Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Tweet thread outlines Andrew Scheer's innumeracy.
Link to the twitter thread here:
Link to tweet
But I'll cut and paste the short thread below:
Robert P. J. Day
?@rpjday
1/ Let us now consider the spectacular stupidity of one Andrew Scheer and his intellectual idols at the Fraser Institute as they both try to work out Grade Four arithmetic and fail stupendously. I refer, of course, to this idiocy.
2/ Begin by imagining a hypothetical Canadian making, say, $100,000 per year, and being taxed at, say, 10%. The numbers are arbitrary, any other values would do just as well. In any event, onward.
3/ In our hypothetical case, our hypothetical Canadian would, of course, be taking home 90% of his income, or a grand total of $90,000. As Don Henley once asked, are you with me so far? Make sure you're with me because more arithmetic is on its way.
4/ Imagine now that our Canadian gets a 10% raise, while simultaneously has an increase in her tax bill of the very same 10%. According to the towering intellect that is Andrew Scheer, the increase in the tax rate would fully and completely cancel all that extra income:
5/ As I'm sure you've figured out by now, it doesn't work that way. Given a 10% raise, our subject would have a gross income of $110,000, while a 10% increase in the tax rate would drive the tax rate up to ... 11%. Again, if you increase 10% tax by 10%, you get 11% tax.
6/ So, to recap, before these exciting developments, our subject got to keep 90% of $100,000, producing a take-home pay of $90,000. This is not difficult ... the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this.
7/ After the aforementioned increases in base salary and tax rate, our lucky citizen would now be taking home 89% of $110,000, or $97,900, a noticeable increase from the previous $90,000, and not a tragic cancellation of the entire raise as Andy Doody would have you believe.
8/ And that, kids, is why Justin Trudeau made a perfectly competent math, French and drama teacher, while Andrew Scheer should never, ever, ever be allowed to teach a class of any kind to six-year-olds.
The end.
9/ BONUS TRACK: Reader @claudegohier points out that the Fraser Institute's own report contradicts Scheer's embarrassing innumeracy, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/tax-freedom-day-2018.pdf …, showing that a 3.3% increase in income *more* than makes up for the 3.1% increase in taxes. So what's going on here?
10/ What's going on here is that, stunningly, Andrew Scheer couldn't even be bothered to read the actual Fraser Institute report, opting instead to get his figures from an idiotic column by the Sun's Lorne Gunter, https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-the-canadian-economy-is-hurting-thanks-to-poor-government-decisions
11/ This is truly the Trumpification of the Conservative Party of Canada -- when its leader is too lazy to read original sources, but instead plans on crafting policy based on the spectacularly innumerate droolings of Postmedia propagandists.
P.S. I should point out Andrew's utter dishonesty in writing, "According to @FraserInstitute..." when it's painfully obvious he never consulted their actual report; rather, he uncritically plagiarized Lorne Gunter's idiocy. That is not a promising quality in a PM.
?@rpjday
1/ Let us now consider the spectacular stupidity of one Andrew Scheer and his intellectual idols at the Fraser Institute as they both try to work out Grade Four arithmetic and fail stupendously. I refer, of course, to this idiocy.
2/ Begin by imagining a hypothetical Canadian making, say, $100,000 per year, and being taxed at, say, 10%. The numbers are arbitrary, any other values would do just as well. In any event, onward.
3/ In our hypothetical case, our hypothetical Canadian would, of course, be taking home 90% of his income, or a grand total of $90,000. As Don Henley once asked, are you with me so far? Make sure you're with me because more arithmetic is on its way.
4/ Imagine now that our Canadian gets a 10% raise, while simultaneously has an increase in her tax bill of the very same 10%. According to the towering intellect that is Andrew Scheer, the increase in the tax rate would fully and completely cancel all that extra income:
5/ As I'm sure you've figured out by now, it doesn't work that way. Given a 10% raise, our subject would have a gross income of $110,000, while a 10% increase in the tax rate would drive the tax rate up to ... 11%. Again, if you increase 10% tax by 10%, you get 11% tax.
6/ So, to recap, before these exciting developments, our subject got to keep 90% of $100,000, producing a take-home pay of $90,000. This is not difficult ... the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this.
7/ After the aforementioned increases in base salary and tax rate, our lucky citizen would now be taking home 89% of $110,000, or $97,900, a noticeable increase from the previous $90,000, and not a tragic cancellation of the entire raise as Andy Doody would have you believe.
8/ And that, kids, is why Justin Trudeau made a perfectly competent math, French and drama teacher, while Andrew Scheer should never, ever, ever be allowed to teach a class of any kind to six-year-olds.
The end.
9/ BONUS TRACK: Reader @claudegohier points out that the Fraser Institute's own report contradicts Scheer's embarrassing innumeracy, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/tax-freedom-day-2018.pdf …, showing that a 3.3% increase in income *more* than makes up for the 3.1% increase in taxes. So what's going on here?
10/ What's going on here is that, stunningly, Andrew Scheer couldn't even be bothered to read the actual Fraser Institute report, opting instead to get his figures from an idiotic column by the Sun's Lorne Gunter, https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-the-canadian-economy-is-hurting-thanks-to-poor-government-decisions
11/ This is truly the Trumpification of the Conservative Party of Canada -- when its leader is too lazy to read original sources, but instead plans on crafting policy based on the spectacularly innumerate droolings of Postmedia propagandists.
P.S. I should point out Andrew's utter dishonesty in writing, "According to @FraserInstitute..." when it's painfully obvious he never consulted their actual report; rather, he uncritically plagiarized Lorne Gunter's idiocy. That is not a promising quality in a PM.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
as stunningly ignorant as The Cult of Trump? The Cult of Trump would accept these figures as gospel if they came from The Gaping Maw of Trump. Are Canadian Conservatives as stupid as Trumptards? 
It's difficult to believe abject stupidity could be exported to our friends to the north, but you never know.
