Harper government provoking an election?

[capricorn]

You are correct sir.

But asking the question with the third option wouldn't have supported the big story in the Globe that day.

MB, that's ma'am, last time I looked.

[gc1765]

If I was asked to select between a GST cut and personal income tax cuts, no question I would pick personal tax cuts. Did the poll ask respondents whether they would prefer both tax reductions together? I bet not. Yet, that's what the Conservatives are offering.

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?

[Topaz]

Yes we have a surplus but how did we get it. I think IE is included in that, they cut social problems but what bothers me is, can you cut if you are war? The cost so far is 10-20Bil., which I think they have delayed the payment over a number of years but we still have to pay for it. The next generation, the work force will be smaller so where are they going to get the money for surplus if they keep cutting taxes??

[capricorn]

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?

I see your point.

A large number of Canadians earning low wages do not pay any personal taxes whatsoever. There are also Canadians such as welfare recipients and the disabled who don't have "earned income" who also don't pay any personal income tax. Personal income tax cuts don't do a thing for them. The GST cut is one way they can benefit by saving on their purchases.

Also, as August and M.B. point out Harper is committed to another GST cut and cannot back down now. If he did reverse himself it would be a broken promise and would hurt his credibility.

So by offering GST and personal tax cuts, he pleases just about everyone.

[gc1765]

A large number of Canadians earning low wages do not pay any personal taxes whatsoever. There are also Canadians such as welfare recipients and the disabled who don't have "earned income" who also don't pay any personal income tax. Personal income tax cuts don't do a thing for them. The GST cut is one way they can benefit by saving on their purchases.

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.

Also, as August and M.B. point out Harper is committed to another GST cut and cannot back down now. If he did reverse himself it would be a broken promise and would hurt his credibility.

Agreed. However, it just goes to show that he is more worried about his popularity than doing what is best for the country.

[old_bold&cold]

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.

Of course you would, anything that would make Harper not keep a promise is your goal. Face it your are not a CPC supporter and you would rather see harm done then anyone benefit from a promise. You show this in most postings. So be honest you can not stand the fact that Harper will do both the Income tax cuts and the GST cut, and nothing anyone could ever say will change that.

Agreed. However, it just goes to show that he is more worried about his popularity than doing what is best for the country.

Harper is very concious of his image, especially on the fact that he keeps his promises when evr possible. So he has this possibility and he will use it to fill that promise. You and the rest of the opposition would cry bloody murder if he did not keep that promise. So really it is your own narrow minded views that will make sure that the GST is done. How many times did we hear promises to dump the GST in elections and then when a majority government was had, they forgot all of this. Harper has reduced the GST by 2% just as he said. That makes him an honest and honourable man. Much unlike the oppositions who lie and promise anything because they know they never will form a government. Instead of critizing Harper for his tax cuts, you should be thanking him for taking such good care of the government so he can now afford these tax cuts. Remember back when the Liberals said Harper could never afford all the things he promised because there just was not enough money? Why would anyone ever believe a Liberal again.

[capricorn]

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.

I disagree. The GST rebate is paid quarterly yet the GST cut is an immediate benefit on all consumer purchases. In addition, a GST cut would have the further advantage of increasing the purchase of big ticket items. This results in economic benefit to the retail and manufacturing sectors.

[gc1765]

Of course you would, anything that would make Harper not keep a promise is your goal. Face it your are not a CPC supporter and you would rather see harm done then anyone benefit from a promise.

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).

You show this in most postings. So be honest you can not stand the fact that Harper will do both the Income tax cuts and the GST cut, and nothing anyone could ever say will change that.

...

You and the rest of the opposition would cry bloody murder if he did not keep that promise. So really it is your own narrow minded views that will make sure that the GST is done.

Do I know you? How long have you been at this forum? Did you previously have a different username?

Harper has reduced the GST by 2% just as he said. That makes him an honest and honourable man.

No, it make him stubborn. The honest and honourable thing to do is admit that he made a mistake.

[gc1765]

I disagree. The GST rebate is paid quarterly yet the GST cut is an immediate benefit on all consumer purchases.

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.

In addition, a GST cut would have the further advantage of increasing the purchase of big ticket items. This results in economic benefit to the retail and manufacturing sectors.

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.

[old_bold&cold]

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).

The GST is a very regressive tax and yes while it was supposed to be a possible replacement for income tax at one time. It never did go thta route. The oppositions all promised to do away with it, untill they got into power and then wanted it to stay. Harper is the only one to actually reduce the GST and he has lived up to that promise.

Do I know you? How long have you been at this forum? Did you previously have a different username?

I have been here for wel over a year by this same username, and I am not what one would call a shinking violet type. But yes I heve been here enough to have seen your past posts.

