Tories Promise Tax Cuts

[August1991]

There will be across-the-board tax cuts in the Conservatives' next budget as the government adds to the $20-billion in personal and corporate tax reductions introduced in May, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said yesterday.

"I assure you our government is by no means finished in our efforts to improve our tax system for the benefit of Canadian families and businesses," Mr. Flaherty told delegates at the annual tax symposium for the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ottawa.

"In the months to come, we intend to go even further to provide tax relief to deserving Canadian businesses and to the workers who make these businesses thrive."

...

"There is no wiggle room in his statement," added John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "After year after year of racking up massive surpluses, the time has come for tax relief."

National Post

He can promise tax cuts all he wants but what really matters (in fact the only thing that matters) is to cut government spending.

OTOH, we play politics in a real world with perceptions as they are. If people want tax cuts and balanced budgets and this makes the Conservatives popular, then so be it. But I say the real measure of the Tories' economic competence is how much they can reduce government spending (or at least slow its growth).

As to taxes, I'd like to the tax system simplified but that's wishing for too much.

[jdobbin]

As to taxes, I'd like to the tax system simplified but that's wishing for too much.

It is an election budget. The cuts come if they get a majority.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It is an election budget. The cuts come if they get a majority.

Haven't we already seen threads whinging about cuts to government programs from the minimal program cuts that have been implemented so far? My goodness the whining over the big cuts will be something to see.

[August1991]

Haven't we already seen threads whinging about cuts to government programs from the minimal program cuts that have been implemented so far? My goodness the whining over the big cuts will be something to see.

It's a problem of modern democracy.

Ten cents from each Canadian would amount to $3 million. If the $3 million is my budget paying my job, my office and my staff of 15, the cut makes a big difference to me - it's my life and career. If I'm media savvy and know how to kick up a fuss (along with my 15 staffers), I can get lead items on the CBC 8 am news about the awful Tory cuts.

For the average Canadian, what's ten cents taken from your pocket once a year?

Look at this the other way. The Liberal Party promises me $3 million in annual funding so I can set up an office and hire 15 employees. The average Canadian doesn't notice the ten cents but the Liberal Party now has 16 very vocal supporters at election time.

This simple and obvious fact bothers me because government spending has the potential to grow and grow. Modern democratic government is a juggernaut.

In the 2006 election, Harper promised to keep the growth of government spending below growth in the general economy. And for that, in some circles, he's considered an extreme neo-con. I fear that he'll have trouble keeping his promise.

It is an election budget. The cuts come if they get a majority.

Sad but true. God forbid that a political party should enter an election campaign facing an army of interest groups whose heads have just been yanked from the public trough.

In the press conference where Harper announces that he has saved the average Canadian taxpayer ten cents, there'll be two employees from my office waving signs - one stating that Harper is a fascist Bush wannabe and the other, more moderate, stating that Harper is against literacy.

If Harper had the courage to try to save the average Canadian not ten cents but ten dollars, you can multiply the protestors by a factor of 100.

[jdobbin]

Sad but true. God forbid that a political party should enter an election campaign facing an army of interest groups whose heads have just been yanked from the public trough.

Chretien certainly didn't campaign on heavy duty cuts when he was in the election. I can't think of a department that didn't get a cut in those Martin budgets once they were safely in and there was little threat from the split conservative vote.

Harper so far has only cut the programs that they didn't like. It was the easy cuts thus far.

It could be that Harper will only cut taxes without real spending cuts because he has also made promises on health and defence.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It could be that Harper will only cut taxes without real spending cuts because he has also made promises on health and defence.

Hey, do you have some examples of what would be 'acceptable' areas in which to cut spending from your point of view?

[cybercoma]

But I say the real measure of the Tories' economic competence is how much they can reduce government spending (or at least slow its growth).

It'd be nice to reduce government spending, however our liberal society wants a government that spoils us... except they don't want to pay for it. That's the wonderful double-edged sword of Canadian politics. People want everything handed to them without having to pay for it. It's a perfect lose-lose situation that creates voter apathy and our current "vote for the lesser of two evils" mentality.

[jdobbin]

It'd be nice to reduce government spending, however our liberal society wants a government that spoils us... except they don't want to pay for it. That's the wonderful double-edged sword of Canadian politics. People want everything handed to them without having to pay for it. It's a perfect lose-lose situation that creates voter apathy and our current "vote for the lesser of two evils" mentality.

There are spending cuts that could be made. The Atlantic Opportunties Agnecy and Western Diversification could safely end and save billions. To take the sting out of that, the federal government should ensure that naitonal gas tax goes to paying for the Trans-Canada Highway, key entry points to the U.S. and between major Canadian cities. Canada needs a program as successful as the Interstate Highway program in the States. It helped fuel a huge economic stimulus in the States.

