Conservative Budget Surplus

[Accountability Now]

Sure it is, and these Canadians can decide through an electoral process, how much money they want returned to them and how much money they want to go towards debt.

You bet I do, every year in about March.

So again you confuse what is the politically correct move versus objectively correct move. Give the common person a choice and they would gladly cut taxes...immediate gratification!

As for your cheque that you cut....good news...it will be less this year. If they continue to pay off the debt it will be even less.

[Accountability Now]

It's their money regardless of surplus or deficit. Tax money is money confiscated from tax payers that earned it orignially. Regardless, like I said, it doesn't mean you cut taxes immediately. But if a surplus continues for several years, some of that should be returned back into the economy at some point.

I knew there was a reason I liked you Shady. My thoughts exactly. Of course...cutting taxes after one year of surplus is a little premature in my mind.

[Guest Derek L]

So again you confuse what is the politically correct move versus objectively correct move. Give the common person a choice and they would gladly cut taxes...immediate gratification!

Objectively correct? Try subjectively correct.

And you know better than the “common people”? Perhaps they’ll spend these tax savings on more then the “instant gratification” garnered through “beer & popcorn” and use the money to pay down their own household debt. Maybe put these funds into retirement savings? How about putting the money aside for their children’s post secondary education?

As for your cheque that you cut....good news...it will be less this year. If they continue to pay off the debt it will be even less.

Who said tax cuts and debt servicing is a either or proposition? Certainly not I or the Finance Minister.

[ReeferMadness]

Another testament to greed and stupidity. Belly up to the bar, everyone.

[Accountability Now]

Objectively correct? Try subjectively correct.

And you know better than the “common people”? Perhaps they’ll spend these tax savings on more then the “instant gratification” garnered through “beer & popcorn” and use the money to pay down their own household debt. Maybe put these funds into retirement savings? How about putting the money aside for their children’s post secondary education?

Um...no. You keep missing the point. Its not their money quite yet. You said that you cut a cheque every March but that was just for the normal taxes. The government ran deficits those years meaning they didn't take enough so you should have cut another cheque to cover the costs. I guarantee that you did not do that. But now that there is a surplus after one year you have your hand out. Nice work. I trust you would make a great business partner. This money is paying off money that you still owe from previous defiicits. That is an obejective fact whether you like it or not.

I bet you're going to say that during the years of decifit that the government was wasting our money. Perhaps during the year of surplus they were being too cheap and not giving us the services then? Either way, you can only evaluate what the proper tax rate is over a longer period than one year. Its like Shady said, if we are seeing year after year surpluses then something isn't right. But you have your hand out after one year...very patriotic of you.

Who said tax cuts and debt servicing is a either or proposition? Certainly not I or the Finance Minister.

Reducing government revenue by giving tax cuts will mean less money is available for debt servicing if they choose to do so. You're right as they don't have to service the debt but at least that option is there. Once you reduce the taxes then the money is gone and no longer an option.

All along I have thought that reducing taxes was a the politically correct move but perhaps thats not even true either. It may buy Harper some votes now but what happens if a deficit reoccurs and he has to raise taxes again. Most people won't notice if taxes aren't dropped but they all notice if they are raised.

[GostHacked]

Its like Shady said, if we are seeing year after year surpluses then something isn't right.

How is a surplus a bad thing?

[Accountability Now]

How is a surplus a bad thing?

Continual surpluses suggest that taxes are too high. There is nothing wrong with a single year surplus. I guess a small surplus every year would be nice too.

It's finding that magic line where the government has what they need and gives the rest back to the people.

[Michael Hardner]

Continual surpluses suggest that taxes are too high. There is nothing wrong with a single year surplus. I guess a small surplus every year would be nice too.

It's finding that magic line where the government has what they need and gives the rest back to the people.

That's true, but paying down the debt to a much lower GDP/debt ratio might be a good step.

