• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25

Define "control" ?
TFSA et el are still controlled by the Canadian government. They tell me how much money I can invest and how much taxes I can avoid. The Canadian government has no control over how much money a Canadian company can filter through an off shore account like Bermuda.
 
TFSA et el are still controlled by the Canadian government. They tell me how much money I can invest and how much taxes I can avoid.

You can put as much as you want in a TFSA or RRSP - you'll just start getting taxed heavier on it after you exceed the limits, to the point that it's usually not worth it (there are cases where overcontributions were made deliberately because it made tax sense).

The Canadian government has no control over how much money a Canadian company can filter through an off shore account like Bermuda.

They can legislate to tax the income earned at 100% if they want?

They can also legislate "you're allowed $6000 per year and anything after that we'll tax at 100%" or

"you're allowed $6000 per year and anything above that, we'll tax at the general corporate tax rate." ??

They literally legislate it so that it looks just like an RRSP or TFSA for corporations if they want.

This isn't some secret the Canadian government doesn't know about it and/or can't track and/or can't enforce. As the the article I posted explains, it is a deliberate choice to allow it. As a Brihard has pointed out, it's a deliberate choice because it's economically advantageous to Canadians.

The fact is anyone with a clue knows that corporations don't bear the burden of tax - the corporate tax rate is essentially just a political play. Having a 0% corporate tax rate would be super unpopular (despite it's economic sense) and having double-taxation occur (at the corporate level and then at the personal level on income tax's already been taxed at the corporate level) would be super economically stupid. The Income Tax Act is thick enough to use in masonry because of the choice to have corporate tax rates, but then avoid double-taxation from occurring. The whole thing is set up so that the net effect is the same as if we had a 0% corporate tax rate, simply because it would be too hard for politicians to help the average voter understand why it would be much more beneficial.

As long as the money is coming back to Canadian individuals eventually (i.e through interest, dividends, withdrawals from their portfolios, capital gains in non-registered portfoilios, etc.), it's getting the full amount of Canadian tax applied to it.
 
TFSA et el are still controlled by the Canadian government. They tell me how much money I can invest and how much taxes I can avoid. The Canadian government has no control over how much money a Canadian company can filter through an off shore account like Bermuda.
To the extent a government can't "control" money flows and allocations, the futility of trying to do so is illustrated. (Also, it distorts spending and investment decisions, usually to adverse effect. RRSPs and TFSAs also distort those decisions, but to a desirable effect. The simpler the tax regime, the more decisions are governed by markets - what people want/need and will pay for.) I'd choose to not fight that battle and instead focus efforts on collecting revenue where we can, in modest amounts, to support modest spending. Some parties want immodest spending, and try to protect themselves from angry voters by pretending they can collect only modest amounts from the vast majority of voters. The resulting imbalance is obvious.

To reiterate: the real source of money is in the middle class - numbers times incomes.

A phenomenon giving a bit of a "free ride" to tax-and-spenders who want to shift the tax burden higher up the income scale is that improving prosperity has for several decades been moving people up the low-middle-upper class spectrum. (The stories which attempt to assert the "shrinking middle class" are wrong - it loses people mostly because people move up, but gains people as the same thing has been happening to people lower down.) Increasing prosperity means governments can extract more revenue without changing tax rate "sliders". This suggests people who want to spend a lot should make a prosperity agenda "Job One", but mostly they show up on TV demonizing the kine who tread the grain.
 

Trump believes Canadians would 'benefit greatly' from becoming 51st state, White House rep reiterates​


I wonder how CBC managed this? They sent a reporter to the White House Press Briefing, where they got called for a question. They asked about tariffs and US/ Canada relations. Levitt answered with the standard 51st state answer. Up until that moment, Trump and tariffs weren't being talked about. The lib numbers were falling.

The purpose of the whole exercise? Was it to put Trump back into the election narrative? Polls show it boosts Carney's points when Trump comes into the conversation.

Caveat - I watch US news daily, including press conferences, never have I ever, seen CBC at a White House brief let alone get a question. I can't find CBC on any list of members of the White House Press Corps. Which would put them there as a quest.

It would be interesting to find out how they got in the room and how they managed to get called on by Leavitt and why that particular question?

 

Trump believes Canadians would 'benefit greatly' from becoming 51st state, White House rep reiterates​


I wonder how CBC managed this? They sent a reporter to the White House Press Briefing, where they got called for a question. They asked about tariffs and US/ Canada relations. Levitt answered with the standard 51st state answer. Up until that moment, Trump and tariffs weren't being talked about. The lib numbers were falling.

The purpose of the whole exercise? Was it to put Trump back into the election narrative? Polls show it boosts Carney's points when Trump comes into the conversation.

Caveat - I watch US news daily, including press conferences, never have I ever, seen CBC at a White House brief let alone get a question. I can't find CBC on any list of members of the White House Press Corps. Which would put them there as a quest.

It would be interesting to find out how they got in the room and how they managed to get called on by Leavitt and why that particular question?

I think your wondering the same thing as the rest of us...

But I think we know the primary answer here...



CBC wants Carney to win. Hell they need him to win. So their narrative has been grossly supportive of Carney overall, and they haven't really pushed him on much.
 
I think your wondering the same thing as the rest of us...

