Quebec Liberals seek to further enslave population

“A working-class hero is something to be . . .
But you’re still fucking peasants as far as I can see.”
— John Lennon

People in Western nations tend to be living longer these days, a fact not lost on the bean counters in the Quebec Liberal party, apparently.

They’re proposing to increase the age you can retire and draw pension benefits, thereby putting more tax dollars into Quebec’s coffers.

It was one of the proposals coming from this arrogant party — which has formed a majority government — at a policy convention over the weekend, while people opposed to their other controversial austerity measures protested outside the convention centre. Anti-austerity protests are regular events in Montreal.

The Liberals have shown their true colours with the retirement proposal, and citizens should take note. The Liberals seek to enslave its population longer and wring every penny possible out of it while giving less back in return.

Government officials with any compassion — and conscience — at all would be doing the direct opposite: they would be finding ways to enable people to retire earlier, say, by 55.

And they would find other ways to raise revenues. Quebecers already pay the highest income taxes in North America, and now this Liberal government wants to make them pay longer. And they’re talking about raising taxes of various services.

This government is obsessed with supposedly balancing the books, with no care at all about how they are decreasing the quality of life for the citizens. So what if you have less money to put food on your table? It means nothing to the fat cats in the Liberal party.

Indeed, the Liberals have once again shown they don’t care about the average citizens of Quebec. They’re capitalists through and through.

Shame on them.

— Jillian

30 thoughts on “Quebec Liberals seek to further enslave population

  1. And the girl wants to live in Beverly Hills?!?! No Socialism “in them ‘thar hills”. We’re all closet ‘c’apitalists, aren’t we. But at least we’re not thieves in the Turks and Caicos. yet %O

    Like

    1. You mean Like QuickBooks? Or Excel Worksheets? Miss the days of Ledger-Account Binders. They were heavy suckers but were harder to hide. Embezzlement and digital shenanigans were so much harder. Mind you, you had to find the Accountant. Now, we have the CAs but can’t trust the e-Books. The real problem is the 19 year old MNA that is making six-figures to do .. go figure? I can’t %|

      Like

      1. The problem is that “the government books” are our books and the current government was voted in to balance them by the taxpayers, which are thank god still the majority in our province, athtthough not by much.

        Like

      2. It was previous Liberal governments that made the financial mess. And the recent Charbonneau Commission has been probing corruption that happened mostly on the Liberals’ watch. The Liberals are not to be trusted with money. In terms of money management, the PQ is a much better option.

        Like

  2. The mistake is in saying that people are living longer. This is not true. The oldest humans have been stuck around the century mark for a very long time. For many hundreds of years you could find people into their 90’s and beyond. We’re not living longer. We’re getting older. More people are living into their 80’s and 90’s than the past generation. But there aren’t many who are living the 100 year mark.

    I don’t know how your social safety net is taxed in Canada, but in the US it’s a very unfair flat tax of 30% of your income. 15% from you and 15% from your employer. It sucks if you’re self-employed.

    It’s an unfair tax because the rich stop paying into this safety net when their income reaches $115,000. For some that happens on the first day of the year.

    If that ceiling were removed then our social security and medicare would be over-funded and the taxes would have to be reduced. But the rich will never, ever pay their fair share.

    Like

    1. I suspect it’s the same with the rich here, too. They always find tax shelters. The middle-class always foots most of the bills. The rich will retire whenever they want, because they don’t need government pensions. But the people who need those pensions to retire will now have to slave longer so the government can milk them for more money.

      The Liberals are a pathetic bunch of capitalists who care more about big business and their pals in the boardrooms than they do about the common man and woman. And they sucked Quebecers in to voting for them by whipping up a ridiculous campaign of hysteria against the former PQ government. So, now young Quebecers may have to work until 68 or so unless they leave this province or actually sock away enough money to retire earlier — but it is hard to sock away money when the government is constantly finding more ways to suck it out of your wallet or purse.

      Like

    2. How does that saying go? “Who said Life was ‘fair’?”. The “rich” aren’t just rich anymore, they’re an obscenity %(

      Like

  3. The Liberals were elected by the people, with the promise of balancing the books. Yes, the people elected them – it’s called democracy – and they are actually trying to fulfill their campaign promises. Yes, how dare they actually try to live up to what they promised. That’s almost as unfair as the population actually living longer. It is true that there were always people who lived into their 100’s (documented even in Roman times), but the point is that the average working man or woman is living longer.

    Not sure of the statistics in Canada, but when Social Security was put in in the US,with the age you could start drawing it being 65, the life expectancy was about 67, so the average person got about 2 years worth. It was a bit of a scam to even tell people they would get it at 65, as many people didn’t live that long. In fact, that number (65) was based on what Bismarck had put in in Germany almost a century before; it was totally a scam, as the average person most certainly didn’t live that long back then. Now the life expectancy is almost 80, 15 years longer than when the system was created. Sorry, but something has to give: higher taxes, later retirement, or both.

