Are the Liberals really going to Tax Workplace Benefits?

Smallc · January 30, 2017

1 minute ago, TimG said:

The public service unions would be the worst hit by such an attack so there are only two possibilities:

1) The Libs decide to pass on this tax;

2) The Libs increase public servant wages to compensate for the tax while everyone in the private sector get screwed;

If they pick 2) we need to dispense with the notion that this is about fairness. It a pointless tax grab driven by ideolgy that will not net much revenue because of cost of buying off the public servant unions.

Nice straw man....

Smallc · January 30, 2017

1 minute ago, Boges said:

It's sleazy that JT and Co never mentioned this in the election campaign, but again they were mum on Carbon pricing too.

This reminds me of when the Conservatives taxes income trusts - things change.

Boges · January 30, 2017

Just now, Smallc said:

This reminds me of when the Conservatives taxes income trusts - things change.

Yeah, posters on this site were PO'd, weren't they? And that move effected far fewer people.

TimG · January 30, 2017

6 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Nice straw man....

Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

My point is valid. If the Libs care about fairness they will turn the public service unions in to enemies. If they public servant unions don't turn on the LIbs it is because they were bought off which means the Libs don't care about fairness.

So it is extremely unlikely that any proposal produced by this government will have any connections with fairness and will only screw those poor sods working in private industry that are needed to pay the taxes that fund public servant benefits.

Edited January 30, 2017 by TimG

Smallc · January 30, 2017

Just now, TimG said:

Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

You made up an argument and then went on to use that as proof of your point. That's exactly what it means.

Smallc · January 30, 2017

1 minute ago, Boges said:

Yeah, posters on this site were PO'd, weren't they? And that move effected far fewer people.

And people on this website were wrong then. They would be wrong now.

TimG · January 30, 2017

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

You made up an argument and then went on to use that as proof of your point. That's exactly what it means.

I simply pointed out the political realities of the move. I take you refusal to address my points as a tacit agreement that I am likely correct.

Edited January 30, 2017 by TimG

blueblood · January 30, 2017

8 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Governments need to fix crumbling highways, bridges, waterworks, buildings, and treatment systems. This government has also approved many private projects.

Which suggests that maybe the govt can't afford child tax credits, overseas spending, vast numbers of civil servants.

8 minutes ago, Smallc said:

It's been proven that money in the hands of the less well off will be spent, benefiting the economy. If you feel that EI shouldn't be there to help carry Alberta through it's transition, I guess that's up to you.

Less well off people pay taxes along with well off. Why do you think that people who succeed should be punished? Subsidizing poverty isn't good for the economy either.

8 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That's a nice soundbite, but its often far more difficult. We've seen the results of spending cuts - a system in which veterans can't even get their benefit cheques because of a backlog in cases.

The results of spending cuts also result in balanced budgets, economic growth, and a steady economic environment that promotes growth.

8 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Personal taxes have little to do with industry. Business taxes here are far more competitive than in the US.

They were more competitive... given how fast trump is moving on his agenda, the party is over in Canada.

Trudeau is trying to get blood from a stone trying to pay for his seat at the u.n and his special interest groups.

Smallc · January 30, 2017

Just now, TimG said:

I simply pointed out the political realities of the move. I take you refusal to address my points as a tacit agreement that I likely correct.

I think you're reaching, considering that we don't even know what will happen or if anything will happen. I also think your argument was nonsense.

Topaz · January 30, 2017

We better start really cleaning our own finances because its going to hurt big time IF they can't get rid of their mess by election time.

dialamah · January 30, 2017

Just now, blueblood said:

Subsidizing poverty isn't good for the economy either.

What is "subsidizing poverty" exactly? It can't mean social programs because social programs remove poverty, at least partly. It seems to me that removing social programs would be 'subsidizing poverty'?

TimG · January 30, 2017

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

I think you're reaching, considering that we don't even know what will happen or if anything will happen. I also think your argument was nonsense.

Why? Because you believe public servant unions care about the greater good and will meekly accept a large income cut for their members?

Smallc · January 30, 2017

Just now, blueblood said:

Which suggests that maybe the govt can't afford child tax credits, overseas spending, vast numbers of civil servants.

Except that nothing suggests that. I would say we couldn't afford a GST cut, but I'm sure you disagree with that.

Just now, blueblood said:

Less well off people pay taxes along with well off. Why do you think that people who succeed should be punished? Subsidizing poverty isn't good for the economy either.

People are punished for success - they have more money than people who don't succeed. Subsidizing poverty, as you put it (keeping people alive, in other words) has been a job of government for quite some time now.

1 minute ago, blueblood said:

The results of spending cuts also result in balanced budgets, economic growth, and a steady economic environment that promotes growth.

There is actually no evidence that spending cuts result in economic growth. There is also no evidence that deficits like the ones that exist now are detrimental to a steady economic environment.

2 minutes ago, blueblood said:

They were more competitive... given how fast trump is moving on his agenda, the party is over in Canada.

No - they are more competitive - nothing has changed. Haven't you heard? Canada is the world's newest tax haven.

Smallc · January 30, 2017

1 minute ago, Topaz said:

We better start really cleaning our own finances because its going to hurt big time IF they can't get rid of their mess by election time.

Our finances are 'clean'.

Smallc · January 30, 2017

Just now, TimG said:

Why? Because you believe public servant unions care about the greater good and will meekly accept a large income cut for their members?

No, because I think you're projecting and predicting without any actual evidence.

blueblood · January 30, 2017

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

What is "subsidizing poverty" exactly? It can't mean social programs because social programs remove poverty, at least partly. It seems to me that removing social programs would be 'subsidizing poverty'?

