On Guard for Thee Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 ...and send the bill to your grandkids! That's the Joe Oliver theory. What do I do, I don't have any grandkids? Quote
Bryan Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 ...and send the bill to your grandkids! They are reducing the bills for my grandkids as well. It's the opposition who want to institutionalize higher program spending, higher taxes, and introduce new social programs. Quote
Evening Star Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Why is it any different than a party that promises to expand daycare or raise the minimum wage? Isn't that vote buying or does that term only apply when conservatives do it? I don't see how raising the minimum wage could be seen as vote-buying, actually, unless you mean that this is buying votes from government employees who make a minimum wage. Requiring employers, most of whom are presumably not the government, to pay a higher minimum wage does not in and of itself represent a government expenditure. Promising to do something in the future is also not really buying votes. Buying votes usually implies to me that a party is actually spending government money on specific demographic groups who are expected to develop a loyalty to that party and give their votes in return. Edited July 23, 2015 by Evening Star Quote
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) I thought these guys were supposed to be "fiscally responsible". Blowing 3 billion dollars on a stunt is pretty much the opposite of "fiscally responsible". -k I think the surplus was certainly real. They worked hard to get it, planned on it, and then planned on carrying out the promises they had made in the last election. Then at the last minute the world oil prices collapsed, throwing their plans into disarray. The truth of that is that despite the three billion kid giveaway, plus the income splitting, plus the TFSA addition plus those infrastructure projects all across the country, the PBA is still saying they're only down by 1 billion. So without the oil fall they'd presumably still be up by several billion after offering up these new programs. I'm not surprised they didn't suddenly reverse course and decide to cancel them in an election year. I'm fairly sure they can make up that extra billion, not that's hugely important. Heck, aren't people already lambasting them for not deciding to launch an incentive program now that the oil industry is in trouble? Well, think of this as just that, spending billions on infrastructure and putting it into people's pockets while the Canadian dollar goes down so they have to spend it at home. Edited July 24, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wilber Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 People can decide for themselves whether this is a good thing, what bugs me is the amount of taxpayer money that is going into non stop advertising to hype it just before an election. Every party cries foul about this when they are in opposition and do exactly the same thing if they gain power. The Conservatives have proved to be as bad as the Liberals ever were. The way politicians park their principles as soon as they get elected is enough to make you puke. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 I don't see how raising the minimum wage could be seen as vote-buying, actually, unless you mean that this is buying votes from government employees who make a minimum wage. Requiring employers, most of whom are presumably not the government, to pay a higher minimum wage does not in and of itself represent a government expenditure. It's vote buying in that it's offering up an expensive program for lower income people. Oh, the money doesn't come from the government? So what? The government has no money, you know. Every dollar it gives out has to be taken from someone else. In the case of raising the minimum wage they're taking it from higher income people because those businesses will have to increase prices, which means everyone pays more for all the little stuff. Groceries cost more because the people stocking shelves make more. Coffee costs more because barristas make more. Getting your lawn cut or your sidewalk plowed costs more. In the case of the Liberals, they've promised a more direct vote buying scheme where they will take more money out of those earning higher wages and then generously gift them to those making, not low wages, but middle class wages (up to $89,000). I'm not sure what else you could call all this other than buying popularity by taking spending other people's money. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WWWTT Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 Conservative or CrazyLeftistSpend NDP or CrazyCoalitionSpend Liberal. LOL! Where's "Crazy spend, give corporations your money conservatives"? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
On Guard for Thee Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 I think the surplus was certainly real. They worked hard to get it, planned on it, and then planned on carrying out the promises they had made in the last election. Then at the last minute the world oil prices collapsed, throwing their plans into disarray. The truth of that is that despite the three billion kid giveaway, plus the income splitting, plus the TFSA addition plus those infrastructure projects all across the country, the PBA is still saying they're only down by 1 billion. So without the oil fall they'd presumably still be up by several billion after offering up these new programs. I'm not surprised they didn't suddenly reverse course and decide to cancel them in an election year. I'm fairly sure they can make up that extra billion, not that's hugely important. Heck, aren't people already lambasting them for not deciding to launch an incentive program now that the oil industry is in trouble? Well, think of this as just that, spending billions on infrastructure and putting it into people's pockets while the Canadian dollar goes down so they have to spend it at home. Worked hard to get it? Planned it? Ha ha. All they did was sell off a few billion worth of government owned stocks and raid the rainy day and EI funds to try and suggest a budget surplus. Now of course as we see, their "planning" failed. Quote
