Per vote subsidy gone next election!

[DrGreenthumb]

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

Exactly, the Conservatives know this and they even point this out when they ask for donations.

[Mr.Canada]

Exactly, the Conservatives know this and they even point this out when they ask for donations.

Are you suggesting that the other parties don't mention the tax rebate when asking for donations? Give me a break Dr. that's a cheap tactic you're using.

[DrGreenthumb]

Are you suggesting that the other parties don't mention the tax rebate when asking for donations? Give me a break Dr. that's a cheap tactic you're using.

Nope they all do it, but I don't see any Liberal or NDP posters here trying to fool people into thinking otherwise.

The tax rebate is a far worse example of poltical party welfare and it is welfare designed to benefit the rich the most.

[Mr.Canada]

Nope they all do it, but I don't see any Liberal or NDP posters here trying to fool people into thinking otherwise.

The tax rebate is a far worse example of poltical party welfare and it is welfare designed to benefit the rich the most.

Choosing to donate $1100 a year or around $85 a month or less means those people are rich? You must really be poor then if that's the case.

How is this an example of political party welfare?

[William Ashley]

All campaign financing should be dropped and all campaign requirements such as auditors etc.. should be too. Parties should be disbaned and forced to work as for profit corporations - they are not charities and should not be tax free, the money they give people for work etc.. is real money, it is a funnel, and means for imbezzlement of tax payer funds.

In mind though you shouldn't have to pay 1000$ to run in a federal election and 4000$ to have an audit conducted.

Just leave the money out of the system. If people want to spend money let them spend money, tax them as a service for funds generated and leave it at that.

[Mr.Canada]

All campaign financing should be dropped and all campaign requirements such as auditors etc.. should be too. Parties should be disbaned and forced to work as for profit corporations - they are not charities and should not be tax free, the money they give people for work etc.. is real money, it is a funnel, and means for imbezzlement of tax payer funds.

In mind though you shouldn't have to pay 1000$ to run in a federal election and 4000$ to have an audit conducted.

Just leave the money out of the system. If people want to spend money let them spend money, tax them as a service for funds generated and leave it at that.

Keep dreaming.

[William Ashley]

Keep dreaming.

See that is why it is sad, totally partisan system.. sure the party with most non governmental funding is ok with stoping governmental funding to political parties.. but none of them want to make free and fair elections in the country by removing the buy your right to run legislation.

Very sad for the idea of free and fair governmental elections in a so called democratic state.

[Mr.Canada]

See that is why it is sad, totally partisan system.. sure the party with most non governmental funding is ok with stoping governmental funding to political parties.. but none of them want to make free and fair elections in the country by removing the buy your right to run legislation.

Very sad for the idea of free and fair governmental elections in a so called democratic state.

The right wing has such great fundraising because back in the day the corporations largely gave their money to the Liberals and the Unions gave their money to the NDP. All the while the Tories have been raising their own cash from small donations. Most people who donate to the Tories donate under $20 at a time.

Now that Chretien removed corporate and Union funding you're crying foul? Lol. Too bad and suck it up. We had to learn to raise money without government, corporate and union help. Time for everyone else to do the same.

By the by the Tories will lose the most from eliminating this votes for cash scheme.

I don't see the problem with political parties raising their own money, taxpayers shouldn't be funding it unless they choose to send money themselves.

[Pliny]

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

Right Molly!

The only thing I had correct was that the taxpayer isn't paying anything, unless you can correct me on that as well but I believe that the donor is the one who benefits by reducing his tax payable. The taxpayer is not paying anything out of his pocket.

Unless, like Mr. Ashley believes it is a funnel embezzling taxpayer money. I don't see it that way because all parties can benefit from it but it does reduce all over general revenues which may be unfair, as larger parties benefit more than parties that don't receive as much in donations.

What do you think?

Edited April 4, 2010 by Pliny

[Smallc]

Right Molly!

The only thing I had correct was that the taxpayer isn't paying anything,

That's incorrect.

[Pliny]

OK.

Enlighten us.

[Mr.Canada]

That's incorrect.

Yes please explain how when I pay my taxes and use my tax rebate reciept for political donations it makes you pay more out of your own pocket. I'd love to hear this.

[Smallc]

Yes please explain how when I pay my taxes and use my tax rebate reciept for political donations it makes you pay more out of your own pocket. I'd love to hear this.

You've lowered your tax burden. The same amount of money is still needed though, and so you've shifted part of your tax burden to everyone else.

[Mr.Canada]

You've lowered your tax burden. The same amount of money is still needed though, and so you've shifted part of your tax burden to everyone else.

Everyone else? Many people do not pay any taxes at all and instead get refunds. Perhaps they're increasing the burden for everyone else. The amount we send to Ottawa goes up every single year.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Smallc]

The amount we send to Ottawa goes up every single year.

Not unless your wage is rising faster than inflation.

[capricorn]

Yes please explain how when I pay my taxes and use my tax rebate reciept for political donations it makes you pay more out of your own pocket. I'd love to hear this.

If you donate $50. to a political party, you get $37.50 back. That's $37.50 less than what the taxman, i.e. the government, would collect if you had not made the contribution in the first place. Hence, $37.50 less going into the federal coffers for the government to apply to its various expenditures. For the record, I'm against this tax measure and want it stopped. That said, I'd still donate to the party of my choice because I put my money where my mouth is.