A job does far more to remove partly, social programs perpetuate it

TimG · January 30, 2017

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

No, because I think you're projecting and predicting without any actual evidence.

As if you never make predictions of future events based on the past actions of the actors. I provided a logical argument based on past behavior of PSAC which you obviously cannot refute so instead of trying you try to pretend it does not exist.

Edited January 30, 2017 by TimG

Smallc · January 30, 2017

Just now, blueblood said:

A job does far more to remove partly, social programs perpetuate it

Social programs exist because we don't live in the dark ages. While I'd agree that there is abuse of social programs, that isn't a stain against the programs, but rather the abusers. We as a country have decided that we don't want children living in abject poverty, or people freezing in the streets. I support that, even if I have to pay more in taxes.

Smallc · January 30, 2017

Just now, TimG said:

As if you never make predictions of future events based on the past actions of the actors. I provided a logical argument which you obviously cannot refute so instead of trying you try to pretend it does not exist.

I don't see the logic in the argument. Also, since it's a made up scenario, there's nothing for me to refute. It hasn't happened and there's no evidence that it's going to happen.

dialamah · January 30, 2017

4 minutes ago, blueblood said:

A job does far more to remove partly, social programs perpetuate it

I think there's a balance too; people who have enough money to eat well, dress well and transport themselves around are much more likely to feel well enough to look for a job, and to get hired. Employers aren't going to jump to hire someone who looks tired, sick or like they can't dress themselves properly; nor are they going to hire someone who can't show up because they don't have enough money for transportation. I think rates that provide more than poverty living, and also supporting job training/job search will do more to get people working, than does keeping rates low and assuming people are too lazy or don't want to work.

blueblood · January 30, 2017

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Except that nothing suggests that. I would say we couldn't afford a GST cut, but I'm sure you disagree with that.

But we were able to afford the gst cut. Balanced budgets at the bookend of harpers tenure indicate so.

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

People are punished for success - they have more money than people who don't succeed. Subsidizing poverty, as you put it (keeping people alive, in other words) has been a job of government for quite some time now.

It's not keeping people Alive, it's keeping them poor by taking incentive to work away. Boo boo some people have more money than others. Some people are more articulate, more athletic, etc.

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

There is actually no evidence that spending cuts result in economic growth. There is also no evidence that deficits like the ones that exist now are detrimental to a steady economic environment.

Irish economic recovery since 2013. They cut to the bone and lead the world in growth.

its detrimental as debt has to be paid. If I'm taxed I would rather pay for roads, cops, tax cuts than interest in debt.

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

No - they are more competitive - nothing has changed. Haven't you heard? Canada is the world's newest tax haven.

No, that belongs to Ireland. Their economy has grown faster than ours. However the party is over as the USA is planning on tax cuts and given their track record at keeping campaign promises, a massive tax cut is coming.

sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling joe Canada isn't going to fix our anemic economy.

blueblood · January 30, 2017

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think there's a balance too; people who have enough money to eat well, dress well and transport themselves around are much more likely to feel well enough to look for a job, and to get hired. Employers aren't going to jump to hire someone who looks tired, sick or like they can't dress themselves properly; nor are they going to hire someone who can't show up because they don't have enough money for transportation. I think rates that provide more than poverty living, and also supporting job training/job search will do more to get people working, than does keeping rates low and assuming people are too lazy or don't want to work.

More people will look for jobs when the government spigot is turned off. Manual labour employees will hire pretty much anyone. It's pretty bad when a lot of foreigners fleeing poverty are able to find work when a lot of Canadians can't be bothered doing.

Smallc · January 30, 2017

1 minute ago, blueblood said:

But we were able to afford the gst cut. Balanced budgets at the bookend of harpers tenure indicate so.

That's very revisionist history. Harper's deficits were larger than Trudeau's thus far, and he had an economic climate that wasn't all that much worse. Consider this - without a GST cut we'd have very little deficit right now.

3 minutes ago, blueblood said:

It's not keeping people Alive, it's keeping them poor by taking incentive to work away. Boo boo some people have more money than others. Some people are more articulate, more athletic, etc.

And those people still have more money. That's the benefit of having a job - doing better - I think we're off topic here, a bit.

4 minutes ago, blueblood said:

Irish economic recovery since 2013. They cut to the bone and lead the world in growth.

You keep trotting that out. The truth is, they had the biggest hole to get out of.

5 minutes ago, blueblood said:

No, that belongs to Ireland. Their economy has grown faster than ours. However the party is over as the USA is planning on tax cuts and given their track record at keeping campaign promises, a massive tax cut is coming.

sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling joe Canada isn't going to fix our anemic economy.

No - Canada is the world's newest tax haven:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/panama-papers-canada-tax-haven-1.3950552

blueblood · January 30, 2017

Just now, Smallc said:

That's very revisionist history. Harper's deficits were larger than Trudeau's thus far, and he had an economic climate that wasn't all that much worse. Consider this - without a GST cut we'd have very little deficit right now.

Harpers deficits were caused by the coalition gun to his head. He took a deficit vs a much larger one. Not only that Harper put the budget back into balance. Trudeau doesn't even want to do that.

with the gst cut, products that we buy are cheaper.

Just now, Smallc said:

And those people still have more money. That's the benefit of having a job - doing better - I think we're off topic here, a bit.

People shouldn't be punished for doing fine. You might be fine with having the government put a gun to successful people's heads to punish their success, I'm not.