Why Conservative Policies are Better for the Middle Class

[Foxer]

But someone who spends less won't get the same savings as someone who spends more.

Very true - but the fact is those people who spend less probably need the savings more. It represents a bigger part of their disposable income.

I don't care if i'm earning a million a year about saving a few bucks on groceries or clothes, but if i'm trying to get by on 15000 bucks a year, every nickle counts.

As for the economic stimulus argument that's true in a way. But when comparing income tax cuts to GST cuts you can't say GST cuts stimulate the economy but income tax cuts don't. Increased take home income gives people more money to spend as well.

Sure - i never claimed income tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. And of course Harper included income tax cuts in his budget as well. BUT - the fact is that the gst is directly pointed at the economy. I can put my income tax cuts into savings or rrsp's if i want, I dont' have to spend it. But a GST cut is only valuable if I'm out stimulating the economy with the purchase of goods or services.

. This topic was about the middle class and I've been saying that the GST cut was better for high income Canadians not the middle class and not lower income Canadians.

You'll have a very difficult time arguing that lower income earners aren't benefitted more by the gst - they need the savings the most. In a low tax bracket, income tax cuts do little good. And people like the disabled who rely on gov't benefits get no boost from an income tax cuts.

Middle class ... well it's kind of hard to say. Middle class people will benefit the most from a stimulated economy in many ways, so there's that element. They will also be able to buy and enjoy more goods and services - they have to have a car chances are, and that just got cheaper. They have to buy gas and that got cheaper (till the carbon tax.)

on the flip side - it won't help them reduce their debt the same way, whereas an income tax rebate does.

So - it's kind of a toss up, depending on how you look at it. The more you dig down into it the more you see the pro's and cons of both.

I think harper did the right thing choosing to blend the two - giving people income tax cuts AND reducing the GST. Often hybrid solutions are not great ones, but I think this one worked well, and the fact our economy has been strong despite global economic crashes elsewhere is a good indication that it was successful for the most part.

[DrGreenthumb]

Very true - but the fact is those people who spend less probably need the savings more. It represents a bigger part of their disposable income.

I don't care if i'm earning a million a year about saving a few bucks on groceries or clothes, but if i'm trying to get by on 15000 bucks a year, every nickle counts.

Sure - i never claimed income tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. And of course Harper included income tax cuts in his budget as well. BUT - the fact is that the gst is directly pointed at the economy. I can put my income tax cuts into savings or rrsp's if i want, I dont' have to spend it. But a GST cut is only valuable if I'm out stimulating the economy with the purchase of goods or services.

You'll have a very difficult time arguing that lower income earners aren't benefitted more by the gst - they need the savings the most. In a low tax bracket, income tax cuts do little good. And people like the disabled who rely on gov't benefits get no boost from an income tax cuts.

Middle class ... well it's kind of hard to say. Middle class people will benefit the most from a stimulated economy in many ways, so there's that element. They will also be able to buy and enjoy more goods and services - they have to have a car chances are, and that just got cheaper. They have to buy gas and that got cheaper (till the carbon tax.)

on the flip side - it won't help them reduce their debt the same way, whereas an income tax rebate does.

So - it's kind of a toss up, depending on how you look at it. The more you dig down into it the more you see the pro's and cons of both.

I think harper did the right thing choosing to blend the two - giving people income tax cuts AND reducing the GST. Often hybrid solutions are not great ones, but I think this one worked well, and the fact our economy has been strong despite global economic crashes elsewhere is a good indication that it was successful for the most part.

As was pointed out already umpteen times in this very thread Harper did NOT give an income tax cut he raised income taxes and then returned then to where the liberals already had them. Its really very simple math.

If you have 3 apples and I take one away today and give it back to you tommorrow u still have 3 friggin apples, I didn't GIVE you the apple, I just returned what I had stolen from you. Are you going to thank me for my generosity for giving you an apple? I guess that's Harpernomics 101.

Saying that the poor benefit more from a GST cut than the rich who buy big ticket items only shows you to be a liar or just very simple minded. I think you've been drinking harper'ss Kool-aid.

[blueblood]

As was pointed out already umpteen times in this very thread Harper did NOT give an income tax cut he raised income taxes and then returned then to where the liberals already had them. Its really very simple math.

If you have 3 apples and I take one away today and give it back to you tommorrow u still have 3 friggin apples, I didn't GIVE you the apple, I just returned what I had stolen from you. Are you going to thank me for my generosity for giving you an apple? I guess that's Harpernomics 101.

Saying that the poor benefit more from a GST cut than the rich who buy big ticket items only shows you to be a liar or just very simple minded. I think you've been drinking harper'ss Kool-aid.

Too bad more Canadians like Harpers Kool-aid than the NDP Kool-aid.

Harpernomics 101, income tax staying the same + reduction in GST + now reduction in excise taxes = tax cuts regardless.

Your right it is simple math.

[Foxer]

As was pointed out already umpteen times in this very thread Harper did NOT give an income tax cut he raised income taxes and then returned then to where the liberals already had them. Its really very simple math.

That would be true - if the CPC tax cuts weren't actually larger than the original proposed liberal cuts. But of course they have been. The tax cuts to the average family have greatly exceeded what martin proposed.

So - you're the math expert - if i take away three apples - but give you back FOUR... how many do I have again?

Saying that the poor benefit more from a GST cut than the rich who buy big ticket items only shows you to be a liar or just very simple minded. I think you've been drinking harper'ss Kool-aid.

Ahh. I take it you're one of those types who, when confronted with something he doesn't agree with, prefers insults to intelligent debate. Fair enough, here's a response you'll be more able to understand. "i'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Nyahh Nyahhh"

But - for more intellectually minded folk out there, the fact remains. A person who is on disability receives zero benefit from a tax break. A gst cut puts actual money in their pocket - a tax cut would not. And as a percentage of their disposable income, given their circumstances the tax break does them more good than it does the wealthy. Yes, the wealthy save more money. But they also have more money. For a person just getting by it's a much more significant savings.

Think of it this way. If after spending my money on my basic bills (rent, etc) i have 10 dollars left over. And a gst savings results in me having 11 - that represents a 10 percent increase in my disposable income.

Now - if i make a million bucks, and after my basic expenses i have half a million left - and the gst cut results in me saving 2,500 bucks, that's only 5 percent of my disposable income. And the fact is - as a wealthy or even middle class person' i've probably got a lot more ways to reduce my gst burden anyway. For example, I personally lease a vehicle and most of the gst is simply written off against gst i bring in, so I pay almost NO gst already on my truck.

The poor person, who would not have benefitted from a tax break, actually benefits more in terms of a real disposable income increase than the rich example. And probably needs the money far far more.

See how that works? A hair more complex than counting apples, but i think you'll get it if you think about it.

BTW - a minor hint for the future - it never hurts to be polite. If you're polite and wrong, people just think you made a mistake. If you're a jerk and you're wrong - people think you're an idiot.

[Foxer]

Harpernomics 101, income tax staying the same + reduction in GST + now reduction in excise taxes = tax cuts regardless.

Harper's tax cuts in office have been higher than anything the libs produced or suggested. Apperently, liberal math suggests that if a number is higher than another number, it's the same.

Which certainly explains how the gun registry managed to get to over a billion

[jdobbin]

Promises, promises, promises. Over the years, the Liberals have promised many things.

The problem is that the Liberals never deliver on their promises.

Harper promised to cut the GST and then he cut it.

This simple fact changes considerably the whole election. Harper is trustworthy. At some point in the future, the Liberals are going to understand this simple idea. Most still don't.

The Tories promised to eliminate the excise gas on tax and didn't.

They promised not to end income trusts and didn't.

They promised not to call an election before the end of their mandate and didn't.

They promised to run a clean campaign and didn't.

Harper is not trustworthy.

[jdobbin]

Harper's tax cuts in office have been higher than anything the libs produced or suggested. Apperently, liberal math suggests that if a number is higher than another number, it's the same.

The CTF complained for two years that the tax cuts the Tories produced in two years were no match for the 2005 tax cuts introduced by the Liberals. We have gone over this many times before in these forums.

[Foxer]

The Tories promised to eliminate the excise gas on tax and didn't.

Eliminate excise tax? - No, i don't think he did. I think you'd need to post some reference for that.

They promised not to end income trusts and didn't.

True. Genuine broken promise. Mind you - so did the libs and they voted for it as well.

They promised not to call an election before the end of their mandate and didn't.

hmmmm - not QUITE true. Even in his initial speech he said that it would be held then - 'except if the opposition loses confidence in teh gov't'. In this case, with dion actually on the election path with his green plan and having heard from all the opposition that there is nothing they can work on to reach consensus, he was in reality acting properly. The law was never meant to give the opposition the same unfair advantage it was taking from the gov't - it was supposed to level the playing field.

You can't pretend the opposition had confidence in teh gov't when dion didn't even bother to show up for votes 40 + times and was out campaigning on his election platform.

They promised to run a clean campaign and didn't.

Oh sure they have. The puffin thing is a joke and not harper's. Tasteless, sure, but still.

Harper has focused on dion's policy, which is entirely fair game and not 'dirty'. That's what they're supposed to do.

Dion on the other hand promised to run a clean campaign and then immediately started attacking harper himself! It took him only hours to break his word. To date, harper has not attacked dion at all, just his policy.

Harper is not trustworthy.

No politician is. (Did you just come to this planet or something? :D) but Harper is light years ahead of dion. Dion was saying carbon taxes aren't the way just a year ago. Dion didn't get anything done on kyoto when he was actually IN power, except to name his dog. Dion was musing just a short time ago about raising the gst, now he swears that was never the plan. Dion says he opposes harper, but doesn't show up to vote. Dion said his election plan was 100 percent ready to go and has said that several times - well we can see it wasn't even close.

Harper broke his word on income trusts. That's the truth. But the rest of the time he's been dead honest and he owned the fact he said he wouldn't do that and did (and the opposition supported him.) He's been a more up front politician than we've seen in quite a while. Certainly more honest than mr 'brown envelopes' or mr Martin.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Foxer

[jdobbin]

Eliminate excise tax? - No, i don't think he did. I think you'd need to post some reference for that.

Done. It was eliminate the GST on gas when it reaches 85 cents a litre. That would amount to a hell of a lot more than what they promised to do today but they have broken that promise budget after budget according to the CTF.

Edited September 9, 2008 by jdobbin

[Foxer]

The CTF complained for two years that the tax cuts the Tories produced in two years were no match for the 2005 tax cuts introduced by the Liberals. We have gone over this many times before in these forums.

Well that's a neat trick seeing as not all the tax cuts harper has brought in were even in place 2 years ago. The last batch just kicked in this last tax season, and most people were quite surprised how much they got back.

Income taxes are currently lower than they would have been under martin's plan. The gst is ALSO lower. In addition, there are numerous 'specialty' cuts such as bus passes and sports programs up to 500 dollars.

So - harper cut both income and gst taxes.

[Foxer]

Done. It was eliminate the GST on gas when it reaches 85 cents a litre.

I'm not sure that was ever part of his election platform. He talked about it in the years leading up to it - can you actually post any kind of reference where he made that promise as part of his mandate? (and don't just say 'done' - what kind of a reference is that? )

[jdobbin]

Well that's a neat trick seeing as not all the tax cuts harper has brought in were even in place 2 years ago. The last batch just kicked in this last tax season, and most people were quite surprised how much they got back.

Income taxes are currently lower than they would have been under martin's plan. The gst is ALSO lower. In addition, there are numerous 'specialty' cuts such as bus passes and sports programs up to 500 dollars.

The taxes through two budgets the Tories introduced were still not as big in tax cuts that Martin passed in 2005. The CTF was quite harsh in regards to the Tories over this matter. We have gone this many times in this forum with all the requisite links.

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure that was ever part of his election platform. He talked about it in the years leading up to it - can you actually post any kind of reference where he made that promise as part of his mandate? (and don't just say 'done' - what kind of a reference is that? )

As I said, it was on the election platform in 2004 and on the Tory website at the time. It was reaffirmed in 2005 and many links were posted here. The National Post in this last year criticized the Tories for reneging on the promise.

[jdobbin]

hmmmm - not QUITE true. Even in his initial speech he said that it would be held then - 'except if the opposition loses confidence in teh gov't'. In this case, with dion actually on the election path with his green plan and having heard from all the opposition that there is nothing they can work on to reach consensus, he was in reality acting properly. The law was never meant to give the opposition the same unfair advantage it was taking from the gov't - it was supposed to level the playing field.

Not quite true that the government was defeated, was in a dysfunctional Parliament (unless you count the 200 page manual the Tories wrote to codify how to disrupt committees) or that the government didn't know that a minority government gave the Opposition an advantage. Harper accepted that when he introduced the law but said it would preclude the government from playing games to its advantage.

The National Post is not a fierce critic of the Tories but they have expressed disappointment in Harper for this cynical ploy.

You can't pretend the opposition had confidence in teh gov't when dion didn't even bother to show up for votes 40 + times and was out campaigning on his election platform.

You can't pretend the government was defeated in the traditional sense at all.

Oh sure they have. The puffin thing is a joke and not harper's. Tasteless, sure, but still.

The Tories showed no mercy on an ad never run or approved by Martin. It was stupid and many ways and unforgivable ad and Martin paid for it. The Tories let their ad run and it is gutter politics. Harper wisely owned up to it but we have seen quite a lot in the way of personal attacks in terms of using unflattering pictures and insults.

Harper has focused on dion's policy, which is entirely fair game and not 'dirty'. That's what they're supposed to do.

The pictures run on the Tory website are not on Dion's policy.

Dion on the other hand promised to run a clean campaign and then immediately started attacking harper himself! It took him only hours to break his word. To date, harper has not attacked dion at all, just his policy.

See website.

No politician is. (Did you just come to this planet or something? :D) but Harper is light years ahead of dion.

That is your opinion.

Harper broke his word on income trusts. That's the truth. But the rest of the time he's been dead honest and he owned the fact he said he wouldn't do that and did (and the opposition supported him.) He's been a more up front politician than we've seen in quite a while. Certainly more honest than mr 'brown envelopes' or mr dithers.

The use of insulting nicknames is forbidden by the moderator. Please refrain from using them.

The biggest broken promise I have an issue with Harper is on overspending.

[normanchateau]

Citation that he's a religious nut.

http://www.gregfelton.com/canpol/2007_08_2...%20article.html

"Since Harper moved in 2003 to Ottawa, he has been attending the capital city's Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, called East Gate, under the guidance of Pastor Bill Buitenwerf.

Two other important religious mentors for Harper, according to Mackey and others, have been Calgary Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy, a fellow evangelical, and Preston Manning, who like Harper is an Alliance Church adherent.

Foundational convictions

Indiana State Purdue University religious studies Prof. Philip Goff says the Alliance Church holds to four foundational convictions, which emerge out of its belief the Bible is without error.

The Alliance Church places an intense focus on the need for personal salvation, emphasizes the importance of leading a "holy" life and encourages spiritual healing, says Goff.

The denomination also stresses that Jesus Christ's return to Earth is imminent, says the evangelical specialist, who was raised in the Alliance Church.

Alliance Church rules, like those of other evangelical denominations, strongly oppose homosexual relationships, describing them as the "basest form of sinful conduct."

The Alliance Church is also tough on divorce and holds that Christians who have been adulterous do not have a right to remarry.

The denomination's leaders, in addition, oppose abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, the use of marijuana and ordained female clergy."

The Christian and Missionary Alliance views sound remarkably like Harper's. Coincidence?

[blueblood]

http://www.gregfelton.com/canpol/2007_08_2...%20article.html

"Since Harper moved in 2003 to Ottawa, he has been attending the capital city's Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, called East Gate, under the guidance of Pastor Bill Buitenwerf.

Two other important religious mentors for Harper, according to Mackey and others, have been Calgary Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy, a fellow evangelical, and Preston Manning, who like Harper is an Alliance Church adherent.

Foundational convictions

Indiana State Purdue University religious studies Prof. Philip Goff says the Alliance Church holds to four foundational convictions, which emerge out of its belief the Bible is without error.

The Alliance Church places an intense focus on the need for personal salvation, emphasizes the importance of leading a "holy" life and encourages spiritual healing, says Goff.

The denomination also stresses that Jesus Christ's return to Earth is imminent, says the evangelical specialist, who was raised in the Alliance Church.

Alliance Church rules, like those of other evangelical denominations, strongly oppose homosexual relationships, describing them as the "basest form of sinful conduct."

The Alliance Church is also tough on divorce and holds that Christians who have been adulterous do not have a right to remarry.

The denomination's leaders, in addition, oppose abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, the use of marijuana and ordained female clergy."

The Christian and Missionary Alliance views sound remarkably like Harper's. Coincidence?

So because harper goes to church, he's a religious nut. That's like me saying you not going to church suggests your are an athiest nut and consider religion evil. Need better evidence than that.

PMPM tried fear mongering and Harper lit up his christmas tree

In the words of BC2004 "Praise Jesus"

[August1991]

I love election time, integrity goes right out the window.

HistoryBuff, integrity doesn't go out the window in an election.

For example, Stephen Harper promised to cut the GST in 2006 and then he did.

It is the Liberals, since perhaps Trudeau in 1974, who have systematically made major promises and then not kept them.

I am surprised when the likes of the Toronto Star or Globe & Mail refer to the "Liberal Brand" in positive terms. The Liberal Brand is now a product/promise that doesn't deliver.

The Liberals promise the Green Shift? It's not going to happen if the Liberals form a government. So, you can vote Liberal safe in the knowledge that environmental taxes will never be imposed.

[jdobbin]

For example, Stephen Harper promised to cut the GST in 2006 and then he did.

And didn't remove the GST on excise tax, overspend past their promise in the election and ended the income trust.

I won't even go into the cynical election call that even the National Post says in their editorial is disappointing.

In any event, the Tories will get their massive majority and will push the Liberals to a defeat they will never recover from.

[Foxer]

As I said, it was on the election platform in 2004 and on the Tory website at the time. It was reaffirmed in 2005 and many links were posted here. The National Post in this last year criticized the Tories for reneging on the promise.

A promise made on the previous election isn't really valid automatically the next election. And i read two or three records of their policy documents at the time and as they were reported in the press, and couldn't find any mention. Obviously the website's gone so we can't look at that, but I sure don't recall seeing it during the election. I do know they'd promised it before.

Like i said - If dion promised last year not to have a carbon tax, and this year he proposes the green shift in his platform - then it's not a broken promise.

[Foxer]

Not quite true that the government was defeated, was in a dysfunctional Parliament (unless you count the 200 page manual the Tories wrote to codify how to disrupt committees) or that the government didn't know that a minority government gave the Opposition an advantage.

Well hold on now - the gov't doesn't get 'defeated' - either it has the confidence to govern or it doesn't. The opposition traditionally expresses that in confidence votes or votes that are a matter of confidence.

