Kneecaps

[ukcanuck]

LOL UK

You believe companies should be forced to operate at loss while being taxed on the gross value of their loss making operations.

Nice twist of my words, I've noticed you do that a lot.
I believe that taxes are due on profits.
I believe that when a company secures the mineral rights whether by lease or title or claim they have obtained an inherent value that is a tradable commodity.

I think your painted losses are much the same as banks buying and selling debt amongst each other

I believe that you believe if you made ten million dollars but could have made twelve million, you actually lost two million.

I believe you try to sell that as a loss and expect a tax credit and a pat on the back for creating jobs.

Is this why Commie Red Dave bought Ocean Falls? Panco Poultry? Swan Lake Potatoe Chips?

Did you know that ore is an economic term for rock that can be extracted at a profit?

Did you know that a reserve is defined not just in terms of grade and tonnage but also by a cutoff grade? That the cutoff grade is defined by commodity price, mining and engineering costs, social economic cost, and taxation costs?

Do you know the difference between mineral title and a mining lease?

Do you know the difference between inferred, indicated and measured?

Do you know that the grade varies within a deposit?

Do you understand anything of the time value of money?

Are you demonstrating your expertise of mining terms to prove that I should buy your arguments?

The point was already made that mining is speculative. I'm fairly confident that Scrooge McDuck has a complex way of counting his pennies.

How much does it cost to get out of the ground versus how much does it return on the market. Many factors indeed.

Except we aren't talking about the tax a mining company should pay for what it physically produces. We are talking about why should a mine get to defer tax on the profit they make off of what amounts to the people's savings account..


I believe that's the question Dave Barrett wanted to know and I believe that's why you call him a communist.
Of course you would it's your bread and butter

[Topper]

UK, I'm glad you admit you have no comprehension of what you are talking about.

I counted three direst contradictions in your posts, carry on teaching your little beheaders.

[isle_nuck]

Jesus christo folks, read to your kids. If you don't have time to read to your kids, life is wrong.

This! So much this! Of all the things wrong with education in this province, this is the biggest problem - and it's free to fix!

So that $70 per day is coming from CUPE... who are not on strike right?

That's A LOT of money for a union to cough up in this day & age!

(CUPE would probably be obliged to give her that money whether she joined BCTF on the picket line or not btw)

I'm wondering why BCTF doesn't make an agreement with CUPE for the support staff (TAs, bus-drivers, etc)

... to cross the lines so that they can twiddle their thumbs with the right to be paid by the School Board.

It would save CUPE $70/day/per and cost the Management Side in this dispute some pretty big bucks.

Okay, now I'm wondering if some backroom deal was cut between Management/Government and CUPE.

Yeah, I'm wondering if Management/Government is somehow kicking in a large chunk of that $70 per day.

Apparently, and this is a combination of rumour, potentially half-truths and stuff heard from this guy who heard from this guy....anyway, it seems CUPE has settled their contract back in June. It was an attempt by the government to undercut the TF. Part of the deal was that CUPE got paid through the duration of strike. Word from the line, no one knows if they are getting paid during the actual strike, or will get a lump sum afterwards, but word is they're getting paid at some point; I would imagine some locals are different than others. In the district I am in, during a public board meeting, one of the local trustees said that agreeing to that deal was one of the worst decisions they could have potentially made because of all the money they will be paying out while staff are sitting at home or the beach.

A true story that makes the above seem all the more truthful? The community I'm picketing in has three schools and for some reason, there's no one picketing one of the sites. Yesterday when I was on the line, a CUPE member drove past the site we were at and asked if anyone was at the usually empty site and if anyone was supposed to be there. His shift was supposed to start in two hours and if there was no picket, he was supposed to work. However, if there was a picket when he showed up for his shift he would have to go home and still get paid. Yesterday he didn't ask if we could spare a few members to go set up a temporary picket (although you could tell he was hinting at it), but apparently he had asked last week if teachers could go down.

