opening up land in the Greenbelt area" Not really on topic but it's not against the law. What you are saying is you are just basing your entire argument purely on your emotion However since you mention it building those houses creates more supply which going back to point above fills demand. Simple economics 11- "He should be prosecuted and thrown in jail for corruption and giving favors in exchange for money" And you have proof of this? Again I ask you are law enforcement? Or are you really just talking $hit based on your emotions? 12- "You can't respond to these statistics which is why you outright ignore them" I didn't ignore them and I did reply to them. Crime has remained relatively flat over the last 10 years. In fact many neighborhoods like mine have gotten even safer You just like to cry and run on emotion. And what you are saying isn't even on topic or even remotely related to the point I made from the very beginning about building more low cost housing to create more supply to bring housing prices down. You are not even attempting to talk about the topic instead you just want to cry and be racist 13- "we don't even care if they're disabled or elderly because it would be discriminatory to reject them" Damn you are a repetative mo$ron. We have an Immigration Policy you dumb a$$. No idea why you keep repeating "mass immigration when that is not true. Learn our Immigration Policy and stop repeating yourself like a fool 14- "This topic is more than just low income housing" No it isn't. I was the one that started the topic and the topic was more low income housing. You were the one that decided to go off on a completely different racist rant about unrelated topics. 15- "require you to explain why Japan and South Korea " We covered that topic you dumb jack a$$. Those are two completely different countries that have nothing to do with low income housing in Toronto. Are you really trying to argue Toronto is in Japan or South Korea? Do you not know geography? 16-" I went back and read EVERY SINGLE POST YOU MADE in our discussion " Then you need to read and understand better. While environmental concerns are not the topic. Low income housing is the topic I did address the topic of environmental concerns. You are too $tupid to grasp it. 17- "The fact is you can't explain how bringing in so many people doesn't negatively impact Canada and how much more waste" You can't explain why you blame immigrants for a Canadian waste problem As I already stated 90-95% of all consumer packaging is recycled and as you agree it is Canadians that don't seem to care and recycle enough. You have yet to explain how a failure in collection, a failure to find markets, a failure to hold industries accountable, a failure by Canadians to recycle more etc etc etc are all caused by immigration. Again you seem to want to be racist and blame immigrants for all your problems 18- "and resource usage "-- you seem too $tupid to understand that Canada has an abundence of resources. We have more fresh water than any country on this planet and 99% of it just flows away untouched (by man not wildlife) into the oceans. And as I already stated if you learned to read properly we produce so much electrical power that we have to pay the US to take it from us. We have to pay to give it away. 19- "more waste and resource usage will be created with so many new people coming here" Your racist hatred towards immigrants has also blinded you to the notion that our country was built on immigrants. As I already stated if you learned to read immigrants are a benefit and help find solutions to these problems. While you are a negative racist the rest of the country sees positive people capable of making beneficial change in our country. There are people all over the world solving problems. But in your racist hatred you only believe white men can find solutions 20- "Climate change is a world problem", "Bringing in tons of new people into this country every year goes against fighting climate change" If you agree then why the f$ck do you keep mention it. People will produce emissions regardless of where they live and emissions will cross borders so it doesn't matter if they come to Canada or live somewhere else they will produce emissions However this is way off topic and is not related to low income housing at all. 21- "Canada should be looking to reduce its own impact" We do you dumb a$$. Haven't you heard of things like the Paris accord? We also have thousands of laws regulating all types of emissions and pollution. Is this your first day on Earth? And going back to points above immigrants help find solutions 22- "why you simply ignore the question." I haven't ignored anything. I addressed every $tupid ignorant comment you have made even the hate filled racist ones and the ones that have nothing to do with the topic of low cost housing.
    1
  5146. 1
  5147. 1
  5148. 1
  5149. 1
  5150. 1
  5151. 1
  5152. 1
  5153. 1
  5154. 1
  5155. 1
  5156. 1
  5157. 1
  5158. 1
  5159. 1
  5160. 1
  5161. 1
  5162. 1
  5163. 1
  5164. 1
  5165. 1
  5166. 1
  5167. 1
  5168. 1
  5169. 1
  5170. 1
  5171. 1
  5172. 1
  5173. 1
  5174. 1
  5175. 1
  5176. 1
  5177. 1
  5178. 1
  5179. 1
  5180. 1
  5181. 1
  5182. 1
  5183. 1
  5184. 1
  5185. 1
  5186. 1
  5187. 1
  5188. 1
  5189. 1
  5190. 1
  5191. 1
  5192. 1
  5193. 1
  5194. 1
  5195. 1
  5196. 1
  5197. 1
  5198. 1
  5199. 1
  5200. 1
  5201. 1
  5202. 1
  5203. 1
  5204. 1
  5205. 1
  5206. 1
  5207. 1
  5208. 1
  5209. 1
  5210. 1
  5211. 1
  5212. 1
  5213.  @GreatGazoo65  times were different then. Oil was booming creating jobs that had nothing to do with who was in power. And the dollar at par or higher than the US dollar is not necessarily a good thing for the country. When the dollar was at par or higher then the US dollar the manufacturing sectors mainly in Ontario and Quebec crashed. Every one of our politicians have mismanaged our money. We wouldn't be in massive debt if they didn't. We have had massive deficits almost every year for the last 50 years You are also comparing years that the economy was up and running to a time when the economy was shut down due to Covid and there were massive amounts of people that would starve to death without govt funding. Again I don't support the Liberals. I agree they are horrible and couldn't manage a lemonade stand. But if you think the Conservatives are any better you are just fooling yourself. That is the problem with our system The people like you will flip flop back and forth between parties and the entire time nobody is held accountable. Politicians just pis$ our money away and use it to buy your vote. If they were held accountable to what they promise then things may be different. Until then people will just whine and cry and flip flop back and forth. And our politicians will take advantage of that to get elected. Politicians are politicians for a reason. They can't make it in the real world. And the general public is a bunch of whiny crying babies that want everything but don't want to pay of any of it.
    1
  5214. 1
  5215. 1
  5216.  @Top-NotchRentals  you seem to be missing the point. The times that Canada didn't have a deficit were also times that had economies that were lead by much different factors that were world wide or not driven by Canada's PM. Again I don't support Trudeau but he was the only PM that faced a world wide pandemic that left half our country unemployed on on the verge of unemployment. I agree that he overspends but there are some things (like making sure our population doesn't starve to death like they tried to do in the USA) that other PMs didn't have to deal with And the times that Canada didn't have a deficit- 1998 to 2007 most of them were under a Liberal PM (Cretien then Paul Martin). Stephen Harper took over as a Conservative PM and within 2 years ran Canada back into deficits. You can also look at Ontario that has had deficits and this year alone the Conservative govt miss estimated the deficit by several billions of dollars. Again I am not supporting the Liberals but you are fooling yourself if you think the Conservatives are any different. They are all the same. That is the problem with our system. Everyone whines and cries for something but nobody wants to pay for it and our politicians (from all parties and levels) are more than happy to use our money to buy our vote to makes up happy. All the people whining and crying for the conservatives today in 5 to 8 years will be whining and crying for the liberals. It shows in the constant flip flop of what party is in power. Nobody holds our politicians accountable. They will just pi$$ our money away to buy your vote and not follow through on a thing they promise once in power. They are politicians for a reason....they can't make it in the real world.
