Considering the current Federal Finance Minister is the same idiot that left Ontario in a deficit during good times, after they had already balanced the books, he has no right to talk. Hey how about the fact that he is driving Canada to a deficit now. He takes a 13 billion surplus left to his government by the previous one and next year we shall only have 3 billion. What will this moron do next, get us into a debt like he did in Ontario. Harper better fire the bastard now before he gets us into another deficit situation.danmand said:
What no posts about Mr. Harper?
- Thread starter S.C. Joe
- Start date
Have to say, though, I can't wait for this "tax free savings account" thing to hit. Won't save me much in the first few years but it adds up by $5k/year and by the time I retire that plus the compounding is going to be a good chunk of tax free cash.
Of course I'm in the upper income bracket he likes to give tax breaks to.
My conscience feels a little bad about it, and were it up to me, I'd give tax breaks to the needier, or maybe even services--but if he wants to hand me free money I surely will take it.
Of course I'm in the upper income bracket he likes to give tax breaks to.
My conscience feels a little bad about it, and were it up to me, I'd give tax breaks to the needier, or maybe even services--but if he wants to hand me free money I surely will take it.
Nope. The Finance minister's statement was a relative one, comparing Ontairo to other jurisdictions in Canada. You have to look at whether the net business environment in Ontario is better or worse than the net environment elsewhere.train said:
It's possible, for example, that taxes in Ontario withdraw more than they take, net, but less so than everywhere else in Canada, or even less so than one other place in Canada.
At that point the Finance minister is a liar.
I suggest you check the income tax rate and investment incentives for businesses in Quebec before you call anyone a liar.fuji said:
I repeat Ontario falls well short. I had sympathy for the Province when Martin cut transfer payments so dramatrically but everyone else has found ways to live with it in the 10 plus years since then.
It stinks of partisan politics when McSquint wasn't whining at the beginning of his first term when the federal Libs were in power.
Flaherty may or may not have a point with respect to ON's business taxes. But he is not winning any friends here by publically interfering in our affairs. The unsophisticated voters in ON already think corporations don't pay their fair share so Flaherty's remarks will be seen as proof that "conservatives always favour big business at the expense of the little guy". The more informed voters might be sympathetic to a corporate tax cut but they'll still see Flaherty's remarks as counterproductive and unprofessional.
The 2008 budget is fairly conservative but many people will remember how Flaherty emptied the kitty and threw it all at Quebec last time round. Now he's Mr. Sanctimonious while he points fingers at McGuinty. Flaherty is supposed to be our finance minister but he's behaving like a shit-for-brains amateur. No wonder Harper gags his MPs.
The 2008 budget is fairly conservative but many people will remember how Flaherty emptied the kitty and threw it all at Quebec last time round. Now he's Mr. Sanctimonious while he points fingers at McGuinty. Flaherty is supposed to be our finance minister but he's behaving like a shit-for-brains amateur. No wonder Harper gags his MPs.
I think if you look at this chronologically Ontario threw the first snowball.slowpoke said:
I agree that Flaherty should just ignore McSquint and his hencewoman no matter how inflammatory they are. The Conservatives gave Quebec $16.4 billion in transfer payments in 06/07 compared to $ 19 billion for Ontario.
As far as informed voters are concerned I think both sides are acting like children
Not sure why you are giving the Provincial amateurs a pass other than your bias.I'm looking at this squabble from the standpoint of ON voters - which, by the way, is what Flaherty should be doing. We expect our premier to demand that Ottawa treats us fairly and helps out our mfrs if they're getting beaten up. McGuinty would be remiss if he didn't ask for help. Ontario pays a lot of federal taxes and we probably don't get our fair share back from Ottawa. ON's unemployed don't even get the same EI benefits as other provinces. Many observers feel there should have been more in the last budget for Ontario mfrs. But Flaherty's recent remark about ON being the last place anyone would invest in or start a business went beyond responsible debate about taxes and it will cost the CPOC. My bias has nothing to do with this analysis and a recent poll supports my view:train said:I think if you look at this chronologically Ontario threw the first snowball.
I agree that Flaherty should just ignore McSquint and his hencewoman no matter how inflammatory they are. The Conservatives gave Quebec $16.4 billion in transfer payments in 06/07 compared to $ 19 billion for Ontario.
As far as informed voters are concerned I think both sides are acting like children
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/02/29/ont-mcguintypoll.html
Poll suggests Canadians back McGuinty over Flaherty
Last Updated: Friday, February 29, 2008 | 3:36 PM ET
The Canadian Press
A new poll suggests Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has a lot of public support in his continuing feud with federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey looked at the war of words between the two politicians, in which McGuinty accuses Flaherty of concentrating too much on the oil-and-gas sector, and giving short shrift to troubled manufacturers.
Nationally, the poll suggests 47 per cent of respondents sided with McGuinty, with only 27 per cent backing Flaherty.
In Ontario, the poll found 56 per cent support for the premier and 25 per cent for the minister.
The survey suggested 39 per cent of Albertans backed Flaherty, with only 27 per cent favouring McGuinty.
Bruce Anderson, president of Harris-Decima, said the results could bode ill for the Tories.
