Ignatieff calls for tax cuts, changes to EI

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

He called for fast, targeted tax cuts for low and middle-income Canadians, a "shovel-ready" economic stimulus package with an emphasis on infrastructure and for changes to the EI program.

"I think it's important for us to have tax cuts for low and middle-income Canadians, to increase their purchase power," Ignatieff told reporters after the meeting.

The Liberal leader said EI must be transformed to provide more training and education for out-of-work Canadians to get them back in the work-force.

Seems there is a basis for agreement on the budget. It remains to be seen whether Harper will be less confrontational in this session.

[Vancouver King]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Seems there is a basis for agreement on the budget. It remains to be seen whether Harper will be less confrontational in this session.

It will be interesting to see if budget tax cuts are directed at usual CPC constituencies - corporations and the rich rather than those who need it and would actually spend the extra cash - the working poor.

I will believe it when I see it that the govt which raised taxes on the poorest working Canadians can resist the temptation to serve up more tax relief to those who need it the least.

[Yorkness]

Sounds like typical pre-election drivel. Ignatieff should elaborate because taxes are quite low to begin with and EI ineffecient. Any change would have to be quite minimal and uninteresting.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Yorkness

[madmax]

Sounds like typical pre-election drivel.

I read the article and that is exactly what first came to mind. That kind of talk is pre-election drivel. Typical easy statements for a Leader to make, or more importantly, don't make waves.

I could have heard Harper make similar statements.... maybe I did

[Wilber]

Sounds like typical pre-election drivel. Ignatieff should elaborate because taxes are quite low to begin with and EI ineffecient. Any change would have to be quite minimal and uninteresting.

Don't know about pre election drivel but certainly a healthy portion of political drivel. Long on rhetoric, short on specifics. Perhaps that similar drivel has been expounded by both sides could be a positive.

I for one hope they can reach an accommodation. Considering the economic situation, parties should be looking for ways to deal with the country's problems, rather than their own political issues. Jack would be pissed though, no cabinet post for the foreseeable future.

[blueblood]

It will be interesting to see if budget tax cuts are directed at usual CPC constituencies - corporations and the rich rather than those who need it and would actually spend the extra cash - the working poor.

I will believe it when I see it that the govt which raised taxes on the poorest working Canadians can resist the temptation to serve up more tax relief to those who need it the least.

I should bloody well hope they are directed towards business's and the rich, we spend the most money. If business's suffer, not only they suffer, but the working poor that are employed by them as well. Better to help out business's so the working poor still has a job.

Boo fricken hoo the poor had tax raised on them. Being poor shouldn't mean getting a free ride. Business's need tax breaks more than the poor, they bear all the risks, do all the investing, and provide most of the jobs.

[punked]

I should bloody well hope they are directed towards business's and the rich, we spend the most money. If business's suffer, not only they suffer, but the working poor that are employed by them as well. Better to help out business's so the working poor still has a job.

Boo fricken hoo the poor had tax raised on them. Being poor shouldn't mean getting a free ride. Business's need tax breaks more than the poor, they bear all the risks, do all the investing, and provide most of the jobs.

If the poor get a tax break they can spend it stimulating business creating jobs. Supply side does not work time to try something else.

[blueblood]

If the poor get a tax break they can spend it stimulating business creating jobs. Supply side does not work time to try something else.

Except the money I save on income taxe reduction is significantly more than a poor person. My tax break savings are thousands of dollars, a poor person's is hundreds of dollars. Who is going to spend more in the economy?

Same goes for business's, they can spend more researching, hiring workers, and buying inputs. A poor person cannot. Who stimulates the economy more?

[jdobbin]

It will be interesting to see if budget tax cuts are directed at usual CPC constituencies - corporations and the rich rather than those who need it and would actually spend the extra cash - the working poor.

Since the last budgets had corporate tax cuts maybe we will see some lowering of personal taxes.

I will believe it when I see it that the govt which raised taxes on the poorest working Canadians can resist the temptation to serve up more tax relief to those who need it the least.

I guess we'll have to see. My guess is that something for everyone will be in the budget.

The only thing I'm concerned about is how large the deficit will grow.

[jdobbin]

Sounds like typical pre-election drivel. Ignatieff should elaborate because taxes are quite low to begin with and EI ineffecient. Any change would have to be quite minimal and uninteresting.

Wasn't this elaborating?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/08/...ff-economy.html

"Tax cuts targeted at medium- to low-income Canadians will boost their purchasing power," he said. "There's a strong case for tax relief for the more vulnerable."

