msj

The reason you don't throw gas onto a fire (in economic terms) is because you end up with inflation. But, given the problems in the US and there likely effect on Canada, who knows whether or not we should be considering throwing some gas onto the fire to try and keep it going. As for business tax breaks - they have been implemented and continue to be implemented until about 2012. Corporate tax rates continue to (finally) go down. The real problem, however, is if the US takes us down with them. If that happens then the CPC has wasted its wad on a GST tax cut when they would have been better off given us income tax cuts. After all, what good is a decrease in consumption tax when people are consuming less and need money to reduce debt loads? Not that Canada is as bad as the US but if a recession comes here too then we will retrench. If Canada comes close to, or enters, a recession then the CPC is at least partly responsible with their irresponsible and ad hoc tax policies.

Kettle meet pot, pot meet kettle. For a guy who starts an entire thread about the alleged poverty of Canada based on your own, and extremely limited, driving experience in the US this is a rather strange statement. Not that anecdotal evidence can't be useful - of course it is only useful when it can demonstrate a point that is backed up with further, and more reliable, evidence. Have you even bothered to look at what the CPC has done with their budgets for 2006 and 2007? Spending continues to increase at a rate faster than inflation + population growth.

It's not a matter of whether a person should or should not eat junk food. It's a matter of whether or not there would be a decline in economic activity. Shifting the activity from the gas station to the grocery store or into savings (should the person not buy anything) does not lead to a decline of overall economic activity. It is a shift from the gas station to someone/somewhere else so it really isn't a BFD.

So what? There is no measurable decline in economic activity which is what you were trying to imply. There likely will be an economic shift away from overpriced junk at gas stations but this is likely to benefit more people than it hurts.

What economic impact are you measuring? The loss by the gas station or the savings by the customer who doesn't indulge or gets his/her stuff cheaper when he/she goes to the grocery store or Wal-Mart?

This is not only about the death of a gas station attendant. I was almost involved in a head on collision as a car was quickly exiting a gas station and the gas station attendant was chasing the car. So it could effect any one of us at any time. Having said that, I doubt the statistics would justify this law. But then, I always pay at the pump anyways since it is more convenient so it's not like I'm going to vote out some politician over a minor thing like this.

The reason is very simple: because there are less people making $1,000,000 so it is politically easier to tax them at higher marginal tax rates (or at least make it look like they are taxed at higher marginal tax rates - perception for us pee-ons) while, in reality, providing them ways to minimize those marginal tax rates through the use of tax preferred income sources, tax deferrals, and income splitting vehicles like corporations and trusts.

For Hydraboss: You little caveat does not excuse the fact that you ignore the government's desire to collect revenue to make their expenditures. Not only do you ignore governments need/want for as much revenue as they can get away with but you make it worse with an idea that makes no sense for most people who make middle to upper-middle incomes: A person making $40,000 of interest income (for simplicity sake) would pay about $6,688 of BC and federal income tax (using 2007 rates). That person would pay $8,000 under your scenario. $100,000? $27,337 versus $32,000 under your scenario. $1,000,000? $420,011 versus $392,000 under your scenario. And there's the rub - the problem with only one tax rate and exemption level is that, no matter how hard you try, those making the most bucks are going to see a tax cut while people making a decent living would see their taxes go up. Most Canadians will not go for this because most Canadians earn, or think they are capable of one day earning, $50,000 to $100,000 rather than $1,000,000. Which is why the CTF's and Pat's idea of two tax rates is better - it has a chance of being sold to most Canadians. For all other people in this thread: You are forgetting that governments need to consider revenue. They must collect hundreds of billions of dollars each year and there is no evidence that this fact is considered (at least the CTF study tries to consider it). Everyone thinks that they can cut taxes and make it simpler. Try cutting taxes while maintaining a budget. That's the real world, folks.