    1
  5217. 1
  5218. 1
  5219. 1
  5220. 1
  5221. 1
  5222. 1
  5223. 1
  5224. 1
  5225. 1
  5226. 1
  5227. 1
  5228. 1
  5229. 1
  5230. 1
  5231. 1
  5232. 1
  5233. 1
  5234. 1
  5235. 1
  5236. 1
  5237. 1
  5238. 1
  5239. 1
  5240. 1
  5241. 1
  5242. 1
  5243. 1
  5244. 1
  5245. 1
  5246. 1
  5247. 1
  5248. 1
  5249. 1
  5250. 1
  5251. 1
  5252. 1
  5253. 1
  5254. 1
  5255. 1
  5256. 1
  5257. 1
  5258. 1
  5259. 1
  5260. 1
  5261. 1
  5262. 1
  5263. 1
  5264. 1
  5265. 1
  5266. 1
  5267. 1
  5268. 1
  5269. 1
  5270. 1
  5271. 1
  5272. 1
  5273. 1
  5274. 1
  5275. 1
  5276.  @laurets25  1- a legal gun in the US was a legal gun. If not for the legal gun there never would have been an "illegal" gun. You only choose to label it legal or illegal based on who is holding it. The fact remains that it is a deadly weapon and if not for the legal demand for that deadly weapon it would not exist in society 2- you never said there was no border control but in the next sentence you state their should be patrol at the border as if there is no border control. Try and get it into your tiny brain. We do have border control and funding for border control has been increased in the same set of bills you are so angry about. You are angry with something you don't even fully understand. And as a result of that increase border control was able to stop nearly double what it did the year before. Also gun control is complex and requires different approaches. Border control is one approach (which we do). Banning guns is another approach. Just because your tiny mind is not capable of focusing on one item at a time doesn't mean that the large govt is not capable of doing more than one thing at a time. We can and do both- border control and gun regulation and laws 3- smuggled guns are not the only source for guns. And if you use your tiny mind to think things through you would understand that smuggled guns doesn't help your argument at all. If it was easy to get guns in Canada then there would be no need to smuggle guns. People would get them here the same way they easily get them in the US. The fact that people have to go all the way to the US and risk smuggling them into the country instead of just going into a local Walmart to get one (like in the US) proves that banning guns and strict gun laws works. If we remove strict laws and allow a free flowing supply of guns like in the US then people wouldn't need to smuggle them. They would just get them here. 4- The only thing that is stupid and does not make sense is you. And you are correct criminals don't follow the laws....so what? are you not familiar with the meaning of the word criminal? Just because they don't follow laws doesn't mean that we should make it easy for them or easy for them to get a hold of deadly weapons. A criminal with a gun is far more deadly then one without a gun and for some reason you want to give them easier access.
    1
  5277.  @thomasnunya1438  1- legal gun owners absolutely are part of the problem A- a smuggled gun starts off just as legal where it was smuggled from as one from Canada. B- not all "illegal" guns are smuggled guns but sourced within Canada. C- not all gun crime is committed with an "illegal" gun. Nearly half of all gun crime is committed with a legally registered gun 2- who cares about an Olympic sport? The idea of you or anyone participating in an Olympic sport is extremely rare. If you think the rare opportunity of participating in a sport that 99% of the nation doesn't care about to start with out weighs the lives of people that are murdered with guns then you are twisted. People participating in target shooting can find another hobby, dead people however cannot come back to life. Target shooting is a tiny representation of this country and is a privilege. Your privileges cannot infringe on the vast majority of Canadian's rights. 3- Trying to compare a gun to hockey is one of the dumbest comparisons I have heard so far from the gun community. And hockey is far larger then target shooting (even the most ignorant naive hockey hating Canadian can name a hockey player or hockey team.....doubt anyone can name the last Canadian gold medal target shooter) 4- doesn't matter what the likely hood is that a gun owner commits the actual crime. The point is they allow their gun to get into the hands of a criminal to let a crime take place. And gun owners do not have the right to make our society less safe. However going back to the points above your comment is untrue. Nearly half of all gun crime is committed with a legally registered gun....so a gun owner is more likely to commit a gun crime then someone without a gun (give someone a gun in the heat of the moment they are far more likely to use the gun then someone that doesn't have access to a gun) 5- nobody is banning long barrel hunting guns. so your point is useless. Nobody needs automatic weapons or handguns to hunt. Also while about 55-60% of gun violence in urban areas is with a hand gun about 60% of gun violence in rural areas involves a long barrel rifle used in hunting so not only is your point irrelevant it is factually wrong.
    1
  5278. 1
  5279. 1
  5280. 1
  5281. 1
  5282. 1
  5283. 1
  5284. 1
  5285. 1
  5286. 1
  5287. 1
  5288. 1
  5289. 1
  5290. 1
  5291. 1
  5292. 1
  5293. 1
  5294. 1
  5295. 1
  5296. 1
  5297. 1
  5298. 1
  5299. 1
  5300. 1
  5301. 1
  5302. 1
  5303. 1
  5304. 1
  5305. 1
  5306. 1
  5307. 1
  5308. 1
  5309. 1
  5310. 1
  5311. 1
  5312. 1
  5313. 1
  5314. 1
  5315. 1
  5316. 1
  5317. 1
  5318. 1
  5319. 1
  5320. 1
  5321. 1
  5322. 1
  5323. 1
  5324. 1
  5325. 1
  5326. 1
  5327. 1
  5328. 1
  5329. 1
  5330. 1
  5331. 1
  5332. 1
  5333. 1
  5334. 1
  5335. 1
  5336. 1
  5337. 1
  5338. 1
  5339. 1
  5340. 1
  5341. 1
  5342. 1
  5343. 1
  5344. 1
  5345. 1
  5346. 1
  5347. 1
  5348. 1
  5349. 1
  5350. 1
  5351. 1
  5352. 1
  5353. 1
  5354. 1
  5355. 1
  5356. 1
  5357. 1
  5358. 1
  5359. 1
  5360. 1
  5361. 1
  5362. 1
  5363. 1
  5364. 1
  5365. 1
  5366. 1
  5367. 1
  5368. 1
  5369. 1
  5370. 1
  5371. 1
  5372. 1
  5373. 1
  5374. 1
  5375. 1
  5376. 1
  5377. 1
  5378. 1
  5379. 1
  5380. 1
  5381. 1
  5382. 1
  5383. 1
  5384. 1
  5385. 1
  5386. 1
  5387. 1
  5388. 1
  5389. 1
  5390. 1
  5391. 1
  5392. 1
  5393. 1
  5394. 1
  5395. 1
  5396. 1
  5397. 1
  5398. 1
  5399. 1
  5400. 1
  5401. 1
  5402. 1
  5403. 1
  5404. 1
  5405. 1
  5406.  @GrandKaiserD79  the vast majority of our GDP is from consumer spending. Give more money to the people and the larger our GDP or economy becomes. It is proven. You can see it in recent events with increased inflation and increase in taxes. As people had less money they spent less and our economy shrank. When people have more consumable income the more they spend. People can get more consumable income from many different ways like wage increase, work another job, better investments etc etc and one way to provide people with more money is take less of it away from them in the form of taxes. Currently it will help with debt because people had less disposable income so they used debt to survive. However in the long run if they have more disposable income then their debt gets paid off and they buy more products and services. You can see this in many business already. Example a store (like Home Depot) is not selling a lot of drywall or patio furniture because people do not have the disposable income to do renovations or update their backyard. Once their debt it paid down they will then do renovations and update their backyard. Proven by the record profits companies like Home Depot had prior to the slowdown in the economy (when inflation grew, taxes rose and consumers had less disposable income) Also paying down debt doesn't mean money disappears. Paying down debt puts the money back into financial companies' "hands" and they don't sit on money. The make money by loaning money so they will then put that money back into the economy for many different things (mortgages, business loans etc that all lead to more growth). It is well known and proven that the consumer will always know better what to do with their money then the govt and consumer spending is what is the main driving factor behind growth or stability in our economy. It is basic economics.