[ToadBrother]

I should bloody well hope they are directed towards business's and the rich, we spend the most money. If business's suffer, not only they suffer, but the working poor that are employed by them as well. Better to help out business's so the working poor still has a job.

Boo fricken hoo the poor had tax raised on them. Being poor shouldn't mean getting a free ride. Business's need tax breaks more than the poor, they bear all the risks, do all the investing, and provide most of the jobs.

I hope the poor and the rich and business are ignored, and the government saves the Middle Class, which keeps all you useless turkeys afloat.

[jdobbin]

I for one hope they can reach an accommodation.

Guess that depends on Harper. If he wants an election, he will try to slip in the usual provocative stuff.

[ToadBrother]

Guess that depends on Harper. If he wants an election, he will try to slip in the usual provocative stuff.

I'm sure Harper would love an election, but his caucus and his party does not.

[blueblood]

Guess that depends on Harper. If he wants an election, he will try to slip in the usual provocative stuff.

I wouldn't doubt it. It's too tempting, especially now

Edited January 9, 2009 by blueblood

[jdobbin]

Boo fricken hoo the poor had tax raised on them. Being poor shouldn't mean getting a free ride.

Tax breaks for the poor are a free ride?

Edited January 9, 2009 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

Tax breaks for the poor are a free ride?

If they are the only tax breaks given out in this day and age, then I say in a sense it is.

[Cameron]

Toad...nice. Made my laugh a little.

Most poor people don't pay taxes so it's useless to give them one. We should be focusing on the middle class so they spend more money opening up jobs because of the need to supply them (middle class) with goods.

Throw in some corporate tax breaks for good measure.

And re-elect the Liberals because they make everything smell like roses and we get to ride unicorns around.

[punked]

Except the money I save on income taxe reduction is significantly more than a poor person. My tax break savings are thousands of dollars, a poor person's is hundreds of dollars. Who is going to spend more in the economy?

Same goes for business's, they can spend more researching, hiring workers, and buying inputs. A poor person cannot. Who stimulates the economy more?

Considering there are thousand poor to one of you I say the thousand poor. They are more likely to spend and on stuff made in this country. So I go with the poor. Sorry tickle down stuff stop being popular deal with it.

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't doubt it. It's too tempting, especially now

I suppose it also depends on Jean. She might have told him that she was prepared to prorogue Parliament to allow Harper to try again but that if the government tried to engineer their own defeat, she would not automatically consider an election. That would have chilled Harper's heart.

[jdobbin]

If they are the only tax breaks given out in this day and age, then I say in a sense it is.

Think Ignatieff said lower and middle income tax cuts should take priority. You think only higher incomes should have the only cuts?

[blueblood]

Considering there are thousand poor to one of you I say the thousand poor. They are more likely to spend and on stuff made in this country. So I go with the poor. Sorry tickle down stuff stop being popular deal with it.

Then by that logic, the Bush Administration would have spent the 700 billion dollars bailing out the poor people of the country. It seems to me business's contribute more to the economy than skids do.

[blueblood]

I suppose it also depends on Jean. She might have told him that she was prepared to prorogue Parliament to allow Harper to try again but that if the government tried to engineer their own defeat, she would not automatically consider an election. That would have chilled Harper's heart.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what went on in that meeting. Harper as you know is the type of person who would shell the GG if she gave the coalition gov't. Engineering their own defeat is a pretty simple accusation to dodge.

[punked]

Then by that logic, the Bush Administration would have spent the 700 billion dollars bailing out the poor people of the country. It seems to me business's contribute more to the economy than skids do.

I wish they did. Last time I checked that stimulus hasn't done anything.

[blueblood]

Think Ignatieff said lower and middle income tax cuts should take priority. You think only higher incomes should have the only cuts?

No, that's why I support the GST cut, everybody gets a cut (not to mention it really helps me). I was saying that business's not getting any tax cut, while the poor get it is sheer nonsense. Are you saying that we should punish people for succeeding (priority given to low and middle income earners)?

[jdobbin]

Most poor people don't pay taxes so it's useless to give them one.

I think the idea was to give breaks to the poor who do pay taxes not those who don't pay any.

We should be focusing on the middle class so they spend more money opening up jobs because of the need to supply them (middle class) with goods.

It is what Ignatieff said today.

I don't know what Flaherty wants in terms of tax cuts.

Throw in some corporate tax breaks for good measure.

They got quite a few last budget.

My personal view is that corporate taxes can be reduced further but not before we reduce subsidies and grants to industry as well. One area to look at immediately is ethanol.

And re-elect the Liberals because they make everything smell like roses and we get to ride unicorns around.

I have a whole stable of unicorns for you to ride. Your unicorn is named C.D. Howe.