Jump to content

Justin Trudeau is Doing a Great Job


revrnd

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

 

 

keeps growing

Would it if Mexico was held to the same labour standards and wages as companies operating in Canada?

How does the average wage in Mexico compare to Ontario's minimum wage now or in the future?

Edited by revrnd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, revrnd said:

Would it if Mexico was held to the same labour standards and wages as companies operating in Canada?

How does the average wage in Mexico compare to Ontario's minimum wage now or in the future?

If that was the case then GM Ford all of them would have backed up decades ago and moved to Mexico - it just won't happen

 

Average wage is $650 a month even with a $4 min wage -

Cost of living in Mexico is 53.88% lower than in Canada (aggregate data for all cities, rent is not taken into account). Rent in Mexico is 69.34% lower than in Canada (average data for all cities).

some good info here on prices they pay

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Mexico&displayCurrency=CAD

 

 

What does a 3 bedroom cost you out there?  1800?

Mexico its $500

 

 

I am not too concerned about Mexican workers, I am sure some are exploited like they are here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On October 12, 2017 at 5:32 PM, 1trailmaker said:

I would suggest directing your anger at Trump and his reckless business sense.  Its not a case of what Trudeau and Canada will do its what the fuck will Donny do.  He could in one sweep take out Canada and the northern states

 

Contrary to what is posted here, Canada does have some really smart people working on this, not much you can do to make Donny happy other than fully bending over.  

Thankfully we (canada) have very good relations in Europe and china, if something bad happens we will survive regardless of who is in power.

 

You ONEWAYS don't really know what your cheering for

Major butt hurt noted. When things don't work for you Leftards you cry like babes...Justine has been butt pounded numerous times before. Perhaps Fagmeat will save us, as you say, one of the many smart Canadians working the issues...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a budget cover, no less.  These retards will surely bankrupt this country.  Gotta love their shit-eating grins....

 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-200000-on-a-budget-cover-thats-exclusively-liberal-tomfoolery

 

Colby Cosh: $200,000 on a budget cover? That's exclusively Liberal tomfoolery

I can see people lamenting that two hundred thou on a budget cover is mere "business as usual." Like hell it is

justin-trudeau-bill-morneau-budget.jpg

Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hold copies of the federal budget in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Wednesday, March 22, 2017.

 

Let’s talk about the federal government’s spending of $212,234 on artwork for the 2017 budget. The first order of business here is to give full credit to the Blacklock’s Reporter parliamentary news agency for Tom Korski’s scoop. Getting ahold of this information involved a disgusting Access to Information struggle with the Department of Finance, complete with a formal complaint to the information commissioner. ATI requests are tedious even when they are not resisted by government, and they can be unrewarding and costly. An individual newspaper or reporter may not capture all the publicity benefit from their own filing, even when it is successful.

This one had singularly enlightening results. The headline is the $212,234 figure, paid to McCann Canada for “budget art themes,” notably, a cover illustration. Blacklock’s tells us that this total included $89,500 for “talent fees” and models representing the artistic title given to the budget: Building a Strong Middle Class. The cost exceeds the figure for last year’s budget, which was $176,339.

Even as I summarize this news, I can see the potential for various kinds of carping from ad men or illustrators who don’t want their oxen gored. “Sigh, this is just business as usual.” Like hell it is: under the Conservatives the finance department used plain covers or inexpensive stock photos for the budget. This is exclusively Liberal tomfoolery.

This is exclusively Liberal tomfoolery

“Okay, but the cost is perfectly reasonable for what we got!” Two hundred thou for one document, huh? Try that one out on a newspaper art director. Try it out on anyone who ever worked for a magazine, particularly one with newsstand sales that actually depended on a fancy cover.

Maybe you’re thinking, “Even if it’s a bit ridiculous, it’s ONLY $200,000 against a background of billions.” But is it? To me this is the most intriguing part of all. Blacklock’s quotes an e-mail (“It’s fresh. I love where this is going”) from someone who has the title “senior marketing advisor for the finance department”. Am I the only one left asking, “Why the hell does the federal finance department need a marketing advisor?” The “senior” part denotes a six-figure salary, none of which is included in the cheque that was written to the nice creatives at McCann. Is the finance department a business whose revenues depend on effective advertising? Does Canada’s federal government have several finance departments contending with each other for market share?

