Restoring Fairness is Key to NDP Platform

[maplesyrup]

For way too long the rich have been getting all the breaks in Canada. The NDP wants to restore fairness in Canada. And this the key to their balanced budget platform.

[maplesyrup]

NDP takes aim at highest earners

The child tax benefit would be increased, and there would be more money for childcare, as the NDP proposes easing the financial burden on Canadian families.

Federal income tax would be eliminated for people earning under $15,000 a year.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who released his party's platform in his hometown of Toronto, also promised that a New Democratic government would invest in the country's cities.

"Without that investment, things begin to break down," Layton said.

[willy]

Where do you get this stuff.

Cause and effect.

Having money may come from birth but most of the wealthy people I know work very hard.

Maplesyrup, communism doesn't work. Human behaviour is such that we are inherently selfish. Governments that created forced equality remove any incentive for achievement. Help us all if this ideology catches on.

We will have equality. All of us will be poor.

[maplesyrup]

willy......you right wingers need to stop labeling the NDP communist.

How would you like it if everytime Stephen Harper or Paul Martin opened their mouths someone said fascist?

Cool the nonsensical rhetoric please and debate the issues.

[willy]

Maplesyrup, I was not talking about the NDP. I was referring to your statement. (The Robin Hood thing) If you break it down to the premise, it is Marxist Communism.

E.g. The rich get too much; therefore we need fairness.

Fair = equality

Not equal opportunity but of actual resources.

This is Communism. State controlled wealth distribution based on existence and not merit.

[maplesyrup]

willy....give it up. Stephen Harper isn't a fascist, or is he?

[Kliege]

No Jack Layton is Maple

[Black Dog]

One question for willy: do you consider the current tax system to be fair and equitable?

The point of progressive taxation is simple: the wealthy have the overwhelming beneficiaries of the economic policies of the past few decades, such as high interest rates and a steadily decreasing top marginal tax rate.

Much of the tax burden has been shifted to lower and middle income Canadians, who not only must run businesses, work and raise families, but also provide the resources the government needs to supply services (services, I must add, that benefit all citizens).

Fairness and equality are not the same thing. An equal tax system would see everyone pay the same rate: however, a fair tax system ensures that people are taxed according to their ability to pay. That's your first error.

Your second is in equating wealth with merit. While I'm sure there are many hard-working rich folks out there, the simple fact is not all rich people worked for their wealth. Are the Bronfmans better people for inheriting their wealth? Is Belinda Stronach a harder worker than your average truck driver or school teacher?

One question for Kilege: do you even know what the word "fascist" means?

[willy]

Black Dog,

I have no error. I see the role of government differently than you. I see them there to serve the people and not the other way around. They spend my money.

Fair rarely adequately explains anything in the world. The world is not fair.

I ask of the government to be a good steward of my money and not paternal in nature.

A social safety net can help people up or become a way of life. No one deserves to live in poverty but how you remedy that is not to forcibly remove the wealth from your own population.

What is a reasonable tax rate? I have to work until late into June before I start making money. My taxes approach 50% of what I earn. If I am rich, does that mean I should pay 75% of what I earn? This is ridiculous.

The very rich do pay more taxes but at what point will this be enough.

Social inequity is not just a function of financial distribution; it is cultural, educational, structural, motivational, psychological, and ideological.

Tax the rich and they will just move and you will have less resources to address the needs of the most venerable.

Who will be left to invest in the country but the government on borrowed money?

BD, and Maplesyrup when was the last time you sent extra money to Ottawa or your province. If it is so easy to spend other peoples money why not spends your own.

[Black Dog]

A social safety net can help people up or become a way of life. No one deserves to live in poverty but how you remedy that is not to forcibly remove the wealth from your own population.

Nobody becomes wealthy in a vacum. As appealing as the self-aggrandizing myth of th eself-made millionaire is, the reality is that no one gets anywhere without relying at some point on a service or institution paide for by tax dollars.