    1
  5407. 1
  5408. 1
  5409. 1
  5410. 1
  5411. 1
  5412. 1
  5413. 1
  5414. 1
  5415. 1
  5416. 1
  5417. 1
  5418. 1
  5419. 1
  5420. 1
  5421. 1
  5422. 1
  5423. 1
  5424. 1
  5425. 1
  5426. 1
  5427. 1
  5428. 1
  5429. 1
  5430. 1
  5431. 1
  5432. 1
  5433. 1
  5434. 1
  5435. 1
  5436. 1
  5437. 1
  5438. 1
  5439. 1
  5440. 1
  5441. 1
  5442. 1
  5443. 1
  5444. 1
  5445. 1
  5446. 1
  5447. 1
  5448. 1
  5449. 1
  5450. 1
  5451. 1
  5452. 1
  5453. 1
  5454. 1
  5455. 1
  5456. 1
  5457. 1
  5458. 1
  5459. 1
  5460. 1
  5461. 1
  5462. 1
  5463. 1
  5464. 1
  5465. 1
  5466. 1
  5467. 1
  5468. 1
  5469. 1
  5470. 1
  5471. 1
  5472. 1
  5473. 1
  5474. 1
  5475. 1
  5476. 1
  5477. 1
  5478. 1
  5479. 1
  5480. 1
  5481. 1
  5482. 1
  5483. 1
  5484. 1
  5485. 1
  5486. 1
  5487. 1
  5488. 1
  5489. 1
  5490. 1
  5491. 1
  5492. 1
  5493. 1
  5494. 1
  5495. 1
  5496. 1
  5497. 1
  5498. 1
  5499. 1
  5500. 1
  5501. 1
  5502. 1
  5503. 1
  5504. 1
  5505. 1
  5506. 1
  5507. 1
  5508. 1
  5509. 1
  5510. 1
  5511. 1
  5512. 1
  5513. 1
  5514. 1
  5515. 1
  5516. 1
  5517. 1
  5518. 1
  5519. 1
  5520. 1
  5521. 1
  5522. 1
  5523. 1
  5524. 1
  5525. 1
  5526. 1
  5527. 1
  5528. 1
  5529. 1
  5530. 1
  5531. 1
  5532. 1
  5533. 1
  5534. 1
  5535. 1
  5536. 1
  5537. 1
  5538. 1
  5539. 1
  5540. 1
  5541. 1
  5542. 1
  5543. 1
  5544. 1
  5545. 1
  5546. 1
  5547. 1
  5548. 1
  5549. 1
  5550. 1
  5551. 1
  5552. 1
  5553. 1
  5554. 1
  5555. 1
  5556. 1
  5557. 1
  5558. 1
  5559. 1
  5560. 1
  5561. 1
  5562. 1
  5563. 1
  5564. 1
  5565. 1
  5566. 1
  5567. 1
  5568. 1
  5569. 1
  5570. 1
  5571. 1
  5572. 1
  5573. 1
  5574. 1
  5575. 1
  5576. 1
  5577. 1
  5578. 1
  5579. 1
  5580. 1
  5581. 1
  5582. 1
  5583. 1
  5584. 1
  5585. 1
  5586. 1
  5587. 1
  5588. 1
  5589. 1
  5590. 1
  5591. 1
  5592. 1
  5593. 1
  5594. 1
  5595. 1
  5596. 1
  5597. 1
  5598. 1
  5599. 1
  5600. 1
  5601. 1
  5602. 1
  5603. 1
  5604. 1
  5605. 1
  5606. 1
  5607. 1
  5608. 1
  5609. 1
  5610. 1
  5611. 1
  5612. 1
  5613. 1
  5614. 1
  5615. 1
  5616. 1
  5617. 1
  5618. 1
  5619. 1
  5620. 1
  5621. 1
  5622. 1
  5623. 1
  5624. 1
  5625. 1
  5626. 1
  5627. 1
  5628. 1
  5629. 1
  5630. 1
  5631. 1
  5632. 1
  5633. 1
  5634. 1
  5635. 1
  5636. 1
  5637. 1
  5638. 1
  5639. 1
  5640. 1
  5641. 1
  5642. 1
  5643. 1
  5644. 1
  5645. 1
  5646. 1
  5647. 1
  5648. 1
  5649. 1
  5650. 1
  5651. 1
  5652. 1
  5653. 1
  5654. 1
  5655. 1
  5656. 1
  5657. 1
  5658. 1
  5659. 1
  5660. 1
  5661. 1
  5662. 1
  5663. 1
  5664. 1
  5665. 1
  5666. 1
  5667. 1
  5668. 1
  5669. 1
  5670. 1
  5671. 1
  5672. 1
  5673. 1
  5674. 1
  5675. 1
  5676. 1
  5677. 1
  5678. 1
  5679. 1
  5680. 1
  5681. 1
  5682. 1
  5683. 1
  5684. 1
  5685. 1
  5686. 1
  5687. 1
  5688. 1
  5689. 1
  5690. 1
  5691. 1
  5692. 1
  5693. 1
  5694. 1
  5695. 1
  5696. 1
  5697. 1
  5698. 1
  5699. 1
  5700. 1
  5701. 1
  5702. 1
  5703. 1
  5704. 1
  5705. 1
  5706. 1
  5707. 1
  5708. 1
  5709. 1
  5710. 1
  5711. 1
  5712. 1
  5713. 1
  5714. 1
  5715. 1
  5716. 1
  5717. 1
  5718. 1
  5719. 1
  5720. 1
  5721. 1
  5722. 1
  5723. 1
  5724. 1
  5725. 1
  5726. 1
  5727. 1
  5728. 1
  5729. 1
  5730. 1
  5731. 1
  5732. 1
  5733. 1
  5734. 1
  5735. 1
  5736. 1
  5737. 1
  5738. 1
  5739. 1
  5740. 1
  5741. 1
  5742. 1
  5743. 1
  5744. 1
  5745. 1
  5746. 1
  5747. 1
  5748. 1
  5749. 1
  5750. 1
  5751. 1
  5752. 1
  5753. 1
  5754. 1
  5755. 1
  5756. 1
  5757. 1
  5758. 1
  5759. 1
  5760. 1
  5761. 1
  5762. 1
  5763. 1
  5764. 1
  5765. 1
  5766. 1
  5767. 1
  5768. 1
  5769. 1
  5770. 1
  5771. 1
  5772. 1
  5773. 1
  5774. 1
  5775. 1
  5776. 1
  5777. 1
  5778. 1
  5779. 1
  5780. 1
  5781. 1
  5782. 1
  5783. 1
  5784. 1
  5785. 1
  5786. 1
  5787. 1
  5788. 1
  5789. 1
  5790. 1
  5791. 1
  5792. 1
  5793. 1
  5794. 1
  5795. 1
  5796. 1
  5797. 1
  5798. 1
  5799. 1
  5800. 1
  5801. 1
  5802. 1
  5803. 1
  5804. 1
  5805. 1
  5806. 1
  5807. 1
  5808. 1
  5809. 1
  5810. 1
  5811. 1
  5812. 1
  5813. 1
  5814. 1
  5815. 1
  5816. 1
  5817. 1
  5818. 1
  5819. 1
  5820. 1
  5821. 1
  5822. 1
  5823. 1
  5824. 1
  5825. 1
  5826. 1
  5827. 1
  5828. 1
  5829. 1
  5830. 1
  5831. 1
  5832. 1
  5833. 1
  5834. 1
  5835. 1
  5836. 1
