The Liberal platform

[kimmy]

Back when the election was in "positive mode", the Liberals based their campaign around 4 main pillars:

-the "Learning Passport", a bursary to help students obtain post-secondary education.

-the "Early Childhood Learning and Care" fund.

-the "Family Care" plan, a package of EI-like benefits and tax benefits to support Canadian families who are caring for elderly relatives.

-the fourth pillar of the Liberal plan is the plan to pay for these 3 major plans by cancelling a scheduled 1.5% corporate tax cut.

I have really mixed feelings about it.

I don't mind cancelling the corporate tax rollback at all. I'm not convinced that it really benefits most Canadians. I'm skeptical that they'll use the savings to create jobs.

I also support the idea of making post-secondary more affordable. While the cynic in me suspects that the idea of giving the money directly to students probably has a lot to do with optics, it also has the benefit of allowing the federal government to not have to go through the provincial governments. If they pledged to increase transfer payments to provinces so that the provincial governments can put the money into universities, they really can't guarantee that the money actually makes post-secondary education more affordable for students (more on this in a minute.) This is a good idea.

I'm considerably less excited about the "Early Childhood Learning and Care" fund. First off, I gather that it's a "fund" rather than an actual plan, because this is also an area of provincial jurisdiction. As I understand it, provinces will have to come up with plans to create childcare spaces, and the federal government will decide whether the proposals meet the requirements to receive funding. It seems to me like this is once again an area where putting the money directly in the hands of the parents would be a handy way to bypass the red tape of delivering a service that's in provincial juridiction. I suspect one reason they decided to not go this route in childcare is that it sounds a lot like what the Conservatives are already doing. Another potential downside of just giving people more money to obtain childcare is that it might just cause the price of existing childcare spaces to go up. There might be other benefits to working with provincial governments to fund childcare spaces. My chief complaint about the idea isn't really about the manner of delivery, it's about the principle of the thing. As I've said before, I feel there should be means testing. I'm happy with the idea of helping somebody who needs assistance. I'm considerably less happy with the idea of helping well-off double-income couples who are already financially comfortable. As a Canadian with no children, I'm supposed to help a well-to-do couple come up with a few hundred extra dollars a month so that they can ... outbid me for a home I'm interested in buying? Retire a few years earlier? Go on a vacation? That idea isn't that big of a hit with me. I'd like to help people who need help, but I don't want to give my money to help people who are already doing exceedingly well on their own.

The other item, and the one I personally find quite off-putting, is the Family Care Plan. And basically the reason why I don't like the idea is that the Baby Boomers are the last people who need my help. This is the wealthiest group of people in the history of the human species. They racked up an immense public debt en route to enjoying a lifestyle of unprecidented health and prosperity. And now we're going to spend more billions to take care of them? I have an alternate plan: how about the wealthiest generation can sell some of their copious assets and provide for their own care?

I'm undecided on who I want to win the election. The Conservatives haven't exactly been the most frugal spenders, and will waste even more money with tax cuts that I'm not convinced will help Canada. On the other hand, I'm not really that sold on the Liberal platform either, particularly the childcare and elder care components of it.

That's my opinion of the main planks in the Liberal platform. What's yours?

-k

[Scotty]

Back when the election was in "positive mode", the Liberals based their campaign around 4 main pillars:

-the "Learning Passport", a bursary to help students obtain post-secondary education.

-the "Early Childhood Learning and Care" fund.

-the "Family Care" plan, a package of EI-like benefits and tax benefits to support Canadian families who are caring for elderly relatives.

-the fourth pillar of the Liberal plan is the plan to pay for these 3 major plans by cancelling a scheduled 1.5% corporate tax cut.

I have really mixed feelings about it.

I don't mind cancelling the corporate tax rollback at all. I'm not convinced that it really benefits most Canadians. I'm skeptical that they'll use the savings to create jobs.

My understanding of economics is admittedly imperfect, however, it seems to me that the theory, which so far as I'm aware is supported by virtually all economists not affiliated with an ideological left group, is that lower corporate taxes means more jobs. I'm not entirely sure how much we actually lose on this, since they either use the money to expand production in some way, or they pass it on to their owners, ie, shareholders, as profits. If they do the latter, then we can tax it off the stockholders.

