Is this true ?

[stubblejumper]

Is it true that the Libs. brought in legistlation to pay a dividend to everyone from any surplus ?

Is that prudent ?

[Canuck E Stan]

Must be an election coming up.

All taxpayers to get surplus cheque

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation was unimpressed with the plan, calling it a gimmick leading up to the next election.

"Smells fishy to me -- smells like election herring," said John Williamson, head of the federation.

"I think Canadian taxpayers would welcome any kind of rebate cheque from the federal government. But . . . it's not a real tax cut."

He said the more transparent way to proceed would be guaranteeing tax cuts that Canadians could count on every year.

Williamson cited an example from 2004-05, where private-sector forecasters predicted a $7 billion surplus as late as this summer.

But the government went on an end-of-year spending spree and wound up with a rare smaller-than-expected surplus of $1.6 billion.

That means taxpayers would have received nothing this year -- and would get nothing whenever the government chose to go on a late-year spending spree, Williamson said.

When the surpluses were enormous this plan wasn't considered,but when it's minimal it becomes a good way to buy the voters.The last time Martin gave us a tax break there wasn't enough to buy a coffee, and in the same cheque he increased CPP. I had more in my pay in the cheque before the tax break.

Don't hold your breathe.

[Toro]

Bush did the same thing. We got a nice $600 cheque as a "retroactive tax cut."

[Argus]

Is it true that the Libs. brought in legistlation to pay a dividend to everyone from any surplus ?

Is that prudent ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it's not prudent, not when we still have a whopping big debt. If they don't want to pay off the debt faster then they should lower tax rates. It's a lot cheaper not to collect the money than to collect it, process it, figure out how much over you are this year, then refund it.

[Argus]

Bush did the same thing.  We got a nice $600 cheque as a "retroactive tax cut."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good for you. I hope you thank your kids. They'll be paying for it the rest of their lives.

[err]

Is it true that the Libs. brought in legistlation to pay a dividend to everyone from any surplus ?

Is that prudent ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about sending some of that money for health care and education.. the things that got cut to make that surplus...... Instead of sending a cheque to "The Wealthy Banker's Wife"....

[August1991]

Bush did the same thing.  We got a nice $600 cheque as a "retroactive tax cut."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good for you. I hope you thank your kids. They'll be paying for it the rest of their lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Toro can invest the $600 and leave the investment proceeds to the kids. They'll be ahead of the game.

Bush did the same thing. We got a nice $600 cheque as a "retroactive tax cut."

Exactly. Bush cut taxes. The cheque was a one-off deal showing he meant business about the tax cut.

This Liberal cheque is pure gimmickry. If the Liberals were serious, they would cut taxes and return the money to Canadians on a permanent basis.

To me, this scheme shows that the Liberals are incapable of taking decisions and yet they feel obliged to do something.

And why has this suddenly come out now? I think Dingwall has hurt the Liberals badly in the one place they need support - Ontario. Like in an awkward conversation, this is a lame effort to change the subject.

[Bakunin]

Well they have to recycle the new 300millions surplus since they abolished the sponsorship program, they had to find another way to buy vote.

[Slavik44]

So how much money am I gonna get $1-$2....it remineds me of the time I jokingly tried to bribe me economics teacher for an A+ with twenty bucks, however I don't think the liberals realise what a joke this is, $133 bucks on average, obviously for some more for some less, so lucky me I can put 10 liters of gas in my car. now I am of the opinion that I should never turn down money, especailly my money, so I wont, but eh, if it can't buy a tank of gas, it won't give their campaign for a majority government any feul either.

[cybercoma]

Evidently everyone will get an equal share. What an insult to those who pay a higher tax rate. They collect the money from people in varying amounts, then they return it in equal amounts? Come on!

[shoop]

Evidently everyone will get an equal share.  What an insult to those who pay a higher tax rate.  They collect the money from people in varying amounts, then they return it in equal amounts?  Come on!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if that is the situation. I thought I read it would be an average of $133 depending on tax bracket. Either way it is a terrible idea. They are going to get attacked from all sides. The left will argue that the money would have been better spent on social issues, while the right will argue that the money would have been better used paying down the deficit.