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 People can decide for themselves whether this is a good thing, what bugs me is the amount of taxpayer money that is going into non stop advertising to hype it just before an election. Every party cries foul about this when they are in opposition and do exactly the same thing if they gain power. The Conservatives have proved to be as bad as the Liberals ever were. The way politicians park their principles as soon as they get elected is enough to make you puke. They have certainly shown themselves to be flawed, to be venal politicians who will do just about anything to get re-elected. In other words, they've shown themselves to be just like the governments which came before them. But I still say the level of taxpayer money they're spending on their own enrichment or popularity is lower than it was under Chretien and Mulroney and Trudeau. Lots less. Every government project back then was decided by what swing riding it could get votes in, or what generous benefactor would be rewarded by giving them a huge, fat contract. Hell, if you live in Ottawa you only have to look at the skyline of Gatineau across the river, where all those large government buildings were a gift to Robert Campeau, the generous Liberal party cash cow and developer. He made out like a bandit on those damn buildings. And let's not forget Jean Chretien's multiple gifts to Shawinigan, including government buildings full of people whose jobs were moved their from Ottawa, museums, fountains, roads, airports etc. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 Worked hard to get it? Planned it? Ha ha. All they did was sell off a few billion worth of government owned stocks and raid the rainy day and EI funds to try and suggest a budget surplus. Now of course as we see, their "planning" failed. So you mean all those cutbacks and program cuts so many on the Left complained about over the last some years were illusory? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 So you mean all those cutbacks and program cuts so many on the Left complained about over the last some years were illusory? Illusory or not, they didn't work. Quote
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 Illusory or not, they didn't work. Of course they worked. As I said, they managed to cut back spending sufficiently to implement the new infrastructure program, the child credit, the TFSA and income splitting, and they're still, despite the huge and unexpected fall in oil revenue, down only about a billion according to the PBA. And if the US economy continues to improve ours should be pulled along with it and government revenue will increase. As long as oil doesn't continue its collapse, of course... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 Of course they worked. As I said, they managed to cut back spending sufficiently to implement the new infrastructure program, the child credit, the TFSA and income splitting, and they're still, despite the huge and unexpected fall in oil revenue, down only about a billion according to the PBA. And if the US economy continues to improve ours should be pulled along with it and government revenue will increase. As long as oil doesn't continue its collapse, of course... The child credit checks are all basically pilfered money, the income splitting hasn't even begun to take effect, but your grandkids will take care of it according to Oliver. TFSA is also a gift to the rich in yet another vote buying effort. It's getting pathetic. Quote
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 The child credit checks are all basically pilfered money, the income splitting hasn't even begun to take effect, but your grandkids will take care of it according to Oliver. TFSA is also a gift to the rich in yet another vote buying effort. It's getting pathetic. What's getting pathetic is your simplistic parroting of party dogma. Rich people have zero interest in TFSAs. That's chump change to a rich guy. Pilfered money? As in stolen? Are you turning into a libertarian extremist? I expect you'll now come out and tell us that we should stop taxing people to pay for schools, health care and pensions too, right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 What's getting pathetic is your simplistic parroting of party dogma. Rich people have zero interest in TFSAs. That's chump change to a rich guy. Pilfered money? As in stolen? Are you turning into a libertarian extremist? I expect you'll now come out and tell us that we should stop taxing people to pay for schools, health care and pensions too, right? "Pilfered money" as in robbing Peter to pay Paul. TFSA's are very popular to people with the money to take part. The rest of your post is too nonsensical to bother with. Quote
Evening Star Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) It's vote buying in that it's offering up an expensive program for lower income people. Oh, the money doesn't come from the government? So what? The government has no money, you know. Every dollar it gives out has to be taken from someone else. In the case of raising the minimum wage they're taking it from higher income people because those businesses will have to increase prices, which means everyone pays more for all the little stuff. Groceries cost more because the people stocking shelves make more. Coffee costs more because barristas make more. Getting your lawn cut or your sidewalk plowed costs more. By this definition, you could classify virtually any action by the government that benefits anybody as 'vote buying'. In the case of the Liberals, they've promised a more direct vote buying scheme where they will take more money out of those earning higher wages and then generously gift them to those making, not low wages, but middle class wages (up to $89,000). I'm not sure what else you could call all this other than buying popularity by taking spending other people's money. It's actually worse than this. They want to reduce the marginal tax rate for the portion of earned income that is greater than $44, 701 up to $89, 401 from 22% to 20.5%. Thus, anyone who makes more than $44, 701 will pay a lower tax rate on this portion of their income. Someone who makes $200,000 would save $44,700*1.5%=$670.50 compared to the current tax regime. Since it is only the portion of one's income that is in excess of $200k that would be taxed at the higher rate of 33% that the LPC wants to introduce, this person would not actually be subject to the higher tax rate and would only end up paying more if they made over approx. $202k. Basically, this plan means that anyone who earns less than $44,701/yr (i.e. 2/3 of the population) will see no change and anyone who makes between $44,701 and $202k will see a tax cut. I probably hate this plan more than you do. Edited July 24, 2015 by Evening Star Quote
