Tories turning attacks toward Layton, NDP

[Scotty]

No they understand it. However they also understand that the Canadian economy for the most part is a resource based economy we are not the US. Meaning most our money comes from what we have here in Canada. That means that most the jobs even the rich ones are tide to the land and being in or near it. It is awful to pick up your oil and move to US.

They don't have to move the resources, they can move head office. Where are all the decisions about Saskatchewan's Potash being made these days?

[Scotty]

Nope they wont move. There was a study done on this in the states here it is.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/millionaire-tax-didnt-chase-the-rich-from-new-jersey-study-says/

They raised the rate to 8.9%? In Canada, the provincial tax rate on those earning over 150,000 is from 11.5 - 21%. Our federal taxes are higher too.

A guy looking at the difference in jurisdictions is going to more heavily influenced the greater the tax advantage is elsewhere.

[Scotty]

Your scenario leads almost inevitably to the notion that what the wealthy consider "unnecessary or stupid" is in practical terms more important than what lower-income folks do, in a case where the two might disagree. And so the wealthier interests should be taken into account over the non-wealthy's interests. And that's inherently anti-democratic.

I don't have any great commitment to democracy - as opposed to freedom.

And as far as I'm concerned, if you are contributing nothing to the tax base you should have no say in how it's going to be spent. I would agree that the tax rates for low income earners should be lower than for high income earners, but they should have to contribute. Where is your democratic fairness in masses of people who pay no income taxes voting in parties who promise to raise income taxes?

[mikedavid00]

What is unfair about a flat tax of say 20%?

Nothing.

What it really does is eliminate Revenue Canada (aka: pensions, benefits, union, salaries), make book keeping much easier for everyone, and most importantly, the flat tax makes the gov't control spending. It forces them to work within the 20% flat tax. If they want more money, tough beans.

It's almost the perfect system.

Reform used to be for a flat tax.

Edited April 25, 2011 by mikedavid00

[mikedavid00]

And as far as I'm concerned, if you are contributing nothing to the tax base you should have no say in how it's going to be spent.

Totally agree.

[bloodyminded]

I don't have any great commitment to democracy - as opposed to freedom.

When the wealthier minority of the country has more political clout than everyone else, by sheer virtue of their wealth, that is not freedom. It approaches the opposite.

And as far as I'm concerned, if you are contributing nothing to the tax base you should have no say in how it's going to be spent.

Those who contribute no income tax nonethless pay sales taxes. They are taxpayers. And no, the rebates do not cover it.

But I consideer this irrelevant anyway.

I would agree that the tax rates for low income earners should be lower than for high income earners, but they should have to contribute. Where is your democratic fairness in masses of people who pay no income taxes voting in parties who promise to raise income taxes?

It's perfectly democratic, because how much cash you throw in is not the arbiter of your rights. I'm amazed that you'd hold such a view.

Besides, under your philosophy here, lower tax rate payers should nonetheless have smaller political influence than higher rate payers. Political influence should thus be graded onto an income scale, to the point where Canada's richest man would have the most political clout.

How you think that people under the self-interested will of a wealthy minority--unelected, unaccountable--comprises "freedom" you have yet to say.

[bloodyminded]

Totally agree.

So you're an elitist?

[punked]

They don't have to move the resources, they can move head office. Where are all the decisions about Saskatchewan's Potash being made these days?

Who sold out that crown corporation again? BTW most of Potash head offices are in Sask, however the parent company is American. So I am going to go with Sask.

[blueblood]

Ireland financed a short boom and bust on the backs of public debt, deregulation and tax cuts. I don't see it as a very example for you sorry.

Canada's success has everything to do with having raw materials whose price continues to rise and nothing to do with tax cuts. Well I will agree if we up corporate taxes by 10% or more we would feel it. I don't think 2-3% is a big deal though.

Irelands problems were caused by the same factors as the usa. Stupid policies encouraging home ownership when homes are unaffordable. It was the wrong regulations in place. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it. Its a good example because the tax rates were the main variable that was changed that led to prosperity. Also its why they are keeping it there.

The tax cuts make getting our resources much more efficient. Having high taxes would put an opportunity cost on exploiting our resources, which I believe happened in the late 1970's (I would like to see a study on how we would have done then with low taxes). Every little bit to reduce the tax burden to only fund things that are absolutely necessary helps.

[punked]

Irelands problems were caused by the same factors as the usa. Stupid policies encouraging home ownership when homes are unaffordable. It was the wrong regulations in place. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it. Its a good example because the tax rates were the main variable that was changed that led to prosperity. Also its why they are keeping it there.