Why the hell does the federal finance department need a marketing advisor?

Someone with a job title in “marketing” might make sense at a department like Global Affairs, which does a lot of traditional straight-up selling of Canadian products to the outside world. It may even make some sense at the Canada Revenue Agency, which is in the position of offering a service, involving different forms and modalities and commercial applications, directly to the public. But why does the work of finance need to be marketed to Canadians? Do we have a choice not to deal with finance? Do they care whether we are keen on them?

And if we have full-time marketing specialists at finance, for what are we paying an ad agency? Is that the main job of a government “marketing advisor” — choosing someone appropriate to do the actual work for a reasonable price? If so, I cannot say, as a media professional, that I am impressed with the advice given. Also, I think I definitely picked the wrong career.

Rest assured I am only pretending to be slightly dumb about all this. Finance has “marketing” specialists for the purpose of advertising a political agenda to the public. It cannot be helped that a Liberal government is bound to give a budget a campaign-friendly name like “Building a Strong Middle Class” and to throw your money at promoting it. The Conservatives liked to play a similar happy-talk game with the titles of parliamentary bills, which some people found odious, but which didn’t cost us 200 Gs at a stroke, either. Unfortunately, this is the kind of public waste that we cannot throw anyone in jail for

This is the sort of use of public funds for essentially partisan purposes that we can’t throw anybody in jail for, except in my daydreams. Blacklock’s uncovered e-mails make this positively explicit: in arguing over the 2016 budget cover someone observed that, “Justin Trudeau’s election mantra was all about positivity, change, and optimism for the future. We want this budget cover to illustrate that feeling.” I would say this utterance is not quite in the tradition of our public service, except for my fear that it is a perfect expression of the real tradition.

Of course, using an ad agency for this foul business has the bonus of cementing Liberal friends in a trade that has a lot of power over the media. No doubt I am making trouble for my company’s desperate, beleaguered bean counters by even talking about this. It is ugly. It is not about a $200,000 cheque: it is about the underlying abyss at which that money hints — and about Liberals not being able to change the exploitative, dubious old-school habits that led them to the Adscam disaster.

I do not spend a lot of time wishing for a New Democratic federal government, but I am pretty sure such a government would put a plain orange-ish cover on the print version of the federal budget. And, by the way, how many people even handle a printed version of any government’s budget in the year 2017? A few dozen? Don’t marketing experts know we have the internet now?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

seems that this issue of taxing employee discounts wasn't from Trudeau at all, it was CRA agents deciding this on their own.  It has now been taking down off their website..

 

I knew there had to be more to this - glad its not true

Wow, you finally joined the ranks of Icehomo.  Congrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

seems that this issue of taxing employee discounts wasn't from Trudeau at all, it was CRA agents deciding this on their own.  It has now been taking down off their website..

 

I knew there had to be more to this - glad its not true

Bullshit

Pierre Poilievre said in a video that lib mps knew of this employee taxing fiasco before the press release, and "did nothing". 

Lets say that this isn't true.  That would mean that the cra is a rogue entity, which Trudeau has no control   

Lose-lose scenario for the libs   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dirtybeacher said:

Bullshit

Pierre Poilievre said in a video that lib mps knew of this employee taxing fiasco before the press release, and "did nothing". 

Lets say that this isn't true.  That would mean that the cra is a rogue entity, which Trudeau has no control   

Lose-lose scenario for the libs   

 

Spokesperson John Power said the CRA made the original decision to change the wording, not Lebouthillier.

“This document was not approved by the minister and we are deeply disappointed that the agency posted something that has been misinterpreted like this,” he said in an emailed statement.

 

The document was either signed or is wasn't signed by the Minister - its that simple

 

either way glad its not happening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎13‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:33 PM, ArcticCrusher said:

I think JT should pay tax on the fair value of his vacations, I mean its fair right?

