Canadians Solidly Behind Justin Trudeau

[ReeferMadness]

We may end up farther away from those obligations if the result is a slower economy.

Reality bites.

Can you offer the tiniest shred of evidence that lowering the GST had any significant effect on accelerating the economy? And I won't accept Harper's endless claims to that effect. #faithbasedeconomics

[On Guard for Thee]

It certainly had a significant effect on the surplus Paul Martin handed him.

[Wilber]

They don't deserve a standard of living that costs society as a whole. They generally have more money than working people. Why we now allow them to split it with their spouse is beyond me.

My pension doesn't provide me with an after tax income anywhere near the income I had before I retired, even with income splitting. It is also not indexed so it will remain the same until we both die. Other than COLA increases to CPP and OAS, I haven't had a raise in ten years and if I live as long as my father, won't for another 28 years. I make up the difference with income from investments I have made during my working life.

[Wilber]

Can you offer the tiniest shred of evidence that lowering the GST had any significant effect on accelerating the economy? And I won't accept Harper's endless claims to that effect. #faithbasedeconomics

What is a significant effect? Can you offer the tiniest shred of evidence that reducing the amount people have to spend won't have an effect on the economy?

[Wilber]

It certainly had a significant effect on the surplus Paul Martin handed him.

The first two years the Conservatives ran a surplus and actually used some of it to pay down debt. Then came the fall of 2008 and beyond. We know just how anti deficit the Liberals and NDP were in 2009 and 2010.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Wilber

[On Guard for Thee]

The first two years the Conservatives ran a surplus and actually used some of it to pay down debt. Then came the fall of 2008 and beyond. We know just how anti deficit the Liberals and NDP were in 2009 and 2010.

And then they ratcheted up the debt by about 150 billion. Trying to suck up by cutting a stable source of revenue i.e. the GST caused a lot of it.

[segnosaur]

What I do not understand is why those who do not want Muslims here are also critical of Trudeau and the Liberals for not getting them here fast enough.

What is it that you want?

First of all, your assumption that those who are critical of the Liberals "did not want muslims here" may be wrong. Many people had no problems with bringing refugees here; we were just critical of the timing.

Here's the reason I am critical.... Trudeau promised during the election that he would bring in 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015. Not 2016. However, there were many people who felt that was unrealistic. The NDP were going to bring in 10s of thousands, but had a more realistic schedule. Even many aid workers thought the Liberal plans were unfeasible.

So, there were 2 possibilities;

- The Liberals were lying. They realized that they could not do what they said, but cynically promised they could do it, in an attempt to get votes over a hot-button issue (hey! look at us! We're more caring than even the NDP!) And if they are going to lie so blatantly about the refugees (when the lie would be uncovered so quickly) then what other promises of theirs were cynical lies?

- The Liberals were incompetent. They honestly thought they could do it, and ignored any and all people who said otherwise (including many aid workers.) And if they don't understand the logistical problems of bringing in that many refugees (and won't listen to those who do understand the problem), then how much are they going to screw up the country as a whole?

[Accountability Now]

The first two years the Conservatives ran a surplus and actually used some of it to pay down debt. Then came the fall of 2008 and beyond. We know just how anti deficit the Liberals and NDP were in 2009 and 2010.

Seriously....don't waste your time. He doesn't recognize a surplus unless it came from a Liberal

[Wilber]

And then they ratcheted up the debt by about 150 billion. Trying to suck up by cutting a stable source of revenue i.e. the GST caused a lot of it.

Well we'll see how much the present bunch ratchets up the debt. Any source of revenue depends on someones ability (and willingness) to pay.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well we'll see how much the present bunch ratchets up the debt. Any source of revenue depends on someones ability (and willingness) to pay.

Things like GST are stable sources of income for the government. Smart fiscal managers know to look elsewhere to adjust.

[Wilber]

Things like GST are stable sources of income for the government. Smart fiscal managers know to look elsewhere to adjust.

GST relies on consumption and income will vary accordingly.

[On Guard for Thee]

First of all, your assumption that those who are critical of the Liberals "did not want muslims here" may be wrong. Many people had no problems with bringing refugees here; we were just critical of the timing.

Here's the reason I am critical.... Trudeau promised during the election that he would bring in 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015. Not 2016. However, there were many people who felt that was unrealistic. The NDP were going to bring in 10s of thousands, but had a more realistic schedule. Even many aid workers thought the Liberal plans were unfeasible.

So, there were 2 possibilities;

- The Liberals were lying. They realized that they could not do what they said, but cynically promised they could do it, in an attempt to get votes over a hot-button issue (hey! look at us! We're more caring than even the NDP!) And if they are going to lie so blatantly about the refugees (when the lie would be uncovered so quickly) then what other promises of theirs were cynical lies?

