Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Canadian Politics: Incoming Election! Run Away From !Harper!

15657585961

Posts

  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited March 2011

    "Green Party of Canada - Let's get the Conservatives out of power by... splitting the left vote three ways..."

    Ultimately, I'm in favor of people voting for whichever party/candidate they feel best represents their interests, and if that's the Green Party or their local Green candidate, power to them. It's definitely not the best way to get the Cons out of power in the upcoming election though.

    I hear ya, that's why this time around I am going to vote NDP as I believe their candidate has the best chance of beating the Con incumbent in the Nanaimo-Alberni riding. I think right now due to wanting to see the Cons lose as many ridings as possible, I would only consider voting Green if I was in Elizabeth May's riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Not sure what other candidates they are running that are thought to have a chance of winning.

    And seeing as the Cons keep threatening the funding my vote was sending them anyways, gotta get the Cons gone to secure that public funding. So, strategic vote on my part as best I know how.

    steam_sig.png
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    hippofant wrote: »

    Also, I would not even fly in a small turboprop plane built by Confederation College and Lakehead U graduates, never mind a fifth-generation fighter jet.

    Oh god, props for this. I was going to make a similar comment


    Darkphoenix.... I dunno man, I think you need to lurk more or something.

  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    edited March 2011

    "Green Party of Canada - Let's get the Conservatives out of power by... splitting the left vote three ways..."

    Ultimately, I'm in favor of people voting for whichever party/candidate they feel best represents their interests, and if that's the Green Party or their local Green candidate, power to them. It's definitely not the best way to get the Cons out of power in the upcoming election though.

    I hear ya, that's why this time around I am going to vote NDP as I believe their candidate has the best chance of beating the Con incumbent in the Nanaimo-Alberni riding. I think right now due to wanting to see the Cons lose as many ridings as possible, I would only consider voting Green if I was in Elizabeth May's riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Not sure what other candidates they are running that are thought to have a chance of winning.

    And seeing as the Cons keep threatening the funding my vote was sending them anyways, gotta get the Cons gone to secure that public funding. So, strategic vote on my part as best I know how.


    If Gary Lunn doesn't win in Saanich-Gulf islands because of fucking elizabeth May splitting the fucking vote I will eat my cock.

    She is going to be the SOLE cause of getting us another term with a Conservative jackass, thank you Elizabeth, "can't win any race" May.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    She was on the news tonight up in arms that she will not be in the debate. I think the rule of having at least one party member elected is fair.

    steam_sig.png
    gamertag: Canadianllama
  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Disco11 wrote: »
    She was on the news tonight up in arms that she will not be in the debate. I think the rule of having at least one party member elected is fair.

    The best part is running in 3 different provinces in a few years, truly a recipe for success.

  • NewblarNewblar Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    oldmanken wrote: »
    We are not your personal policy sounding board. If you want policy advice, and are serious about running, you need to hire/attract a policy specialist. Especially considering how unrealistic and naive you appear to be on such issues.

    And if all you are going to do is promise things that are not doable or realistic, in order to garner votes and get elected, I would go out of my way to ensure you never occupy an elected office. Even if I don't live in your riding or province.

    I have to learn from somewhere (I use Facebook and Reddit too). I don't have enough money yet to run townhalls. At least I'm honest. I'm also not an ivory-tower elitist.

    There's honest and there's too much information. The little tidbit you left us about how you would vote for whoever offered you a job and how you are using a forum for your policy formation would allow any forumer on any board that you've provided information for on your candidacy to sink your campaign in about 30 seconds.

    I strongly urge you to learn to be a little more circumspect if you seriously plan on being involved in politics in any way as a career, those guys play rough and have no problem trying to dig up any dirt they can. At least make it challenging for them to do so.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    She was on the news tonight up in arms that she will not be in the debate. I think the rule of having at least one party member elected is fair.

    The best part is running in 3 different provinces in a few years, truly a recipe for success.

