Jump to content

Harper's cut to party finding


Topaz

Recommended Posts

Yet the Conservatives are 100% supportive of giving those who donate tax exemptions, i.e. your money. How is this any different? Furthermore, as I said this subsidy comes to roughly 2 dollars per vote, to a total of roughly 26 million per election. That's about 8.5 million/year. I think the interest on those Tory fighter jets will be about ten times that.

I see now problem with public funding as long as it's kept rather modest.

If you find no problems with one party using it's majority to cut the throats of the opposition, you both are clearly Tories. Private funding just allows the rich to have excessive influence. MY VOTE should mean as much as your vote and 1,200 donation to Mr. Harper. How about we fight with ideas, not bank accounts?? This is a democracy, not a plutocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yet the Conservatives are 100% supportive of giving those who donate tax exemptions, i.e. your money. How is this any different? Furthermore, as I said this subsidy comes to roughly 2 dollars per vote, to a total of roughly 26 million per election. That's about 8.5 million/year. I think the interest on those Tory fighter jets will be about ten times that.

I see now problem with public funding as long as it's kept rather modest.

If you find no problems with one party using it's majority to cut the throats of the opposition, you both are clearly Tories. Private funding just allows the rich to have excessive influence. MY VOTE should mean as much as your vote and 1,200 donation to Mr. Harper. How about we fight with ideas, not bank accounts?? This is a democracy, not a plutocracy.

Democracy is mob rule.

You cannot legislate fairness, all you do is create new unintended consequences.

The rich have always had excessive influence over the political process, and the only way you combat that is to shrink government drastically, and take government out of the economy entirely - then you minimize the advantage of wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the Conservatives are 100% supportive of giving those who donate tax exemptions, i.e. your money. How is this any different? Furthermore, as I said this subsidy comes to roughly 2 dollars per vote, to a total of roughly 26 million per election. That's about 8.5 million/year. I think the interest on those Tory fighter jets will be about ten times that.

I see now problem with public funding as long as it's kept rather modest.

If you find no problems with one party using it's majority to cut the throats of the opposition, you both are clearly Tories. Private funding just allows the rich to have excessive influence. MY VOTE should mean as much as your vote and 1,200 donation to Mr. Harper. How about we fight with ideas, not bank accounts?? This is a democracy, not a plutocracy.

You are not painting a clear picture. There are limits to the size of individual donations. It is a level playing field. And to get a tax deduction on a donation you first have to make a donation! And it is NOT all deductable!

Again, all parties are in an equal position. There is nothing stopping the Liberals or the NDP from working to get donations just like the CPC. Reform's average donation was likely around 10-20 dollars. We got FAR more of those than the minimum $100 dollar donation to get a tax deduction.

You haven't addressed my main point! What is wrong with the other parties that they can't raise money from ordinary people, making modest donations?

Everyone will take something for free. It takes commitment to part with some dollars! The only explanation I can see is that NDP and Liberal supporters are really not that committed to their party! They will only ride the Orange or Red bus if someone else buys the tickets!

Or more simply, they are lazy, mooching deadbeats!

Now, explain to me how that isn't self-evident!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't agree with you! I don't believe that a party should get any of my tax money without my approval. I can vote for someone without giving him money!

This is a good premise but the problem exists when donations are tax deductible so even if you pay a party, the tax payer is stuck paying your tax donation to that party. So direct subsidizing vs.. getting stuck with the bill for your donations, only shows this benefits only people who want tax deductions and make enough to sign off on the tax deduction while it drives up taxes for everyone else.Canadians are stuck paying upwards of 6 million in donation subsidies to the conservatives.

Under Harper's model only the rich benefit while everyone else is stuck donating to the party with the most donations rather than with the most public support at the polls. I don't see why parties should be stuck paying for other peoples donations. Of the two, having a built in donation per vote is more representative than forcing donations to the party you don't support due to tax write offs to the rich.

it is crooked.

they shouldn't even be not for profit / charity etc.. they are businesses, they arn't about public benefits they are about their own business interests. Cut the scumbags off from the public purse.

If the parties want free money have their supporters pay for it, not Joe Public. It's not like they listen to Joe Public or voice Joe Public's concerns, its all about their own people.

They should be paying a hell of a lot back to the treasury they've been robbing the public for over a century.

Why the hell is Joe Public paying private interests upwards of 40 million dollars per year? This mysteriously only benefits the largest parties that have run Canada like Fascist dictators shutting out all minority voices and creating financial barriers toward access while only allowing themselves to economically benefit from their engineered process. I SPIT ON THEM.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good premise but the problem exists when donations are tax deductible so even if you pay a party, the tax payer is stuck paying your tax donation to that party. So direct subsidizing vs.. getting stuck with the bill for your donations, only shows this benefits only people who want tax deductions and make enough to sign off on the tax deduction while it drives up taxes for everyone else.Canadians are stuck paying upwards of 6 million in donation subsidies to the conservatives.

Under Harper's model only the rich benefit while everyone else is stuck donating to the party with the most donations rather than with the most public support at the polls. I don't see why parties should be stuck paying for other peoples donations. Of the two, having a built in donation per vote is more representative than forcing donations to the party you don't support due to tax write offs to the rich.

it is crooked.

Look, take off your partisan tinfoil hat for a moment!

Let's say we got rid of the entire tax deduction thing! All of it, gone!

The CPC would still be richer than the other parties!

That's because the other parties can't or won't get more than a pittance from ordinary Canadians as voluntary donations. If they don't have a system where it is just handed to them from tax money or wherever then they go broke!

Period and end of story! Stop dodging the issue and explain how the opposition parties can claim popular support when no one will give them any money unless the law just takes it from them and hands it over!

You're using the morality of a tax deduction scheme as a diversion to keep people from noticing that the opposition parties obviously have far lower committed support from their so-called supporters and in reality are just moochers and deadbeats!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has Harper pandered to right wing extremists, that's a hoot... Harper has been governing more like a Liberal gov't, no sign of any 'right wing extremism' - you must be on another planet.. B)

He's part of the Harper = Bush = Hitler crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, take off your partisan tinfoil hat for a moment!

Let's say we got rid of the entire tax deduction thing! All of it, gone!

The CPC would still be richer than the other parties!

That's because the other parties can't or won't get more than a pittance from ordinary Canadians as voluntary donations. If they don't have a system where it is just handed to them from tax money or wherever then they go broke!

Period and end of story! Stop dodging the issue and explain how the opposition parties can claim popular support when no one will give them any money unless the law just takes it from them and hands it over!

You're using the morality of a tax deduction scheme as a diversion to keep people from noticing that the opposition parties obviously have far lower committed support from their so-called supporters and in reality are just moochers and deadbeats!

Who cares who has more, what is important it is that they Arn't taking money from people who don't want to give it, that matters. The fact is we are stuck paying millions in donations to these jerks even without directly donating to them due to the write offs of totally charitable donations to businesses that are getting charity status while not serving public interests and instead serving partisan interests. THat is just wrong.

Money won't make them any less corrupt.

Also the conservatives don't represent ordinary Canadians, the NDP does,get a clue.

Conservatives represent rich people, foreign businesses (particularly US), some Albertans, and well off Canadians in Ontario. they do not represent the reality the "normal" Canadian, they represent the privileged Canadians, and foreign especially US interests (particularly US oil companies like Imperial Oil)

Harper ain't representing normal Canadians when he says old age security should be pushed back until 2 years after the average late middle income / low income retirement for working class people. The only people their policies benefit are people that are well to do. THe fact is more Canadians are bad off and in debt than well to do Canadians ready for retirement.

People out for normal Canadians don't shun 10% of the Canadian population, they also don't announce to their buddies in the global economic forum what policies they plan on introducing before they hold consulations with their country's citizens.

Harper's out there for the regular exxonmobile's not regular Canadians.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This aged old belief that somehow limited government will shrink the influence of the rich is a complete joke. No offense, but you are all very naive. We live in a world of capitalism, the dollar bill means infinitely more than the signature of the Governor General on an Act of Parliament. As a student of history, I'd love any evidence that limited government has ever curtailed the influence of the wealthy. Please cite.

I am of the school that a powerful democratic and responsible government is a needed safeguard of the people against the excesses of the market. The market may indeed generate wealth, but it does so very unevenly and gives far more money and therefore power to an incredibly minute faction of society. I see no reason why a CEO should make 150x the salary of an average worker, not including generous bonuses and retirement packages. If our politicians made millions each, we'd be pointing out the complete nonsense of it all.

Again, all you rightists are missing the point (not too shocking of that). So you're against the public subsidization of parties but are for the tax exemptions for donations??!! It's the same thing.. only in one, your vote equals a puny 2 dollar donation to the party. The latter allows the rich to donate even easier, despite already being more than able to do so.

Just so you realize too, these tax exemptions equal FAR MORE per year than the party subsidies, as roughly 2/3 of your donation is a write-off... so you can take of your fake fiscal conservative hats now.