  5837. ​ @geekinasuit8333 1- no that was not what was said. I believe they said it effects about 5%. However if you want to use your figure of 0.13% great....then it effects even fewer of us and pretty much guarantees it doesn't effect you so pull your little panties out between your bum crack and stop crying. 2- yes "wealthy people". This effects people making over $243K per year in capital gains. By definition middle and working class people do not make $243K a year in capital gains. If they did they wouldn't be defined as middle or working class. They would be defined as wealthy. So this proves point #1. Since the vast majority of us are defined as middle and working class it won't effect the vast majority of us. 3- yes PER YEAR.....so what? Are you not aware of how our tax system works??? You pay personal income taxes each and every year.....part of paying your income taxes is declaring what income you received from capital gains...so every year or PER YEAR you need to pay taxes on capital gains....and if you make over $243K in capital gains then every year that that happens it will effect you. What part of you claim income taxes or fill out a tax form PER YEAR (or yearly) confuses you? 4- it won't effect millions of people over 20 years because millions of people don't make $243K in capital gains every year. (do you really not understand a basic term like PER YEAR? 5- only the super wealthy make over $243K each year. Middle and working class don't make that kind of money....goes to point #2....if they did make that kind of money they would not be considered middle or working class. 6- this won't really effect someone's retirement fund. More than likely it is some form of RRSP or pension income that is no where near $243K per year that they get. If it is from the sale of some type of asset then there is a once in a lifetime exemption. Neither scenario effects a middle or working class individual 7- there are no taxes on inheritance. Again you don't seem to understand our tax laws. Learn before you talk on a subject you know nothing about.
    1
  5838. 1
  5839. 1
  5840. 1
  5841. 1
  5842. 1
  5843. 1
  5844. 1
  5845. 1
  5846. 1
  5847. 1
  5848. 1
  5849. 1
  5850. 1
  5851. 1
  5852. 1
  5853. 1
  5854. 1
  5855. 1
  5856. 1
  5857. 1
  5858. 1
  5859. 1
  5860. 1
  5861. 1
  5862. 1
  5863. 1
  5864. 1
  5865. 1
  5866. 1
  5867. 1
  5868. 1
  5869. 1
  5870. 1
  5871. 1
  5872. 1
  5873. 1
  5874. 1
  5875. 1
  5876. 1
  5877. 1
  5878. 1
  5879. 1
  5880.  @DC-jw4ic  1- criminals in the US don't make their guns any more than criminals in the Canada. A gun from the US started off as a legal gun 2- your example of guns from the US is a good example of why we should ban guns. The US has a vast supply of guns with little to no laws regulating them. It is a $hit show of violence that you seem to want to bring here. Criminals will find the easiest ways to get guns and smuggling is easy because of the vast supply in the US. If we don't ban guns here and create a vast supply here then it will reduce smuggling and criminals will get guns here. Smuggling is so high because we have such strict laws and banning guns will make it even more difficult for a criminal to get a gun 3- Your example of a gun being stolen is also a great example of why we need to ban guns. If a "law abiding" citizen cannot keep their gun safe and will let it get stolen by a criminal then they are not very law abiding and should not have the privileged of having a deadly weapon in our society (note the key word is "privilege". You don't have a "right" to own a gun) 4- criminals don't have to buy a gun from a "law abiding" citizen to get a gun. As you stated they can steal it. However you also do agree that criminals do buy guns. They buy legal guns in the US and smuggle them into Canada. 5- you seem unable to grasp that there really is no such thing as a "legal" gun or "illegal" gun. You label it "legal" or "illegal" based on who is holding it. The reality is it is a handgun no matter what you label it as and the only purpose of a hand gun is to kill. Since "law abiding" citizens clearly show that they are not capable of keeping their gun safe they should not be allowed a gun. Until a "law abiding" citizen feels the full effects of putting their deadly weapon into our society they should not be allowed to have one.