This is yet another ploy that will explode in Martin's face. Sad, sad attempt to distract attention from Dingwall and Adscam.

[Riverwind]

This is yet another ploy that will explode in Martin's face. Sad, sad attempt to distract attention from Dingwall and Adscam.

I see no difference between what Martin is doing an what Klien did. I can't remember whether you criticized Klien for his 'prosperity bonuses', however, I sure you would not use words that Klien was using it as a 'sad attempt to distract from the shortcomings of his administration' and 'it would explode in his face'.

[fellowtraveller]

This is yet another ploy that will explode in Martin's face. Sad, sad attempt to distract attention from Dingwall and Adscam.

Not quite correct, since the Liberals will get away with both adscam and the latest Dingwall scandal and the upcoming Industry Canada mess.

This is an example of why they will get away with this and worse, the absurd moral relativism and rationalization of the numerous apologists in our country:

I see no difference between what Martin is doing an what Klien did. I can't remember whether you criticized Klien for his 'prosperity bonuses', however, I sure you did not claim that Klien was using it as a 'sad attempt to distract from the shortcomings of his administration'

If the author of that little gem refuses to see the differences between the two situations........... Worse, is the insult to all of us, the attempt to threadjack this into the old wheeze- 'yeah, we're bad but these guys are worse'. That schtick does not impress me anymore, not a bit.

[Riverwind]

This is an example of why they will get away with this and worse, the absurd moral relativism and rationalization of the numerous apologists in our country

There is an alternative. The Conservatives could ditch their socially conservative policies and some of the more extreme right wing policies (i.e. become Liberals with blue signs).

What some conservatives can't seem to figure out is the vast majority of Canadians do not want the policies advocated by the CPC and are forced to make a choice between the 'devil they know' and the 'devil they don't'.

If sponsorship never happened conservative support would most likely in the low 20% competing with the NDP. This implies that conservatives are really out of touch with want the majority of Canadians want and should not be surprised that Canadians are not willing to give them a blank check to govern just because the Liberals are 'bad'.

[Argus]

Bush did the same thing.  We got a nice $600 cheque as a "retroactive tax cut."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good for you. I hope you thank your kids. They'll be paying for it the rest of their lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Toro can invest the $600 and leave the investment proceeds to the kids. They'll be ahead of the game.

The continuing enormous US budgetary deficits combined with the lack of political or intestinal fortitude needed in doing something about their looming pension debt means his kids will see enormous taxes for fewer services.

Much in the way the baby boomers screwed us all by running up a huge debt, including their improperly funded Canada Pensions, and then stuck the rest of us with the big taxes to pay for them.

[Argus]

This is an example of why they will get away with this and worse, the absurd moral relativism and rationalization of the numerous apologists in our country

There is an alternative. The Conservatives could ditch their socially conservative policies and some of the more extreme right wing policies (i.e. become Liberals with blue signs).

What some conservatives can't seem to figure out is the vast majority of Canadians do not want the policies advocated by the CPC and are forced to make a choice between the 'devil they know' and the 'devil they don't'.

I hear Liberals talk like this all the time. I think it's because, as was explained by one of you last month, if you have social conservative views you're not a human being. So I guess, since you ignore the millions who do have socially conservative views and pretend they don't exist, it's easy to make statements claiming all Canadians are just like you.

The fact is that on any socially conservative policy you can actually point to - as opposed to the ones you'll make up and then attribute to the Tories - masses of Canadians share their views. In most cases the numbers are a little below or a little above half of Canadians. And when you discount the leftists who will NEVER vote Tory, no matter what they do, the majority of their voters and potential voters agree with them on most social policy issues. Extreme right? You can't point to a single "extreme right" wing issue, except that to you, apparently, anyone not a Liberal is "extreme right".

The biggest challenge facing the Tories is the sheer ignorance of most of the electorate. Vast numbers of them pay little attention to what is going on, and even most of those who do have this casual stupid cynicism which says that all parties are the same anyway - without realizing that if that comes to be the case the only people at fault will be them.

