1) If someone is not paying their fair share that is a fact.
No, "fair share" is actually a judgement. It could be reasonable or it could not be reasonable, but what you say is like saying "18 is too young to drink; that's a fact".
2) You show me EXACTLY where Broadbent says people using loopholes legally are cheating. He doesn't.
Why are we talking about those "people" at all?
The issue is if speed kills and the speed people are going at is legal you should get to call it -- even if it might make people uncomfortable.
But we don't talk about the speed limit, we talk about the people who choose to drive it. We call 100kph a "loophole" that allows people to drive 100kph and then we point out that they don't need to drive 100kph, and could instead voluntarily drive 80kph.
"Tax avoidance and evasion by the rich ultimately undermines democracy: it starves social programs and public services, increases after tax income and wealth inequality, and further concentrates economic resources in the hands of a few. The overall message to a majority of Canadians is that the rules of the economic game are rigged against them."
"Tax avoidance" is analogous to "someone who drives the whole speed limit". Why is there such interest in someone who does what the law allows? Again, if the speed limit is the cause of all the highway accidents (or our current tax laws are the cause of underfunded social programs) why talk at all, ever, about "those people" rather than the Highway Traffic laws or CRA laws that make it perfectly legal to do so?
As soon as he mentions "tax avoidance by the rich" he's talking about people and their sins, not laws and their shortcomings.
The rich are not paying their fair share. I am sorry if this comes across as blame and somehow offends you.
I'm not offended. But tell me, is this your judgement? Or is this "just a fact"?