ABC - Anybody But Conservative

[JohnLarue]

Now if you really want to see a decrease in taxes look to the liberal green shift plan. The new carbon tax will go after the biggest ones that pollute and will see an increase in heating costs, but the decrease in income tax will more than offset the increase in heating costs.
QUOTE]

Careful in how you analysis this
I have not studied this in depth, however in business & more so in Politics there is a tendance to take more than you give when a new progrqm / product / tax is impliemented

The GST introduction was supose to be offest by the reduction in manufaturing taxes. Thorectically we would pay more on all items but less on big ticket items. That turned out to be the biggest tax grab in Canadian History. Oh and bye the way our manufacturing sector is not at all healthy

In addition the cost of administering the GST was horrendous (especially for small business)

This carbon tax could be a cash grab of epic proportions, an administrative boondoggle, a job killer and will cost all Canadians megabucks

 

[JohnLarue]

Anybody But Conservative - that's my voting strategy this time around. The funny thing is that before he called the election, I was beginning to get a bit more comfortable with the Conservatives and thought that any party that has stayed in a minority government as long as this cant be bad. But Harper's opportunism and back tracking has opened my eyes to the reality that they haven't changed at all. Not alone was he happy to about turn on his fixed date election legislation but he is happy to cost us $300 million for an election that nobody wants or needs. This money could have been better spent in reducing child poverty, boosting the economy, doing charitable works, building a new whatever ...... anything except an election that nobody wants or needs.

So make your vote ABC - Anybody But Conservative.

There is not a huge difference between spending $300 MM now or $320 MM a year from now. If the minority govt is not effective then call an election.

Be thankful you have an oppourtunity to vote your govt in or out.
There are so many in the world who do not have this right

 

[clubber]

Now if you really want to see a decrease in taxes look to the liberal green shift plan. The new carbon tax will go after the biggest ones that pollute and will see an increase in heating costs, but the decrease in income tax will more than offset the increase in heating costs.
QUOTE]

Careful in how you analysis this
I have not studied this in depth, however in business & more so in Politics there is a tendance to take more than you give when a new progrqm / product / tax is impliemented

The GST introduction was supose to be offest by the reduction in manufaturing taxes. Thorectically we would pay more on all items but less on big ticket items. That turned out to be the biggest tax grab in Canadian History. Oh and bye the way our manufacturing sector is not at all healthy

In addition the cost of administering the GST was horrendous (especially for small business)

This carbon tax could be a cash grab of epic proportions, an administrative boondoggle, a job killer and will cost all Canadians megabucks

Very true actually. The GST was not as said revenue neutral but it has been one of the main reasons we have this surplus now. I would actually prefer the GST and get rid of the income taxes.

The Liberals have managed to pull some big names in finances out who have looked at this plan and endorsed it. It is suppose to be watched over carefully by the Auditor General. From what I see it should work well in theory. In practice we shall have to see. Things tend to change when first promised to when and if ever put into practice when it comes to politics. The biggest problem I have is the cost and size of the administration it will take to make this thing run. Then there is always the legal costs. I am sure the oil companies will pay the costs for other companies to challenge this law in court. I like it better than a cap and trade system. I only wish there was a better method than starting a new tax. I would have liked to see instead of a 2% drop in GST getting rid of the GST on "green products" like hybrid cars, or more efficient lighting, air conditioners ect.

I guess I am a little selfish in this. I would like to see my income tax reduced. I currently pay more in income tax than most people make, and have for quite some time now. I did not mind so much when I could see the debt coming down. When I see some stuff that all our governments waste money on it blows my mind. I am really pissed off right now about the bi-elections like the one in Guelph that was called. The day before we go to vote it is called off because a full federal election is called. Really horrible planning that costs us a ton of money.

 

[clubber]

A surplus means the government has collected more money than it needs.

When it has a surplus, it should pay debt and reduce taxes.

The lower debt will save on interest, and those savings can be used on social programs, etc.

They are doing the right thing.

Do you really want your government to keep on taxing you more and more, year after year?

The past Liberal government was doing this as well, and the Conservatives told them that they were wrong for doing this. The Conservatives posted the first deficit earlier this year, that we had in many years. It looks to me as if we will have a much reduced surplus most of because of the extra taxes on the higher price of gas.