[ukcanuck]

UK, I'm glad you admit you have no comprehension of what you are talking about.

I counted three direst contradictions in your posts, carry on teaching your little beheaders.

Why do you insist on such weak tactics?

You pull this same crap every time.

It seems you are incapable of the basic nicety of a considerate debate.

No wonder though if we are starting with the premise that we should kneecapped, it's a great indicator of your gangster mentality

Instead of waiving vague accusations bring these contradictions

I'm not afraid of being wrong

I'm sure you're not worried about hurting my feelings .

I think you're full of yourself and are more concerned about what you look like than the truth

[ukcanuck]

Isle nuck tell me you don't believe that ADD and ADHD are caused by parents not reading to their kids or feeding them to much junk food!??

That's what some folk around here believe

Colour me Face palmed ...

[isle_nuck]

Isle nuck tell me you don't believe that ADD and ADHD are caused by parents not reading to their kids or feeding them to much junk food!??

That's what some folk around here believe

Colour me Face palmed ...

No I don't think that those are the causes of those or other conditions. I think that as research and knowledge of ADD, ADHD, autism and everything else has gotten more extensive and more well known, there have been an increase in proper diagnosis (the majority of cases). However, I also feel that with those proper diagnosis there have been an in crease in incorrect diagnosis (the minority) that are caused by doctors either a) not knowing exactly what they're dealing with so they give the kid a diagnosis du jour or b) caving to parents who have fucked up in the raising of their children and now "something must be wrong with Billy" their doctor to death and he gives them what they want so they stop wasting his time.

I was referring to the idea of parents reading to their kids creating more engaged and knowledgeable students for you and I. Say all parents read to their kids, when those kids get to kindergarten, the K teacher doesn't have to spend two weeks on learning how to write their name for example. This would create a scenario that by the time they got to high school maybe the kids are a grade or two further ahead than they would be otherwise. Yes, it's a Utopian dream, but sometimes it's all a guy has!

In a less dream like state, kids who are read to at young ages are usually going to be more curious leading to full and well-rounded discussions in class. Also, those parents who read are going to have a greater stake in the education of their child and will actually answer the phone when we call home. As you know the job million times easier when parents and teachers are on the same page.

[Topper]

I also feel that with those proper diagnosis there have been an in crease in incorrect diagnosis (the minority) that are caused by doctors either a) not knowing exactly what they're dealing with so they give the kid a diagnosis du jour or b) caving to parents who have fucked up in the raising of their children and now "something must be wrong with Billy" their doctor to death and he gives them what they want so they stop wasting his time.

Ding, Ding, Ding

I was referring to the idea of parents reading to their kids creating more engaged and knowledgeable students for you and I. Say all parents read to their kids, when those kids get to kindergarten, the K teacher doesn't have to spend two weeks on learning how to write their name for example. This would create a scenario that by the time they got to high school maybe the kids are a grade or two further ahead than they would be otherwise. Yes, it's a Utopian dream, but sometimes it's all a guy has!

In a less dream like state, kids who are read to at young ages are usually going to be more curious leading to full and well-rounded discussions in class. Also, those parents who read are going to have a greater stake in the education of their child and will actually answer the phone when we call home. As you know the job million times easier when parents and teachers are on the same page.

It is also some one on one time with the kid where we don't just read, we talk to one another, I find out how he is doing, he knows I care.

The other very simple act we do is sit at the table and eat dinner as a family.

[BurningBeard]

The other very simple act we do is sit at the table and eat dinner as a family.

During which, the TV is only allowed to be on if the Nucks are playing at my house.

[Topper]

For a start UK

I believe that taxes are due on profits.

The point was already made that mining is speculative.

They know the total worth of the ore in that mine and they can calculate world prices

How so, as you say, mining is speculative, as as you also note in the quote below, prices fluctuate. I would also add that labour, energy and taxation costs also fluctuate. You only need to look at mines that were profitable several years ago at $500/oz Au but are uneconomic now at $1200/oz Au.

