Do You Donate To Political Parties?

[cybercoma]

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

You can look at it that way, but I look at it like the treasury is costing me money by taxing political contributions. Since those contributions support politicians and their parties, it's like giving additional taxes anyway.

[Smallc]

You can look at it that way, but I look at it like the treasury is costing me money by taxing political contributions.

Huh?

[Michael Hardner]

You can look at it that way, but I look at it like the treasury is costing me money by taxing political contributions. Since those contributions support politicians and their parties, it's like giving additional taxes anyway.

The current system costs less than $2 per year per person. Is this issue really worth this bandwidth, from the point of view of costs?

[cybercoma]

The current system costs less than $2 per year per person. Is this issue really worth this bandwidth, from the point of view of costs?

Smallc was talking about the tax-deductible contributions people can personally make to parties.

[msj]

Let's say I give $1,300 to federal political parties (note, not the same thing as only donating $1,100 to one political party).

I get 75% of the first $400 back, 50% of the next $350, and 33.33% of anything over $750 to a maximum credit of $650 (hence the $1,300 donation).

So, I give $1,300 and see a reduction in my federal income tax of $650: out of pocket cost to me is $650.

Now, if I choose to vote for party X then I am also choosing to fund that party by the $1.95 for my vote.

To be fair, some people may want to vote for their candidate/party but may not want to give them any money (donation and/or per vote subsidy).

OTOH, some people may want to vote for a party in order to give them the funding to raise the party's profile (I suspect the Greens get quite a few votes this way).

And there are other combinations we could come up with.

I don't mind the system as it is now - allow tax credits for donations and give out per vote subsidies.

One day, the CPC could come to regret getting rid of the per vote subsidy if they were to get rid of it.

--------------------

Edited to add this interesting story from the Globe and Mail: Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target

Edited April 2, 2011 by msj

[Bryan]

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.

Huh? The point of the poll is simply to tabulate the answers given in the thread. You aren't allowed to post anonymously.

[ToadBrother]

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.

I am against any money from the public purse being used to help political parties; directly or indirectly. Quite frankly, I don't think they deserve it.

[Bryan]

I am against any money from the public purse being used to help political parties; directly or indirectly. Quite frankly, I don't think they deserve it.

I understand the sentiment. You don't think there's a difference between actually paying people to vote (or paying the parties for their votes), compared to giving people a tax break for getting more directly involved in democracy? The latter seems to at least be the lesser of the evils, IMO. Tax breaks at least are just letting me keep more of my money as opposed to giving people's money to a political organization.

[msj]

Huh? The point of the poll is simply to tabulate the answers given in the thread. You aren't allowed to post anonymously.

We are posting anonymously right now: you don't know who I am and I don't really know who you are.

As for the poll - you have it set so that we can view who responded to which answer.

Had you not selected this option when you set up the poll then I would have responded to it.

Since not, I, and many others, will not respond to the poll and the results are quite useless as a result.

[Bryan]

We are posting anonymously right now: you don't know who I am and I don't really know who you are.

As for the poll - you have it set so that we can view who responded to which answer.

Had you not selected this option when you set up the poll then I would have responded to it.

Since not, I, and many others, will not respond to the poll and the results are quite useless as a result.

You aren't making sense.

You ARE anonymous, but the poll isn't? It only shows your online username, it's no less anonymous than your posts.

What is the objection?

[msj]

You aren't making sense.

You ARE anonymous, but the poll isn't? It only shows your online username, it's no less anonymous than your posts.

What is the objection?

Sure, I'm reasonably anonymous.

But that doesn't mean I'm willing to tell people how I vote and donate (or not) in a poll.

If you want good poll results then you should know that it has to be as anonymous as possible and this one isn't which is why it hasn't had very many results.

[Bryan]

Sure, I'm reasonably anonymous.

But that doesn't mean I'm willing to tell people how I vote and donate (or not) in a poll.

If you want good poll results then you should know that it has to be as anonymous as possible and this one isn't which is why it hasn't had very many results.

But all the members here do volunteer info like that all the time in other threads. Opposition to doing the same in poll format is irrational. I'm not trying to claim I have right to know anything, I had no intention one way or the other WRT the poll being public or not (I didn't even realize it was until someone pointed it out). I just do not understand what the problem is.

If I did know your real name, you do know I could just look up your contributions on the Elections Canada website, right? Anonymous donations are actually not allowed.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Bryan

[msj]

But all the members here do volunteer info like that all the time in other threads.

Not all of us do.

So, if you want to have a chance for all of us to respond then you make your poll anonymous otherwise not all of us will respond.

----

edited for brevity.

Edited April 3, 2011 by msj

[Bryan]

Not all of us do.

So, if you want to have a chance for all of us to respond then you make your poll anonymous otherwise not all of us will respond.

----

edited for brevity.

You still haven't even come close to explaining what the problem is. I'm not married to the idea of the public poll -- like I said I didn't even realize it was until it was pointed out. I can repost the poll as a closed one, that's not a problem at all. I just don't understand what the issue is.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Bryan

[cybercoma]

There really is no issue. I just think you would get more responses if the results weren't public. A lot of people don't want it to be known that they donate to political parties and if they do, they sometimes don't want people to know which party they support.

[msj]

There really is no issue. I just think you would get more responses if the results weren't public. A lot of people don't want it to be known that they donate to political parties and if they do, they sometimes don't want people to know which party they support.

But that is the issue - if you want more responses from more people (i.e. a larger sample size) then the poll should be completely confidential.

I will not answer a poll where some idiot can see the results and then follow me around the forum saying idiotic things about how I voted.

Yes, there are people on here who are immature enough to do exactly that.