    1
  5881. 1
  5882.  @t-rev2923  1- guns don't protect. You are more likely to shoot yourself and/ or your family before you use it protect yourself from anyone. 2- it is funny you can't see the conflict in making that statement. On one hand you all claim to be the most law abiding citizens in our society and would never let your gun fall into the hands of a criminal because it is always locked up in a safe according to PAL. But on the other hand you all talk about using your gun for protection. But how are you going to use your gun for protection when it is properly locked up in a safe? So you keep it locked up but at the same time you freely walk around with it for protection (and thereby making it easy for a criminal to get their hands on). So you follow the laws while at the same time breaking the laws. 3- your example of criminals getting legal guns from police and military is an excellent example of why we need to ban guns. Who else is supposed to be more law abiding then the police? If as you agree the police are not able to keep their own guns safe and not falling into the hands of a criminal then why should we believe that you or any other average joe blow on the street would be anymore law abiding or responsible with their deadly weapon. If the police can be corrupted then why should we believe the average joe blow wouldn't be?? 4- compare any country that has banned guns or put extremely restrictive laws on guns to a country like the US that has little to no laws on guns and a vast supply and it is easy to see you are full of $hit and don't know what you are talking about. The US is a $hit show of gun violence. It is not a safer place. It is far more dangerous then any other western nation (and even many second or third world nations). 5- "They also help with your rights" That is a huge part of the problem. You fail to understand it is not your right to have a gun. It is a privilege. You don't have the right to own a gun or make our society less safe. And your privilege ends when it infringes on the rights of everyone else. It is funny how you gun fools all seem to think rights only apply to you.
    1
  5883. 1
  5884.  @bobojames7884  1- Australia is proof that gun laws work. If they have very strict laws then a ban on guns will be just as if not more effective. Criminals cannot use what they cannot get 2- "all" vs "vast majority" is a technically you gun nuts use to cling to your beliefs. The huge vast majority (nearly all) gun crime in Canada is committed using a standard gun made legally. If you are upset by the term "all" then where you see "all" substitute in the term "the huge vast majority (or almost all)" 3- if you never said we are not fighting other crimes then why do you gun nuts use arguments like "but guns are smuggled", "the gun was stolen", "people stab each other", "people commit other crimes too" and other phrases that make it appear as though the only thing we are doing is banning guns when that is not true. Banning guns is only one tool used to help prevent gun crime. We also have border control that has been increased to prevent smuggling. We do fight gangs that smuggle and sell guns. We do fight other crimes. The standard line gun nuts use is "they are attacking the law abiding citizen" when that is not the case at all. We also fight all other crimes and not singling anyone out. nor are we ignoring other crimes and only banning guns. 4- "other crime is happening goes to show that the market for illegal firearms is still remaining" Yes you are correct which is a great argument on why we should ban guns. We ban guns to reduce the supply of guns on the black market and not only will gun violence go down but other crime will also. You are now beginning to agree we don't need guns in our society. 5- "Banning legally owned handguns in Canada is really going to have a negligible impact on crime. " What do you call negligible? One could argue that even one murder is too many. If we go with gun nut numbers and say 80-90% of guns are smuggled in from the US then banning Canadian guns could lead to a potential of 10 to 20% less gun violence. You suggesting that is negligible? Also we could see even more reduction. If we ban guns it removes one source for criminals to get weapons which means they have to put more effort into trying to smuggle them into the country. Once the source is more contained on where the gun comes from we can put more focus on that area to further reduce guns in our society. Currently police need to focus attention in a multiple of different areas. Whereas making criminals try to smuggle guns means police can put more focus on border protection and prevent more guns from being smuggled. They can put more focus on gangs or social programs. By removing one element of a situation it can cause the people in that situation to better focus on other parts and thus reduce the situation further. It is the laws of unintended consequences. 6- "I appreciate now that you have changed to using almost all now" Typing out "the huge vast majority (almost all)" is time consuming especially when I have so many gun nuts crying to me. The vast number of crimes using a standard legally made hand gun is nearly "all". The number of crimes using some other type of weapon (like homemade) is so small it is pretty much statistically irrelevant. So it is much easier to say "all" because it pretty much is "all". Statistically it is negligible.
    1
  5885.  @t-rev2923  1- so if your ammo is in one location and your firearm is in another location it takes far less time for a criminal to shoot you then it does for you to open your safe, then get your ammo then load your weapon then shoot the criminal. The only way you are shooting the criminal before he shoots you is if you are illegally storing your weapon and have it loaded beside you at all times. So you are not a law abiding citizen that follows the laws. However your point is moot. As already stated you are far more likely to shoot your family and/ or yourself with your firearm then some big scary criminal. This is Canada we don't have mass break and enters with criminals going into random houses shooting people. In fact in many neighbourhoods it is so safe that people leave their doors unlocked. 2- the idea of concealed carry preventing crime is laughable at best: A- concealed carry will only bring more firearms out into our society making it far easier for a criminal to steal that gun. In fact many of your gun nuts have used examples of criminals stealing guns from police or cars. So bringing more guns out into society instead of locked up will just lead to more guns falling into the hands of criminals. B- as already mentioned above. The idea of you being some big hero acting like John Wayne and shooting all the criminals is ridiculous. This is Canada. We don't have mass shootings that would require some poorly trained joe blow on the street walking around with a gun pretending to fight crime. When you "fight" crime you become a vigilante anti and that can be just as dangerous as the criminal themselves. You don't have the right to determine which crimes you can stop with your gun. You are just as likely to shoot someone in anger or passion that you see as a "criminal" then an actual criminal. (i.e. hey get off my lawn- you are trespassing- and then shots are fired) However even if we look to the US that does have mass shootings and concealed carry laws there have been more mass shootings than any time in history. Mass shootings have not stopped but increased. And there were over a dozen well trained police that had an arsenal of weapons that couldn't prevent one person from slaughtering a school full of children. You must be a fool if you think you can do more than over a dozen trained police officers that are far more equipped then you and your one gun. 3- Owning a gun should not be a right. You don't have the right to put our lives in danger or threaten the safety of our society. We all have the right to a safe peaceful way of life. That is a right in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You clearly chose to ignore the point I made. Not only is gun ownership not a "right" but a "privlige" and nobody's "rights" or in your case "privileges" can infringe upon other people's rights. Your privileges end when they infringe on someone else's rights. I repeat this again because you seem to not have understood.....why do you gun nuts all seem to think that rights only apply to you? You are not the only one in this society and the vast majority of us that do not agree with you have just as many rights as you do. You do not have the right to force your opinions onto the rest of us. 4- The claim that you need a gun to revolt against the govt is just sad and embarrassing. A- this is Canada we live peacefully here in a democratic nation. B- you must never have heard of things like tanks, helicopters, guided missiles etc. Your hand gun won't be very effective against a country's army. C- it goes to the point above. What gives you the right to act as a vigilant anti and pick and choose what govt should be in power? You have no right to over throw our democratically elected govt. You may not like who is in power but tough titties for you. If you don't like it you use your vote to vote them out not use a gun to murder them. And if your vote didn't get them out of power then you are in the minority....deal with it instead of crying like a baby. 5- "All countries that have banned guns still have shootings " We covered this topic extensively. Try and follow along- NOBODY said that banning guns would be the magic silver bullet to end all crime. It is just one factor to use with many other factors to prevent crime. When you compare countries that do ban guns to a country like the US you can easily see that gun violence is not even comparable to the US so banning guns does help and does work to reduce gun violence 6- "if you take in the US example you should look where most of those shootings and mass shootings take place" They have mass shootings unlike any other country because their laws are a joke and they have a vast supply of guns. Anytime you use the US for any type of example it only reinforces we need to ban guns. The US is a $hit show of violence and a great example of what not to do with guns. 7- "In areas that have very strict gun laws because there rely on police too much" This goes to the point already mentioned above. The police are fully equipped and there were dozens of them standing outside a school while one lone person slaughtered a dozen innocent children. You are a fool to think that if those police couldn't do anything that you the average "joe blow" off the street would be able to walk in like Dirty Hairy and just start firing rounds off killing the shooter. You live in a delusional dream not reality. And as already mentioned your point is moot. This is Canada we don't have these same types of mass shootings and a lot of that reason is because we ban those weapons. You are not going to be some big hero that kills a mass shooter. You are far more likely to shoot yourself or your family then a mass shooter. And you are not a vigilant ante that can decide who is a criminal or not that you can shoot.
