drewski Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 You talk as if it's replacing one with the other. That might be the case for the poor. For the middle class it would simply be adding one on top of the other. the plan as I read it had income tax cuts for all, albeit less for the middle class Quote If you oppose Bill 117, the governments ban on child passengers on motorcycles, join this FB group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=52185692512 Support Dominic LeBlanc for Liberal Party Leader http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=32208708169
cybercoma Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 Dion's secret agenda was to cut taxes significantly, but cleverly kept his true agenda hidden by proposing the Green Shift. So now we're stuck with the manic tax-and-spend Conservatives who are going to ruin this country...How would I know--it's a secret... Your blind partisanship is excessively annoying. Quote
independent Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 There is no secret agenda. Why do types harp on and on about, it is very tiresome. I think I'm going start ending every post with the secret left wing conspiracy. There is no secret agenda. However there is a big difference between promises made and the direction that a Leader wants too push a country. Any leader has thoughts and dreams that differ from what the party stands for. Harper has a long history of political involvement that should give you an idea about which way Harper might Lean. In General when a party gets a majority the party will start too take on the personality of its leader. Harpers focus will go from what I MUST do to get elected to what I would like to do too make Canada a better place.(Leave a Legacy). That would apply too any Leader and it becomes stronger the longer they stay in power. What do you think Dion,May or Layton would do if they got a majority could be asked as well. The stronger the leader the more this becomes the case. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 24, 2008 Author Report Posted October 24, 2008 Your blind partisanship is excessively annoying. I'm not a Liberal. Quote
kengs333 Posted October 24, 2008 Author Report Posted October 24, 2008 It seems you're getting the CPC confused with the Liberals and the NDP both would spend and raise taxes by a lot. A hell of a lot in order to pay for the pet projects.If you're worried about fiscal spending why are you voting for the left wing parties? All of whom would raise your taxes by a hell of a lot. If we used the NDP platform Canada would be bankrupt in about 2 years. The Liberal's plan called for significant tax reductions and a shift to polluting technologies. The less you pollute, the less you get taxed. That's an incentive. But most people are apparently are unwilling to change their lifestyles to save the planet. Well, if that's the case, live with the consequences. Quote
Argus Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 the plan as I read it had income tax cuts for all, albeit less for the middle class The plan, although called "green shift" had very little to do with the environment. Basically, it was a wealth redistribution plan. But if you 'redistribute' wealth to the poor, it has to come from someone. We know the rich and their accountants can always get around extra taxes, so that leaves the middle class. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 The Liberal's plan called for significant tax reductions and a shift to polluting technologies. The less you pollute, the less you get taxed. Like if you don't own a car, you get taxed less. So the middle class would be punished for owning cars. They'd be punished for owning boats, lawn mowers, houses instead of condos, cottages, for taking vacations, for buying consumer goods, for all the stuff the middle class does. The rich, of course, would simply shrug off such taxes, like Al Gore, in his huge mansion with his giant swimming pools, flying around in jet planes while preaching about environmentalism. That's an incentive. No, it's an incentive when you reward, not when you punish. And when you punish basic behaviour - like owning a car - that's simply an unavoidable tax. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kengs333 Posted October 24, 2008 Author Report Posted October 24, 2008 Like if you don't own a car, you get taxed less. So the middle class would be punished for owning cars. or if you own a non-polluting car They'd be punished for owning boats, polluting boats lawn mowers, polluting mowers houses instead of condos, cottages, what about energy effciency... for taking vacations, depends on where. for buying consumer goods, for all the stuff the middle class does. not if they change their ways. The rich, of course, would simply shrug off such taxes, like Al Gore, in his huge mansion with his giant swimming pools, flying around in jet planes while preaching about environmentalism. http://www.mahalo.com/Al_gore_mansion Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.