Maybe he should pay tax on his full income as well. Does he pay tax on his $2,000.00 car allowance. The sessional indemnity, the equivalent of a salary, is stated as an annual amount and is paid monthly. Additional salaries are payable to Members of the House of Commons occupying certain offices and positions. These include the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker and other Chair occupants, the Leaders of recognized opposition parties, House Leaders, Whips, and Parliamentary Secretaries.]  Members also receive an incidental expense allowance which is non-accountable (i.e., Members do not have to document their use of the allowance with receipts) and is not subject to income tax. Members representing remote or difficult-to-access constituencies (as listed in the Canada Elections Act) receive a slightly larger expense allowance

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/justin-trudeau-lives-in-a-fact-free-world-on-taxes/article33337344/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com

Some tax facts to ponder. Back in 2014, top marginal income tax rates hit 50 per cent in just one province, Nova Scotia. The gentlest combined federal-provincial income tax take for high-income earners was in Alberta, at 39 per cent.

Two years later, after federal and provincial tax increases, the top marginal rate is more than 50 per cent in six provinces. Nova Scotia now taxes what few high-income earners live there at a provincial-federal top rate of 54 per cent. The new arrivals to the 50-per-cent-plus club include Ontario (53.5 per cent), Quebec and New Brunswick (both at 53.3 per cent), Prince Edward Island (51.37 per cent) and Manitoba (50.4 per cent).

The other provinces are not exactly low-tax havens, either. As of 2016, British Columbia's combined top provincial-federal income tax rate is 47.7 per cent. Alberta and Saskatchewan charge the highest-income earners 48 per cent while Newfoundland and Labrador's top marginal rate is 49.8 per cent.

One might argue it is only proper to make high-income Canadians pay their "fair" share. Problem: They already did before Ottawa and the provinces began their renewed higher-tax journeys.

Of the $126-billion in federal income tax paid in 2014, those with taxable incomes of $250,000 or more (not quite the 1 per cent but close enough) represented 1.4 per cent of all tax filers who paid tax. Their share of all taxable income was 11 per cent; they paid 21 per cent of federal income taxes, or $26.2-billion. Relative to income and other tax filers, that was rather "fair" already.

Another fact to consider: Even if the Prime Minister plans to double taxes on high-income earners – an unwise move that would send even more doctors and others south of the border – all the tax-raising on the wealthy won't pay for next year's forecast deficit of $27.8-billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Maybe he should pay tax on his full income as well. Does he pay tax on his $2,000.00 car allowance. The sessional indemnity, the equivalent of a salary, is stated as an annual amount and is paid monthly. Additional salaries are payable to Members of the House of Commons occupying certain offices and positions. These include the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker and other Chair occupants, the Leaders of recognized opposition parties, House Leaders, Whips, and Parliamentary Secretaries.]  Members also receive an incidental expense allowance which is non-accountable (i.e., Members do not have to document their use of the allowance with receipts) and is not subject to income tax. Members representing remote or difficult-to-access constituencies (as listed in the Canada Elections Act) receive a slightly larger expense allowance

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/justin-trudeau-lives-in-a-fact-free-world-on-taxes/article33337344/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com

Some tax facts to ponder. Back in 2014, top marginal income tax rates hit 50 per cent in just one province, Nova Scotia. The gentlest combined federal-provincial income tax take for high-income earners was in Alberta, at 39 per cent.

Two years later, after federal and provincial tax increases, the top marginal rate is more than 50 per cent in six provinces. Nova Scotia now taxes what few high-income earners live there at a provincial-federal top rate of 54 per cent. The new arrivals to the 50-per-cent-plus club include Ontario (53.5 per cent), Quebec and New Brunswick (both at 53.3 per cent), Prince Edward Island (51.37 per cent) and Manitoba (50.4 per cent).

The other provinces are not exactly low-tax havens, either. As of 2016, British Columbia's combined top provincial-federal income tax rate is 47.7 per cent. Alberta and Saskatchewan charge the highest-income earners 48 per cent while Newfoundland and Labrador's top marginal rate is 49.8 per cent.

One might argue it is only proper to make high-income Canadians pay their "fair" share. Problem: They already did before Ottawa and the provinces began their renewed higher-tax journeys.

