harper offers tax break for parents with kids in arts

[tango]

Harper's mouthing off really had little to do with the Arts. That was just his convenient tool. His purpose was to create division between 'regular working people" and the 'rich' Arts community.

He made a bad choice, imo, both in lambasting the Arts, and in trying to create division. He is paying for his arrogance now:

1) "galas" are fundraisers, not subsidized.

2) Harper apparently wasn't aware that his wife was due to attend an Arts fundraising 'gala' soon. She has now cancelled.

3) Many 'regular working people' also have a taste for the Arts.

Another Harper 'oops' that shows the man lives in a far-right bubble with blinders on.

Edited September 30, 2008 by tango

[OddSox]

Hmm, $45 million in cut funding, and $150 million in increased funding = $105 million more than there was before. If a $45 million cut was going to irreparably damage Canada's arts culture, then a $105 million increase must be amazing!

[CrazeeEddie]

Quoted for Truth

So what you're saying is that the poor Ontario kid who'se parents used to work at oh let's say, GM, and now work at McDonald's for $9 an hour, now pay over $1.50 a liter for gas, $3 a loaf for bread, $500 a month for hydro, $1000 a month for rent/ mortgage (if they're lucky), isn't going to art school, or hockey, because his parents simply don't have the will?

And they say Liberals are elitists?

[CrazeeEddie]

really? So you think funding for First nations should be massively increased I assume?

You also believe in the right to civil disobedience for land claims I assume?

Please enlighten us

I believe this situation should have been resolved YEARS AGO (fault assigned to ALL parties).

[independent]

Hmm, $45 million in cut funding, and $150 million in increased funding = $105 million more than there was before. If a $45 million cut was going to irreparably damage Canada's arts culture, then a $105 million increase must be amazing!

IT does not help the arts industry one IOTA.

[Argus]

Oh, is that right? Care share your opinions on how Mulroney built up Canada's debt from $200 billion to $600 billion? Let's see your masterful command of economic theory explain that one.

I've already done that, so I don't mind reposting it. I doubt you'll learn anything from it, though. Here is an earlier post on this subject:

RESULTS::

Trudeau's share of the debt 170 billion.

Mulroney's share: 280 billion.

Chretien's share: 130 billion.

The Conservative government under Mulroney drove up the debt more than Trudeau did and more than Chretien did!

Given interest rates in the mid to high teens over a number of years any debt will about double if you can't pay it off and have high interest rates

The total debt when Trudeau took power in 1967 was about 12 billion (0.3% of GDP). The deficit was at a measly 187 million. Unemployment was very low, as was inflation.

When Mulroney took over from him in 1985 the debt was up to about 200 billion (8% of GDP) and the yearly deficit had passed 38 billion. Unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits. Debt service costs represtented 22% of the budget. With the bank rate as high as it was the debt jumped to 360 billion within five years because in order to pay the previous year's debt servicing charges the government had to run a deficit - which meant borrowing more money - which meant the following year's debt charge would be still higher During Mulroney's reign his government spent $230 billion servicing the debt, all of it borrowed money. Nevertheless, the overall debt dropped from 8% of GDP to 5.8% of GDP

Further, comparing spending is telling:

The yearly budget during Trudeau's time in office doubled between 1967 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1975. The inflation rate during the first 5 year period averaged 4%, and during the second 5 year period 5%. The national debt, during the entire period of his rule, increased by 1200%

Mulroney's first year in office was 1985. The budget that year was $112,362 billion dollars. Five years later in 1990, the budget was up to $151,590. The average inflation rate during that five year period was 4%, which means the budget rose only slightly in real terms during that time, most of which probably went to pay growing debt servicing costs. By 1992, the last full year of Mulroney's reign, the budget had increased by less than the rate of inflation.

By the time Chretien took over in 1993 unemployment and interest rates were both down, and the debt was at 466 billion. Chretien raised that to 600 billion. He did cut back on the deficit, but not for the first two years. It wasn't until continuing improvement in the economy that he was able to make any substantial reduction in the deficit (in 1996).

There you go. The numbers and logic are indisputable, but your hate of Mulroney doesn't seem open to either.

[Argus]

Only the ARTS they wanted to support.

You say that like it's a strange and novel thing for governments to support what they want.

