Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Good News
Let's here it for a Ontario's new smoking ban. It's great. Even when I was a smoker, I always hated it when a bar was really smoky. I liked going out to the patio to have a smoke. I'm also pleased that the "patios" in London that have 4 walls and a roof don't qualify as "outside" anymore.
Last Comic Standing
Mr. King has been missing Last Comic Standing. Well sir, it was on last night. I hope you didn't miss it. There were a few good people on there. I hope to enjoy more of this hilarity in the near future.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
A sad end for Royce Gracie
Wow, I can't believe Royce Gracie got dominated the way he did on Saturday, especially on the ground. I expected Hughs to take it in the second or third by strikes (standing), but I expected Gracie to at least get somewhat close to a submission, too. I guess he's over the hill now, but what a legend he was in his time.
After the fight, Gracie was toying with the though of another fight, but maybe he should retire. At least his one loss was at the hands of someone who will become almost as big of a legend as Gracie is. If he takes another fight and loses, he'll really be tarnishing his reputation. And let's face it, he's got a good chance of losing: Now that jiu jitsu is such a big part of MMA (because of Gracie's dominance), he's lost his advangtage: People know how to defend against him now.(can you smell the irony?)
Coming up in July: UFC 61: two big matches: Sylvia vs. Arlovski and Ortiz vs. Shamrock.
I think Sylvia will KO or TKO Arlovski with strikes and Ortiz will take out Shamrock. Shamrock is definately over the hill.
After the fight, Gracie was toying with the though of another fight, but maybe he should retire. At least his one loss was at the hands of someone who will become almost as big of a legend as Gracie is. If he takes another fight and loses, he'll really be tarnishing his reputation. And let's face it, he's got a good chance of losing: Now that jiu jitsu is such a big part of MMA (because of Gracie's dominance), he's lost his advangtage: People know how to defend against him now.(can you smell the irony?)
Coming up in July: UFC 61: two big matches: Sylvia vs. Arlovski and Ortiz vs. Shamrock.
I think Sylvia will KO or TKO Arlovski with strikes and Ortiz will take out Shamrock. Shamrock is definately over the hill.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The latest idol loser
I'm not a big American Idol fan, but this season had a lot of variety in the style of singers on the show. The rightful winner should've been Chris Daughtry, but he was voted off this week. Basically, there's no point in watching the show anymore because the three people left are not worth watching:
Taylor is like your half drunk uncle singing at a wedding.
Catherine sings out of tune almost as often as she sings in tune.
And the other guy is pretty average...his performances (like his name) are pretty forgetable. Sure I could look up his name, but he's not worth it.
I hope Chris puts out a record even though he lost, just like when the big KFC eating guy won but the loser got more press.
Taylor is like your half drunk uncle singing at a wedding.
Catherine sings out of tune almost as often as she sings in tune.
And the other guy is pretty average...his performances (like his name) are pretty forgetable. Sure I could look up his name, but he's not worth it.
I hope Chris puts out a record even though he lost, just like when the big KFC eating guy won but the loser got more press.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Federal Budget
A few things on the 2006 federal budget, despite what the opposition says:
1) Income taxes will not be going up for the vast majority of Canadians.
2) Low Income Canadians are not being disadvantaged by the tax measures in the budget.
3) Bill Graham: "Why didn't the prime minister tell the country in his campaign that one of his five priorities would be raising income tax for the poorest of Canadians?": Disproving the lies.
4) what the opposition won't say about the $1200 for beer and popcorn.
1)Let's compare the Liberal Income tax plan with the Conservative income tax plan, both being compared to the old 16%.
Liberal plan: the lowest tax bracket is about $27000 wide (from about 8500 to 35500, according to my 2005 T1 General) If you make more than 35500 you will save 1% on the entire 27000:
1% x 27000 = 270
Conservative plan: if you have a job, the lowest tax bracket is $26000 wide (from 9500 to 35500) If you make more than the 35500 then you will save 0.5% on 26000:
0.5% x 26000 = 130
Plus you will now not pay tax at all on $1000 of your income:
16% x 1000 = 160
Total savings:160+130=290
$20 better than the liberal plan if you earn over 35500.
(put another way, to prove that i'm not fudging the numbers: after liberal cuts you'll pay an extra 0.5% on 26000 (=130) but you'll not pay tax on 1000 at the lib's 15% (=150), so you pay 130 extra, but get back 150, total benefit:$20)
So it's basically the same deal for the average canadian family.