No, it make him stubborn. The honest and honourable thing to do is admit that he made a mistake.

Only to you who want the best tax cut for you, not for the average person. Income tax cuts only help those who pay income taxes, and nothing for those who do not pay these. So the GST does help those others who the other tax cuts will not. A combination of both will then be able to touch each and everyone in some way. That seems pretty fair to me.

[capricorn]

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 all low income earners would agree with you. The preference is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't get your point of investing back in the economy instead of buying big ticket stuff. My point was that those who could afford it would be motivated to purchase more expensive items if the bottom price was reduced by 1%. As for money under the mattress, I don't know any low income earners or persons on fixed income who have money to invest.

[gc1765]

I don't get your point of investing back in the economy instead of buying big ticket stuff. My point was that those who could afford it would be motivated to purchase more expensive items if the bottom price was reduced by 1%. As for money under the mattress, I don't know any low income earners or persons on fixed income who have money to invest.

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.

[gc1765]

The oppositions all promised to do away with it, untill they got into power and then wanted it to stay. Harper is the only one to actually reduce the GST and he has lived up to that promise.

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 have been here for wel over a year by this same username, and I am not what one would call a shinking violet type. But yes I heve been here enough to have seen your past posts.

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.

Only to you who want the best tax cut for you, not for the average person. Income tax cuts only help those who pay income taxes, and nothing for those who do not pay these. So the GST does help those others who the other tax cuts will not. A combination of both will then be able to touch each and everyone in some way. That seems pretty fair to me.

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?

[Michael Bluth]

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.

So you equate consistency and keeping one's promises with a concern about personal popularity?

Do explain that...

Does that mean you think Paul Martin had no concern for his own personal popularity?

[gc1765]

So you equate consistency and keeping one's promises with a concern about personal popularity?

Do explain that...

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.

[Michael Bluth]

Unfortunately, while it may be in Harper's best interest to keep his promise, it is not in the best interest of the country

Which truly is a matter of opinion.

The same economists who opposed the idea when Harper made the promise oppose it now.

Is there any hard evidence how cutting the GST is not in the best interest of the country?

It's in the best interest of the country to have a strong leader that lets the electorate know during the election how he will govern. Harper was the only leader to offer that choice in 2006 and he appears to be the only leader to offer that choice now.

[old_bold&cold]

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 do not think that increasing the GST rebate a good idea, and I still think the GST lowered is much better. I have probably already bought most of my large ticket things and now only buy to replace these if and when worn out. I do though live in rural Canada and have a 70km drive into the city. So yes I go through a lot of gas in a week. with gas around $1.00 per liter, the gst cut would make that about .99 per liter, and then saves me roughly a buck a week, times 52 weeks for $52.00. The rest of my disposible income is spent and some invested, but for the most part lets say $50,000.00/year, is spent between my wife and I, on things that are taxed by the GST. That again saves me $500.00/year. If I take the total GST rebate and it gives me $1000.00 /year. So yest this is a cut that I see each and every day when I am going about what I usually do go about. Now any kind of income tax cut, I will also like to enjoy. But as for which one is better goes, I think in my case it is the GST that I will see the most.

Now if you were to say lets increase the GST to 12% and then do away with income tax all together, then yes I may think that will be good. It was talked about when the GST was first brought in and I do think it should have been looked at deeper back then.

But the one thing I like about Harper above all else, is he did what he said he would do. That right away says more for him then anyone else in the mix. If I am going to cast a vote for someone or party, that party has got to have a record of being truthful with me the voter. The trouble with the liberals, that everyone knows, is that it does not matter what they say and promise because they never live up to that in the first place. So the voters know they will be let down by them. As for NDP and Green go..... well lets just say fringe is a word and also a reason they exist. I like the fact that Harper has really positioned himself into this, with out having to do much. Of all those I would like to be on my side if things were tough, is Harper for his ability to get things done even when it seems he is out gunned.

[gc1765]

The rest of my disposible income is spent and some invested, but for the most part lets say $50,000.00/year, is spent between my wife and I, on things that are taxed by the GST. That again saves me $500.00/year.

$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....

But the one thing I like about Harper above all else, is he did what he said he would do. That right away says more for him then anyone else in the mix. If I am going to cast a vote for someone or party, that party has got to have a record of being truthful with me the voter.

So, I'm guessing you were opposed to Harper's flip-flop on income trusts?

Edited October 26, 2007 by gc1765

[old_bold&cold]

So, I'm guessing you were opposed to Harper's flip-flop on income trusts?