    1
  5886. 1
  5887. 1
  5888. 1
  5889. 1
  5890. 1
  5891. 1
  5892. 1
  5893. 1
  5894. 1
  5895. 1
  5896. 1
  5897. 1
  5898. 1
  5899. 1
  5900. 1
  5901. 1
  5902. 1
  5903. 1
  5904. 1
  5905. 1
  5906. 1
  5907. 1
  5908. 1
  5909. 1
  5910. 1
  5911. 1
  5912. 1
  5913. 1
  5914. 1
  5915. 1
  5916. 1
  5917. 1
  5918. 1
  5919. 1
  5920. 1
  5921. 1
  5922. 1
  5923. 1
  5924. 1
  5925. 1
  5926. 1
  5927. 1
  5928. 1
  5929. 1
  5930. 1
  5931. 1
  5932. 1
  5933. 1
  5934. 1
  5935. 1
  5936. 1
  5937. 1
  5938. 1
  5939. 1
  5940. 1
  5941. 1
  5942. 1
  5943. 1
  5944. 1
  5945. 1
  5946. 1
  5947. 1
  5948. 1
  5949. 1
  5950. 1
  5951. 1
  5952. 1
  5953. 1
  5954. 1
  5955. 1
  5956. 1
  5957. 1
  5958. 1
  5959. 1
  5960. 1
  5961. 1
  5962. 1
  5963. 1
  5964. 1
  5965. 1
  5966. 1
  5967. 1
  5968. 1
  5969. 1
  5970. 1
  5971. 1
  5972. 1
  5973. 1
  5974. 1
  5975. 1
  5976. 1
  5977. 1
  5978. 1
  5979. 1
  5980. 1
  5981.  @snakeplissken571  1- police don't go around shooting their guns daily. There are police officers that have worked their entire lives without needing to take their gun out of their holster. The idea that you need a gun is a complete joke. You are not law enforcement, you are not the court system and you have no right to pick and choose who you think is a criminal that you can shoot 2- the vast majority of people shot have been targeted or the intended victim. Shootings are extremely rare and random shootings are even rarer. The idea that you need a gun because you need to protect yourself from some random gunman is a complete joke. There are millions of people walking around our cities and not a single one needs a gun for protection. There are millions more in our rural areas where it is so safe people leave their doors unlocked when they go out 3- crime and violence has not skyrocketed. You are just being a little drama queen 4- "want to stop mass shootings...shoot back" We don't have mass shooting you fool. The biggest reason we don't have mass shootings is because we have strict gun laws and ban guns. The fact we don't have mass shootings proves banning guns works. A simple comparison of any country that bans guns and have strict laws to a country like the US that has little to no laws, a vast supply of guns and mass shootings weekly proves that banning guns and strict laws works. Besides if there was a mass shooting you would be the first person to run away. The idea that you would be some big hero is a complete joke.
    1
  5982. 1
  5983. 1
  5984. 1
  5985. 1
  5986. 1
  5987. 1
  5988. 1
  5989. 1
  5990. 1
  5991. 1
  5992. 1
  5993. 1
  5994. 1
  5995. 1
  5996. 1
  5997. 1
  5998. 1
  5999. 1
  6000. 1
  6001. 1
  6002. 1
  6003. 1
  6004. 1
  6005. 1
  6006. 1
  6007. 1
  6008. 1
  6009. 1
  6010. 1
  6011. 1
  6012. 1
  6013. 1
  6014. 1
  6015. 1
  6016. 1
  6017. 1
  6018. 1
  6019. 1
  6020. 1
  6021. 1
  6022. 1
  6023. 1
  6024. 1
  6025. 1
  6026. 1
  6027. 1
  6028. 1
  6029. 1
  6030. 1
  6031. 1
  6032. 1
  6033. 1
  6034. 1
  6035. 1
  6036. 1
  6037. 1
  6038. 1
  6039. 1
  6040. 1
  6041. 1
  6042. 1
  6043. 1
  6044. 1
  6045. 1
  6046. 1
  6047. 1
  6048. 1
  6049. 1
  6050. 1
  6051. 1
  6052. 1
  6053. 1
  6054. 1
  6055. 1
  6056. 1
  6057. 1
  6058. 1
  6059. 1
  6060. 1
  6061. 1
  6062. 1
  6063. 1
  6064. 1
  6065. 1
  6066. 1
  6067. 1
  6068. 1
  6069. 1
  6070. 1
  6071. 1
  6072. 1
  6073. 1
  6074. 1
  6075. 1
  6076. 1
  6077. 1
  6078. 1
  6079. 1
  6080. 1
  6081. 1
  6082. 1
  6083. 1
  6084. 1
  6085. 1
  6086. 1
  6087. 1
  6088. 1
  6089. 1
  6090. 1
  6091. 1
  6092. 1
  6093. 1
  6094. 1
  6095. 1
  6096. 1
  6097. 1
  6098. 1
  6099. 1
  6100. 1
  6101. 1
  6102. 1
  6103.  @darrylrossetti394  1- yes we should save lives. And reducing the guns available to criminals that would use them to take lives is a good way at helping to save lives. The rest of your point is moot and has nothing to do with the topic. And comparing a gun to other items is ignorant and naïve. 2- the last mass murder in Canada was in Nova Scotia and it did involve a legal gun. Someone went to the US and bought it legally and brought it back to Canada where they gave it to their friend that then used it to commit the mass shooting. However: A- mass shootings are extremely rare. The fact that they are rare proves that banning guns and strict laws works B- you are picking anomalies and trying to make it appear like the majority. The fact is the majority of gun violence in urban areas is with handguns and the majority of gun violence in rural areas involves a long barrel firearm used in hunting and aside from your anomaly all gun violence is with one or two victims....not mass shootings. 3- your points do not line up. Either you are referring to the point about guns starting off in the US just as legally as they do in Canada or you are referring to the point about smuggled guns proves banning guns and strict laws works. Either case the points are very clear and self explanitory. However to try again: Guns in the US start off legally the same way they do in Canada. If not for the legal gun there would be no gun you label "illegal" in the hands of a criminal Smuggling guns into Canada does not help or support your argument. It proves that banning guns and strict gun laws works. If they didn't work criminals would get guns in Canada instead of going through all the trouble of going all the way to the US and risk smuggling them into Canada. Without strict laws and banning guns criminals would just go to the local Walmart like they do in the US (which supports the explanation about....guns start