Socialist's Don't Know Shit About Money
Anyone listening to Ms Chow, MP for Trinity-Spadina, have a fit in the House last week should have learned one thing, again. The NDP have no grasp on reality. If their opinions were only based on some sort of shared reality amongst the rest of us normal folk we could certainly debate the points they bring up. Unfortunately, they are on a far too distant planet than our own to ever reach them. Here's Ms Chow spewing her nonsense in Canada's highest house of reason.
We all had a good laugh at the fool, the gallery threw confetti at her buffoonery, the embarrassment was palpable. Even without a calculator, the odd clawbacks and taxes Ms Chow is referring to are unsubstantiated hysterical nonsense. I don't know enough about the current daycare plans throughout my province, Ontario, or any other province in the country to comment. I do know something about money though.Ms. Olivia Chow (NDP):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Prime Minister said that he was hopeful that real child care spaces would be created. We all know that it takes more than hope to create new child care spaces.
In a year, working families will have no choice but to have child care spaces ripped away from their children.
Will the minister please tell us how she plans to fulfill the throne speech promise to create real child care spaces?
Honourable Diane Finley (CPC):
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the Conservative plan to create 125,000 new child care spaces right across the country. We will be working with business groups, community groups and non-profit organizations to create the spaces that the previous government promised for 13 years and never once created. I look forward to this.
Ms. Olivia Chow (NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government promised $1,200 in a new family allowance. For a couple earning $35,000 that actually equals a dollar a day. Mr. Speaker, for a couple earning $35,000 a year that is worth $1 a day after the tax backs and clawbacks. One dollar a day does not even buy diapers. It does not even provide child care. It is $1 a day. The government gives with one hand and takes away with the other.
Will the minister promise the House today that every penny, every dollar, will go into the hands of the families without tax backs or clawbacks?
Honourable Diane Finley (CPC):
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, for starters, I would like to assure the Honourable member that we have not reached the 75% tax rate in this country. Our intention with the $1,200 a year child care allowance is to have a universal benefit. It will, as the Prime Minister said repeatedly during the election campaign, be taxed in the hands of the lowest earning parent. Therefore if there is a stay at home parent who earns zero dollars there is no tax on that.
I'm assuming, trying my damnedest to believe her rant was based in some reality somewhere to someone, is more likely an exercise to illustrate the stupidity of blurting inane urban myths in front of an educated audience.
Firstly, let's assume Ms Chow was talking about a couple earning a gross income of $35,000. If this income is generated by a single wage earner, let's say the husband, the combined provincial and federal governments would require that family to pay them around $5500 (assuming there are no deductions like savings plans, home purchase plans, education benefits, etc) . A worst case scenario. That $5500 (15% of taxable income) may be what Ms Chow is claiming is a "clawback". Whatever it is, if you don't pay it, the government gets really arrogant about its presumed legislative authority to retrieve it from you; lawyers at the ready. Unfortunately, without clawing back and/or taxing a portion of our incomes, Ms Chow, and all her NGO buddies whose very lives depend on the government acquiring their funding would be looking for work.
So on the one hand she's telling us to give her and her unionized daycare workers more money (the money they've been lusting 13 years to get) and on the other hand she criticizes us for how we provide it. Sorry Olivia you just can't have it both ways.
And that's why there is such hysteria and desperation in her questions. If our capitalist society, or however the NDP has allowed our society to manifest itself with their special help (hindrance), would continue to develop policies to further the aims of a free and democratic society, the socialists would soon return to their holes.
In a capitalist society, you can quote me, any segment of society that would prefer to pay for someone else to care for their children while they work in the salt mines certainly has that option. The market will obviously provide these people with that service, at fair market value. If they have to compete with the "state" well, that's Canada, the land of entitlement (at your expense). Why should I have to subsidize and develop a state bound system totally contrary to what is right, proper, and affordable. I'd far more appreciate my government providing the poor suckers who are the backbone of our society, stay at home moms and dads, with more benefits, credits, or rewards.
Direct payment is the least of what we could do for them. Maybe some government funded shrines would be in order. Can I get an amen?
posted by Ottawa Core @ 12:47 PM
19 comments
links to this post
19 Comments:
Socialists know how to take your money.