If sponsorship never happened conservative support would most likely in the low 20% competing with the NDP. This implies that conservatives are really out of touch with want the majority of Canadians want

Oh? In what way? Canadians want corrupt government? They want politicians who consistently lie to them? They want government with bad policies and incompetent leaders? This is what the Liberals are providing. So where are the Tories going wrong? Should Harper be knocking over corner stores instead of going to barbeques?

Oh, I know, because they aren't on side with you on the most colosally important issue ever to face mankind in this hemisphere: whether homosexuals should get married.

[kimmy]

I'm not particularly wild about Alberta handing out money when there are public expenditures that need more funding. I'm even less wild about the federal government doing it when aside from public expenditures that need more funding, they also have a huge accumulated debt.

-k

[Montgomery Burns]

But the government went on an end-of-year spending spree and wound up with a rare smaller-than-expected surplus of $1.6 billion [instead of $7 billion].

Thanks a lot, Paul.

You go on this year-end spending spree, then say that 1/3 of the surplus will go to social programs, 1/3 to debt reduction (good), and the final 1/3 a rebate.

Why spend 1/3 on social programs when you already blew $5.4 billion on a year-end spending spree? Why not 2/3 back to the taxpayer and 1/3 toward debt reduction? Or better yet,...lower our taxes...permanently. Oh right. We can't do that because the govt will lose revenue. The socialist way of thinking: there is a finite amount of revenue.

They ignore that the US govt took in $70 billion extra in revenue because tax cuts put more people at work and businesses who expanded and became more profitable, had to pay more in taxes.

This country taxes heavily. Yet PMPM announced "tax relief" of $16 for 2005--by raising the Personal Amount $100, even though everyone knows that the Personal Amount goes up every year anyway--it's indexed to inflation. Canada's liberal press refused to call out PMPM's on his farce of a description of "tax relief".

Canada already has nearly the lowest Personal Amount of all industrialized countries. It certainly doesn't help the poor. Far better to be poor in America.

[shoop]

I see no difference between what Martin is doing an what Klien did. I can't remember whether you criticized Klien for his 'prosperity bonuses', however, I sure you would not use words that Klien was using it as a 'sad attempt to distract from the shortcomings of his administration' and 'it would explode in his face'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yawn.

Hmm, I recommended Martin use the money to pay down the debt. Alberta has no debt.

I did criticize the spending and stated that the money would be better spent on infrastructure. I would much rather see that money spent on a high speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary.

Dingwall and Adscam are much bigger 'shortcomings' than anything Klein faces in his administration, nice effort trying to find something in Alberta though.

You can`t compare Klein to Martin because: Klein hasn't only gotten a minority in any election, hasn't presided over a scandal anywhere near the size of adscam and he isn't facing another election.

I'll give you credit sparhawk you are more reasonable, albeit equally as misguided as mirror was.

[Black Dog]

The fact is that on any socially conservative policy you can actually point to - as opposed to the ones you'll make up and then attribute to the Tories - masses of Canadians share their views. In most cases the numbers are a little below or a little above half of Canadians. And when you discount the leftists who will NEVER vote Tory, no matter what they do, the majority of their voters and potential voters agree with them on most social policy issues. Extreme right? You can't point to a single "extreme right" wing issue, except that to you, apparently, anyone not a Liberal is "extreme right".

I'm curious about something here. There is, really, one party in which social conservative views are represented. Now, based on your formulation of nearly 50 per cent of the electorate harbouring SoCon views, then the Tories should be guaranteed a minimum of, well, almost 50 per cent of the vote or aty leats close to that. Yet the SoCon party (be it Reform, Alliance or CPC) has never topped 30 per cent of the popular vote. If social issues are so impiortant to the huge numbers of socially conservative Canadians, why isn't that reflected in the election results or, uh, polls on Canadians' priorities?

[shoop]

I'm curious about something here. There is, really, one party in which social conservative views are represented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Far from true dog. There are a lot of social conservative Liberals - although the term fiscal conservative gets used quite a bit. How many Liberals voted against SSM for example?

[August1991]

Bush did the same thing.  We got a nice $600 cheque as a "retroactive tax cut."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good for you. I hope you thank your kids. They'll be paying for it the rest of their lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Toro can invest the $600 and leave the investment proceeds to the kids. They'll be ahead of the game.