off legally in the US the same as in Canada) Now to address the rest of your point: A- criminals get their supply of guns from legal owners. Legal owners are not responsible or law abiding if they let criminals get access to their guns. B- yes criminals get their guns from the black market. However as already explained to you many times and supports the point above....the black market for guns is created from the supply of legal guns that criminals obtain from irresponsible "legal" "law abiding" gun owners. C- your claim about guns on the black market is the same as smuggled guns. The fact that criminals need to use the black market proves that banning guns and strict gun laws works. If not then criminals would just go into the local Walmart and buy what they need. Also the black market drives up the cost of the gun making it unaffordable for many people thus reducing the amount of guns people have. 4- I agree there are other contributing factors that lead people to commit crimes however A- not all crime is committed by poor inner city people. There are a lot of other factors that lead people to commit crimes. Simple stats from the US shows that a lot of gun violence and suicides are committed by middle class and rich people. Access to a gun gives people more incentive to use the gun B- we are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. We also have social programs that do try to help people in need or help eleviate poverty etc. There are many different tools that can be used to reduce gun violence. Banning guns and strict laws are just one more tool to use. Why is it that every single one of you gun people seem to think that we are only capable of doing one thing at a time? While we have social programs to help people in need we shouldn't give criminals easier access to guns. Banning guns and strict laws is just one more tool to reduce the supply and access to guns. C- Every single country has their own issues regarding poverty, gangs etc however the only country that has a massive gun violence problem is the US and the only difference between the US and other countries is the US has little to no laws regarding firearms and a vast supply of guns. The only difference between the US and other countries is the gun. Which proves it is the gun....not people that are the major problem (poor inner city gang members cannot shoot someone without the gun).
    1
  6104. 1
  6105. 1
  6106. 1
  6107. 1
  6108. 1
  6109. 1
  6110. 1
  6111. 1
  6112. 1
  6113. 1
  6114. 1
  6115. 1
  6116. 1
  6117. 1
  6118. 1
  6119. 1
  6120. 1
  6121. 1
  6122. 1
  6123. 1
  6124. 1
  6125. 1
  6126. 1
  6127. 1
  6128. 1
  6129. 1
  6130. 1
  6131. 1
  6132. 1
  6133. 1
  6134. 1
  6135. 1
  6136. 1
  6137. 1
  6138. 1
  6139. 1
  6140. 1
  6141. 1
  6142. 1
  6143. 1
  6144. 1
  6145. 1
  6146. 1
  6147. 1
  6148. 1
  6149. 1
  6150. 1
  6151. 1
  6152. 1
  6153. 1
  6154. 1
  6155. 1
  6156. 1
  6157. 1
  6158. 1
  6159. 1
  6160. 1
  6161. 1
  6162. 1
  6163. 1
  6164. 1
  6165. 1
  6166. 1
  6167. 1
  6168. 1
  6169. 1
  6170. 1
  6171. 1
  6172. 1
  6173. 1
  6174. 1
  6175. 1
  6176. 1
  6177. 1
  6178. 1
  6179. 1
  6180. 1
  6181. 1
  6182. 1
  6183. 1
  6184. 1
  6185. 1
  6186. 1
  6187. 1
  6188. 1
  6189. 1
  6190. 1
  6191. 1
  6192. 1
  6193. 1
  6194. 1
  6195. 1
  6196. 1
  6197. 1
  6198. 1
  6199. 1
  6200. 1
  6201. 1
  6202. 1
  6203. 1
  6204. 1
  6205. 1
  6206. 1
  6207. 1
  6208. 1
  6209. 1
  6210. 1
  6211. 1
  6212. 1
  6213. 1
  6214. 1
  6215. 1
  6216. 1
  6217. 1
  6218. 1
  6219. 1
  6220. 1
  6221. 1
  6222. 1
  6223. 1
  6224. 1
  6225. 1
  6226. 1
  6227. 1
  6228. 1
  6229. 1
  6230. 1
  6231. 1
  6232. 1
  6233. 1
  6234. 1
  6235. 1
  6236. 1
  6237. 1
  6238. 1
  6239. 1
  6240. 1
  6241. 1
  6242. 1
  6243. 1
  6244. 1
  6245. 1
  6246. 1
  6247. 1
  6248. 1
  6249. 1
  6250. 1
  6251. 1
  6252. 1
  6253. 1
  6254. 1
  6255. 1
  6256. 1
  6257. 1
  6258. 1
  6259. 1
  6260. 1
  6261. 1
  6262. 1
  6263. 1
  6264. 1
  6265. 1
  6266. 1
  6267. 1
  6268. 1
  6269. 1
  6270. 1
  6271. 1
  6272. 1
  6273. 1
  6274. 1
  6275. 1
  6276. 1
  6277. 1
  6278. 1
  6279. 1
  6280. 1
  6281. 1
  6282. 1
  6283. 1
  6284. 1
  6285. 1
  6286. 1
  6287. 1
  6288. 1
  6289. 1
  6290. 1
  6291. 1
  6292. 1
  6293. 1
  6294. 1
  6295. 1
  6296. 1
  6297. 1
  6298. 1
  6299. 1
  6300. 1
  6301. 1
  6302. 1
  6303. 1
  6304. 1
  6305. 1
  6306. 1
  6307. 1
  6308. 1
  6309. 1
  6310. 1
  6311. 1
  6312. 1
  6313. 1
  6314. 1
  6315. 1
  6316. 1
  6317. 1
  6318. 1
  6319. 1
  6320. 1
  6321. 1
  6322. 1
  6323. 1
  6324. 1
  6325. 1
  6326. 1
  6327. 1
  6328. 1
  6329. 1
  6330. 1
  6331. 1
  6332. 1
  6333. 1
  6334. 1
  6335. 1
  6336. 1
  6337. 1
  6338. 1
  6339. 1
  6340. 1
  6341. 1
  6342. 1
  6343. 1
  6344. 1
  6345. 1
  6346. 1
  6347. 1
  6348. 1
  6349. 1
  6350. 1
  6351. 1
  6352. 1
  6353. 1
  6354. 1
  6355. 1
  6356. 1
  6357. 1
  6358. 1
  6359. 1
  6360. 1
  6361. 1
  6362. 1
  6363. 1
  6364. 1
  6365. 1
  6366. 1
  6367. 1
  6368. 1
  6369. 1
  6370. 1
  6371. 1
  6372. 1
  6373. 1
  6374. 1
  6375. 1
  6376. 1
  6377. 1
  6378. 1
  6379. 1
  6380. 1
  6381. 1
  6382. 1
  6383. 1
  6384. 1
  6385. 1
  6386. 1
  6387. 1
  6388. 1
  6389. 1
  6390. 1
  6391. 1
  6392. 1
  6393. 1
  6394. 1
  6395. 1
  6396. 1
  6397. 1
  6398. 1
  6399. 1
  6400. 1
  6401. 1
  6402. 1
  6403. 1
  6404. 1
  6405. 1
  6406. 1
  6407. 1
  6408. 1
  6409. 1
  6410. 1
  6411. 1
  6412. 1
  6413. 1
  6414. 1
  6415. 1
  6416. 1
  6417. 1
  6418. 1
  6419. 1
  6420. 1
  6421. 1
  6422. 1
  6423. 1
  6424. 1
  6425. 1
  6426. 1
  6427. 1
  6428. 1