I think what Pat means here is that the person paying tax on eligible dividends will pay tax at a marginal rate of ~18.5% (federal and provincial) and an average tax rate of around 18.3% on $10,000,000 of eligible dividends (this excludes Alternative Minimum Tax - with AMT we're talking 19.3% average and a marginal tax rate of about 19.4%). A person making a salary of $50,000 would be looking at a marginal tax rate of ~31% (in BC/ON) for the next dollar of wage earnings (this marginal rate usually begins around the $35-37,000 mark). At the same time, that person is looking at paying an average tax rate of 18.3%. Of course, in the eligible dividend case, we have a corporation that is likely paying tax at 34% before it pays out a dividend that is then taxed at the 18.3% rate versus a company that gets tax savings on the deduction of the wages which is then taxed in the personal hands of the individual. This is why dividends are taxed differently than wages in the first place.

The reason is very simple: because the GST rate (assuming we also eliminate provincial and municipal taxes) would be in the neighbourhood of 50-60%. Do you really think Canadians are going to go for that? What we would allegedly save by contracting out the collection of taxes would have to be spent at border crossings and Indian reserves to prevent cross-border tax evasion. Take a look at the Jan 11, 2008 article by John Mauldin - scroll down on the following link to read about the "Fair tax nonsense" in the US for going to a consumption only tax: http://www.safehaven.com/article-9206.htm

August, I like how you try to continue to change the subject rather than admit the evidence you used was used poorly (to say the least). CPP is a "tax" in that the government deducts it (and it is matched by the employer). CPP, unlike income tax or EI, does not go into general revenue. It is separately accounted for and rightly so - CPP is more accountable that way. Otherwise we would have politicians stealing CPP surpluses to spend on their pet projects - kind of like what the US currently does. As for medical liabilities - your right. They should be measured and when they are the US is shown to have a huge defict (trillions each year) and Canada would certainly have a huge one of billions each year. The government should be using GAAP properly in order for Canadians (and Americans) to make informed decisions as to how much they want to be taxed and how much and on what programs the funds should be spent. But that is a topic well beyond the scope of the original posting. For most people it makes sense to try to match government revenue with eventual government expenditures for a number of reasons: 1) It better matches taxes to expenditures so that one generation isn't going to get lots of benefits to the detriment of the generation(s) to come. 2) It lets people know that this is what it does cost to enjoy the benefits. Otherwise the subsidy by borrowing from future generations (by not properly funding in the here and now) is taken for granted. 3) Simple demographic realities - it's easy to charge taxes on a growing base of 25-50 year olds. When the demographics shift, however, there are real challenges. As for privatizing savings - well, given how poorly the banks have done in the US, with little regulation on their liar loans, I really don't think people will have an appetite for "market" solutions. Of course Americans get to blame the Fed (read Congress) for not having enough regulations in the first place rather than admit that the private sector has completely failed. Merrill Lynch helped OC go bankrupt. Bear Stearns isn't doing so well. Nor is Citi Bank. The private sector has shown itself to be equally inept and bureaucratic when it comes to savings, lending, securitizing, well, just about anything really.

Don't see the point of your lecture about State pensions. US SS is a state pension just like Canada has the state pensions CPP (special fund) and the OAS (out of general revenue and, therefore, is funded through general taxation like GST, income tax, EI surplus, tariffs). Yes, we are talking payroll taxes but at least with CPP the actuaries have said the system is sound at the current levels (for paying in and paying of benefits and also when considering the investment of surplus funds for payment of future benefits). It makes perfect sense to have acturaries make these calculations since we should be attempting to match, as best as is possible, the payment into the CPP with the investment return and the payment of benefits from the system. What you are proposing is not radical at all - it was business as usual until the Liberals had the sense to change things in the mid-90's. Otherwise, we would be stuck with the same sad system where a continuing diminishing pool of young try to maintain the benefits of a growing pool of old. As for the amounts - well, in Canada our CPP is set up to be based on what a person pays into it. In the US it appears that this is also the case. If you want to extend the argument to all taxes then it should be extended to all services received too but I do not see the point of moving the goal posts now. The fact remains your claim was/is erroneousness. You claimed that since a person, on average, would be getting more benefits from the US SS then that is one proof of the US being richer than Canada. I have merely pointed out the fact that on this particular item Canadians pay less into their CPP system so it should be no surprise the benefits would also be less. It is simple logic and your claim pales when considered in this light. Just because you are unable to fathom that the CPP is a special "tax" that actually goes into a separate fund to be invested and used to pay out benefits does not change this fact. Presumably the US SS payroll tax also goes into a separate account but, given what I have seen of the way they treat this fund, they may as well be putting it into general revenue. Which is exactly why the US is not nearly as rich as you make them out to be. They continue to fund the present by borrowing from the future. US taxes and/or US SS benefits will be adjusted one of these years. Many economists and accountants have been clear on this since the mid-90's. While Canada started to do something (by eliminating budget deficits and setting up the CPP as a proper pension scheme) the US has just fiddled (which is not to say that Canada is home free - we have not gone far enough but that is beyond the scope of this topic).