Of the $126-billion in federal income tax paid in 2014, those with taxable incomes of $250,000 or more (not quite the 1 per cent but close enough) represented 1.4 per cent of all tax filers who paid tax. Their share of all taxable income was 11 per cent; they paid 21 per cent of federal income taxes, or $26.2-billion. Relative to income and other tax filers, that was rather "fair" already.

Another fact to consider: Even if the Prime Minister plans to double taxes on high-income earners – an unwise move that would send even more doctors and others south of the border – all the tax-raising on the wealthy won't pay for next year's forecast deficit of $27.8-billion.

We pay too much federal tax,  I said this years ago and you guys disagreed because Harper was PM.  I haven't changed my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2017 at 9:45 PM, Puzzleboy said:

On a budget cover, no less.  These retards will surely bankrupt this country.  Gotta love their shit-eating grins....

 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-200000-on-a-budget-cover-thats-exclusively-liberal-tomfoolery

 

Colby Cosh: $200,000 on a budget cover? That's exclusively Liberal tomfoolery

I can see people lamenting that two hundred thou on a budget cover is mere "business as usual." Like hell it is

justin-trudeau-bill-morneau-budget.jpg

Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hold copies of the federal budget in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Wednesday, March 22, 2017.

 

Let’s talk about the federal government’s spending of $212,234 on artwork for the 2017 budget. The first order of business here is to give full credit to the Blacklock’s Reporter parliamentary news agency for Tom Korski’s scoop. Getting ahold of this information involved a disgusting Access to Information struggle with the Department of Finance, complete with a formal complaint to the information commissioner. ATI requests are tedious even when they are not resisted by government, and they can be unrewarding and costly. An individual newspaper or reporter may not capture all the publicity benefit from their own filing, even when it is successful.

This one had singularly enlightening results. The headline is the $212,234 figure, paid to McCann Canada for “budget art themes,” notably, a cover illustration. Blacklock’s tells us that this total included $89,500 for “talent fees” and models representing the artistic title given to the budget: Building a Strong Middle Class. The cost exceeds the figure for last year’s budget, which was $176,339.

Even as I summarize this news, I can see the potential for various kinds of carping from ad men or illustrators who don’t want their oxen gored. “Sigh, this is just business as usual.” Like hell it is: under the Conservatives the finance department used plain covers or inexpensive stock photos for the budget. This is exclusively Liberal tomfoolery.

This is exclusively Liberal tomfoolery

“Okay, but the cost is perfectly reasonable for what we got!” Two hundred thou for one document, huh? Try that one out on a newspaper art director. Try it out on anyone who ever worked for a magazine, particularly one with newsstand sales that actually depended on a fancy cover.

Maybe you’re thinking, “Even if it’s a bit ridiculous, it’s ONLY $200,000 against a background of billions.” But is it? To me this is the most intriguing part of all. Blacklock’s quotes an e-mail (“It’s fresh. I love where this is going”) from someone who has the title “senior marketing advisor for the finance department”. Am I the only one left asking, “Why the hell does the federal finance department need a marketing advisor?” The “senior” part denotes a six-figure salary, none of which is included in the cheque that was written to the nice creatives at McCann. Is the finance department a business whose revenues depend on effective advertising? Does Canada’s federal government have several finance departments contending with each other for market share?

Why the hell does the federal finance department need a marketing advisor?

Someone with a job title in “marketing” might make sense at a department like Global Affairs, which does a lot of traditional straight-up selling of Canadian products to the outside world. It may even make some sense at the Canada Revenue Agency, which is in the position of offering a service, involving different forms and modalities and commercial applications, directly to the public. But why does the work of finance need to be marketed to Canadians? Do we have a choice not to deal with finance? Do they care whether we are keen on them?

And if we have full-time marketing specialists at finance, for what are we paying an ad agency? Is that the main job of a government “marketing advisor” — choosing someone appropriate to do the actual work for a reasonable price? If so, I cannot say, as a media professional, that I am impressed with the advice given. Also, I think I definitely picked the wrong career.

