What should be done with the surplus?

[Topaz]

If the Tories gets back in, the surplus, be gone because of the income -splitting and then the war will put us in the red, which will cause the Tories to find money, ok yeah, gotta tax back the money we gave to get elected!! The US is considering boots on the ground and therefore, Harper can't say no, because of the pipeline. How much will the war cost, well, the US is closing in on a billion mark and the Prez has asked for another 4 Bil.

[Keepitsimple]

If the Tories gets back in, the surplus, be gone because of the income -splitting and then the war will put us in the red, which will cause the Tories to find money, ok yeah, gotta tax back the money we gave to get elected!! The US is considering boots on the ground and therefore, Harper can't say no, because of the pipeline. How much will the war cost, well, the US is closing in on a billion mark and the Prez has asked for another 4 Bil.

Do you have any cites/links for the US putting "boots on the ground"? We're talking about "bring the troops home" Obama. Any cites? That's what your rambling is based on.

[Smallc]

And the provinces are still paying for it to this day.......

That's okay. Most of those things were never federal responsibilities in the first place.

[Keepitsimple]

That's okay. Most of those things were never federal responsibilities in the first place.

Probably - and just like any organization, it's important to have clear responsibilities for everyone. If the media would pay more attention to what is a federal responsibility = and what is federal, we'd get rid of a lot of petty arguments. A prime example is Child Care/Daycare. Education is a Provincial responsibility. Yet the NDP and Liberals before them intrude on that responsibility to try and garner votes. The Quebec Daycare model has been touted for 20 years - yet not one Province has seen fit to copy it. And now the NDP (and Liberals before them) wants to impose it on all of them. What sense does that make?

[On Guard for Thee]

Ummm, no, the tax cuts just introduced have cut into the surplus, as well as a small dip from lower oil....yet there is still a surplus.

Maybe you should check the numbers. 5 billion in our budget ain't no "small dip" Or perhaps the cons. are just lying to us again. Who knows?

[Argus]

The Chretien government did more to address national debt than any other party EVER has since the 60's. Not just in Canada but in the entire western world.

Chretien (who I loathed) benefited from Mulroney's (who I despised) cost cutting and the GST Mulroney put in which Chretien very loudly opposed, not to mention great economic times. Almost as important, Chretien was an unambitious man with a fractured opposition. With no particular vision or interest in making anything better and no threat from the opposition to unseat him, Chretien was content to take a lot of holidays and do pretty much nothing about any and all problems and issues. He did allow Martin to cut further spending - because he didn't care, but that allowing Martin free reign was pretty much the extent of Chretien's involvement.

[GostHacked]

Interact e-transfer.

To who?

[jacee]

Probably - and just like any organization, it's important to have clear responsibilities for everyone. If the media would pay more attention to what is a federal responsibility = and what is federal, we'd get rid of a lot of petty arguments. A prime example is Child Care/Daycare. Education is a Provincial responsibility.

The feds do play a role in child care, by funding, because it provides long term benefits to people and the economy:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0420-e.htm

-prepare children to succeed at school;

-improve the well-being of vulnerable children; and

-enable the participation of parents in the labour force and in continuing education.

Education and child care fall primarily under provincial jurisdiction, and the federal role is limited largely to the transfer of funds to provincial and territorial governments for early childhood programs and services.

When children are funded for day care, a parent - often a single mother - is immediately paying income tax - often instead of collecting welfare. It's a no brainer as far as return on investment.

.

Edited November 15, 2014 by jacee

[Keepitsimple]

The feds do play a role in child care, by funding, because it provides long term benefits to people and the economy:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0420-e.htm

-prepare children to succeed at school;

-improve the well-being of vulnerable children; and

-enable the participation of parents in the labour force and in continuing education.

Education and child care fall primarily under provincial jurisdiction, and the federal role is limited largely to the transfer of funds to provincial and territorial governments for early childhood programs and services.

When children are funded for day care, a parent - often a single mother - is immediately paying income tax - often instead of collecting welfare. It's a no brainer as far as return on investment.

.

Not sure what your point is:

1) Ottawa transfers billions to the provinces for Education

2) Quebec has chosen to use those funds - and more of their own - to fund their Daycare system

3) Other provinces have chosen not to follow Quebec - not one of them.

4) Collectively, provinces have not made subsidized Child Care a priority. They don't want to increase taxes to pay for it.

Do you propose - as the NDP is trying to do - to impose daycare on the provinces - to intrude in their area of responsibility? To force the provinces to raise taxes to pay for an ever-more-expensive unionized monstrosity? Do you really think that would fly with the provinces?

So - you'll hear platitudes and warm and fuzzy rhetoric - and hand-wringing......but in the end, it's all about priorities. We've already got one institution - Healthcare - that is gobbling up ever greater revenues. Burdening the taxpayers with yet another money gobbler - especially now - is not the wisest of moves.

[Smallc]

Maybe you should check the numbers. 5 billion in our budget ain't no "small dip" Or perhaps the cons. are just lying to us again. Who knows?

Most of the change results from the immediate introduction of income splitting for families, an increase in the baby bonus, as well as increases in various tax credits.

[jacee]

Not sure what your point is:

1) Ottawa transfers billions to the provinces for Education

2) Quebec has chosen to use those funds - and more of their own - to fund their Daycare system

3) Other provinces have chosen not to follow Quebec - not one of them.

4) Collectively, provinces have not made subsidized Child Care a priority. They don't want to increase taxes to pay for it.

Do you propose - as the NDP is trying to do - to impose daycare on the provinces - to intrude in their area of responsibility? To force the provinces to raise taxes to pay for an ever-more-expensive unionized monstrosity? Do you really think that would fly with the provinces?

