Lame Conservative Attack Adds

[M.Dancer]

Go to the Libera's Green Shift website. It has a calculator right there telling you how much you'll save in taxes.

According to the site the family would get a $1254 credit. Somehow I can't see that covering a 5% rise in costs.

[eyeball]

It isn't a question whether it will harm the economy to me personally, it's a question of how much more will I pay. How will the government know how much more I will pay for everything, and make no mistake, everything will become more expensive. The GST was supposed to be tax neutral too....

On top of that, if thetax burden is shifted to consummers, who are then in trun supposed compensated....what point is there? What conceivable benefit will there be for a manfacturer to reduce carbon when for him, it is absolutley tax neutral. While we are at it, with the prices of everything going up because of taxes, how much less competitive will Canadians be against imports which won't be taxed.

This is all stick no carrot.

The trick will be making it work no doubt but as visonseeker said in another thread "Tax me when I spend, not when I earn". The thing that sells me the most on the idea is how it links our economy and consumption to our environment.

Edited September 16, 2008 by eyeball

[capricorn]

I'm all about progressive tax brackets, but what I'm seeing here is just another Liberal tax and spend plan looking to take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots'.

Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in supporting a 25 year old single mother with 4 kids. None at all.

Most of the tax cuts are to targeted groups. The Liberals recently sweetened the pot for farmers to appeal to the rural vote. It is wealth redistribution at its finest and another attempt at social engineering. It seems that the "what's in it for me" crowd is doing some deep thinking about what's at the end of the tunnel with green shifting.

[blueblood]

Most of the tax cuts are to targeted groups. The Liberals recently sweetened the pot for farmers to appeal to the rural vote. It is wealth redistribution at its finest and another attempt at social engineering. It seems that the "what's in it for me" crowd is doing some deep thinking about what's at the end of the tunnel with green shifting.

That pot isn't sweet enough, good thing they'll lose, I would have really cringed looking at my next fertilizer bill.

[blueblood]

dp

Edited September 16, 2008 by blueblood

[DrGreenthumb]

That pot isn't sweet enough, good thing they'll lose, I would have really cringed looking at my next fertilizer bill.

I'm sorry I just HAVE to say it. I can't resist. "why not just spread some of the BS you shovel around here onto your field?"

Sorry man its meant in a lighthearted way really.

[blueblood]

I'm sorry I just HAVE to say it. I can't resist. "why not just spread some of the BS you shovel around here onto your field?"

Sorry man its meant in a lighthearted way really.

That is funny. I'll commence to shovelling in october...

[marksman]

Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in supporting a 25 year old single mother with 4 kids. None at all.

Most of the tax cuts are to targeted groups. The Liberals recently sweetened the pot for farmers to appeal to the rural vote. It is wealth redistribution at its finest and another attempt at social engineering. It seems that the "what's in it for me" crowd is doing some deep thinking about what's at the end of the tunnel with green shifting.

I'm quoting 2 of you at once because you're making the same point I think. You're saying that the income tax cuts are only going to a specific group of people in the Liberal tax plan. But if you voted for Harper last time then you voted for the exact same thing. His GST cuts benefited higher income Canadians way more than lower income Canadians and all of his income tax cuts were aimed at specific groups of people. I hope you complained about wealth redistribution and social engineering last time around. Harper's income tax cuts were aimed at people with kids people with kids who play sports and so on. I didn't have any interest last election in supporting a rich family with 4 kids but it happened anyway. If I'd have to choose between the 2 options I'd rather help the single mother since she probably needs the money more.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm quoting 2 of you at once because you're making the same point I think. You're saying that the income tax cuts are only going to a specific group of people in the Liberal tax plan. But if you voted for Harper last time then you voted for the exact same thing. His GST cuts benefited higher income Canadians way more than lower income Canadians and all of his income tax cuts were aimed at specific groups of people. I hope you complained about wealth redistribution and social engineering last time around. Harper's income tax cuts were aimed at people with kids people with kids who play sports and so on. I didn't have any interest last election in supporting a rich family with 4 kids but it happened anyway. If I'd have to choose between the 2 options I'd rather help the single mother since she probably needs the money more.

Yeah pretty stupid when the taxpayer is sending a check to families living in 200,000 dollar homes with 2 SUV's in the driveway and earning 100,000 dollars a year. Handouts to the already wealthy is how Harper pissed away the largest surplus in Canadian History in less than 2 years, and severely impaired Canada's ability to ride out the econic downturn that right wing policies always cause.

[capricorn]

His GST cuts benefited higher income Canadians way more than lower income Canadians and all of his income tax cuts were aimed at specific groups of people.

Of course the GST cut resulted in a higher dollar value of savings on purchases by high income Canadians. If the prospect of bigger savings push higher income Canadians to increase their spending this is good for the economy. The fact remains that the dollars saved by lower income Canadians is significant because they have less disposable income.

I hope you complained about wealth redistribution and social engineering last time around. Harper's income tax cuts were aimed at people with kids people with kids who play sports and so on. I didn't have any interest last election in supporting a rich family with 4 kids but it happened anyway.

The sports expense is a deduction from taxable income. A basic level of understanding of our tax system would make it apparent that lower income Canadians are more apt to benefit financially from the deduction than higher income Canadians.

If I'd have to choose between the 2 options I'd rather help the single mother since she probably needs the money more.

That's exactly what you are doing.

[marksman]

Of course the GST cut resulted in a higher dollar value of savings on purchases by high income Canadians. If the prospect of bigger savings push higher income Canadians to increase their spending this is good for the economy. The fact remains that the dollars saved by lower income Canadians is significant because they have less disposable income.

