Jump to content

Women led business to pay less tax


Cardboard
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C%3aTA-2610937&symbol=TA&region=C

 

This has to be one of the stupidiest proposal I have ever seen.

 

I am actually not that suprised to see Dawn Farrell associated to this or someone who has overseen one of the greatest shareholder value destruction in Canadian history.

 

What about LGBT? I mean Tim Cook is gay so Apple should deserve a big tax break for that. Higher tax prior since Job wasn't.

 

What about Natives?

 

We are at a point where inclusion now means discrimination against other groups.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are at a point where inclusion now means discrimination against other groups.

 

Yep, this is the reason I won't vote Liberal in the next federal election. To me, adding systemic discrimination to federal laws is a non-starter--if your party tries that, nothing else you do will convince me to vote for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, chill out. Yea, the idea is stupid and it ain't gonna happen. But is the proposal outrageous? No.

 

The thing was proposed by the Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. Which sounds exactly like a women's lobby. The oil lobby makes proposals for lower taxes for oil. The agriculture lobby makes proposals for lower taxes for agriculture. Why should it be so surprising that a women's lobby makes proposals for lower taxes for women?

 

What is obvious is that the org has weak sauce and they need to seriously upgrade their bullshit jujitsu if they actually want to get anything done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, chill out. Yea, the idea is stupid and it ain't gonna happen. But is the proposal outrageous? No.

 

The thing was proposed by the Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. Which sounds exactly like a women's lobby. The oil lobby makes proposals for lower taxes for oil. The agriculture lobby makes proposals for lower taxes for agriculture. Why should it be so surprising that a women's lobby makes proposals for lower taxes for women?

 

What is obvious is that the org has weak sauce and they need to seriously upgrade their bullshit jujitsu if they actually want to get anything done.

 

Weak sauce is a great analogy for most lobbies.

I would add a generous side of fuzzy logic too.

 

Bullshitzu, sounds like an ugly assed dog breed, but it's really just a passive aggressive form of self defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, stupid proposal.  That being said, it's being proposed for by a "cross-border council", and not by any specific party.

 

Oops, I was in a rush and misspoke--I didn't mean to imply that it was this council. I'm mostly referring to bills C-25, C-51, and C-69.

 

What issue do you have with 25, 51, and 69? Just curious.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What issue do you have with 25, 51, and 69? Just curious.

 

C-25 requires companies to disclose "diversity information" related to their board and leadership. I don't think that companies should be able to even ask about people's ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender, and sexual preferences, let alone be required to disclose this information publicly. I generally don't think it's a good idea to create databases that make it easy to find business leaders of particular ethnicities to persecute. Plus, I've read articles where Liberals imply that if this law doesn't result in the "appropriate people" being hired, then the next step would be to enact laws to force companies to discriminate against particular demographics in favor of other demographics, which I also disagree with.

 

C-51 mandates that in sexual assault trials only, the defence has to disclose their evidence to the prosecution before the trial begins. My belief is that this eliminates one of the primary defences a person can have against a sexual assault allegation, finding contradictions in the story of the accuser. Essentially, it allows the accuser to identify contradictions in their story before the trial and then revise their story to be consistent.

 

What's more, I think trials should ideally be structured in the way that's most likely to identify truth. If this reverse-disclosure were a better way to find out the truth, I'd expect the Liberals to want this law to apply to all criminal trials. The fact that it doesn't--that it only applies to sexual assault trials--to me means that they aren't actually trying to find truth, but rather make it much easer to find people guilty of sexual assault. Thus, I think it eliminates the right to a fair trial. (Since men are the primary people charged with sexual assault, I consider it sexist enough to group with the other two bills.)

 

C-69 says that, when performing environmental assessments, both science and "the traditional knowledge of indigenous people" must be considered, and the indigenous people's knowledge may be kept confidential. I believe strongly that science should be the only factor in environmental assessments. To me, traditional knowledge does have a role, and that role is to be fed into science, proven or disproven, and then the resulting science incorporated into the environmental assessments.

 

Instead, a minority group consisting of roughly 4% of the population is being allowed to influence the results of environmental assessments, and the information that they are providing isn't even being made public. Generally, I think it's a really bad idea to identify a group based on ethnicity, pass laws to give them a disproportionately large influence on regulation, and then say that nobody else can know how or why they influenced any decision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What issue do you have with 25, 51, and 69? Just curious.

 

C-25 requires companies to disclose "diversity information" related to their board and leadership. I don't think that companies should be able to even ask about people's ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender, and sexual preferences, let alone be required to disclose this information publicly. I generally don't think it's a good idea to create databases that make it easy to find business leaders of particular ethnicities to persecute. Plus, I've read articles where Liberals imply that if this law doesn't result in the "appropriate people" being hired, then the next step would be to enact laws to force companies to discriminate against particular demographics in favor of other demographics, which I also disagree with.

 

C-51 mandates that in sexual assault trials only, the defence has to disclose their evidence to the prosecution before the trial begins. My belief is that this eliminates one of the primary defences a person can have against a sexual assault allegation, finding contradictions in the story of the accuser. Essentially, it allows the accuser to identify contradictions in their story before the trial and then revise their story to be consistent.

 

What's more, I think trials should ideally be structured in the way that's most likely to identify truth. If this reverse-disclosure were a better way to find out the truth, I'd expect the Liberals to want this law to apply to all criminal trials. The fact that it doesn't--that it only applies to sexual assault trials--to me means that they aren't actually trying to find truth, but rather make it much easer to find people guilty of sexual assault. Thus, I think it eliminates the right to a fair trial. (Since men are the primary people charged with sexual assault, I consider it sexist enough to group with the other two bills.)

 

C-69 says that, when performing environmental assessments, both science and "the traditional knowledge of indigenous people" must be considered, and the indigenous people's knowledge may be kept confidential. I believe strongly that science should be the only factor in environmental assessments. To me, traditional knowledge does have a role, and that role is to be fed into science, proven or disproven, and then the resulting science incorporated into the environmental assessments.

 

Instead, a minority group consisting of roughly 4% of the population is being allowed to influence the results of environmental assessments, and the information that they are providing isn't even being made public. Generally, I think it's a really bad idea to identify a group based on ethnicity, pass laws to give them a disproportionately large influence on regulation, and then say that nobody else can know how or why they influenced any decision.

 

Thanks. Good to know, I totes agree with your assessment. This stuff is getting quite scary. C-16 (Iirc) as well.

 

If this keeps up for some time, I might find a reason to actually get into the political fight.

 

I'm sure we'll see the same stuff in the usa during the next democratic control.

 

I can't see how the left doesn't lose a lot of it's center as this increases in frequency and magnitude. All of the non ideological, party line driven lefties I know hate this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...