Taxes pay for more than just social programs (although, in this country, our social programs are very important). Taxes pay for roads, sewers, schools and countless other important services that we otherwise wouldn't have. Over the past 25 years, tax revenues have fallen while services have declined and infrastructure crumbled. That's not a coincidence.

"Taxes are the price of civilization."-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

What is a reasonable tax rate? I have to work until late into June before I start making money. My taxes approach 50% of what I earn. If I am rich, does that mean I should pay 75% of what I earn? This is ridiculous

That's an amazing feat, given the average Canadian pays about 35 per cent of their income in taxes. You're certainly paying mor ethan your share, then. How generous of you.

Social inequity is not just a function of financial distribution; it is cultural, educational, structural, motivational, psychological, and ideological.

Which is precisely why, in an egalitarian and democratic society, steps must be taken to mitigate or eliminate these inequalities.

Tax the rich and they will just move and you will have less resources to address the needs of the most venerable.

The idea that only the wealthy can spur economic growth is a myth. The government and individuals and small businesses are fully capable of spurring economic growth, the government by investing in services and infrastructure, individuals by spending their money and the small businesses that are the real engine of the economy by expanding, growing and reinvesting.

As it stands, tax cuts which would reduce government revenues while maximizing the amount of wealth consolidated in the hands of a few poses the greater real threat to service delivery than the theoretical flight of the rich.

BD, and Maplesyrup when was the last time you sent extra money to Ottawa or your province. If it is so easy to spend other peoples money why not spends your own.

I pay my taxes. In fact I recently got a raise which bumped me up a bracket, meaning I pay more now. And you know what? I don't bitch about it, because i know that I wouldn't have my job if it weren't for the schools that taught me, the roads that took me there and the hospitals that kept me healthy. All paid for by taxes.

I have no error. I see the role of government differently than you. I see them there to serve the people and not the other way around. They spend my money.

That's exactly how I see the government: it's there to provide services. We differ on how that is to be done and who is to be trusted to do it.

[maplesyrup]

Layton unveils details of the NDP platform

In a speech to a hometown crowd in Toronto on Wednesday, the long-time city councillor said his party has an ambitious investment agenda focused on what he calls "positive choices."

"Our fiscal projections are reasonable and moderate," Layton said as he vowed to deliver five-straight balanced budgets.

This is the 21st century NDP with balanced budgets. Their program is going to appeal to a lot of middle-class and lower income voters.

[willy]

That's an amazing feat, given the average Canadian pays about 35 per cent of their income in taxes. You're certainly paying mor ethan your share, then. How generous of you.

Add up all the taxes. Income tax (provincial and federal), GST, gas, environmental (tires etc), licensing, health premiums, PST, user fees (national parks ect.), air port security, capital gains, gas tax, property and the extra costs of goods and services based on the corporate taxes business have to pay.

We pay a lot more than 35 cents on the dollar. I was being low at 50 cents.

I live in the house I can aford, not the one I would like. We need to balance the notion of want and need.

[maplesyrup]

NDP leaves Tories, Grits behind with platform

While the NDP is promising a Canada where no one is left behind, today it left behind the two other national parties in releasing its election platform, which calls for cutting tuition fees and restoring the federal commitment to health-care spending to 25 per cent while at the same time balancing budgets.

The platform also promises no income tax for those making less than $15,000 a year and increasing taxes on those making over $250,000. 

"We are focused on setting out a positive choice that's about investing in a green economy, health care, education and the other key priorities of the people of Canada," said NDP Leader Jack Layton. "Our platform highlights the fundamental difference between the Liberals and Conservatives and ourselves. They focus on tax cuts - we focus on services for people."

The NDP estimates its platform will represent a net change to the federal government's budget of $61 billion over the next five years.

The party plans $79 billion in new spending, but predicts this will be offset by "steps to recover tax revenues identified as uncollected by the auditor-general," which they estimate are worth $8.5 billion.

The party will also increase taxes by $9.5 billion in what it calls "a package of fair tax measures." This includes rolling back corporate tax cuts announced by the Liberals in the 2000 federal budget, increasing taxes on those who make over $200,000 a year and reinstating an inheritance tax on estates over $1 million

At least one party in this election is prepared to discuss and run on issues.

