Harper government provoking an election?

[gc1765]

I can't remember the exact details but unless the bank actually takes your savings account money and uses it for loans, mortgages and investments, it's not in the economy and economic activity slows down.

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

[gc1765]

There will be cuts to income tax rates as well.

See post #52 of this thread.

[Michael Bluth]

See post #52 of this thread.

Because there isn't unanimity that an income tax is preferred.

Trying to help all Canadians here.

[jbg]

The GST cost was contained within the fee. I expect that the next GST cut will probably not be passed on either. This benefits me, yes, but I know with many others doing the same thing that it is a bit of a saw-off. I didn't see any big savings from the GST cut after going over my numbers.

How can a GST tax cut not be "passed on"? It's a sales tax. The hidden MST was different, since it wasn't added on at the cash register, whereas the GST is.

Am I missing something?

[jbg]

It is pathetic how, in English Canada, the greatest insult is to compare someone to an American. How sadly small a view of Canada, and the world.

Again, pardon my lack of knowledge, but is the United States the foil for everything in Canada? I wonder why.

Canada's an independent, separate and very different country, something it should be proud of. Does the US compare itself to Belgium, or Rwanda?

[jdobbin]

How can a GST tax cut not be "passed on"? It's a sales tax. The hidden MST was different, since it wasn't added on at the cash register, whereas the GST is.

Am I missing something?

Several professions just have their hourly rate say of $60 or $80 or whatever an hour. In my profession, when the bill was broken down, 7% came out of the hourly rate. When the GST went down, the hourly rate didn't change. It remained what it was. The saving wasn't passed on to the consumer. It was kept by the vendor.

Likewise, some cities like Calgary and Toronto had set fees for services. For example, a swimming at a pool in Toronto might have been $5 for an adult with the GST coming out of that $5. When the GST went down, the fee remained at $5. Cities like Calgary and Toronto pocketed the difference. It wasn't passed down to the consumer.

Examples like this abounded in the aftermath of the 1% GST cut and it was one major reason why economists favoured an income tax cut versus a GST cut because the savings are passed on more equitably.

[gc1765]

Because there isn't unanimity that an income tax is preferred.

Trying to help all Canadians here.

There isn't unanimity that a GST cut and a relatively small income tax cut is preferred over a large income tax cut.

[Michael Bluth]

There isn't unanimity that a GST cut and a relatively small income tax cut is preferred over a large income tax cut.

Do you know that for sure? Care to define 'relatively small' objectively? I haven't seen a poll on that. If somebody asks the question let us know.

So have you actually taken the time to understand why 16 of those economists from the Globe aren't in favour of the GST cut? Or is understanding something not really a necessity for you to oppose it?

[ScottSA]

There isn't unanimity that a GST cut and a relatively small income tax cut is preferred over a large income tax cut.

There is, however, unanimity that a tax cut is preferred. It's a breath of fresh air after years and years of Liberal tax grabs and nanny statism.

I only hope that once Harper gets his majority, he starts slicing off the accumulated fat and dismantling the welfare state. Canadians need to relearn self-reliance after years of being encouraged to whine for hand-outs.

Edited October 27, 2007 by ScottSA

[godzilla]

There is, however, unanimity that a tax cut is preferred. It's a breath of fresh air after years and years of Liberal tax grabs and nanny statism.

I only hope that once Harper gets his majority, he starts slicing off the accumulated fat and dismantling the welfare state. Canadians need to relearn self-reliance after years of being encouraged to whine for hand-outs.

i always get a big laugh out of this kind of brain washed rhetoric! here in bc the entire costs of welfare account for .3% of the total provincial budget. you must be talking about the corporate welfare state! where huge income trusts that have billions in revenue pay no tax!

[gc1765]

Do you know that for sure? Care to define 'relatively small' objectively? I haven't seen a poll on that. If somebody asks the question let us know.