poochy Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 Luckily for those who were happy to receive the UCCB, the NDP is planning on continuing to bribe you with your own money if they are elected, even enhancing it, and then there's the national daycare program, they will be surprised however when the people who voted for them refuse to accept these bribes. They are far too principled for that. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 I do not understand why this payout should cause people to vote for Harper. He has already given you back a bunch of your own money through this UCCB so what would voting for him and his party in the coming election - because you owe him something? The money has been sent. If he loses he can't get it back. You won't have to pay it back - so why vote for him? Hope you're not in sales, buddy. You seem to have no idea about human nature. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 What's getting pathetic is your simplistic parroting of party dogma. Rich people have zero interest in TFSAs. That's chump change to a rich guy. I've deleted the part of your post that is blithering nonsense and am focusing on the part that is just too simple to be real. I suppose, to be fair, evaluating your specious statement has to depend on the definition of "rich". If you mean billionaires, then perhaps TFSA's don't mean much. I'm sure their accountants still maximize the hell out of them, though. However, deliberately or not, the Harperites have created a ticking political time bomb with TFSA's. People who can afford to maximize their contributions and sit on them for an extended period of time will one day be living completely outside of the income tax system. When this happens, it will not sit well with people with low incomes who are paying taxes on them and there will be demands to do something. I can remember a similar situation in years gone past and the result was the alternative minimum tax. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 But hey they're the CPC so I know you have to defend whatever those scumbags do right? Shhh!!! The faithful need to believe that Harper is the chosen one who will deliver them from government malfeasance. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 So, it's bad if ordinary, poor people receive money from the State. Yet, that's what Leftists want: the State as Robin Hood. ===== My conclusion: this has nothing to do with Robin Hood, rich or poor. In Canada, Harper is a WASP, a boss, an anglo, a white guy, first born: Team A. This is simply Team A vs Team B. So that's what it's down to. This bunch that rode into town on a promise to clean up Ottawa are now just team A as opposed to team B? It's worse than that and you know it. Harper and his cronies have dragged politics to a whole new low in this country. Maybe you should check the video clip of del Mastro in leg irons for a glimpse of what your "A team" looks like. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 "Pilfered money" as in robbing Peter to pay Paul. TFSA's are very popular to people with the money to take part. The rest of your post is too nonsensical to bother with. Aren't you in favour of robbing Argus to pay On Guard for Thee? That's Liberal party policy, as I understand it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 By this definition, you could classify virtually any action by the government that benefits anybody as 'vote buying'. You could, unless it is in aid of a clear goal in a recognizable framework of policy. Ie, the Tories have long stated they want to help families, and it ought to be a national goal to aid in the raising of children and to encourage families to have children, so the tories could claim that their scheme is in aid of this. By contrast the Liberals sudden desire to milk the better off in order to give the money to the well off is kind of suspicious. As for raising minimum wages. What is the overall objective here? Raising minimum wages by a substantive amount will inevitably move up the line and raise all salaries. I mean, if you have some skill now and earn $15hr, and minimum wage gets raised to $15hr you're going to need to get a big salary bump yourself. Thus all wages rise and thus all prices rise since employers will pass the additional costs along. So who really benefits? You earn more but everything you buy costs more. I can see this harming the economy in terms of foreign imports and exports. I don't see how it helps. So why do it except to get votes? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 Aren't you in favour of robbing Argus to pay On Guard for Thee? That's Liberal party policy, as I understand it. Making even less sense now! Quote
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 I suppose, to be fair, evaluating your specious statement has to depend on the definition of "rich". If you mean billionaires, then perhaps TFSA's don't mean much. They don't mean ANYTHING. As to how I define 'rich', I think my definition is pretty much the common one. Do you have servants, a chauffeur driven limo? Do you collect Porsches as a hobby and live in a 5,000-10,000 square foot home? There are some fairly basic signs of being 'rich' we all can recognize. However, deliberately or not, the Harperites have created a ticking political time bomb with TFSA's. People who can afford to maximize their contributions and sit on them for an extended period of time will one day be living completely outside of the income tax system. Drivel. First off, the money that goes into these TFSAs is what's left over AFTER income has been taxed. Duh! Second, once it's withdrawn and spent, you get taxed again through HST. How is this so terrible? When this happens, it will not sit well with people with low incomes who are paying taxes on them People with low incomes don't PAY taxes! The bottom third of income earners pay no income tax! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
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.