Per vote subsidy gone next election!

[August1991]

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, define "nutcase". Define "mainstream". What if we decide that you are a "nutcase", and not "mainstream"?

As to your "fund it yourself" argument, I would not want to live in a society where Warren Buffet and Bill Gates decide the government. (Why? I would be terrified of what kind of people would seek to become a Warren Buffet or a Bill Gates if they also had the power to decide government.)

As to your idea that "every voice is not equal", I tend to agree. But until something better comes along, this one man, one vote principle may be inexact but it's better than all alternatives.

Edited March 31, 2010 by August1991

[Alta4ever]

Alta4ever, define "nutcase". Define "mainstream". What if we decide that you are a "nutcase", and not "mainstream"?

As to your "fund it yourself" argument, I would not want to live in a society where Warren Buffet and Bill Gates decide the government. (Why? I would be terrified of what kind of people would seek to become a Warren Buffet or a Bill Gates if they also had the power to decide government.)

Until something better comes along, this one man, one vote principle seems inexact but good to me.

How will warren buffet or bill gates determine the agenda if they can put in only 1100 per year?

I think you missed my next post.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16130&view=findpost&p=526412

Edited March 31, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

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.

The net result is still the same. Horrendously unbalanced donations among parrties which renders the opposition ineffecitve for quite some time.

I don't like donations from firms and unions any more than anyone else but in order to maintain an effective democratic system the money has to come from somewhere. As I said, I don't think that $1.75 is too much to pay towards the maintenance of democracy. Indeed, I'm still having trouble figuring out a reason the arguments for the elimination of the subsidy.

[Alta4ever]

The net result is still the same. Horrendously unbalanced donations among parrties which renders the opposition ineffecitve for quite some time.

I don't like donations from firms and unions any more than anyone else but in order to maintain an effective democratic system the money has to come from somewhere. As I said, I don't think that $1.75 is too much to pay towards the maintenance of democracy. Indeed, I'm still having trouble figuring out a reason the arguments for the elimination of the subsidy.

It is too much and if those parties want to raise more from the public then they need to move their agendas closer to what more Canadians want.

[Smallc]

It is too much and if those parties want to raise more from the public then they need to move their agendas closer to what more Canadians want.

That doesn't even make sense. If people didn't agree with their agendas, they wouldn't vote for them.

[Alta4ever]

That doesn't even make sense. If people didn't agree with their agendas, they wouldn't vote for them.

Really, why is it that those same parties not sustained by their voting base why do they need to rely on taxpayers to sustain them?

[Smallc]

Really, why is it that those same parties not sustained by their voting base why do they need to rely on taxpayers to sustain them?

Again, that doesn't make any sense. You said their ideas are not what Canadians want, but obviously many Canadians disagree with you. Take away the tax rebate, and you'll see a lot of Conservative donations dry up to. As I've said before, Conservatives are a different breed. If they can save tax money by donating to further their causes, they'll jump on that. Also, they're more able to afford donations than the average NDP voter. The Liberals...well...I just don't know. I think it's because their supporters are often not ideologically driven to support anything because there's nothing really ideological about the Liberal Party, which I personally like...but it's a problem for them.

Anyway, the subsidy is probably the best funding system possible. It means that only ideas and not money influence come to matter in politics.

[Moonbox]

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?

I don't need to explain the difference to you. I wasn't expressing any hidden meanings.

My point was that it's easy for people who don't pay taxes to be very liberal with public dollars. I don't agree with either the per vote subsidy or the donation one, but at least someone who is donating money is making a sacrifice from their own wallet.

[Alta4ever]

Again, that doesn't make any sense. You said their ideas are not what Canadians want, but obviously many Canadians disagree with you. Take away the tax rebate, and you'll see a lot of Conservative donations dry up to. As I've said before, Conservatives are a different breed. If they can save tax money by donating to further their causes, they'll jump on that. Also, they're more able to afford donations than the average NDP voter. The Liberals...well...I just don't know. I think it's because their supporters are often not ideologically driven to support anything because there's nothing really ideological about the Liberal Party, which I personally like...but it's a problem for them.

Anyway, the subsidy is probably the best funding system possible. It means that only ideas and not money influence come to matter in politics.

