Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I read an online suggestion that CTV has sat on this story for a week now. Regardless, surely there is no way that Chu will continue serve even if he is re-elected.

Why wouldn’t he continue? What mechanism is there to force him to resign. His reputation is already destroyed.

He can coast and collect a paycheck

[OldDutch]

I was at dinner with my folks last night and asked them which one was running in their ward Diamond Joe or the pedo.

They thankfully said neither were in their ward.

[Scorch]

28% of polls reporting so far has Gondek in the lead At 45% Of the vote

[Scorch]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Hey... is there election night coverage on TV? Don't see it on the channel guide.

Starts at 10pm for CTV
However globalnews.ca/Calgary has streaming Live coverage

[Wormius]

Chu losing, Farkas losing. The threat may be over.

[timun]

Don't be so hasty Wormius, I want to see what happens to PedoChu.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by timun

Don't be so hasty Wormius, I want to see what happens to PedoChu.

Oops. I meant “losing” as a verb, not in the past tense. I am hopeful though.

[DownInFlames]

CBC calls is for Gondek.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Yeah I'm trying to clarify what Turek would exactly like to see things set up as.

I don't think everyone should pay the same.

My only point is that if you are someone that gets a $1 worth of government services for $0.15 of taxes that's a pretty good deal compared to someone who gets $1 of services for $0.50 cents of taxes. IMO, there is less incentive for someone to change taxing and spending when you are getting such a good deal.

I hate talking about this stuff because sometimes I come off as a heartless jerk which I don't believe I am.

Not sure if message boards are the best place to discuss this stuff. There are a lot of immature people on this board like Johnny Makarov, Cecil, and others who resort to name calling.

It is what it is. It is the internet. I should know better.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

It’s not that I’m immature. It’s that I hate talking about this stuff because sometimes I come off as a jerk which I don’t believe I am.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I don't think everyone should pay the same.

My only point is that if you are someone that gets a $1 worth of government services for $0.15 of taxes that's a pretty good deal compared to someone who gets $1 of services for $0.50 cents of taxes. IMO, there is less incentive for someone to change taxing and spending when you are getting such a good deal.

I think this is some flawed thinking though, because for households living pay cheque to pay cheque they are likely highly sensitive to any changes in their expenses including taxes. The incentive for them is grounded in the fact they just don't have enough money.
I think few people look at it the way you do in terms of the deal one is getting based on services received v. tax rate. No one who is short at the end of the month is thinking "yeah but I'm getting a better deal than the millionaire up the hill, so all good!".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I don't think everyone should pay the same.

My only point is that if you are someone that gets a $1 worth of government services for $0.15 of taxes that's a pretty good deal compared to someone who gets $1 of services for $0.50 cents of taxes. IMO, there is less incentive for someone to change taxing and spending when you are getting such a good deal.

I hate talking about this stuff because sometimes I come off as a heartless jerk which I don't believe I am.

Not sure if message boards are the best place to discuss this stuff. There are a lot of immature people on this board like Johnny Makarov, Cecil, and others who resort to name calling.

It is what it is. It is the internet. I should know better.

I think at the end of the day you have to look at both as a good deal. If your house starts on fire you inevitably get a better “deal” than someone who doesn’t have that happen to them. Value for money is an odd thing when it comes to taxes and you only come out losing if you’re trying to get a better deal than everyone else.

It’s also part of owning a home. I factored in the cost of property tax into our home buying decision and what sort of property level we were looking at. If property tax is really an issue, at 1.3M you could comfortably downgrade and save yourself a ton of money with a fairly minimal lifestyle change. You’ll save much more than 3-5% of tax is going to do for you.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I don't think everyone should pay the same.

My only point is that if you are someone that gets a $1 worth of government services for $0.15 of taxes that's a pretty good deal compared to someone who gets $1 of services for $0.50 cents of taxes. IMO, there is less incentive for someone to change taxing and spending when you are getting such a good deal.

Yes but you're not taking into account the income disparity between your two scenarios.

It's like saying it's a better deal to reject a pay raise since your taxes will go up...

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

My only point is that if you are someone that gets a $1 worth of government services for $0.15 of taxes that's a pretty good deal compared to someone who gets $1 of services for $0.50 cents of taxes. IMO, there is less incentive for someone to change taxing and spending when you are getting such a good deal.

If someone is paying significantly more taxes for government services in Calgary, it's because they chose to do so by buying a large house. They can ease their "tax burden" simply by downsizing, poorer residents have no such luxury

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I don't think everyone should pay the same.