In addition, I don't think they actually believe in any of it. Ignatieff has long agitated for more corporate tax cuts faster. His about-face smacks of crass political opportunism, a hope of grabbing votes from the NDP. I don't think they believe in any of the others, either. They've been promising various child care/day care initiatives and money for something like twenty years now and never done much about it. Nor is it clear we can afford it. The tuition plan is only partly new money because they would cancel other plans, like those that help students pay for their textbooks, and the family care plan is a ripoff of a better one the NDP have proposed.

The whole Liberal platform looks like something put together not by a committee of liberals, but a committee of spin doctors and advertising consultants going over polling results. Which means, like the infamous 'red book', much of it won't ever be carried out anyway. At least the Tories, NDP and BQ believe in something. It's not clear the Liberals believe in anything but their own superior morality and determination to get back into power.

And let's not forget the little nuggets which are planted in their platform which promise trouble for the military on the one hand, and oil production on the other. With Liberals, I've come to learn that it isn't so much the policies they trumpet at election time that need to concern the voter, but the ones they don't want to talk about.

[Battletoads]

My understanding of economics is admittedly imperfect, however, it seems to me that the theory, which so far as I'm aware is supported by virtually all economists not affiliated with an ideological left group, is that lower corporate taxes means more jobs. I'm not entirely sure how much we actually lose on this, since they either use the money to expand production in some way, or they pass it on to their owners, ie, shareholders, as profits. If they do the latter, then we can tax it off the stockholders.

In addition, I don't think they actually believe in any of it. Ignatieff has long agitated for more corporate tax cuts faster. His about-face smacks of crass political opportunism, a hope of grabbing votes from the NDP. I don't think they believe in any of the others, either. They've been promising various child care/day care initiatives and money for something like twenty years now and never done much about it. Nor is it clear we can afford it. The tuition plan is only partly new money because they would cancel other plans, like those that help students pay for their textbooks, and the family care plan is a ripoff of a better one the NDP have proposed.

The whole Liberal platform looks like something put together not by a committee of liberals, but a committee of spin doctors and advertising consultants going over polling results. Which means, like the infamous 'red book', much of it won't ever be carried out anyway. At least the Tories, NDP and BQ believe in something. It's not clear the Liberals believe in anything but their own superior morality and determination to get back into power.

And let's not forget the little nuggets which are planted in their platform which promise trouble for the military on the one hand, and oil production on the other. With Liberals, I've come to learn that it isn't so much the policies they trumpet at election time that need to concern the voter, but the ones they don't want to talk about.

Funny how with a simple google search I can find numerous economists stating that the Harper Corporate tax cuts will not benefit Canada.

You really need to look at more than Conservative.ca to get the whole picture...

[Evening Star]

My understanding of economics is admittedly imperfect, however, it seems to me that the theory, which so far as I'm aware is supported by virtually all economists not affiliated with an ideological left group, is that lower corporate taxes means more jobs.

Really? This doesn't seem to be the consensus among economists at all from what I've read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/walking-the-line-on-corporate-tax-cuts/article1985847/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-spur-growth-analysis-reveals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/

Debate with three perspectives and many references: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1872560664

It's an American classic but: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/the-tax-cut-con.html

Anyway, I really like the Learning Passport idea. I also really like the idea of promoting strategic knowledge-intensive sectors, including digital technology, as well as the Liberals' ideas on media and culture. I might actually be able to see where you're coming from on some of the other proposals, kimmy.

[Bonam]

Back when the election was in "positive mode", the Liberals based their campaign around 4 main pillars:

-the "Learning Passport", a bursary to help students obtain post-secondary education.

I'm fine with this. Although, I'm not sure it is entirely necessary, since there is already such a wide range of financial aid options for students in Canada. I don't know anyone who wanted to go to university, had the grades to do it, but was unable to do so because they couldn't afford tuition. There are many scholarships, bursaries, and student loans. In fact, there are so many that it's hard to even bother applying for all of them. Nonetheless, further easing access to post-secondary education is probably a good thing. I have certainly enjoyed living off the taxpayer's teat as a Canadian student and continue to enjoy it now even though I'm in the US, Canada keeps paying for me.

-the "Early Childhood Learning and Care" fund.

Bad idea in my opinion, for reasons I've expanded on in the thread about it. I don't think we need to further encourage both parents to work by taxing them to pay for daycare. Much better to leave the taxes lower and let parents decide for themselves whether they want to pay for daycare or whether they'd like to have one parent stay at home. I also agree with your points about this proposal.