Obviously, the price one gets on market day fluctuates but the inherent value remains. So whether you sell it today, tomorrow, next week or next year it's never actually a loss.
Unless of course you count a profit you didn't make today as a loss...

If the price fluctuates, how does the inherent value remain? Would it not fluctuate also? What happens when that value drops below mining, exploration and permitting costs.

Oh that's right, it cost money to explore and permit a mine. Do not forget the success rate of an exploration project becoming a mine? Upwards of $1- $2 billion for a porphyry copper mine these days. No revenue is received from that project during exploration and permitting. Remember you did say it is a speculative business.

I believe that when a company secures the mineral rights whether by lease or title or claim they have obtained an inherent value that is a tradable commodity.

and therefore have the right to claim exploration costs against that value. If it is an active mine then they can also claim their operational costs against their profits.

You have lost the track of you speculative belief here. The company or individual prospector is assuming all the risk, not the public.

Except we aren't talking about the tax a mining company should pay for what it physically produces. We are talking about why should a mine get to defer tax on the profit they make off of what amounts to the people's savings account.

How are they deferring profit on something that has yet to be extracted at unknown costs and an unknown sale price? You have acknowledged the speculative nature of the business and have acknowledged prices fluctuate, also you have acknowledged that taxes should be paid on profits.

Should governments be required to refund tax revenues on forward paid taxes of the in situ value when operational costs increase or commodity prices decrease?

As for the teachers, since their binding arbitration vote was an overwhelming success, I hear they will vote next week on holding negotiations on Mars, but only conditional on the government dropping E.

[Strangelove]

I'm wondering why BCTF doesn't make an agreement with CUPE for the support staff (TAs, bus-drivers, etc)

... to cross the lines so that they can twiddle their thumbs with the right to be paid by the School Board.

It would save CUPE $70/day/per and cost the Management Side in this dispute some pretty big bucks.

Okay, now I'm wondering if some backroom deal was cut between Management/Government and CUPE.

Yeah, I'm wondering if Management/Government is somehow kicking in a large chunk of that $70 per day.

Apparently, and this is a combination of rumour, potentially half-truths and stuff heard from this guy who heard from this guy....anyway, it seems CUPE has settled their contract back in June. It was an attempt by the government to undercut the TF. Part of the deal was that CUPE got paid through the duration of strike. Word from the line, no one knows if they are getting paid during the actual strike, or will get a lump sum afterwards, but word is they're getting paid at some point; I would imagine some locals are different than others. In the district I am in, during a public board meeting, one of the local trustees said that agreeing to that deal was one of the worst decisions they could have potentially made because of all the money they will be paying out while staff are sitting at home or the beach.

Thanks for the inside information Isle.

NOW it makes sense!

I figured Management must be paying at least half of that $70 per day.

So Management is paying ALL of that $70 per day??

I can totally see it.

If there was any not-so-common sense among the media hacks out there I wouldn't have to dig for this info.

That's a lot of money-for-nothing right there.

I can remember a time when the media would have been all over a story like this from the get-go.

So $40-per-day for some parents + $70-per-day for some support staff + (Principal$, secretarie$, utilitie$) = ??

Yeah, I'm wondering how much it's costing the taxpayers (in a futile attempt) to starve the teachers out.

I'm wondering how much weight Christy's political future carries in decisions being made.

Binding Arbitration (minus E80) seems like the best way to go, but I can't see Christy & Co agreeing to that.

Christy & Co care more about future courtroom damage to the Libs politically than anything else IMESHO.

[Topper]

The demand for binding arbitration - E80, proves the union's unwillingness to sit at the bargaining table and bargain in good faith, hence Fassbender's comments today that legislation has become an option.

Iker has to be told to be careful what he asks for.

[Strangelove]

The demand for binding arbitration - E80, proves the union's unwillingness to sit at the bargaining table and bargain in good faith, hence Fassbender's comments today that legislation has become an option.

Imposing a contract as I said one week ago] has likely been the game plan all along (early October).

