Harper's cut to party finding

[Topaz]

So Harper is in position to go ahead and cut funding to parties and make the Tories the leader financial wise among the parties. Is this fair? I say no, even if the Liberals tried to do the same but then again the Libs aren't that mean spirited. What is the difference if the government pays or if it comes in as donation, its still the taxpayer paying. Every time Harper does thing mean spirtited or unfair, Taylor Swift song "why do you have to be so mean" comes to mind. http://www.canada.com/news/Harper%2Bparty%2Bfunding%2Bjust%2Bsubsidy%2Biceberg/5507834/story.html

[TimG]

What is the difference if the government pays or if it comes in as donation, its still the taxpayer paying.

The difference is you have a person who is putting their own money in (the tax deduction does not return 100% of the donation). Why should the government give money to parties on behalf of people who are too cheap to give any of their own? You can't really argue there is anyone who cannot afford a $2 donation to a political party once every few years. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

So Harper is in position to go ahead and cut funding to parties and make the Tories the leader financial wise among the parties. Is this fair? I say no, even if the Liberals tried to do the same but then again the Libs aren't that mean spirited. What is the difference if the government pays or if it comes in as donation, its still the taxpayer paying. Every time Harper does thing mean spirtited or unfair, Taylor Swift song "why do you have to be so mean" comes to mind. http://www.canada.com/news/Harper%2Bparty%2Bfunding%2Bjust%2Bsubsidy%2Biceberg/5507834/story.html

Yep! What TimG said!

Topaz, any fool with hair in his ears can support the GOVERNMENT paying for something! It means only pennies from his own pocket because all his fellow citizens will be FORCED to shell out too!

If you care about a party but can't fork out even a few bucks then you are basically just a bum who wants to give OTHER PEOPLE'S money! Even with charity, where is the virtue of giving if its not coming out of your own pocket? I'm sick of all these deadbeats who pride themselves for supporting parties that "give to the poor". The deadbeats aren't giving anything! Whoopee Crap! Aren't they nice and generous people!

Watch them if they come to a party you're hosting. They're the ones who come to your party with a 6-pack and drink 12 themselves.

No, if it is to mean something then you should reach into your OWN pocket and pony up! That's what Tory supporters do.

Apparently, that's NOT what Liberal and NDP supporters do!

One of my favourite sayings comes from P T Barnum, the great Circus owner. He said "Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds!"

[ToadBrother]

So Harper is in position to go ahead and cut funding to parties and make the Tories the leader financial wise among the parties. Is this fair? I say no, even if the Liberals tried to do the same but then again the Libs aren't that mean spirited. What is the difference if the government pays or if it comes in as donation, its still the taxpayer paying. Every time Harper does thing mean spirtited or unfair, Taylor Swift song "why do you have to be so mean" comes to mind. http://www.canada.com/news/Harper%2Bparty%2Bfunding%2Bjust%2Bsubsidy%2Biceberg/5507834/story.html

I think it would be fair if he also got rid of the tax credit for political donations. But since that particular backwards kind of subsidy greatly benefits the Tories. So, basically, Harper is a hypocrite on this one. If he really thinks political parties should stand on their own two feet, then any form of subsidy should be eliminated.

If I had my way, I'd be taxing party donations at 85%.

Edited October 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

The left is not use to leaders coming thru with thier election promises.

[Smallc]

The left is not use to leaders coming thru with thier election promises.

Yeah, whatever.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The difference is you have a person who is putting their own money in (the tax deduction does not return 100% of the donation). Why should the government give money to parties on behalf of people who are too cheap to give any of their own? You can't really argue there is anyone who cannot afford a $2 donation to a political party once every few years.

They need to cut the subsidy (tax refund) to donations now.

Be fair across all parties. Don't just target ones that favour other parties.

Edited October 6, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Moonlight Graham]

Yeah, whatever.

Kinda has a point, at least in Canada, doesn't he?

[Smallc]

Kinda has a point, at least in Canada, doesn't he?

No, not really. People only focus on the broken promises.

[Topaz]

For everyone that agrees with Harper, the next question is what happens to the savings, like 27 Million? Does it go into their next pay increases or their pensions?

