From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:42:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.070942.27717@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>>
>>>The provinces can harmonize their PSTs with the GST whenever they 
>>>want.  Mostly for political reasons they have chosen not to do so.
>>
>>ah, but we were discussing Gary's claim that the GST had some 
>>beneficial aspects to retailers. 
>
>Eh?  Where'd I say that? I just said that it removed the wholesale
>tax to give a straighter sticker price.

gee, that sounds like a beneficial aspect to me. you *do* understand
english, don't you?

how about when you said, and i quote:
"Now it's 7.5% up front instead of behind, leading to a more honest
sticker price... That's enough to spur the private sector to greater
efficiency"

trying to justify a retail tax by saying it will "spur the private
sector to greater efficiency" is government-like hooey of the first
order. don't try to call me out on your bull, Gary; i save your
articles.

>You don't have to tell me about the GST's
>implementation, I had to spend most of December 31, 1990 reprogramming
>the cash registers at our family's business for 6% Manitoba sales tax
>and then 7.5% GST according to the formula ...

gee Gary, how's that "greater efficiency" going?
oh, i see, it's greater in the long term. right.

do you even read what you post?

>>>If memory serves, the 7% GST is taking in about $18 billion per year.
>>>The 13% (or thereabouts) *hidden* MST used to take in somewhat less 
>>>(one or two billion).
>>
>>now if that was Gary saying that, i'd not be surprised, because he 
>>has done this once too often. i'll assume you weren't trying to 
>>mislead the readers (as Gary is). 
>
>Everything that Jim said has been consistent with mine ...

that wasn't my point. my point was that you have posted
all kinds of drivel and he hasn't, so he deserves benefit of the
doubt and you don't...

>>if the old tax was $1-2 billion, and the new tax is $18 billion, the
>>old tax did not take in "somewhat less" -- the new tax is between 800%
>>and 1700% higher than the old tax, depending on if you use the $2B or
>>$1B figure.
>
>Please read it again ... Jim meant "MST *by* 1-2B less than the GST" ...

i did. fine. it was very poorly phrased. i apologize for my
misconstrual.

>>sorry -- you can't refute my argument by redefining the laws of math.
>>maybe it isn't 7% -- maybe it's 7% times $16 billion over $18 billion.
>>so? 6%?
>
>Parity check ... bzzzt!  (see above)

what the %@$#^%@ are you talking about?
if the new tax takes in more than the old, there is a loss of
purchasing power. period. even if it is 2%. the government wanted it to
sound like a *replacement* tax, which it wasn't. so did you.
unless you care to redefine mathematics, shut the hell up!

>>>It is also a more "honest" tax in that, unlike the old MST, it
>>>is not (usually) hidden in the price of the good or service.
>
>That certainly bears repeating, Jim ...

how about the honesty of replacing a manufacturers tax with one
that taxes SERVICES, smartypants? that deserves repeating too.

>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes: [By the way, I'm
>concatenating sections of two articles since they are running in
>parallel ... each section is on the same topic, in A-B/B-A order]
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>>>Not at all!  Check it out" "there was a swap ... the two taxes were
>>>tied together".
>>
>>oh right. was the swap made before or after you tried to defend
>>it two days ago? sheesh. would you like some more rope?
>
>Do a ^p (or control-p on dumb terminals) and you'll see that I've been
>consistent.

you continue to lie and force me to prove it. fine.

i quote from an early article of yours:

i said: "ontario has 15% sales tax"

you said: "Ontario's provincial tax rate is 7.5%, but there is an
additional 7.5% VAT called the Goods And Services Tax (GST). It replaces
a previously hidden tax."                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

in a follow-up i called you on it, so then you tried the moronic:
"True enough, but the capital equipment to carry out these services
is now lower in price"

so i called you on that, and you said: "Hey, I didn't put that tax in! (-;"

you are a shameless liar and not even worth the energy it takes me
to prove it. 


>And Jim and Gerald have corroborated what I had said with
>figures they have available to them in Canada.  It all jives with what
>I've read in the press.

you are full of crap, as i have demonstrated above.

