Read My Lips: NO NEW TAXES

[Argus]

But apparently, there is unlimited money to go after charities.

As someone who used to work at CRA and who was a part of the regular meetings of the inter-branch group which looked at major fraud I can tell you that fraud involving charities is widespread and costs the government billions every year.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

What is your opinion of the coalition government that David Cameron actually led for years in the UK?

Find me a politician that doesn't lie and I'll dedicate a shrine to him in my den and burn incense every day.

[Argus]

I don't blame them for their deficits, and they shouldn't either.

For the most part, I don't either. However, as you will have observed, the opposition parties all do, this despite how vociferously in support of deficit financing and economic incentives they were a few short years ago. You don't call that hypocritical? You don't think Mulcair and Trudeau are being hypocrites in their constant insults towards Harper for having deficits, in their constant suggestions that the Tories were economic incompetents because for the deficits they ran?

This is a harmless promise which costs us nothing and is basically a symbol, a statement to Canadians, that they will not run future deficit except at great need. This law will not prevent deficits being run. It will simply add a little more cost to the political capital lost in doing so since the government of the day will first have to rescind the law.

[Argus]

Many forget that much of the deficit spending came as a response to the coalition threat that the Conservatives faced. The 2008 economic update still showed a surplus for every year after that. I actually believe that it would have been true without the spending that was forced (which I completely support).

And yet Tom Mulcair is, at almost every speech, condemning the Tories for the deficit spending his own party demanded. But that's not hypocrisy, right?

[Argus]

Trudeau has promised to run deficits totalling $25B and has promised to end them by year 4 of his term. In the eyes of the public and economists, considering that the spending is aimed at infrastructure renewal, that is forgivable and sound.

We're spending $40 billion a year to service that debt. When interest rates return to normal that will jump to $80 billion. It will go even higher as the debt is added to, and when, not if interest rates rise higher still.

[Argus]

He did exactly that today. Given the fiscal record of the Liberals and the people sitting at the table reliving the information (including a former chief economist of RBC), there's little reason to doubt that.

Riiiiight. As a for instance, they will save $3 billion a year through a review of unnecessary government spending.

Uhm... hate to tell them this but the Tories have already done two of those to slash the civil service and cut programs. If anyone thinks there is any easy money to be found, like pocket change under the couch cushions, they're in for a hell of a disappointment. The only way to cut that kind of money is to cut more deeply into programs that Canadians are already complaining about being cut. I used to work at CRA. Tried to call CRA during tax season? They're damned hard to get hold of compared to years past due to all the customer service agents who have been let go.

[kimmy]

So the problem is what? Since 2013, the rules encompassing taxable income gained from foreign investment have been further defined and clarified ......

So given the lack of any demonstrable effect, I think it's fair to say that the much-ballyhooed changes were just window dressing, and Flaherty's huffing and puffing about tax avoidance in 2013 (and the Snitch Line! don't forget the Snitch Line!) were just for show.

You feel it wrong for Canadians to invest outside of Canada? What of foreigners that invest in Canada?

I feel it's rather hilarious to describe sending billions of dollars to places like Bermuda to finance a "business" with 1 employee that operates out of a broom closet as "investing". For your "investment" you've bought a Bermuda mailbox and hired a local mook who opens the mailbox, puts the envelopes into other envelopes addressed to Ireland or Holland, licks the stamp, puts the envelopes back in the mailbox, and goes home and drinks rum out of a coconut for the rest of the day. "Investment" my ass.

-k

[SpankyMcFarland]

We're spending $40 billion a year to service that debt. When interest rates return to normal that will jump to $80 billion. It will go even higher as the debt is added to, and when, not if interest rates rise higher still.

So which party did most in our recent history to reduce federal debt? Are you willing to give credit where it is due?

[Argus]

So which party did most in our recent history to reduce federal debt? Are you willing to give credit where it is due?

I'll give them some credit, as a party, but then again they created the debt in the first place, as a party. Justin Trudeau's father built it up, and then left it to Mulroney, so that double digit interest rates hamstrung his government and made the debt bloat.

And the main reason they were able to make those debt payments was Chretien regarded the big, yearly surpluses as his own personal war chest, to be used in the future when and if the divided opposition presented a real challenge.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Argus

[Smallc]

And yet Tom Mulcair is, at almost every speech, condemning the Tories for the deficit spending his own party demanded. But that's not hypocrisy, right?

Of course it is, and I've said as much more than once.

[ReeferMadness]

As someone who used to work at CRA and who was a part of the regular meetings of the inter-branch group which looked at major fraud I can tell you that fraud involving charities is widespread and costs the government billions every year.

But it wasn't fraud that Harper was targeting. It was charities educating the public. Harper has never exactly been a fan of information. Or science.

And it's interesting that the flow of money into offshore tax havens is still going gangbusters as Harper is cracking down on charities. I guess it's all about priorities. Harper doesn't really care about collecting taxes because he doesn't think there are any proper roles for government except to send people to war or send people to prison.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I'll give them some credit, as a party, but then again they created the debt in the first place, as a party. Justin Trudeau's father built it up, and then left it to Mulroney, so that double digit interest rates hamstrung his government and made the debt bloat.

And the main reason they were able to make those debt payments was Chretien regarded the big, yearly surpluses as his own personal war chest, to be used in the future when and if the divided opposition presented a real challenge.

Well, I guess that is better than nothing. It's a pity you are not able to give credit where it is due. Edited September 27, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

But it wasn't fraud that Harper was targeting. It was charities educating the public.

It was 'charities' which did not qualify to BE charities under the existing tax code. Some of them might have been enemies of the government. Others were apolitical. You just saw no coverage of the apolitical ones.

And it's interesting that the flow of money into offshore tax havens is still going gangbusters as Harper is cracking down on charities. I guess it's all about priorities.

