Do You Donate To Political Parties?

[Bryan]

We have a lot of deeply partisan supporters of the various parties on this board, but I thought it would be interesting to get a feel whether people are just talking a good game, or if they put their money where their keyboards are.

Myself, I'm a Conservative Party supporter in word, deed, and money. I'm a card carrying member, I volunteer my time for my local candidate, and donate both to my local candidate and to the federal party. I get fairly close to my $1100 limit for each, but in smaller $100 or $200 at a time increments over the course of the year.

[Bonam]

I've never donated and never plan to. Seems like just about the worst waste of money one could come up with.

[Jack Weber]

I don't donate any of my money and I'm not beholden to any party...

[cybercoma]

This poll would have been a lot more effective if you hid the results.

[Smallc]

I donated to the LPC for a while, but right now I'm not in a position to donate to anyone, as I've been helping a friend who is...poor.

[WWWTT]

Every tax payer in Canada is a contributor to everyone who runs in the federal elections and gets some votes(I am not sure of the exact details,but Harper recently anounced he wants to put an end to this).Thats a big reason why every election costs the taxpayers in the ballpark of 300 million dollars.

Aswell political contributions are tax deductible and this further burdens the tax payer.

So if you then contribute more money to a political party or an individual you are then dishing out again.

Sounds like an addiction to me.

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

We have a lot of deeply partisan supporters of the various parties on this board, but I thought it would be interesting to get a feel whether people are just talking a good game, or if they put their money where their keyboards are.

Myself, I'm a Conservative Party supporter in word, deed, and money. I'm a card carrying member, I volunteer my time for my local candidate, and donate both to my local candidate and to the federal party. I get fairly close to my $1100 limit for each, but in smaller $100 or $200 at a time increments over the course of the year.

Donating $1100 to any party boggles my mind. I think flushing it down the toilet would be a better use of money.

[Bryan]

Donating $1100 to any party boggles my mind. I think flushing it down the toilet would be a better use of money.

For me, it's a small price to pay to keep the Liberals away from Government.

[RNG]

How does the fact that a political contribution result in a tax credit burden the taxpayer? Are you another one who equates tax reduction to a subsidy?

[Smallc]

How does the fact that a political contribution result in a tax credit burden the taxpayer

You really don't understand that? Someone else is paying for your contribution.

[Smallc]

.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Smallc

[RNG]

You really don't understand that? Someone else is paying for your contribution.

Completely wrong. It just removes the tax burden on that money.

They get enough.

Edited April 2, 2011 by RNG

[ToadBrother]

How does the fact that a political contribution result in a tax credit burden the taxpayer? Are you another one who equates tax reduction to a subsidy?

It reduces government revenues. I'm not sure why anyone approves of them. Like I said, I'd make political parties pay taxes. Let them raise as much money as they wanted, and take increasing amounts of it off the top.

[Smallc]

Completely wrong. It just removes the tax burden on that money.

And so someone else has to make up the lost revenue that results from the credit. It's a very simple concept.

[ToadBrother]

And so someone else has to make up the lost revenue that results from the credit. It's a very simple concept.

So what we see is that the Tories want to get rid of the subsidy that helps their opponent, but wouldn't dream of turfing the subsidy that helps them out.

[Smallc]

So what we see is that the Tories want to get rid of the subsidy that helps their opponent, but wouldn't dream of turfing the subsidy that helps them out.

Politics as usual then.

[capricorn]

So what we see is that the Tories want to get rid of the subsidy that helps their opponent, but wouldn't dream of turfing the subsidy that helps them out.

I see what you're saying in terms of the Conservative party benefiting. But as long as the Conservatives are the government, the subsidy related to the tax system does not help them out because they end up with less money in the Treasury for government operations. I suppose that for now they've made the choice of party over government revenue.

[ToadBrother]

Politics as usual then.

Pretty much.

I had another thought. I'd leave the party donation tax credit in place for local riding associations and candidates, but would end it for Federal parties. I would amend the Elections Act to allow unlimited transfers between riding associations and national parties, but would tax it at 10% on the first $5,000 and at an additional 10% on each additional $5,000 up to, say, 70%. I would also put taxes in places for non-monetary "donations" directed at local ridings from outside, just to kill those dreaded sign funds that parties use to keep local candidates in line.