The tax cuts make getting our resources much more efficient. Having high taxes would put an opportunity cost on exploiting our resources, which I believe happened in the late 1970's (I would like to see a study on how we would have done then with low taxes). Every little bit to reduce the tax burden to only fund things that are absolutely necessary helps.

They cut taxes because they were getting huge amounts from the home sales. With the bubble driving their tax base they could have never afforded those cuts.

They created a bubble so they could cut taxes. Tax cuts had everything to do with it.

[nittanylionstorm07]

They cut taxes because they were getting huge amounts from the home sales. With the bubble driving their tax base they could have never afforded those cuts.

They created a bubble so they could cut taxes. Tax cuts had everything to do with it.

Conservatives just don't understand that paying more taxes that help ensure financial stability and solid services for the people is better than the absolute chaos that results from no regulation, no/low taxes, and trusting the private sector.

[blueblood]

They cut taxes because they were getting huge amounts from the home sales. With the bubble driving their tax base they could have never afforded those cuts.

They created a bubble so they could cut taxes. Tax cuts had everything to do with it.

So your telling me that 30 yrs ago housing prices in ireland were sky high and they decided to cut taxes? I don't think so. It was slash corporate taxes then grow from there. Its worked once and that's why they didn't touch it when securing the bailout.

The housing bubble occured because of the same reason they all occur. A hot economy and people spending money on houses like its going out of style. Happened in the us, spain, ireland, and could very well happen in BC (houses at 10x earnings, yikes!!)

[blueblood]

Conservatives just don't understand that paying more taxes that help ensure financial stability and solid services for the people is better than the absolute chaos that results from no regulation, no/low taxes, and trusting the private sector.

And leftists don't understand that tax and spend puts a country into chaos.

Oil boom 1 tax and spend trudeau govt

Oil boom 2 cut taxes martin/harper govt

Which economy did better?

[nittanylionstorm07]

And leftists don't understand that tax and spend puts a country into chaos.

Oil boom 1 tax and spend trudeau govt

Oil boom 2 cut taxes martin/harper govt

Which economy did better?

Unfortunately for you, I'm a fan of tax and pay down the debts while maintaining a decent social safety net that prevent poor people from falling victim to economic crises.

Martin is probably one of the best finance ministers Canada has ever had. Harper undid a lot of what he did.

[punked]

So your telling me that 30 yrs ago housing prices in ireland were sky high and they decided to cut taxes? I don't think so. It was slash corporate taxes then grow from there. Its worked once and that's why they didn't touch it when securing the bailout.

The housing bubble occured because of the same reason they all occur. A hot economy and people spending money on houses like its going out of style. Happened in the us, spain, ireland, and could very well happen in BC (houses at 10x earnings, yikes!!)

I am telling you that government deregulated the banking sector, saw a housing bubble happen because of it increasing government revenues and they thought "Lets take that extra money and cut taxes to keep then bubble inflated a little longer". This caused an even bigger bubble and an even bigger crash which left Ireland look stupid as private interest got rich off of public debt. That is what I am telling you. Tax cuts played a part.

[Scotty]

When the wealthier minority of the country has more political clout than everyone else, by sheer virtue of their wealth, that is not freedom. It approaches the opposite.

Oh what is freedom, really? Hmm? Define it in realistic terms. It means you're free to move around, to look for different work or residences, to meet and chat with people however you want, to live life without fear of some nazi/commie type tossing you into a gulag because you offended him Isn't that basically it? How do you need to be able to vote for that? Half the people in this country don't bother to vote. Does that mean they're not free? If the vote was taken away they wouldn't even notice.

Those who contribute no income tax nonethless pay sales taxes. They are taxpayers. And no, the rebates do not cover it.

Debatable. What's the personal deduction these days, about $20k? If you make a really low salary you not only don't pay income tax you get a big refund cheque which probably, given your low income, and the rebates, covers about anything you'd be contributing in sales taxes.

It's perfectly democratic, because how much cash you throw in is not the arbiter of your rights. I'm amazed that you'd hold such a view.

Why? It's a perfectly logical view, goes back to "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

Say you and a friend decide to buy a car between you. You pay twenty thousand, and he pays one thousand. Are you going to share the car equally? Not bloody likely.

Besides, under your philosophy here, lower tax rate payers should nonetheless have smaller political influence than higher rate payers. Political influence should thus be graded onto an income scale, to the point where Canada's richest man would have the most political clout.

Yeah, but don't forget, there are a lot more low income earners than high income earners, so they'd still have a ton of clout - if they paid at least some taxes. But if you're a 'no rate payer' as opposed to a low rate payer, why should you have influence? You are, in effect, a leech on society. I contribute to charities. But the charities don't get to tell me how much I have to contribute, or vote to make me contribute more. Why should they be able to?