But I think we know the primary answer here...



CBC wants Carney to win. Hell they need him to win. So their narrative has been grossly supportive of Carney overall, and they haven't really pushed him on much.


I think this gambit is their pulling out all the stops, Hail Mary pass.
 

Trump believes Canadians would 'benefit greatly' from becoming 51st state, White House rep reiterates​


I wonder how CBC managed this? They sent a reporter to the White House Press Briefing, where they got called for a question. They asked about tariffs and US/ Canada relations. Levitt answered with the standard 51st state answer. Up until that moment, Trump and tariffs weren't being talked about. The lib numbers were falling.
Any links to Red numbers falling? The aggregate of loadsa polls here shows different, although I stand to be corrected ....
1744820167241.png
... unless, of course ;)
do-you-believe-the-polls.jpg
... never have I ever, seen CBC at a White House brief let alone get a question. I can't find CBC on any list of members of the White House Press Corps. Which would put them there as a quest.

It would be interesting to find out how they got in the room and how they managed to get called on by Leavitt and why that particular question?
Well, would it be a sudden POTUS47 leaning toward more woke media outlet? Letting their media control slip? Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe Team POTUS47 wanted to have the issue come up again? Just as a way to reinforce Trump's sorta-kinda endorsement of Carney?
Maybe, maybe not.

Somehow, I don't think CBC would be able to "game" any media access system in Washington D.C. these days. EDITED TO ADD: Unless the new U.S. administration is way leakier, ideologically, than some would say, or the CBC is way more influential in D.C. than some seem to think :)
 
Last edited:
The NWC is the nuclear option and should be avoided if it can, but...
So a future government wraps a new law in the NWC, and it is not renewed on its anniversary (first, second, whatever). The courts get further clogged with applications for judicial review.

Trump believes Canadians would 'benefit greatly' from becoming 51st state, White House rep reiterates​


I wonder how CBC managed this? They sent a reporter to the White House Press Briefing, where they got called for a question. They asked about tariffs and US/ Canada relations. Levitt answered with the standard 51st state answer. Up until that moment, Trump and tariffs weren't being talked about. The lib numbers were falling.

The purpose of the whole exercise? Was it to put Trump back into the election narrative? Polls show it boosts Carney's points when Trump comes into the conversation.

Caveat - I watch US news daily, including press conferences, never have I ever, seen CBC at a White House brief let alone get a question. I can't find CBC on any list of members of the White House Press Corps. Which would put them there as a quest.

It would be interesting to find out how they got in the room and how they managed to get called on by Leavitt and why that particular question?

So the CBC conspired with the White House to enlist a reporter to lob a softball at Leavitt so she could raise the '51st state thing' purposely to juice Liberal numbers?

Where did you find the list of Press Corps. members? I have been unable since the Administration took it away from the WH Correspondents Assn.
 
Any links to Red numbers falling? The aggregate of loadsa polls here shows different, although I stand to be corrected ....

Somehow, I don't think CBC would be able to "game" any media access system in Washington D.C. these days. EDITED TO ADD: Unless the new U.S. administration is way leakier, ideologically, than some would say, or the CBC is way more influential in D.C. than some seem to think :)

338 isn't the only poll out there. As far as polls go. I still don’t use them or trust them

Last bit. Yeah, maybe, maybe not.😉

Like I said, I couldn't find anywhere that they are part of the WH Press Corps. Even in a guest capacity. Nor could I find a
previous instance of CBC ever being there before.

And I don’t buy them being there and asking that specific a question as plain shit house luck.
 
Last edited:
I see this going the other way. Carney played his meeting with Trump as successfully diffusing the 51st state talk and now it's back. Win Poilievre.
Then again, POTUS47 played it respectfully on the socials after the same meeting, too. Still ....
ArteJohnsonVeryInteresting.jpg
.... As far as polls go. I still don’t use them or trust them ...
C'mon, never ever ever? ;)
... The lib numbers were falling ... Polls show it boosts Carney's points when Trump comes into the conversation ...
In all seriousness, I'm kinda curious, too, about how the Cosmic Butterfly Corp slipped in a question @ the White House - but I'm not suspecting all that much skullduggery, ESPECIALLY given how tight the White House keeps the media reins. Coulda just been a case of "I'll pick her so I don't have to pick x or y." 🤷‍♂️
 
Then again, POTUS47 played it respectfully on the socials after the same meeting, too. Still ....
View attachment 92667

C'mon, never ever ever? ;)

In all seriousness, I'm kinda curious, too, about how the Cosmic Butterfly Corp slipped in a question @ the White House - but I'm not suspecting all that much skullduggery, ESPECIALLY given how tight the White House keeps the media reins. Coulda just been a case of "I'll pick her so I don't have to pick x or y." 🤷‍♂️

Anything is possible. I just have a suspicious mind. I'm a where there's smoke, there's fire kinda guy.
 
EVERYBODY NEEDS TO WATCH THIS!!!

Maybe there's the odd error, but even if there is, this is one situation where one can easily lose the forest for it's trees


The level of subversion is actually beyond impressive, to the point that it seems hopelessly organic as part of our broader political & economic models...

And the corruption so deeply baked into both the US & Canadian economies. (And this is just the chart surrounding ONE guy!)



 
Back
Top