Flaherty hints at tax cuts as consumer confidence dips

[Topaz]

On a radio program, this financial expert told the audience, watch out for China to start trade it's US T-bills for gold and watch the US dollar go down to nothing when/if they do, the US will tank. I suppose this is were the creation of the Amero comes in?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It might be, it also might be where Fortress North America comes in.

[punked]

I don't think I understand your premise at all. Neither do the billions of international dollars headed for US Notes....it's still the best game in town.

Tell me more about your Supply Side Bullshit and how it is great???

Investors dump $89B in U.S. securities in historic fire sale

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2009...ecurities_N.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

Tell me more about your Supply Side Bullshit and how it is great???

Investors dump $89B in U.S. securities in historic fire sale

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2009...ecurities_N.htm

Supply Side Bullshit? Now I know where you are coming from, grasshopper.

Today, the CBC ran yet another Obama stimulus package headline, and he's not even president yet!

Edited January 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[jdobbin]

I agree that the government should be a smaller, more effective unit.

The excuse for the increase in spending we have seen from Tory supporters here is that Canada has been in recession since they were elected.

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090106/...ess_us_flaherty

"There will be a plan in the budget, a clear, solid plan to come out of deficit," Flaherty told reporters. "We will show, in the budget, as we go into deficit, how we will come out and when we will come out, making reasonable economic assumptions."

Flaherty, speaking to reporters a day after he met with the chief executives of Canada's big banks, said the government has agreed to form a working group with the country's banks on providing credit.

He also said tax cuts were under consideration for the budget he is due to present on January 27.

Note the weasel words at the end: making reasonable economic assumptions.

Flaherty has had difficulty keeping his spending in check even when money was flowing in. I simply don't believe he is going to get Canada out of deficit once going in.

[madmax]

Flaherty has had difficulty keeping his spending in check even when money was flowing in. I simply don't believe he is going to get Canada out of deficit once going in.

Nor do I. He has a proven track record for failure to deliver balanced budgets. He is the deficit man.

He ran deficits in Ontario and took very little time in achieving the same result federally.

[Topaz]

The opposition parties called him daddy debt or daddy deficit which he hates! Chris Matthews on MSNBC, made a good point, he said by the gas prices going to to were they are now, all Americans have about $100.00 a week more in thier pockets than any tax cut could. He also said it would only be the low and middle income earners that would put the spending back into the economy because the well to do don`t spend as much they save and that the low and middle earners do have to spend more than save.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would still prefer to see the government reduce our tax load. They, the government, need to get their own house in order and cut their spending. Dumping money into the auto companies won't do the trick. Neither will bailing out the forestry or fishing industries. Even so, that is where all the federal parties want to go, into deficits and spending sprees.

Wrong plan at the wrong time. The only way spending increases and deficits can help us if the money goes into the creation of infrastructure. More employment equals more tax revenues.

[daniel]

I would still prefer to see the government reduce our tax load.

They've been doing that for that past two years already. And we're in a recession anyways. Got to think outside the box instead of repeating the same old same old.

They, the government, need to get their own house in order and cut their spending. ...

Got a surplus? Cut taxes until you get a deficit.

Got a deficit? Cut programs until you get a surplus.

Round and round she goes.

The only way spending increases and deficits can help us if the money goes into the creation of infrastructure. More employment equals more tax revenues.

That I agree. But that only happens when the government wants to win the Olympic bid. And we already know the history of hosting the Olympics.

[Shady]

Yeah, the reason a deficit exists is because Canadians just aren't paying enough taxes.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yeah, the reason a deficit exists is because Canadians just aren't paying enough taxes.

The deficit exists because the government has spending issues. Taxes are regressive and they oppress economies, that is a well known and accepted fact. The most astute move the government could make would be to outright eliminate income taxes and convert to consumption taxes. You want to spur the economy, and attract foreign and domestic investment, that will do it for you.i

[punked]

The deficit exists because the government has spending issues. Taxes are regressive and they oppress economies, that is a well known and accepted fact. The most astute move the government could make would be to outright eliminate income taxes and convert to consumption taxes. You want to spur the economy, and attract foreign and domestic investment, that will do it for you.i

Oh and don't forget kill the poor.

