GST Ads

[Michael Bluth]

Well said GC1765.

Why shouldn't the Conservatives have made the GST cut promise?

Were a plurality of the voters just wrong in voting for the Conservatives?

[msj]

Why shouldn't the Conservatives have made the GST cut promise?

Were a plurality of the voters just wrong in voting for the Conservatives?

Yes they were wrong.

The GST is a reasonable tax. According to either the CD Howe, or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (can't remember which one off hand) the government would be better to offer business tax cuts (like EI or income) and personal tax cuts as these would be more efficient and effective than GST cuts.

Even Harper agreed with this when he was an economist/policy wonk before he sold out to become a politician.

If it is good enough for Harper when he was still an honest man, and if it is good enough for the CD Howe and CTF then it's good enough for me.

Of course, my personal experience is the icing on the cake - I think it is foolish to get excited over saving tax when you are spending money. It is like the stereotypical woman who saves 30% on yet another pay of shoes she doesn't need.

It is always better to encourage work, investment, and smarts in order to earn more money than to encourage people to buy yet more junk and trinkets they don't need.

[capricorn]

Yes they were wrong.

By this comment, I take it you don't agree with the democratic outcome of Canadian elections.

If it is good enough for Harper when he was still an honest man,

Do you have any evidence that the Prime Minister is a dishonest man? If not, please retract this statement.

Of course, my personal experience is the icing on the cake - I think it is foolish to get excited over saving tax when you are spending money. It is like the stereotypical woman who saves 30% on yet another pay of shoes she doesn't need.

Your analogy implies that Canadians buy things they do not need. I get the sense that you are in a privileged class and have little contact with average Canadians.

Edited January 8, 2008 by capricorn

[Michael Bluth]

Yes they were wrong.

I guess it's unfortunate we live in a democracy.

If only we could educated enough of the population to you standard of understanding of economics the country would be a better place.

[msj]

I guess it's unfortunate we live in a democracy.

If only we could educated enough of the population to you standard of understanding of economics the country would be a better place.

I have no problem living in a democracy.

If the people are stupid enough to vote in Trudeau and his idiot economic policies, only to be smart enough to vote in Mulroney for his brilliant policies (too bad he's such a crook though - imo anyway) then I'm sure we will survive the partial moronic policies of Harper.

[Michael Bluth]

Do you have any evidence that the Prime Minister is a dishonest man? If not, please retract this statement.

Don't think you'll see that. The haughtiness and self-importance strongly implies that decency is not part of the game.

Your analogy implies that Canadians buy things they do not need. I get the sense that you are in a privileged class and have little contact with average Canadians.

Goes hand in hand with the haughtiness and self-importance. When you are struggling to get by and working a couple jobs you don't pooh pooh a cut to the GST on so many things that you by.

[msj]

By this comment, I take it you don't agree with the democratic outcome of Canadian elections.

Do you have any evidence that the Prime Minister is a dishonest man? If not, please retract this statement.

Your analogy implies that Canadians buy things they do not need. I get the sense that you are in a privileged class and have little contact with average Canadians.

I agree with democratic outcomes, however, I disagree with idiot policies.

It is my opinion that Harper is dishonest just as any politician is dishonest. He has sold out his former belief regarding the GST in order to become PM.

He lied about the Income Trust issue (there are alternatives that could be employed rather than the policies they brought in).

The list gets longer by the week.

I also do believe that many Canadians buy things they don't need: look at luxury vehicles, costume jewelery, $5 lattes, credit card balances, line of credit balances, and extracting equity from one's home (which will start to bite people in the ass this year in the US and probably next year in Canada).

Go to any mall and you will see piles of junk. Go again in a year and you will see the same stores selling similar junk.

Someone is keeping them in business.

Maybe space aliens are coming down to your local mall and buying this stuff. Or perhaps the FSM?

[msj]

Don't think you'll see that. The haughtiness and self-importance strongly implies that decency is not part of the game.

Goes hand in hand with the haughtiness and self-importance. When you are struggling to get by and working a couple jobs you don't pooh pooh a cut to the GST on so many things that you by.

Nice personal attacks here guys. Don't see the need but whatever... lets get to the substance rather than lower myself to your level:

If you are working two jobs then you probably would prefer to see the basic personal exemption raised rather than lowered like the Cons did in 2006.