In no way is the union obligated (morally or otherwise) to negotiate the government's E80 (class size).

As a matter of fact, regarding class size, it's the government who is guilty of "failure to bargain in good faith"

(according to 2 judges thus far, and of course pending appeal).

IF the teachers continue to refuse to negotiate E80 it's a given that...

- the government will lose its appeal to the Supreme Court of BC this Fall.

- the government will appeal to Supreme Court of Canada.

- the government will eventually lose its appeal to Supreme Court of Canada.

Of course it's possible the teachers might eventually choose to negotiate E80 in return for other concessions.

But I think it's more likely they refuse and a contract is imposed by the government a few weeks from now

... and the teachers eventually win in the Supreme Court of Canada (2 years from now? 3?).

So the teachers are like: "You can pay us now or you can pay us later."

And yeah, I think the government likely wants to postpone the inevitable for as long as possible.

Can they postpone the SCC's decision beyond the next provincial election?

Maybe if Christy hadn't pissed off the teachers so much with her heavy-handed-ness E80 would be a real option.

That would have been the best thing for the Libs, the best thing for Christy, but oh well...

[isle_nuck]

b) caving to parents who have fucked up in the raising of their children and now "something must be wrong with Billy" their doctor to death and he gives them what they want so they stop wasting his time.

Ding, Ding, Ding

One of the many horrible things about this is that the kids and families who truly need the funding/assistance for a proper diagnosis end up further down the line to get the help and when they do get the help, there's less there for them.

It is also some one on one time with the kid where we don't just read, we talk to one another, I find out how he is doing, he knows I care.

The other very simple act we do is sit at the table and eat dinner as a family.

Oh yea! There's that too! Can you tell I don't have kids yet?

The demand for binding arbitration - E80, proves the union's unwillingness to sit at the bargaining table and bargain in good faith, hence Fassbender's comments today that legislation has become an option.

Imposing a contract as I said one week ago] has likely been the game plan all along (early October).

Personally, I'm surprised they are even considering legislating us back. With pretty much every sign pointing to the government trying to break the union, the best way to do that is to have us all broke and begging to be let back to work. If they legislate us back, we're not broke, we're even more pissed off and we still don't have any resembling a contract that's negotiated....which means we all get to ride this demented roller coaster from hell again in short order.

Maybe if Christy hadn't pissed off the teachers so much with her heavy-handed-ness E80 would be a real option.

I don't know. From talking to other teachers (mainly the older ones) and from the feeling in the union meetings, anything that would potentially wipe out the court decisions would be a deal breaker, even if the negotiations had gone smoothly. A lot of the older bloc seem pissed that we didn't fight harder 12 years ago when they first went after the class size and composition language and now see us close to the finish line of hopefully cleaning up a mess that should be been dealt with at the time.

[Topper]

(according to 2 judges thus far, and of course pending appeal).

Only one judge, Susan Griffin, and she's ruled on the matter twice, oddly without over ruling herself.

[Strangelove]

Imposing a contract as I said one week ago] has likely been the game plan all along (early October).

Personally, I'm surprised they are even considering legislating us back. With pretty much every sign pointing to the government trying to break the union, the best way to do that is to have us all broke and begging to be let back to work. If they legislate us back, we're not broke, we're even more pissed off and we still don't have any resembling a contract that's negotiated....which means we all get to ride this demented roller coaster from hell again in short order.

Haven't you heard?

An Essential Services Order is already in place.

Christy fought hard for that once upon a time.

Yeah so, she probably wants to keep the evidence of her two-faced-ness to a minimum bro.

Although... she doesn't seem to mind providing evidence of being a lying beaaatch.

Yeahno, it would do too much damage to the Libs politically to allow this to go on much longer.

And as Harvey Oberfeld pointed out 3 days ago, Christy doesn't want to give up her fabulous trip to India:

http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/teachers- ... ack-oct-6/

Apparently there is no better place to get one's nails done and it's all expenses paid!!