[ToadBrother]

I see what you're saying in terms of the Conservative party benefiting. But as long as the Conservatives are the government, the subsidy related to the tax system does not help them out because they end up with less money in the Treasury for government operations. I suppose that for now they've made the choice of party over government revenue.

The party itself could care less about government revenues. The party exists for one purpose, and that's to get approved candidates elected. The Government cares, in a general sense, but I'm sure Harper isn't exactly crying a lot of tears at the tax credit subsidy carving it's piece out of revenues.

So my point stands. It's the height of hypocrisy to demand the end of the per-vote subsidy, but still keep in the tax credit subsidy. If you're against our money helping political parties out, then it should be across the board, not just selectively picked to do your opponents harm.

[Moonlight Graham]

Donating $1100 to any party boggles my mind. I think flushing it down the toilet would be a better use of money.

For the current major parties we have, you'd have to shoot me in the face before i'd personally donate a penny. Even then, i think i could get used to the hole in my face.

It would have to be some kind of amazing party for me to donate, or a supremely horrific incumbent party i wanted to oust.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Wild Bill]

I don't have a problem with anybody VOLUNTARILY donating anything! It's their money and their choice.

I DO have a problem with parties receiving a couple of bucks of my tax money, just for having received votes!

Nobody asked me if I wanted my taxes spent that way. Or anybody else, for that matter. Screw 'em and the horse they rode in on!

If a party can't get people to voluntarily donate to them then they don't truly have popular support. Anybody will take something that's free! Something is only truly valued if it has a price!

Actually, any party that says that they HAVE to receive automatic tax money strikes me as just a moocher!

The CPC tried to get rid of this freebie and I approved of that. If they decided to be like the other guys I would lose respect for them as well.

Of course, that might be a moot point, since the CPC are politicians as well and I don't give them a lot of respect either...

[Smallc]

I DO have a problem with parties receiving a couple of bucks of my tax money, just for having received votes!

Nobody asked me if I wanted my taxes spent that way. Or anybody else, for that matter. Screw 'em and the horse they rode in on!

The people who vote for the party did. I really don't understand this. Obviously, if a party gets people to vote for them, they've convinced the people that they have the right vision for Canada. If a party appeals to Canadians, it gets more money. How can you claim a party that gets 30% of the vote doesn't have popular support?

I really don't see the issue with the per vote subsidy. In many ways, it's far more fair than the tax credit for political donations. After all, nobody asked me if I wanted to subsidize your support of a political party.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Smallc

[msj]

The people who vote for the party did. I really don't understand this. Obviously, if a party gets people to vote for them, they've convinced the people that they have the right vision for Canada. If a party appeals to Canadians, it gets more money. How can you claim a party that gets 30% of the vote doesn't have popular support?

I really don't see the issue with the per vote subsidy. In many ways, it's far more fair than the tax credit for political donations. After all, nobody asked me if I wanted to subsidize your support of a political party.

Well stated Smallc!

Also, I agree with cybercoma on page 1: the results would be more effective if they were not public.

Not a chance I will respond to this poll.

Edited April 2, 2011 by msj

[cybercoma]

It's the height of hypocrisy to demand the end of the per-vote subsidy, but still keep in the tax credit subsidy. If you're against our money helping political parties out, then it should be across the board, not just selectively picked to do your opponents harm.

I'm not saying I agree one way or the other on the issue because, honestly, I haven't given it much thought. However, you're not exactly right in calling this hypocrisy. If you're against our money helping political parties, then you're right. The point, though, might be that the cost of elections is too high for taxpayers, where every vote gets parties money. Perhaps its simply a matter of reducing the burden on taxpayers for elections. In that case voluntary political contributions could remain because you're simply giving someone a tax credit for a donation, just as we do with other types of donations.

[Smallc]

In that case voluntary political contributions could remain because you're simply giving someone a tax credit for a donation, just as we do with other types of donations.

You're still costing the treasury money to the benefit of a certain political party. There is no difference.