It's quite a laugh hearing Olivia Chow lecturing the Conservatives about taxes. If the NDP were in control, there would be so many handouts and social programs that the 75% income tax rate that Finley mentions would actually be a reality...
I love how she is making out all of Canada to be this desititute as well. Given that $35 000 a year is what two people on minimum wage make, I don't think there is a big segment of Canada that is in this situation. If a family of three is making this little money, I'd lay a $35 000 bet that it is because they have one parent staying at home, and don't need the daycare unless that parent is a crackhead.
Many Canadians,not just "socialists", are in favour of a national daycare system. Harper's govt was elected with a small minority. It remains to be seen whether the vote for Harper was also a vote for scrapping the Liberal daycare plan. There's a tendency to believe (perhaps a hope) amongst Conservatives, that the results of this election are a reflection of a fundamental shift to the right with Canadians.
"In a capitalist society, you can quote me, any segment of society that would prefer to pay for someone else to care for their children while they work in the salt mines certainly has that option. The market will obviously provide these people with that service, at fair market value."
Clearly the free market has failed to provide adequate and affordable daycare spaces for those of us working in the "salt mines", hence the debate.Childcare is not paticularily profitable for independent daycare providers while remaining expensive for the user.
"If they have to compete with the "state" well, that's Canada, the land of entitlement (at your expense)."
Many would argue it's better for our children and our nation to have a national program that creates national standards. Is it not preferable to have a collective voice speaking for our children rather than subjecting them to the follies of the bottom line?
"Why should I have to subsidize and develop a state bound system totally contrary to what is right, proper, and affordable. I'd far more appreciate my government providing the poor suckers who are the backbone of our society, stay at home moms and dads, with more benefits, credits, or rewards"
What's "right, proper and affordable", in this case, is a function of political philosophy. Fortunately,we are able to vote for a govt that suits our beliefs. While many Canadians raise their children without formal childcare, the vast majority turn to the public school system once their kids turn 4 yrs. We all pay for the education of the nation's children collectively.
Few stay at home parents view themselves as "suckers". As a stay at home dad preparing to start his child in ECE,I've enjoyed the last 19 months at home immensely. It has benefited my child and me. I'm returning to work and my child is ready to be challenged outside the home. It's tough to let go but our family believes in the benefits of early childhood education. Any tax relief offered to Canadian parents is gladly accepted. Harper's family allowance is a small help to all families. However, there remains a legitimate need for greater assistance to Canadian families with preschool age children. The debate on the need for a national childcare program cannot be relegated to partisan politics or simpleminded political "isms". There remains support for this issue from all political parties in Canada, whether the hardliners like it or not.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
See, that is why it takes absolutley no courage to be a socialist. Just say "yes" to anything and throw money at it, regardless if it is wise or not. Just as long as they can feel good doing "something" that is all that matters to them.
I used to have socialist tendencies in high school and college, thanks to my left-lib teachers. But thankfully I graduated, grew up, got a job, and saw what being a socialist acually cost.
Well said, Dennis. Ms. Chow is obviously still has some maturing to do.
Ms. Chow needs to learn the difference between a campaing and the House. While campaigning, she can say anything she wants and no one contradicts her. In the House, her bad math and assumptions are quickly shot down.
You know Davidson your right, $1200.00 is not enough to entirely subsidize daycare. But, nobody said the Conservatives were trying to pay the ENTIRE bill. It is a step in the right direction, and it provides people a choice in how they want their child to grow up. Just like everyone should have a choice in what type of medical care they receive. Sounds like Common Sense to me.