If you weren't blinded by partisanship, you would see this is Harper's Machiavellian attitude at its finest.

Edited by AusKanada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This aged old belief that somehow limited government will shrink the influence of the rich is a complete joke. No offense, but you are all very naive. We live in a world of capitalism, the dollar bill means infinitely more than the signature of the Governor General on an Act of Parliament. As a student of history, I'd love any evidence that limited government has ever curtailed the influence of the wealthy. Please cite.

I am of the school that a powerful democratic and responsible government is a needed safeguard of the people against the excesses of the market. The market may indeed generate wealth, but it does so very unevenly and gives far more money and therefore power to an incredibly minute faction of society. I see no reason why a CEO should make 150x the salary of an average worker, not including generous bonuses and retirement packages. If our politicians made millions each, we'd be pointing out the complete nonsense of it all.

Again, all you rightists are missing the point (not too shocking of that). So you're against the public subsidization of parties but are for the tax exemptions for donations??!! It's the same thing.. only in one, your vote equals a puny 2 dollar donation to the party. The latter allows the rich to donate even easier, despite already being more than able to do so.

Just so you realize too, these tax exemptions equal FAR MORE per year than the party subsidies, as roughly 2/3 of your donation is a write-off... so you can take of your fake fiscal conservative hats now.

If you weren't blinded by partisanship, you would see this is Harper's Machiavellian attitude at its finest.

The problem is not limited government, it is your limited view.

The entire thing you've said here above is predicated upon our current system operating as a small-government, unfettered market economy, and that is about the opposite of what we're dealing with at the moment.

Your complaint about CEO pay compared to the lower levels, basically all of your complaints are products of big government, not the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is not limited government, it is your limited view.

The entire thing you've said here above is predicated upon our current system operating as a small-government, unfettered market economy, and that is about the opposite of what we're dealing with at the moment.

Your complaint about CEO pay compared to the lower levels, basically all of your complaints are products of big government, not the opposite.

First off, big government does not lead to higher CEO pay, not sure what the heck you are talking about there at all. Who said we have a small government or a completely free market? I am arguing against those things, but I am not admitting we have those things in Canada yet.

I would say your limited view is the problem. Ron Paul 2012!! w00t!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, big government does not lead to higher CEO pay, not sure what the heck you are talking about there at all. Who said we have a small government or a completely free market? I am arguing against those things, but I am not admitting we have those things in Canada yet.

I would say your limited view is the problem. Ron Paul 2012!! w00t!

Companies with higher profit margins can afford to raise CEO compensation. Companies competing in a market tilted in their favour by government assume far less risk, and make more money, therefore they can pay their executives more. Get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares who has more, what is important it is that they Arn't taking money from people who don't want to give it, that matters. The fact is we are stuck paying millions in donations to these jerks even without directly donating to them due to the write offs of totally charitable donations to businesses that are getting charity status while not serving public interests and instead serving partisan interests. THat is just wrong.

Money won't make them any less corrupt.

Also the conservatives don't represent ordinary Canadians, the NDP does,get a clue.

Conservatives represent rich people, foreign businesses (particularly US), some Albertans, and well off Canadians in Ontario. they do not represent the reality the "normal" Canadian, they represent the privileged Canadians, and foreign especially US interests (particularly US oil companies like Imperial Oil)

Harper ain't representing normal Canadians when he says old age security should be pushed back until 2 years after the average late middle income / low income retirement for working class people. The only people their policies benefit are people that are well to do. THe fact is more Canadians are bad off and in debt than well to do Canadians ready for retirement.

People out for normal Canadians don't shun 10% of the Canadian population, they also don't announce to their buddies in the global economic forum what policies they plan on introducing before they hold consulations with their country's citizens.

Harper's out there for the regular exxonmobile's not regular Canadians.

There you go again! I ask you specifically why the NDP and the Liberals can't get voluntary donations like the Conservatives. You veer off into a rant against tax deductions, Harper, evil corporations and so on. I think you forgot to include Monsanto!

Those were never my points or what I had asked. Obviously, you simply REFUSE to discuss why the other parties need free money rather than getting voluntary donations! You simply REFUSE to discuss why the typical Liberal or NDp supporter obviously won't give them a dime out of their own pocket!

I won't waste my time on you anymore. I was sincerely interested in your viewpoints but life is too short for just another blind partisan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Party funding is only a small part of a much larger problem with politics today. Completley remove money from politics and all the scumbags will go away.

