Per vote subsidy gone next election!

[ToadBrother]

Any party not right wing is socialist in my opinion.

And your opinion and a loonie will buy a cup of coffee.

[Alta4ever]

Lol, probably. My point was that the socialists(Liberals, NDP et el) will stop at nothing in order to gain power.

You form a political party in order to advance your agenda by gaining the government.

[ToadBrother]

You form a political party in order to advance your agenda by gaining the government.

Do you ever get the sense that the country of Mr. Canada would be a one-party state?

What's really funny is that he hates socialism so much he's planning on moving to Israel...

Edited March 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Mr.Canada]

Neither the Liberals or the Tories have any hope at the moment of a majority, so at some point, unless they're all going to sit each on their own side of the House and stick their fingers in their ears, are going to have to work together. It's pretty clear that the House is incredibly toxic, and that the Opposition loathes Harper, and yet, they still are put there to govern.

The Tories are quite willing to work with other parties but the other parties are seemingly unwilling to compromise. That aside they do actually work together quite a lot but it isn't reported that's all. Multi partisan bills and motions pass the HoC everyday, if not everyday awfully close. We only hear about the big stuff. If you watch CPAC you can see it in Senate meetings, committee meetings etc. Members from different parties are in the same committee all the time. Opposition don't just sit around and do nothing if they aren't in power. They all work together.

And your opinion and a loonie will buy a cup of coffee.

Lol.

[Alta4ever]

Do you ever get the sense that the country of Mr. Canada would be a one-party state?

What's really funny is that he hates socialism so much he's planning on moving to Israel...

I do. Democracy needs differing opinions and debate.

I wonder if he realizes just how socialist Israel is.

[ToadBrother]

The Tories are quite willing to work with other parties but the other parties are seemingly unwilling to compromise. That aside they do actually work together quite a lot but it isn't reported that's all. Multi partisan bills and motions pass the HoC everyday, if not everyday awfully close. We only hear about the big stuff. If you watch CPAC you can see it in Senate meetings, committee meetings etc. Members from different parties are in the same committee all the time. Opposition don't just sit around and do nothing if they aren't in power. They all work together.

First of all, there's no denying that since Martin's minority government, Parliament has become a toxic place. Journalists working on the Hill have noted this a number of times, that the old sense of camaraderie between MPs of different stripes that used to go on outside of Question Period and the Scrum are gone. The Government and the Opposition are well and truly two solitudes now. I think Harper's management style, his take-no-prisoners kind of governing has contributed to this, but the Opposition has to take the blame for basically treating Harper like Darth Vader.

But in general, yes, everyone usually works together at the committee level, and it's always been that way. The media only shows us the fireworks, because, frankly, committee work is frickin' boring. Have you ever watched CPAC? It should be marketed as a cure for insomnia. I usually go to the CBC blog now for what's happening in Ottawa, and get a breakdown, because I have neither the time nor the patience to watch endless hours of not much at all.

Edited March 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Mr.Canada]

First of all, there's no denying that since Martin's minority government, Parliament has become a toxic place. Journalists working on the Hill have noted this a number of times, that the old sense of camaraderie between MPs of different stripes that used to go on outside of Question Period and the Scrum are gone. The Government and the Opposition are well and truly two solitudes now. I think Harper's management style, his take-no-prisoners kind of governing has contributed to this, but the Opposition has to take the blame for basically treating Harper like Darth Vader.

But in general, yes, everyone usually works together at the committee level, and it's always been that way. The media only shows us the fireworks, because, frankly, committee work is frickin' boring. Have you ever watched CPAC? It should be marketed as a cure for insomnia. I usually go to the CBC blog now for what's happening in Ottawa, and get a breakdown, because I have neither the time nor the patience to watch endless hours of not much at all.

It isn't Harpers fault alone. The Liberals enjoyed a divided right for years so it didn't matter what the right said because they could never defeat the Liberals while being divided. Since they've come together the right is now a threat and must be taken seriously. Before it was treated as a joke. Like it or not Harper is a strong leader. I cannot remember the last time the Federal Liberals defeated a strong Tory leader. I don't think in my lifetime.

At the end of the day Harper doesn't do it by himself. Ducceppe and especially Layton are not willing to bend at all and work with Harper and opposse everything so how can one work together when everything you put forward is voted against no matter what it says. So I agree with you that it takes two to tango. The opposition is as much to blame as anyone else is.

Yeah I watch CPAC daily but usually only Question period or if something important is being discussed by the Senate or Committee for reasons similar to yours, it's very dry and I don't have the time to spend hours watching it.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[robert_viera]

I still remember fundraising with the Reform Party. We didn't get much from millionaires and big business. We got millions of dollars in donations, $10 at a time!

Ordinary people giving small amounts that they could afford amounted to a very large sum, indeed.

Since then whenever someone tries to tell me that they belong to a political party that would be very popular with Canadians yet can't get anyone to VOLUNTARILY give them a few dollars I just can't take them seriously! The idea that a party can only exist if they get free taxpayers money to me is just an admission that they truly are not popular with ordinary people at all.

If someone will throw $10 in the hat that to me is much more "real" than a bunch of politicians passing a law that they can take $10 from every tax payers' wallet. An INVOLUNTARY donation is just an elitist sham!

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!

[ToadBrother]

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!

No kidding. I think the first step should be the ending of political contributions as a tax credit. The Tory supporters bitch and complain about the subsidy, and yet allowing people to write off contributions as credits on their tax forms is a subsidy in and of itself.

Edited March 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Mr.Canada]

No kidding. I think the first step should be the ending of political contributions as a tax credit. The Tory supporters bitch and complain about the subsidy, and yet allowing people to write off contributions as credits on their tax forms is a subsidy in and of itself.