[playfullfellow]

Read the article MS. Saw a lot of words like increase predict, estimate and new spending. The new spending amounts to an increase of 79 billion dollars. With their predicted uncollected (no definate numbers listed here) taxes and increased taxes (taxes coming from the rich and companies we work for), we get a total of 18 billion recovered. So that means there is a further 61 billion over 5 years to come up with or 12.2 billion dollars per year. Now, Layton has stated where he intends to get some of the money he intends to spend but I do not see where he is going to come up with the other 61 billion? The only other alternative I see is taxing the middle class again. I see nothing of debt reduction, nothing about exactly where this 61 billion is going to go aside from healthcare. Ooooppppppssss, sorry, I forgot to mention extra childcare benefits that I seem to have read somewhere but there were no definative numbers. IMO, this looks like a whole bunch of vote buying and promises that may be very hard to keep. I would certainly like to see more definate numbers and a lot less predicted numbers, this is an election and not a seance.

[maplesyrup]

What is the obsession with the debt?

Canada's infrastructure is in dire need of assistance before it crumbles. There is a time and place for everything.

Let's build some housing for the homeless, or low income people, etc., and stop being so greedy for ourselves.

[maplesyrup]

NDP set agenda, Harper woos East, Liberals react to terror threat, gas price

He also came under blistering attack from NDP Leader Jack Layton, who accused him of being personally responsible for the deaths of homeless people because he cut federal housing programs as finance minister in the 1990s.

"I believe that when Paul cancelled affordable housing across this country it produced a dramatic rise in homelessness and death due to homelessness," said the NDP leader.

"I've always said I hold him responsible for that."

That charge came after Layton, in a continuing effort to eat into Liberal support on the left, rolled out a platform that promised tax cuts for the poor, tax increases for the rich and billions in social spending - all to be achieved while balancing the budget and avoiding deficit.

The party's platform for the June 28 election would raise taxes on the wealthy and big banks and impose an inheritance tax, which alone is forecast to produce $3.1 billion.

From his home turf in Toronto, Layton also promised $29 billion for health care over five years.

He offered an extra $9.9 billion for the child tax benefit and said the NDP would eliminate income tax for people earning under $15,000 a year.

I wonder when the other parties are going to release their platforms.

[takeanumber]

Social mobility is a founding principle of Canada.

When I talk to the elite of the Conservative party, I don't get the impression that this is a principle that they share.

Their attitude tends to be summed as "the world needs ditch diggers," and would be perfectly happy with a society with little-no social mobility.

Social mobility has a cost: equalization.

A progressive tax system is one of the methods that we equalize opportunity and foster social mobility.

A strong public school system is the other plank.

Since the Conservatives have been attacking both for as long as I can remember, and they've outright said that social mobility isn't a priority, I can only conclude one thing:

Conservatives have something against the founding values of Canada.

What Martin says about values is true, as much as I'm loathe to admit it.

[Michael Hardner]

The NDP plan seems to me to be moderate and reasonable. We saw far higher taxation levels for the rich in the recent past, and this money was used to build infrastructure - subways, schools, universities and hospitals.

Today we can't even afford to maintain the infrastructure we have, let alone build for the future.

I don't think middle income Canadians will fret too much about the 1 million $ - plus iheritance tax.

[August1991]

There are some 100,000 people who file income tax statements with assessable income above $250,000. That means they, as a group, earn as a minimum $25 billion.

No doubt there are exceptions but I would imagine these people must be paying close to 60% of their income in various taxes (income, property, GST, PST).

How much more can the government get from these people? There is not that many of them.

Moreover, I do not think that an NDP politician or an Ottawa bureaucrat is capable of getting more out of them. These people will simply hire smarter people (ex-bureaucrats) to find ways around whatever is devised.

We all (most western countries) went down this road in the 1960s and 1970s only to discover that high tax rates on such people doesn't generate revenue, but it does create huge distortions and weird practices.