2) Let's look at low income earners, who will apparently pay more tax now, according to the lib's and ndp: (note: this section a.k.a. Bill Graham: Liar or dummy? part 1)
let's take a single working mom making not-so-much money, let's say $15,000. Under liberal plan she'll pay: (excluding all other tax credits, etc.)
15% x (15000-8500) = 975
under conservatives (excluding all other tax credits, etc.)
15.5% on (15000-9500) = 852.5
So enjoy your extra $122.50 single working mother making $15000/year. Plus your $100/month for each child under 6, plus tax credits any sports the kids play, plus tax credits if you use public transit, plus your 1% GST cut.
3) Bill Graham: Liar or dummy? (part 2)
The lowest income Canadians don't pay income tax at all, so a 1% cut in the income tax rate doesn't do squat for them. However, everyone pays GST, including those who don't earn enough to pay income tax. GST cut makes a difference, Income tax cut doesn't. Secondly, The Conservatives were pretty clear that we'd be going back to 16%, which was actually improved by only going back up to 15.5%. Add that to the employment credit, and as it has been shown already: we're better off than the 1% cut the lib's gave anyways.
4) The opposition loves to say that the budget is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. They also love to say that the $1200 isn't so great because it's taxable income. Let's examine that statement in more depth: The lowest income canadians don't pay income tax, so they get to keep the $1200. Higher income candians pay a higher rate of income tax, so they'll pay more tax on it. There is a loop hole for the rich in this one: if one parent makes loads of cash and the other stays home, they'll be able to keep the full $1200 because it is taxable to the lower income partent. All-in-all it's probably more progressive to tax the $1200 than not to tax it.
1) Income taxes will not be going up for the vast majority of Canadians.
2) Low Income Canadians are not being disadvantaged by the tax measures in the budget.
3) Bill Graham: "Why didn't the prime minister tell the country in his campaign that one of his five priorities would be raising income tax for the poorest of Canadians?": Disproving the lies.
4) what the opposition won't say about the $1200 for beer and popcorn.
1)Let's compare the Liberal Income tax plan with the Conservative income tax plan, both being compared to the old 16%.
Liberal plan: the lowest tax bracket is about $27000 wide (from about 8500 to 35500, according to my 2005 T1 General) If you make more than 35500 you will save 1% on the entire 27000:
1% x 27000 = 270
Conservative plan: if you have a job, the lowest tax bracket is $26000 wide (from 9500 to 35500) If you make more than the 35500 then you will save 0.5% on 26000:
0.5% x 26000 = 130
Plus you will now not pay tax at all on $1000 of your income:
16% x 1000 = 160
Total savings:160+130=290
$20 better than the liberal plan if you earn over 35500.
(put another way, to prove that i'm not fudging the numbers: after liberal cuts you'll pay an extra 0.5% on 26000 (=130) but you'll not pay tax on 1000 at the lib's 15% (=150), so you pay 130 extra, but get back 150, total benefit:$20)
So it's basically the same deal for the average canadian family.
2) Let's look at low income earners, who will apparently pay more tax now, according to the lib's and ndp: (note: this section a.k.a. Bill Graham: Liar or dummy? part 1)
let's take a single working mom making not-so-much money, let's say $15,000. Under liberal plan she'll pay: (excluding all other tax credits, etc.)
15% x (15000-8500) = 975
under conservatives (excluding all other tax credits, etc.)
15.5% on (15000-9500) = 852.5
So enjoy your extra $122.50 single working mother making $15000/year. Plus your $100/month for each child under 6, plus tax credits any sports the kids play, plus tax credits if you use public transit, plus your 1% GST cut.
3) Bill Graham: Liar or dummy? (part 2)
The lowest income Canadians don't pay income tax at all, so a 1% cut in the income tax rate doesn't do squat for them. However, everyone pays GST, including those who don't earn enough to pay income tax. GST cut makes a difference, Income tax cut doesn't. Secondly, The Conservatives were pretty clear that we'd be going back to 16%, which was actually improved by only going back up to 15.5%. Add that to the employment credit, and as it has been shown already: we're better off than the 1% cut the lib's gave anyways.
4) The opposition loves to say that the budget is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. They also love to say that the $1200 isn't so great because it's taxable income. Let's examine that statement in more depth: The lowest income canadians don't pay income tax, so they get to keep the $1200. Higher income candians pay a higher rate of income tax, so they'll pay more tax on it. There is a loop hole for the rich in this one: if one parent makes loads of cash and the other stays home, they'll be able to keep the full $1200 because it is taxable to the lower income partent. All-in-all it's probably more progressive to tax the $1200 than not to tax it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
