while it may not be the right argument from a sales point, from a reality perspective it's not that far off.
Do you guys want to win or to be right?
Translink & 0.5% vote (merged)
Do you guys want to win or to be right?
for me that statement is not a win or be right position - it's merely an observation. in terms of my own transportation patterns the vote is not a big deal for me either way.
- most of my driving is done in off peak hourse
- when i commute by bike it takes the same time as driving
- i rarely use transit but when i do it serves me well
as i laid out, despite the negatives and for the sake of everyone's benefit it should be fairly obvious which way to vote and how to deal with the other issues. whether that happens or not?
well if we suffer as a result of a no vote then i'm pretty sure i'll be suffering much less than those who voted no but would have benefitted much more from a yes vote. but at least they will be happy knowing they stuck it to translink and told how much they didn't like them.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
I'm in a similar situation. My reasons for voting yes are slightly different, and don't matter.
I just don't get why the yes side would not tackle what has become the key point (like it or not), instead taking a moral high ground which won't sway anyone and serves to entrench their opposition.
I'm in a similar situation. My reasons for voting yes are slightly different, and don't matter.
I just don't get why the yes side would not tackle what has become the key point (like it or not), instead taking a moral high ground which won't sway anyone and serves to entrench their opposition.
hey, i agree - it's a complete clusterfuck. translink, most of the mayors, and the liberals are all to blame whether they say so or not. there needs to be a top down change to sort the issue out.
who's interested in forming a new political party before the next election and making responsible government the key issue? fix translink, fix bc ferries, fic bc hydro, fix healthcare, fix education….
of course it will take lots of money to run the campaign and who do we get the money from? maybe that guy who $50 million on the lotto would like to help us out.
send your donations to: www.syncroforpremier.com
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
was never a big fan of Gordo, but at least he got shit done. First Christy's hst referrendum and now this plebosite, what a joke. You call this leadership.Just another step backwards.
syncro for Premier! :banana:
that is the most reatrded thing ever even a retarded would say thats retarded
syncro for Premier! :banana:
cue Davem saying "shhh, his head can barely fit through the door as it is."
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
The last big poll done in BC was way off. Maybe it is for this issue too.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
From the get-go I have really wanted to vote Yes, I think asking the populace is a pretty mature thing to do.
Problem being, the whole 'Yes' side is just making me sick. A few examples:
- article in the Georgia Straight blaming 'old people' if it's No
- spending over $6 million in TAX DOLLARS to get us to vote Yes. Where are the contributions from those supporting it ? You know, the unions and private individuals?
- claiming that people voting No are too stupid to know what is good for them
- saying that there is "no plan B". That is nonsense, transit development will not stop if No wins
- The Yes side having the tone of "If you don't vote Yes, it's like kicking a puppy. You don't want a puppy to be kicked, do you? So, vote Yes!"
- the nonsense of paying 2 CEOs
- bringing in Jimmy P, bragging about it, but giving he no real powers
- the whole "it's only $0.35 per day per family" line. Taxes tend to go up.
- ignoring that Vancovuer is pretty expensive. What has gone up recently ? MSP, ICBC, BC Ferries and now this. If 4 taxes go up by "only $0.35 per day", that's $511 per year for the average household. That's a lot of money
- the whole 1 million new residets line. Ummmm . . .. aren't they taxpayers ? Won't 1 million new people bring in new revenue ?
And . . . how the heck did we fund transit before this ? Seriously . . . I look around and see Skytrain, Canada Line, Evergreen line, buses, seabus, etc…. explain to me, if the 0.5% is so important, how did we fund all the existing projects ?
And . . . how the heck did we fund transit before this ? Seriously . . . I look around and see Skytrain, Canada Line, Evergreen line, buses, seabus, etc…. explain to me, if the 0.5% is so important, how did we fund all the existing projects ?
For recent projects (eg., Canada Line, Port Mann), it's been P3 model. This is one of those ideas that seems like a great plan, but really leaves public infrastructure under the control of for-profit operators. If profits aren't enough, they will always look for ways to economize at the expense of the public.
Past projects have been jointly provincially and federally funded, but after almost 15 years of voting for the party that promises still more tax cuts, the funds are no longer there for large infrastructure project. When people cast their votes based on how tomorrow's paycheck will look, rather than how they want things to look in 10 years, this is the result.
Canada is now a tax haven for US companies. Our corp tax rate is now lower than Republican controlled USA. Why doesn't anyone see this as a problem?
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
Canada is now a tax haven for US companies. Our corp tax rate is now lower than Republican controlled USA. Why doesn't anyone see this as a problem?
so your saying that american companies are funneling their profits into Canada and paying their corporate tax to the Canadian government and not in the US.
Burger King, YEAH!
Just because they are paying corporate tax to Canada doesn't mean that it covers the corresponding cost to our infrastructure and services.
BK merges with TH, then lays of how many TH staff? Who is covering their EI benefits?
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
I dont know why dont you tell us KenN
sounds like a pretty weak argument to me, mergers usually come with cutting duplicate staff.
For recent projects (eg., Canada Line, Port Mann), it's been P3 model. This is one of those ideas that seems like a great plan, but really leaves public infrastructure under the control of for-profit operators. If profits aren't enough, they will always look for ways to economize at the expense of the public.
Past projects have been jointly provincially and federally funded, but after almost 15 years of voting for the party that promises still more tax cuts, the funds are no longer there for large infrastructure project. When people cast their votes based on how tomorrow's paycheck will look, rather than how they want things to look in 10 years, this is the result.
Canada is now a tax haven for US companies. Our corp tax rate is now lower than Republican controlled USA. Why doesn't anyone see this as a problem?
Funny thing with Canada Line and P3's, the CL is being held up by the proponents of a successful project. Built on time, on budget and usage is ahead of forecasts
I know the P3 industry well, the proponents cannot just 'economize' by cutting service. THeir contract with the province requires minimum service levels, minimum up time, minimum quality, etc… if they do not perform, a penalty is paid. A good example is from a couple of winters back, the Canada Line could not cross the bridge into Richmond due to snow. The P3 proponent paid a performance fine for that lack of service. Same with the 'ice balls' problem on the Port Mann bridge, the proponent paid to fix that, not the governemnt.
What is wrong with our tax rate being lower than the US ? We're a more attractive place. Mind you, this 'lower' tax is a bit of a myth, there are exemptions to all sorts of industries to reduce their effective tax rates.
Last I checked, it's been a democrat in the White house for the past 6 years.
Burger King, YEAH!
Just because they are paying corporate tax to Canada doesn't mean that it covers the corresponding cost to our infrastructure and services.
BK merges with TH, then lays of how many TH staff? Who is covering their EI benefits?
This BK tax thing is a bit of a red herring. You still pay tax based on where you earn your money. So, the US operations pay tax in the US, the Mexico operatins pay tax in Mexico, etc…
The move to Canada is based more on the issue of re-patriating overseas profits. The US is the only country that requires you to pay tax on after-tax profits earned over seas. So, a US company, let's say Apple, earns money in England and pays tax. They want to move that money back to the US to invest, or pay a dividend. If they want to do so, they have to pay a tax to re-patriate the money to the US. They pay tax twice.
Canada, and the rest of the world, recognizes that this is silly, profits should only be taxed once. We do not tax money flowing into Canada, so long as the tax has been paid elsewhere.
This is a big cause of 'dead money' that you hear about in the US. Money sitting in bank accounts but not being used. It's there to avoid paying tax twice.
Forum jump:
