On Guard for Thee Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 There was no deficit pre 2008 financial crisis. Oh yes there was, to the tune of about 6 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Are not future parliaments free to rewrite such legislation....granted at a political cost. So, you agree then, that this legislation too, is absolutely meaningless. Odd, Trudeau and Mulcair are both promising to raise taxes and spending.... Are they promising to run deficits? How far would you like to move the goal post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Oh yes there was, to the tune of about 6 billion. The first deficit was in the 2008 - 2009 fiscal year, most if not all of it post parliamentary crisis when the Conservatives were forced into deficit to retain power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 You praise 'necessary' deficits that the Conservatives didn't originally plan for. Sure, of course hindsight is 20/20, I don't think any Government in early 2008 could have predicted how bad the 2008 crisis was going to be.......as such, I'd question if the Government wouldn't have gone into deficit even without stimulus spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 So, you agree then, that this legislation too, is absolutely meaningless. Reread my first post in this thread. Are they promising to run deficits? How far would you like to move the goal post? Trudeau is and Mulcair's platform is lacking in detail, well promising billions in new spending..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Sure, of course hindsight is 20/20, I don't think any Government in early 2008 could have predicted how bad the 2008 crisis was going to be.......as such, I'd question if the Government wouldn't have gone into deficit even without stimulus spending. That's very possible. It shows that there are unforeseen circumstances all of the time. It shows that laws that tie the hands of parliament are ill conceived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Trudeau is and Mulcair's platform is lacking in detail, well promising billions in new spending..... 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. Mulcair has promised to run a total of 0 deficits over his term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 That's very possible. It shows that there are unforeseen circumstances all of the time. It shows that laws that tie the hands of parliament are ill conceived. Good thing these laws don't tie any hands in an economic crisis then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 The first deficit was in the 2008 - 2009 fiscal year, most if not all of it post parliamentary crisis when the Conservatives were forced into deficit to retain power. That's right, prior to the meltdown so they can't blame that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 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. Mulcair has promised to run a total of 0 deficits over his term. Trudeau hasn't demonstrated how he will return to a balanced budget...........if Mulcair is promising zero deficits, he will have to raise taxes and cut programs to fund even half of his promises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Good thing these laws don't tie any hands in an economic crisis then. There are many unforeseen circumstances that may require tax changes. That may mean hiking some taxes whilst lowering others. That may mean temporarily raising taxes (the Manitoba NDP raised the PST by 1% for 10 years, devoting the entire amount to infrastructure renewal and expansion, and I fully support that) or simply balancing them differently. This law stands in the way of the supremacy of parliament and is meaningless. It's probably unconstitutional too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 That's right, prior to the meltdown so they can't blame that. The meltdown was already well underway. The BBC even reported on the Canadian election preceding it as the first recession election of the G8 countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 (edited) Trudeau hasn't demonstrated how he will return to a balanced budget 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. ...........if Mulcair is promising zero deficits, he will have to raise taxes and cut programs to fund even half of his promises. He has already said that he will raise taxes. Getting rid of income splitting won't hurt my feelings. Edited September 27, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 There are many unforeseen circumstances that may require tax changes. That may mean hiking some taxes whilst lowering others. That may mean temporarily raising taxes (the Manitoba NDP raised the PST by 1% for 10 years, devoting the entire amount to infrastructure renewal and expansion, and I fully support that) or simply balancing them differently. This law stands in the way of the supremacy of parliament and is meaningless. It's probably unconstitutional too. How does it stand in the way of supremacy of Parliament? Likewise, how is it unconstitutional? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 How does it stand in the way of supremacy of Parliament? Likewise, how is it unconstitutional? It's an attempt to tie the hands of future parliaments to the decision of the next one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 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. What record? When did the Liberal Governments of the 90s/00s propose similar "investments"? Likewise: The promise of a balanced budget could easily be jeopardized if any of those measures should fail to bring in the revenue the Liberals are banking on — and there are still more spending promises to come. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau still has to announce about $7.5 billion in spending promises for the next four years that could touch on what the party plans to do for health care spending and climate change. He has already said that he will raise taxes. Getting rid of income splitting won't hurt my feelings. Sure, and said increases that he's made public, still won't cover his promises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 It's an attempt to tie the hands of future parliaments to the decision of the next one. Have we fallen into the Matrix here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 What record? When did the Liberal Governments of the 90s/00s propose similar "investments"? Likewise: There are always risks. Sure, and said increases that he's made public, still won't cover his promises. I don't see where you're getting that from. He's proposed revenue vehicles worth over $7B a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 There are always risks. With other people's money and money that is bored......some might call that a gamble. I don't see where you're getting that from. He's proposed revenue vehicles worth over $7B a year. Simple, his promises and proposed revenue increases don't jive..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 It's an attempt to tie the hands of future parliaments to the decision of the next one. Only a feeble attempt. Harper knows he can and will break this law as easily as his fixed term law without reproach. He just hopes someone takes his bait and suggests they will repeal such a law. Hopefully no one will fall for that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Only a feeble attempt. Harper knows he can and will break this law as easily as his fixed term law without reproach. He just hopes someone takes his bait and suggests they will repeal such a law. Hopefully no one will fall for that one. I would hope that at least Mulcair is smarter than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 I would hope that at least Mulcair is smarter than that. I reckon it's obvious enough even Ray Charles could see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 ..and a lower debt to gdp ratio, as has also been pointed out. Guess it only matters to ppl who understand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Clearly they understand that Harper is playing pointless and dangerous games. There are times in the future where taxes may in fact need to be raised And nothing prevents a future government from doing so. This is more along the lines of a political statement than anything else. Meanwhile, Mulcair and Trudeau sucking up to immigrants by promising to bring in more old people will cost us billions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Wasn't illegal when he did it, still isn't illegal today. Despite Flaherty promising to get tough on schemes like this, despite stamping his feet about it and setting up his little Snitch Line and making some cosmetic changes, more money than ever is going to overseas tax havens, and the one thing that would really help-- hiring more investigators-- is apparently not in the cards. -k Didn't Paul Martin crack down on those overseas tax havens? Oh wait... yes, now I remember, he left the ones he and his companies were using alone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.