Per vote subsidy gone next election!

[capricorn]

As has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, CPC supporters tend to be in the highest income bracket so they have the most available cash to donate.

Interesting. As has been pointed out many times in other threads, as a group Liberal supporters are more educated than Conservative voters. Now we learn that in spite of having a higher education, Liberal supporters earn less money than the less educated Conservative supporters. Hmmm.

We don’t need no education

We don’t need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the class room

Teachers leave those kids alone

(yells) Hey, teachers! Leave those kids alone!

[Alta4ever]

Interesting. As has been pointed out many times in other threads, as a group Liberal supporters are more educated than Conservative voters. Now we learn that in spite of having a higher education, Liberal supporters earn less money than the less educated Conservative supporters. Hmmm.

We don’t need no education

We don’t need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the class room

Teachers leave those kids alone

(yells) Hey, teachers! Leave those kids alone!

That was great album wasn't it.

[Mr.Canada]

That was great album wasn't it.

Classic.

[Dave_ON]

Interesting. As has been pointed out many times in other threads, as a group Liberal supporters are more educated than Conservative voters. Now we learn that in spite of having a higher education, Liberal supporters earn less money than the less educated Conservative supporters. Hmmm.

The division between CPC and LPC isn't one of income it's more of an Urban/Rural divide. Education/Income isn’t really a factor. Too often people equate people with higher education having a proclivity for more a liberal mind set with the Liberal mind set being more educated in general. It should come as no surprise that such is not the case.

[Molly]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the reimbursement of election expenses. Uncomfortable enough that taxpayers provide parties with the money they spend in the first place, but irrational to give it to them twice, so long as they spend it liberally the first time.

When you pile 60% reimbursement of election expenses on top of the 75% tax credit, $25 from a donors pocket can mean up to as $135 from unwilling taxpayers...more than 5:1. (Or, should I say $136.75. Must not forget the per-vote subsidy.) If the $100 is used as a basis for borrrowing to cover election expenses, it can be even more.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would like to see the subsidy gone. I would like to see the political parties treated like any other corporation actually. Tax them!

[M.Dancer]

I would like to see the subsidy gone. I would like to see the political parties treated like any other corporation actually. Tax them!

Intersting notion. Based on profits?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Intersting notion. Based on profits?

Hahahahaha! Good point! Maybe they should be treated like us instead!

[Pliny]

It doesn't matter how many small donations the party recieves. The state of party fundraising, though not lost on me, is but a small issue in terms of how we gauge the effectiveness of our democracy.

Undoubtedly, cutting the subsidy without allowing additional sources of revenues in other areas (corporations and unions) would lead to the inability for the opposition to be effective. There can be no mistaking that.

So, what you're saying is that we should allow that situation? You're for the gutting and possible bankruptcy of opposition parties?

Firstly, the State of party fundraising is a huge issue - it seems a great concern to you.

Secondly, the popularity of and conviction to a political platform among the citizenry will determine the ability of a party to raise revenues. I understand your point of view and perception that a party representing poor people will not be able to raise

revenues to campaign effectively. It's obvious, isn't it! Poor people cannot afford to donate politically. I believe they could win though if the majority were poor.

You have to get over the idea that if government does not look after people no one will. People must, of course, be left with resources to do so and as long as they have the resources, they will.

And lastly, I don't think he is for the gutting and possible bankruptcy of opposition parties. Those words are yours and not his. He is for opposition that has support from the general population not from the Communist party or the Anarchist's party or any other fringe element in society that a Federal government should not concern itself with. If those parties can pass the litmus test of raising enough revenues from supporters based upon their political platform to become an opposition then they are a real opposition and not some special interest or ideological group that never really thought much about governance, just getting a seat at the trough.

[Pliny]

Intersting notion. Based on profits?

No one should be taxed on profits or income. They could pay a VAT like everyone else, if that were the form of taxation.

[Moonbox]

IN fact the per vote subsidy should be raised and the political donations outlawed. Stop letting the rich buy the government that bests suits their own needs.

Why should it be raised? LoL

[DrGreenthumb]

And lastly, I don't think he is for the gutting and possible bankruptcy of opposition parties. Those words are yours and not his. He is for opposition that has support from the general population not from the Communist party or the Anarchist's party or any other fringe element in society that a Federal government should not concern itself with. If those parties can pass the litmus test of raising enough revenues from supporters based upon their political platform to become an opposition then they are a real opposition and not some special interest or ideological group that never really thought much about governance, just getting a seat at the trough.

Bullshit! Harper is doing this with the express intention of crippling the opposition, while at the same time he spends MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to run Conservative party campaign ads. Action plan ads alone during olympics were 5 million. I just got a 14 page 10%er or householder from my Conservative MP, how much did those partisan asswipe substitutes cost us? The 1.75 per vote subsidy only goes to parties that get more than 5% of the popular vote so you can put away your anarchist and communist party strawmen any time now.

[Pliny]

Bullshit! Harper is doing this with the express intention of crippling the opposition, while at the same time he spends MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to run Conservative party campaign ads. Action plan ads alone during olympics were 5 million. I just got a 14 page 10%er or householder from my Conservative MP, how much did those partisan asswipe substitutes cost us? The 1.75 per vote subsidy only goes to parties that get more than 5% of the popular vote so you can put away your anarchist and communist party strawmen any time now.