  6429. 1
  6430. 1
  6431. 1
  6432. 1
  6433. 1
  6434. 1
  6435. 1
  6436. 1
  6437. 1
  6438.  @Lesturia  1- you missed the point again. Guns are "rampant" on the streets ("rampant" being an open argument but a different point) because there is a legal supply of guns. Once again you miss the point that if not for the legal gun there would be no gun that you label "illegal" on the street. 2- gun laws do not disrupt anyone. They hold people accountable. 3- unarming "legal" owners removes the supply of legal guns from which criminals get their guns. Removing guns from a society makes that society safer not more dangerous. And any comparison of countries proves this (once again you missed that point also). 4- since criminals get their guns from the supply of legal guns legal gun owners absolutely are a big part of the problem 5- we do enforce laws. You are foolish to believe we don't. I also stated that banning guns was just one more solution to the problem. Other laws are also part of the solution. Once again you also missed that point. 6- carding is a separate issue not part of this topic. I have not looked enough into carding to make a true statement. Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. If you were stopped a few times every day then you have a different view. However I don't care to say anything else on the issue because carding or not people cannot shoot someone without a gun. You can stop anyone you want but if they don't have a gun they can't shoot someone. Also we did have carding and we still had crime (at times higher then it is today). So your argument at best is weak. Crime has not skyrocketed. You numbers are made up. 7- Where I live is irrelevant the gun laws are to make all of Canada safer. However your little crying rant at the end about Toronto just shows how ignorant and foolish you are. Toronto was ranked the fourth safest city in Canada to live in. It is one of the safest places in North America (and probably the world) to live. The fact that you leave that comment just reinforces you have no clue what you are talking about and your entire argument is based purely on your little feelings that stem from your need to be a little drama queen. (and it doesn't sound like you are that comfortable or safe if you are crying about needing a gun for you safety). Boo hoo baby.
    1
  6439. 1
  6440. 1
  6441. 1
  6442. 1
  6443. 1
  6444. 1
  6445. 1
  6446. 1
  6447. 1
  6448. 1
  6449. 1
  6450. 1
  6451. 1
  6452. 1
  6453. 1
  6454. 1
  6455. 1
  6456. 1
  6457. 1
  6458. 1
  6459.  @cdb5001  1- if what I wrote confuses you then have someone smarter then you explain it to you. 2- we covered the topic of statistics. They have not being going up. There are fluctuations between years but when averaged out crime is relatively flat. You should take a few stats courses before you try to talk about stats. 3- Toronto is one of the safest in North America. How it compares to NY is completely irrelevant. If NY is safer then Toronto then all that means is NY must also be one of the safest cities in North America. As already stated simple stats shows Toronto is safer then many Canadian cities and one of the safest in North America. Seems you are the one ignoring stats. 4- why politicians spend money is irrelevant and open to your twisted interpretations. I could write a book on the $hit spending habits of our govts. However to summarize it as shortly as I can....govts spend money on the things people cry about to gain your votes. Govts don't give a $hit if what people cry about is actually true or not. If people perceive it to be true and cry about it then politicians will spend money on it to pacify fools like you to win your vote. Policing and crime are all easy areas for politicians to spend money on to win votes. It doesn't matter what crime stats show people will always cry about crime and blow things way out of proportion (like you are doing now) so it is always easy for politicians to throw money at it to easily fool people like you into buying your vote (sad thing is they are buying your vote with your own money). 5- you are correct facts are on one side in this topic and they clearly are not on your side.
    1
  6460. 1
  6461. 1
  6462. 1
  6463. 1
  6464. 1
  6465. 1
  6466. 1
  6467. 1
  6468. 1
  6469. 1
  6470. 1
  6471. 1
  6472. 1
  6473. 1
  6474. 1
  6475. 1
  6476. 1
  6477. 1
  6478. 1
  6479. 1
  6480. 1
  6481. 1
  6482. 1
  6483. 1
  6484. 1
  6485. 1
  6486. 1
  6487. 1
  6488. 1
  6489. 1
  6490. 1
  6491. 1
  6492. 1
  6493. 1
  6494. 1
  6495. 1
  6496. 1
  6497. 1
  6498. 1
  6499. 1
  6500. 1
  6501. 1
  6502. 1
  6503. 1
  6504. 1
  6505. 1
  6506. 1
  6507. 1
  6508. 1
  6509. 1
  6510. 1
  6511. 1
  6512. 1
  6513. 1
  6514. 1
  6515. 1
  6516. 1
  6517. 1
  6518. 1
  6519. 1
  6520. 1
  6521. 1
  6522. 1
  6523. 1
  6524. 1
  6525. 1
  6526. 1
  6527. 1
  6528. 1
  6529. 1
  6530. 1
  6531. 1
  6532. 1
  6533. 1
  6534. 1
  6535. 1
  6536. 1
  6537. 1
  6538. 1
  6539. 1
  6540. 1
  6541. 1
  6542. 1
  6543. 1
  6544. 1
  6545. 1
  6546. 1
  6547. 1
  6548. 1
  6549. 1
  6550. 1
  6551. 1
  6552. 1
  6553. 1
  6554. 1
  6555. 1
  6556. 1
  6557. 1
  6558. 1
  6559. 1
  6560. 1
  6561. 1
  6562. 1
  6563. 1
  6564. 1
  6565. 1
  6566. 1
  6567. 1
  6568. 1
  6569. 1
  6570. 1
  6571. 1
  6572. 1
  6573. 1
  6574. 1
  6575. 1
  6576. 1
  6577. 1
  6578. 1
  6579. 1
  6580. 1
  6581. 1
  6582. 1
  6583. 1
  6584. 1
  6585. 1
  6586. 1
  6587. 1
  6588. 1
  6589. 1
  6590. 1
  6591. 1
  6592. 1
  6593. 1
  6594. 1
  6595. 1
  6596. 1
  6597. 1
  6598. 1
  6599. 1
  6600. 1
  6601. 1
  6602. 1
  6603. 1