[jbg]

What is the difference if the government pays or if it comes in as donation, its still the taxpayer paying. Every time Harper does thing mean spirtited or unfair, Taylor Swift song "why do you have to be so mean" comes to mind. http://www.canada.com/news/Harper%2Bparty%2Bfunding%2Bjust%2Bsubsidy%2Biceberg/5507834/story.html

Because as a taxpayer I might not choose to "donate" to a party anathema to my views. And i consider sparing me that role to be far from mean. Now I'll admit I was for public funding of elections in the wake of Nixon's near-destruction of my country.

Harper's cut to party finding

I'm not sure to which kind of "finding" you're referring. If it's the finding of kidnap victims I would oppose cutting that kind of "finding".

[Wild Bill]

For everyone that agrees with Harper, the next question is what happens to the savings, like 27 Million? Does it go into their next pay increases or their pensions?

Why should it go into anything? Why not cut our taxes by 27 million? Might not be a lot to each of us but it would be a nice start!

[Bonam]

Why should it go into anything? Why not cut our taxes by 27 million? Might not be a lot to each of us but it would be a nice start!

Yep or just $27 million less in the annual deficit would be a good use too.

[Moonbox]

Yep or just $27 million less in the annual deficit would be a good use too.

I'd prefer that. I'd even be okay with the taxes being raised if they meant all the extra money went to tackling our debt. A little pain now for vastly better books in the future sounds alright to me.

[Shwa]

I'd prefer that. I'd even be okay with the taxes being raised if they meant all the extra money went to tackling our debt. A little pain now for vastly better books in the future sounds alright to me.

What would "vastly better books bring in the future" though? I agree that there is a certain point where debt becomes too burdensome, but there is also a point where some debt is preferred by the creditors what,with all those juicy and regular interest payments.

I am trying to understand why the opposite sides keep sniping at each other over the debt and then, when they are in power, grow the debt anyways. I think it is a big intellectual scam, like the price of gasoline. Either way, it seems the public is being hosed.

[August1991]

Topaz, any fool with hair in his ears can support the GOVERNMENT paying for something! It means only pennies from his own pocket because all his fellow citizens will be FORCED to shell out too!

Uh, your suggesting gives me an idea: maybe we should vote when we fill out our income tax form, deciding which party should get our money. Then, the party of our choice would spend our money as they see fit.

If that idea doesn't fly, then I strongly favour having fixed election dates on the same day that our taxes are due: 30 April. (In the US, it is no accident that election day is in November, far from April.)

I think people should sign the cheque for Revenue Canada, and then vote.

----

WB, your objection seems to be that our tax system allows some people to decide how to spend other people's money. Really? If it were only a buck 95 they were spending, I'd have no problem.

IMV, the $1.95 gave at least one incentive for people to vote. In addition, it removed many of the problems seen elsewhere in the democratic world related to political party finances. The problem was that parties such as the Greens became "businesses" - but this could have been solved otherwise.

I happen to think that Harper is being foolishly partisan on this issue. Moreover, the irony (not Harper's strong point apparently) is that he got his majority (and the Bloc was reduced to unofficial status) under this party financing regime.

Harper and the Conservatives may rue this change.

Edited October 7, 2011 by August1991

[jacee]

Uh, your suggesting gives me an idea: maybe we should vote when we fill out our income tax form, deciding which party should get our money. Then, the party of our choice would spend our money as they see fit.

If that idea doesn't fly, then I strongly favour having fixed election dates on the same day that our taxes are due: 30 April. (In the US, it is no accident that election day is in November, far from April.)

I think people should sign the cheque for Revenue Canada, and then vote.

----

WB, your objection seems to be that our tax system allows some people to decide how to spend other people's money. Really? If it were only a buck 95 they were spending, I'd have no problem.

IMV, the $1.95 gave at least one incentive for people to vote. In addition, it removed many of the problems seen elsewhere in the democratic world related to political party finances. The problem was that parties such as the Greens became "businesses" - but this could have been solved otherwise.