Layton wants to raise corporate taxes. Does Layton know what an income trust is?

"Make the rich pay" has got to be one of the oldest slogans invented. It works to a degree.

Governments take more than enough money from us now. The issue should be how to manage better what they have.

[Michael Hardner]

Governments take more than enough money from us now. The issue should be how to manage better what they have.

From "us" from "me" or from "you" ?

And there's only so far loopholes can take you.

Let's look fondly back on the 1960s and 1970s and the era when we could actually afford to build infrastructure.

[maplesyrup]

I think with the tax loopholes, someone earning $250,000. can substantially reduce their taxes, or taxable income, to be equivalent to someone earning substantially less.

We need to repair our taxation system.

The Repair of Taxation

[August1991]

I can be a little more precise.

In tax year 2002, the roughly 100,000 individuals who filed with total income assessed greater than $250,000 (income from all sources) earned, as a group, $55 billion. They paid, as a group, federal and provincial income taxes of $18 billion. (That's about 10% of all income taxes paid in Canada.)

Now with GST, PST, property tax and so on, this group must be paying close to half their income in taxes (government revenues of $27 billion or so). A billion here or there, which the government is unlikely to get anyway, is not going to change the federal budget.

Canadian Revenue Agency data

[Note that the above stats exclude Quebec which has its own income tax. The $18 billion figure is probably closer to $19 billion or so.]

We need to repair our taxation system.

The most important thing to repair would be the payroll "taxes" (EI, CPP, etc.) which low income earners pay. The NDP is right. Nobody earning less than $10,000 or so should pay any income/payroll tax at all.

Tax reform is needed at the low end; not the high end. Clinton understood this and it explains in part why US unemployment is so low.

From "us" from "me" or from "you" ?

I would prefer "from you"; you would prefer "from me" so let's agree on "from us".

Let's look fondly back on the 1960s and 1970s and the era when we could actually afford to build infrastructure.

I think that's a myth but it raises a good point.

Various Canadian governments combined now take more as a percentage and more in real terms of what the Canadian economy has to offer than at anytime in Canadian history.

Yet many people have the perception that governments are having trouble and that they could somehow do more before.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Conservatives have something against the founding values of Canada.

What are you talking about. Canada was originally founded on a free market economy, and did'nt the fathers of confederation want to make this a country that would serve "god". Did'nt Canada have no income tax before World War 1. Did'nt Canada have a great military.

I think that your talking about Trudeau's Canada, you know because he did'nt really like the Canada that 100,000 Canadian's died for, and remade it in his own socialist image.

[takeanumber]

How much more can the government get from these people? There is not that many of them.

These people are rich because Canada allows them to be that rich, through opportunity and infrastructure and an educated workforce.

They can afford to pay a little bit more here in Canada and a little bit less in Bermuda.

I think that your talking about Trudeau's Canada, you know because he did'nt really like the Canada that 100,000 Canadian's died for, and remade it in his own socialist image.

Watch your mouth.

My family STILL serves in the Armed Forces, and they fight for Canada. Got it? And they've suffered quite a bit from the cuts that Mulroney and Cambell brought in, followed by Martin's rape of the Armed Forces.

As for your other assumptions.

Canada was not founded on the free market. (Do you even know Canadian history? It was based initially on a monopoly called "the Hudson's Bay Company", you may have heard of it. There was nothing 'free' about that market.

Canada also had a heavily protected domestic industry and high tariffs on trade for most of its existence.

Canada is in fact, more free market today than it has ever been.

Alliance Fanatic: You might have a problem with social mobility for a number of reasons. From my experience, opponents of social mobility feel that they've earned their way to the top, refuse to give ANY credit to society, and feel that nobody else should enjoy the SAME opportunities that THEY ENJOYED.

It's the WORST kind of selfishness and it smacks of Dickens.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[Michael Hardner]

AF:

Please get off this idea that the founders of Canada would hate the country as it is today.

All you know for sure is that they'd have a lot of trouble navigating the internet.