You complained that the Liberal plans were targeted to specific groups. All I'm saying is that so were Harper's plans last time around. I haven't read his platform yet for this time but I'm not expecting much different. All parties target groups.

The dollars saved by lower income Canadians wasn't significant. It's been discussed in other topics but lower income Canadians don't save as much as you'd think because basic necessities aren't taxed by the GST at all and lower income Canadians get GST rebates. The GST cut benefited high income Canadians disproportionately to lower and middle income Canadians - it was targeted for a specific group.

The sports expense is a deduction from taxable income. A basic level of understanding of our tax system would make it apparent that lower income Canadians are more apt to benefit financially from the deduction than higher income Canadians.

A sports expense is targeted to a specific group which is what you're complaining about - it was targeted for families with children who play sports. It's a very specific credit even more specific than some of the groups you were complaining about. You've complained about farmers being given special breaks but don't you see how families with kids who play sports is also a targeted group?

While your justification for the sports credit doesn't have to do with it being a targeted credit it's still important to say that it doesn't benefit lower income Canadians more than higher income Canadians.

In order to get the credit you've got to spend a certain amount of money on sports fees for your kids with the maximum being $500 per kid. It's more likely that higher income Canadians can afford the full $500 resulting in a savings of $75 per kid. Lower income Canadians are less likely to be able to afford the full $500 and even if they did would receive the same $75 benefit as everyone else. It's not apparent that lower income Canadians are more apt to benefit than higher income Canadians. It's the exact opposite that's true.

It's unnecesary to imply that I don't have a basic understanding of the tax system.

[Canadian Blue]

I wish we had a flat tax so we could all be taxed at the same rate. Imagine how much simpler the world would be.

[capricorn]

You complained that the Liberal plans were targeted to specific groups.

My complaint is with the Green Shift proposal. By all accounts it seems I am not alone. Some proposed/promised programs that target specific groups in society seem desirable, for example, the drug plan Dion announced. Harper's plan to open the EI program to self employed workers also seems like a good idea. I say "seem" because we do not know the unintended consequences of putting those plans into action.

The dollars saved by lower income Canadians wasn't significant.

Nevertheless, for the most part Canadians received the GST cut very well except for those who think it is wrong to cut consumption taxes. It probably swayed many Canadians to vote for the Conservatives. Any party that has a policy to raise it again is doing so at their peril.

A sports expense is targeted to a specific group which is what you're complaining about - it was targeted for families with children who play sports. It's a very specific credit even more specific than some of the groups you were complaining about. You've complained about farmers being given special breaks but don't you see how families with kids who play sports is also a targeted group?

I wouldn't call it "complaint" just my two cents.

It's more likely that higher income Canadians can afford the full $500 resulting in a savings of $75 per kid. Lower income Canadians are less likely to be able to afford the full $500 and even if they did would receive the same $75 benefit as everyone else.

True. Yet I know lots of lower income Canadians who do place emphasis on sports for their kids and make it a priority to come through with the money.

It's unnecesary to imply that I don't have a basic understanding of the tax system.

Sorry, my wording was bad and I meant no offense.

[Smallc]

I wish we had a flat tax so we could all be taxed at the same rate. Imagine how much simpler the world would be.

We don't have such a thing because this country is far from simple.

[Canadian Blue]

I guess I can just look with envy at Estonia and Hong Kong then and wish we had our own Coperthwaite.

[marksman]

My complaint is with the Green Shift proposal. By all accounts it seems I am not alone. Some proposed/promised programs that target specific groups in society seem desirable, for example, the drug plan Dion announced. Harper's plan to open the EI program to self employed workers also seems like a good idea. I say "seem" because we do not know the unintended consequences of putting those plans into action.

I can accept that you think some targeted things are bad and some good. I'd interpreted your 1 post to mean that you were against the Liberal Green Shift because it targeted groups and was an example of social engineering without acknowledging that every platform has targeted groups and contains examples of social engineering. Sorry for any confusion. Debating which types of social engineering to vote for is a much better debate than the arguments that many people on this forum start where they'll accuse 1 party of something while ignoring that their favourite party does the same.

Nevertheless, for the most part Canadians received the GST cut very well except for those who think it is wrong to cut consumption taxes. It probably swayed many Canadians to vote for the Conservatives. Any party that has a policy to raise it again is doing so at their peril.

Your statement is true and I find it very ironic since almost any economist will tell you that it's better for people to have their income taxes cut than cutting a consumption tax. But Canadians did like it last time around.

I don't know if it'd be such a bad thing to talk about raising the GST assuming you have a carrot to go along with that stick. With actual communication I think Canadians would be smart enough to see the benefits of an income tax cut offsetting a higher GST but I doubt anyone would get elected if they proposed a GST higher than 7%.

True. Yet I know lots of lower income Canadians who do place emphasis on sports for their kids and make it a priority to come through with the money.

That's definitely true but I think it'll still overall benefit higher income Canadians more. That's my guess since I'm not sure there're stats that show who claims what credits based on their income.

Sorry, my wording was bad and I meant no offense.

No offense taken then. I'm still trying to figure out who here treats other members the way they would in real life where a statement like that is just a phrase with no malicious intent compared to members who feel the internet gives them license to be rude and arrogant and mock others without having the slightest clue what those others are really about. The same phrase'll have 2 different meanings depending on who writes it so sometimes it's easy to mistake an innocent phrase for a malicious 1.