We agree on this completely.

Was she really intimidated? I agree with you in general but I honestly do not remember the degree of intimidation specifically against her or Chapters. The degree is important because it means the difference between freedom of speech and coercion.

I really don't see what you are referring to my post. August1991's original post is ridiculous, imo, because he uses anecdotal evidence. My presentation of the facts surrounding US SS vs. CAN CPP to refute his comment about better benefits for Americans also is not specifically addressed by you. Sure, present your anecdotal evidence (based on what you think you are capable of remembering) all you want. No, this does not mean it is better quality than statistics where at least we can argue about the methodology used to collect the evidence. With anecdotal evidence there is no chance at objectivity. That is why it may prove very interesting (and August1991's post was interesting) but ultimately useless.

Your point was that "they [the media] denied you [us] the right to understand why it was controversial." One did not have to physically see the comics to have developed an understanding of the controversy. A larger prerequisite would be the capacity for abstract thought and critical thinking which are far more in short supply than not being able to view comics. Also, it is not relevant where the media is being sourced - anyone in Canada could have seen the comics if he/she chose to find them. It was not difficult to do and Heather Reisman's little stunt probably added to more Canadians seeing the comics just out of curiosity. Sure, Reisman is as bad as the big bad media for not showing the comics. But it's their right to not show us the comics and it is our responsibility to find a way to view them if we really think they are that important (which they're not).

If people really wanted to see the comics then they would have been aware of Heather Reisman not stocking the Harper's magazine and they would have gone out to a store that did sell the magazine and buy it. Just like I did. Or, they would have Googled them by now. The media did do a pretty good job of talking about the controversy. The Harper's magazine article was very well written. CBC radio had coverage as well which was also excellent (of course, it's not possible to show the comics over the radio). Just because you failed to notice the coverage at the time does not mean that the media failed us in anyway.

FYI: Harpers magazine published these cartoons early last year and even had an article about them - you could probably find the issue in your local library. It was the same issue that Heather (Chapters-Indigo) Reisman pulled from the shelves (and the reason why I support Amazon.ca). I believe one or two cartoons may have made either the National Post or the Globe and Mail in a story but my memory is sketchy on the matter.

Oh, of course you wanted to avoid statistics. You would prefer to rely on your personal anecdotal evidence method of inquiry that is unworthy of proving anything other than you drive as selectively as you cherry pick statistics. Now, I'll let the others on here come up with stats which show one thing or another. The only nonsense I want to point out here is regarding the US SS vs CAN CPP: 1) They pay more into their system than Canadians do - 6.2% up to $102,000 of earnings for 2008 whereas in Canada we pay 4.95% on up to $44,900 (note - for both instances the employee matches the employer deduction effectively making the rates 12.4% and 9.9%). One would expect higher benefits when people are paying more into the system. 2) Canada started to overhaul its CPP system in the mid-90's and there have been reports in the media for years that it is actuarially sound. The same cannot be said for Social Security in the US where some have claimed that it needs huge changes: Just one example of many if anyone were to choose to research this: Greenspan urges Social Security cuts Clearly, if one were to dig further than some superficial drive-by look at benefits, the situation is much more complex than you make it out to be.