The Conservatives reversed a Liberal income tax break than brought it back later saying it was their own. They have lowered the GST by 2% which was more a political move than a smart economic move. It did little if anything for the average person or our economy. I would have rather seen it go to paying more off the debt, or better income tax breaks, or improving many things. The 1% + 1% really was a waste of money that could have been used more effectively. Now economists say we are into a small economic downturn. Having a 13 billion dollar surplus could have been used to help us through this.

 

[clubber]

Harper would have supported the U.S. (a vote was all that was required), our major ally, but that doesn't mean he would've sent troops to Iraq unless other nations joined in.

Our 2 biggest allies. The UK was in it as well. Both were wrong for invading Iraq. It may have cost us the war in Afghanistan. We did not have the fire power to hit the Taliban and Al-Qaida hard enough. They have been able to dig in and get fresh fighters and supplies from other parts of the world. Even with all the might of the US and UK it would be hard, but I think with the right leadership it could have been won. A government of the Afghan people could have been established. Schools hospitals cities could have been built and given security until the country got on it's feet and could look after itself.

 

[clubber]

The GST isn't perfect but a consumption tax is better than an income tax.

The GST really benefits our exports because that old 12% federal tax that it replaced ceased to be a cost since the GST is a flow thru tax for businesses, and because exports are exempt from GST.

The manufacturing sector is not down because of the GST. The GST only makes it more competitive but the issues are lower wages in developing countries and a high Cdn $.

Agreed completely. Getting to keep the money you work for or get from investments how sweet that would be. I think this is possible but the first thing we have to do to bring this about is get rid of or debt. Under the Liberals this was happening it was almost like a snowball effect. For the first bit the Conservatives were doing this. Now they seem to have spent most of this on the GST break. It is too bad that the election is being called before we get to see the financial picture for the year.

 

[clubber]

Even though my namesake is Democrat, I'm a conservative or I would be a Republican if I was American.

That being said, I AGREE with you that invading Iraq was a WRONG move.

At first I thought it was a good move but it was not an imminent threat.

If we focused on Afghanistan, we might have caught OBL too.

P.S. What may have complicated the Iraq question was the fact that the Iraqis ACTED like they had WMDs. Even Saddam's foreign minister or whatever he was (Aziq or whoever) admitted to having 8,000 pounds of anthrax. But I read somewhere that Saddam admitted to his FBI confidant while he was captured, that they had to say these things to keep their enemy Iran away.

P.P.S. JFK would NOT have invaded Iraq.

The cool thing with the US system is they get to vote for Congressman Senator, President separately. Not all stick to party lines all the time. One of Canada's problems seems that our MP's and MPPs seem to represent their Party to us instead of representing us to the government. In my riding of Guelph Harper did not like the guy who the Conservatives in Guelph chose to represent them, so he stepped in and ousted him and put in the woman who lost by a around a 2 to 1 vote.

I really think the US government and the British government knew there was no weapons of mass destruction. Some say they went in because of the oil. I think the reasons are much deeper, and many.

I have also heard that the CIA helped Iraq develop the front of having WMD along with being much stronger than they are. I heard George Bush Sr was involved in helping this idea get put forward. Saddam was once a friend to the USA. A secular government instead of a religious one. Also heard that Bin Laden during the years of USSR's invasion of Iraq was a friend of the USA and al-qaida was helped come into being by the USA as a terrorist organization to go after the "godless commies".

 

[Aardvark154]

Aren't safe seats wonderful - particularly when one is of the "safe" viewpoint.

 

[solitaria]

Why don't you explain it to me.

Sure. Taxes aren't a bad thing unless you are very rich since most taxes are progressive. Your net benefit (which is all that should matter) is more along the lines of salary minus taxes plus government spending. When you vote for tax cuts what you are actually doing (unless you are very rich) is voting to decrease your net benefits. The real issue for people shouldn't be lowering the tax rate (since we still have debt to pay down and will probably run a deficit this year) but rather forcing governments to spend our tax money in ways that benefit the average voter more rather than subsidizing big oil companies and automakers.

 

[basketcase]

Harper's scratch and win add was pretty good. Kudo's to the add agency he hired. Won't change my vote though.