But while 2 parties had clearly said they do not have confidence, the libs refused to vote. Not just once but 40 some odd times. Further - dion began pitching his election platform and suggesting he was going to call an election.

At that point i think it's fair to say that Harper can be forgiven for thinking maybe he didn't have their confidence.

So - he went thru the motion of asking them if there were any items they might be able to agree on in the new parliament. It was a bit of a joke because everyone knew there wasn't, but what the heck he asked.

So - they didn't have any confidence. That is a dysfunctional parliament by definition.

Is it a departure from tradition? Yeah - but can you honestly tell me that the opposition had confidence in the gov't? If they didn't - it's time to go to the polls.

The Tories showed no mercy on an ad never run or approved by Martin. It was stupid and many ways and unforgivable ad and Martin paid for it. The Tories let their ad run and it is gutter politics. Harper wisely owned up to it but we have seen quite a lot in the way of personal attacks in terms of using unflattering pictures and insults.

it ran in quebec as i recall But sure. The thing there tho was that martin insulted the military. Goodness knows there were no shortage of attacks from martin that were directed at harper, but he really shouldn't have gone after the military folk. If for example harper had a bird pooping on hospital workers or something, i think he'd be getting a serious wholloping from his own party pretty quick.

Bottom line - it shouldn't have run and they yanked it and he owned it. But - it really isn't much of an insult compared to the stuff dion (and duceppe) have been shoveling.

[Visionseeker]

I got wind of Goodall's musings 24 hours before the official announcement from a lawyer wanting to know if I could confim it.

Oh really.

And have you shared this information with the RCMP? If not, perhaps I should direct them to this board so that they can follow-up with you.

[jdobbin]

Is it a departure from tradition? Yeah - but can you honestly tell me that the opposition had confidence in the gov't? If they didn't - it's time to go to the polls.

Can you honestly say that the Harper's move was not a cynical ploy just as the National Post mentions?

it ran in quebec as i recall

I don't recall. Do you have a citation for that?

Bottom line - it shouldn't have run and they yanked it and he owned it. But - it really isn't much of an insult compared to the stuff dion (and duceppe) have been shoveling.

Your personal opinion.

[August1991]

And didn't remove the GST on excise tax, overspend past their promise in the election and ended the income trust.

I won't even go into the cynical election call that even the National Post says in their editorial is disappointing.

Politics is politics. But Harper kept a major, easily identifiable promise.

The Liberals have never kept any promise. Since 1974, the Liberals have invariably done the opposite of what they promise in an election. Or invariably, they made promises with wriggle room and then they wriggled out of the promise.

Heck, Chretien/Trudeau made bold promises without wriggle room and then still wriggled out of them. The Liberals have even done this at the provincial level. Talk about a "brand".

-----

If the Conservatives win this election, and if they are good for the middle class, it will be due to the simple fact that i, for the first time in a generation, we have a federal government that promises something major in an election and then does it.

After so many years of Liberal governments, Canadians are surprised/suspicious to believe that a government might do what it says it will do.

This is the simple unspoken fact beneath this election.

[jdobbin]

Politics is politics. But Harper kept a major, easily identifiable promise.

I guess that is one way to dismiss overspending that is both reckless and easily one of the most important government responsibilities: don't go into deficit.

The Liberals have never kept any promise. Since 1974, the Liberals have invariably done the opposite of what they promise in an election. Or invariably, they made promises with wriggle room and then they wriggled out of the promise.

Of all the things you have said, this has to be one of the most partisan and incorrect statements you have made.

[Bryan]

As I said, it was on the election platform in 2004 and on the Tory website at the time. It was reaffirmed in 2005 and many links were posted here. The National Post in this last year criticized the Tories for reneging on the promise.

I have the 2004 platform book in front of me right now. I don't see any mention of any position or intention with regards to gas taxes.