    Not to mention, last time, running against Peter MacKay. I'm actually not sure that she really wants to win her seat.

  • ThisThis Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    That was the single stupidest thing I think I've seen in politics. She had a historic opportunity to win herself a seat by being in the debate for the first time and getting a lot of media attention. And she decides to run against fucking Peter Mckay? In a riding his family has owned for like 50 years? I used to vote Green but colossal stupidity is not a way to keep my support.

  • EntriechEntriech Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    While I definitely don't agree with how the green party has been comporting itself, I don't know that I want to make election of a member to the house a defining characteristic of being included in the leader's debate. Our current electoral system doesn't serve as a good and/or fair representation of the popular vote, and I already think it's enough of an uphill slog trying to get a member elected when running against the established parties without affording them any more advantages than they already have.

    Gamecenter/Gamertag/Steam ID/PSN: Entriech
    Guild Wars 2: Entriech.3507 | Scythe Gearsnap, Phlork, Irenic
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Entriech wrote: »
    While I definitely don't agree with how the green party has been comporting itself, I don't know that I want to make election of a member to the house a defining characteristic of being included in the leader's debate. Our current electoral system doesn't serve as a good and/or fair representation of the popular vote, and I already think it's enough of an uphill slog trying to get a member elected when running against the established parties without affording them any more advantages than they already have.

    Well, any given party will have upwards of 308 chances to try and win a seat. A good local campaign with a good candidate who is known in the community can win even without party support (see Chuck Cadman et. al.). Requiring the Greens to actually win a seat isn't that onerous, especially as we require that of independents to be in Parliament too.

    Of course, the system is unfair and something like MMP would be best. But I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    My message to Bill Mauro:

    I'm going to run to the left of you socially and run to the right of you fiscally. And squeeze and smush your support in the process.

    My goal is to use my success to make the Red Tories a wing of the Green Party and boot the Conservatives from all their ridings outside Alberta. ;)

    The Red Tories are tired of being the slaves of the neo-cons.


    My plan for free post-secondary education (with federal co-operation): Re-nationalize Cameco
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameco
    Spoiler:

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Ok, now your just yanking our chains. Just looked up and Bill Mauro and he is a provincial Mp... You know this is a federal election, right?

    Please tell me you didn't tell a politician you are going to "smush" his support...

    steam_sig.png
    gamertag: Canadianllama
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Are you actually a member of the Green Party of Canada or the Green Party of Ontario? Do you have their support? I highly doubt it, given that your position on nuclear energy bears absolutely no resemblance to their positions on nuclear energy.

    Look, it's great that you're passionate about all kinds of issues, but you just look like a silly goose who's jumped into the deep end before learning how to swim. Take your time, work your way up in the party, and build grass-roots support before trying to take on the challenges of running a provincial election campaign.

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Ok, now your just yanking our chains. Just looked up and Bill Mauro and he is a provincial Mp... You know this is a federal election, right? .

    Ontario will hold a general election in October of this year.

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Are you actually a member of the Green Party of Canada or the Green Party of Ontario? Do you have their support? I highly doubt it, given that your position on nuclear energy bears absolutely no resemblance to their positions on nuclear energy.

    Look, it's great that you're passionate about all kinds of issues, but you just look like a silly goose who's jumped into the deep end before learning how to swim. Take your time, work your way up in the party, and build grass-roots support before trying to take on the challenges of running a provincial election campaign.

    I have Mike Schneider, Jim Harris, and Elizabeth May as friends on Facebook. I contacted Mike Schneider on Monday and he gave me instructions on how to begin the process of becoming a candidate in Ontario for the October election. I began this process yesterday.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I didint know that.

    I was confused by all his rantings about booting the conservatives back to Alberta.

    steam_sig.png
    gamertag: Canadianllama
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Ok, now your just yanking our chains. Just looked up and Bill Mauro and he is a provincial Mp... You know this is a federal election, right?