[Mr.Canada]

.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Mr.Canada]

If you donate $50. to a political party, you get $37.50 back. That's $37.50 less than what the taxman, i.e. the government, would collect if you had not made the contribution in the first place. Hence, $37.50 less going into the federal coffers for the government to apply to its various expenditures. For the record, I'm against this tax measure and want it stopped. That said, I'd still donate to the party of my choice because I put my money where my mouth is.

Well we get nothing back as we have to pay every year. Many people pay nothing and get refunds which takes far more out of the government coffers. Should we halt refunds?

Well, the tax reciept is probably here to stay. The socialists would say it's an attack on the poor who wish to donate so good luck getting rid of it. Aside from that if you scrapped this for the tax reasons you'd have to scrap all donation reciepts from charities as well etc. I doubt the government of any stripe would be foolish enough to do this.

EDIT- Also, the Liberals and NDP have a hard enough time getting donations as it is now. How much harder do you think it would be without the tax reciepts? They would never go for this as they know they'd be doomed for sure.

Tory supporters have always donated to their party the other parties haven't had the same success as we have in fundraising. Tax break or no Tories will always give money, w're used to it. The Liberals and NDP supporters are not. Getting rid of this tax rebate would hurt them more then us, if Harper got rid of the votes for money scheme and the tax rebate the BQ, Liberals and NDP would be all but dead. Not to mention Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe would never go for it, not in a million years.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Pliny]

You've lowered your tax burden. The same amount of money is still needed though, and so you've shifted part of your tax burden to everyone else.

I do that with every charitable donation and the government itself makes it possible.

I suppose you don't support any charities.

Anyway this per vote subsidy should be gone.

[Smallc]

I do that with every charitable donation and the government itself makes it possible.

But this is different, because it's supporting political parties...at least that's what some seem to think. It is no different than the per vote subsidy.

[Molly]

Unbelievable.

1. Income tax refunds are refunds of money you paid, but didn't owe in the first place. They aren't a gift.

2. Charitable donations are deducted from gross income, rather than from tax payable, so when making a charitable donation you actually are giving more of your own money than of everyone else's- unlike political donations.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Molly

[Mr.Canada]

Unbelievable.

1. Income tax refunds are refunds of money you paid, but didn't owe in the first place. They aren't a gift.

2. Charitable donations are deducted from gross income, rather than from tax payable, so when making a charitable donation you actually are giving more of your own money than of everyone else's- unlike political donations.

My wife and I both have taxes taken off of our pay cheques every pay period but since we make too much we have to pay even more. Many people have to do this. Where as some people get it back. So the people who have to pay more are actually paying for the people who get refunds. We're putting their share back into the government coffers.

So we're contributing a lot more then someone who gets a refund. We're paying for their precious social programs but they're the ones who get to decide how to spend my money...yet you people don't think I'm permitted for a rebate on donations? That's outrageous.

[Molly]

Your grasp of $ can't possibly be that poor.

You really are joking, aren't you?

I can't believe I'm about to explain this to a supposed adult, but here goes:

You and the other guy each owe $100 for the year, but he pays it off at a rate of $10/month (so ends up paying $20 more than he needs to) but you only pay $8/month, and at the end of the year have to pony up $4 more to pay off the hundred dollar debt.

In the end, you have both have paid $100. Your year-end $4 was not 'extra' to cover money 'given' to him. The $20 he gets back came from him, not you. Paying your debts late doesn't entitle you to give away other folks' money.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Molly

[madmax]

Clear consensus even here at MLW. This is a great step forward. We definitely need to eliminate this form of welfare. Political parties need to raise their own monies privately. If they cannot, they cease to exist. Political Party Welfare must end!

The Conservatives are NOT ENDING POLITICAL PARTY WELFARE!!!

They are keeping the aspect that supports them the best and generates the most revenue for them. Tax Receiptable donations.

People get more back in taxes donating to the Conservative party then they did in Home Renovation tax credits.

Infact if you didn't have to pay taxes, you got NO credit on home renovating and creating the job to do it. Many people are just smelling the coffee now as they do their taxes and are ROYALLY RIPPED OFF.

If the Conservatives had any balls they would end all tax rebates.

But they don't dare. Because that would cripple them.

Its the welfare of the Conservative party that is more important.

It will be a good sell.

But no I am not fooled by their shell game.

This is a way to score political points.

I doubt they have the courage to remove the 75% rebate.

Easier get rid of the $1.95 then it is to walk away from $700.

[bloodyminded]

Your grasp of $ can't possibly be that poor.

You really are joking, aren't you?

I can't believe I'm about to explain this to a supposed adult, but here goes:

You and the other guy each owe $100 for the year, but he pays it off at a rate of $10/month (so ends up paying $20 more than he needs to) but you only pay $8/month, and at the end of the year have to pony up $4 more to pay off the hundred dollar debt.

In the end, you have both have paid $100. Your year-end $4 was not 'extra' to cover money 'given' to him. The $20 he gets back came from him, not you. Paying your debts late doesn't entitle you to give away other folks' money.

Wow. Holy cow.

Don't get me wrong, you put it succinctly and clearly; I'm just surprised you had to spell this out at all.

Not your fault, mind you.