Should the Conservatives Raise the GST

[jdobbin]

There was a built in federal tax of 11% on most goods. The GST replaced that and was standardized to include tax on services.

The tax was a lot higher for a few manufactured goods and put manufacturers at a disadvantage compared to other companies.

[Progressive Tory]

Many people do not receive GST rebates. Many poor people do not receive GST rebates.

What poor people don't? I thought it was income based, unless they're not aware that they are eligible.

[Progressive Tory]

There is no GST payable on the sale of a house, except on brand new homes, where it is typically included in the stated price, not added as it is on retail stuff.

The first thing we should do is to cancel the poltical subsidy to all parties, easy pickings that we can all agree upon.

The first thing we should do is force Harper to reduce the size of his cabinet to 25. Eliminate limos and drivers, except for the PM and few on standby for special events.

We should increase the political subsidy to $ 5.00 a vote and then eliminate tax credits for political donations.

We should then put a cap on political fundraising, so that one party can't make so many promises to special interest groups and we all get a share of our money. Maximum outside funding should never be more than 10 million dollars, that way politicians will work for us and not lose focus. Do their jobs instead of standing around with an outstretched palm.

Now that's democracy.

[M.Dancer]

Arbitrary measures are never domocratic nor advisable.

[Progressive Tory]

Arbitrary measures are never domocratic nor advisable.

You know if I saw that Harper was really dedicated to cutting costs, I might reconsider my position on voter subsidies, but if he can spend so recklessly on an oversized cabinet, where each member gets a gas guzzling limo, a driver, and an extra $ 50,000.00 plus salary, during an economic crisis; then he's just a blowhard, with zero credibility.

Another way of looking at these subsidies

Cost to every man woman and child in Canada for the War in Afghanistan - $ 342. 42

Cost to every voting taxpayer in Canada for the War in Afghanistan $ 826. 32

Democratically allowing voter's party of choice to be rewarded a $ 1.95 to ensure our vote counts - priceless.

We paid for the war arbitrarily because we had no choice. Allowing us to decide where less than $ 2.00 of our tax burden goes is very democratic and gives all parties a chance to represent. Chretien got this right.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Argus]

An article in the Calgary Herald, outlines what most people already know. Cutting the GST was a gimmick that greatly reduced our revenue, while doing nothing to stimulate the economy.

Should the government take it back to 7 or even 8%? There's talk that they may cancel GST rebates, but I don't think that's the way to go. We need to increase consumption tax.

What an insane idea. The government is running up a multi-billion dollar deficit because everyone and his old grannie thinks they need to encourage spending - and you want us to increase taxes on consumption so people spend less?

The increased revenue flows would, in turn, allow the government to slash taxes on corporations and individuals — breaks that are more likely to stimulate economic activity.

Raise taxes so we can cut taxes? This is why Europe is falling apart. They're all crazy there.

[Argus]

The first thing we should do is force Harper to reduce the size of his cabinet to 25. Eliminate limos and drivers, except for the PM and few on standby for special events.

And then as soon as your party gets in it's PARTY ON!

I remember when Clark got into power. He instructed all his MPs to make do with whatever was available - old furniture, old rugs, whatever. Just use it. Nine months later the Liberals were back in power and it was no holds barred on furnishing their offices. Millions went out the door to the top flight furniture supply companies for snazzy new rugs and furniture. The old stuff was not only thrown out, but it was smashed and cut up so that none of those (ick!) employee types might grab anything and take it home.

Every Liberal administration since Trudeau has been one of champaign and limos, enormous cabinets of non-entities and huge outlays for party favorites. Nor has anything changed.

We should increase the political subsidy to $ 5.00 a vote and then eliminate tax credits for political donations.

This wouldn't have anything to do with the near bankrupt state of your party, would it? Because if you had anyone who knew anything about managing a budget - or any membership willing to contribute, you wouldn't have that problem. No, your idea is ludicrous. It would enrich the lazy political parties who can't raise money - like the BQ, for example, which gets almost all it's money from welfare - er, the taxpayer

We should then put a cap on political fundraising, so that one party can't make so many promises to special interest groups

Special interest groups - whatever that is - aren't allowed to contribute money anyway. This is just another snivelling complaint about the fact Canadians by the tens and hundreds of thousands are willing to contribute money to the conservaties, while almost no one is willing to contribute money to your intellectually, morally and financially bankrupt party.