Yeah, and if my granny had wheels she wouldn't bump her ass when she hopped! :lol:

To mix a few old sayings!

You've just expressed a totally pie in the sky wish!

I'd like a pony, while you're at it. Maybe a winning lottery ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and if my granny had wheels she wouldn't bump her ass when she hopped! :lol:

To mix a few old sayings!

You've just expressed a totally pie in the sky wish!

I'd like a pony, while you're at it. Maybe a winning lottery ticket.

Congratulations that is exactly how they want you to think. It is really a simple change I'm not sure why you would think it is pie in the sky. Regardless of how unlikely it is I know I'm right about it. it is the only solution to the problems we experience with our current system. It seemed impossible to put men on the moon or fly or drive a car over 600 mph but we did it.

Edited by ron Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Party funding is only a small part of a much larger problem with politics today. Completley remove money from politics and all the scumbags will go away.

You didn't read the thread title carefully. It's "party finding" that Topaz is condemning. People shouldn't just crash parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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.

Of course, you can't really see that this is an attack on any party that stands for the underclass, the working class, and the poor. By having supporters with less money to donate, they are not going to be able to raise as much money. Sure there will be people with money that will stand behind the party, but there will be less of them compared to a party that stands for the "haves" with more disposable income to throw at their party. This does nothing more than create an uneven playing field for the parties and it's an attack on the average working class Canadian and their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This.

Money doesn't influence politics as much here as it does in the US, but Harper's going out of his way to make sure that it can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money doesn't influence politics as much here as it does in the US, but Harper's going out of his way to make sure that it can.

By bringing in the most strict donation laws of any government? Seriously, I think that the public funding should have been left in place, but, that has more to do with Harper throwing red meat at the base, and wanting to hurt the Liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, you can't really see that this is an attack on any party that stands for the underclass, the working class, and the poor. By having supporters with less money to donate, they are not going to be able to raise as much money. Sure there will be people with money that will stand behind the party, but there will be less of them compared to a party that stands for the "haves" with more disposable income to throw at their party. This does nothing more than create an uneven playing field for the parties and it's an attack on the average working class Canadian and their families.

Baloney. Poor people don't donate money to political parties, but they don't vote much either.

Your constant referral to 'the working class' is a euphmeism for 'union members', and the NDP hates unions not being allowed to pound money into their party. They know that ordinary union members won't donate on their own, since union members recognize what the NDP can never publicly articulate what union members know: membership is not about social justice, it is much more concerned with gaining maximum $ and benefits for members. This is the opposite to what the NDP claims as the basis for their union support.There are plenty of 'working men ' in Canada who recognize the inherent fraud within the NDP and wouldn't vote for them on a dare.

The NDP doesn't give a shit about 'the working man' except in terms of votes and money. If the unions cannot deliver plenty of money and blcoks of votes reliably, that relationship will sour in a big hurry. And that brings us to a change in startegy for the NDP and their new leader..... If the party does not move to the fertile middle as their union support fades.... they'll be in worse trouble than they are now with transitory support in Quebec and diminshing returns in their old stamping grounds of big labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baloney. Poor people don't donate money to political parties, but they don't vote much either.

Citation?

Your constant referral to 'the working class' is a euphmeism for 'union members', and the NDP hates unions not being allowed to pound money into their party.

I couldn't possibly care less about the unions. Moreover, the NDP has been moving away from the unions. Let's not forget either that Buzz Hargrove threw his support to the Liberals not too long ago.

So, what I'm talking about here are Canadians that go to work to earn an honest paycheck as a living. I'm talking about those Canadians that sell their labour to an employer in exchange for financial stability. Those are the "working-class" Canadians, whether they are unionized or not.

There are plenty of 'working men ' in Canada who recognize the inherent fraud within the NDP and wouldn't vote for them on a dare.

What's the inherent fraud within the NDP? Don't forget to back up what you're saying with references.

The NDP doesn't give a shit about 'the working man' except in terms of votes and money.

Their policies suggest otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the inherent fraud within the NDP? Don't forget to back up what you're saying with references.

The fraud is that they give a shit about anything other than doing whatever they need to do to get elected. So far, they have not been very good at it.

In fairness, they differ from the Libs and Cons only in their competence at getting elected.

\

Their policies suggest otherwise.

Their policies are the policies of convenience, expedience, pragmatism, and will be increasingly so with their next leader. Proprep is an example: NDP policy where it will benefit them, not on the agenda whenever they hold a majority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...