Garneau

[login]

His Tax Plan is a step in the right direction...

http://www.theglobea...article6204738/

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[Bryan]

The front runners for the Liberal leadership seem to have figured out that moving ever further left as the Conservatives occupy the middle is not going to get them anywhere. It looks like they are at least kicking the tires on the concept of moving to the right.

[Newfoundlander]

If I decide to sign up as a supporter I'll have a tough decision deciding between Hall Findlay and Garneau. The party is finally realizing they need to move to the "right" on some issues instead of being the NDP-lite. Even Trudeau isn't the big lefty he seemed to be. A mix of "right-wing" policy, if you consider to embracing free markets as right-wing, combined with centrist and to the left social policy, along with environmentalism, that isn't to extreme, will appeal to most people.

Tax reform, a carbon tax, legalization of marijuana, free trade and allowing more foreign companies into our industries are all good policies.

[Evening Star]

I don't see a plan here.

[Newfoundlander]

I don't see a plan here.

Care to explain?

[Fletch 27]

His Tax Plan is a step in the right direction...

http://www.theglobea...article6204738/

The ONLY thing he even SAID in this article was:

“get rid of special tax preferences and make our tax system more efficient.”

Wow, Thats a very deep plan man..... Very deep...

If hes goona rely on the Globe and Mail to fill in the Gaps,, He may just continue with this great success!

WHat Plan???? WHAT PLAN????? The Article was 98 percent Globe and Mail assumptins and fondling lolol

[Newfoundlander]

He's currently giving a speech to the Economic Club of Canada outlining his vision, he gave a brief outline a few days ago though.

[Fletch 27]

He didnt even say what "special tax"! Tax on Cigs? Thats a special tax! Tax on Gas? Thats a special tax too!

Thank you Marc... Your a godsend

[Evening Star]

Care to explain?

Fletch just did.

Edit: It's likely that he's going to give more info in his speech. However, based on the linked article in the OP, it's hard to come to any conclusion about his tax 'plan'.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Evening Star

[Newfoundlander]

Here's his speech. I'll wait to watch a video of him giving.

http://marcgarneau.ca/econspeech/

[Moonbox]

The principle of what he's saying is right. If there's any substance to it aside from that is what's left to be seen. I'm still on Martha Hall Findlay's bandwagon, but maybe Garneau's got something intresting to say. Lord knows that Trudeau doesn't.

[login]

He didnt even say what "special tax"! Tax on Cigs? Thats a special tax! Tax on Gas? Thats a special tax too!

Thank you Marc... Your a godsend

The article refered to "special interest tax credits"

basically the idea I saw was to not give any preferential treatment within the income tax system. Which I would suppose taxes in general would reduced but special activities would not. It basically would take away the "geuss work" of making claims in taxes, and leave it to a baseline figure based on income, so people are taxed on income rather than how they use the money.

The reason I like it is because it tears down part of the bloat of the income tax system. It is part of the way toward removing income taxes entirely, which are a highly inefficient system of raising revenue.

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[Evening Star]

The article refered to "special interest tax credits"

basically the idea I saw was to not give any preferential treatment within the income tax system. Which I would suppose taxes in general would reduced but special activities would not. It basically would take away the "geuss work" of making claims in taxes, and leave it to a baseline figure based on income, so people are taxed on income rather than how they use the money.

The reason I like it is because it tears down part of the bloat of the income tax system. It is part of the way toward removing income taxes entirely, which are a highly inefficient system of raising revenue.

It says "special tax preferences", not "special interest tax credits" but that's very vague, as the Globe and Fletch both pointed out. It's very unlikely that he wants to remove every one of these. I'm starting to read the speech though.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Evening Star

[login]

It says "special tax preferences", not "special interest tax credits" but that's very vague, as the Globe and Fletch both pointed out. It's very unlikely that he wants to remove every one of these. I'm starting to read the speech though.

What is the difference?

[Fletch 27]

How does he expect to pay for all of these pie in the sky ideas?

And I quote: "While this may cost the federal government in the short-run"

And I quote: "

• helping new Canadians achieve the accreditation necessary to work in their field of expertise; and (paid by YOU)
  
• helping them get the necessary Canadian job experience.
  

"By reducing the total cost of employing a young person, more young people will be employed" So lower wages to employ more??

How does he pay for this????? I will quote him: "The obvious solution: immigration!"

Final quote: "I am a Liberal"

Yup, we figured that Marc!

[Newfoundlander]

Accreditation for new immigrants is definitely something government should put some focus on. I've known of very well educated immigrants who couldn't get work because they had issues getting their credentials recognized.

[Fletch 27]

I have as well, but it turns out the Dentist who was a great dentis was not accredited to Canadian standards with the knowledge of Anesthetics or alergic reactiosn.. He was very upset that he needed to take 1.5 years to MEET the canadian standards.... Should we have paid as a taxpayer for that?

There is a REASON Canada has standards.. I dont want Marc to slack them off thanks very much... nor do I want to pay for someone elses Eductaion to MEET those standards....

[Newfoundlander]

It's not always to do with standards, I'm sure there are people with educations that would be on par with Canadian standards but still cannot get recognition.

I know of someone who has their masters from another country, they currently work with the federal govt in a jon that they should not be in but due to them being the token immigrant they're there anyways. There job is seasonal so for 6 or more months of the year and receive EI, do you think that's a better expenditure. I have a hard time believing that someone who has there Masters cannot get some kind of recognition here. I understand there are issues with doctors, dentists and what not but that could be addressed easily. I'd rather see immigrants working good jobs, or creating good jobs, then working a McJob that likely requires govt handouts for them to get by.

[Fletch 27]

LL.M? Again, the discrepancies between Denmark,USA, Finland, India and the UK amount to more that 4 years... But they are all masters degrees. Should we just drop them in?

[login]

I have as well, but it turns out the Dentist who was a great dentis was not accredited to Canadian standards with the knowledge of Anesthetics or alergic reactiosn.. He was very upset that he needed to take 1.5 years to MEET the canadian standards.... Should we have paid as a taxpayer for that?

There is a REASON Canada has standards.. I dont want Marc to slack them off thanks very much... nor do I want to pay for someone elses Eductaion to MEET those standards....

Accredation of their training and "training" are two seperate things. It is reasonable to provide an accredation service, perhaps with a deferred payment, while the training if not an in demand feild then people should pay like everyone else, but it is reasonable to allow for student loans, if the field is in demand or even pay for the training if only a couple terms if they agree to stay in Canada for a given period of time and service an in demand area.