2018 Budget

[rookie314]

If you voted Liberal, you were flat out lied to.

[The Green Barbarian]

While it can't be denied that the average female wage is a lot less than the average male wage,

Why can't it be denied? I've been in the workforce for almost 30 years now and have yet to ever see a female worker doing the same job as me be paid less than me. I've hired many people and never offered a woman less money than a man. The job was the job, and it paid what it paid. No company I've ever worked for in 30 years has ever paid a woman less than a man for the same job, including an airline I worked for. We had many female pilots and we wouldn't have ever even thought to pay them less than the male pilots, be they captains or first officers.

There's a great clip in one of the many Donald Trump Youtube videos where a young woman asks him "if you become president will I make the same amount as a man?" and he replies immediately "You will if you do as good a job". What person would ever want anything other than this? It was a brilliant answer, and so true. If you can do the job, no one worth working for is going to pay you less based on your genitals. Other than if you are a Liberal MP and you have the experience and talent to be a cabinet minister but can't, because "it's 2015".

However, ensuring that men and women receive the same pay for doing the same work IS the job of Government and, with that in mind, I like the approach the Icelandic Government just took. What they did is pass a law making it illegal to pay men more money than women for doing the same work. Slightly different approach than most other countries, but the most effective one IMO.

We should do the same here in Canada.

I'm never in favor of giving even more power to the nanny-state, and increasing bureaucracy even more than it already is. Who would be in charge of this department Merry, and what would they do to go about measuring to see if a company is breaking the law? And what would that cost the taxpayers? While this sounds like a simple idea, it's actually quite complex in some ways, if you are actually investigating a complaint. Say Barb is doing a terrible job, and Jim is doing a great job. Jim gets a $10,000 raise, Barb gets a $2,000 raise. Barb files a complaint with Merry's nanny-state bureaucracy that she now is making $8,000 less than Jim, and this is "sexist". The nanny-state comes in, does an investigation, and forces the company to bump Barb up to Jim's salary, because it's illegal that he makes more than her. This is garbage. It's a loss of freedom of operation, and one more reason to just not bother doing business in Canada. Every time you put more negative bureaucracy on a company, there is a negative reaction. Think about that. Or don't.

And what happens if a woman is making more than a man? Shouldn't that also be illegal? Shouldn't men have the same protection? Or is that just not important? I find the entire concept to be quite sexist in fact, if it's only women that are supposed to be protected by this over-bearing nanny-state bureaucracy you want to inflict on us.

[Bigjohn69]

It is commendable that the government has committed to examining the gender impacts of the budget in terms of education and skills development, economic participation, leadership, access to justice, poverty reduction and health, and gender equality around the world. However, they seem to have forgotten about examining the gender impacts of tax policies

There are two problems with gender bias of the tax system — a disproportionate benefit to men at the top incomes from tax breaks; and a loss of revenues for programs that most benefit women at the lower incomes.

The tax system gives a disproportionate benefit in the form of tax expenditures. The richest 10 per cent, mostly men, get on average a $20,000 discount on their taxes, and this is the same as if the government handed out $20,000 to the rich — aggravating income and gender inequality. This in turn means there are tens of billions of dollars less in government revenue that could be applied to programs that would benefit women and reduce inequality.

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/dennis-howle ... a-homepage

[The Green Barbarian]

There are two problems with gender bias of the tax system — a disproportionate benefit to men at the top incomes from tax breaks;

This sounds like pure crap to me.

and a loss of revenues for programs that most benefit women at the lower incomes.

I don't know much about this, but it would be nice if you would clarify this a bit so we can all understand what the point is you are trying to get across.

The tax system gives a disproportionate benefit in the form of tax expenditures. The richest 10 per cent, mostly men, get on average a $20,000 discount on their taxes, and this is the same as if the government handed out $20,000 to the rich — aggravating income and gender inequality. This in turn means there are tens of billions of dollars less in government revenue that could be applied to programs that would benefit women and reduce inequality.

