Canadian Politics Redux

PJ_Soul said:

To be more than made up for with the several billions of tax dollars that will result from legalizing marijuana.

I do not really see what one has to do with the other. This is for the next budget, weed isn't legal yet.
Besides, do you have any reference on this? I would be interested in an economist's forecast of the revenue stream from legalized bud.
I am all for any kind of sin tax, especially for something I have no interest in.

In my estimation, most people earn money, most do not smoke pot so I would question this would earn "billions" either way.
Also, how many true pot smokers will want to buy the regulated Government THC reduced bud or continue to purchase the better black market stuff?

1ThoughtKnown said:

From a September 24, 2015 Globe and Mail (rag) article:

"The state of Colorado, with a population of 5.4 million, is on pace to collect over $125-million in tax revenue this year from the legalized marijuana trade. Canada’s population is 35 million, which extrapolates to revenue of $810-million a year as a rough guide if the same rules were applied to a population of Canada’s size."


So if the Liberals tax the pot at three times what Colorado is, we would technically get "billions" ($2.43 .

Well, hopefully they get more and they will continue to lower income taxes..... Oh wait, it's the Libs. They will find a way to spend it.

How many balanced budgets did the CONS have?

dignin said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

From a September 24, 2015 Globe and Mail (rag) article:

"The state of Colorado, with a population of 5.4 million, is on pace to collect over $125-million in tax revenue this year from the legalized marijuana trade. Canada’s population is 35 million, which extrapolates to revenue of $810-million a year as a rough guide if the same rules were applied to a population of Canada’s size."


So if the Liberals tax the pot at three times what Colorado is, we would technically get "billions" ($2.43 .

Well, hopefully they get more and they will continue to lower income taxes..... Oh wait, it's the Libs. They will find a way to spend it.

How many balanced budgets did the CONS have?

I'm trying to understand the relevance of your question?

If we go back to my post which ended the dead silence of Canadian Politics Redux, my point was that the Liberals promised "Real Change" and taxing the middle class less and taxing the rich capitalist pigs more was "Real Change".

Sin taxes are generally aimed right at the middle to lower income workers. I don't know many pot smokers in upper management where I work. Engineers don't generally strike me as party animals.

The Liberals were elected promising to run deficits, and the general electorate is going to get what they voted for. The Conservatives ran deficits (smaller than any G7 nation) to slide through a huge recession. The Liberals are running them just because, well, we are being run by a drama teacher and snowboard instructor

oftenreading said:

Sin taxes generally on middle to lower income workers? What about alcohol? I'm not sure there's ever been a shortage of higher income earning drinkers. And I'm also not sure you know who out of your upper management smoke pot; they'd be unlikely to divulge that to you, given it's current legal status, unless you are close friends.

So you think that high income earners drink more than the middle,class?
The "1%" drink enough to pay equal/more tax than the 99% lower/middle class? Interesting math, similar to the Liberals pre-election math.

Upper management does not smoke pot. Those luxury boxes at a Flames or Canucks game? It's hookers and blow. Unless you legalize those two things, the "1%" are tax free. smiley:
You can opine about what I may or may not know, but sin taxes are regressive. Your hero is fucking you over.

1ThoughtKnown said:

So let us recap:

You think it is fair for a person making $20,000 a year who buys a case of beer and a pack of smokes has to pay the same tax on those "sins" as a person who makes a $100,000.
Same items, same tax.

But it is "unfair" for the same person to have to pay the same income tax rate? The person making $20,000 should pay less income tax than the person earning $100,000?

Why are sales taxes, gas taxes, etc etc accepted as a flat tax, but somehow a person who makes more money is taxed at a higher rate simply by earning more (by working harder, being smarter, or just dumb luck, etc)?

This is the socialist logic I can't figure out.

No, that's apparently the 1Thought logic. You pulled all of this out of your...we'll say hat, to be polite. I didn't say any of this; you did.

As usual. A left winger cannot even mull over the possibility that someone who doesn't think exactly like them may have a point.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. "Liberals" are supposed to be the "nicer, caring, more understanding" citizens. Open-minded and educated. They tell themselves how great they are constantly, continual pats on the back for being so evolved.

Comes with a caveat - you can have an opinion, it just can't be different from theirs.

When some don't actually have a strong argument I've noticed that some try to throw around "Liberal" as an insult. Weak deflection shit but not a surprise.

If you feel like you are being victimized because your "opinion" is challenged.....go post in the I'm a victim thread....cause nobody cares about your your weak shit here.

Hard time being a conservative these days.....real hard times.