-the "Family Care" plan, a package of EI-like benefits and tax benefits to support Canadian families who are caring for elderly relatives.

I think this is a good thing. Families that take care of their elderly relatives save the system a ton of money compared to elderly people that have to be cared for entirely by the state. Having a few tax incentives to encourage people to help their old folks is not a bad thing.

In regards to your point about the baby boomers, I don't think that national policy should be shaped around bitterness regarding one particular generation of people.

-the fourth pillar of the Liberal plan is the plan to pay for these 3 major plans by cancelling a scheduled 1.5% corporate tax cut.

I have really mixed feelings about it.

I'm not sure. Personally, I wouldn't really be much heart-broken either way. I don't know how many extra jobs or extra investment a 1.5% difference in corporate tax rates will really produce. That being said, lower corporate tax rates seem to be something governments across the world are implementing right now and we want to ensure we maintain a competitive business climate.

[Scotty]

Really? This doesn't seem to be the consensus among economists at all from what I've read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/walking-the-line-on-corporate-tax-cuts/article1985847/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-spur-growth-analysis-reveals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/

Debate with three perspectives and many references: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1872560664

It's an American classic but: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/the-tax-cut-con.html

Anyway, I really like the Learning Passport idea. I also really like the idea of promoting strategic knowledge-intensive sectors, including digital technology, as well as the Liberals' ideas on media and culture. I might actually be able to see where you're coming from on some of the other proposals, kimmy.

It's interesting that none of those cites contained any actual statements by any actual economists.

Look, I'm not a huge supporter of corporate tax cuts, but given that we get most of the money back either in taxes on shareholders or in the form of more jobs/investment - which we also tax, it's hardly a big deal.

Btw, if you want a more direct cite I came across one today. At least it quotes genuine economists.

Globe and mail

[cybercoma]

We already know that I disagree with you on the daycare program.

I agree with you about the corporate tax-cuts and PSE.

I also disagree with you to some extent about the elderly care part of their platform. I'm quite frustrated with the sense of entitlement and the lack of foresight shown by our preceding generations; however, I don't see that this plan is entirely for them. EI in different provinces has already begun to establish compassionate care leaves. Most provinces have some variation of 2 weeks, doctors note proclaiming the elderly parent is near death, and it can only be taken once. Boo hoo for you if you have two parents or the one parent recovers, but gets sick again later. Also, boo hoo if your parent(s) have a long drawn out death.

Many people take time off work to care for their sick children. Some employers offer sick time benefits and allow for this, others do not. However, it's not just children that need care. It's especially adults, essentially all of us at some point in time, that may need care.

I don't necessarily see this as being exclusively for them though. I imagine having a parent on their last legs is an incredibly emotionally taxing situation for most anyone that is close with their parents. You're really not going to be focused at work anyway. It also allows you to be close to a dying loved-one without worrying about how you're going to pay for groceries or hydro while you're taking that time for yourself. I feel the compassionate care benefit is the right thing to do for everyone.

[Keepitsimple]

Just a small comment.....the Liberals will be rolling back/raising Corporate taxes by a total of 3%. Theres' the 1.5% rollback of this year's taxes (effective this past Jan. 1........and then there is another 1.5% due next Jan. 1. It's irresponsible to say "we'll just repeal next year's increase" because companies - in good faith - have planned and made business decisions - based on the low tax rate. That planning goes on years in advance and it's probable that some companiues have actually relocated to Canada to take advantage of the low tax rate. To turn around and raise them really means breaking a promise to the business community - and that includes the International business community. How can they trust the Canadian government if we repeal the very legislation that was put in place to attract foreign investment?

[kimmy]

I think this is a good thing. Families that take care of their elderly relatives save the system a ton of money compared to elderly people that have to be cared for entirely by the state. Having a few tax incentives to encourage people to help their old folks is not a bad thing.

Fair point I suppose. Though I'd again argue that those who can afford to pay for their care in their old age probably ought to pay for it themselves.

In regards to your point about the baby boomers, I don't think that national policy should be shaped around bitterness regarding one particular generation of people.

How about common sense? Most of these people who are taking time off work to care for elderly parents are going to be receiving a lot of wealth from them anyway; all but the dumbest will manage to transfer this wealth without incurring much in the way of taxation.