    Please tell me you didn't tell a politician you are going to "smush" his support...

    I'm going after the students... cuz I am one.

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    darkphoenix22, if you're interested in a career in politics, the best place to start is on someone else's campaign. It isn't a business you can jump into blind, and it is unimaginably cruel to the young, inexperienced and idealistic. If you're interested in knowing what you're talking about, study law or political science.

    I was offered a job on the local Liberal campaign. When I was doing the Safe Nuclear stuff, I was discussing with Mike Schreiner the possibility of campaigning with them (It wasn't a no. He just needed to contact his campaign manager).

    I realized this Monday that I needed to stop wasting my time trying to influence politicians and decided just to run myself. It helps that my home riding is VERY liberal. The Libs only won by 200 votes over the NDP in the last provincial election. The NDP have chipped away at the Liberal support in the riding and Mauro is the last of the Liberal representatives in Thunder Bay.

    I'm not really planning on campaigning on the Green platform, as that's the job of the party apparatus. I'm going to be campaigning on local issues to get myself elected *personally*.

    Anyways, I'm going to step back from using forums and Reddit for feedback, just because you guys aren't all from my riding. It's inefficient and I can get better contact with voters in my riding through Facebook.

    So long and thanks for all the fish. ;)

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Are you actually a member of the Green Party of Canada or the Green Party of Ontario? Do you have their support? I highly doubt it, given that your position on nuclear energy bears absolutely no resemblance to their positions on nuclear energy.

    Look, it's great that you're passionate about all kinds of issues, but you just look like a silly goose who's jumped into the deep end before learning how to swim. Take your time, work your way up in the party, and build grass-roots support before trying to take on the challenges of running a provincial election campaign.

    I have Mike Schneider, Jim Harris, and Elizabeth May as friends on Facebook.
    OH BOY! A secret passage to the corridors of power! I had no idea.
    I contacted Mike Schneider on Monday and he gave me instructions on how to begin the process of becoming a candidate in Ontario for the October election. I began this process yesterday.

    How about the GPO riding association for Thunder Bay--Atikokan? I can't imagine that the president would be too happy with you trying to do an end-run around his organization.

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Are you actually a member of the Green Party of Canada or the Green Party of Ontario? Do you have their support? I highly doubt it, given that your position on nuclear energy bears absolutely no resemblance to their positions on nuclear energy.

    The GPO "new nuclear" term was a reaction to my "Safe Nuclear". I was sending them e-mails for a couple weeks before that (about 3ish, the same ones I sent to other relevant MPs and MPPs).

    From my conversion with Mike Schreiner (both quotations are mine):
    The fact that you guys don't 100% percent support nuclear power would honestly not be a problem for me as my main goal, starting from 2 weeks ago, was actually just to prevent the "No Nuclear" lobby from using Japan as an excuse to halt nuclear development. The fact that I seem to be greatly marginalizing Greenpeace in the process is a bonus. I would be very supportive of a nuclear-critic movement to balance things out.
    I agree. Nuclear safety must now become an open and discussed priority. ;)

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    How about the GPO riding association for Thunder Bay--Atikokan? I can't imagine that the president would be too happy with you trying to do an end-run around his organization.

    If they let me know the system, I'll follow it.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Are you actually a member of the Green Party of Canada or the Green Party of Ontario? Do you have their support? I highly doubt it, given that your position on nuclear energy bears absolutely no resemblance to their positions on nuclear energy.

    The GPO "new nuclear" term was a reaction to my "Safe Nuclear". I was sending them e-mails for a couple weeks before that (about 3ish, the same ones I sent to other relevant MPs and MPPs).

