Fellow Conservatives,whats more important to you?

[Big Blue Machine]

Fellow Conservatives, what is more important to you.

With the Liberals making up their budget for 2005, what would you like to see more: tax cuts or more money to the military? You can choose one. Not both.

I think we don't need any tax cuts yet. We need more money into the military. So DART can go to Asia and help. So we don't use 40 year old Sea Kings. So we don't buy subs that catch on fire.

[Newfie Canadian]

If you don't mind my answering BBM (I don't consider myself a Conserative), I'll take the money for the military.

They need serious money for equipment and recruiting.

I can see the pros for the tax cuts, but my vote still goes for the men and women of the Forces.

[I miss Reagan]

Well I think it's possible for both. Although it seems counter-intuitive, it's proven that tax cuts generate more government revenue. Canada would be far more productive and money would be availible for better military funding. There is so much waste in Canadian government as it is that there would be plenty of money for both if we had a conservative government.

[Shakeyhands]

good one...

I'll throw my thoughts in too.

I, and this scares me, agree with IMR, I think that there is room to do both. We could accomplish this by raising taxes on the highincome earners, thereby providing tax releif to those who really need it, the lower and middle bracket earners.

Likewise, by canceling funding to projects that don't/won't require the funding (read: bad ad programs and weaponization of space programs) we can boost spending on the military.

The other option might be to have Ottawa handle the resource revenues instead of the provinces.

However, I don't believe we need a Conservative Gov't to do any of that...

[I miss Reagan]

No need to agree with me so fast. I don't think we need to tax the rich. I would prefer to provide incentives for the wealth creators, educated and the rich to stay in Canada by keeping taxes competitive for them. Think of all the jobs we'd have and tax revenue if we could make it profitable for companies like CSL to stay in Canada. Instead we choose to throw the baby out with the bath water based on social ideolgy. A little off topic.

[Pateris]

Tax the rich... too bad that doesn't work because their simply aren't enough really rich people to pay the tab.

I ask the former NDP leader Alexa McDonough one time what she considered "rich" after she made a speech about "raising taxes on the rich". Her answer?

"Anyone who makes over $50,000 a year should be more than happy to pay more taxes".

Guess where they got that number? In order to have enough taxpayers who are "rich" to raise the necessary revenue - you need to set the bar low.

I agree that funding the military better and lower taxes are possible.

I would say shut down DIAND, most of HRDC, all the regional development departments, and sell the CBC.

And then I'd raise the personal exemption on income tax from $8500 to $20000 - because people making less than $20000 a year shouldn't have to pay taxes.

[theloniusfleabag]

I have seen a couple of ideas that I like. Pateris' idea of raising the exemption bar to 20,000...terrific, and would create employment and wealth. As 'I miss Reagan' points out, although he has it backward, the 'wealth creators' should be given tax breaks. Only it is not the 'rich' that create wealth, it is the poor! (well, at least the low to middle income earners) The economy depends on spending, and that means 'disposable income'. Studies show that the 'highest disposable income ratio' exists in 'poorer' (or less valued/desired neighborhoods.) To keep the economy going, that 'disposable income' must be spent, and dispose of it they do!

The 'rich' are 'collectors' of such wealth, and the hope is that they re-distribute it, rather than saving it in a mattress or investing in the Mongo.

I think Canada would do well by having a 'militia' style national military, which has worked well for other countries, and cost far less.

[Big Blue Machine]

I said ONE CHOICE NOT BOTH.

Tax cuts are good, but we don't need huge ones all the time. Small ones every once in a while is good. I don't like the Bush style tax cuts for only the rich. Tax cuts should be for everyone.

Money for the military is even better because if we need to lend support to the UN, we can. We don't have to sit around because we don't have the equipment to get us there. We could have a militia type military.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Although it seems counter-intuitive, it's proven that tax cuts generate more government revenue.

That's not proven at all. It's a neo-con article of faith.

[Black Dog]

Indeed. Look at the United States which is contending with massive revenue shortfalls in the wake of Bush's tax cuts.