[Argus]

There was a built in federal tax of 11% on most goods. The GST replaced that and was standardized to include tax on services.

The point is it worked out to about the same thing, except unlike the MST it didn't give foreign produced goods an unfair tax advantage here.

[Argus]

Democratically allowing voter's party of choice to be rewarded a $ 1.95 to ensure our vote counts - priceless.

We paid for the war arbitrarily because we had no choice. Allowing us to decide where less than $ 2.00 of our tax burden goes is very democratic and gives all parties a chance to represent. Chretien got this right.

Clearly, democracy is another concept you find wildly confusing.

There can be nothing more democratic than allowing people to choose which political party to support - or to support none. If people want to give money to a political party, they are free to do so. Your method FORCES people to contribute whether they want to or not, and gives them no choice about who the money goes to. It forces Canadians to give money to the BQ - who get almost all their funding from this idiot scheme as Quebecers don't seem much interested in donating to them willingly.

But then, the Left is all about forcing people to obey their poorly thought-out schemes, no matter what the people think of them.

[Moonbox]

We should increase the political subsidy to $ 5.00 a vote and then eliminate tax credits for political donations.

We should then put a cap on political fundraising, so that one party can't make so many promises to special interest groups and we all get a share of our money. Maximum outside funding should never be more than 10 million dollars, that way politicians will work for us and not lose focus. Do their jobs instead of standing around with an outstretched palm.

Now that's democracy.

This is easily the #1 stupidest serious suggestion I've ever read on these forums. It's very clear from this statement and many of your others that the gargantuan effort of THINKING before you post is well beyond you.

Do you not see the idiotic contradiction in saying that politicians should do their jobs instead of standing around with an outstretched palm, and then saying that they should be even more heavily subsidized???? Rather than ask people to donate personally you want to FORCE them to pay taxes to subsidize parties that can't get the average joe to open their wallets and donate $50 to???

PT you've once again demonstrated how completely, undeniably and ridiculously one-sided 95% everything you write or suggest has become.

The problems with special interest groups is something the CPC has done A LOT to fix. The Chretien Liberals of years ago fundraised almost exclusively with Big Business and raised millions from the corporate world. The CPC legislated to end the corporate lobby donations and it put limits on the amount each person could donate.

Now that the corporate feeding trough has been cut off, the Liberals are depending on taxation to keep their meagre hopes alive. You, being the Ignatieff cheerleader you are, all of the sudden think that doubling this subsidy is a good idea. Mhmm........If Ignatieff was the brilliant statesman you say he is, he'll be able to get Liberal fundraising flying.

Since you're similarly an Obama cheerleader, do you have any idea how much money the democrats received in donations in 2008? Their fundraising was in the hundreds of millions. He didn't need a subsidy.

Subsidizing poorly run political parties is about as smart as subsidizing poorly run corporations.

[Moonbox]

*Please delete double post*

Edited March 4, 2009 by Moonbox

[fellowtraveller]

Liberal Apologist said:

Democratically allowing voter's party of choice/Liberal Party of Canada to be rewarded a $ 1.95 to ensure our vote counts - priceless.

Remind me how paying a political party $1.95 makes my vote 'count'? Would it count 150% more if we raised it to $5?

[DrGreenthumb]

Liberal Apologist said:

Remind me how paying a political party $1.95 makes my vote 'count'? Would it count 150% more if we raised it to $5?

YES!

[ToadBrother]

There can be nothing more democratic than allowing people to choose which political party to support - or to support none. If people want to give money to a political party, they are free to do so. Your method FORCES people to contribute whether they want to or not, and gives them no choice about who the money goes to. It forces Canadians to give money to the BQ - who get almost all their funding from this idiot scheme as Quebecers don't seem much interested in donating to them willingly.

I agree, with the caveat that allowing a tax credit for political donations is as much forcing the taxpayer to underwrite parties as the current money-per-vote system. I'd like to see both removed. Then political parties will truly have to stand on their own feet.

[Canadian Blue]

I generally prefer excise and consumption taxes over income taxes, more or less because I find the income tax to be immoral.

Here is what I'd do:

1. Slash all unecessary government departments, the feds can handle defence, national security, coinage, and foreign affairs, leave everything else to the provinces.

2. Get rid of EI and CPP, that's a responsibility that should be up to the provinces, local governments, or individuals.

3. liberalize drug and prostitution laws at the federal level. [thus allowing the provinces and local governments to decide how they want to deal with such issues]

4. Cut the cabinet down to 10 members.

5. Get rid of equalization, brings more division to Canada and doesn't bring about prosperity.

6. Replace the income tax with consumption and excise taxes, as well as putting in a carbon tax about 1/4 the size of Dion's.

I don't like polticians getting money simply because some guy put an X by their name. Politicians should be funded by individuals who want to support said politician. I don't see why I should be funding Elizabeth May, I find her insufferable.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Alta4ever]

A beauty of a post Canadian Blue.

[M.Dancer]

I would like to see te iberal campaign on raising the GST....maybe to 15%?

[GostHacked]

Sure why not ... i did not notice a thing when it was reduced a percent .... raising it a couple more percent is not an issue to me.

[normanchateau]

Numerous Canadian economists — including former international trade minister David Emerson and one-time Reform MP Herb Grubel — have questioned that decision. Most economists say taxing consumption, rather than taxing corporations or labour through personal or payroll taxes, is less likely to inhibit economic activity[/i]

Interesting that fiscal conservative Herb Grubel was cited. Both Preston Manning and Herb Grubel strongly believed that cutting personal income taxes was an effective way to stimulate the economy. Apparently Harper has yet to figure this out.

No wonder Manning fired the inept Harper as Reform's Finance critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, an economist.

Unlike Harper, Grubel was actually employed as an economist and has trained other economists.

[madmax]

I would like to see te iberal campaign on raising the GST....maybe to 15%?

and $5 per vote?

[M.Dancer]

and $5 per vote?

oh and a $5.00 per vote bonus for the party that wins....or is seen partying with Elizabeth May....

[ToadBrother]

Interesting that fiscal conservative Herb Grubel was cited. Both Preston Manning and Herb Grubel strongly believed that cutting personal income taxes was an effective way to stimulate the economy. Apparently Harper has yet to figure this out.

No wonder Manning fired the inept Harper as Reform's Finance critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, an economist.

Unlike Harper, Grubel was actually employed as an economist and has trained other economists.

It struck me just how much a mistake dropping the GST might be when you pretty much had economists from all ends of the spectrum saying "Drop income tax before you drop consumption tax", but, like I said, this was all some sort of populist-pleasing stunt that had no foundation in any kind of reality. It's one thing to pound the table about the GST like Chretien did before the Liberals retook Parliament, but when you get there, you should listen to the experts.

But Harper very clearly has the self-righteousness disease, which makes him actually believe that idiotic promises to gain votes aren't idiotic, and should become policy.

[M.Dancer]

Maybe so but we are buying a car in the next 90 days and that 2% cut will save us $500.

Personally I would like to see the GST and the PST harmonized to 0%

[capricorn]

Sorry Dancer. Can't be done in 90 days.

[Canadian Blue]

The one thing I find ironic is the people here who are attacking the government for bringing forward populist measures that are meant to please the populace, yet they also argue that our taxes should go to fund political parties that our essentially populist in nature. Can anybody name a party which doesn't appeal to populist sentiments?

Maybe politics just hurts the country. After all I'm certain that most Members of Parliament would have made fine whores, snake oil salesmen, thieves, bandits, and con artists, in another life. Actually I'd prefer to be ruled by that group [not MP's, the whores, thieves, con artists, etc.] more or less because they fully realize what they are doing and might have half a conscience. Our politicians have no luxury because all of the harm they do is done in the name of unity, compassion, generosity, and national security.

Just for the record, I'd rather be ruled by a [classical] liberal Monarch over a democracy any day of the week.

Edited March 5, 2009 by Canadian Blue