>>did you ever consider that the only reason they had a "small plant
>>open in Ontario" in the first place was to avoid the tariffs they 
>>now don't have to avoid?
>
>That was the reason why I gave that example about free trade ...

that's irrelevant and you damn well know it. they
have no reason to be here except to avoid tariffs. not much of
a country then, is it?

>>it doesn't have to be all one-way. but your argument means nothing
>>since you can't tell us why an entrepreneur should start up a company
>>in canada when she can do so much more easily in the states.
>
>Maybe we can ask someone with more experience in these matters from
>Corel in Ottawa or Ogivar (high quality super PC-clone workstations)
>in Montreal, if they're on the Net?  I wish that I had the UPI article
>about Ericsson's lab expansion in Montreal over New Jersey (they're on
>Ile des Soeurs, near BNR Montreal) handy ... okay Ericsson's not an
>entrepreneur but ...

to hell with your damn avoidance and pulling one or two examples
out of a hat. refute my general claims or shut up!

i repeat: why should an entrepreneur put up with all the disadvantages
i have listed several times when they don't have to, especially
with free trade now in place?

>>and tell me this.. what kind of society is it that a company
>>like NT has to threaten to leave the country to get tax breaks
>
>Everyone plays the game.  NT had a stronger hand because they are a
>techology leader ... excuse me, THE techology leader in the digital
>telecom field.  Through the 1980's, our best EE/CS, IE, OR, etc.
>people who wanted to work at home at something that really matters
>depended on NT and BNR for research and development jobs.  Even now
>they are at the front of the field in the job market, but others have
>appeared in the meantime with real jobs.  Our CEO's were great at
>squeezing water from stones, especially if it was a politician's head.
>Think about this when you read about a tax abatement anywhere, for
>anyone.  Stadium/arena building is a common one, there's a couple of
>new ones going up for the NHL expansion teams in Florida ...

you are full of it. and i am getting tired of repeating the reasons.
they are all in previous posts. you continue to spout singular examples
with no backing theory or economic argument whatever.

>>>>that the canadian business council came down to harvard business school
>>>>this year to practically *beg* canadian business students to come back
>>>>to canada "because the country needs them", in true socialist fashion?
>>>
>>>The Canadian Business Council is socialist?  Then is the Chamber of
>>>Commerce? (-;
>>
>>i was there, Gary, don't give me more of your crap. 
>>they paraded a whole bunch of top executives to talk about how
>>wonderful things were, and how "needed" young business grads were.
>
>Gee, at our campus careers center they call it a recruiting drive ...

more lies.

gee, Gary, when you are looking for a job, does the interviewer
ignore your questions about the stability of the company and how you
will make drastically less money than if you worked elsewhere and instead say
you should come work for them anyway because they 'need' you?

are you really this bloody dense?

>>the policies of the canadian and most provincial governments are
>>extremely socialistic. you support them. therefore you are a socialist.
>
>Zzzzzz...

wow! nice rational counter-argument. how many hours did you spend thinking
that one up?

>>your argument is *still* nothing more than "we have had so many
>>leaders, they couldn't all be socialist". why not? because you 
>>said so? couldn't just *some* have been more socialist than others?
>>couldn't 90% of them have been socialist and you threw in the extra
>>10% knowing full well that they were the exception, in another lame
>>attempt to default your way out of a losing argument?
>
>Okay, put up an alternate list of any minor provincial premiers, and
>federal or provincial cabinet ministers,  who could have had as strong
>a sway as/than that list of pace-setters.

don't bait-and-switch me, buddy. we were talking about whether they were
socialist or not, not whether they were influential. and as i have
said a number of times now, it only takes one year to screw up a
country or a province.

>>>>but it *doesn't* work, as i have pointed out.  even the health
>>>>insurance system will eventually collapse. don't believe the 
>>>>bull about "we spend less on health care per capita than the US". 
>>>>i don't. it will come tumbling down too.
>>>
>>>You have not pointed out anything, with all due respect.
>>
>>ah! there it is! your pinnacle of deception! well done!
>
>Your only objection centers around the government conducting the
>basic health insurance because the private sector won't come near
>the risks involved in universality ...

how many times do i have to repeat myself!!!!!

i have listed dozens of objections! you just ignore them!

you just continue to lie, and lie, and lie. can you do *nothing* else??