The continuing enormous US budgetary deficits combined with the lack of political or intestinal fortitude needed in doing something about their looming pension debt means his kids will see enormous taxes for fewer services.

Much in the way the baby boomers screwed us all by running up a huge debt, including their improperly funded Canada Pensions, and then stuck the rest of us with the big taxes to pay for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, don't get me on to this subject again. In the 1930s, many people thought the government should run the economy. In the 1970s, many thought the government should fix prices. In the 2000s, many people think the government should not have debt.

So, let me "compromise" and say I don't care whether the government pays back its debts or cuts taxes, as long as it does not spend the money on hare-brained schemes.

I'm not particularly wild about Alberta handing out money when there are public expenditures that need more funding. I'm even less wild about the federal government doing it when aside from public expenditures that need more funding, they also have a huge accumulated debt.

What public expenditure could possibly be worthy when the government is willing to give hundreds of thousands to Dingwall. Allowing this government to spend more money on anything (what you call public expenditure, kimmy) is utter madness.

The Conservatives could ditch their socially conservative policies and some of the more extreme right wing policies (i.e. become Liberals with blue signs).

I largely agree with Argus' response to you, Sparhawk, but I'll add my own take. The continuing support for the Liberals and the difficulty of the Tories to cross 35% are manifestations of fundamental problems in Canadian federal politics. If it weren't social conservatism, Harper would be criticized for something else. Too many Ontario voters simply cannot bring themselves to voting for an Albertan. To do so would be an admission that the Canada they want to believe in does not exist.

I see no difference between what Martin is doing an what Klien did.

That's a good point. Klein's tenuous justification is that his cheque is a royalty payment caused by the (temporary) high price of oil. As we discussed in a separate thread, it would be better if he had simply stopped health premiums, for example.

----

The more I think about this, the more appalled I am. This crazy cheque scheme, and the current uncertainty around income trusts, are the kinds of ways an incompetent government can make a country poor. When politicians get involved with cheque schemes just before elections, everyone should know that they are desperate. I am sure that there are people in the Department of Finance in Ottawa who are rolling their eyes at this idea.

[Riverwind]

I largely agree with Argus' response to you, Sparhawk, but I'll add my own take.  The continuing support for the Liberals and the difficulty of the Tories to cross 35% are manifestations of fundamental problems in Canadian federal politics.  If it weren't social conservatism, Harper would be criticized for something else.  Too many Ontario voters simply cannot bring themselves to voting for an Albertan.  To do so would be an admission that the Canada they want to believe in does not exist.

Why won't Quebequers vote for Harper? I hear he speaks excellent French so language cannot be the reason. If any block of voters is prejudiced against outsiders it is Quebequers. Why do you constantly criticize the Ontario voter but let Quebec voters off the hook? From the perspective of many Canadians voting for a party whose only purpose is to prevent parliment from working displays an appalling level of ignorance and lack of ethics on the part of Quebequers.

[shoop]

Why won't Quebequers vote for Harper? I hear he speaks excellent French so language cannot be the reason. If any block of voters is prejudiced against outsiders it is Quebequers. Why do you constantly criticize the Ontario voter but let Quebec voters off the hook? From the perspective of many Canadians voting for a party whose only purpose is to prevent parliment from working displays an appalling level of ignorance and lack of ethics on the part of Quebequers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Two reasons. Social conservatism and the nationalist/separatist divide. Nationalists vote Liberal, Separatists vote BQ that's the way it is.

Quebeckers are different than the rest of Canada. You will never get to them by appealing to logic. A solid third choice, like Mario Dumont's ADQ (?) on the national scene in Quebec would be great. I believe he endorsed Harper last election...

[Riverwind]

Two reasons. Social conservatism and the nationalist/separatist divide. Nationalists vote Liberal, Separatists vote BQ that's the way it is.

Ok. So why doesn't the CPC just pack up and go home because Ontario does not want right wing social conservatives in power? A rhetorical question of course but it is a fact that many Canadians are suspicious of the CPC and it does not make a difference that these suspicions may be unfounded.

I have tried to be constructive and suggest ways that I think the CPC could address the suspicious and have received nothing but comments denouncing the ignorant ontario voter. I can guarantee that approach will not win any votes in Ontario.