    From my conversion with Mike Schreiner:
    The fact that you guys don't 100% percent support nuclear power would honestly not be a problem for me as my main goal, starting from 2 weeks ago, was actually just to prevent the "No Nuclear" lobby from using Japan as an excuse to halt nuclear development. The fact that I seem to be greatly marginalizing Greenpeace in the process is a bonus. I would be very supportive of a nuclear-critic movement to balance things out.
    I agree. Nuclear safety must now become an open and discussed priority. ;)

    So your "discussion" was him replying to a post on Facebook?

    steam_sig.png
    gamertag: Canadianllama
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Disco11 wrote: »
    So your "discussion" was him replying to a post on Facebook?
    No, it was probably one of his aides replying to a post on Facebook in his name.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    So your "discussion" was him replying to a post on Facebook?
    No, it was probably one of his aides replying to a post on Facebook in his name.

    Good point.

    steam_sig.png
    gamertag: Canadianllama
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    So your "discussion" was him replying to a post on Facebook?
    No, it was probably one of his aides replying to a post on Facebook in his name.

    No... It was actually from a private message conversation about me spamming his page (to put it bluntly and honestly). He just asked me to step back. I then removed all my posts that weren't needed for my points.
    If there's anything else you would like me to remove, feel free to tell me.

    I apologize if it seemed like I trying to dominate your page. I was trying to encourage discussion using information I've found across the web, and pretty much succeeded at demonstrating and pointing out many of the misconceptions environmentalists have about nuclear power. My posts are not the important ones, it's the posts that resulted from people with opposing viewpoints. This is the reason why I have removed all my posts that were not absolutely vital to the discussions taking place. I wanted to serve as catalyst, rather than a protester. You wall was a great place for this due to the many people that you have friended.

    You'll be pleased to know that since I have succeeded at this objective, I will be posting very little else on your page as much that could have been discussed there already has.

    Thank you for not deleting my arguments before people had responded, allowing the discussion to flourish.

    Ryan
    Eh. My posts didn't matter. They were just there to get other people to post their own responses. The stuff that I left should cover everything I said anyways. ;)

    Ya, I managed to turn that conversation into consideration for a job. At first, he dismissed it (politely) and then he messaged me that he would have his campaign manager follow up. ;)

    I later posted this on his wall:
    PS Thank you Mike for involuntarily hosting my arguments for the time I left them up. It was more than Greenpeace did. ;)

    He responded with this:
    Ryan, I appreciate your passion, and I want to promote citizen engagement and open/transparent debate.

    PS You guys aren't special. I apply my technique the same to everyone.


    Edit: ...And Bill Mauro has removed my posts from his page's wall (Only 2 as I use comments to reduce the amount of posts I need to make). I'm disappointed that he wasn't as professional as Mike Schreiner was. Mike Schreiner's professionalism is what motivated me to join and run for the Greens. ;)

    Aside: You can actually disable wall posts from other users. Mauro didn't. He also removed my "like" from his page.

    For a contrast, Elizabeth May actually disables third party wall posts on her Facebook profile and allows them on her Facebook page. Which is a good balance TBH.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    It's really interesting how hard the Globe is soft-endorsing Ignatieff. They've been attacking the Conservative and NDP platform as it rolls out, while writing articles that support the Liberal platform.

    Mind you, the NDP idea to cap credit cards at 5% APR is pants-on-head retarded.

    edit lol lol
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/douglas-bell/star-columnist-faces-the-fearful-truth-about-stephen-harper/article1961542/

    Oh TorStar, never change

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Eh. I believe that credit card interest rates should be mandated to be pegged to the prime rate. 5% is WAY too low though. Prime + 10% as a max is a better solution.

    If you want a 5% interest rate, use a line of credit. Some even let you use them like a chequing account, allow you to maintain a positive balance, have a debit card with unlimited free transactions, and give you free cheques.

    Such as the TD line of credit:

    http://www.tdcanadatrust.com/lending/lineofcredit.jsp
    http://forums.redflagdeals.com/archive/index.php/t-294172.html
    Spoiler:

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Yes let us mandate that all 50 people that might apply to in this nation gamble their savings on start-ups.