Garbage, the majority of Liberal or NDP supporters can't afford 10/month. Most conservative money is small donations like these. Why is it the conservative supporters that are more willing to spend there money and support the party? Why is it the liberals and NDPs think that someone else should shoulder the burden of getting their message out? The government has no business spending tax payer money on political parties.

[Smallc]

Garbage, the majority of Liberal or NDP supporters can't afford 10/month. Most conservative money is small donations like these. Why is it the conservative supporters that are more willing to spend there money and support the party? Why is it the liberals and NDPs think that someone else should shoulder the burden of getting their message out?

The government has no business spending tax payer money on political parties.

They spend more money on the Conservative party than on any other party...you do realize that, right? With the largest number of votes and the largest number of donations, they are by far the biggest recipients of taxpayer welfare.

Do NDP and Liberal votes not pay at least $2 in taxes every year? If they do, then they're paying for their support already.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

but at least someone who is donating money is making a sacrifice from their own wallet.

While at the same time, using three times as much in the way of tax subsidies, thus placing the burden on others.

[August1991]

My point was that it's easy for people who don't pay taxes to be very liberal with public dollars.

And on this basis, you argue against a $1.75 annual political party subsidy. A $1.75?

Moonbox, what about the federal government budget? On average, each Canadian pays through GST, various federal fees and federal income tax about $10,000 to the federal government. (This $10,000 is distinct from payments to provincial and municipal governments - and distinct from receipts from all governments.)

On average, a Canadian gives $10,000 to Stephen Harper every year and he decides how to spend it.

-----

Here's a suggestion. Rather than give $1.75 to each federal party according to your vote, I suggest that we give each party $10,000 for each year.

If I vote for the NDP or the BQ, I will give them my $10,000 and let the party (Duceppe/Layton) decide how my money is spent.

And you quibble about $1.75 per year.

Edited March 31, 2010 by August1991

[blueblood]

And on this basis, you argue against a $1.75 annual political party subsidy. A $1.75?

Moonbox, what about the federal government budget? On average, each Canadian pays through GST, various federal fees and federal income tax about $10,000 to the federal government. (This $10,000 is distinct from payments to provincial and municipal governments - and distinct from receipts from all governments.)

On average, a Canadian gives $10,000 to Stephen Harper every year and he decides how to spend it.

-----

Here's a suggestion. Rather than give $1.75 to each federal party according to your vote, I suggest that we give each party $10,000 for each year.

If I vote for the NDP or the BQ, I will give them my $10,000 and let the party (Duceppe/Layton) decide how my money is spent.

And you quibble about $1.75 per year.

The thing is that $1.75 per year adds up.

Lets say 15 million people vote, that's $26,250,000 spent on political parties that could be spent on something useful, or given back to the Canadian people.

This is gov't waste of the highest order.

The parties can raise their own money.

[August1991]

Lets say 15 million people vote, that's $26,250,000 spent on political parties that could be spent on something useful, or given back to the Canadian people.

This is gov't waste of the highest order.

Gov't waste? Blueblood, the federal government spends around $300 billion annually - IOW, it spends about $10,000 of your money each year. (In this thread, people are arguing about how $1.75 of your tax money is spent.)

I suggested that we give our collective federal tax money (on a voter basis) to political parties to decide the federal budget. IOW, I'm arguing that political parties should receive not $1.75 per vote but rather $10,000 per vote.

Edited March 31, 2010 by August1991

[blueblood]

Gov't waste? Blueblood, the federal government spends around $300 billion annually - IOW, it spends about $10,000 of your money each year. (In this thread, people are arguing about how $1.75 of your tax money is spent.)

I suggested that we give our collective federal tax money (on a voter basis) to political parties to decide the federal budget. IOW, I'm arguing that political parties should receive not $1.75 per vote but rather $10,000 per vote.

Whaddya think?

You said yourself governments waste. 27 million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. Imagine if the goverment started making baby steps by saving 27 million dollars here and there. The less money that's wasted the better.

Your idea is proposterous. The parties who are in opposition get out voted. What that means is that those parties have a boat load of money and the government has less money to perform its functions. This idea is the utmost of waste of tax payer dollars because it sits in opposition parties bank accounts instead of financing government functions. So basically society loses, and political fat cats win. More taxpayers dollars are wasted than ever before.

The political parties can all pound sand.