My only point is that if you are someone that gets a $1 worth of government services for $0.15 of taxes that's a pretty good deal compared to someone who gets $1 of services for $0.50 cents of taxes. IMO, there is less incentive for someone to change taxing and spending when you are getting such a good deal.

I hate talking about this stuff because sometimes I come off as a heartless jerk which I don't believe I am.

Not sure if message boards are the best place to discuss this stuff. There are a lot of immature people on this board like Johnny Makarov, Cecil, and others who resort to name calling.

It is what it is. It is the internet. I should know better.

You mentioned someone in a condo having less incentive to change taxation. Firstly, a lot of condo owners are fixed income seniors who are notoriously fiscal conservatives. Secondly, if a condo owner pays $200 a month and is in a building with 100 units then collectively they pay $20,000. Does that sound fair when they use less area?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I don't think everyone should pay the same.

My only point is that if you are someone that gets a $1 worth of government services for $0.15 of taxes that's a pretty good deal compared to someone who gets $1 of services for $0.50 cents of taxes. IMO, there is less incentive for someone to change taxing and spending when you are getting such a good deal.

I hate talking about this stuff because sometimes I come off as a heartless jerk which I don't believe I am.

Not sure if message boards are the best place to discuss this stuff. There are a lot of immature people on this board like Johnny Makarov, Cecil, and others who resort to name calling.

It is what it is. It is the internet. I should know better.

I don't think you're heartless. I get where you're coming from, but I also feel like property tax is the wrong place to put your angst.

Property tax is actually a flat tax (ie. a constant mill rate), and is one of the most fair taxes you could levy. It is inherently progressive, as it only hits people that have the resources to own land, and you can choose exactly how much tax you pay regardless of your income level based on what property you buy.

At the same time, City Services are very very rarely means-tested, and arguably you would use the services proportionate to the tax that you pay - with a larger house, you use more of the distribution systems, you likely have a car, you use the sports programs for kids and so forth.

Basically, I get it - from an income tax perspective I feel the exact pain that you are feeling. I pay quite a bit of income tax, and get basically nothing in return (other than the "stable society" argument) because everything is means-tested. I just think property tax is not the same and doesn't deserve as much criticism as you are putting on it.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Actually no, I don’t care at all what consenting adults do. You sound like a prude. Who am I to, ahem, police who a young woman chooses to have sex with. It seems condescending and very manspaining like to project your beliefs about sexual freedom, or lack there of, on women you don’t know. Men and women should be able to choose who they have relations with. We’d be better of if people could keep their petty judgments to themselves.


These weren’t legal aged consenting adults though. Chu knowing the young woman from a previous investigation as a minor, her being under 18 and him likely knowing that, him being in a position of authority and having been tasked with driving this young woman home and him breaking that trust and abusing his position of authority is absolutely disgusting and worthy of severe reprimands. He should have been fired (ha! As if the police union would allow that, you can beat a black woman half to death and avoid repercussions). The fact he abused his authority to keep this young woman safe and instead engaged in sexual acts is abhorrent. I’m not shocked at all that he and other police officers conspired to cover it up. Of course they did, they’re the police.

From a legal standpoint, yes you're absolutely correct.

But I still just think it's creepy for a 34 year old to be hitting on an 18 year old even if it's legal and they're consenting adults.

18 is still pretty young. There's a huge difference in maturity from an 18 year old to even a 22 year old, let alone a 34 year old.

Legal or not I still feel he took advantage of someone who was younger and naive while in a position of power.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

You mentioned someone in a condo having less incentive to change taxation. Firstly, a lot of condo owners are fixed income seniors who are notoriously fiscal conservatives. Secondly, if a condo owner pays $200 a month and is in a building with 100 units then collectively they pay $20,000. Does that sound fair when they use less area?

Are we basing anything on area though? I mean sure that area is using a lot more in terms of services than the same area of single family dwellings.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

From a legal standpoint, yes you're absolutely correct.

But I still just think it's creepy for a 34 year old to be hitting on an 18 year old even if it's legal and they're consenting adults.

18 is still pretty young. There's a huge difference in maturity from an 18 year old to even a 22 year old, let alone a 34 year old.

Legal or not I still feel he took advantage of someone who was younger and naive while in a position of power.

She wasn't 18 though, and he knew her since she was 14. His story is full of lies. He has zero credibility, so don't take anything he says at face value. It's a 100% disgusting abuse of a position of power.

[Flames0910]

Guys it just hit me. I am 34 (or just about anyway).

Have you been back to campus bar or anywhere as an adult? Those kids are ####ing young and they look it (and they're 18+).

He was over twice her age -- that's not just creepy, it's ####ing disgusting.