[Shady]

Oh and don't forget kill the poor.

Well, thankfully you didn't overreact.

[punked]

Well, thankfully you didn't overreact.

What a consumption tax puts huge burdens on the poor that is a fact.

[blueblood]

What a consumption tax puts huge burdens on the poor that is a fact.

Then cutting the GST would be a good thing then

[Moonbox]

It's true. A consumption tax hurts the poor immensely. At least with income taxes a lot of their income is untaxable anyways. With consumption tax increases basically EVERY dollar the poor earn gets fully taxed because it's fully spent.

Consumption taxes can also be easily avoided by more well-off people. They can just take their income and turn it into savings instead of spending it. Obviously they will spend it eventually either way but for someone who's trying to pay off debt or save for retirement you'd see a HUGE reduction in spending and increased savings and debt retirement.

[punked]

Then cutting the GST would be a good thing then

I would agre if they GST was 50-75% (becuase that what a consumption tax would have to be to replace income tax) and they were cutting my 40-50%. That would help the poor.

[jdobbin]

It's true. A consumption tax hurts the poor immensely. At least with income taxes a lot of their income is untaxable anyways. With consumption tax increases basically EVERY dollar the poor earn gets fully taxed because it's fully spent.

Economists have been saying for a long time that income tax cuts are better for lower incomes than GST cuts and have a better stimulus effect. The one main economist who seems to disagree is Stephen Harper.

[madmax]

Then cutting the GST would be a good thing then

I'm In

[blueblood]

Economists have been saying for a long time that income tax cuts are better for lower incomes than GST cuts and have a better stimulus effect. The one main economist who seems to disagree is Stephen Harper.

How low are we talking about. I'm talking about the guy living on the FN reserve who is too poor to pay income tax and is looking for a tax break when he buys something off reserve

[OddSox]

It's true. A consumption tax hurts the poor immensely. At least with income taxes a lot of their income is untaxable anyways. With consumption tax increases basically EVERY dollar the poor earn gets fully taxed because it's fully spent.

I was under the impression that the 'poor' get government rebate cheques sent to them every quarter.

[jdobbin]

How low are we talking about. I'm talking about the guy living on the FN reserve who is too poor to pay income tax and is looking for a tax break when he buys something off reserve

If he is low income, doesn't he get a rebate on GST?

As for what I have proposed, see my earlier posts.

I said if you want my idea, it is to have a year long temporary reprieve on all GST and for on corporate and personal income tax for up to a year.

I would not suggest this without a real tackling of spending such as on transfers, etc.

Edited January 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I'm In

My suggestion which no one responded to was have a one year total cut on all GST, income and corporate taxes. It has to be better than picking winner and losers to bail out in forestry and autos. This would benefit everyone.

However, we need a tighter rein all other spending if we go ahead with this policy.

[madmax]

My suggestion which no one responded to was have a one year total cut on all GST, income and corporate taxes. It has to be better than picking winner and losers to bail out in forestry and autos. This would benefit everyone.

I don't know how a government could survive if it cut its income source off completely.

Forestry and Auto don't require bailouts as much as the industry and forestry require stronger laws to keep profitable operations from being purchased for their technology then relocated offshore. The loans are to help operations move and to help operations move, some of these facilities must maintain operation for a few years.

It is to help with a harmonious closure. No matter what the government does with its friends who are lining up for their corporate welfare cheques, none of this money creates markets or a consumer base.

So what is the purpose?

Meanwhile....

Tens of thousands of jobs could have been saved with a strong national policy, protecting jobs, technology and investment in Canada. Having previously participate in a plant takeover to keep hundred of Jobs in Canada, from a "bankrupt" operation, that is still in Canada and seems to be doing better then many operations, it didn't cost the tax payer a dime. Mills were being shut down during a housing boom that lasted years. Obviously the government is totally unprepared and unable to deal with forestry on any level, short of the possibility of large forestry companies getting in line for a welfare cheque.

However, we need a tighter rein all other spending if we go ahead with this policy.

This is a Federal Conservative government with a poor track record of fiscal management. Don't hold your breath.