[cybercoma]

It'd be nice to reduce government spending, however our liberal society wants a government that spoils us... except they don't want to pay for it. That's the wonderful double-edged sword of Canadian politics. People want everything handed to them without having to pay for it. It's a perfect lose-lose situation that creates voter apathy and our current "vote for the lesser of two evils" mentality.

There are spending cuts that could be made. The Atlantic Opportunties Agnecy and Western Diversification could safely end and save billions. To take the sting out of that, the federal government should ensure that naitonal gas tax goes to paying for the Trans-Canada Highway, key entry points to the U.S. and between major Canadian cities. Canada needs a program as successful as the Interstate Highway program in the States. It helped fuel a huge economic stimulus in the States.

What percentage of total spending do those two things make up?

I suppose I should research it myself, but really... is it just a drop in the bucket or are we talking significant and meaningful reduction in spending?

[jdobbin]

What percentage of total spending do those two things make up?

I suppose I should research it myself, but really... is it just a drop in the bucket or are we talking significant and meaningful reduction in spending?

The Atlantic Opportunities Agency has a budget of $380 million a year. Western Diversification is $500 million a year.

As the programs wind down, the money could be places into highways where job growth is guaranteed cross Canada and economic spin-offs are proven.

[August1991]

It'd be nice to reduce government spending, however our liberal society wants a government that spoils us... except they don't want to pay for it. That's the wonderful double-edged sword of Canadian politics.

That's false.

The vast majority of Canadians never see any benefits from alot of federal government spending. A few smart groups do see the benefits.

If you lose ten cents in a year, you don't notice. But if you get a budget of $3 million, you certainly do notice it.

Most Canadians only see alot of what the federal government does as a cost - they never receive any benefit. But this is nickel and dime stuff so who cares. Would you notice if you lost a dime? But you'll notice the noise of the interest group who lost funding.

The next Liberal Prime Minister Rae, Ignatieff, Dion knows this and Harper can't win if he fights on such terms.

[jdobbin]

The next Liberal Prime Minister Rae, Ignatieff, Dion knows this and Harper can't win if he fights on such terms.

You think they'll be prime minister in that order? <heh>

[blueblood]

here's some cuts, Department of Indian Affairs, the Senate, programs promoting the use of the french language in english canada. I can just see how much money we'd save with that. that's only the tip of the iceberg.

[August1991]

You think they'll be prime minister in that order? <heh>

No, I was thinking that it makes PM Rid. As in, good riddance.

here's some cuts, Department of Indian Affairs...

Indian and Northern Affairs has a budget of about $9 billion. A recent scandal in Kahnestake has a new native police officer corps hired, getting paid but performing no service on the reserve.

Look, I don't know how to solve this problem. I vote Tory because I figure if Stephen Harper can't find a solution, I don't know who can.

Somebody has to stop government getting bigger and bigger. Even Leftists should get this. Government is not spending money to help victims or poor people. Despite the billions governments collect and spend, children die needlessly. Cases in Manitoba show this.

IMV, a good start would be to cut government spending. It's like first cutting an addict off heroin and then dealing with the addict's bigger life issues.

Throwing more money at the problem won't solve it. The NDP and Liberals don't get this. The NDP is in anti-Bush, anti-neocon mode and the Liberals buy support. Neither are really interested in making government a better institution.

[Michael Hardner]

Somebody has to stop government getting bigger and bigger. Even Leftists should get this.

Some of us do. A really good manager could repurpose government to achieve amazing things and still cut taxes. The problem is that politicians aren't really good managers - they aren't managers at all. And when they need management done, they turn to the senior civil service.

[Remiel]

If the Conservatives are supposedely doing so well with a minority, why would we want to go and do something stupid like give them a majority?

I don't think the Conservatives are really all that interested in making government a better institution either. Smoke and mirrors, just like everyone else.

I can see why a lot of people get turned off by politics. Though I suspect that for most, it just an excuse for being too lazy to look at the parties and the candidates, there are likely a lot of people who want to vote but can't find a party to believe in. I am left/centre-left, and I have a hard time getting excited about the either the Liberals or the NDP. I have to go with them though, because they are the only parties right now that have the potential to be what I want in a party. If we ever get some form of proportional representation, I think we'll finally have an environment where we can possibly find a new centre party.

And uh... as for spending cuts, if I were in government, I would probably be looking out to improve the efficiency of all of the spending that was examined, as opposed to just say cut or don't cut.

[M.Dancer]

People shopuld not depend of the gov't to cut taxes...they should do it themselves.......

I always accept value added barter......and cash bonuses......

[Renegade]

People shopuld not depend of the gov't to cut taxes...they should do it themselves.......

I always accept value added barter......and cash bonuses......

Is that your way of saying that you evade taxes?

[Hicksey]

If the Conservatives are supposedely doing so well with a minority, why would we want to go and do something stupid like give them a majority?

