gc1765

What else would the bank be doing with your money?? Just let it sit there and collect dust?

Agreed. So let's cut $100 million dollars for the GST new home rebate and cut $5 billion from personal income tax.

Huh? Savings does not take money out of the economy, it puts money back into the economy...that is unless you keep your money under your mattress.

Yes. How much does a 1% reduction in GST cost in lost revenues? How much does a 1% reduction on new homes only cost in lost revenues? If you can answer that you will see why one is preferable to the other.

Well said.

I think you are misunderstanding me here. I said that Canadians in general (not necessarily low income Canadians) save/invest money, and that is good for the economy. Your counter argument was that low income people don't invest money (which is wrong anyways), but that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether low income people invest or not, because it's obvious that Canadians in general do, and that is good for the economy. That is the point I was trying to make. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear the first time, but that is what I meant.

Not sure what you're talking about here? Are you talking about how there is 3.5% GST on new homes, but if it is cut to 5% it would be 2.5%? Why not keep the GST at 6% but cut the GST on new homes to 2.5%, or even lower?? Interesting. First you said that nothing has changed in the last two years with respect to the GST, and that economists were blasting the idea of cutting the GST two years ago as they are now, and now you are criticizing me for providing a two year old article? Hmm. Anyways, I have provided links to dozens of economists saying that income tax cuts would be better. If that is not proof enough for you, then you are blinded by partisanship. If economists were blasting a Liberal plan, you would listen to them wouldn't you? Come on, be honest... Not every company will necessarily convert to an income trust, however it's pretty obvious that many would. An economist like Harper should understand that quite well. It really is common sense.

If they are buying a new house, they can apply for a GST New Housing Rebate. If that's not enough, why not just increase this rebate? It's not just that one globe and mail article: Link Link In fact, I can't seem to find many economists who think it is a good idea. Can you? There is really no change at all. Common sense would dictate that if a company has a choice between paying taxes or not paying taxes, they are going to choose not paying taxes. Don't you think that's just common sense? Good try, but I have already stated that I support Harper on his income trust flip-flop. I have been consistent in my position that it is better to do what is right than keeping a promise. You have been consistent in your position that you support Harper no matter what.

And my point was that increasing the GST rebate would be a better way to cut tax for that group. There is no risk at all. I have a low income, I invest it in things that carry no risk at all, such as a GIC, or putting it in a high-rate savings account or term deposit. What is the number one thing people save for? A house. Especially with housing prices skyrocketing as they have done. A cut to the GST is not going to help them with buying a house. That's fine, but I countered that argument by saying that it's better for the economy to save/invest that money. You changed the argument when you started trying to argue that low-income people do not invest much, however that doesn't mean that Canadians in general don't invest.

Ok, let's say for the sake of argument that all of those economists who think the GST cut is a bad idea are right....in that case, would you support this flip-flop? I don't think breaking his promise on income trusts was a big deal at all. I understand and respect the fact that politicians, like everyone, make mistakes. On the issue of income trusts, Harper realized he made a mistake by promising not to tax income trusts. I don't think he ever admitted that it was a mistake, but at least he took the steps to correct it. Likewise, I think on the issue of a GST cut, he should admit that it was a mistake to make such a promise.

We have the vast majority of economists saying that it is not. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? As I recall, you supported Harper's flip-flop on income trusts. It was in the best interest of the country to tax them like he did, even though it meant breaking his promise. I see a similar situation here. The only reason I could see why you would be for the flip-flop on income trusts, but against a flip-flop on the GST cut is because you support Harper no matter what he does.

$50,000 per year on GST taxable items? Wow! You have a lot more money than most Canadians. The average Canadian family makes, what, like 60k a year? Take off income taxes, mortgage/rent, food, tuition, savings, and any other GST-exempt items and you are much less than 50k per year. I still don't see why you are opposed to a GST rebate instead.... So, I'm guessing you were opposed to Harper's flip-flop on income trusts?

Simple. It would be politically unpopular for Harper to go back on his promise to cut the GST. It would be more politically popular for him to say "we promised to cut the GST, and we delivered on our promise". Unfortunately, while it may be in Harper's best interest to keep his promise, it is not in the best interest of the country.

Gotta give you props for being honest

There is a reason why they wanted it to stay. They should have never made the promise in the first place, but I'm glad that in the long run they choose good policy over cheap politics. I guess I was thrown off by the fact that your profile says you joined in August 2007, or that I don't remember ever speaking with you before. See my previous posts. Increasing the GST rebate would be a much better way to help low income earners. If you're so worried about low income earners, I assume you agree that increasing the GST rebate is a good idea?

I don't know any low income earners who have money to spend on unnecessary big ticket items, but virtually every low income earner invests money (unless they have none, or keep it under their mattress). However, you changed the argument. You said that people buying big ticket items would help the economy, but actually most economists would agree that it is better to save/invest that money.

So? I have a low income, I wouldn't mind getting paid quarterly rather than immediately, so long as I get the same amount of money back. That wouldn't help the economy. Instead of buying big ticket items, that money would be invested back into the economy. Most people don't keep their money under their mattress, the invest it.

Not at all. When Harper flip-flopped on income trusts, I thought that was the right decision. Granted, I think he never should have made such a stupid promise in the first place, but I'm glad he made the right choice in the end. I would rather a politician make the smart choice rather than fulfill a promise (like Harper with income trusts, or the Liberals with the GST). I just hope that Harper makes a principled decision with respect to the GST cut like he did with income trusts. I would respect him if he came out and admitted he made a mistake by promising to reduce the GST, and left it as it is (it would have been nice to keep it at 7%, but I don't think it's worth the effort to put it back). Do I know you? How long have you been at this forum? Did you previously have a different username? No, it make him stubborn. The honest and honourable thing to do is admit that he made a mistake.

I would like to see an increase in the GST rebate instead. That would still help low income people as much (or more) as a cut to the GST. Agreed. However, it just goes to show that he is more worried about his popularity than doing what is best for the country.

For the same price, obviously personal income tax could be cut much more by itself than alongside a GST cut. If Canadians want an income tax cut rather than a GST cut, why wouldn't they want MORE of an income tax than a GST cut?

No, he's a man of principles who would put the economic interests of the country above cheap politics

Explain?

If this poll is at all accurate (and I'm not saying that it is), that might not be such a bad idea. As of this morning, 73% of respondents would prefer personal income tax cuts, and only 20% would prefer the GST cut, with the remaining 7% choosing corporate tax cuts. Link Would be nice to see the results of a more scientific poll...

An interesting article from the globe and mail... "The Conservative government's plan to trim the GST for a second time has been soundly rejected as a top tax-cutting priority by a large group of economists surveyed by The Globe and Mail. All 20 economists said other tax cuts would be better for the country than trimming another percentage point from the goods and services tax, which represents more than $5-billion in revenue. It's a remarkable show of unanimity on public policy, given that the responses were from organizations as diverse as the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Bank of Montreal and the Halifax-based Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. ... And most said point blank that the government's proposed GST cut is a bad move, one with a negligible effect on the economic health of the nation that does nothing to boost productivity." Link

I can't believe this is even an issue. Who cares whether a character is gay or not? Do gay people get offended every time a character in a fictional book is straight?