    Or we could bring the corporate tax rate to parity with the Americans and then fund some programs that might do something worth a damn

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    Or we could bring the corporate tax rate to parity with the Americans and then fund some programs that might do something worth a damn

    Well as an alternative, we could always just tax any liquid asset income above $5 mil.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I never understood that. I was in pretty bad dept for a long time because of abuse of credit cards but no one ever put a gun to my head and said " Use this 18% credit card to buy this TV you know you can't afford!"

    They offer a service and you voluntarily choose to use it or not.

    steam_sig.png
    gamertag: Canadianllama
  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Eh. I believe that credit card interest rates should be mandated to be pegged to the prime rate. 5% is WAY too low though. Prime + 10% as a max is a better solution.

    If you want a 5% interest rate, use a line of credit. Some even let you use them like a chequing account, allow you to maintain a positive balance, have a debit card with unlimited free transactions, and give you free cheques.

    Such as the TD line of credit:

    http://www.tdcanadatrust.com/lending/lineofcredit.jsp
    http://forums.redflagdeals.com/archive/index.php/t-294172.html
    Spoiler:


    See this post right here? It's actually kind of on point and not pissing off everyone in the thread. Well done.

    Virtue flourishes in the most unexpected places.
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    Or we could bring the corporate tax rate to parity with the Americans and then fund some programs that might do something worth a damn

    Well as an alternative, we could always just tax any liquid asset income above $5 mil.

    We don't need a big herpa derp fuck the rich policy. What we need is better corporate taxation. Something that has slipped from the collective conciousness is that during the big fiscal fiasco of 2008-2009, Chrysler turned out to be over a billion dollars short on their taxes. They basically responded to this fact with

    troll%20face.png?1295104686
    If we pay these taxes, we close the Canadian plants.

    And that was the end of that. American owned companies make a fucking mint exploiting our weak tax collection and America rakes in dolla dolla bills to fund their assorted terribleness through the corporate tax rate gap.

    This is what the Liberals need to hammer home - Harper is rewarding the piss-poor behaviour of the big corporations with tax cuts. Ignatieff needs to get up there and say "Harper's tax cuts would do nothing but send X billion dollars in to the US Treasury." Or not actually, since that point would be lost on most people.

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    So then we nationalize the plants with the money we've taxed from the rich. Problem solved.

    hawkbox wrote: »
    See this post right here? It's actually kind of on point and not pissing off everyone in the thread. Well done.

    I'll keep this example in mind. I'm still a work in progress. ;)

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    dark you realize that what you're proposing is entirely illegal under NAFTA? Newfoundland found that out when they tried to summarily seize a corporation's assets in the name of "the common good".

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I never understood that. I was in pretty bad dept for a long time because of abuse of credit cards but no one ever put a gun to my head and said " Use this 18% credit card to buy this TV you know you can't afford!"

    They offer a service and you voluntarily choose to use it or not.

    People also chose to buy house on sub-prime mortgages. Look what that caused.

    I'm in favour of interest moderation. A credit card interest cap of "Prime + 10%" won't hurt anyone and would flex with the state of the economy.

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited March 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    dark you realize that what you're proposing is entirely illegal under NAFTA? Newfoundland found that out when they tried to summarily seize a corporation's assets in the name of "the common good".

    Then FUCK NAFTA. I'm a traditional Red Tory conservative, remember. David Orchard is my hero on this issue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fight_for_Canada:_Four_Centuries_of_Resistance_to_American_Expansionism

  • ComahawkComahawk Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I'm reading a book right now in doing research for a History paper, it is about the Battle of the Atlantic.

    One of the points the author makes is how terrible our Air Force was due to old/out-dated equipment. His argument is pretty well rounded, and I found it particularly interesting. I am finding myself drawing parallels between what he is saying and the current debate over the F-35s. I know many people view these fighters as unnecessary, or too expensive, but by purchasing a remodeled version of the F-18s, an old and out-dated airframe, aren't we just putting ourselves in a similar position again?