Rest assured I am only pretending to be slightly dumb about all this. Finance has “marketing” specialists for the purpose of advertising a political agenda to the public. It cannot be helped that a Liberal government is bound to give a budget a campaign-friendly name like “Building a Strong Middle Class” and to throw your money at promoting it. The Conservatives liked to play a similar happy-talk game with the titles of parliamentary bills, which some people found odious, but which didn’t cost us 200 Gs at a stroke, either. Unfortunately, this is the kind of public waste that we cannot throw anyone in jail for

This is the sort of use of public funds for essentially partisan purposes that we can’t throw anybody in jail for, except in my daydreams. Blacklock’s uncovered e-mails make this positively explicit: in arguing over the 2016 budget cover someone observed that, “Justin Trudeau’s election mantra was all about positivity, change, and optimism for the future. We want this budget cover to illustrate that feeling.” I would say this utterance is not quite in the tradition of our public service, except for my fear that it is a perfect expression of the real tradition.

Of course, using an ad agency for this foul business has the bonus of cementing Liberal friends in a trade that has a lot of power over the media. No doubt I am making trouble for my company’s desperate, beleaguered bean counters by even talking about this. It is ugly. It is not about a $200,000 cheque: it is about the underlying abyss at which that money hints — and about Liberals not being able to change the exploitative, dubious old-school habits that led them to the Adscam disaster.

I do not spend a lot of time wishing for a New Democratic federal government, but I am pretty sure such a government would put a plain orange-ish cover on the print version of the federal budget. And, by the way, how many people even handle a printed version of any government’s budget in the year 2017? A few dozen? Don’t marketing experts know we have the internet now?

The cover should be white with word budget and year on it.  Printed for $50

 

This begs the question as to what the average cost of these covers are?

 

Edited by 1trailmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

We pay too much federal tax,  I said this years ago and you guys disagreed because Harper was PM.  I haven't changed my opinion

 

15 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

The cover should be white with word budget and year on it.  Printed for $50

 

This begs the question as to what the average cost of these covers are?

 

Someone hack your account?  You're starting to make sense.:lol:

Who even needs a paper copy.  Its 2017 Justine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the crowd goes silent when tax cuts are mentioned -  no wait here they come with all the negative talk about it

 

So far Trudeau in less the 2 years cut taxes more than its been cut in 20 years

Met Harpers goal of 9%  that Harper continued to fail at -

 

It just keeps getting worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

 

Someone hack your account?  You're starting to make sense.:lol:

Who even needs a paper copy.  Its 2017 Justine.

I bet ever MP gets an electronic copy too...

Some people do prefer Hard Copies of certain things - I'll do that book for 100k and even pay taxes on it :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, dirtybeacher said:

 

what a waste of time

"got caught"  :lol:  it was posted on a Federal website for fuck sakes

" no employee discount from retail will be included "  Andrew then rants " when will you comment to not taxing discounts " 

 

if this is how you do business at your work place, you most likely won't be working there long

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

and the crowd goes silent when tax cuts are mentioned -  no wait here they come with all the negative talk about it

 

So far Trudeau in less the 2 years cut taxes more than its been cut in 20 years

Met Harpers goal of 9%  that Harper continued to fail at -

 

It just keeps getting worse

It was already legislated and in the works, the Fibs only delayed it.

 

Actually.

It was yes to Tory 9% tax cut in 2015.
No we will freeze it in 2016.
Yes again amid a backlash for 2018/2019.
 
Is that part of Sunny Ways?
Edited by ArcticCrusher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

and the crowd goes silent when tax cuts are mentioned -  no wait here they come with all the negative talk about it

 

So far Trudeau in less the 2 years cut taxes more than its been cut in 20 years

Met Harpers goal of 9%  that Harper continued to fail at -

 

It just keeps getting worse

Yeah... sure.... Trudope gives you $10 of your money into your left pocket but then takes $20 of your money out of your right pocket and you think that is good. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Yeah... sure.... Trudope gives you $10 of your money into your left pocket but then takes $20 of your money out of your right pocket and you think that is good. :lol:

1 1/2 percent reduction for a business is more than 10$ but I expected this response.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...