Oh, yeah, you also would prefer to see the tax rate stay at 15% (or lowered further to 14% - or maybe 13%) rather than be raised to 15.50% effective July 1, 2006.

That would do more for a "poor" person who spends most of his/her money on rent (GST exempt) and groceries (mostly exempt except for tampons, chips, pop etc).

[capricorn]

If the people are stupid enough to vote in Trudeau and his idiot economic policies, only to be smart enough to vote in Mulroney for his brilliant policies (too bad he's such a crook though - imo anyway) then I'm sure we will survive the partial moronic policies of Harper.

You obviously have a deep disdain for your fellow compatriots and our democratic process.

Again, I request you provide proof that the Prime Minister is dishonest or retract your previous statement "when he was still an honest man".

[capricorn]

It is my opinion that Harper is dishonest just as any politician is dishonest. He has sold out his former belief regarding the GST in order to become PM.

You're covering your a@@ with this wimpish comment. If you are an honourable person you should retract your false statement about the Prime Minister.

[msj]

You obviously have a deep disdain for your fellow compatriots and our democratic process.

Again, I request you provide proof that the Prime Minister is dishonest or retract your previous statement "when he was still an honest man".

I have clearly stated that it is my opinion and I have provided satisfactory proof above.

You disagree with my opinion and you are unable to counter my proof above so you continue the same monotonous questioning.

Get over it.

[msj]

You're covering your a@@ with this wimpish comment. If you are an honourable person you should retract your false statement about the Prime Minister.

You continue with the personal attacks which demonstrates what type of person you are.

If you were an honourable person you would not have sunk to this low level in the first place.

[jdobbin]

Nice personal attacks here guys. Don't see the need but whatever... lets get to the substance rather than lower myself to your level:

Oh, yeah, you also would prefer to see the tax rate stay at 15% (or lowered further to 14% - or maybe 13%) rather than be raised to 15.50% effective July 1, 2006.

That would do more for a "poor" person who spends most of his/her money on rent (GST exempt) and groceries (mostly exempt except for tampons, chips, pop etc).

Try not to be so haughty next time and try to see the wondrous genius in the Tory policy of reducing the GST. A promise made is a promise kept. Except for the income trust which is a promise made, a promise...oh, well, can't win them all. However, we can say that it was a brilliant, simply brilliant decision! heh

I'd love to see the income tax rate dropped a point or two, as you say. It would do more for the lowest income people but have an impact all across the board for taxpayers. Moreover, it would help the economy more than a GST cut according to pretty much any economist you care to ask...except the one in power.

Edited January 8, 2008 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Nice personal attacks here guys. Don't see the need but whatever... lets get to the substance rather than lower myself to your level:

You are taking offence to personal insults? But, but ...

If the people are stupid enough to vote in Trudeau and his idiot economic policies, only to be smart enough to vote in Mulroney for his brilliant policies (too bad he's such a crook though - imo anyway) then I'm sure we will survive the partial moronic policies of Harper.

If you are working two jobs then you probably would prefer to see the basic personal exemption raised rather than lowered like the Cons did in 2006.

Oh, yeah, you also would prefer to see the tax rate stay at 15% (or lowered further to 14% - or maybe 13%) rather than be raised to 15.50% effective July 1, 2006.

Raising the lowest rate was a mistake they have corrected. Ditto for the bpe.

That would do more for a "poor" person who spends most of his/her money on rent (GST exempt) and groceries (mostly exempt except for tampons, chips, pop etc).

I don't really get when some of the liberal types here talk about "the poor" and their spending habits.

Booze and smokes are subject to the GST.

Take out food is subject to the GST.

Understand that the hypothetically reasonable "poor person" would stay away from those purchases. However, if you have spent anytime with truly working class people who are struggling to get by you recognize that they don't always make the smartest choices in their personal spending.

[capricorn]

You continue with the personal attacks which demonstrates what type of person you are.

You lead in with a personal attack on the Prime Minister and you accuse me of bringing it to your attention. Fine. Now I'm aware of your thought process.

If you were an honourable person you would not have sunk to this low level in the first place.

This statement does not merit comment. It speaks for itself.

[Michael Bluth]

If you were an honourable person you would not have sunk to this low level in the first place.

The low level of using terms like stupid? idiot? crook? moronic?

If the people are stupid enough to vote in Trudeau and his idiot economic policies, only to be smart enough to vote in Mulroney for his brilliant policies (too bad he's such a crook though - imo anyway) then I'm sure we will survive the partial moronic policies of Harper.

Onto other things.

Try not to be so haughty next time and try to see the wondrous genius in the Tory policy of reducing the GST. A promise made is a promise kept. Except for the income trust which is a promise made, a promise...oh, well, can't win them all. However, we can say that it was a brilliant, simply brilliant decision! heh

I'll give you credit for minimizing the misrepresentation and spin.

Even the more reasonable left leaning posters here agree income trust was a good move. If only you could see that you might actually be credible in your arguments.

You don't do sarcasm very well.

What's with the heh? Too much beavis and butthead? Or is that Steph and Iggy?

Edited January 8, 2008 by Michael Bluth

[msj]

You are taking offence to personal insults? But, but ...

Raising the lowest rate was a mistake they have corrected. Ditto for the bpe.

I don't really get when some of the liberal types here talk about "the poor" and their spending habits.

Booze and smokes are subject to the GST.

Take out food is subject to the GST.

Understand that the hypothetically reasonable "poor person" would stay away from those purchases. However, if you have spent anytime with truly working class people who are struggling to get by you recognize that they don't always make the smartest choices in their personal spending.

1) My remarks were made in a general sense. Now, I suppose if you voted for Trudeau you may take offence in that I'm indirectly calling you "stupid."

I apologize to anyone who voted for Trudeau - there were good reasons to vote for him given how inept the other parties were during his time.

Of course, many of his economic policies were idiotic.

2) I'm not a Liberal - I'm a former PC who has no party thanks to a certain traitor (imo, seems I have to qualify these things for you guys - it should be obvious that anything I write is my opinion but I will continue to use such statements just in case it isn't obvious enough).

3) There is no GST on food unless it is, more or less, junk.

I can go to a grocery store, spend $150 and pay $0.24 on GST because I chose to buy myself a bag of M&M's (the peanut butter ones!). I know this because I always check my receipt as I walk out of the store (cheap accountant I am).

4) Booze and smokes are discretionary. Also, taxes have been changed so that while the GST component may have gone down on smokes and booze the overall tax level has not. The feds still get the same amount of taxes from booze and smokes because these are "sin" products.

Do an advanced Google search on the following link using the word "cigarette."

Ways and Means Motion 2007

BTW, when they cut the GST rate the first time the Cons adjusted the other taxes on booze and cigs to ensure it was revenue neutral. Can't slow this cash cow down, can we?

Edited January 8, 2008 by msj

[Michael Bluth]

1) My remarks were made in a general sense. Now, I suppose if you voted for Trudeau you may take offence in that I'm indirectly calling you "stupid."

Hey, say what you want but just recognize your own hypocrisy. I apologize, but as a pedantic accountant I believe in applying rules equally.

Do an advanced Google search on the following link using the word "cigarette."

I see new rates on tobacco products but don't see the old rates they were replacing.

[msj]

Hey, say what you want but just recognize your own hypocrisy. I apologize, but as a pedantic accountant I believe in applying rules equally.

I see new rates on tobacco products but don't see the old rates they were replacing.

The difference is that my remarks, while flippant, were general.

Whereas you and your little friend "capricorn" are entirely personal and ad hominem.

That is an important distinction.

As for the new rates on tobacco - I've done enough work for you.

You can find the old rates yourself. Hint - check out the Department of Finance.

Oh, okay, here are the rates from the 2006 Budget (which presumably have already been adjusted for the first GST cut):

http://www.fin.gc.ca/drleg/wmmMay06_e.html

I'm way too nice.

Edited January 8, 2008 by msj

[Michael Bluth]

The difference is that my remarks, while flippant, were general.

Whereas you and your little friend "capricorn" are entirely personal and ad hominem.

As for the new rates on tobacco - I've done enough work for you.

Calling somebody dishonest isn't an ad hominem attack?

Why do you deserve to be treated with more respect than you treat other people?

You have done very little work. Why the misdirection?

[msj]

Calling somebody dishonest isn't an ad hominem attack?

Why do you deserve to be treated with more respect than you treat other people?

You have done very little work. Why the misdirection?

1) No. I have stated my reasons for my opinion. No one has provided anything resembling a substantial and serious challenge of my reasons.

2) I have not asked to be treated with more respect. I merely point out that my remarks were general in nature and not aimed specifically at anyone.

As for my use of terms like "moronic policies" it should be self-evident that it is the "policies" that are the subject of my scorn rather than any single person.

That is an important distinction between my posts and you and capricorn's posts.

3) I already edited it into my post above so I have done the work for you.

Edited January 8, 2008 by msj

[Michael Bluth]

2) I have not asked to be treated with more respect. I merely point out that my remarks were general in nature and not aimed specifically at anyone.

The quote below is a direct personal attack on Stephen Harper and his honesty. No it was not general in nature. Yes it was specifically aimed a an individual.

If it is good enough for Harper when he was still an honest man, and if it is good enough for the CD Howe and CTF then it's good enough for me.

Why deny having done something which you clearly did? No matter how much you try you can't disprove that you specifically aimed an attack at Stephen Harper. Not just at his policies, but Stephen Harper as a human being.

As for my use of terms like "moronic policies" it should be self-evident that it is the "policies" that are the subject of my scorn rather than any single person.

That is an important distinction between my posts and you and capricorn's posts.

If not for your specific personal attack on Stephen Harper you would have a point. However, because of your attack on Stephen Harper you are just proving to be hypocritical.

3) I already edited it into my post above so I have done the work for you.

Thanks for that. Posting the link here would have reduced the burden of work on you.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Michael Bluth

[capricorn]

Whereas you and your little friend "capricorn" are entirely personal and ad hominem.

How do you know I'm "little"? What if I am a 190 pound woman? Actually I'm not I weigh 110 soaking wet.

Kidding aside, you got my dander up when you commented on the PM and said something to the effect "when he was an honest man" the implication being he is now dishonest. That's all. He is not perfect. He has made mistakes. He may not be who you want as leader. The fact remains Stephen Harper is our Prime Minister and as such he commands a certain amount of respect and should not be accused of things he is not.

Now onto the next discussion, eh?

[msj]

The quote below is a direct personal attack on Stephen Harper and his honesty. No it was not general in nature. Yes it was specifically aimed a an individual.

Why deny having done something which you clearly did? No matter how much you try you can't disprove that you specifically aimed an attack at Stephen Harper. Not just at his policies, but Stephen Harper as a human being.

If not for your specific personal attack on Stephen Harper you would have a point. However, because of your attack on Stephen Harper you are just proving to be hypocritical.

Thanks for that. Posting the link here would have reduced the burden of work on you.

1) I have substantiated my opinion of Harper.

You have not substantiated your opinions directed towards me, personally.

2) You have not bothered to attack my reasons for my opinion for Harper being a liar.

Instead, you decided to attack me personally.

That is an important distinction.

3) If you want to discuss your opinion or my opinion on Harper, in a substantive way, then I suggest we do it in a different thread.

If you are not capable of doing that then I suggest we focus on the topic at hand.

[msj]

How do you know I'm "little"? What if I am a 190 pound woman? Actually I'm not I weigh 110 soaking wet.

Kidding aside, you got my dander up when you commented on the PM and said something to the effect "when he was an honest man" the implication being he is now dishonest. That's all. He is not perfect. He has made mistakes. He may not be who you want as leader. The fact remains Stephen Harper is our Prime Minister and as such he commands a certain amount of respect and should not be accused of things he is not.

Now onto the next discussion, eh?

You think he has made mistakes. Fair enough.

I think he is a political XXXX just like Chretien (is that better? Self-censorship is the way to go!) . Neither deserve any respect that you supposedly would bestow on them (and, lets be frank here capricorn, do you really not have a low opinion of Chretien? I mean, really?).

Once again, this is only my opinion of the man based on the reasons I have already provided.

Why it has to derail the discussion to the point that you and Bluth resort to attacking me personally is beyond me.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree on Harper. I can also admit that I can see how you could argue he has made "mistakes" rather than being an outright liar.

I just don't buy those, imo, excuses.

Edited January 8, 2008 by msj