GST

[Shady]

Is it a case of not paying enough taxes, or because we spend more than we take in? I for one certainly don't want to pay more tax. I say it is both a spending problem, and a revenue stream problem.

Absolutely. It's definitely a revenue stream problem. When the world dips in a deep recession, revenues will be down greatly. Those revenues will grow again. But government spending is the biggest problem. Harper hasn't done a good enough job. However, that still doesn't condone a rise in the GST tax.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Shady

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If you eliminate income taxes and increased consumption taxes, you would have to thoroughly search every car coming back from the US...and you would force most retailers in Canada out of business. People would go south to spend their money.

Nonsense, utter drivel.

[Smallc]

No, it isn't nonsense. Canadians would shop far more in the US if they had no income tax and a high consumption tax. It's simple logic.

[punked]

No, it isn't nonsense. Canadians would shop far more in the US if they had no income tax and a high consumption tax. It's simple logic.

I think a bigger fact is that a consumption tax is a tax on the poor. What happens when they can't buy milk for their kids? Not only that but to replace income tax you need a consumption tax of around 50%. That is crazy.

[Bonam]

No, it isn't nonsense. Canadians would shop far more in the US if they had no income tax and a high consumption tax. It's simple logic.

Umm, border tax? People pay duty on goods they bring across the border.

I think a bigger fact is that a consumption tax is a tax on the poor. What happens when they can't buy milk for their kids?

The poor already get a sales tax rebate anyway.

[Smallc]

And people find ways to avoid border taxes all of the time. You would have to search every vehicle and the result would be a near halt in trade. There is a reason that we need both income and consumption taxes. It's because a balance is ncessary to run things more efficiently.

[myata]

Absolutely. It's definitely a revenue stream problem. When the world dips in a deep recession, revenues will be down greatly. Those revenues will grow again. But government spending is the biggest problem. Harper hasn't done a good enough job. However, that still doesn't condone a rise in the GST tax.

Consumption taxes are the most stable stream of public revenue in a recession. It was reckless nearing on dumb to cut it so quickly. Harper did not keep spending in check either. Hence the deficit (and future intest on it) is probably much bigger than it could have been.

Edited June 23, 2009 by myata

[Bonam]

And people find ways to avoid border taxes all of the time. You would have to search every vehicle and the result would be a near halt in trade.

More technologically robust and reliable solutions could be developed if there was a prospect of vastly increased cross-border trade volume. Nano-scale electronic tags that can be detected by stationary scanners you have to drive through when crossing the border, that communicate the value of a given item to the detector, and are automatically deactivated on use, for example. Similar technology is already used in some stores, and the capability exists to miniaturize it to the nano-scale and spread thousands of copies throughout the structure of any product, so that consumers could not simply remove the tags prior to crossing.

Just one example of a quick technological solution. People always assume in political debates that things can only be affected through government policy, social change, etc, and never consider the vastly greater impact that technological change has had on our society over the last few decades and will continue to have in the foreseeable future.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Sounds expensive.

[Moonbox]

About $20B is not stimulus. The TD Bank, the PBO, and others are coming out saying that we will not be out of deficit when the government says and that's if we hold the line on spending. The Department of Finance has been wrong all along and there's no reason to think that they're wrong this time.

No argument.

The reality is that we cut taxes too fast while increasing spending too quickly. That is the reality and no one can deny that. It is that combination of factors that has led us to a deficit BEFORE stimulus was ever introduced.

The deficit would have hit because of the recesssion, and in this I agree that the tax reduction left less of a cushion, but here's the crux of the argument. You CAN cut taxes as long as your spending is in line. Our spending has gone out of control under the last two governments (Harper and Martin) and thus it we're more heavily in debt than we should be. The solution then is not to raise taxes, but to lower spending. AND even if you want extra tax money, take it from the top tax brackets, not from everyone else via a gst increase.

In the end, you can NEVER have a deficit because of taxes. The only thing that can cause a deficit is spending.

[Smallc]

The solution may be to lower spending, but where do you cut? How do you cut? What cuts can you make that aren't going to anger people? That aren't going to cause problems?

And yes, a deficit can be caused by lowering taxes. If you hold the line on spending and cut taxes, then it isn't spending that has caused the deficit, it's the tax cuts.

I'm not proposing we raise taxes, but lets make what we have now work and quite cutting taxes and increasing spending. Is it too much to ask for the government to hold the line on both so that we can get out of deficit without hurting Canadians?

[bush_cheney2004]

And yes, a deficit can be caused by lowering taxes. If you hold the line on spending and cut taxes, then it isn't spending that has caused the deficit, it's the tax cuts.

Classic liberal thinking.....tax cuts or lower tax revenues cannot cause a deficit....only spending (and interest on debt...from still more spending).

[Borg]

The solution may be to lower spending, but where do you cut? How do you cut? What cuts can you make that aren't going to anger people? That aren't going to cause problems?

Who cares - once the tough times are over it is over.

Start with te following:

No government money to foreign aide - want a limit(?) - if a country has received aide for 10 years - cut them - it is not working

No government money to special interest groups

No government money to corporations

No government money to international charity groups

No government money to racial, religious groups

No government money to support immigrants - come in only if you can support yourself

No government money to lawyers

All government departments will take a 10 - 20% cut across the board

All government people will take an immediate wage freeze.

All government people with a salary over - pick one - 100K, 150K, 200K will take a 15% wage roll back

All government support to canadians of convenience - people who do not pay taxes - is hereby revoked - do not pay in? Then you do not get.

All government money to fund the arts - gone - if it needs federal funding it is a form of welfare

You want more cuts - I can give them to you

Plus - reduce energy costs to all canadians by creating a "made in Canada" for canadians policy

I know many will never agree - but there are a pile of cuts that can be made.

Hell give every indian 500K and kill department of indian and northern affairs - cheaper in the long run

All it takes is balls and creative thinking - something very few canadians seem to have

Borg

Edited June 23, 2009 by Borg

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The solution may be to lower spending, but where do you cut? How do you cut? What cuts can you make that aren't going to anger people? That aren't going to cause problems?

And yes, a deficit can be caused by lowering taxes. If you hold the line on spending and cut taxes, then it isn't spending that has caused the deficit, it's the tax cuts.

I'm not proposing we raise taxes, but lets make what we have now work and quite cutting taxes and increasing spending. Is it too much to ask for the government to hold the line on both so that we can get out of deficit without hurting Canadians?

Asking the beast not to feed itself as it sits at a buffet of tax dollars in an exercise in futility. It will gorge itself every time it sits down. The beast is the government and its bureaucracy which grows every election and every year. More programs allow for for more patronage appointments, and you just know there is a lot of payback going on.

The beast needs taming.

[Moonbox]

The solution may be to lower spending, but where do you cut? How do you cut? What cuts can you make that aren't going to anger people? That aren't going to cause problems?

If I had all the books I could let you know. I just know that spending has increased faster than inflation over the last few governments. Look at Borg's list. I mostly agree with it all. Social loafing is where the cuts can be made and there is TONS of social loafing going on.

As far as anger is concerned, I don't give a flying **** if some crybaby on welfare or EI moocher is unhappy that they're not getting as big of a free check. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not working for the majority of the year, and if you don't have a work history, you should have access to food, shelter and the means to find a job and NOTHING else.

And yes, a deficit can be caused by lowering taxes. If you hold the line on spending and cut taxes, then it isn't spending that has caused the deficit, it's the tax cuts.

No I already said this. You can't cause a deficit with spending. You cause a deficit when your spending goes over your revenues. If you reduce your revenues, you should also reduce your spending. It's not the tax decrease that's the problem. It's the spending increases.

I'm not proposing we raise taxes, but lets make what we have now work and quite cutting taxes and increasing spending. Is it too much to ask for the government to hold the line on both so that we can get out of deficit without hurting Canadians?

Amen to that. Unfortunately our governments typically believe that they have better uses for our money and Obama and friends have decided to screw us all over with bailouts whose primary beneficiaries will be the Unions.

[Smallc]

The beast needs taming.

'The beast' is the people, not the government.

[Bonam]

Sounds expensive.

And you base that assessment on what? A bit of initial R&D investment and then it could be mass produced economically. We're headed in the direction of more and more extensive scanning equipment at border crossings anyway.

[Bonam]

'The beast' is the people, not the government.

The people are the only thing that is of relevance and of importance in a society. Government exists (or rather, should exist) to serve the people. Saying that "the beast is the people" is an example of completely backwards thinking.

[Smallc]

But that's just it. The government is an embodiment of the choices of the people. We are the beast, and it's time that we recognized it.

[Bonam]

The government is an embodiment of the choices of the people.

That is not always the case, and is reliant on a number of rather fragile conditions being true. Is the government of Iran the embodiment of the choices of the people? The government of Russia?

Our government is certainly closer to being a true representation of the choices of the people than those two examples, but it is still far from a perfect "embodiment". Government was created in its current form "by the people" a long time ago, and has since taken on a life of its own, evolving into a much more cumbersome, burdensome, and powerful entity. This change and continuous expansion happens without the consent of the people, only of their elected representatives, who are required to vote along the lines determined by just one or two individuals (the party leaders). Are these few individuals who set party policy and thus the direction that our government takes always choosing as the people themselves would? Perhaps sometimes they are, but certainly not always. Over time, this generates a vast rift between what people would want their government to be, and what government is.

[Smallc]

Uh huh...and we continue to vote for them. They're an embodiment of our choice...maybe not your choice, but our choice.

[Bonam]

Look just because we are presented with two options and given a chance to vote doesn't mean that people actually have an opportunity to vote for that which they want. They get to choose between the lesser of two (or three) evils, which is exactly the context in which just about anyone I know sees elections, whether provincial or federal.

While it is theoretically true that alternative parties or independents could be elected to better represent some people, the structure of the system makes this extremely difficult and unlikely.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The beast is the people? You think that we need to be treated as beasts, but the non-living corporate entity known as the government should be the master and we the beasts. There is the embodiment of all things truly evil in society today. The government, a created servant of the public, is better able to tell us how to live than we are to tell it how to live. This is why we tax and spend like drunken sailors. This is why we allow criminals to roam the streets. This is why we spend more money on foreign aid to countries where the average temperature is 65 F year round than here in Canada for our own homeless citizens who regularly freeze to death overnight in the winter. This is why we hand out billions of dollars a year in business subsidies and give not a dime to food banks.

The government IS the servant of the people. The government WILL obey the people. All government structure, its programs and services, appointed and elected officials, its employees, all serve at the pleasure of the people who can and will determine a course of action that compels them to act in a manner conversant with the desires of the public, period.

Even so, the public shall not be held accountable for the actions of government.

[Bonam]

The beast is the people? You think that we need to be treated as beasts, but the non-living corporate entity known as the government should be the master and we the beasts. There is the embodiment of all things truly evil in society today. The government, a created servant of the public, is better able to tell us how to live than we are to tell it how to live. This is why we tax and spend like drunken sailors. This is why we allow criminals to roam the streets. This is why we spend more money on foreign aid to countries where the average temperature is 65 F year round than here in Canada for our own homeless citizens who regularly freeze to death overnight in the winter. This is why we hand out billions of dollars a year in business subsidies and give not a dime to food banks.

The government IS the servant of the people. The government WILL obey the people. All government structure, its programs and services, appointed and elected officials, its employees, all serve at the pleasure of the people who can and will determine a course of action that compels them to act in a manner conversant with the desires of the public, period.

Even so, the public shall not be held accountable for the actions of government.

I agree with you, except on the last point. The public is very much accountable for the actions of government. For example, if the government starts a war and ends up losing, it is very much the public who will pay the price. If the government spends itself into deficit, it is very much the public who will have to pay back the money. That is why it is all the more important that the government accurately represents the will of the people - because the people pay a price for government policy.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Bonam

[August1991]

A report out says the Tories reducing the GST has cost Canadians 10 BILLION to be add to the deficit and don't forget the interest on that 10 Bil. I thought at the time it would come back and bite the taxpayers in the wallet. Perhaps we should really think what the promise the politicans are making and the pros and the cons before we vote. Two things about Harper era, he likes big government and he likes SPEND! http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/06/16/f...te-deficit.html

Trust Topaz to start a thread in which a tax cut is portrayed as "costing Canadians" money. If a tax cut costs us money, does that mean a raise in taxes will save us money?

There's backwards thinking if I've ever seen any. The GST reduction hasn't cost Canadians anything. That 10 billion is extra money that has been left in the pockets of Canadians, rather than being taxed away.

Exactly.

So, in the final analysis it's not like you (we) really "saved" anything, just borrowed it at %% (currently low, but watch it, it'd most likely take decades to repay).

Myata, the last time I checked, the federal government is borrowing at something around 1% annually. That's lower than my mortgage rate and far lower than credit card rates. Governments always borrow at interest rates far lower than anyone else.

Here's an idea: We should let governments borrow money collectively on our behalf (getting a much lower interest rate, kind of like buying prescription drugs in bulk) and then distribute the money to us through lower taxes. What a scheme! (Then again, the scheme is hardly original. Harper, Bush Jnr and various Quebec governments figured this out long ago.)

But that's just it. The government is an embodiment of the choices of the people. We are the beast, and it's time that we recognized it.

I disagree. Democratic governments as we know them do not make choices that individuals would make collectively if they could. It is wrong to blame people, and it is wrong to blame democratic government. Neither is a beast. We simply don't have now the mechanisms or institutions to make such collective choices. For the moment, democratic government is the best we've got. As Churchill said, democracy is awful except when compared to all the alternatives.

Smallc, you are touching on a difficult topic.

Edited June 23, 2009 by August1991