No, mostly it's about low hanging fruit. It's time-consuming and expensive going after rich people and their accountants and lawyers. Cutting the auditors doing so was one of the first things CRA did when its budget was cut.

[Argus]

Well, I guess that is better than nothing. It's a pity you are not able to give credit where it is due.

Like I said, they BUILT the debt. If it weren't for their utter irresponsibility under Trudeau we wouldn't owe more than a fraction of what we do now. You want me to swoon in admiration because a political weasel like Chretien didn't want to commit money to anything when he didn't feel he needed the political benefits?

Edited September 27, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

Like I said, they BUILT the debt. If it weren't for their utter irresponsibility under Trudeau we wouldn't owe more than a fraction of what we do now. You want me to swoon in admiration because a political weasel like Chretien didn't want to commit money to anything when he didn't feel he needed the political benefits?

So I guess you just sweep the 150 billion Harper added under the rug, is that it?

[Argus]

So I guess you just sweep the 150 billion Harper added under the rug, is that it?

No, but I do recognize the times, and that the opposition wanted more. I also recognize that if we hadn't had the amount of debt we were servicing he wouldn't have had to borrow nearly as much and would have been back in balance much sooner.

[ReeferMadness]

So I guess you just sweep the 150 billion Harper added under the rug, is that it?

Not to mention the hundreds of billions under Mulroney?

[On Guard for Thee]

No, but I do recognize the times, and that the opposition wanted more. I also recognize that if we hadn't had the amount of debt we were servicing he wouldn't have had to borrow nearly as much and would have been back in balance much sooner.

Harper has enjoyed some of the lowest debt servicing costs in a long time, and still he managed to turn a surplus into a deficit and added more debt than his predecessors.

[ReeferMadness]

It was 'charities' which did not qualify to BE charities under the existing tax code. Some of them might have been enemies of the government. Others were apolitical. You just saw no coverage of the apolitical ones.

If any of Harper's buddies were targeted, you can bet they would have made a big deal of it. So, I assume there were none.

No, mostly it's about low hanging fruit. It's time-consuming and expensive going after rich people and their accountants and lawyers. Cutting the auditors doing so was one of the first things CRA did when its budget was cut.

What crap-ola. If the government were serious about it, they would change the laws to make it less easy for these people to avoid paying tax. They've had no compunction inserting clauses to cut environmental laws and increase the power of police in 800 page omnibus bills.

If they didn't go after offshare tax havens, it's because they didn't care to. And the most obvious reason they didn't care to is that the people who cut them thousand dollar cheques are using those offshore tax havens.

[Derek 2.0]

So given the lack of any demonstrable effect, I think it's fair to say that the much-ballyhooed changes were just window dressing, and Flaherty's huffing and puffing about tax avoidance in 2013 (and the Snitch Line! don't forget the Snitch Line!) were just for show.

Inversely, has there been any indication that said changes haven't had an effect? I know from a personal example, the rules encompassing foreign trusts have been strengthened, so now any distributions from said trust fund are considered dividends taxed at a higher rate post 2013.

I feel it's rather hilarious to describe sending billions of dollars to places like Bermuda to finance a "business" with 1 employee that operates out of a broom closet as "investing". For your "investment" you've bought a Bermuda mailbox and hired a local mook who opens the mailbox, puts the envelopes into other envelopes addressed to Ireland or Holland, licks the stamp, puts the envelopes back in the mailbox, and goes home and drinks rum out of a coconut for the rest of the day. "Investment" my ass.

-k

A rather simplistic view on foreign investment, as any worthwhile investment doesn’t see funds sit static.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Like I said, they BUILT the debt. If it weren't for their utter irresponsibility under Trudeau we wouldn't owe more than a fraction of what we do now. You want me to swoon in admiration because a political weasel like Chretien didn't want to commit money to anything when he didn't feel he needed the political benefits?

Pierre Trudeau built the debt and Jean Chrétien sorted it out. Mulroney failed to reduce it, yes? You talk about parties as if they are unchanging monoliths. Is Harper responsible for Mulroney's failure as well or does the change of the nameplate absolve him?

Edited September 27, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

Harper has enjoyed some of the lowest debt servicing costs in a long time, and still he managed to turn a surplus into a deficit and added more debt than his predecessors.

And yet even under those low debt service rates we still spend $40 billion every year out of the budget to pay interest on our debt.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Pierre Trudeau built the debt and Jean Chrétien sorted it out. Mulroney failed to reduce it, yes? You talk about parties as if they are unchanging monoliths.

I was asked about the party. Trudeau built the debt and left it to Mulroney, where it exploded because of double digit interest rates and stagflation. And I can't help but note that as soon as the Alliance and PCs merged and their poll numbers started to rise Chretien and then Martin began to turn the taps on and pour money out on the eager electorate. So how much do i credit them with showing discipline when there was no political cost to it?

And btw, if you look at this. Chretien added $113.8 billion to the debt before getting any surpluses. The total amount of the surpluses in the following years? $66.5 billion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/

Edited September 27, 2015 by Argus

[SpankyMcFarland]

I was asked about the party. Trudeau built the debt and left it to Mulroney, where it exploded because of double digit interest rates and stagflation. And I can't help but note that as soon as the Alliance and PCs merged and their poll numbers started to rise Chretien and then Martin began to turn the taps on and pour money out on the eager electorate. So how much do i credit them with showing discipline when there was no political cost to it?

Mulroney should have done more to rein in the debt, yes?

[Derek 2.0]

Mulroney should have done more to rein in the debt, yes?

He did, outside of servicing the debt left by Trudeau, the Mulroney Governments did run a balanced operating budget, his failure was not bringing in the GST earlier in his second mandate.