 

[Don]

Sure. Taxes aren't a bad thing unless you are very rich since most taxes are progressive.

True... but usually the very rich is smart enough (or has smart enough accountants) to exploit all sorts of loop holes and global tax laws to "protect" their earnings. That's why you see a lot of rich folks who don't mind leaning left than you 'd expect (hollywood and limo liberals) because they got their finances covered.

Your net benefit (which is all that should matter) is more along the lines of salary minus taxes plus government spending. When you vote for tax cuts what you are actually doing (unless you are very rich) is voting to decrease your net benefits. The real issue for people shouldn't be lowering the tax rate (since we still have debt to pay down and will probably run a deficit this year) but rather forcing governments to spend our tax money in ways that benefit the average voter more rather than subsidizing big oil companies and automakers.

Also true in an ideal world. But so far I've noticed that having more money in my pocket from less taxes add more to my net benefit than when comparing the differences between the policies of the parties.

 

[train]

Sure. Taxes aren't a bad thing unless you are very rich since most taxes are progressive. Your net benefit (which is all that should matter) is more along the lines of salary minus taxes plus government spending. When you vote for tax cuts what you are actually doing (unless you are very rich) is voting to decrease your net benefits.

Aha ! We have uncovered Dion's economic adisor

Here is a perfect example of someone who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[solitaria]

True... but usually the very rich is smart enough (or has smart enough accountants) to exploit all sorts of loop holes and global tax laws to "protect" their earnings. That's why you see a lot of rich folks who don't mind leaning left than you 'd expect (hollywood and limo liberals) because they got their finances covered.

Lowering taxes will only help the rich. There will always be loop holes and global tax laws that allows for tax avoidance but that doesn't mean whether or not you lower the effective tax rate of the rich won't have an affect on tax revenue. The last thing a country should want to do is lower total tax revenue by giving rich people tax breaks. Redistribution of wealth is always a good thing especially in terms of increasing a country's GDP and social well-being.

Also true in an ideal world. But so far I've noticed that having more money in my pocket from less taxes add more to my net benefit than when comparing the differences between the policies of the parties.

I am not sure of your economic standing but usually the reason for this is because we as a society don't hold government accountable for their spending. If we as a society held government responsible for our tax dollars by not voting for tax cuts for the rich and asking more non-partisan questions about how to best spend tax revenue, the redistribution of wealth would lead to increased consumer buying power and increased GDP which is how an enlightened democracy should be governed.

 

[solitaria]

Aha ! We have uncovered Dion's economic adisor

Here is a perfect example of someone who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Obviously your ideas are ignorant and backwards not to mention non-progressive.

I have no doubt you don't understand sound economic theory and you can't see past your own self. I bet you think that makes you seem smart, tough and practical.

 

[train]

Obviously your ideas are ignorant and backwards not to mention non-progressive.

I have no doubt you don't understand sound economic theory and you can't see past your own self. I bet you think that makes you seem smart, tough and practical.

Listen I'm sorry if I'm fed up with people like you who think they are entitled not to have to pay their fair share and are all in favour of high taxes as long as it's not them that are paying. I have no problem as someone of some moderate wealth paying more than my share for the elderly, the physically or mentally handicapped or for people temporarily down on their luck. But I'll be damned if I have to put up with able bodied idiots who demand that taxes remain high regardless so they can enjoy seeing me pay for subsidized marginal arts programs and the long list of other similarly useless government projects while they sit on the sidelines and clap.

Just consider - if everyone was like you and had your attitude how would your theories actually work?

I'll admit that I was unfair in charaterizing you as Dion's economic advisor when in fact it should have been Layton's. My apologies to Mr Dion.

If you think it is sound economic policy to continually tax and spend without restraint, and continue with this "always take" not "give" mentality then I repeat - you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[Don]

I am not sure of your economic standing but usually the reason for this is because we as a society don't hold government accountable for their spending. If we as a society held government responsible for our tax dollars by not voting for tax cuts for the rich and asking more non-partisan questions about how to best spend tax revenue, the redistribution of wealth would lead to increased consumer buying power and increased GDP which is how an enlightened democracy should be governed.