It will bring about some real change in opposition, don't you think? I'm sure you could spare $10.

A political party has to get 5% of the vote to get the pervote subsidy? That's not fair. It should be all or nothing. I prefer nothing.

[Mr.Canada]

Bullshit! Harper is doing this with the express intention of crippling the opposition, while at the same time he spends MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to run Conservative party campaign ads. Action plan ads alone during olympics were 5 million. I just got a 14 page 10%er or householder from my Conservative MP, how much did those partisan asswipe substitutes cost us? The 1.75 per vote subsidy only goes to parties that get more than 5% of the popular vote so you can put away your anarchist and communist party strawmen any time now.

The CPC will lose the most money by scrapping the money for votes scheme.

Action Plan Ads weren't for the CPC but for all of Canada.

Are you saying the NDP isn't partisan? It was Layton who voted against the budget without even reading it. If that isn't partisan I don't know what is.

You do realize that most of the donations to the CPC are under $100 right? Perhaps the NDP supporters should buy a few less sheets of bristol board and give the 10 bucks to their party.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[robert_viera]

Just wanted to clarify something ...

The federal tax credit for political contributions is 75% up to $400, 50% up to $750, and 33.33% after that, up to $1275. So if someone donated $1,100 to a party, this is what they would get:

0.75 x $400 = $300 +

0.50 x $350 = $175 +

0.3333 x $350 = $116.66

= $591.66

Edited April 1, 2010 by robert_viera

[Dithers]

I am opposed to anything that even gives the impression of disenfranchising voters. This does, in my opinion. This is a partisan move, as the OP demonstrated by parading how it is designed to cripple the other parties. This is not what I want to see our government wasting time on.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am opposed to anything that even gives the impression of disenfranchising voters. This does, in my opinion. This is a partisan move, as the OP demonstrated by parading how it is designed to cripple the other parties. This is not what I want to see our government wasting time on.

Did not the last attempt to do this result in the coalition concept?

[Mr.Canada]

Did not the last attempt to do this result in the coalition concept?

Cancelling the subsidy was immensly popular with the Canadian public. The coalition was not. The combonation of these two things pushed the Tories into majority territory for a brief period. I don't think the opposition would be so silly as to try a coalition again if the Tories used this in their election platform.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Cancelling the subsidy was immensly popular with the Canadian public. The coalition was not. The combonation of these two things pushed the Tories into majority territory for a brief period. I don't think the opposition would be so silly as to try a coalition again if the Tories used this in their election platform.

It also lead to Harper shutting down Parliament, and began the slide in his popularity.

[Mr.Canada]

It also lead to Harper shutting down Parliament, and began the slide in his popularity.

He's going to reintroduce during the next election campaign. Parlaiment will already be dissolved so it won't be an issue. I'm sure he'll remind voters of the three amigos coalition at the same time.

[DrGreenthumb]

He's going to reintroduce during the next election campaign. Parlaiment will already be dissolved so it won't be an issue. I'm sure he'll remind voters of the three amigos coalition at the same time.

And I will make sure the voters are constantly reminded that the 75% tax rebate is a FAR bigger example of political party welfare, just designed to benefit the richest the most.

[Wild Bill]

Bullshit! Harper is doing this with the express intention of crippling the opposition, while at the same time he spends MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to run Conservative party campaign ads. Action plan ads alone during olympics were 5 million. I just got a 14 page 10%er or householder from my Conservative MP, how much did those partisan asswipe substitutes cost us? The 1.75 per vote subsidy only goes to parties that get more than 5% of the popular vote so you can put away your anarchist and communist party strawmen any time now.

Suppose for the sake of argument that you are right about Harper's motives. How does this change any of Pliny's points about what makes a political party valid with real popular support and not just another snout in the trough?

[Pliny]

For every $10 donation, the taxpayer kicks back $7.50 in the form of the federal political contribution tax credit, so the donor is only out $2.50, yet the party gets the full $10, courtesy of the taxpayer. The taxpayer is actually contributing more to the party than the donor!

Not quite accurate.

It's a tax credit. It is deductible from your Gross Income. If you contributed $100 you can deduct $75 from your income. The savings, depending upon your GI, would only be around 5-10 dollars on the 100.

Deducting $7.50 from your income as a tax credit will garner you a few cents I'm sure.

So on a $100 contribution where you only retain a savings of $5-10. That means your contribution is around 90-95 dollars. The taxpayer is not contributing more than the donor by a long stretch. And anyway it isn't a contribution from the taxpayer it is a lost revenue to the government.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Pliny

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Personally, I want to see an end to this crap. It is a complete waste of tax dollars, let the political parties spend the money of their own supporters, not mine. Having said that, I think there will be some sort of backlash a political molehill made into a mountain.

It may serve to liven up the debate!

[Molly]

Not quite accurate.

It's a tax credit. It is deductible from your Gross Income. If you contributed $100 you can deduct $75 from your income. The savings, depending upon your GI, would only be around 5-10 dollars on the 100.

Deducting $7.50 from your income as a tax credit will garner you a few cents I'm sure.

So on a $100 contribution where you only retain a savings of $5-10. That means your contribution is around 90-95 dollars. The taxpayer is not contributing more than the donor by a long stretch. And anyway it isn't a contribution from the taxpayer it is a lost revenue to the government.

Wrong. It is deducted directly from tax payable, not from gross income.