Mhmmm....all parties can do the same thing. Not just the Tories. So be fair.

[Moonbox]

No kidding. I think the first step should be the ending of political contributions as a tax credit. The Tory supporters bitch and complain about the subsidy, and yet allowing people to write off contributions as credits on their tax forms is a subsidy in and of itself.

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.

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!

Regardless, the taxpayer is choosing where his money is going to go and it's 100% voluntary. The system is so generous that there shouldn't be any need for the direct and automatic subsidy.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Moonbox

[ToadBrother]

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.

Hey, my personal view is that tax credits for political contributions be ended and political parties taxed as businesses. I think political parties are the worst aspect of our system, and the aspect that should be hampered by every means possible, and I can't think of anything better than the taxman taking an ever increasing share of their take.

[robert_viera]

Regardless, the taxpayer is choosing where his money is going to go and it's 100% voluntary. The system is so generous that there shouldn't be any need for the direct and automatic subsidy.

There's nothing voluntary about the taxpayer having to subsidize up to 75% of a federal political contribution.

[Moonbox]

There's nothing voluntary about the taxpayer having to subsidize up to 75% of a federal political contribution.

It's voluntary because people have to choose whether they're going to contribute in the first place. At the very least, people have to make the decision to contribute their own dollars to the party they chose. They'll be out 25% of what they contribute at the end of the year and they have to make the conscious effort to donate in the first place.

The federal voting subsidy, on the other hand, is a tax on the vote itself. The only way to avoid that cost is for me to choose not to vote at all. It's a lot worse.

You can't fairly criticize the first without damning the second.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

On the question of left-wing/right-wing socialist etc. parties - note that all parties are converging towards the centre-right fiscally. Even the NDP is to the right of the 1980s era Liberals on many tax and program issues. Socially, though, the convergence is drifting leftwards.

[Dave_ON]

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.

Regardless, the taxpayer is choosing where his money is going to go and it's 100% voluntary. The system is so generous that there shouldn't be any need for the direct and automatic subsidy.

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. I don't see why political parties are granted the same benefits and privileges that non-profit organizations are. I like TB's idea, tax them as you would any other for profit organization. It's time the tax payer got something out of the party system rather than always subsidizing it.

[Mr.Canada]

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. I don't see why political parties are granted the same benefits and privileges that non-profit organizations are. I like TB's idea, tax them as you would any other for profit organization. It's time the tax payer got something out of the party system rather than always subsidizing it.

Sure, why not. As long as the Political Party Welfare is cut off. That is priority number one. Ensure that donations stay at their current levels and amounts. If I get a tax reciept or if I don't, I don't really care as long as the other conditions are met.

[Dave_ON]

Sure, why not. As long as the Political Party Welfare is cut off. That is priority number one. Ensure that donations stay at their current levels and amounts. If I get a tax reciept or if I don't, I don't really care as long as the other conditions are met.

That's the point they're both a subsidy in the end. You getting a tax receipt for your donation, means you're paying less in taxes. Those taxes you aren't paying are going to a political party directly, that's not right. Taxes should not go to political parties through either direct or indirect means. If you want to donate fine but it should be 100% your dime not 25%.

[Mr.Canada]

That's the point they're both a subsidy in the end. You getting a tax receipt for your donation, means you're paying less in taxes. Those taxes you aren't paying are going to a political party directly, that's not right. Taxes should not go to political parties through either direct or indirect means. If you want to donate fine but it should be 100% your dime not 25%.

Sure, no problem. Small price to pay. I'm all for it, the other parties won't go for it though. The NDP will see it as an assualt on the poor. The BQ will see it as an assualt on Quebec and the Liberals will...the Liberals will...well the Liberals will go with whatever happens to be on CBC.

[ToadBrother]

Sure, no problem. Small price to pay. I'm all for it, the other parties won't go for it though. The NDP will see it as an assualt on the poor. The BQ will see it as an assualt on Quebec and the Liberals will...the Liberals will...well the Liberals will go with whatever happens to be on CBC.

If you think the Tories would be in favor of killing tax credits for political donations, you may be unpleasantly surprised. They may reject the money-for-votes scheme, but all the fundraising they do relies very heavily on the folks contributing getting a nice little slip of paper that they file with their tax returns.

[Jack Weber]

Any party not right wing is socialist in my opinion.

That's because you're a kook!

[Jack Weber]

Do you ever get the sense that the country of Mr. Canada would be a one-party state?

What's really funny is that he hates socialism so much he's planning on moving to Israel...

Yes...And it would run by the theocrats in the CHP!!!!

[Mr.Canada]

If you think the Tories would be in favor of killing tax credits for political donations, you may be unpleasantly surprised. They may reject the money-for-votes scheme, but all the fundraising they do relies very heavily on the folks contributing getting a nice little slip of paper that they file with their tax returns.

No, no, you're most likely right about that. I just think that the others would be crying much louder. I don't think any of this will happen including getting rid of money for votes. It's just going to be used to wind them up, Mr.Canada style. Just to be obnoxius really because their's no way out of it , the only argument that can be made against it is to take more taxpayer money? That won't go over well. In my opinion anyhow.

Yes...And it would run by the theocrats in the CHP!!!!

In no way would I want a theocracy here in Canada. I'd like Canada to remain much as it is except firmly to the right instead of this mushy middle ground we currently have.

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.

Political party donations should be made officially not this back door scheme we currently have.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Shakeyhands]

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.

[Dave_ON]

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.

I understand your point but I have to disagree. What if I want to vote for a given party, but I don't want to give them one red cent of my hard earned money? I'm forced to do so by this law, the fact that I voted for a given party on principle or on a whim should not translate to a tax subsidy.