NotWeasel for City Council? 
I seem to recall having read something stating that our city councellors made around $40k/yr.

Turns out, I was very wrong.

Apparently they're getting a pay raise from $87,214 to $95,000 per year.

Maybe the next time elections come around, I should be putting my bitching and complaining to somewhat more productive use!

Of course, I'd have to do away with whatever morality I've come to pride myself with over the years and embrace the corruption and greed that drives our political system.

That would suck.

I wonder how long I'd last before someone put a hit out on me for not being corrupt enough?


[ add comment ]   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink  |  related link
Slutty and the Beast Buy a Lovenest? 
I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure I saw Belinda Stronach and Tie Domi heading into the sales office of the Ritz Carlton at lunch today.

If one of them owns an Audi S8, then that was probably them.

Talk about one hell of a nice love shack!


[ 1 comment ] ( 24 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Jim Flaherty: I commend you. 
People are up in arms over the government's decision to tax income trusts and I understand their point of view.

People overinvested in them based on the governments promise not to tax them and now they've been hurt by the reversal of that promise.

I don't in any way condone breaking election promises but in this particular case, I think that the government realized there was a serious storm brewing and needed to quickly put a halt to it.

I think that a better solution would have been to put an immediate halt on the creation of income trusts and to grandfather those that already exist, but I'm not the finance minister and have no idea whether that sort of action would even be legal.

The fact is, though, that the conversion of major corporations into income trusts was going to seriously hurt the country and that those most disadvantaged by it would be the lower classes. Critics are arguing that it's the elderly and the everyday Joes who are hurting because the income trusts in their portfolios have lost a lot of value.

I wonder if anyone has put into perspective what percentage of Canadians don't hold any income trusts in their portfolios and, frankly, how many don't HAVE a portfolio because they can't afford to own investments when they're too busy trying to pay their rents and feed their families.

Income trusts are good only for those who hold their units. Beyond those people, the country and its citizens are being short-changed by them and the government has realized this. They exist in a tax loophole that should never have been allowed in the first place the problem had finally reached critical mass with the likes of BCE and the big banks considering the conversion.

Reading about people who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't going to cause a family living at or below the poverty line to lose any sleep. These things weren't wiped out. They lost around a quarter of their value so for every hundred grand lost, the suffering masses likely have another 3 hundred grand sitting in the bank. While their quality of life may well suffer and their retirement may not be quite as comfortable, there is certainly no worry that they're going to end up on the street picking through trash cans for food.

This all ties back to my post a few days ago about greed. The people hurt most by this are those who are already doing well for themselves. The people hurt most by not making these changes are those who are not. It's those who will have to bear a greater share of the tax burden because investors are soaking up profits that are no longer being taxed by the government.

Now this all gets more complicated when you look at the income taxes paid on the distributions and what not, but at the end of the day, those can be sheltered by RSPs and other tax sheltering methods so the government in the end loses revenue.

That money has to come from somewhere and it's the working stiffs that will end up paying it out.

So all in all, Mr. Flaherty, I commend your actions. I commend you for having the courage to do what's right for the country rather than what's going to make the most money for the affluent.

I only hope that this doesn't hurt the government's chances for re-election. Hopefully they can follow this up with a tangeable tax break for ordinary Canadians so they can see the benefits of these changes.


[ add comment ]   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Some stuff doesn't have to be law. 
Right now, the law says that you can put as many people as you want in your car so long as the driver isn't crowded and all available seatbelts are being used.

This makes sense. If there's a seatbelt there, you should use it so I don't have to pay to piece you back together after you're thrown out into oncoming traffic.

Sometimes, however, you need to fit an extra person in the vehicle and there just isn't a belt there. In that case, should the law force you to find some other form of transportation?

If you can only fit your family of 5 in your car, and your cousin comes to visit, do you have to leave him home when you go out to dinner?

If you're going to do a job and your truck only has 3 seatbelts in it, can you not take 4 people?

Over the weekend some people died because there were 10 of them in a minivan and not enough seatbelts. That's unfortunate, but does it mean the law should be changed to prevent this from ever happening again? Would those people be safe and sound right now if the laws were different?

It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when laws are changed based on current stories in the media rather than based on actual statistics showing a real problem. It seems to me like political posturing when they could be doing something far more constructive with their time. I guess time will tell what comes out of this but I can only hope they're looking at all the consequences before just going ahead and making up new laws. A lot of people will be negatively impacted by what could amount to very little in the way of positive outcomes.




[ 9 comments ] ( 35 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink  |  related link
Belinda Stronach is Allegedly a Dirty Whore 
Homewrecker.

Homewrecker who was elected as a Conservative representative to govern. I sure hope her constituants think twice before casting their votes next time.

Of course, when her daddy is the boss, it's a tough call voting your conscience. Assuming those people have a conscience.

Asked bluntly about her sex life, Stronach responded: "Let's face it. I don't sit at home and knit on Friday nights."


Dirty, dirty, whore.


[ 11 comments ] ( 58 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink  |  related link

Back Next