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/dennis-howle ... a-homepage

So I looked at your link - it of course links through to a garbage "study" from the Communist Center for Policy Alternatives" in which they claim some sort of $20,000 "benefit" to the "rich", but do not fully explain how this "benefit" occurs or how they calculated it.

So to sum up, this is just fake news garbage. A fake "study' was concocted (subsidized by union money), a bogus number was calculated and disseminated, and now the far left People have swallowed it whole as "truth" and are spreading the lie far and wide. Folks, this is how the left operates. And that's why it's very important to keep dishonest people like this far from the halls of power. They are just plain scum.

[Bigjohn69]

I never wrote it . So stop trying to talk to me . Im not interested . But i will say you have zero to back your point up . So who should folks believe ? A statement by a hidden person or a publicly backed article that says who wrote it ?


Have fun talking to air

[The Green Barbarian]

I never wrote it .

I know you didn't. You are just a pawn in the dissemination of false information.

So stop trying to talk to me . Im not interested .

Of course you aren't interested. I'm challenging your confirmation bias. The Left hates that. Thinking is hard. Math is hard.

But i will say you have zero to back your point up .

No, actually it was you who had "zero" to back your point up. All you have is a fake study that doesn't even explain how it came to the fake number you then decided to put on these forums. This is on par with the fake study that found that oil and gas companies receive billions in subsidies from the government. When you finally drill through all of the blogs and websites to find the "study" they are quoting, you find that it's just made-up poppy-cock. But if enough people believe it, it becomes true. That's what these people that create these fake numbers are counting on.

So who should folks believe ? A statement by a hidden person or a publicly backed article that says who wrote it ?

It's a "publicly backed study" that just created a number out of thin air, that you chose to believe, because it meshes with your confirmation bias, that was no doubt created in either high school or university thanks to our useless leftist education system. When you link to something from the CCPA, be prepared for a backlash, as they are a paid "think tank" that has one mission - to create disinformation. And you fell for it. Bravo.

Have fun talking to air

Thank you I will. Thankfully there are some open minds here who like to question things, especially when they are fed manufactured stats by union-funded propaganda-generating "think tanks".

If you want to challenge your brain, instead of just parroting lies, go ahead. Show me how this $20,000 you so happily quoted as truth is calculated. I'd like to know. We all would.

[Merry]

Average earnings for women in all job tenures (as percentage of men’s earnings) were 68.4% in 2014, suggesting a gap of over 30%.
When measuring full-time job tenure only, women earn 73.3% of men working full-time in Canada, or roughly 27% less.
Women represent about two-thirds of part-time workers.

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/ ... te-en.html

[The Green Barbarian]

Average earnings for women in all job tenures (as percentage of men’s earnings) were 68.4% in 2014, suggesting a gap of over 30%.
When measuring full-time job tenure only, women earn 73.3% of men working full-time in Canada, or roughly 27% less.
Women represent about two-thirds of part-time workers.

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/ ... te-en.html

That's nice Merry, but I just don't buy it. How are these stats calculated? By whom? The whole concept just feels like a made-up excuse to expand the nanny-state.

Earlier this semester, I spoke to a group of 70 undergraduate women at Harvard, where I am spending the semester. I asked this group of college women if they believed they would get paid 78 cents on the dollar compared to men just because they were women. A majority of the women raised their hands.

To have been admitted to Harvard, these young women had distinguished themselves from the smartest, most talented and most dedicated of their high school peers. This spring, Harvard admitted only 2,037 of the more than 39,041 students who applied to be part of the class of 2020—or 5.2%.

The popular notion outside of Cambridge is that Harvard undergraduates, including the young women I met with, hit the jackpot when it comes to post-college opportunities. And many doors will be open to them in the future that won’t be open to less pedigreed or credentialed job applicants.

Yet for some reason, these young women were certain that a future of gender-based discrimination awaits them in the workforce. That simply because they are women, they will pay a 22% tax with each paycheck thanks to an unfair society that favors men.

It is no wonder college women buy into this 78 cent pay gap myth.

But the White House and others who promote the myth are manipulating statistics in a way to convince women that they are the victims of systematic societal discrimination, and, therefore, stand to benefit from further government action.

