Which tax would you eliminate?

[Winnipegger]

In October year 2000, Paul Mart announced the surplus for that year would be $17.1 billion. That got me excited; if we treat the federal debt as a mortgage we could pay the whole thing off. Just apply the entire $17.1 billion to the principle of the debt, then set that plus interest as a fixed total. As the principle comes down, interest will come down. For every dollar of interest reduced, increase the payment to the principle by that same dollar, so the total remains fixed. Because the total never grows, this works even in a severe recession. Even if economic growth is completely stagnant, zero growth, tax revenue will remain the same.

During the 2006 election campaign I calculated this again; if we were to reduce spending to restore the $17.1 billion surplus, and set a fixed repayment schedule starting in January 2006, it would have taken 16 years to pay off the debt. The Auditor General's report in the summer of 2001 said the surplus that year actually ended up being $18.1 billion. We wouldn't need the $18.1 billion, just $17.1 billion.

When I talked to voters during the 2006 election campaign I suggested completely abolishing the GST. That is after the debt is repaid, not before. However most voters in my riding said no, not the GST, get rid of income tax. Ok, that is more difficult. Interest on the debt is greater than revenue from the GST, so abolishing the GST would be easy; we could abolish GST and still have a little money left over. Not a lot, but a little. But income tax generates more revenue generates more revenue than interest on the debt, so it would be more difficult. I took this as a task and figured out how to do it.

There are a few catches: when we abolish federal personal income tax, EI and CPP premiums must stay. That's how we pay for those programs. But they will remain at the same rate we pay now, no increase or decrease. And provincial income tax is under the authority of the provincial government, nothing the federal government can do about it. But we can get rid of federal personal income tax.

I will list exactly how to do this later, but first the big question. Once we have completely eliminated the debt, we can abolish one major tax. Together these taxes generate over 90% of all federal revenue, once the debt is gone you can abolish just one. You can't abolish two, and certainly not all three; the federal government needs to get its money from somewhere. But we can get rid of one. Which one would you eliminate?

Edited February 11, 2010 by Winnipegger

[M.Dancer]

The one tax I find onerous is the probate tax....money left by the deceased to his/her heirs.

This money, taxed by two levels and sometimes 3 over the years, once desposed of is taxed a final time.

To me it is an indignity to the dead and an insult to the living.

[Michael Hardner]

As long as we're in fantasy land, let's eliminate all of them.

[M.Dancer]

As long as we're in fantasy land, let's eliminate all of them.

or Mr. Hardner, we can elliminate them all and replace them with a tax on internet portal developers and resellers...

[PIK]

The one tax I find onerous is the probate tax....money left by the deceased to his/her heirs.

This money, taxed by two levels and sometimes 3 over the years, once desposed of is taxed a final time.

To me it is an indignity to the dead and an insult to the living.

You nailed it right on the head. We have afamily cottage that has been in the family since 1930, we are probably going to have to sell it because we can't afford to pay the tax and this has happened to other people as well. And this is a basic cottage, small no insulation just a bare bone cottage with alot of memories.

[M.Dancer]

You nailed it right on the head. We have afamily cottage that has been in the family since 1930, we are probably going to have to sell it because we can't afford to pay the tax and this has happened to other people as well. And this is a basic cottage, small no insulation just a bare bone cottage with alot of memories.

And since you will pay a probate on the value of the cottage, and capital gains on the sale, you will be taxed twice.

The only folks outside governemnt who like the probate are life insurance salesman. They make a bundle selling to the affluent.

Works this way. If you estate is worth one million, and the probate (forsake of argument) will be $200,000....you need $200,000 life insurance to cover the probate, which is cheaper that the alternative.

[Michael Hardner]

or Mr. Hardner, we can elliminate them all and replace them with a tax on internet portal developers and resellers...

We could increase the tax on booze 1% and pay for everything.... not.

Actually, what would be a fascinating exercise would be a textbook re-engineering of government from the ground up. My God, how great that would be. Taxes would be cut by a significant amount and services would be improved too.

Sigh.... it is to dream. It could never happen.

[M.Dancer]

We could increase the tax on booze 1% and pay for everything.... not.

Actually, what would be a fascinating exercise would be a textbook re-engineering of government from the ground up. My God, how great that would be. Taxes would be cut by a significant amount and services would be improved too.

Sigh.... it is to dream. It could never happen.

I see a debate....where the potential candidate are given a sim city....and they get to play with it for 1 day...

[Michael Hardner]

I see a debate....where the potential candidate are given a sim city....and they get to play with it for 1 day...

More like Mafia Wars...

[Oleg Bach]

More like Mafia Wars...

Get rid of all sin taxes - what right have these creeps got to suck the life out of me with addictive nicotine or alcohol? I paid probably over 100 thousand in taxes generated by legal addictions...YET the frinking tax guy crushed me like a but and stuck me on welfare..I paid my damned share with my health and the loss of a few extra years of life.

[Michael Hardner]

Get rid of all sin taxes - what right have these creeps got to suck the life out of me with addictive nicotine or alcohol? I paid probably over 100 thousand in taxes generated by legal addictions...YET the frinking tax guy crushed me like a but and stuck me on welfare..I paid my damned share with my health and the loss of a few extra years of life.

The loss of those years is not yours but the government's silly. How are they supposed to income tax you when you're dead ? You should be ashamed of dying early like that.

[madmax]

As long as we're in fantasy land, let's eliminate all of them.

[Oleg Bach]

The loss of those years is not yours but the government's silly. How are they supposed to income tax you when you're dead ? You should be ashamed of dying early like that.

There are some great genetics going on in me that I am thankful for - living to be 120 might be out of the question for this world weary cynic. Most of my peers seem to have started the process of dying and many are dead...I am not and I will decide when I want to leave - I am just getting started. It still pisses me off how a an accountant that I hired trying to be cool screwed me - Never trust one of those guys who is a former employee of the feds.

He stuck me with a 5000 dollar debt that was not justified..but he had to please his former bosses..that debt with compound interest became 35 thousand - Then when I complained that it was a Draconian measure...They retracted the amount and back filed on my behalf to justify the bill...mean while those years they filed for me were not what they imagined..some years I made nothing.. Don't worry Michael...I will not die early...I plan to out live them all.

[Shady]

The GST. Get rid of it. Get rid of all of it.

[Michael Hardner]

There are some great genetics going on in me that I am thankful for - living to be 120 might be out of the question for this world weary cynic. Most of my peers seem to have started the process of dying and many are dead...I am not and I will decide when I want to leave - I am just getting started. It still pisses me off how a an accountant that I hired trying to be cool screwed me - Never trust one of those guys who is a former employee of the feds.

He stuck me with a 5000 dollar debt that was not justified..but he had to please his former bosses..that debt with compound interest became 35 thousand - Then when I complained that it was a Draconian measure...They retracted the amount and back filed on my behalf to justify the bill...mean while those years they filed for me were not what they imagined..some years I made nothing.. Don't worry Michael...I will not die early...I plan to out live them all.

Get thee to an open stage somewhere in downtown Toronto and recount your tales. World weary artistes who have lived it are in demand. You will at least get a free beer, a few puffs of Mary Jane, and maybe the chance to sleep with a homely bohemian girl in her 20s. Live the life, OB, seize the day.

Who knows, you may end up with a show on the W network.

[William Ashley]

My tax beliefs are a little contrary to the current system.

1st I think that there should be land zoning in place - some zones are tax free zones and others taxed zones.

Residential properties to a maximum size would be tax free (meaning no property taxes for residential properties)

Commercial properties (including income generating properties such as apartments, and rental properties) would be taxed, with a flat tax - after all related expenses (including mortgage payments for the property. A nominal rate of

of 50% which would be paid directly into affordable housing. If the property was in the same margin of cost as affordable housing - as per the same government run housing creation program then any profits would be tax exempt.

This rental rate would be based on the governments own operating costs / person. So there is the

potential of fully tax free rental income after expenses provided that the cost of rental does not exceed the governments cost of rental.

Other commercial properties such as businesses would not be charged property taxes but instead

would be charged for commercial services contracted from the government such as payroll records

and other employment records which would need to be filed. There would also be "flat rate fees"

for some government services in some sectors such as tourism, consumer protection funds in retail industries

to bulk handle any tort claims or law suits - as a type of public insurance fund.

Industrial properties would be required to adhere to environmental protection laws -

industrial properties would not be taxed for property taxes but depending on the class of

industrial operation they would be treated like commercial properties. There would be a

research and development levy paid to National Research Canada and and Industry Canada fee.

They would gain access to Intellectual Property for domestic production of any NRC developments

while the Industry Canada fee would cover a variety of other costs.

Companies which operated their own transportation fleets or companies which served in shiping

would pay a fee for mainline road and other infrastructure fees to Transport Canada on a per

KM use basis as a surcharge. Non mainline infrastructure would either be tolled if deemed a

second level self supporting transit way or sold - as long as local residents in non commercial

traffic could gain free use of the transit way. The same system would be used for ports, air transit and

shipping having port fees and SAR fees paid by the industries, and a per use per KM surcharge.

Natural Resource industries (those deriving profit from land) would be charged a royalty for

any non replenished resources consumed or disturbed from the site - on sale.

Land itself would continue as leasehold perpetual. but a court system for land usage would

be instituted to allow petitions for land use - with the court required to put the land to

best public interest usage with compensation mindful of the loss of use by any party excluded from perpetual

use.

Income taxes would be removed and instead people would have to assume an equal portion of the

debt to pay down, and services to opt into such as health care, dental or other citizens benefits.

A volunteer program would also be instituted which would put credits towards these programs.

Exports would be taxed based on type of export - in mind of the commercial value to keep

the product within the country vs. exporting the product.

Imports would be tariffed based on disruption to local industry at 50% the profit margin

with an anti dumping level to to a surcharge = to the lowest sale value already in the country

- 1% value.

Businesses and industries would be charged surcharges for essential government programs.

Programs could be petitioned and all stake holders would be able to vote on the program.

If a high enough vote level existed them it would be created as an opt in program.

Those who opt in would get the service those without would not.

No funds would be directly provided to third parties NFP or businesses, but people could

freely donate to these. The sole exception is if the program was funded by tax dollars by

donations for government charity option which would not be set at the time of donation but

would be available on need or petition from the government.

financial institutions and individuals holding government debts and government bonds would continue to be

taxed on all proceeds from the government until the debt was paid off, at a margin of

50% of profit after taxes.

So I would alter property taxes, I would remove income taxes - with the exception of government debt holders

I would divest the public debt to individuals on a per capita basis with funds returning to the government

or being once again divided with new births (on a monthly or bi weekly basis)

-----------

Fund generated would be reinvested into profit bearing crown corporations and a national citizens bank

I would institute visitor visa fees (including for Americans - of $20-40 (20$ for seniors and minors $40 for adults))

There would be an immigration fee for regular immigration with high skilled in demand individuals getting exemptions. Refugees would be granted exemption based on financial status. This fee would differ between $1000 and $5000

There would also be a citizenship fee for between $5000 and $10000, with exemptions given based on skills.

There would also be a deposit required to pay for return costs to origin nation.

---

How would government services be paid for you might ask?

----

First off - the military would be altered to a mostly volunteer militia with only special forces

being kept on as payroll

There would be a mandatory service that would cover basic training (at cost) required by the age

of 20.

A specific number of days per year would also be required - not all service would be combat related training but they would also serve as a reserve of sorts. - and could opt out of the combat element training for non combat

The coast guard and navy would be merged.

The air force would be funded by voluntary funding and pilots would be expected to be sponsered

or to self fund their aircraft.

Some industries would have an air force surcharge, and some industries would have a navy surcharge

- specific because those services would also be responsible for emergency response situations for

those industries.

Health care would be paid for as a government insurance plan which could be opted into or out of

Health care providers would be required to perform national service in the event of an emergency

situation as well as serve emergency room situations where life saving care was required,

regardless of opting into the health plan. However people would assume costs of emergency care

to their personal portion of debt after the emergency response

-----

Pensions and old age care would become option programs - in the event of baseline social

assistance needs - these would be required to be provided by third parties.

----

As stated programs could exist based on public contributions to these program.

It would be hoped that people would buy equity stake in the government - that is citizens would have the opt into put funding into the government programs or crown corporations.

Also dormant accounts in financial institutions and on death with no next of kin would revert

to the government rather than a given financial institution. The personal debt portion of

outstanding citizens debts would be resumed by the government on the death the individual

but then reassigned at the reassignment new births period.

---

It is my belief that once government debt was paid down the government would be able to

fund public initiatives through a three prong approach of Needs Surcharges which would in most

cases be opt-in, A trade and resource extraction levy, and profitable crown corporations.

On death citizens assets would be taxed to a maximum of personal debt still in existence first.

Changes to the health care and pensions systems and military would account for nearly 50% of

current government funding 30% is based on debt interest payments, accounting for nearly

80% of current expenditures, by taxing debt holders, and divesting the debt, and making

these care services opt-in and self funded. Leaving a 20% margin to be covered by pay per

use and guild type taxes. It is my belief the government would be in surplus. The $30,000 lifetime individual debt is not unrealistic to be paid down - since taxes on debt holders would negate interest or cause gradual debt reduction. It may be the case that some debt holders may actually forgive a given debt, or have that debt negated at default by assumption of debt. Eg. A holder of $30,000 in government bonds would be able to immediately pay down their debt by reverting the bonds to the government.which would then be paid to the bond holder.

There are a lot of other neat things that would be fair, and provide the national debt to be a distant memory allowing

the country to return to fiscal responsibility. While true some individuals may not be in a position to pay

their $30,000 in debt down - even over a 10 year period (or $3000/ year) partial equity stakes could be tabled,

option credits for volunteer programs given to the debt when promoting governmental needs, barter trade and equity

swaps - ex. taking out a $30,000 20 year mortgage etc...

With no property taxes alone are about 2000$ on a 250000$ property in Toronto, income taxes

much more for instance on a $40,000 income you may see easily over 4,000 per year.

It would be left to high income earners to provide to their communities by charitably giving.

The national citizens bank would would hold an account for every citizen - including their

debt. An interest rate = to current debt rate (of say about prime) would be offered in

that account, and citizens programs such as crown corporation share purchases would be

available through that bank. which would pay dividends, and provide the citizens insurance

programs.

Without going too much into detail this is a basic introduction to Ashley's Alternate tax system

which would remove Income tax, Property Tax, and Sales Taxes.

Criticism welcome.

Not only Canada first but Canadians First... lets end the fascists system and debtor state

that the oligarchs support - Canadians have an option - let Canadians be responsible.

Debt and Taxes could be in the past - all we need to do is give the power of taxation to the

people, not to less than 400 people. Let Canadians decide on the services they want.

The poor will be poor anyway, a start is to let the rich pay back the money, the second step

is to free people from poverty by putting that 30% right back into affordable housing with

an affordable housing mechanism - and providing jobs to the destitute through crown corpration

employment generation. lets protect the environment and the future by insuring that the state

maintains a portion of all despoliation - and that safeguards exist to correct and maintain

development.

We can remove government mandated socialism by protecting public interest - we can provide

for society by insuring that everyone has access to provide for their needs.

The old system is a yoke - we need to use the right tools, let our economy work for Canadians.

Edited February 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[Michael Hardner]

WA - where did you get this ? It's quite specific on details, but what's it based on ? What are the projected revenues/expenses that would come out of it ?

Although you'd have to be Kim Jong Il to pull this plan off (ie. it could never happen) I have to admire the work that you put it, evn if you just typed it as it came into your head.

[msj]

And since you will pay a probate on the value of the cottage, and capital gains on the sale, you will be taxed twice.

The only folks outside governemnt who like the probate are life insurance salesman. They make a bundle selling to the affluent.

Works this way. If you estate is worth one million, and the probate (forsake of argument) will be $200,000....you need $200,000 life insurance to cover the probate, which is cheaper that the alternative.

Are you trying to be dishonest or what?

What is the probate fee rate in Ontario? Something like 1.5%.

So we're talking $15,000 in probate fees being charged on that $1 million (assuming that those assets flow through the estate).

Compare that to a $1 million RRIF which likely won't attract any probate fees (beneficiary is selected) and which may attract $400,000 + in income tax (assuming no rollover to a surviving spouse).

Probate is an annoyance by comparison.

[Winnipegger]

This is the sort of response I usually get initially: fantasy land. It isn't fantasy land. I got the federal interest payment for 2005 from the federal budget, plugged in the figures to a mortgage payment function in an excel spread sheet. The result was 16 years to pay off the debt, if we started in January 2006.

I don't want to get partisan, but the May 2006 budget stated that if the Conservatives had not intervened the surplus for 2005/2006 would have been $17.4 billion. That's according to the budget written by Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. That budget stated he intended to increase spending to reduce the surplus to $8.0 billion, but the federal government's fiscal year end was March 31 so this budget was actually after the year end. The Auditor General's report that summer stated the surplus for 2005/2006 was actually $13.2 billion, so obviously the Conservatives did spend a lot in the first 2 months they were in power. The election was January 23, 2006, Ministers were sworn in February 6, the year end was March 31. In fact I'm sure Stephen Harper was desperate to have a Christmas election because if he waited until spring 2006, this large surplus would have come out, and that was what voters demanded of Paul Martin. If the 2006 election was delayed to the spring, Liberals would have been re-elected. So if the Conservatives hadn't deliberately spoiled it, we would have already been on our way to accomplish this in 2006. Of course the Liberals had pressure within their party to increase spending as well, but as of January 2006 Paul Martin was controlling them.

Ok, away from partisan crap, back to what we should actually do.

• Cut spending to restore the $17.1 billion surplus. Paul Martin did it before, we can do it again.

• Apply all that surplus to the principle of the debt, set the total of the principle plus interest payments as a fixed total. That's how the mortgage of a house works. If we started this in January 2006 it would have been finished in 16 years.

• Since the total debt payment will remain fixed, the budget will remain balanced even in a severe recession.

• Increase GST back to 7%, and at the same time cut personal income tax by 2% in every income bracket. 2% up, 2% down: you pay income tax on all your income but only pay GST on some things, so this is a tax cut. Pay for that by also undoing the 1% cut to corporate income tax.

• Both corporate capital tax and corporate surtax stay gone.

• Replace the GST Rebate (CRA calls it GST Credit) with a line item tax credit on income tax, but double the amount. Prorate to income tax withholding from each and every paycheque.

• Dividends no longer taxable for personal income tax; taxed under corporate income tax. Corporate tax is at a lower rate, but when personal income tax is abolished corporate income tax will stay. Since foreign corporations don't pay income tax to Canada, so foreign dividends will remain taxable under personal income tax.

GST Credit

As listed in the summary, the total plan to completely abolish personal income tax has a couple other items needed to balance the books. First, replace the GST credit with an income tax credit. Everyone who currently qualifies for the GST credit will still qualify, same rules, but the amount will be double the current credit. Instead of mailing a cheque, it will be pro-rated to income tax withholding from each and every paycheque. The increase will be paid by eliminating the expense of administering the GST credit system, it will simply be a line item on income tax returns. So instead of taking taxes with one hand only to give half of it back with the other, we won't take it in the first place.

The Fraser Institute did a study several years ago; they determined the average administration cost for each cheque the government writes is $75. That's for all cheques, not necessarily GST cheques, but based on that the administration cost is roughly equal to the cheques themselves. That is why I said replacing the mailed cheque with a line item tax credit would eliminate that administration cost. We would double the GST credit, it would mean more money in the pockets of Canadians while being cost neutral for the federal government.

Dividends

The other item is dividends. These used to be double taxed; both corporate and personal income tax. That was fixed by making dividends deductible from taxable income for the purpose of corporate income tax. So they are now charged personal income tax but not corporate. Reverse that: make dividends no longer deductible from taxable income for the purpose of corporate income tax, but not included in taxable income for personal income tax.

These two items would be applied the first year, in the first budget, along with GST, personal income tax, and corporate income tax adjustments. From then on, all tax cuts will be made to personal income tax. Since corporate income tax is at a lower rate than the highest personal income bracket, the dividend shift will be an immediate tax cut; however, since all further tax cuts will be to personal, they will not apply to dividends. And when personal income tax is abolished all together, corporate income tax will remain so dividends will stay taxed.

All this is do-able. It will only remain fantasy as long as you voters allow our politicians to get away with tax-and-spend. The Conservatives like to talk about reducing spending, but they have increased spending even more than the Liberals. From the 2005 budget under Ralph Goodale to the 2009 budget under Jim Flahety, program spending increased by $67.5 billion. And people wonder why we have a $58 billion deficit. Paul Martin was able to control spending, but with him gone all political parties are guilty of tax-and-spend. They will only do so as long as you let them get away with it.

Ok, getting off my soap box now. So back to the pole. Given the fact we can pay off the debt, and once gone we can abolish one major tax (but only one), which would you eliminate?

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, why do you think Harper is getting away with his program of higher spending ? Because it`s highly unpopular ? No.

The math isn`t very complicated - it`s the politics of telling Ontario that their transfer payments are going to be cut. You seem to be good at accounting but bad at politics.

[William Ashley]

WA - where did you get this ?

It is geared to the system I've been developing for the last 15 or so years.

It's quite specific on details, but what's it based on ?

It has taken a lot of time, and research to fully understand how the tax and financial system works and how it interacts with the social side of things.

Essentially there are specific stake holders, some more enfranchised than others within the system. Some with subsidies and others with unfair taxation. My aims are to remove inequalities, extortion by taxation, and inequalities in the social system brought through economic controls.

What are the projected revenues/expenses that would come out of it ?

This is hard to say, it depends on a lot of factors such as economic sanctions from groups like the WTO and effects on US trade

The gross reality is that spending ought to be based on available funds, not on desired programs.

It is honestly impossible to say. Some rates could be approximated, however I haven't had the need to get current or projected figures, as it would be quite muddy I suppose but there are

specific needs. I would expect some costs to go up, some costs to go down, and a gradual trend

of price decreases which would be offset by inflation which would increase the money supply slowly due to population increases. It would depend on the economy. You could expect some profits to shrink depending on whether it is reliant on foreign product or buyers. These markets may be effected; however, I invision that new products would still find a market place, commodities that are not available would also not directly suffer, while

it would be up to Canadian producers to compete to set rates that foreign companies would be able to offer product also at the same baseline. It would give some advantages to local companies. However we ought to provide work to

Canadians - so I would hope MADE IN CANADA would appeal more knowing that if it is the same price- why not buy local. I would hope this would be the mindset. I don't invision shortages resulting. Fiscal accountability ought to be based on the premise you can't buy what you don't have money to buy. It would be a running budget. Deficits aren't too much to worry about because no one would likely lend to the government at 0 interest.

Although you'd have to be Kim Jong Il to pull this plan off (ie. it could never happen) I have to admire the work that you put it, evn if you just typed it as it came into your head.

It ain't communistic, it is actually hugely in support of free market capitalism, it actually reduces

the level of extorted taxation which forces socialism. It is still social driven, but it frees society rather than entraps it.

Edited February 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[fellowtraveller]

The one tax I find onerous is the probate tax....

$400 maximum in Alberta, y'all are getting screwed........

Same with the ridiculous amounts you pay to simply transfer land/house from one person to another. Insane.

I'd get rid of the tax that pays federal political parties $1.75 for every vote they get.

Edited February 11, 2010 by fellowtraveller

[Winnipegger]

Sorry, why do you think Harper is getting away with his program of higher spending ? Because it`s highly unpopular ? No.

The math isn`t very complicated - it`s the politics of telling Ontario that their transfer payments are going to be cut. You seem to be good at accounting but bad at politics.

Where in anything I wrote does it say anything about cutting transfer payments to Ontario?

[M.Dancer]

Are you trying to be dishonest or what?

What is the probate fee rate in Ontario? Something like 1.5%.

It's not a flat fee but obviously my numbers are worng.

[Winnipegger]

I'd get rid of the tax that pays federal political parties $1.75 for every vote they get.

That was introduced when they limited political contributions from corporations to $1,000 per year, and from individuals to $5,400 per year. Now political contributions have been further restricted, individuals can only contribute $1,100 per year and corporations are not allowed to contribute anything at all. Eliminating the government money of $1.75 per vote is a good idea, but we would have to greatly ease restrictions on direct political contributions.

Actually there's a story to this. The first restriction was introduced by Jean Chrétien when he was worried that Paul Martin would get the Liberal party leadership. Was it a ploy to screw over Paul Martin? Probably.

The second restriction was by Stephen Harper after the Conservatives won. The Liberals were in a leadership race, the convention would be in the last quarter of 2006, but the election was January 23, 2006. Stephen Harper attempted to set the individual political contribution limit to $1,000 and make it retroactive to the beginning of 2006. He knew perfectly well that the delegate fee for the Liberal leadership was $995, and he ensured the delegate fee was included as a political contribution, so anyone who had contributed more than $5 during the last election would not be permitted to be a delegate. This would eliminate all core party members. The senate intervened, upped the limit with an inflation calculation to be $1,100 and made it effective January 1, 2007. So it did not interfere with the Liberal leadership convention.

Actually I think corporations should be permitted political contributions. It is common for any fundraiser to find a company to donate services in kind, so that all expenses to run the fundraiser are paid. That way 100% of all proceeds go to the cause. In this case the cause would be a candidate. Companies usually make contributions as an inexpensive means to market their company or product, not for political reasons. Prohibiting all corporate donations prevents this basic means of fundraising.

So would voters permit this? It would be another way to reduce spending. Reduced spending means reduced taxes.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Winnipegger