>and are happy to do so 'cos
>they got to keep the private insurance for "extras" ... you have
>not presented a single example of grey-suited government figures
>directing doctors or patients because in real life, they can't
>as our "system" is insurance benefits that the consumers spend
>on their own need with a private doctor relationship.

that's it, keep harping away. ignore the other issues i have
raised. just like any good politician would.

>>if you don't want to deal with the issues, to hell with you.
>>if you do, go back and re-read them, and respond logically.
>
>I have been consistent in what I've written ...

bull. i have demonstrated otherwise. you are a blatant liar.
you have the audacity to ignore all the objections i have raised
about where socialist canadian government has led the country,
and then tell *me* what i think. you are an intellectual coward
and beneath contempt.

>>do i have to go back and re-excerpt *everything* just to keep you
>>straight?
>
>No, just read it carefully the first time even as your veins pop
>and you think that I'm slime ...

i think you are illogical and dishonest. and i have damn good reason
to think so. you can infer what you want.

>>>Whoa!  Was I disagreeing with elimination of the deficit?  Not so!
>>
>>well? exactly what "drastic and sweeping changes" are you not for 
>>then, since you just *assumed* that you knew which ones *i* was for?
>
>Why get rid of the health insurance? 

to hell with the health insurance! i'm talking about fixing the
deficit, not health insurance! and you damn well know it.

what is your solution to that? 

>Keep the Armed Forces.

the Canadian Armed Forces, while i have nothing against the men and
women in it, is a token, under-funded joke. without the US, canada
would be someone else's colony now.

>There's a lot of other fat, I don't have time to go further on the 
>essentials, but let's say we throw an axe in the general direction
>of those "Arts & Culture" grants that end up in Quebec strip bars.

more irrelevant drivel, so you can say you "haven't had time yet"
to get down to the real issues.

>>so tell us Gary, do you believe in "from each according to his 
>>ability to each according to his need"?
>
>Yeah, so what about it?  If I lived in a log cabin on the Kootenay
>range in the Rockies, that's all I'd need.  Living in a society, I
>also believe that "no man is an Island unto himself" (John Milton?)
>and the balance of the two are the basis of our western capitalist
>democracies having numerous persons.  Jefferson and Disraeli are great
>for individual rights and freedoms, as is Napoleon for codifying civil
>responsibilities.  I guess that combined makes me a bore ...  I'm glad
>that I'm not one-dimensional ...

no comment. let the readership decide what you are.
i know what the above says to me.

>>>gld, the tory socialist (-;
>>
>>you joke. tell me this Gary: tell me how the current tories 
>>(conservatives) are not socialist? go ahead Gary, give it a try.
>
>Lessee ... US-Canada FTA, GATT, NAFTA ... the international socialist
>conspiracy is creeping in there ... yep!

yet more "proof by circumstantial evidence"? it's tough to use reason
when you have no case, eh Gary? good thing you're not a lawyer -- 
you'd get turfed out on your ass for using such bogus arguments,
like the "i read the wall street journal so i'm a capitalist" crap
you put in your last lie-fest.

canada had no choice but to agree
to free trade, for your information. if there had been any
alternative, i seriously doubt mulroney would have done it -- it almost
cost him an election, remember? whoops, there i go, using logic
again. sorry.

>And finally, you're going to love this ... at a Tory fundraiser in
>Edmonton last night, Mulroney said that he's looking forward to Bill
>Clinton's new administration 'cos Bill will implement policies like
>his and thus vindicate his government from the criticism they have
>received.  Don't worry, I'm taking that with a big grain of salt ...
>*coff*

my God! you are unbelievable!
Bill Clinton is a *democrat*. Mulroney claims to be a *conservative*,
which is supposed to be akin to being a *republican*!

bill clinton has already *promised* socialist
policies and increased taxes. NOBODY outside of party hacks thinks
he will cut any more of the deficit than is politically appealing.
you are providing evidence for *my* argument with your statement.

you are proving time and again that you don't know what
the hell you are talking about! quick! delete it! or you
might be forced to deal with your inconsistency yet again!

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush