Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Justin Trudeau

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Also his countries restrictions on Syrian refugees would have people here up in arms.
    But no that's brushed over and all we here about is how welcoming Canada is and how much it supports multiculturalism.
    Well Canada did take in 46,700 refugees in 2016, over 30,000 of them Syrian so I guess that would have some up in arms over here given we apparently took in 760 (1.5% of that number).


  • Options
    #153
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Ah here,. you've just listed a small number of exceptionally well-known politicians who were active over an 80-year span.

    I don't think Trudeau is as vacuous as you claim, but even if he were, it's unreasonable to expect every global leader to be as historically prominent as the handful of 20th century leaders you have selected.

    Why not compare him to John Diefenbaker or Joe Clark, or any other of the barely-remembered Canadian PMs of the 20th century, instead of some of the most famous figures in recent world history.

    I'm not comparing Trudeau to those politicians.

    I am merely asking where are the world leaders of that ilk today?


  • Options
    #154
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Ulysses Gaze wrote: »
    I'm not comparing Trudeau to those politicians.

    I am merely asking where are the world leaders of that ilk today?

    The reverse could also be interesting - how would that ilk of politician fare today, in a time of 24 hours news, social media, low attention spans, sensationalism at every turn, and hyper-divisive influences more interested in attaining power or limiting that of others rather than what they do or do not do with it?


  • Options
    #155
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Sorry but I'm not going to spend my time doing more tax calculations, when the evidence is already perfectly clear.

    Ireland has lower average taxes on income than Canada does

    http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-ireland.pdf
    Of course you're not going to spend 15 seconds providing another calculation because it might actually disprove your point.
    As you go up in wages the gap gets much bigger, meaning Irish higher earners would do a lot better under the Canadian system.


  • Options
    #156
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Well Canada did take in 46,700 refugees in 2016, over 30,000 of them Syrian so I guess that would have some up in arms over here given we apparently took in 760 (1.5% of that number).
    Well done on ignoring my point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Well done on ignoring my point.

    Which was? You brought up restrictions, yet Canada took in 46,700 refugees (33,000 Syrian) while we took in 760 total.

    They do restrict access to not allow single male adults travelling alone, so let's say if Ireland did the same - would you be in favour of us increasing our total taken in multiples of what we currently do, let's say 4,000 immigrants and 3,000 of them from Syria? Like I said, if we did that I could see plenty of people being up in arms - but not pro those more favourable to immigration/refugee intake, and not for the restrictions on single male adults travelling alone.


  • Options
    #158
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,369 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Which was? You brought up restrictions, yet Canada took in 46,700 refugees (33,000 Syrian) while we took in 760 total.

    They do restrict access to not allow single male adults travelling alone, so let's say if Ireland did the same - would you be in favour of us increasing our total taken in multiples of what we currently do, let's say 4,000 immigrants and 3,000 of them from Syria? Like I said, if we did that I could see plenty of people being up in arms - but not pro those more favourable to immigration/refugee intake, and not for the restrictions on single male adults travelling alone.

    I really disagree with this. I'm a single male and if I were made a refugee I'd be denied entry purely based on that fact and nothing else.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #159
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Which was? You brought up restrictions, yet Canada took in 46,700 refugees (33,000 Syrian) while we took in 760 total.
    Anyone suggesting similar restrictions on refugees in Europe would be branded as anti-immigration or a lot worse.
    Canada does it and no one bats an eye lid.
    They do restrict access to not allow single male adults travelling alone, so let's say if Ireland did the same - would you be in favour of us increasing our total taken in multiples of what we currently do, let's say 4,000 immigrants and 3,000 of them from Syria? Like I said, if we did that I could see plenty of people being up in arms - but not pro those more favourable to immigration/refugee intake, and not for the restrictions on single male adults travelling alone.
    Yeah we've already agreed to that.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-to-take-4-000-refugees-in-new-programme-1.2346948


  • Options
    #160
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    I really disagree with this. I'm a single male and if I were made a refugee I'd be denied entry purely based on that fact and nothing else.
    It definitely is a sticky one, though the question comes about how to exercise caution while doing as much as can be done to help. I'm not mad about it in general though as best I know it is limited to Syrian refugees during the current crisis.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Anyone suggesting similar restrictions on refugees in Europe would be branded as anti-immigration or a lot worse.
    Canada does it and no one bats an eye lid.
    You'll need to back that up with something quantifiable - if Canada have not been, why would European countries be?
    Yeah we've already agreed to that.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-to-take-4-000-refugees-in-new-programme-1.2346948
    Nope - that is over the span of two years, not one (2016-17) which would only be 2,000 a year and as twice mentioned already last year we only took about 1/3rd of that amount at 760. Are we on pace to take in 3,000 this year?


  • Options
    #161
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    I really disagree with this. I'm a single male and if I were made a refugee I'd be denied entry purely based on that fact and nothing else.
    It would probably be doubly grating to see the man who presided over this policy lecturing other world leaders on gender equality.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    You'll need to back that up with something quantifiable - if Canada have not been, why would European countries be?
    Given the fuss we made in this country about the farcical situation in Calais.
    Bringing unaccompanied "children" here and not really asking many questions.
    It's safe to say that a "no single men" policy wouldn't have went down well with our pro-migration media.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,369 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Billy86 wrote: »
    It definitely is a sticky one, though the question comes about how to exercise caution while doing as much as can be done to help. I'm not mad about it in general though as best I know it is limited to Syrian refugees during the current crisis.

    I don't know if it's intended as a preemptive capitulation to right-wingers or if it's a genuinely held belief of his but it's disappointing to see nevertheless.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    It would probably be doubly grating to see the man who presided over this policy lecturing other world leaders on gender equality.

    Feminism, not gender equality.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #163
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Given the fuss we made in this country about the farcical situation in Calais.
    Bringing unaccompanied "children" here and not really asking many questions.
    It's safe to say that a "no single men" policy wouldn't have went down well with our pro-migration media.
    Canada permits unaccompanied children too.
    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    I don't know if it's intended as a preemptive capitulation to right-wingers or if it's a genuinely held belief of his but it's disappointing to see nevertheless.
    It is in it's own right and it's hard to tell which it is, or if it is also related to the volume of young men that had entered Europe at the time either from Syria or claiming to be being seen as reason to believe many of the legitimate ones had already taken flight. Though it does appear I was mistaken in that it does not entirely deny single adult males entry, but rather are prioritising women, children and families ahead of them (and there are apparently more male than female Syrian refugees in Canada in total).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/26/syrian-refugees-groups-canada_n_8657142.html
    Tunis disputed reports that single men would be excluded, citing a technical briefing from David Manicom, the assistant deputy minister with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

    Manicom, she said, directed that families, women, children and sexual minorities at risk take precedence.

    "Those are where priorities are but we haven't said that we're not taking any single men, it's just that those other cases are going to the top of the list," Tunis told The Canadian Press in an interview.

    "Single males will be coming as part of this population."

    Tunis, a longtime employee with the federal government, came out of retirement to become the government's special co-ordinator on Syrian refugees.


  • Options
    #164
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Of course you're not going to spend 15 seconds providing another calculation because it might actually disprove your point.
    As you go up in wages the gap gets much bigger, meaning Irish higher earners would do a lot better under the Canadian system.
    There's something of a convention here that if you're going to make a point, the onus is on you do provide the evidence.

    I'm not going to go a-googling for you. Show us whether or not you have a point. Nobody is doing your homework.


  • Options
    #165
    ligerdub
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    There's something of a convention here that if you're going to make a point, the onus is on you do provide the evidence.

    I'm not going to go a-googling for you. Show us whether or not you have a point. Nobody is doing your homework.

    You've both made a point, and from my view as an outsider you haven't really backed yours up when challenged either.

    In a situation like this i.e. taxation, most approaches are judged on their scale across different income levels (how progressive or flat are they).

    What you've done here is to focus on one point on the curve, at a relatively low point on the income scale, and stated there is no effective difference. Open to correction on this, but there isn't likely to be much difference in taxation on a relative basis at that level in most countries.

    I'd also argue that a right wing approach to capitalism has a lower level of progressive increases, particularly evident at high income levels, which is really where the acid test of such an argument is found (which is the original point presented by jackofalltrades).

    There are obviously other factors to consider here. For example, cost of living, foreign exchange effects, level of investment into public services.

    As a separate point it's been a long time since I heard the term "Far-right" with being aligned with fiscal policy. I also wonder what dictates how far "far" is in that context these days.


  • Options
    #166
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,870 ✭✭✭Christy42


    ligerdub wrote: »
    You've both made a point, and from my view as an outsider you haven't really backed yours up when challenged either.

    In a situation like this i.e. taxation, most approaches are judged on their scale across different income levels (how progressive or flat are they).

    What you've done here is to focus on one point on the curve, at a relatively low point on the income scale, and stated there is no effective difference. Open to correction on this, but there isn't likely to be much difference in taxation on a relative basis at that level in most countries.

    I'd also argue that a right wing approach to capitalism has a lower level of progressive increases, particularly evident at high income levels, which is really where the acid test of such an argument is found (which is the original point presented by jackofalltrades).

    There are obviously other factors to consider here. For example, cost of living, foreign exchange effects, level of investment into public services.

    As a separate point it's been a long time since I heard the term "Far-right" with being aligned with fiscal policy. I also wonder what dictates how far "far" is in that context these days.

    So to summarise the points made. Their taxation system may or may not be conservative.

    So moving on from that given we can't call Canada left or right wing on taxation based on what has been stated in this thread. I feel like once they get the basic services in place I don't care about charging rich people more. That said they seem to be slightly on the high side for university costs but not ridiculously so.

    https://www.univcan.ca/universities/facts-and-stats/tuition-fees-by-university/


  • Options
    #167
    ligerdub
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    I'm merely pointing out why the "onus of proof" statement was erroneous.

    I make no call as to who was right or wrong there.


  • Options
    #168
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Christy42 wrote: »
    So to summarise the points made. Their taxation system may or may not be conservative.

    So moving on from that given we can't call Canada left or right wing on taxation based on what has been stated in this thread. I feel like once they get the basic services in place I don't care about charging rich people more. That said they seem to be slightly on the high side for university costs but not ridiculously so.

    https://www.univcan.ca/universities/facts-and-stats/tuition-fees-by-university/
    Noting there that McGill and University of Toronto are among the highest regarded universities in Canada and are listed as €4,300 - €7,800 (UT) and €1,600 - €4,900 for Canadian citizens and permanent residents. UCD compared seems to rank from about €3,200 - €7,500 (with a exceptions at higher costs, mainly veterinary related for some reason) so it would appear to come out quite similar to here for the most part. This would be undergrad on both accounts though, I'm considering a masters when I move back over on PR and if memory serves correctly was looking a little (though not egregiously) more expensive.


Advertisement