[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Lay people off to save millions in salary. Lose billions in income.

Perhaps this will finally extinguish the myth of 'Stephen Harper: Economist".

What's any of that have to do with people failing to pay undisputed taxes?

Sounds to me like you've got a fair chunk of your population that's just not interested in financing your government anymore.

If you read the article, these are taxes people said they owed, but haven't paid. It's literally the first sentence. They are using the CRA as a low interest loan.

The CRA doesn't have enough people to chase down the people to pay their back taxes they say they owe, again according to the article, due to Harper cutting the budget to pay people resulting in layoffs.

LOL, really?

If this was really an issue, it's been almost 3 years since Harper left the office. Surely more people could have been hired in a 3 year timespan, no?

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What's any of that have to do with people failing to pay undisputed taxes?

Sounds to me like you've got a fair chunk of your population that's just not interested in financing your government anymore.

If you read the article, these are taxes people said they owed, but haven't paid. It's literally the first sentence. They are using the CRA as a low interest loan.

The CRA doesn't have enough people to chase down the people to pay their back taxes they say they owe, again according to the article, due to Harper cutting the budget to pay people resulting in layoffs.

LOL, really?

If this was really an issue, it's been almost 3 years since Harper left the office. Surely more people could have been hired in a 3 year timespan, no?

It's also in the article. They reduced delinquent accounts from 7.8% to 5.6% in the last 3 years.

But let's not forget, that's just the collections side. How much in taxes is being lost because there are too few auditors to audit people's and corporate taxes?

[CDN_PATRIOT]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If you read the article, these are taxes people said they owed, but haven't paid.

This isn't a partisan thing. The CRA has been having trouble for a long time collecting everything that's owed. Governments of all political stripes encounter this issue.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The CRA doesn't have enough people to chase down the people to pay their back taxes they say they owe, again according to the article, due to Harper cutting the budget to pay people resulting in layoffs.

So tell your buddy PM Selfie to hire more staff. Oh wait....that would involve 1) Actually doing something productive, and 2) THINKING. Can't have any of that!

-J.

[DrCaleb]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If you read the article, these are taxes people said they owed, but haven't paid.

This isn't a partisan thing. The CRA has been having trouble for a long time collecting everything that's owed. Governments of all political stripes encounter this issue.

It is a partisan thing, when the Conservative Prime minister is shown to be the one being the least money wise. Remember his record 2009 - 2010 budget defect? $59B Largest in Canadian history?

That is not the Conservative Party I remember.

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The CRA doesn't have enough people to chase down the people to pay their back taxes they say they owe, again according to the article, due to Harper cutting the budget to pay people resulting in layoffs.

So tell your buddy PM Selfie to hire more staff. Oh wait....that would involve 1) Actually doing something productive, and 2) THINKING. Can't have any of that!

-J.

Quote me where I have even once shown support for Trudeau.



{sound of crickets chirping}

[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It is a partisan thing, when the Conservative Prime minister is shown to be the one being the least money wise. Remember his record 2009 - 2010 budget defect? $59B Largest in Canadian history?

That is not the Conservative Party I remember.

Of all people on here, I expect better from you.

Ignoring the global recession of 2009 when all parties agreed on stimulus spending to prevent the economy from a collapse?

Provide some context to your statements. Otherwise, they come off ignorant and partisan.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Quote me where I have even once shown support for Trudeau.

You've placed the blame of a lack of CRA staff on Harper, not the guy who's been in office the last 3 years. While not direct support, you placed the blame at the feet of the wrong person.

I don't care what the article says. If Harper made cuts that were bad for the CRA, the Liberals have had more than enough time to make a correction.

You know better.

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It is a partisan thing, when the Conservative Prime minister is shown to be the one being the least money wise. Remember his record 2009 - 2010 budget defect? $59B Largest in Canadian history?

That is not the Conservative Party I remember.

Of all people on here, I expect better from you.

Ignoring the global recession of 2009 when all parties agreed on stimulus spending to prevent the economy from a collapse?

Provide some context to your statements. Otherwise, they come off ignorant and partisan.

Like people blaming the debt that Trudeau is racking up, and forgetting Harper was worse? That kind of partisanship?

Context only matters if you don't want to see the dirty hands of the people your bias favours. My statement is factual.

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Quote me where I have even once shown support for Trudeau.

You've placed the blame of a lack of CRA staff on Harper, not the guy who's been in office the last 3 years. While not direct support, you placed the blame at the feet of the wrong person.

I don't care what the article says. If Harper made cuts that were bad for the CRA, the Liberals have had more than enough time to make a correction.

You know better.

So, no quote then? I placed the blame, based on the facts and the information given in the article.

$1:

A CRA watchdog group said the rapid rise in the tax debt over the last decade or so is a direct result of public service downsizing – a problem the Liberals have still not resolved.

"It coincides directly with dramatic cuts to staff and office closures," Diana Gibson of Canadians For Tax Fairness said in an interview from Victoria.

I regret that I do not argue in accordance with your style. If you want context, Google services are free.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

Coach85 Coach85:

Ignoring the global recession of 2009 when all parties agreed on stimulus spending to prevent the economy from a collapse?

Tough choices had to me made at that point, and considering Canada came out of that recession better than any other country in the G7/G20, what Harper did WORKED.

Trudeau would have crumbled along with our economy had he been PM when that recession ocurred. The only Liberal PM in recent history that I would have trusted with a recession would be Paul Martin. I had and still have a certain amount of respect for that guy, for being an economic expert first, and PM second.