- The Liberals were incompetent. They honestly thought they could do it, and ignored any and all people who said otherwise (including many aid workers.) And if they don't understand the logistical problems of bringing in that many refugees (and won't listen to those who do understand the problem), then how much are they going to screw up the country as a whole?

Or the Liberals are trying to kick start a plan the Harper gov. gave lip service to to try and look like good guys, but did little to actually effect the plan.

[On Guard for Thee]

GST relies on consumption and income will vary accordingly.

Consumption is less variable than many other sources of tax revenue. The deficits Harper rang up speak to that.

[eyeball]

Well we'll see how much the present bunch ratchets up the debt. Any source of revenue depends on someones ability (and willingness) to pay.

I'd gladly double the GST and even more happily take a cut in income tax.

What would happen if people were allowed to opt for one mode of taxation over another?

[-1=e^ipi]

Debt to income ratios are at a record high. Canadian consumers have little capacity to be bled more. Increase consumption taxes and they will just consume less.

That's sort of the point. You want them to consume proportionately less and save more. This increases the physical capital stock, which results in greater long term economic output.

Any thinking tribunal would see it as a tariff and you are never going to see the US impose a 25% sales tax in order to support Canada

They might do it as simply a policy that makes sense from the US perspective regardless of Canada.

Again, less money going back into the economy.

Screw your Keynesian multiplier nonsense. Solow model suggests we should increase consumption taxes. Empirical studies that look at the marginal cost of taxation suggest that consumption has a significantly lower marginal cost of taxation than income or corporate taxes.

I suspect the move toward renewable s will continue to generate economic growth

And your claim is based upon.........

[segnosaur]

Can you offer the tiniest shred of evidence that lowering the GST had any significant effect on accelerating the economy? And I won't accept Harper's endless claims to that effect. #faithbasedeconomics

Most economists believe tax cuts (in general) help stimulate the economy. Furthermore, tax cuts for people with a lower/middle income provide more benefit than cuts for high level earners.

Consumption taxes (such as the GST) are regressive taxes... they have a greater impact on those with lower incomes. So cutting the GST gives a higher portion of savings to those in lower tax brackets than an across-the-board tax cut. (And cutting taxes for those people provides the most benefit to the economy.)

Furthermore, cutting consumption taxes encourages more spending (which would provide the needed economic stimulation); cutting things like income taxes might result in more money being diverted to savings.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_2irlrss5UC27YXi

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429140608.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0596-e.html

[On Guard for Thee]

And your claim is based upon.........

A little reading for you.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/20505.pdf

[-1=e^ipi]

Furthermore, tax cuts for people with a lower/middle income provide more benefit than cuts for high level earners.

Lots of claims. Little evidence to back it up.

they have a greater impact on those with lower incomes.

For the most part they are proportional (neither progressive or regressive). And with exemptions on essentials, they are arguably progressive.

cutting things like income taxes might result in more money being diverted to savings.

Which is what you want...

A little reading for you.

Wow, a bunch of propaganda. That is clearly convincing. *sarcasm*

[Smallc]

Or, they will be like the Chretien government, who started with a solid majority, but steadily lost seats in successive elections

I believe it actually went down, then up, then down, then out.

[Smallc]

Consumption taxes (such as the GST) are regressive taxes

That's why there's a GST rebate. Canada's GST isn't the least bit regressive.

[On Guard for Thee]

Wow, a bunch of propaganda. That is clearly convincing. *sarcasm*

I know, everything that disagrees with your position must be propaganda. Nothing new there.

[ReeferMadness]

What is a significant effect? Can you offer the tiniest shred of evidence that reducing the amount people have to spend won't have an effect on the economy?

So, that would be a no then.

[Argus]

It's not about respecting people's feelings, it's about not alienating liberal muslims. One of the most effective ways to fight against Wahhabism is to have people argue and convince muslims that it is not the correct version of islam.

If someone is a liberal Muslim why would they be alienated by our condemning the excesses of conservative Islam?

As, for example, a liberal Muslim being outraged that we would deride the wearing of the niqab which no 'liberal' Muslim would think about wearing?

[Argus]

That cut took something like $14B out of the government coffers. It is in such small quantities (usually pennies) that it doesn't really contribute to GDP growth the same way that other tax breaks do.

Are you aware you have to pay the GST when you purchase a new car or a newly built home?

[Argus]

And then they ratcheted up the debt by about 150 billion. Trying to suck up by cutting a stable source of revenue i.e. the GST caused a lot of it.

One can think of the GST cut as an economic incentive. It's one of the major tools a government uses to get people out there buying things and spurring the economy.