[Argus]

We are talking about a major industry in Urban canada that is already suffering from a lack of funding. Our Arts community needs more funding not less.

It got more funding, remember? Yet it's still suffering? How much are we supposed to pay for these welfare artists?

[Moonbox]

There you go. The numbers and logic are indisputable, but your hate of Mulroney doesn't seem open to either.

I was about ready to repost pretty much all the same things. Thanks for saving me the time.

A response maybe Keng?

[CrazeeEddie]

So what you're saying is that the poor Ontario kid who'se parents used to work at oh let's say, GM, and now work at McDonald's for $9 an hour, now pay over $1.50 a liter for gas, $3 a loaf for bread, $500 a month for hydro, $1000 a month for rent/ mortgage (if they're lucky), isn't going to art school, or hockey, because his parents simply don't have the will?

And they say Liberals are elitists?

Come on Brian..... please explain how this is all the parents fault to me.... enlighten me on this.... in fact, can anybody please explain how the parents should be able to make this work?

[CrazeeEddie]

You say that like it's a strange and novel thing for governments to support what they want.

Not novel at all, however, much like it is totally okay for those on the right to complain about what the Liberals funded, the left is entitled to the same.

[CrazeeEddie]

It got more funding, remember? Yet it's still suffering? How much are we supposed to pay for these welfare artists?

You're right, we should continue to divert those funds to big oil..... we all know they need it.

This tax break sounds exactly like the whole GST cut fiasco. Does absolutely nothing to help those who actually need it. Man, what has Canada become?

[jdobbin]

Cost of program $150 million. $500 tax break for parents with kids in arts programs.

Just another complication in a staggeringly complicated tax code.

Please just make it an income tax cut.

[OddSox]

IT does not help the arts industry one IOTA.

You're right, Information Technology has little to do with the arts. Now, what were you trying to say?

[Bryan]

So what you're saying is that the poor Ontario kid who'se parents used to work at oh let's say, GM, and now work at McDonald's for $9 an hour, now pay over $1.50 a liter for gas, $3 a loaf for bread, $500 a month for hydro, $1000 a month for rent/ mortgage (if they're lucky), isn't going to art school, or hockey, because his parents simply don't have the will?

And they say Liberals are elitists?

I've been there. When my son was born 15 yrs ago, my wife and I were both students. We were working part time jobs. The economy in this country was far worse than it is now, wages were far lower, jobs were harder to come by, and the influx of Walmart and dollar stores and Chinese made products has not yet flooded our markets with really cheap goods, so most things actually cost more than they do now. Somehow we still managed to buy a house, feed and clothe our son, and put him in the activities he wanted to do, That included multiple sports, and playing multiple instruments. You want to talk about figuring out how to pay for expensive activities, try having a kid who is a goalie and drummer at the same time. There's your equipment expenses, your transportation, your time, etc.

If it's important, you'll find a way.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Bryan

[capricorn]

If it's important, you'll find a way.

Most parents do find a way when it comes to their children. Good for you and your spouse Bryan.

[Canadian Blue]

I wish someone would just scrap the tax code, and then institute a simplified tax system. We already have too much red tape as their is, why create anymore.

[Bryan]

Most parents do find a way when it comes to their children. Good for you and your spouse Bryan.

Thanks. The funny part is; for several years we actually qualified for full welfare, our income being so low. It never occurred to us to even apply. We'd gladly accept a little help if offered here and there, but we were not about to take a full ride, we wanted to do this ourselves.

I must say though, it sure would have made things a lot easier back then to have had all the additional credits and allowances that the Conservatives are offering to young families now. We might have been able to afford a TV or a washing machine.

[Who's Doing What?]

delete

Edited October 1, 2008 by Who's Doing What?

[White Doors]

So what you're saying is that the poor Ontario kid who'se parents used to work at oh let's say, GM, and now work at McDonald's for $9 an hour, now pay over $1.50 a liter for gas, $3 a loaf for bread, $500 a month for hydro, $1000 a month for rent/ mortgage (if they're lucky), isn't going to art school, or hockey, because his parents simply don't have the will?

And they say Liberals are elitists?

Where there is a will there is a way. The will in this situation would be to get a better job, oh, say at Toyota?