I happen to think that Harper is being foolishly partisan on this issue. Moreover, the irony (not Harper's strong point apparently) is that he got his majority (and the Bloc was reduced to unofficial status) under this party financing regime.

Harper and the Conservatives may rue this change.

I agree with putting the party donation on the income tax form as I believe is done in the US.

It may work even better for the process as it's convenient and easy.

It would be interesting to see: When you are looking at paying taxes - Harper's grumpy wealthy supporters might not be disposed to contribute much, but those getting tax refunds might feel disposed to give at least a small one time donation even if they've never done it before. Could be good for the good guys.

[ReeferMadness]

The defining characteristic of the Harper government is that he's traded on the ignorance of the average voter. Fortunately for him and the cluster of knuckle-draggers that make up his government, that commodity seems to be in abundant supply. Remember when the Liberals tried to form a coalition with the NDP and the Conservatives called it a coup d'etat? Constitutional experts from coast to coast tried to patiently explain that this was how our system of government was designed to operate, that the Prime Minister is actually selected by the elected representatives not directly by the people. But, to Harper's great relief, ignorance won the day.

Now, apparently everyone has forgotten that the intent of party subsidies is was to reduce the control that the wealthy have over the political process. It was a modest step to be sure; and much remained to be done. But of course Harper is able to mine people's ignorance and the low regard in which the populace holds politicians. It's cheap politics at its worst but that's Harper's stock in trade.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If that idea doesn't fly, then I strongly favour having fixed election dates on the same day that our taxes are due: 30 April. (In the US, it is no accident that election day is in November, far from April.)

This doesn't pass the smell test, even for careless invocation of Americans to rationalize what happens in Canada. US election days were decided largely based on the need to settle state elector votes by early December, and be consistent with the travel needs of a largely agrarian society. The current laws date to the 1840's, long before any "April taxes" are due.

So you are right, it is no accident, but it has absolutely nothing to do with taxes.

Edited October 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bud]

The difference is you have a person who is putting their own money in (the tax deduction does not return 100% of the donation). Why should the government give money to parties on behalf of people who are too cheap to give any of their own? You can't really argue there is anyone who cannot afford a $2 donation to a political party once every few years.

it's the donations from the big corporations and lobby groups that are a concern. if the corporations and lobby groups scratch harper's back, then harper has to scratch them back. this is why the system is not perfect.

[scribblet]

it's the donations from the big corporations and lobby groups that are a concern. if the corporations and lobby groups scratch harper's back, then harper has to scratch them back. this is why the system is not perfect.

You might want to check out the donor's list on E.C., you also might want to check out how much money the NDP received from big labour unions for convention advertising and so on. Financial reports show unions spent more than $400,000 on political ads during the spring federal election campaign. Reports filed with E.C. show us that big labour/unions unions funded third-party ad buys in newspapers, websites and on radio across the country.

Provincially it's higher.

http://www.therecord.com/print/article/603740

TORONTO — Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals are the beneficiaries of “loose” campaign finance rules that allow unlimited ads by third party groups like the Working Families coalition, making a “mockery” of spending limits for political parties, says the author of a new study obtained by the Star.

While federal rules on third-party ads limit spending to $188,000 per group, there is no such cap under provincial law, Robert MacDermid, an associate professor of politics at York University, said Monday.

“The rule is too loose. We need the teeth of the federal rules if we’re to keep elections from being swayed,” added MacDermid, whose study looking at political party financing since 2004 also called for an end to corporate contributions in Ontario, as has been done federally and in Toronto municipal elections.

“The possibility of corruption is so much less,” he said.

The Working Families ads — which totalled $1.1 million in the 2007 provincial race alone — are continuing in the Oct. 6 election, and paint Hudak as a lackey of Bay St. corporate interests.

The Progressive Conservatives have repeatedly complained about the union-funded Working Families Coalition being a Liberal front group, but an investigation by Elections Ontario found no violations. Working Families, whose members include teacher and construction unions, has been credited with helping to oust the PC government in 2003.

McGuinty said he doesn’t believe the unlimited spending by third-party groups is unfair.