So - you'll hear platitudes and warm and fuzzy rhetoric - and hand-wringing......but in the end, it's all about priorities. We've already got one institution - Healthcare - that is gobbling up ever greater revenues. Burdening the taxpayers with yet another money gobbler - especially now - is not the wisest of moves.

I'm not sure why you are pretending that the federal government doesn't provide funds directed at child care, when it clearly does. (See gov't link above)

I'm not sure why you describe it as a burden on taxpayers when it clearly generates more than enough tax income to cover the initial investment.

Every province is heavily involved. The discussion of the need for universal child care is a national discussion.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Most of the change results from the immediate introduction of income splitting for families, an increase in the baby bonus, as well as increases in various tax credits.

Which once again boils down to Harper buying votes and trying to make sure there is no room to move on programs the opposition may want to campaign on, all the while frittering away the surplus on those who need it least.

[Smallc]

Middle class families with children need money least of all? I had no idea.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not as much as single parents with low incomes.

[Smallc]

The help they already get had been shown to you time and again on this forum, so I won't bother going further with that. Harper bad is your general theme, and I don't expect you to deviate from that.

[On Guard for Thee]

The fact that it helps 15% of families in the country has been pointed out time and again and not only on this forum I'll deviate from your so called "Harper bad" when he gives me a reason to.

[On Guard for Thee]

How would your life drastically change with someone else in the PMO?

Mine likely wouldn't at all to speak of. That's the nice thing about stable countries don't you think?

[Argus]

The fact that it helps 15% of families in the country has been pointed out time and again and not only on this forum I'll deviate from your so called "Harper bad" when he gives me a reason to.

Seems to me we've had big political upheavals over gay marriage and that probably impacted about 1% or less of the population.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

I'm not sure why you are pretending that the federal government doesn't provide funds directed at child care, when it clearly does. (See gov't link above)

I'm not sure why you describe it as a burden on taxpayers when it clearly generates more than enough tax income to cover the initial investment.

Every province is heavily involved. The discussion of the need for universal child care is a national discussion.

.

FYI....your link is from 2007. Ottawa chips in to help the provinces on Child Care but expects the Provinces to fulfill their own funding obligations for Education. Here's how primary Education is funded in Ontario for example:

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION IS A PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

In 1997, the provincial government developed a funding formula for education. Before 1997, kindergarten to grade 12 education was paid for through a combination of provincial funding and funding from local property taxes. When education was funded through local property taxes and school boards were able to decide on tax rates for education, boards with a “richer” tax base (e.g. larger urban centres) had much more money to spend on education than boards with a very small tax base.

So again, I'll ask....why hasn't even one province chosen to provide "universal" daycare, similar to Quebec. I'll answer for you - it's because there is no money for another unionized monstrosity and it has been unpalatable for any province to raise taxes to support it....or do you have another reason?

Link: http://www.peopleforeducation.ca/faq/how-is-education-funded-in-ontario/

[Smallc]

The fact that it helps 15% of families in the country has been pointed out time and again and not only on this forum I'll deviate from your so called "Harper bad" when he gives me a reason to.

Policies have been enacted that help far fewer people. It's likely that this policy will provide some small benefit to every family with children.

[Mighty AC]

Ok but before we condemn.....how good were the fiddlers?

lol, fair enough. If the CPC hired the newfie, tap dancing, punk fiddlers from the Vancouver opening ceremonies they were worth a few million.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxZpUueDAvc&t=111m0s

[jacee]

FYI....your link is from 2007. Ottawa chips in to help the provinces on Child Care ...

So again, I'll ask....why hasn't even one province chosen to provide "universal" daycare, similar to Quebec. I'll answer for you - it's because there is no money for another unionized monstrosity and it has been unpalatable for any province to raise taxes to support it....or do you have another reason?

I'm not sure why. It's a nobrainer since it's an immediate tax revenue generator and pays dividends down the line in healthier, better educated kids.

Seems silly not to have universal affordable high quality child care, since the economics are good.

Some kind of elitist crap about poor kids are only 'entitled' to what their parents can afford perhaps?

Same arguments used against free public education a century or so ago, I expect.

.

.

[Hal 9000]

How much taxes do we put out and how much do we get back? I can't see any way that it is sustainable without the middle class lowering down to the lower class. The only thing I can see happening is the abuse of another social program.

[Keepitsimple]

Lots of debate about income equality, the rich and the poor, the 1%. When the takers far outnumber the makers - and the makers are made to look like bandits- it's the beginning of "killing the goose that laid the golden egg". Here are some figures that put things in perspective:

B.C. will be joining Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, which all introduced special, high income tax brackets for their wealthiest income earners, although the threshold income levels at which they begin to apply vary wildly. Ontarians earning more than $509,000 in 2013 face a combined federal/ provincial marginal tax rate of 49.5% while Quebecers who earn more than $100,000 and Nova Scotians who earn more than $150,000 currently pay tax at combined marginal tax rates of 50%.

This progressivity can help us understand why the top 1% of income earners paid a staggering 21.2% of the total federal and provincial taxes in 2010. The top 10% paid 54.8% of all taxes while the bottom 50% of Canadian income earners contributed 4% toward the collective personal tax bill.

Link: http://www.jamiegolombek.com/articledetail.php?article_id=1260

Edited November 16, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Moonbox]

Lots of debate about income equality, the rich and the poor, the 1%. When the takers far outnumber the makers - and the makers are made to look like bandits- it's the beginning of "killing the goose that laid the golden egg". Here are some figures that put things in perspective:

Well the idea is that the 1% make and control far more of the wealth than their actual individual contributions would fairly dictate. You don't need any figures to tell you the top 1% income earners aren't contributing 21% to the total economic output. I'm not sure what you thought you were proving with these numbers.