    Everyone retire at 55? Yeah, the Greeks tried that. They have managed to drive their country into a 3rd world economy, and might get kicked out of the EU for being even much more in debt than other EU countries.

    As for the rich not paying their share? Look up the numbers – either government or privately calculated. Sorry whiny conspiracy nuts, but the rich do indeed pay proportionally more in taxes.

    I know, I’m being horrible – introducing fact and logic into an internet discussion.

    Like

    1. Quebecers did not elect this government to balance the books. They elected this government because of the propaganda campaign the Liberals created over the Quebec Charter of Values, which simply wanted to make Quebec government buildings free of religious symbols. Instead, the Liberals made it sound like the PQ were bigots. So, Quebecers have decided, in effect, that Muslims and such can hide their faces in government buildings, and that future Quebecers should be forced to wait longer for their government pensions. In fact, Quebecers unwittingly voted for ISIS in some ways — because the Charter was really all about the perceived threat by radical Muslims to indoctrinate people here and eventually turn this into a Muslim state. The PQ was very quietly trying to do what countries like France are trying to do to stop the perceived creeping Muslim takeover of their societies. But Quebecers fell for the Liberal crap — and will pay the price now with reduced services and longer servitude to the tax man. Yes, they are working-class heroes . . .

      Do you honestly think this pack of schemers in Quebec will actually balance the books and pay down long-term debt? Not a freakin chance. It cannot be done.

      Like

      1. The PQ are bigots. They have a few tame “autres,” but they are a party of, by, and for, one self-identified ethnic group, which is, by definition, bigotry. The charter was not about stopping ISIS (which didn’t exist at the time the PQ promulgated their ridiculous charter). It would have included doctors from wearing a yarmulke or headscarf. One of my colleagues, who is from Iran, and wears a headscarf BY CHOICE, pointed out that she left Iran because they were trying to tell her how to dress, and here in supposedly free Canada, the government was threatening to try to tell her how to dress.

        As for the campaign platform, which you could check at any source, such as the newspaper for which you work, the Liberals #1 point was sound finances; the PQ’s #1 point – and all their points – were putting everything in the context of separatism.

        Like

      2. Well, darling, separatism is preferable to the fiasco we have in Ottawa, both in the House and in the Senate. Wait till you see the report I am doing for my other blog . . .

        Like

      3. P.S. The PQ are not bigots. Just because they want an independent nation for the French people doesn’t make them bigots. This land was seized by conquest from them. This has been an occupied territory ever since. Separatists will accommodate other people in an independent Quebec. I know that for a fact. The Liberals are sellouts to Harper and the anglo-capitalist system.

        And it is not too much to ask people to put their religious symbols aside in the workplace, especially when many of their clients find those symbols to be offensive. The crucifix, for example, is highly offensive for anyone who has been or still is being persecuted by the Catholic Church, such as members of the LGBTQ communities. If you are going to intimidate people with religious symbols, where does it stop? Where do you draw the line? Should Satanists be allowed to wear their religious symbols — Satanism is a religion — in government institutions that serve the public?

        Like

      4. Seized by force from the FRENCH??? Sorry, White person, but it was seized by force from the First Nations – who, have stated 99% (in both polls and plebiscites) that they will refuse to be part of a separate Quebec nation.

        As for the Crucifix, the proposed charter of Secularism in fact exempted the Crucifixes; those would still be permitted as being part of the traditional patrimony and culture of the French Canadians.

        Like

      5. The First Nations and the French lived in peace together. As for the Crucifix, it was only to be permitted in special circumstances, such as tiny ones. But what about the Satanists? What about their right to wear their symbols?

        Like

      6. Wrong and wrong. The oppressor French seized their land initially. If you think the First Nations trust the French to run their country, you need to actually talk to them. Again, I point out before, that they have stated bluntly, in polls and plebiscites, 99% against being part of a separate Quebec country. The PQ and other separatists are attempting to ignore this fact, but would not be able to ignore it if they separate and the First Nations refuse to go along.

        As for the Crucifix, you mean special circumstances like the giant one dominating the backdrop of the Quebec legislature? And why should a “small” crucifix around the next of a public official be any less offensive than a “small” yarmulke or headscarf.

        As for “Satanists,” that term can mean many things. Many Pagans would point out that’s a term Christians used to vilify Paganism. And what about those publicly preaching other religions like Theosophy? If we are going to have a secularism charter, we’d need to ban such proselytizing.

        Like

      7. Good idea. Let’s ban proselytizing altogether!

        Regardless of history, many French people have yearned for a nation here for a long time. Why can’t anglophones give it to them? Why continue to oppress them? Anglos have the rest of North America . . .