-k

[cybercoma]

Just a small comment.....the Liberals will be rolling back/raising Corporate taxes by a total of 3%. Theres' the 1.5% rollback of this year's taxes (effective this past Jan. 1........and then there is another 1.5% due next Jan. 1. It's irresponsible to say "we'll just repeal next year's increase" because companies - in good faith - have planned and made business decisions - based on the low tax rate. That planning goes on years in advance and it's probable that some companiues have actually relocated to Canada to take advantage of the low tax rate. To turn around and raise them really means breaking a promise to the business community - and that includes the International business community. How can they trust the Canadian government if we repeal the very legislation that was put in place to attract foreign investment?

Oh, I like that! I'm going to try that one with CRA next time the government raises taxes.

"I, in good faith, have planned and made decisions based on the low tax rate. You can't raise it on me. That's breaking a promise you made to working Canadians."

[Bonam]

Just a small comment.....the Liberals will be rolling back/raising Corporate taxes by a total of 3%. Theres' the 1.5% rollback of this year's taxes (effective this past Jan. 1........and then there is another 1.5% due next Jan. 1. It's irresponsible to say "we'll just repeal next year's increase" because companies - in good faith - have planned and made business decisions - based on the low tax rate. That planning goes on years in advance and it's probable that some companiues have actually relocated to Canada to take advantage of the low tax rate. To turn around and raise them really means breaking a promise to the business community - and that includes the International business community. How can they trust the Canadian government if we repeal the very legislation that was put in place to attract foreign investment?

Realistically, I don't think this part of it is a major consideration. Despite a few percent fluctuation in tax rates here and there, Canada would remain one of the most stable jurisdictions to do business in. Companies face much higher risks investing in many other nations, where their assets may be seized and nationalized, destroyed in riots, rebellions, or wars, where permits to operate can be arbitrarily revoked without means of appeal, where workers and executives face personal physical danger, where governments orchestrate electronic attacks on company information, etc. Despite all this, companies continue to operate in all these nations, investing in them if it is economically advantageous to do so. Even when operating in other advanced nations (Europe/US), companies often face legislative uncertainty much more impactful than a mere few percent difference in tax rates.

In the long term, the tax rate itself will affect the level of investment in this country, but "breaking the promise" in this regard is not something that will undermine Canada's reputation as a stable jurisdiction to operate in.

[eyeball]

How can they trust the Canadian government if we repeal the very legislation that was put in place to attract foreign investment?

Why shouldn't they have to suck it up when the government lies to them like everyone else does?

They're people too or so I'm told and if that's the case I fail to see why they should be treated any different.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Back when the election was in "positive mode", the Liberals based their campaign around 4 main pillars:

-the "Learning Passport", a bursary to help students obtain post-secondary education.

-the "Early Childhood Learning and Care" fund.

-the "Family Care" plan, a package of EI-like benefits and tax benefits to support Canadian families who are caring for elderly relatives.

-the fourth pillar of the Liberal plan is the plan to pay for these 3 major plans by cancelling a scheduled 1.5% corporate tax cut.

Learning passport, we already have ways for parents to save for their kids education, and the truly gifted no matter how poor will get educated, do we really need to pump out history and sociology majors to serve us burgers and coffee? If you want your kid to get an eduction and (s)he's not a genius then save your money or let them pay for it themselves, I did.

You have kids they're your responsibility, keep your hand outta my pocket. Raising your babies is not my business, and think about it, do you want me raising your kids?

The Cons sorta started something like this, short term for emergencies and not too often, seems to be a good back door support of the choking health care system.

Do not raise taxes, in fact the less money the government can get their grubby hands on the better off we'll all be, do you really think the fat cats in Ottawa can make better decisions with your money than you can?

We need to have a competitive economy, lower taxes is one way of helping that, greater incentives for productivity enhancements is another.

I'm tired of hearing the two faced comments outta Iggy's mouth about how bad the Con's handled the economy and how the deficit is so bad, does't anyone remember Iggy decrying the Con's fiscal cruelty when they didn't shovel enough money out the door fast enough? In fact he and Jack were going to monitor the progress to make sure it went out fast enough, to listen to him talk now just makes him look like an utter moron.