'Clear political risk' for Tories
"This dispute carries clear political risk for the federal Conservatives and potential upside for the federal Liberal party and Ontario's provincial Liberals," he said.
"The challenge for Ottawa in continuing this dispute has three elements. First, most people think the economy has underlying strength, want to believe in that and, on many days, hear the federal government saying the same thing.
"Second, some might interpret minister Flaherty's argument as a signal that the federal Conservatives are shrugging off responsibility to help the economy of Ontario, or are anxious to shift blame.
"Finally, the comments are often reported as having a partisan edge, which voters increasingly find an 'unnecessary evil' in modern politics."
Anderson said the last could be a real problem for the Tories because he has found that for potential swing voters, the biggest concern about the Conservatives is their perceived level of partisanship.
The McGuinty-Flaherty poll was conducted Feb. 21-24 as part of a national omnibus survey. It questioned just over 1,000 people and is considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.
You also need to look at infrastructure, employee benefits, and the like. Unless you can persuade me that when ALL things are considered it's better to start a business in Moncton, St. Johns., and Yellowknife than Toronto, then he's a liar.train said:
I'm personally in favour of Ontario separating from Canada and going it alone. I'm not sure what we get out of confederation other than a bill.
Were we able to roll back into our own infrastructure the cheques we've written for the rest of Canada over the past 25 years we'd not be in such a hard situation now.
Actually, this is a good deal for low income earners. It often does not make sense for them to contribute to RRSPs. RRSPs count against their Guaranteed Income Supplement. Unless, you have a fairly big (at least big for a low income person), RRSP you are offen better off not having one, as a poor person. It just eliminates your Guaranteed Income Supplement.fuji said:
Anything in this savings plan will not count against you for your Guaranteed Income Supplement. Thus, poor people now have an incentive to put money away for retirement even if it is not enough to make an RRSP worthwell. Also, the tax advantage they would get by deferring taxes with an RRSP is less as they are in lower income brackets anyway (this plan does not defer any taxes, only eliminates taxes (unlike an RRSP) on interest and capital gains earn on investments in the accounts)
In addition, unlike the GST reduction, this encourages savings, which lead to capital accumulation, which lead to economic growth. Something good for everyone. It is one of the better moves this government has made
Look I'm not particularly interested in what a bunch of mopes on the street think. They are obviously going to side with whatever group gives them the most handouts.slowpoke said:
I agree McSquint should complain if he felt that Ontario wasn't being treated fairly. So how does one determine that ? I guess you take BC, Alberta , Ontario and Quebec ( the other provinces will always need to be supported so let's just get over that from the start shall we) and compare them. Which province gets the most Federal transfer payments per capita ? Which Province puts the most in the Federal pot ?
Do that comparison first ( use real numbers) and if it shows Ontario is getting screwed then I will agree with you even though this is just really scratching the surface. After I've agreed with you I will ask you why McSquint didn't come up with the same cogent arguments instead of just shooting his mouth off ( not to say that Flaherty in good John Crosby-like style hasn't gone overboard as well in his rebuttals)
Other things to consider:
1.What is the Libs last estimate of a Provincial surplus ($3B was it?) vs the last estimate of a Federal surplus ( $12B ?)? Are the Libs witholding information that they no longer expect a surplus ? Why don't they spend some of their surplus if they think it is so desperately needed. At the very least they should be proposing joint Fed Prov programs.
2.What are effective incentives to attract long term business investment - remembering packages given to people such as Hyundai, the goofy Newfie greenhouse project, various business bailouts and lastly tax rates.
What did the US South East use when they "stole" manufacturing jobs away fron the rust belt of Michigan and Ohio in the '90's.
3.If you were trying to get money out of someone would you use threats and insults to do it ?
I was only looking at the perceptions of those "mopes" as you so aptly described them. They each get a vote so it makes political sense to not antagonize or alienate them unless you REALLY HAVE TO. This is all about Flaherty engaging in a war of words because of McGuinty's complaints and getting it up the ass for being so politically naive. As expected, McGuinty looks like he's going to bat for Ontario. Flaherty looks like a mouthy little prick. I never said who started it and I don't care. Stupid is just stupid no matter what all the facts seem to say. When all the smoke has cleared, Harper will need to make reparations to avoid losing ground in ON. I think McGuinty handled this perfectly.train said:
[Edit] It just occurred to me that this could end up a lot like Harper's war of words with Danny Williams over natural resources being added to the equalization formula. Williams played that extremely well and it probably helped him win so handily in the next prov election. Now Flaherty is mouthing off at McGuinty in a similar way but he has much less of a reason to do so. He's losing points over nothing. He's getting fished. Next thing, he'll be taking out full page ads in the Globe. McGuinty can play this so much better than Flaherty. Flaherty looks like he still bears a grudge from his Mike Harris days. ON voters won't tolerate a federal finance minister who can't conduct himself without letting sour grapes poison his judgement.
The deal to aid Cadman would not have been discussed at the cabinet level. Nor would it have been discussed by high level civil servants. This discussion would have taken place amongst high level party operators. Look no further than a former very high profile Conservative member from BC.