Relatively small means $5 billion per year LESS in income tax reductions than what could be acheived, for the same price, if the GST cut is implemented. I'd like to see a poll too. Most people I have talked to agree that an income tax cut would be better, and the un-scientific poll from the globe and mail also shows the vast majority agree, but who knows...

So have you actually taken the time to understand why 16 of those economists from the Globe aren't in favour of the GST cut? Or is understanding something not really a necessity for you to oppose it?

Who says I haven't? I have given some good arguments in this thread as to why an income tax reduction is better. No one has been able to refute them.

[gc1765]

There is, however, unanimity that a tax cut is preferred. It's a breath of fresh air after years and years of Liberal tax grabs and nanny statism.

The Liberals prefer to cut income & business taxes instead. I agree with them.

[Michael Bluth]

Relatively small means $5 billion per year LESS in income tax reductions than what could be acheived, for the same price, if the GST cut is implemented.

By that logic an income tax reduction that reduced the Federal Government's revenues to exactly $5 billion per year would be a small reduction. Good argument. Consider it refuted.

Who says I haven't? I have given some good arguments in this thread as to why an income tax reduction is better. No one has been able to refute them.

The above quoted argument is weak and has been refuted. Care to try again?

[gc1765]

By that logic an income tax reduction that reduced the Federal Government's revenues to exactly $5 billion per year would be a small reduction. Good argument. Consider it refuted.

You are still not understanding what I am saying. Let me break it down for you as simple as possible:

Let's say the Conservatives want to cut the GST ($5 billion), as well as cut income taxes say $1 billion. For the same price, without the GST cut, income taxes could be cut $1 billion + $5 billion = $6 billion dollars. So, a $1 billion dollar reduction in income taxes is relatively small compared to a $6 billion dollar reduction in income taxes. If the Conservatives decided to cut the GST and income taxes by $5 billion, that means for the same price, income taxes could be reduced by $5 billion + $5 billion = $10. So, a $5 billion dollar reduction in income taxes is relatively small compared to a $10 billion dollar reduction in income taxes. Does that make more sense now?

The above quoted argument is weak and has been refuted. Care to try again?

Care to show me where it was refuted??

[ScottSA]

i always get a big laugh out of this kind of brain washed rhetoric! here in bc the entire costs of welfare account for .3% of the total provincial budget. you must be talking about the corporate welfare state! where huge income trusts that have billions in revenue pay no tax!

I'm talking about corporate welfare too, yes. However, I suspect the reason you get a good chuckle from this kind of "brain washed rhetoric" is that you don't understand the rhetoric. Do you know what a welfare state is? Hint: Its not confined to welfare cheques.

[Michael Bluth]

You are still not understanding what I am saying. Let me break it down for you as simple as possible:

Does that make more sense now?

Barely, but just because you changed the foundation of your argument in breaking it down simply. At least you are making some sense now. The orignaly, refuted, statement still doesn't make anymore sense.

The only people who would oppose a $5 billion dollar GST cut and a $5 billion dollar income tax cut now are going to oppose the Conservatives no matter what they do.

Those who prefer income tax cuts will be happy with the magnitude of the cut. Those who prefer a combination will be happy.

[jdobbin]

Economists met with the Finance minister on Friday to tell him not to waste a tax cut on the GST.

http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/st...BN/ctv-business

A tax cut of $10-billion would not go as far as it might seem in terms of guaranteed relief to Canadians, especially if the Tories cut the GST.

If every one of the 15.8 million tax filers who pays taxes received an equal share of the $10-billion in relief, it would work out to $632 each.

But a GST cut would cost Ottawa about $5.5-billion, leaving $4.5-billion for income tax cuts. And the relief felt by a GST cut would depend on how much a person purchased.

Plus, the Tories have promised corporate tax relief, and economists estimate that a meaningful break for business would cost at least $1-billion.