In fact, the United States is a shining example of why everything IMR stated is wrong. It's a country with the largest military budget in the world with an aggressive policy towards cutting taxes for the so-called "wealth creators", yet neither fact has produced much benefit for the population at large. Why? Because military spending goes straight into expensive R&D and is sucked up by corporate profits, which are in turn enjoyed by shareholders. That money tends to stagnate: unlike mid and low income people, high income people don't spend as much money on a day to day basis, so their profits don't stimulate the real economy.

[Big Blue Machine]

Black Dog, I said fellow CONSERVATIVES, not any other party. We don't need other people from other parties to talk about us.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Black Dog, I said fellow CONSERVATIVES, not any other party. We don't need other people from other parties to talk about us

There you go, rock solid evidence that um.....well...the world can only be saved by like minded people patting each other on the back. Please don't intrude with logic. Or answers, least of all correct ones.

[Hugo]

Indeed. Look at the United States which is contending with massive revenue shortfalls in the wake of Bush's tax cuts.

This might be a point if it were true. The fact, however, is that Bush's tax cuts are an illusion.

The Bush administration has increased expenditures while, on paper, decreasing income. For government as for individuals, this isn't possible in any long-term way. What Bush is doing is borrowing money, which is taxation hidden in the future. Eventually, taxes will have to pay back that debt ("eventually" being the operative word, since the federal government still has debts on the books from the Civil War). However, this borrowing does have a noticeable effect in the here and now. As the US government borrows more and more and the increasing size of the government slows the economy, investors lose faith in American ability to repay loans. This is visible in the decline of the US dollar: it reflects a foreign distrust for American investments and a preference for Euros instead.

The second thing to be done is to inflate the currency, i.e. to have the Federal Reserve print more money. The Fed will happily do this, as they have for every President since FDR. This, too, is a tax that is not only hidden in the future, but a tax levied in an unpredictable way. Inflation causes economic crashes and slumps, but because of human involvement in the economy it is not possible to predict when these crashes or slumps will occur, how deep they will be, how much they will affect people and so on. Inflation is essentially a loan of money with an uncertain rate of interest and an uncertain maturity date.

However, the effects of inflation are also possible to see. They cause a rise in prices because the value of currency is dropping against commodities (which means more money must be exchanged for a set amount of any commodity - higher prices). The indices of consumer prices in the USA are indeed rising, so it isn't hard to see what Bush is actually doing, and it isn't cutting taxes.

[August1991]

However, this borrowing does have a noticeable effect in the here and now. As the US government borrows more and more and the increasing size of the government slows the economy, investors lose faith in American ability to repay loans.

It is not the borrowing that is the problem. It is the government's purchases of goods and services from the US economy that pose a problem.

These are productive resources that too often could be better used elsewhere.

Whether the government budget is in deficit or surplus is irrelevant. The size of government purchases is the relevant question.

[maplesyrup]

Bring in tax cuts and you will NOT have government resouces to intervene in the case of Cody who was mauled to death by dogs. Is that what you want - I don't! I want our defenceless children protected in society and we need to raise taxes not lower them to do that.

Children have rights!!!

That is the difference between Conservatives and the rest of society. The rest of society cares more about kids than having tax cuts.

/119

[willy]

Maplesyrup,

I care about being able to pay for my kids, education, health care ect. What worries me is that people like yourself believe taxes are limitless. I don't want to be left hoping someone else is still able to make enough money to afford to pay for my kids and everyone else’s. For this thing to work called society we need some self reliance and the more the better for those who have no choice but to rely on help (disabled, disaster).

As for the military vs. tax cuts.

We need to have a competitive tax system so we can grow our economy; this is separate from the military. The government has certain roles to play and the military is one of them, and they need adequate funding. It is hard to argue that they are getting it now. We have an 8 billion dollar surplus this year, going forward we have room for tax cuts and military spending. Conservatives do argue for smaller government but I for one still acknowledge the roles government needs to play and this does take taxes.