I look at the whole issu of the income trusts and then at the ramifications that his promise made to the people of Canada. The fact that he made this promise and many then were poised to set upon it and screw the general tax payers enmass. Harpers flip flop in this case was an astute move and it benefited everyone, but those few who were ready to capitalise on this. He did give a very extended time frame for those to reposition themslves in it and any losses were mostly significant to those large groups that were drooling for the tax break. He did what needed to be done and suffered by his own standing of character. But he then went on to live up to most of the rest of his promises. So to be force to break one is not as big an issue as say breaking every one of his promises, now is it?

If there is an election in the next while, the people will be able to decide about who it is that will actually do what they say they will. I am willing to bet Harper is by far the one way ahead in that. He will say exactly what his platform is and his agenda for implementing that platform. He will be trusted on that by the people, because he has proven himself already, as being a man of his word.

Dion can not say that, and he can not point to past liberal practice of keeping promises. He already compromised himself by voting for the throne speech, when he also said he never wanted to do that, but the party made him. That tell you he is not a leader but a party yes man. We all know all too much about the liberal party and its backroom politics and cash payoffs. Just how does such a weak leader never hope to unify the party when he is the sickly runt of the litter, and no one even in his own party shows him any respect. Hell his own party members were laughing at him trying to say how he could do this support and still not be giving into the fear of an election. Face it, when an election does finally come Dion will get slaughtered in the debates and the campaigne trail. Anything but a massive seat loss would be a success for Dion. Hell I bet you that plans for a leadership convention will have started before the election is even over.

[Fortunata]

The same economists who opposed the idea when Harper made the promise oppose it now.

Is there any hard evidence how cutting the GST is not in the best interest of the country?

It's in the best interest of the country to have a strong leader that lets the electorate know during the election how he will govern. Harper was the only leader to offer that choice in 2006 and he appears to be the only leader to offer that choice now.

The GST cuts definitely benefit those with disposable income. It helps low income earners with little disposable income negligibly. So the moral to this story is: the more you make the more the government ensures you will be helped by government initiatives?

As to your other comment, that is strictly a matter of opinion. In your view Steve can do no wrong but in others' view he leaves a lot to be desired.

[capricorn]

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.

Low income earners in the context of our discussion was qualified as those who don't pay any personal income tax. That means an annual income around less than $20K per year. My point was that reducing the GST amounts to a tax cut for that group.

So with that level of income, what is left over to invest after the necessities are paid? In my books, investing money brings with it a certain amount of risk. Can those individuals afford such a risk? Now saving money is a different matter. The low income earners I know who save money usually have a set goal in mind such as buying furniture or a car.

Where's the change in the argument? I simply raised an additional point that a cut in the GST may be beneficial to the economy through increased retail sales.

My position on the GST is simple and clear. Harper promised the GST cut and is delivering. This move increases his credibility. Everyone benefits from that tax cut, regardless of income. I am also in favour of personal income tax cuts and I believe Harper can and should do both.

[gc1765]

Is there any hard evidence how cutting the GST is not in the best interest of the country?

We have the vast majority of economists saying that it is not. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

It's in the best interest of the country to have a strong leader that lets the electorate know during the election how he will govern.

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.

[gc1765]

Harpers flip flop in this case was an astute move and it benefited everyone, but those few who were ready to capitalise on this.

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?

So to be force to break one is not as big an issue as say breaking every one of his promises, now is it?

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.

[gc1765]

My point was that reducing the GST amounts to a tax cut for that group.

And my point was that increasing the GST rebate would be a better way to cut tax for that group.

So with that level of income, what is left over to invest after the necessities are paid? In my books, investing money brings with it a certain amount of risk. Can those individuals afford such a risk?

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.

Now saving money is a different matter. The low income earners I know who save money usually have a set goal in mind such as buying furniture or a car.

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.

Where's the change in the argument? I simply raised an additional point that a cut in the GST may be beneficial to the economy through increased retail sales.

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.

[Michael Bluth]

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.

Unless they are buying a new house. That's right. Take an average price for a new house of $300,000 and somebody will save $3k on the GST when the further 1% cut is implemented. That will probably help in purchasing a house.

We have the vast majority of economists saying that it is not. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

The vast majority of economists in one Globe and Mail article. Nope, no evidence at all. But you are the one claiming it is in the best interest of the country to not cut the GST so the burden of proof lies with you.

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.

Nope, that's not it at all.

Take a look at my posts on this subject. I have been clear that nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to cutting the GST between now and when Harper made the promise. So there is no reason to change course. Again, the economists who opposed it then oppose it now.

For income trusts there was a fundamental change that necessitated the Government changing its policy. Two huge companies, BCE and Telus, signalled their intent to change to trust status. This situation did not exist at the time the original promise was change.

Can you know see the reason for different treatments of the income trust and gst promises? If you can't the only reason I can see is because you oppose Harper no matter what he does.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Michael Bluth