Per vote subsidy gone next election!

[Moonbox]

I can't believe you people don't understand the per vote subsidy, nor why you think this is tax payers dollars per se. If I vote for a party I have no problem if the $1.75 (of my money) goes to that party... it makes much more sense than the political donations do.

No. It makes a lot less sense. I'll at least entertain the argument that both should be abolished, but with the per vote subsidy you're not 'donating' anything. The party you vote for gets money for your vote, sure, but the actual subsidy is being paid largely by taxpayers. By taxpayers, I'm talking about the people who actually pay their fair share of taxes, and not lowlifes, students, unemployed etc. Those people are donating MY money and it costs them absolutely nothing to do so.

At LEAST with the political donation subsidy your donation is actually from your own pocket and you have to make the effort to actually do it.

[ToadBrother]

At LEAST with the political donation subsidy your donation is actually from your own pocket and you have to make the effort to actually do it.

But the credit for political donations, you reduce your tax burden, thus spreading it to everyone else. In the end the taxpayer is still subsidizing political parties by allowing you to reduce your net tax.

[Mr.Canada]

But the credit for political donations, you reduce your tax burden, thus spreading it to everyone else. In the end the taxpayer is still subsidizing political parties by allowing you to reduce your net tax.

I don't think because those who choose to donate to the political parties of their choice are increasing the tax burden on anyone else. That doesn't sound right at all.

[ToadBrother]

I don't think because those who choose to donate to the political parties of their choice are increasing the tax burden on anyone else. That doesn't sound right at all.

If you reduce your net income, you reduce the amount you pay taxes on. Every credit, one way or the other, costs the government, and hence the taxpayer, money. Whether it's a credit for hockey skates or a credit because you donated to the Liberal Party of Canada, you're credit means less revenue, which means more money has to be brought in for government services, paying down the debt, etc.

[Mr.Canada]

If you reduce your net income, you reduce the amount you pay taxes on. Every credit, one way or the other, costs the government, and hence the taxpayer, money. Whether it's a credit for hockey skates or a credit because you donated to the Liberal Party of Canada, you're credit means less revenue, which means more money has to be brought in for government services, paying down the debt, etc.

Tax reciepts are given for a great many things people buy or donate to. This isn't a new thing either and has been around for longer then I've been alive I'm sure. So you'd have to take away all "tax write offs"(if you will) for everything, which I think, would do more harm then good. Basically re write the way taxes are done in this country from the beginning.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

Tax reciepts are given for a great many things people buy or donate to. This isn't a new thing either and has been around for longer then I've been alive I'm sure. So you'd have to take away all "tax write offs"(if you will) for everything, which I think, would do more harm then good. Basically re write the way taxes are done in this country from the beginning.

No, I wouldn't (although there are plenty of credits I'd happily kill). We're talking explicitly here about about what amounts to welfare for political parties. If you're against it, then it's hard to see how allowing a backdoor subsidy via a tax credit can be any more legitimate than a direct subsidy. In either case money from government coffers (and ultimately from taxpayers) ends up in party hands.

[Mr.Canada]

No, I wouldn't (although there are plenty of credits I'd happily kill). We're talking explicitly here about about what amounts to welfare for political parties. If you're against it, then it's hard to see how allowing a backdoor subsidy via a tax credit can be any more legitimate than a direct subsidy. In either case money from government coffers (and ultimately from taxpayers) ends up in party hands.

No, this is false. The money I donate goes to the party I choose. If I donate $100, the party I donated it to gets $100. I donated it.

[Moonbox]

But the credit for political donations, you reduce your tax burden, thus spreading it to everyone else. In the end the taxpayer is still subsidizing political parties by allowing you to reduce your net tax.

This is where people kind of get mixed up. If I give away $10, and get $7.50 back, I'm still short $2.50 and I still have to wait for that $7.50 rebate. Also, seeing as though I'm donating for a tax receipt anyways, it's almost certain that I'm a net contributor to federal income which means I'll be one of the people actually paying for that $7.50 subsidy in the first place.

Either way, I end up with less money than I started. Like I said before, I'm not necessarily defending the donation subsidy, I'm just saying it's LOT better than the per vote subsidy you get for simply EXISTING as a federal political entity.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Moonbox

[Bonam]

Frankly parties shouldn't need money at all. Advertisements and outreach should be done for free through online methods (youtube, facebook, etc) as well as through the extensive free publicity in the media. Organization and party work should be done on a volunteer basis. We need government to be less about the parties and more about the people.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Any party not right wing is socialist in my opinion.

Well, that's because you lack certain things.

[Smallc]

Okay...so let me get this straight...it's better to have a mandatory subsidy that every canadian has to pay for instead of a voluntary one??? I'll agree the tax credit is pretty hefty and maybe we could amend or do away with it altogether, but if that's bad, then the actual subsidy should be considered an abomination.

Actually, it isn't voluntary at all. My taxes pay for your party contribution. I didn't make the contribution, yet I finance the subsidy. I'd say it's even worse.

[Smallc]

This is where people kind of get mixed up. If I give away $10, and get $7.50 back, I'm still short $2.50 and I still have to wait for that $7.50 rebate.

And who picks up the other $7.50?

[capricorn]

Stop the tax deduction for political donations and the per vote subsidy. I particularly like the idea that it would deliver a blow to the Bloc who don't have an aggressive fundraising system. I would suggest raising the donation cap from $1,000. to #2,000. That should make up for most of the lost revenue by parties.

What I find unfair in the present system is that we who donate to a party do so on the basis of the policy platform the parties offer us. We donate in good faith. Then, the parties either don't keep their word on their policies once elected, or amend those policies at their discretion and without consulting the grassroots. Yet, there is no mechanism for the disgruntled donor to ask for a refund as a result to the reversal or abandonment of policies. As consumers, we can request a refund if a product or service is not satisfactory or below par or falsely advertised, but not so for what is essentially a service we buy from political parties with our contributions. Heck, we can even bring consumer lawsuits into small claims court. I guess all we can do is halt donations if we feel shafted by our party and kiss our past contributions goodbye.

[capricorn]

Actually, it isn't voluntary at all. My taxes pay for your party contribution. I didn't make the contribution, yet I finance the subsidy. I'd say it's even worse.

Just thinking that taxpayers subsidize the Bloc makes me sick.

[Smallc]

Stop the tax deduction for political donations and the per vote subsidy. I particularly like the idea that it would deliver a blow to the Bloc who don't have an aggressive fundraising system. I would suggest raising the donation cap from $1,000. to #2,000.

It's 1,100 now (because it rises with inflation), and no. Parties get coverage from the media. I think the less advertising they can buy, the better.

[robert_viera]

Just thinking that taxpayers subsidize the Bloc makes me sick.

People who vote for the Bloc pay taxes. Perhaps it makes them sick to think of their tax dollars subsidizing federalist parties. Have you considered that?

[capricorn]

Yes I have. I have no sympathy.

[robert_viera]

Stop the tax deduction for political donations and the per vote subsidy. I particularly like the idea that it would deliver a blow to the Bloc who don't have an aggressive fundraising system. I would suggest raising the donation cap from $1,000. to #2,000. That should make up for most of the lost revenue by parties.

The Bloc doesn't need to raise as much as the other parties. They only run candidates in 75 ridings.

[DrGreenthumb]

The most democratic and fair way of financing parties is the per vote subsidy. All other party fundraising should be abolished. One person one vote, everybody has an equal opportunity to support their party of choice. Nobody can use their money to influence policy. Every voice is equal. At the very least the tax deduction for political donation should be gone. I think its disgusting that when I donate 1100 dollars to the NDP Mr. Canada's tax money pays for like 800 dollars of it.

[robert_viera]

This is where people kind of get mixed up. If I give away $10, and get $7.50 back, I'm still short $2.50 and I still have to wait for that $7.50 rebate.

I'm sure it was an agonizing wait for the people who donated $730,910.57 to the Conservatives/Liberals/NDP on December 31st, and those are just the ones who gave more than $200.

[August1991]

The OP of this thread demonstrates a remarkable short-sightedness that borders on stupidity.

The Tories plan to use the cancel per vote subsidy as a plank of their next election campaign. This is great and was very popular with Canadians across the board. This is awesome, finally the Tories doing something great and worthwhile. I truly hope they do keep this promise. The NDP, BQ and Liberals will all be crippled. The BQ may not even survive at all which would be wonderful for Canada.

In case you don't know, Obama raised far more through direct, small contributions than McCain. Obama refused federal matching grants whereas McCain accepted them.

Make no mistake that the Bloc is as capable of raising money as the Conservatives.

I like the ideas here about making it more difficult for parties to raise money. As it is, we have an entire media that is set up to give free publicity to all at election time, so they should use it. The thing about the taxpayer subsidy is that it also helps fringe parties, which some of you no doubt support.

MH, I think the 1.75$ subsidy is restricted to parties that break a 5% threshold.

Honestly I don't see the difference in the two, both equate to the tax payer, paying. In both cases the tax payer has no control over where their subsidy is directed other then what they choose to contribute directly.

WTF? Voters control who receives the subsidy through their vote. What can be more democratic?

I can't believe you people don't understand the per vote subsidy, nor why you think this is tax payers dollars per se. If I vote for a party I have no problem if the $1.75 (of my money) goes to that party... it makes much more sense than the political donations do.

Exactly. I agree with Shakey.

The party you vote for gets money for your vote, sure, but the actual subsidy is being paid largely by taxpayers. By taxpayers, I'm talking about the people who actually pay their fair share of taxes, and not lowlifes, students, unemployed etc....

Moonbox, what is the difference between a "taxpayer" and a "voter"? Or are you suggesting that we should allocate votes according to the taxes paid?

Maybe, some day in the future, we will have a voting system that takes into account how much individual citizens value different public policies but for the moment, the best we have is one man, one vote.

----

Political parties need money to organize themselves and present themselves to voters. How to get the money? (I think I started a thread on this question because it is of such importance if democracy is to function and fluorish around the world.)

It strikes me that taxing all of us and then distributing the money according to how we vote makes eminent sense. When you vote for a party, you are handing over about ten bucks over the next few years to the party of your choice.

As a minimum, it makes a ballot worth something and provides an incentive to vote.

Edited March 31, 2010 by August1991

[nicky10013]

If they remove the subsidy the government should re-open political donations from companies and unions. The whole reason why the subsidy was introduced is because Chretien wanted to make campaign finance far more open to the public while at the same time ensuring that our democratic institutions aren't hampered by a party becoming uncompetitve by cutting off their lifeblood.

Something tells me the CPC won't do it, however. This isn't a move to end taxpayer funded parties, this is a move purely to stifle and hopefully destroy the opposition in this country. If this goes through, no party except for possibly the Liberals after a couple years will have the resources to challenge a Harper government.

If we want to eliminate the subsidy, it's a discussion we should have, but we have to think of the larger ramifications in terms of how our democracy operates. Effective democracy requires an effective opposition. Taking away the subsidy and leaving no other room for parties to raise money renders the opposition useless.

Personally, I think 1.75 or whatever it is per vote isn't that big of a price to pay for a well functioning democracy.

Edited March 31, 2010 by nicky10013

[capricorn]

Make no mistake that the Bloc is as capable of raising money as the Conservatives.

I was looking at contributions earlier on the Elections Canada site. In 2008, the Conservatives average donation based on the number of contributors was around $188.00 and the Bloc around $95.00.

[Alta4ever]

The most democratic and fair way of financing parties is the per vote subsidy. All other party fundraising should be abolished. One person one vote, everybody has an equal opportunity to support their party of choice. Nobody can use their money to influence policy. Every voice is equal. At the very least the tax deduction for political donation should be gone. I think its disgusting that when I donate 1100 dollars to the NDP Mr. Canada's tax money pays for like 800 dollars of it.

Every voice is not equal. Its disgusting that you would think this the nut cases don't deserve to get the same soap box to stand on and someone who is more mainstream. If you can not persuade people to fund you message its probably its not worth my tax dollars. Fund it yourself.

[Alta4ever]

If they remove the subsidy the government should re-open political donations from companies and unions. The whole reason why the subsidy was introduced is because Chretien wanted to make campaign finance far more open to the public while at the same time ensuring that our democratic institutions aren't hampered by a party becoming uncompetitve by cutting off their lifeblood.

Something tells me the CPC won't do it, however. This isn't a move to end taxpayer funded parties, this is a move purely to stifle and hopefully destroy the opposition in this country. If this goes through, no party except for possibly the Liberals after a couple years will have the resources to challenge a Harper government.

If we want to eliminate the subsidy, it's a discussion we should have, but we have to think of the larger ramifications in terms of how our democracy operates. Effective democracy requires an effective opposition. Taking away the subsidy and leaving no other room for parties to raise money renders the opposition useless.

Personally, I think 1.75 or whatever it is per vote isn't that big of a price to pay for a well functioning democracy.

If the entity does not have legal status to vote why should it be able to donate money to political organization?

This would be foolish to open up again, and make the canadian government beholden to special intrests and lobby groups. It would be better to reduce the amount that can be spent on federal campaigns and increase the personal donation limit.