I'll pose this question to you, why do they need all this money? They exist in one of the most heavily regulated media jurisdictions on the continent so getting their message out shouldn't cost anything. So why do they need all our money forcibly taken from us?

[DrGreenthumb]

You said yourself governments waste. 27 million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. Imagine if the goverment started making baby steps by saving 27 million dollars here and there. The less money that's wasted the better.

Your idea is proposterous. The parties who are in opposition get out voted. What that means is that those parties have a boat load of money and the government has less money to perform its functions. This idea is the utmost of waste of tax payer dollars because it sits in opposition parties bank accounts instead of financing government functions. So basically society loses, and political fat cats win. More taxpayers dollars are wasted than ever before.

The political parties can all pound sand.

I'll pose this question to you, why do they need all this money? They exist in one of the most heavily regulated media jurisdictions on the continent so getting their message out shouldn't cost anything. So why do they need all our money forcibly taken from us?

You're right we should remove the tax deduction for political donations immediately.

[nicky10013]

You're right we should remove the tax deduction for political donations immediately.

Ok, so not only are we going to get rid of the $1.75 subsidy, we're going to get rid of the tax deduction as well? For a country whose participation rates are dropping, providing a large disincentive for people to buy memberships and get involved isn't exactly the greatest idea.

In my honest opinion, the whole issue of people not wanting tax dollars to go to parties is an ugly cousin of "NIMBY"ism in that they don't want THEIR tax dollars going to something they frankly don't understand. Under the current regulatory framework in terms of who and how much money parties can take from donors, they need the subsidy to be able to function properly. The public subsidy, indeed, is the entire point. Rather than have massive large donations from companies or unions, Canadians would at least know where the money is coming from.

Furthermore, as I mentioned before, when the sitting PM whose party rakes in so much more money than anyone else decides they're going to cut off the public subsidy which would render ineffective the opposition and possibly bankrupt some of them, it's clear this isn't designed to save tax payer dollars.

There are much deeper issues at stake than just saving money.

Edited March 31, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

They spend more money on the Conservative party than on any other party...you do realize that, right? With the largest number of votes and the largest number of donations, they are by far the biggest recipients of taxpayer welfare.

Do NDP and Liberal votes not pay at least $2 in taxes every year? If they do, then they're paying for their support already.

And the conservative party raises more in a year then all the opposition parties put together. The conservatives can see how wrong it is to have the vote subsidy and are willing to take the biggest hit on the money coming through the door from the government. Why can't the liberals and NDP do without this direct infusion of tax payer money? Why don't their supporters financially support their party to the level needed?

Edited March 31, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Alta4ever]

There are much deeper issues at stake than just saving money.

Yep instead of fundraising the liberals and NDP want to be entitled to their government entitlements.

[nicky10013]

Yep instead of fundraising the liberals and NDP want to be entitled to their government entitlements.

The CPC needed the subsidy before they were elected.

[Alta4ever]

The CPC needed the subsidy before they were elected.

No they didn't. They have even fought and won a court battle to return gst rebate money to the tax payer.

[DrGreenthumb]

No they didn't. They have even fought and won a court battle to return gst rebate money to the tax payer.

They should disallow political contributions altogether and only have the per vote subsidy available. This would level the playing field and the only way parties could get money would be by coming up with a platform that encouraged the most ammount of people to vote for them. No more would a party be able to use policies aimed at protecting the wealthy to gain a monetary advantage in an election campaign. Every vote would then be truly equal.

[nicky10013]

No they didn't. They have even fought and won a court battle to return gst rebate money to the tax payer.

Sure doesn't sound to me like any of the money was going back to the tax payer.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100129/GST_Elections_100129/20100129?hub=QPeriod

[nicky10013]

They should disallow political contributions altogether and only have the per vote subsidy available. This would level the playing field and the only way parties could get money would be by coming up with a platform that encouraged the most ammount of people to vote for them. No more would a party be able to use policies aimed at protecting the wealthy to gain a monetary advantage in an election campaign. Every vote would then be truly equal.

Why should we disincentivize participation?

[ToadBrother]

Why should we disincentivize participation?

I'm thinking more the point is to start fixing the real problem with our democracy, political parties with a leadership that basically treats elected representatives like puppets. If I had my way, I'd reward MPs every time they ignored their caucus and their leader.