        We probably will never agree on this point. I am sympathetic to the sovereignist cause, and I would vote ‘Yes’ if another referendum on independence is held. We do not need Ottawa and the double taxation system that comes with it. I resent having to support those fat cats in the Senate, which is controlled by Conservatives — who take their orders from guess who. It is a corrupt body of unelected people, handpicked by the current PM and PMs past to do their bidding. It’s evil!

        Like

      8. I will stand by my First Nation brethren & sistren who will defend their ancestral land against the racist oppressor French. You have actually made my point, that the Separatists want a racially-based country. Even allowing for any “race” being a somewhat artificial construct, this one is entirely artificially: “one particular group of descendants from one particular group of Europeans who happened to end up in more-or-less this bit of geography to steal land from the native people based on the King of France claiming he owned it.”

        Whatever taxation is collected by Ottawa, Quebeckers get their share of it as part of the well-established, and well-functioning, and well-regarded nation of Canada. If Quebec separated, then “Quebec” taxes would have to be raised to cover that part of government service currently provided by Ottawa. Yes, “single taxation,” but the total tax rate will be the same (or services will be further curtailed, or we go further into debt to 3rd world levels).

        Yes, the senate is ludicrous, but it was equally ludicrous regardless of who held power. It could be reformed, but that would require re-opening a constitutional debate, which the Quebec Separatists have made a toxic subject.

        Like

    2. WS Said: “As for the rich not paying their share? Look up the numbers – either government or privately calculated. Sorry whiny conspiracy nuts, but the rich do indeed pay proportionally more in taxes.”

      No, they do not.

      Social Security and Medicare are separate from the General US budget. NOT ONE DIME of the general fund (income and excise tax) money goes into Social Security.

      The truth is that if you make $115,000 a year or $10,000,000 a year, you pay EXACTLY the same in Social Security taxes. This is grossly unfair as the rich are not paying anywhere near their share. This must change.

      The truth is that most of the wealthy, the one percent, get their income from capital gains, which is taxed much lower than ordinary income. It is entirely possible for the person earning $115,000 will pay a higher percentage of their income toward taxes than the person earning $10,000,000. This also is unfair.

      Google “The Buffet Rule”
      http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/pf/taxes/obama-buffett-rule/

      Like

      1. You have a semi-valid point about Social Security, in that it is theoretically a separate item from the General Budget. (Actually, it is an separate accounting line, not actually a separate bank account somewhere. Therefore Congress could merge them by changing the law, but that is another issue.)

        True, above a certain level (you say it is 115K), but they also do not draw out more than the maximum about per month – don’t pay more in, but don’t draw more out.

        I will stand by the statement that rich people do pay more overall taxes (whatever name you wish to put on that particular tax). They are also not eligible for various benefits, or the amount that they get is ‘clawed back.’

        That having been said, I do agree that it’s foolish to tax capital gains at a different rate. I’m actually a flat-taxer – you make more, you pay more. But also no deductions or tax credits, which are basically a scam, in that they are an attempt to give money to people and claim it doesn’t ‘cost’ the government (e.g. taxpayers) anything. If we, as a society want to give money to someone or something, then we should do so, as a line item on the budget. I also believe that Social Security (or it’s Canadian equivalent, Social Insurance) should pay a flat rate to everyone who retires, no matter how much you put it.

        Like

      1. I’ve long been a believer in the four-day workweek, and early retirement. Sadly, mankind have made themselves slaves to a select group of very wealthy people. It could be done: people we could have shorter workweeks, and earlier retirement, but it means overhauling our current financial system . . .

        Like

      2. One of our favorite lines in Downton Abbey is when the dowager says “what’s a weekend?”. That scene is so dead on how out of touch the rich are with the real world.

        Like

      3. Since the average salary of sitting members of the legislative body is six-figures(not counting their Pensions) and US congressmen/women approaches and for some, is in the millions, that’s a good idea. I can only think of one revolution that really worked in CE .. which occurred when a certain person coined the phrase: “let them eat cake”. Of course there is also ISIS. It has never been a good time to be a Prole as JP’s reference to J. Lennon began this vituperation %O

        Like

      4. In June 2014 billionaire Nick Hanauer wrote an op-ed for Politico magazine in which he foresaw pitchforks coming for his “fellow .01%ers” if they did not address the issue of increasing wealth inequality. He noted how it would result in the destruction of the middle class and damage to the wealthy class. He made comparisons to the period preceding the French Revolution in the 18th century.

        Like

  4. It seems so odd that in countries other than the US, ‘Liberals’ who are interested in new ideas and social change to improve the lot of the common man are seen as ‘conservative’, while those who wish things to stay the same for the benefit of the wealthy ruling class, ie; ‘conservatives’, are seen as liberal and desiring change!

    It would be a lot easier to follow foreign politics if you guys could get this straight!

    ‘Liberal’ (Oxford): (In a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform

    ‘Conservative’: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

    You guys are SO weird! 😉

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s