[blueblood]

Unfortunately for you, I'm a fan of tax and pay down the debts while maintaining a decent social safety net that prevent poor people from falling victim to economic crises.

Martin is probably one of the best finance ministers Canada has ever had. Harper undid a lot of what he did.

You do know that martin slashed spending which hurt poor people, you can't have it both ways. Marin also slashed corporate taxes, he was no tax and spend when he is cutting taxes like harper is. The only person to be raising taxes to help out poor people is trudeau.

So which philosophy had the better economy and better prosperity?

[blueblood]

I am telling you that government deregulated the banking sector, saw a housing bubble happen because of it increasing government revenues and they thought "Lets take that extra money and cut taxes to keep then bubble inflated a little longer". This caused an even bigger bubble and an even bigger crash which left Ireland look stupid as private interest got rich off of public debt. That is what I am telling you. Tax cuts played a part.

I'd say their economy growing at 5+ % for a sustained period of time contributed to increasing govt revenues more than a housing bubble. Its not deregulation its wrong regulations. Its the hot economy helping cause the housing bubble just like everywhere else.

[RNG]

You do know that martin slashed spending which hurt poor people, you can't have it both ways. Marin also slashed corporate taxes, he was no tax and spend when he is cutting taxes like harper is. The only person to be raising taxes to help out poor people is trudeau.

So which philosophy had the better economy and better prosperity?

This has been debated and will be debated forever, figuratively speaking. Both Trudeau and Harper suffered world-wide economic bad times. How much of the Canada result was due to the world situation and how much to the policies of the Canadian government? Good question with no easy answer.

But another complaint I have of Harper, is that he sold out his economic principles and jumped on the stimulus bandwagon as a vote getter, rather than believing it was any great help to the economy.

Again, the analysis of results in Canada are hard to find, but in the US, each job saved (they gave up saying jobs created long ago) cost something like $350,000/yr. Pretty poor return on investment as far as I can tell.

Edited April 25, 2011 by RNG

[Guest Derek L]

This has been debated and will be debated forever, figuratively speaking. Both Trudeau and Harper suffered world-wide economic bad times. How much of the Canada result was due to the world situation and how much to the policies of the Canadian government? Good question with no easy answer.

But another complaint I have of Harper, is that he sold out his economic principles and jumped on the stimulus bandwagon as a vote getter, rather than believing it was any great help to the economy.

Again, the analysis of results in Canada are hard to find, but in the US, each job saved (they gave up saying jobs created long ago) cost something like $350.000/yr. Pretty poor return on investment as far as I can tell.

Lose the decimal point

350K for 50K a year (short term) jobs....It's not a poor return, it's disgusting.

[RNG]

Lose the decimal point

Well, it was close to the comma.

[blueblood]

This has been debated and will be debated forever, figuratively speaking. Both Trudeau and Harper suffered world-wide economic bad times. How much of the Canada result was due to the world situation and how much to the policies of the Canadian government? Good question with no easy answer.

But another complaint I have of Harper, is that he sold out his economic principles and jumped on the stimulus bandwagon as a vote getter, rather than believing it was any great help to the economy.

Again, the analysis of results in Canada are hard to find, but in the US, each job saved (they gave up saying jobs created long ago) cost something like $350,000/yr. Pretty poor return on investment as far as I can tell.

Harper had to do stimulus or he and his party would not be in government. It was a multi billion dollar investment to make sure they get to keep going with their economic policies which are working. Unfortunately it will take us a bit longer to slay the deficit. I'd say it was worth the risk because the opposition at that time wanted to throw open the spending spigot.

[Mr.Canada]

Harper had to do stimulus or he and his party would not be in government. It was a multi billion dollar investment to make sure they get to keep going with their economic policies which are working. Unfortunately it will take us a bit longer to slay the deficit. I'd say it was worth the risk because the opposition at that time wanted to throw open the spending spigot.

The left wing always leaves out the part where they were crying about stimulus daily in the House. Then Ignatieff was crying that they weren't spending fast enough. Now that we have an election the deficit is all Harpers fault. They must really think that the voters are complete idiots or have very short memories.

[punked]

The left wing always leaves out the part where they were crying about stimulus daily in the House. Then Ignatieff was crying that they weren't spending fast enough. Now that we have an election the deficit is all Harpers fault. They must really think that the voters are complete idiots or have very short memories.

I don't leave that out. I agree the left push stimulus which saved jobs and the Canadian economy. Harper wanted to see it go down the tank. I agree.

[blueblood]

I don't leave that out. I agree the left push stimulus which saved jobs and the Canadian economy. Harper wanted to see it go down the tank. I agree.

That's one of the debatable what ifs nobody will know the answer to, was the stimulus really needed in canada?