The scary point that you left out that is buried and unaccounted for in the back half of the red book is the cap and trade deal, this is an economy killer especially if our biggest trading partners aren't doing something similar (which they are not), Canadian business better speak up about this or they're slitting their own throats.

Finally the thing I really hate about the Liberals in every election, they presume to tell me and you what constitutes Canadian values (as if there were such a thing). And to make matters worse it usaully comes from some upper class twit from a University near you. It's bad enough you want to have your hand in my pocket, now you wanna mess with my mind, bugger off!

[blueblood]

The numbers don't lie kimmy. When canada has slashed corporate taxes, gdp has gone up, unemployment has gone down, and foreign investment (which is something we need to exploit our resources) is up. Its a policy that has worked out well for us, and the fact that other countries are pursuing that plan or are already using it is proof that it works.

It may seem nice to paint corporations as faceless entities and use them as a whipping boy when things go wrong, but at the end of the day its never a good idea to cook the golden goose.

As for the university thing, I get scared for some students because if enough people go to university, that four year degree will become useless and kids will need to go for 6-8 yrs in order to get a decent wage earning job that they can justify their education for. There will always be inequality as far as wealth is concerned. Trying to level it out with education is an expensive fools errand. If mintz is correct and 200000 jobs are lost with this tax hike, there will be a lot of poor people with a university education. Its far better to provide an environment for job growth and let the populace acquire the skills to match the job than to load up with skills that may not be necessary.

Edited April 19, 2011 by blueblood

[TimG]

How about common sense? Most of these people who are taking time off work to care for elderly parents are going to be receiving a lot of wealth from them anyway; all but the dumbest will manage to transfer this wealth without incurring much in the way of taxation.

I would not assume that at all. Those who have a lot of assets can pay for help - they dont need support from family members.

I am also not sure about your comments about paying taxes. There is no way to avoid paying tax when RRSPs are cashed in. What you can do is play games with leveraged investing that gives you an income tax deduction that offsets the tax paid but I don't consider such plans to be 'smart'. Just a gimick for those that would rather pay interest to the bank instead of taxes.

[dre]

I would not assume that at all. Those who have a lot of assets can pay for help - they dont need support from family members.

I am also not sure about your comments about paying taxes. There is no way to avoid paying tax when RRSPs are cashed in. What you can do is play games with leveraged investing that gives you an income tax deduction that offsets the tax paid but I don't consider such plans to be 'smart'. Just a gimick for those that would rather pay interest to the bank instead of taxes.

I am also not sure about your comments about paying taxes. There is no way to avoid paying tax when RRSPs are cashed in.

Sure there is. Most seniors dont report any annual taxable income or very little. So by the time they cash RRSP's in they are being taxed at a very low rate, and depending how many they cash in during a given year they will probably pay little tax or none at all.

[msj]

Just a small comment.....the Liberals will be rolling back/raising Corporate taxes by a total of 3%. Theres' the 1.5% rollback of this year's taxes (effective this past Jan. 1........and then there is another 1.5% due next Jan. 1. It's irresponsible to say "we'll just repeal next year's increase" because companies - in good faith - have planned and made business decisions - based on the low tax rate. That planning goes on years in advance and it's probable that some companiues have actually relocated to Canada to take advantage of the low tax rate. To turn around and raise them really means breaking a promise to the business community - and that includes the International business community. How can they trust the Canadian government if we repeal the very legislation that was put in place to attract foreign investment?

And what about the CPC's ending business income trusts which is effectively a 15% point increase in taxes on these businesses?

Oh, but that wasn't breaking a campaign promise at all.

[msj]

Sure there is. Most seniors dont report any annual taxable income or very little. So by the time they cash RRSP's in they are being taxed at a very low rate, and depending how many they cash in during a given year they will probably pay little tax or none at all.

With pension splitting for seniors I have done tax returns for clients who have seen their taxes go from $33,000 (including BC tax and OAS clawback) to $23,400 (no OAS clawback).

That's with both spouses getting the OAS at $6,222 each, splitting CPP at around $5,500 each , and the husband earns $100,000 from his pension (former pilot).

Of course, with tax credits like the "age" amount, many seniors with lesser incomes are paying pretty low taxes too.

IMO, if students voted like seniors did then they would have free tuition.

Since they don't, it's the seniors who get the goodies.

Edited April 19, 2011 by msj