“We’ve got a great system here,” he told reporters in Vaughan.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/05/graphic-the-flow-of-political-donations-in-ontario/

[scribblet]

The defining characteristic of the Harper government is that he's traded on the ignorance of the average voter. Fortunately for him and the cluster of knuckle-draggers that make up his government, that commodity seems to be in abundant supply.

Ignorant knuckle dragging comments seem to be in abundant supply on here also.

[William Ashley]

Unfortunately this measure is not enough.

1. Elections Canada should have no recognition of "party status" everyone should run as independent in the eyes of the law.

Political parties should be treated as corporations if they want legal entity status.

No priveleges whatsoever should exist on a party basis.

They still get tax refunds.. and individual donations are funded 30% that is not a 2$ per vote that is money wihtout voting.. that is 3$ of a 10$ payment or 5$ of a 10$ WHY SHOULD THE PUBLIC BE GIVING MONEY BACK FOR A SERVICE?

CUT ALL FUNDING FROM THE TAX PAYERS.. THIS PER VOTE THING IS JUST TO FAVOUR ONE TYPE OF FUNDING OVER DIRECT DONATION REBATES>> THE RABATES COST MORE!~!!!

SHAME ON HARPER FOR THIS WHOLEY PARTISAN AND UNFULLFILLING UNFINISHING FAILURE OF A MOVE .. CUT IT ALL.. not just the parts that give other people a break.

SHAME ON HARPER!

Donations shouldn't be capped but the public shouldn't rebate them. Likewise all legal entities should be able to pay people or transfer funds.. THE PUBLIC SHOULDN'T BE PICKING UP HALF THE PRICE TAG THOUGH!

SHAME ON HARPER AND HIS 10 MILLION DOLLAR CONSERVATIVE TAX. CT... END THE CT.

That 50 cents from everyone because other people like them. a 2 million of them.. maybe they should pay in whole not as a tax break... END THE TAX BREAK FOR DONATIONS RESPECT THE VOTERS.

THE TAX BREAKS FOR GIVING MONEY TO PARTIES SHOULD END FIRST!!

SHAME !!!

Conservatives stealing from your pocket and public purse.... What lowbies.. taking more than the other parties from your wallet whether you vote for them or not.

SHAME

Conservatives need handouts from the poor taxpayer joe public.

Conservative Party the Welfare Party vote Welfare vote conservative.

SHAME.

If the government wants to help the parties PAY FOR A FREE AUDITOR OR ASSIGN THE CRA TO AUDIT CAMPAIGNS TO FULLFILL THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO ALLOW THE ABILITY TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE UNLIKE THE FARCE OF PUTTING A MULTI THOUSAND DOLLAR BARRIER ON DEMOCRACY (along side a professional non governmental accredidation group on the right to run for office due to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL ELECTIONS CANADA ACT) IN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CANADA.

MAKE RUNNING FOR ELECTIONS FREE DON"T GIVE PEOPLE WITH THE MONEY TO RUN IT BACK IF THEY ARE PART OF A PARTY THAT IS HYPOCRISY.. DIRECT FUNDING FOR ELECTIONS NOT FUNDING FOR PARTIES WHO WIN ELECTIONS

CORRUPTION SLIME AND SCAM

THEIVES AND CROOKS

BOOO SHAME

Edited October 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[Bob]

The difference is you have a person who is putting their own money in (the tax deduction does not return 100% of the donation). Why should the government give money to parties on behalf of people who are too cheap to give any of their own? You can't really argue there is anyone who cannot afford a $2 donation to a political party once every few years.

Government funding for campaigns is insanity. All money for political parties should be coming from private donations. It's just another example of how far to the left Canada has fallen.

[Bob]

it's the donations from the big corporations and lobby groups that are a concern. if the corporations and lobby groups scratch harper's back, then harper has to scratch them back. this is why the system is not perfect.

Since corporations and lobby groups only donate to the CPC, right? I love this reflexive leftist rhetoric where "big money" only supports conservatism. Elections always need to be protected from the evil corporations and lobby groups, because Canadians need to be protected from allegedly dangerous messages. Only intellectuals like bud are enlightened enough to see the truth, and Canada needs guidance from these anointed ones to protect us from being brainwashed by the cunning corporate interests.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Bob