[Accountability Now]

That's true, but paying down the debt to a much lower GDP/debt ratio might be a good step.

Exactly.

[GostHacked]

Continual surpluses suggest that taxes are too high. There is nothing wrong with a single year surplus. I guess a small surplus every year would be nice too.

It's finding that magic line where the government has what they need and gives the rest back to the people.

Continual surpluses mean that our economy might be doing alright as well. So keep the taxes at this rate or go a bit higher. Use it to pay down the debt. We cannot be servicing a debt forever.

[Accountability Now]

Continual surpluses mean that our economy might be doing alright as well. So keep the taxes at this rate or go a bit higher. Use it to pay down the debt. We cannot be servicing a debt forever.

As you would see from my previous posts...I am in agreement with what you are saying. It makes sense to pay off the debt. I just don't know at what point a surplus would be "Too Much" of a surplus to warrant tax cuts.

[cybercoma]

Continual surpluses mean that our economy might be doing alright as well. So keep the taxes at this rate or go a bit higher. Use it to pay down the debt. We cannot be servicing a debt forever.

If the government is functioning properly we should be running surpluses in the prosperous times and deficits during recessions.

But you know, people have this stupid idea that governments should cut back services during recessions and cut taxes during the good times. This is pretty much the exact opposite of how things should work.

[GostHacked]

If the government is functioning properly we should be running surpluses in the prosperous times and deficits during recessions.

But you know, people have this stupid idea that governments should cut back services during recessions and cut taxes during the good times. This is pretty much the exact opposite of how things should work.

Would not having a stable tax rate be better over the long run? Instead of adjusting for every hitch, ride it out. Is it too reactive?

[Accountability Now]

Would not having a stable tax rate be better over the long run? Instead of adjusting for every hitch, ride it out. Is it too reactive?

I think it would however this is where politicians buy votes by talking tax cuts and ruin it.

[Guest Derek L]

Um...no. You keep missing the point. Its not their money quite yet. You said that you cut a cheque every March but that was just for the normal taxes. The government ran deficits those years meaning they didn't take enough so you should have cut another cheque to cover the costs. I guarantee that you did not do that. But now that there is a surplus after one year you have your hand out. Nice work. I trust you would make a great business partner. This money is paying off money that you still owe from previous defiicits. That is an obejective fact whether you like it or not.

Not their money yet? Where did the Government of Canada get the money in the first place?

Also, personal dig aside, I still fail to see why you continue to compare a Government to a business/company.

I bet you're going to say that during the years of decifit that the government was wasting our money. Perhaps during the year of surplus they were being too cheap and not giving us the services then? Either way, you can only evaluate what the proper tax rate is over a longer period than one year. Its like Shady said, if we are seeing year after year surpluses then something isn't right. But you have your hand out after one year...very patriotic of you.

Why can’t you evaluate tax rates annually?

Again, personal swipe aside, I find it “patriotic” to allow the so called “common folk” (as referenced by you) tax savings when possible, as I’m sure most of the “common folk” voters would agree. Besides, our current (Canadian) national debt plays less a factor on our economy at large then Canadian personal/household debt.

Reducing government revenue by giving tax cuts will mean less money is available for debt servicing if they choose to do so. You're right as they don't have to service the debt but at least that option is there. Once you reduce the taxes then the money is gone and no longer an option.

And the Finance Minister has stated, a portion of the projected surplus going forward will be used for debt repayment, with a presumed larger portion going towards several new tax credits, and increase to the tax free savings account limits and income splitting (up to 50K annually) for Canadian households with children under 18.

Why are you opposed to cutting middle income, Canadian families some slack?

All along I have thought that reducing taxes was a the politically correct move but perhaps thats not even true either. It may buy Harper some votes now but what happens if a deficit reoccurs and he has to raise taxes again. Most people won't notice if taxes aren't dropped but they all notice if they are raised.

Raise taxes? Nah, you just offload deficit spending onto the Provinces if required……..Federal revenue see’s a reduction, so to does the Federal Government’s ability to payout equalization payments under the current formula….

None the less, when income splitting is introduced into the tax code, a great many Canadian middle class families will notice it…….and rue the party that attempts to take it away.

[Bryan]

Raise taxes? Nah, you just offload deficit spending onto the Provinces if required……..Federal revenue see’s a reduction, so to does the Federal Government’s ability to payout equalization payments under the current formula….

That's the Liberal version of fiscal management. Just leave your obligations for things like health and education unpaid, then claim to have a "surplus". It's all smoke and mirrors, they never once had an actual money-in-the-bank surplus. There was always tens of billions in unpaid bills they were conveniently neglecting to count -- all the while they were also taking billions out EI coffers for general revenue.

That's what so amazing about how good of a job the federal Conservatives have done fiscally. They restored the health, education, and other transfers to the provinces that the Liberals had cut, went on to increase health spending year after year, did not have access to the EI-as-a-slush-fund plan, and were forced practically at gunpoint in a minority parliament to spend far more than what their own budget had called for. All the while, they reduced consumption taxes, reduced business taxes, and reduced personal income taxes. The end result has been a stronger economy, more government revenue, and very quickly returning to a positive balance sheet.

[cybercoma]

That's the Liberal version of fiscal management. Just leave your obligations for things like health and education unpaid, then claim to have a "surplus"

It's pretty baffling that a Conservative would say that health and education are federal obligations. You should read sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution sometime. It would make you a more informed poster and a better Conservative.

Edited November 16, 2013 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

I'd be happy if the government were to

Shift all tax points for the Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer to the provinces, and enrich equalization to ensure that poor provinces don't suffer.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Smallc

[Shady]

I'd be happy if the government were to

Shift all tax points for the Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer to the provinces, and enrich equalization to ensure that poor provinces don't suffer.

I think we really need to do away with so-called equalization. It contributes to subsidizing bad economic policies and bad budgetary management at the provincial level.

[GostHacked]

I think it would however this is where politicians buy votes by talking tax cuts and ruin it.

The beauty of a 4 year term. And a populous that is quite ADHD when it comes to this matters.

[cybercoma]

It contributes to subsidizing bad economic policies and bad budgetary management at the provincial level.

Go ahead and explain exactly how it does that, considering individual provincial tax revenues and expenses don't actually figure into the equalization formula. Seriously, Shady, do you even know what equalization payments are or how they work?

Edited November 16, 2013 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

I really have very little patience for Baby Boomers who think they should get tax cuts now that there's a surplus. Go do a backflip into an empty pool, Baby Boomers.

My view on tax cuts is: no to another cut in the GST, and no new tax credits or benefits or exemptions.

If there is a tax cut, it should be a cut to the marginal rates for low and moderate income Canadians, and nothing more.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

That's the Liberal version of fiscal management. Just leave your obligations for things like health and education unpaid, then claim to have a "surplus". It's all smoke and mirrors, they never once had an actual money-in-the-bank surplus. There was always tens of billions in unpaid bills they were conveniently neglecting to count -- all the while they were also taking billions out EI coffers for general revenue.

Yes, I know…….Obviously sarcasm doesn’t convey well over the internet

[Guest Derek L]

I think we really need to do away with so-called equalization. It contributes to subsidizing bad economic policies and bad budgetary management at the provincial level.

Outside of the CST & CHT payments, I agree.

[Guest Derek L]

I really have very little patience for Baby Boomers who think they should get tax cuts now that there's a surplus. Go do a backflip into an empty pool, Baby Boomers.

My view on tax cuts is: no to another cut in the GST, and no new tax credits or benefits or exemptions.

If there is a tax cut, it should be a cut to the marginal rates for low and moderate income Canadians, and nothing more.

-k

And I hope the Liberals and NDP campaign on that viewpoint.