Of course, I just wrote an essay on this for my political science class. My mark was rather poor and according to my prof I "ignored statistiscal evidence to the contrary". Who would have thought a political science professor would have an agenda?
davidson:
the sheer volume of your argument deserves some sort of response. let's see:
a majority of canadians are in favour of socialized daycare.
bullshit. liberals are in favour of saving their asses from electoral ruin; hence, daycare at the eleventh hour of an election. don't forget all the other billions of dollars being spread around within days of the good ship liberal sinking. are those written in stone?
affordable:
yup, this is a socialist keyword. the problem with making everything affordable to the slave miners is that there are no distinquishable items only the rich(worthy) or those who strive for bigger, better, faster can afford. their concept is to have everything funneled into a ready mix porridge easily palletable by the lowest common denominator they serve. of course, the economy fails since there are only three product variants. slave, administrator, and politician. no one rises through the mass of muddy grey peoploids. no gates, no ghandi, no neil young. everything and everyone the same.
another problem with providing "affordable" daycare is that the service, as it has formed itself under the rigours of competing with the state, is only for the rich. the market has evaluated it and it's dear and unaffordable to the lowly serfs. too bad. you must have alternatives. i'm sorry you can't afford the yuppie upper echelon services. entitled to rich services even though you've done nothing to benefit society? how's about we pay you directly and you can innovate?
"Who would have thought a political science professor would have an agenda"?
===============
When liberal profs try so hard to indoctrinate their students, is it any wonder why you got the mark for going against the grain as you did?
I remember when I was the only male in my year of the social work program. My class got into a debate about child care and stay at home parents. Actually, it was a comment that women make better at home parents then men do. Being the at home parent, I took exception to that statment. Not because I thought men were better child care providers (because I know that no one can make an argument like that for either sex against the other) but for the sheer chauvanistic nature of the comment.
Needless to say, I was not a very popular member of that class. my advice to you is to get the passing grade you need in that class and get out, chalking it up as a lesson learned about liberal academia.
Ottawa Core, with all due respect, you certainly aren't responding to what I said.
"a majority of canadians are in favour of socialized daycare."
I didn't write that. I simply said that many Canadians favour a national daycare program. My suspicion is that support for the Liberal daycare program is far reaching.Contrary to what many hardliners in the CPC may think, a vote for Harper last time round was not necessarily an endorsement of his baby bonus scheme. It would be dangerous for conservatives to believe any new support recently received is permanent. This is especially true in Quebec. Childcare is a major issue for the tories whether you like it or not.
davidson:
semantics are a wonderful device to avoid responsibility aren't they?
in a climate where all federal government programs provide services free for the asking, without any regard for long term disaster this type of economy will bring, i would suggest this socialist disease has integrated itself so deep within our society that we don't know how to live without it. we expect the government to provide everything for everyone. that's north korea, not my idea of canada.
it's more a matter of syntax than semantics when you misquote someone. your employment of hyperbole does little to address the main thrust of my comments. i have been commenting on the contents of your post entitled,"Socialist's Don't Know Shit About Money" North Korea never entered into it.
Remmber that Chow is representative of her constituents.(!)
Also the local rags and news in Toronto will report her "bold" challenges to the minister without any critical analysis or the complete responses of the minister.
Thus portraying the NDP fool as a brave advocate of the working class and the Honourable minister as an uncaring incompetent.
Rule of Thumb: Whenever any NDPer says anything ... believe the opposite!
! Davidson is that you?
BTW The NDP are SOCIALISTS!
Can't resist one more kick at this...
Shane.... your observation is correct but remember that the ideology of the NDP is to reduce everything and everybody to the lowest common denominator.
If Chow assumes 35K per year then you can be pretty sure that is where the view Canadians income belonging.
If you earn more they will have no problem taxing you down to that level.
I remember Olivia's interview with Jan Wong in the G&M several years back, where Jan (bless her) basically outed Olivia as a very bourgeoise member of the Riverdale champagne socialist set. Olivia was especially proud of her ultra-chic kitchen with two dishwashers.
Just to say that she and Jack have no clue what it's like to live on $35K a year. Or what we parents really want.
Chow's $35k cutoff is within a few hundred bucks under the lowest tax bracket (15%). any amount over will be taxed at 22%. neither way brings $1200 down to $365 (chow's 1 dollar a day claim, a 69.58% tax rate)
whatever chow's concern, the reality is that if the family receiving the 1200 is a dual income family, the income can be added to the one making the lesser income. doing this can lead to no tax on that income. 1200 net.
"Whatever chow's concern, the reality is that if the family receiving the 1200 is a dual income family, the income can be added to the one making the lesser income. doing this can lead to no tax on that income. 1200 net."
============
What can I say? Olivia Chow doesn't worry about little things like facts and math.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home