I don't think the Conservatives are really all that interested in making government a better institution either. Smoke and mirrors, just like everyone else.

I can see why a lot of people get turned off by politics. Though I suspect that for most, it just an excuse for being too lazy to look at the parties and the candidates, there are likely a lot of people who want to vote but can't find a party to believe in. I am left/centre-left, and I have a hard time getting excited about the either the Liberals or the NDP. I have to go with them though, because they are the only parties right now that have the potential to be what I want in a party. If we ever get some form of proportional representation, I think we'll finally have an environment where we can possibly find a new centre party.

And uh... as for spending cuts, if I were in government, I would probably be looking out to improve the efficiency of all of the spending that was examined, as opposed to just say cut or don't cut.

People are turned off politics because they are sick of being lied to and their wallets being looted. In this country it doesn't seem to matter who is in office.

Most of the self-serving tripe that politicians serve us they have no intention of performing. Even Harper has conveniently forgotten about his promise to reduce wait times. The worst of them, Premier McGuinty, has proceeded to break almost every promise he made.

Why should people have any confidence in a bunch of spinners and liars?

At this point I am happy in any tenure if there are no new social programs, government spending slows down or I actually get something tangible for what I give every week. Usually we see one of those at best.

[M.Dancer]

People shopuld not depend of the gov't to cut taxes...they should do it themselves.......

I always accept value added barter......and cash bonuses......

Is that your way of saying that you evade taxes?

Do you declare the value of your dinner if a client takes you out?

[Renegade]

People shopuld not depend of the gov't to cut taxes...they should do it themselves.......

I always accept value added barter......and cash bonuses......

Is that your way of saying that you evade taxes?

Do you declare the value of your dinner if a client takes you out?

I do if the law requires me to. In this case it doesn't. The law requires you to declare cash bonuses, so I ask again, are you admitting you evade taxes?

[M.Dancer]

People shopuld not depend of the gov't to cut taxes...they should do it themselves.......

I always accept value added barter......and cash bonuses......

Is that your way of saying that you evade taxes?

Do you declare the value of your dinner if a client takes you out?

I do if the law requires me to. In this case it doesn't. The law requires you to declare cash bonuses, so I ask again, are you admitting you evade taxes?

Nice dodge, Plymouth........I avoid paying taxes...evade has a nasty ring to it........So if your client ....gives you a new LCD TV...do you declare it?

[Renegade]

Nice dodge, Plymouth........I avoid paying taxes...evade has a nasty ring to it........So if your client ....gives you a new LCD TV...do you declare it?

The distinction between avoiding taxes and evading taxes is that one is legal and one is not. What you are doing is evading taxes because it is clearly illegal. I'm sorry if it offends your conscience to hear the word "evade" but that is what you are doing.

BTW, I didn't dodge your question. I answered clearly that I didn't declare meals bought by a client and explained to you why. You simply chose to ask another question because you didn't get the answer you expected.

No client has ever given me a LCD TV or anything of declarable value. If they did, I would declare it if I'm required to do so. It makes sense to do so, after all they will expense it, and I would be foolhardy to risk not declaring it.

[watching&waiting]

That is a silly question. Everyone avoids or evades as many taxes that are allowed by law. Now there are also many who see the laws as much broader then they are, but also the Revenue Canada auitors also see the narrowest view of the laws and then even break the law to go after people. Revenue Canada loses 95% of the cases that go to court and many of the rest who can not afford to fight them anymore just declare bankruptcy. So I have to say it is a draw here as to who are the criminals in that arguement.

I applaud any government that magages to lower spending, and increase efficiency of goevernment, pay down debt and cut taxes all at the same time. It is then and only then that I can start to have faith that a government is on the right track. So far the CPC has increased spending on the military to once again allow them to actually be able to service the people of Canada. They have paid down the debt and also cut frivilous spending and increased efficiences in the day to day operations of goverment, and now are saying that they will cut taxes. All that while being a minority government. This is amazing when you consider the last couple years of Liberal government, nothing much got done because they were too busy trying to cover up scandels at every turn.

I also like the fact that Harper does all this without all the bally who to the press, seeking their approval. He has done what he said he would do, and he would even address the wait times better if he had a majority government to do so. The things he has been trying to get thru have been held up by liberal dominated senate, and they do this even when it is somethign they should support. It just goes to show you that the Liberal are all about revenge and entitlments as they have been acuused of.

[Renegade]

Everyone avoids or evades as many taxes that are allowed by law.

It is clear that both you and Dancer are unclear on the distinction between "evade" and "avoid" taxes.

If it is "allowed by law" it is by definition not evasion. I would encourage anyone to avoid taxes as much as possible. The situation Dancer described goes beyond avoidance and is clearly evasion.

Maybe this will help clear it up: Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance