[John_Dee]

I have a hard time with the line he knew of his diagnosis earlier in the year. In my experience, once the doctors find a cancer, they want to get treatment going as soon as they can. Rob might have put off recommended tests, but I seriously doubt he said "I've got cancer? OK. Let's talk about this after the election."

Actually, if the Fords were unaware as to just how serious the cancer was, I think it might very well have gone something along those lines.

I believe he knew, or at least there were very high suspicions, from around the time he 'broke his toe' and went for an MRI at... St. Joseph's? ... because the 'broken toe' disappeared immediately. IIRC that was early summer.

Exactly, the whole "broken toe" saga was obviously funny right from the get-go. Didn't some of his medical coverage take place at Greenstone around this time? The main reason that sane people doubt the Fords' being able to pull off some cancer-related scam is that serious Canadian health care professionals who valued their reputations would be unlikely to go along with such a scheme - certainly it wasn't because nobody thought the Fords would be unwilling to lie about such things - but if some of this took place at a shady dump like Greenstone, it definitely muddies those waters, wouldn't y'all say?

 

[L23]

And yet Thatcher, ultimately, changed the UK for the better.

Like fuck did she.

Those who dance on her grave, forget just how bad things were in the UK in the 1970s!

I remember the 70s just fine thanks. I remember all of my family having jobs, before Thatcher shut down both the steel and coal industry, making 2/3 of them unemployed, and ensuring that the area I came from has endured long term unemployment since then due to lack of any investment.

 

[L23]

For those who've never seen it, here is MP Glenda Jackson and the fantastic speech she made at the Margaret Thatcher "tribute" session of the UK House of Parliament. Maggie was despised by many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm1gHp9ImyU

I quite like this one too, from Frankie Boyle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzk6cxNRRUc

 

[YPQ]

Actually, if the Fords were unaware as to just how serious the cancer was, I think it might very well have gone something along those lines.



Exactly, the whole "broken toe" saga was obviously funny right from the get-go. Didn't some of his medical coverage take place at Greenstone around this time? The main reason that sane people doubt the Fords' being able to pull off some cancer-related scam is that serious Canadian health care professionals who valued their reputations would be unlikely to go along with such a scheme - certainly it wasn't because nobody thought the Fords would be unwilling to lie about such things - but if some of this took place at a shady dump like Greenstone, it definitely muddies those waters, wouldn't y'all say?

I'm convinced that's exactly what happened. There is 0% chance that he broke his toe and was rope climbing a week later. There is 0% chance that it was an amazing coincidence that the cancer was detected mere hours before the deadline.

IIRC, Rawbbie was admitted to hospital (can't recall which one) for 3 or 4 days immediately prior to beginning treatment at Greenstone. The story then was that he was to begin a very serious detox/rehab treatment and that it was necessary to check his overall health extremely thoroughly before putting him through that. They wanted to be 100% sure that they knew about any other existing conditions. I remember thinking at the time that it made sense but, damn, a four day hospital stay just to check that out? Either that's the world's most thorough intake assessment or there's a lot more going on here.

I believe there's 0% chance that a hospital would miss a ginormous cancerous mass during such a thorough assessment.

He knew. He played it to milk the politics out of it. They all did and now he's screwed because he is a narcissistic idiot.

ETA: Oh yeah, then had the nerve to call a press conference so that he could beg us to please respect his privacy at this difficult time.

 

[JGHali]

As a sidetrack...

And yet Thatcher, ultimately, changed the UK for the better. Sure, there was some bitter medicine. But do we really think coal was the future of the UK? Or that we'd want the unions to go the same way in the UK that they did in France?

What does this even mean? Unions in the UK were never and have never been like France's, for much the same reasons that France's are not much like Germany's or Sweden's. The future - which is to say the present - of the UK appears mainly to be policies that primarily benefit the "City" and few else.

What about the top income tax rate of 83% (on income - it was even higher on investments, reaching 98%!). Was Thatcher wrong to drop this to 40% on both income and investments. Apparently not, given it's actually gone down since.

Those who dance on her grave, forget just how bad things were in the UK in the 1970s!

Most countries - Canada included - had such high top marginal tax rates, which had both the intent and effect of less inequality in incomes, and prevented the kind of executive compensation bonanza we've seen in the last 30 years. Why should a CEO make hundreds of times a company's lowest paid employee?

 

[nfitz]

Like fuck did she.

Indeeed she did. Best Prime Minister since Churchill.

I remember the 70s just fine thanks. I remember all of my family having jobs, before Thatcher shut down both the steel and coal industry, making 2/3 of them unemployed, and ensuring that the area I came from has endured long term unemployment since then due to lack of any investment.

And you think steel and coal would have survived if Thatcher hadn't have been PM? How has steel and coal done in Ontario and the rest of Canada for example. Or the USA. Saying Thatcher is a bad PM because she downsized the steel industry, and greatly destroyed the coal industry clearly shows to the rest of the world, the flaw in those who hate Thatcher.

It was a dead/dying industry for a first world. Thatcher knew this, and was absolutely brilliant in being willing to pay the price cutting out the cancer sooner, rather than let it fester, turning Britain into a modern, sustainable, economy.

Those in the UK who have this hatred for Thatcher, are simply projecting their unwillingness to accept the changing world, onto a truly great leader. And I say this as someone who doesn't support the Conservatives. There's no way that Callaghan was the right choice in 1979.

 

[nfitz]

What does this even mean? Unions in the UK were never and have never been like France's, for much the same reasons that France's are not much like Germany's or Sweden's. The future - which is to say the present - of the UK appears mainly to be policies that primarily benefit the "City" and few else.

In the 1970s the Unions were holding the UK hostage. Thatcher broke them.

Most countries - Canada included - had such high top marginal tax rates, which had both the intent and effect of less inequality in incomes, and prevented the kind of executive compensation bonanza we've seen in the last 30 years. Why should a CEO make hundreds of times a company's lowest paid employee?

Tell me when Canada had an 80% marginal tax rate on employment income? And pur marginal rates on investment income were always lower than employment income, not higher! I don't believe for a second that we ever had tax rates in the 80%, let alone 90% range! The highest rates I remember were under Mulroney. Though I can dig into my filing cabinet, which should take me back at least to Trudeau. I don't think we ever even got as high as 60% in Ontario.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Ok, good. For a minute there I thought I was the only one who remembered the jubilation in the streets of the UK upon Maggie's death. Almost thought I had imagined it. I have no real opinion of her as I was barely alive during her tenure and then I was in Canada besides. I was merely pointing out that people celebrating Ford's death would remind me of people celebrating her death.

PS: Don't use Thatcher and Churchill in the same sentence, ffs, nfitz!

PPS: nfitz, you remind me of my parents who escaped communist Europe in the 80s and who think Thatcher, Mulroney, and Reagan were "the best".

 

[Videodrome]

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/12/fro...cks_second_term_is_off_to_a_disastrous_start/

Since we are completely off topic, here is what happens when taxes are slashed.

 

[nfitz]

Ok, good. For a minute there I thought I was the only one who remembered the jubilation in the streets of the UK upon Maggie's death.

Surpisingly by many who were too young to even remember her. But if you look at her time in power, she was re-elected twice with strong majorities. Even after her star had started to wane, the Conservatives were re-elected to a 4th consecutive majority.

Even when she died, it's a fact that there was a lot more who thought she was good for Britain than bad for Britain - even if some pathetic yobs were dancing in the street. It' seems rather disingenuous to try and retcon this universal hatred of Thatcher that never existed.

Almost thought I had imagined it. I have no real opinion of her as I was barely alive during her tenure and then I was in Canada besides. I was merely pointing out that people celebrating Ford's death would remind me of people celebrating her death.

The glee that some (certainly not all) in the UK showed in celebrating her death was vile, disgusting, and embarrassing. There were those that didn't think much of her at the time, but I don't recall the hatred that seems to have come in time, as people forget just how pathetic the Labour party was under Callaghan, Foot, and Kinnock.

I don't see that there should be any glee if Ford dies. And I think everyone knows how much I hate him. You don't celebrate the death of a bad leader - such horrid behaviour says more about those who celebrate than anything else.

PS: Don't use Thatcher and Churchill in the same sentence, ffs, nfitz!

Why not? Both great leaders - but for different reasons. Churchill was great because of his war leadership - he was a bit of a disappointment in his second time in the 1950s - though he was 76 when he came to power in 1951, and 80 when he left - quite frankly, I think he was past it. I certainly don't think Churchill would be considered a great PM if he'd only been PM during peacetime. Outside of the war, Thatcher was a better PM than Churchill. Though at the same time, I think we've always underated Attlee.

PPS: nfitz, you remind me of my parents who escaped communist Europe in the 80s and who think Thatcher, Mulroney, and Reagan were "the best".

I was supportive of Thatcher when she was PM. I was not supportive of Reagan when he was President, though. After Trudeau resigned, I was quite happy with Mulroney coming to power after over 20 years of continuous Liberal rule (save for the short-lived Clark government, that never had the chance to pass any legislation, for I think that really there needs to be a balance between left and right) - though that had worn thin by the time I voted for Turner in 1988. Though as corrupt as Mulroney turned out to be, I still have to give him credit for both the GST and Free Trade, both of which were necessary evils, and an improvement over the current situation. Similar to the hate-Thatcher folk in UK, everyone hates the GST, but fails to remember all the structural economic problems with the MST.

 

[JGHali]

In the 1970s the Unions were holding the UK hostage. Thatcher broke them.

Nonsense. Obviously the enrichment of the investment bankers of the City was the right trade off for 35 years of lost industrial capacity.

Tell me when Canada had an 80% marginal tax rate on employment income? And pur marginal rates on investment income were always lower than employment income, not higher! I don't believe for a second that we ever had tax rates in the 80%, let alone 90% range! The highest rates I remember were under Mulroney. Though I can dig into my filing cabinet, which should take me back at least to Trudeau. I don't think we ever even got as high as 60% in Ontario.

Here's one reference:

In 1972, the top personal tax rate was close to 70%, when taxable income reached $60,000. Today, the combined top personal tax rate is between 39% and 48% (depending on the province) when taxable income reaches about $128,000. While the top personal tax rate has decreased noticeably, the expansion of the tax brackets has been far below inflation.

And from this report:

In 1948, the top marginal tax rate was 80%, on taxable incomes over $250,000, which would be $2.37 million in today’s dollars. Not many Canadians fall into that category — nor did they back then — but those who have that kind of income get taxed at half the rate they would have in the past. The top tax rate in 2009, averaged across Canada, was 42.9% for incomes above $126,264. The last time the richest Canadians were taxed at this level was in the 1920s.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I mostly said that because for my friends and I Churchill is a bit of a mythological cigar chomping, liquour swilling anti-Nazi. I wear a button of his bust imposed on a Union Jack on my skiing toque to give me special skiing powers.

I do agree about the dancing on people's graves though....bad form, that.

 

[Videodrome]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/b...arital-affair/article22422144/?service=mobile

Saanich Rob Ford? Just without the drug use.

 

[pattycakes]

I'm convinced that's exactly what happened. There is 0% chance that he broke his toe and was rope climbing a week later. There is 0% chance that it was an amazing coincidence that the cancer was detected mere hours before the deadline.

IIRC, Rawbbie was admitted to hospital (can't recall which one) for 3 or 4 days immediately prior to beginning treatment at Greenstone. The story then was that he was to begin a very serious detox/rehab treatment and that it was necessary to check his overall health extremely thoroughly before putting him through that. They wanted to be 100% sure that they knew about any other existing conditions. I remember thinking at the time that it made sense but, damn, a four day hospital stay just to check that out? Either that's the world's most thorough intake assessment or there's a lot more going on here.

I believe there's 0% chance that a hospital would miss a ginormous cancerous mass during such a thorough assessment.

He knew. He played it to milk the politics out of it. They all did and now he's screwed because he is a narcissistic idiot.

ETA: Oh yeah, then had the nerve to call a press conference so that he could beg us to please respect his privacy at this difficult time.

I think you're absolutely right and Rob assumed it was the same kind of mass he had removed a few years ago. While it would take a few days to detox him in hospital prior to rehab, there is no way the Mayor of Toronto wasn't tested from one end to the other before they shipped him off to spa-hab. That mass was there before he went away and he knew about it.

 

[nfitz]

Obviously the enrichment of the investment bankers of the City was the right trade off for 35 years of lost industrial capacity.

Tell me then - how would electing Callaghan have saved the industrial capacity that the UK has shed since 1979?

Tell me when Canada had an 80% marginal tax rate on employment income?

Here's one reference:

In 1972, the top personal tax rate was close to 70%, when taxable income reached $60,000. Today, the combined top personal tax rate is between 39% and 48% (depending on the province) when taxable income reaches about $128,000. While the top personal tax rate has decreased noticeably, the expansion of the tax brackets has been far below inflation.

An interesting quote - but it doesn't seem quite accurate. According to http://www.fcf-ctf.ca/ctfweb/Documents/PDF/1995ctj/1995CTJ5_02_Smith.pdf it was 59.93% not 80% on $60,000 (worth about $350,000 in 2015$) in 1972. I am surprised to see that in 1972 it was 60% on $60,000 ... but up to 80% on $400,000 (about $2.3 million in 2015$). So there were some pretty high taxes back in 1971 on the super rich - but not as high as the UK for employment income. On the other hands, on capital gains, the peak 1972 tax rate was only 30%; in 1971 it was 0%! And even in 1971, dividends were only taxed at 80% at the highest rate - not the 98% that existed in the UK.

So the answer is, 1971. I guess Thatcher was copying Trudeau!

Thanks for the references. I vaguely remember the 1972 tax reforms being significant in the 1970s. But I hadn't realized that Trudeau had been so aggressive at reducing tax rates (though to be fair, the changes were 10 years in the making, starting with the Carter Commission).