-J.

[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Like people blaming the debt that Trudeau is racking up, and forgetting Harper was worse? That kind of partisanship?

Context only matters if you don't want to see the dirty hands of the people your bias favours. My statement is factual.

Comparing the debt racked up by any Prime Minister isn't fair unless there's context. Each PM has had different situations and challenges to deal with along the way. Those need to be mentioned.

Context matters if you want to have a respectful, adult conversation. Context provides details as to why something may have happened.

Sure, it's factual but without context, it's a weak point to be made.

It's like noting that one family has a lot of debt compared to their neighbour without regard for the medical bills the one family has racked up trying to save their dying child. They're just shitty at managing their money.

But context doesn't matter...

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I regret that I do not argue in accordance with your style. If you want context, Google services are free.

No need to be a smart-ass. Providing context isn't a big ask when having a conversation.

[Coach85]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

Coach85 Coach85:

Ignoring the global recession of 2009 when all parties agreed on stimulus spending to prevent the economy from a collapse?

Tough choices had to me made at that point, and considering Canada came out of that recession better than any other country in the G7/G20, what Harper did WORKED.

Trudeau would have crumbled along with our economy had he been PM when that recession ocurred. The only Liberal PM in recent history that I would have trusted with a recession would be Paul Martin. I had and still have a certain amount of respect for that guy, for being an economic expert first, and PM second.

-J.

Canada did come out well. No doubt. I wouldn't classify Harper as an 'economic expert' by any means, because he made some choices along the way that actual experts cringed at.

Despite Canada coming out well, that doesn't stop the likes of Caleb from dropping nuggets about the massive debt without any context to the situation nor the mention of Liberals and NDP pushing for us to go into more debt and complained that Harper didn't spend enough.

[BartSimpson]

Coach85 Coach85:

Providing context isn't a big ask when having a conversation.

Agreed. Myself, I was having a hard time following this discussion as I was reading it just now.

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Like people blaming the debt that Trudeau is racking up, and forgetting Harper was worse? That kind of partisanship?

Context only matters if you don't want to see the dirty hands of the people your bias favours. My statement is factual.

Comparing the debt racked up by any Prime Minister isn't fair unless there's context. Each PM has had different situations and challenges to deal with along the way. Those need to be mentioned.

Context matters if you want to have a respectful, adult conversation. Context provides details as to why something may have happened.

Sure, it's factual but without context, it's a weak point to be made.

It's like noting that one family has a lot of debt compared to their neighbour without regard for the medical bills the one family has racked up trying to save their dying child. They're just shitty at managing their money.

But context doesn't matter...

The article provided all the context you were looking for. Logical debate does not require my argument includes context, only logic.

Harper caused the problem, Trudeau has not yet fixed it. Both are factual, and both are in the article.

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I regret that I do not argue in accordance with your style. If you want context, Google services are free.

No need to be a smart-ass. Providing context isn't a big ask when having a conversation.

Have you just met me?

[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The article provided all the context you were looking for. Logical debate does not require my argument includes context, only logic.

Harper caused the problem, Trudeau has not yet fixed it. Both are factual, and both are in the article.

I think you've moved off-track here.

My comment about context came from your comments, not those in the article.

Specifically:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It is a partisan thing, when the Conservative Prime minister is shown to be the one being the least money wise. Remember his record 2009 - 2010 budget defect? $59B Largest in Canadian history?

That is not the Conservative Party I remember.

A comment without context that was an off-topic partisan dig.

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

Specifically:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It is a partisan thing, when the Conservative Prime minister is shown to be the one being the least money wise. Remember his record 2009 - 2010 budget defect? $59B Largest in Canadian history?

That is not the Conservative Party I remember.

A comment without context that was an off-topic partisan dig.

A partisan dig perhaps, but not offtopic. It was because Harper didn't have any balanced budgets until his last that he unwisely decided to cut staff at one of the few revenue positive Ministries in the government, resulting in this lack of staff to keep generating revenue. Many of his staffing and procurement decisions are still affecting us.

Hell, even Cretiens' decisions are.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

Coach85 Coach85:

Despite Canada coming out well, that doesn't stop the likes of Caleb from dropping nuggets about the massive debt without any context to the situation nor the mention of Liberals and NDP pushing for us to go into more debt and complained that Harper didn't spend enough.

Always seems to get lost somewhere when rational debate shows up, eh?

-J.

[JaredMilne]

You'd think this is something people across the political spectrum from herbie to Bart could get behind, particularly if it eases some of the pressure on the rest of us who actually pay up properly. It's one thing to protest tax rates and advocate for reductions in taxes and/or spending. It's quite another to openly cheat and force the rest of us to make up for your being an asshole.

More than that, if Trump and Trudeau both wanted to win some brownie points from across the spectrum, they could go after tax shelters. That's the kind of elitism that drove so many pissed-off Americans to support Trump, and it can get support from everyone from leftists who are pleased to see the rich pay their fair share to conservatives who hate being hassled by the taxman over their smaller tax bills while rich Hollywood and Wall Street types cut sweetheart deals to avoid payments and jail time.

That's the kind of swamp-draining everyone could go for!

P.S.: I was targeted by a CRA scammer a couple of weeks ago who used a recorded message to say there was a warrant for my arrest.

The cops must have gotten lost on the way to my place-and I know my address is up to date with the CRA!