    Now, I also know part of the argument is that we will never be in a war where this is needed. Personally, I view that as a bit naive, especially when you consider similar attitudes were expressed before the World Wars. Drawing direct comparison is problematic, but we can never totally dismiss the chance of needing cutting edge weapons for our military. Especially when we have such a small air force.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    dark you realize that what you're proposing is entirely illegal under NAFTA? Newfoundland found that out when they tried to summarily seize a corporation's assets in the name of "the common good".

    Then FUCK NAFTA. I'm a traditional Red Tory conservative, remember. David Orchard is my hero on this issue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fight_for_Canada:_Four_Centuries_of_Resistance_to_American_Expansionism

    Uh, you do realize you can't just go FUCK NAFTA and have it mean anything right?

    Virtue flourishes in the most unexpected places.
  • ImperfectImperfect Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    So hold on.

    Your platform is CHANGE EVERYTHING, REGARDLESS OF SUPPORT OR LEGALITY, you have NO experience, and you announced your candidacy on your opponent's Facebook page with a post with a WINKY in it?

    You are going to learn some harsh lessons, kid.

  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User
    edited March 2011
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Eh. I believe that credit card interest rates should be mandated to be pegged to the prime rate. 5% is WAY too low though. Prime + 10% as a max is a better solution.

    If you want a 5% interest rate, use a line of credit. Some even let you use them like a chequing account, allow you to maintain a positive balance, have a debit card with unlimited free transactions, and give you free cheques.

    Such as the TD line of credit:

    http://www.tdcanadatrust.com/lending/lineofcredit.jsp
    http://forums.redflagdeals.com/archive/index.php/t-294172.html
    Spoiler:


    See this post right here? It's actually kind of on point and not pissing off everyone in the thread. Well done.

    Seconded. And I also thought that a ceiling for interest rates sounded good.

    That said, I read a globe article this morning that made some interesting points in opposition to this idea, and proposed a rather novel alternative. Not definitive, but points 2 and 3 are rather compelling:
    1.It encourages customers to take on more credit-card debt. Interest rates are a price; they are the price of borrowing money. Lower the price and we should expect to see borrowing increase, as we saw in the previous decade with low interest rates encouraging families to take out larger mortgages.

    2. Credit card companies have two sources of income from consumers - interest payments and yearly fees. Make interest payments less profitable and we should expect to see credit cards raise their yearly fees. This switch is beneficial to those who keep high credit balances, but is costly to those who pay their balances in full since they are paying higher yearly fees. But paying off credit card debt is exactly the behaviour we would like to encourage.

    3. It will reduce access to credit cards for lower income Canadians, either because credit card companies refuse to serve them as it is no longer profitable to do so, or because those consumers cannot afford the higher fees. Some of these consumers will then choose not to borrow, while others will now borrow from payday loan services that charge annual interest rates in the thousands of a per cent. While a 29 per cent yearly interest rate on a credit card is high, it pales in comparison to a 1,290 per cent rate from a payday loan company.

    In Economy Lab, Frances Woolley found a more effective way to reduce credit card debt:

    "Prof. Stewart’s research suggests that there is an easy way to get consumers to pay off credit card debts more quickly. In his experiment, when minimum payment information was removed from credit card statements, the mean amount repaid on credit card bills rose by 70 per cent, from £99 (23 per cent of the balance) to £175 (40 per cent of the balance)."

    Removing minimum payment information or alternatively raising the monthly minimum payment level would be a more effective way of reducing the credit card debts of Canadians.

    Now, in fact, I think a higher ceiling might mitigate some of these issues...but I'm not sure that it would eliminate them. I think the idea about removing minimum payment information from the card should be studied further- not sure how well it's been replicated, but it's promising.

    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
This discussion has been closed.