[Hugo]

It is not the borrowing that is the problem.

Not entirely true. Borrowing is not a problem as long as the ability to repay is not a problem. At this time, the ability of the US to repay is being called into question. This is evidenced by the declining US dollar, showing that foreign investors increasingly believe, with the current state of the US economy, the government would be unable to repay debt.

This in and of itself is not a problem, much as when an individual reaches their credit limit it is not a problem. It becomes a problem when a substantial part of income comes from borrowed money and the source of that borrowing dries up, as is beginning to happen to the US. It also becomes a problem when creditors begin to panic and call in loans early, fearing that if they leave it too late, there won't be enough money to repay everybody, and they don't want to be left high and dry. Then a run starts on US investments, and the US economy is really in trouble.

It is the government's purchases of goods and services from the US economy that pose a problem.

Yes. Government spending is by definition malinvestment since it cannot be aligned according to consumer demand. Therefore, all government spending represents too much opportunity cost, or as Bastiat would say, that which is not seen.

I want our defenceless children protected in society and we need to raise taxes not lower them to do that.

I'm curious as to why you think that only government can protect children. I suppose you think that parents, communities, fraternal societies, charities and so forth never do anything for children? Did all children die before the welfare state?

The rest of society cares more about kids than having tax cuts.

Massive taxes make it a lot harder to have children. Look at the declining birth rate and higher ages of motherhood in the Nordic countries. A high-tax welfare state is a vicious attack upon the family and upon children.

[maplesyrup]

We need high taxes to protect the children we already have in our society. All worthwhile studies have shown that high taxes lead to less poverty and a better environment for children. Canada's Northern sisters have shown the way!

[Big Blue Machine]

THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE THREAD ONLY!. No other parties allowed.

[Shakeyhands]

Why limit it to those who think they are Conservatives BBM? Sounds just like the US GOP... any other opinions are Unpatriotic, is that it?

[maplesyrup]

THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE THREAD ONLY!. No other parties allowed.

Are you in favour of lowering taxes therby depriving our children of protection? Do you really think Cody should be left with his Mom?

[caesar]

With the Liberals making up their budget for 2005, what would you like to see more: tax cuts or more money to the military? You can choose one. Not both.

Don't bother; the choice is not yours to make. The Conservatives LOST the election The NDP or the BLOC will have more influence than do the Harper Conservatives. Get a leader that doesn't act and talk like a nut case and we may listen. One that talks like a Canadian not a Bush butt kisser,

[caesar]

THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE THREAD ONLY!. No other parties allowed.

This is a democratic style forum, last time I looked and we will comment all we want. Besides many of us have no blind loyalty to any party but judge them on a day by day; speech by speech, or their actions.

[Slavik44]

Why limit it to those who think they are Conservatives BBM?  Sounds just like  the US GOP... any other opinions are Unpatriotic, is that it? 

No, I doubt he is trying to exclude people but the question asked what would conservatives prefer. If you liek you could simply ask him to make a questiont hat ask's what does everyone prefer, but the question was specificly to conservatives. This is nothing new it has been done before on this forum by people normally as a way to survey a certain group. Can a NDP'er speak for a conservative for that matter does an NDP'er want to speak for a conservative. I think what BBM wanted was on topic answers there is an answer A and an answer B, mos tpeople are answering everythign but those two.

Now to answer the question of the thread, while I am not much of an ultra conservative and would prefer to see the money spent, but elsewhere I would choose tax cuts over millitary spending. To be more specific I would like the tax cuts to go towards small buisnesses, as I belive they are more likely to expand if given more profit than would a large company. Another option I like was already pointed out, raisising the tax exemption bar (which is a tax cut) as this money would be redistributed into the economy by the consumer.

[Big Blue Machine]

Thank you, Slavik 44. The question was indeed intended for conservatives. Conservatvies have these issues in their hearts the most out of all three parties. I just wanted to see how fellow Conservatvies would answer the question differently and why they did.