How do we hold the government accountable when our choices are crap? Ok so we held the Liberals accountable a few years ago by giving them the boot and having the Conservatives come in. Now we have another election. Am I totally happy with the way the Conservatives are spending our tax dollars? Not really. But what's my alternative? Do I "punish" the Conservatives by voting Liberal? I don't know if the Liberals yet deserve my vote again... and to be honest I don't like many of their plans they want to fund. So do I go NDP? HA! They are even worse! Green?

At this stage I am torn between holding my nose and voting Liberal (for fears that Dion will get the boot if the Liberals get trounced and we get Rae or Ignatieff as the new leader ) or for the first time voting Conservative since they may be the best of a sorry lot. I have no issues with taxes if the money generated from it was spent in the way I felt agrees with me. In this case when I have issues with the spending plans of all the parties, might as well pick the one that will support tax cuts.

 

[onthebottom]

Lowering taxes will only help the rich. There will always be loop holes and global tax laws that allows for tax avoidance but that doesn't mean whether or not you lower the effective tax rate of the rich won't have an affect on tax revenue. The last thing a country should want to do is lower total tax revenue by giving rich people tax breaks. Redistribution of wealth is always a good thing especially in terms of increasing a country's GDP and social well-being.

Actually, lowering taxes helps those who are productive.... ie those who work. Wealth redistribution motivates all the wrong behavior.


OTB

 

[solitaria]

Listen I'm sorry if I'm fed up with people like you who think they are entitled not to have to pay their fair share and are all in favour of high taxes as long as it's not them that are paying.

Then you must be fed up with the ideas of democracy. Democracy is supposed to be about the working majority ruling not the wealthy elite. Democracy has never been about individualism or capitalism in its essense.

But I'll be damned if I have to put up with able bodied idiots who demand that taxes remain high regardless so they can enjoy seeing me pay for subsidized marginal arts programs and the long list of other similarly useless government projects while they sit on the sidelines and clap.Just consider - if everyone was like you and had your attitude how would your theories actually work?

Again this is a perfect example of how you can't get past your own self. You think the rules of society should benefit you the most and the rest be damned. My philosophy is superior on many levels as I realize that a society is ineffective if it is run by the interests of a ruling minority. I bet you are an office worker who has forgotten the greatest production in society is created by the working class majority or the non-paper workers. Of course taxes should redistribute wealth back to those who create it the most. In the long-term society can't work any other way nor should it. It is not in society's best interest to make the wealthy more wealthy as they aren't doing the heavy lifting in society. It is in society's best interests to give incentives back to those whom actually create the most production. I'm not advocating a social welfare system but you seemed to be confused on that point.

I'll admit that I was unfair in charaterizing you as Dion's economic advisor when in fact it should have been Layton's. My apologies to Mr Dion.

Is that your best attempt at being cute?

If you think it is sound economic policy to continually tax and spend without restraint, and continue with this "always take" not "give" mentality then I repeat - you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

For such a smart guy you can't seem to comprehend my arguments very well. Tell me where I said government should tax and spend without restraint? Your mind just becomes a haze when taxes are mentioned. Brainwashing at its worst.

 

[solitaria]

Actually, lowering taxes helps those who are productive.... ie those who work. Wealth redistribution motivates all the wrong behavior.


OTB

Not true at all. Lowering taxes only serves to polarize wealth and lower GDP (at least for North American societies). Obviously there is a balance between taxation and incentives. A society wants to maximize tax revenues and redistribute the wealth in such a way as to maximize GDP. Before you shout communist (which I am not) please consider that a society can't maximize tax revenue without keeping enough incentives in place to maximize GDP and social well-being.

Wealth redistribution doesn't motivate wrong behavior necessarily. It depends also on how you distribute it and what you consider wrong behaviour.

 

[The Crunge]

Actually, lowering taxes helps those who are productive.... ie those who work. Wealth redistribution motivates all the wrong behavior.


OTB

I agree. We have experienced wealth redistribution over the past 8 years at an alarming pace. The chasm between rich and poor hasn't been this wide since 1929. And there is an awful lot of wrong behaviour going on out there.

----------------------------------------------

Chasm widens between rich and poor in U.S.
By David Cay Johnston Published: December 16, 2007

The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office show.

The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.

The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the 3 million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.

The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President George W. Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.

Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005, the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.