Another lesson in politics with a bunch of personal insults. Yes, that $0.07 cut in EI rates this year means so much. I thought the Cons were going to make the EI system right? When are they going to start? Edited to add: Yeah, huge decrease: EI premium rates and maximums

Michael, you are the one who has not provided any evidence of anything. You make a claim that you either did not know was true or purposely misled us on. I then corrected your mistake (or lie) and you ask for proof. Then I provide some proof and you ask for more. Then I edit my post 6 minutes later to provide more proof. And you complain that that is a significant amount of time. Then you whine that the proof is too technical. After all this, you continue to focus on the personal insults while ignoring the simple fact that your claim (that the GST cut benefits low income people thanks, in part, to a reduction in tax on booze and cigs) was entirely wrong. And there's the rub - since I demonstrated that you are wrong (or, possibly lied), you are compelled to continue the insults against me rather than face the substance of my argument. Continue to deflect all you want - only sharkman and capricorn are buying it and that suits me just fine.

But you forget: the Cons actually raised income taxes for 2006 (from 15% in 2005 to 15.5% effective July 1, 2006). Don't forget the decrease in the basic personal exemption. They finally came around with their October 30, 2007 statement and reinstated the 15% tax rate retroactive to January 1, 2007 (and adjusted the bpe to $9,600). Just imagine what the basic personal exemption and tax rates could be without the GST cut. Imagine real tax cuts - not some tax credit which only applies if you take the bus, or have a kid(s) under 18, or some text book credit - a real cut to marginal tax rates. And the tax cut has the advantage that it doesn't add any more complexity to the tax system - unlike all those tax credits this allegedly conservative government has implemented.

Ah, the "those in power have more information" argument. Rather than being brought to us by Britney Spears/Tom Cruise it is brought to us by the sharkman [iirc, BS and TC both supported Bush in his quest for WMD in Iraq on the grounds that he was the President of the USA and, therefore, must have more information than us pee-ons. Yeah, that turned out well ] Of course the Cons have to consider the entire population. I mean, no kidding sherlock. The government also has a duty to try and do what is best for the majority of the population. Brilliant people within the CD Howe and the CTF have been issuing reports for years now arguing for income tax cuts and business tax cuts rather than GST cuts. I also note that these organizations are not bastions of liberal thought. Over the years I have read some of those reports - I doubt most of the people on this thread have not even attempted to look for these never mind actually read one (here's looking at you, Bluth). I also understand something as basic as: if you don't cut the GST this means you can do something else. But hey, I have actually prepared budgets for not-for profits and businesses so what do I know about making choices under restraints?

1) You have not even attempted to substantiate your direct and personal slurs towards me. 2) The record is clear - I posted the link 6 minutes after I asked you to find it yourself. As I said then and I repeat now - I am far too nice to you and your ilk. Now, go back to page 12 to see for yourself. 3) As for the link - well, what else am I supposed to put up? That is what the government gives me so that's what you get. If I don't put one up you whine. When I do put one up then you complain it's too difficult to understand. Damned if I do and damned if I don't. Of course, I don't see how taking time to read through some technical material gives me any sense of "self-importance." So, I can read. Most people on this board presumably can too. I suppose by your standards most of us here are self-important" for having this amazing ability.

I have substantiated my opinion of Harper with two examples - one when he was outside of politics (at least directly) when he did not mind the GST only to "change" his mind to get elected. The record is clear here for anyone wishing to look into it. This is why I later compare Harper to Chretien as a political XXXX. The other is a blatant lie on the Income Trusts. He said one thing and did exactly the opposite when there are/were alternatives to be had. Those are good reasons for anyone wishing to take the time to consider them rather than hurl personal insults towards specific members on this board. But hey, when you start backing up your personal slurs of me with "evidence" then I will consider providing a longer and more elaborate argument. Regardless, this is all to deflect from the fact that you screwed up with respect to you specious claim about the Cons doing good for the poor by reducing the GST on booze and cigarettes. Clearly they raised excise duties to mitigate the GST cut on these items contra your earlier opinion (which you clearly did not base on facts). But why focus on when you are factually wrong when you can continue the same monotonous accusations and cry "Evidence" when it has been staring you in the face many posts ago?