[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to him having to pay out of pocket but its unfair to say chefs and maids and gardeners are ok, but not nannies.

And amazingly, you miss the entire point of him arguing he is rich enough that he doesn't need,

and yet grabs it anyway at the first opportunity.


Two faced, like most Lieberals.

[BRAH]

Thanos Thanos:

Actually all signs so far indicate that the taxpayer abuse is just getting started.

Like a Drunk Russian.

[Lemmy]

It seems strange to me that the Conservative here are ripping Trudeau for having a nanny/chef/maid (even though every other PM has had them) but on the 24 Sussex thread a couple of weeks ago, most of the sentiment from the CPC crowd supported refurbishing the official PM's residence at much, much, much greater expense than hiring a couple of minimum-wage peons. Odd.

[2Cdo]

He's being a hypocrite regardless of what his supporters say. That being said, I honestly don't think it's that bad unlike the billions wasted on foreign investment right now.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So? Harper employed domestic staff as well - what's the difference?

Compare apples to apples, Beav.

Harper had nannies for his children?

Harpers kids are teenagers so it's not apples to apples.

When Harper took office, his daughter was 5, his son 8.

[Newsbot]

Title: Trudeau children's nannies being paid for by taxpayers
Category: Political
Posted By: uwish
Date: 2015-12-01 09:43:33
Canadian

[andyt]

Just how many times does this story need to be posted?

[BeaverFever]

I note Trudeau has 3 kids, one of which is a baby. Does the PM need a nanny for that? Don't know.

Was Harper paying for a nanny out of his own pocket? Don't know but doubt it. Or maybe he didn't have one at all because Laureen was a proper domesticated conservative wife who devotes all of her time to child-rearing and baking cookies? Possibly.

[BRAH]

If the nannies are young and hot, good luck.

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to him having to pay out of pocket but its unfair to say chefs and maids and gardeners are ok, but not nannies.

And amazingly, you miss the entire point of him arguing he is rich enough that he doesn't need,

and yet grabs it anyway at the first opportunity.


Two faced, like most Lieberals.

It's unfortunate for sure. I'm rich enough to pay for parking at my work. But my work reimburses the expense for all employees, so why shouldn't I submit my parking expenses? And if I do, should that mean that I can't oppose taxpayer-funded parking subsidies for all citizens who can afford it?

[uwish]

paid corporate parking is considered a taxable benefit by CRA.

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I note Trudeau has 3 kids, one of which is a baby. Does the PM need a nanny for that? Don't know.

If he was taking the perk, I am sure everyone - especially you - would know about it.

$1:

because Laureen was a proper domesticated conservative wife who devotes all of her time to child-rearing and baking cookies? Possibly.

Such a criminal way to waste her time, right ?

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It's unfortunate for sure. I'm rich enough to pay for parking at my work. But my work reimburses the expense for all employees, so why shouldn't I submit my parking expenses? And if I do, should that mean that I can't oppose taxpayer-funded parking subsidies for all citizens who can afford it?

OK, try this way.
It's not ok when you shout up and down to everyone in the office that you make enough
to afford paying it (i.e. the election) and also telling everyone that Dick and Jane make enough as well, and THEN turn around and take the payment afterwards.

Are you starting to see it ?

[BeaverFever]

uwish uwish:

paid corporate parking is considered a taxable benefit by CRA.

Yeah so? I wonder if the nannies are taxable benefits

[Freakinoldguy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Thanos Thanos:

Actually all signs so far indicate that the taxpayer abuse is just getting started, like with $700 million slated for one shipyard that in five years might be capable of producing one ship. This thing with the nannies though isn't worth the time it takes to talk about it.

Just getting started? It started July 1, 1867 and has continued right to this day, with absolutely no variation based on the party in power.

For once I'll agree with you but, the odd part is that with every Gov't there seems to be a shelf life which, when passed causes them to become corrupt, spendthrifts who think nothing of taking even more from the public trough.

So, given the Liberals first 2 months in power and their unbridled spending habits I'd say that their life expectancy will be considerably shorter than first anticipated.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

It's not ok when you shout up and down to everyone in the office that you make enough
to afford paying it (i.e. the election) and also telling everyone that Dick and Jane make enough as well, and THEN turn around and take the payment afterwards.

I understand it, and that's why I say it's politically unfortunate for him BUT they are 2 different things. One is a public "welfare" subsidy, the other is the employment benefit that comes with being the Prime Minister of Canada.

For example, Stephen Harper and every other PM had a private chef and other house staff such as maids paid for by the taxpayer. Do you think that means Harper supported a tax subsidy for private chefs and maids for all Canadians and just forgot to follow through? Should they have turned all of those staff away and scrubbed their own toilets since if other rich people can't get them than neither should they?