This further shrinks the available pool of tax relief for taxpayers to $3.5-billion, which would work out to $221 each.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

But economists say the cut would be wasted. They consider consumption taxes, such as the GST, the least evil among taxes because they're the least damaging to economic growth.

Global Insight (Canada) chief economist Dale Orr said Mr. Flaherty should delay a GST cut until he gets a deal with provinces that have yet to harmonize their sales taxes with the federal levy. Harmonization would mean those provincial taxes no longer cover capital goods such as machinery and tools and would be a break for business.

[sharkman]

Barely, but just because you changed the foundation of your argument in breaking it down simply. At least you are making some sense now. The orignaly, refuted, statement still doesn't make anymore sense.

The only people who would oppose a $5 billion dollar GST cut and a $5 billion dollar income tax cut now are going to oppose the Conservatives no matter what they do.

Those who prefer income tax cuts will be happy with the magnitude of the cut. Those who prefer a combination will be happy.

Very true, and this latest round of tax cuts will not sway those who would support the Liberals if Snoopy was running the LPC from his Sopwith Camel. But they will resonate with the average Canadian who has seen his after tax income shrink time and time again under the Liberal regime, and they are simply good for Canada.

Edited October 31, 2007 by sharkman

[Michael Bluth]

Very true, and this latest round of tax cuts will not sway those who would support the Liberals if Snoopy was running the LPC from his Sopwith Camel.

Exactly, but that number is shrinking.

The lowest percentage of the popular vote the Liberals have won in an election in modern times is 28% in 1984.

With the Liberals polling in that range at the moment, and Stephane Dion's inestimable skills as a campaigner does anyone doubt the Liberals could break that record next election?

[jbg]

Exactly, but that number is shrinking.

The lowest percentage of the popular vote the Liberals have won in an election in modern times is 28% in 1984.

With the Liberals polling in that range at the moment, and Stephane Dion's inestimable skills as a campaigner does anyone doubt the Liberals could break that record next election?

He handled Outremont and St. Hyacinth well in the recent bi-election. And his handling of Roberval was even better.

[Topaz]

I think Harper should say thank you to Dion for not bring his gov't down like Harper did with Martin. Martin's budget had more for child care, the First Nations, tax cuts then Harper has given Canadians. I do, remember Harper foaming at the mouth back in those days trying to bring on an election so he could be PM! I've heard that a spring election could be at hand and that is when Dion will bring down the gov't if he has a chance to. I'm sure the environmnet will be Harper's downfall to an election.

EDIT

This was the Opening Post of the following redundant thread: Did Harper say Thank YOU to Dion

Edited November 1, 2007 by Charles Anthony
merged thread

[sharkman]

Tell you what, I'll THANK YOU to not start silly threads over non issues.

[Guest trex]

Dion should have shown more courage and stood up to take the fight. Then he would have shown real leadership. Instead he chose to roll over and take it, and betray Canada for the sake of his party and his own insecurity. My gut feeling is that enough people are fed up already with the Cons that they would have been willng to vote again, right now. So Dion and the Liberal party are in essence traitors to this country. But then again it doesn't seem like there's any real leadership coming from these parliamentarians. They only seek to entrench themselves further to protect their position. A real leader, if one ever comes along again would cut them all down, fire them, get rid of them. Out with the old guard! Bring us a Buonaparte

Edited October 31, 2007 by trex

[scribblet]

I think Harper should say thank you to Dion for not bring his gov't down like Harper did with Martin. Martin's budget had more for child care, the First Nations, tax cuts then Harper has given Canadians. I do, remember Harper foaming at the mouth back in those days trying to bring on an election so he could be PM! I've heard that a spring election could be at hand and that is when Dion will bring down the gov't if he has a chance to. I'm sure the environmnet will be Harper's downfall to an election.

Yawn ZZZZZZ

[Michael Bluth]

Tell you what, I'll THANK YOU to not start silly threads over non issues.

Bravo sir. Well said!