Using the statistic that women make 78 cents on the dollar as evidence of rampant discrimination has been debunked over and over again. That statistic doesn’t take into account a lot of choices that women and men make—education, years of experience and hours worked—that influence earnings. If we want to have a fruitful discussion about a gender wage gap, we should have it after the comparison is adjusted for those factors. In a 2013 Slate article, Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, for example, wrote:

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.

Women’s groups and politicians, including Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, continue to tell women they are making almost a quarter less than men and use this statistic to call for legislation enacting further government intervention in employer and employee relationships, such as the Paycheck Fairness Act.

This election cycle, young women have surprised many, especially Clinton, by getting beyond traditional feminist narratives. Young women in New Hampshire, for example, rejected Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s claim that young women had a duty to vote for Clinton. Albright went so far as to say, “And just remember there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Senator Bernie Sanders won 82% of women under 30 in New Hampshire.

College women who are already challenging Clinton’s narrative that they should vote for her because she is a woman should also question her use of the debunked gender pay gap claim.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagnes ... 60de725969

[The Green Barbarian]

[The Green Barbarian]

June O’Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who has been a critic of the 77-cent statistic, has noted that the wage gap is affected by a number of factors, including that the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.

Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 96 cents for every dollar a man makes.

In 2011, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis surveyed economic literature and concluded that “research suggests that the actual gender wage gap (when female workers are compared with male workers who have similar characteristics) is much lower than the raw wage gap.” They noted that women may prefer to accept jobs with lower wages but greater benefits (more flexible parental leave) so excluding such fringe benefits from the calculations will exaggerate the wage disparity. They also cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department during the George W. Bush administration, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 6562ea7610

[Bigjohn69]

Swedish Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson is coy about exactly what advice she gave her Canadian counterpart, Bill Morneau, on producing a gender-sensitive budget.

But a quick scan of Tuesday's budget suggests it was heavily inspired by Sweden's three years of gender-responsive budgets.

There is Ottawa's gender-based analysis of every single proposed program or tax initiative. There is the renewed focus on pay equity. There is also the use-it-or lose-it parental leave benefit aimed at compelling men to shoulder more of the newborn-related time away from work.


Haha them crazy swedes

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/from- ... -1.4555389


Maybe Canada should now open damaged male pride clinics,to help the population of males who will now feel like they have been raped , by the swedes no less .

Oh well i guess coming into the 21st centuary was never going to be easy for few lost souls was it ?

[The Green Barbarian]

Swedish Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson is coy about exactly what advice she gave her Canadian counterpart, Bill Morneau, on producing a gender-sensitive budget.

Oh good grief. The last country on earth we want to mimic are those moronic leftist Swedes. What a bunch of total dummies. These are the people who decided that clearing the streets of Stockholm after a snow storm was "sexist" because only men drove cars while women rode bicycles to work. So they re-purposed snow clearing equipment to clear bike lanes instead of highways and caused massive traffic delays. Yes, that's how stupid the Swedes are.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs ... c1495d636a

But don't worry, Sweden is rapidly killing itself, via political correctness. What a surprise. Sweden just plain sucks.

[Snman]

GB, thanx for the post. That will be Canada in a decade or two. Glad I won't be around for much of it.

https://canadafreepress.com/article/tru ... -in-canada

And for those who will, no doubt, scoff at Canada Free Press...

https://globalnews.ca/news/3330776/anti ... -approved/

We are well on our way down the slippery slope, imho.

[Bigjohn69]

The exact text reads:

Ms. Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills), seconded by Mr. Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard), moved, — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:

(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could

(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,

(ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
— Private Members’ Business M-103[4]


Looks,to me like the rightwing extremists in Canada, are trying to follow in the footsteps of alex jones .

Its is non binding motion that addresses all religions .

I fail to see how the Cpc plans on getting elected when its supporters wander off into tinfoil hat land every month .

A winning strategy is one of inclusion through truth , not devision and nationalistic dogwhistles to the neo nazi types .

[Snman]

^^^ And you're talking to me about division while using terms like tin foil hats? Riiight. ^^^