Jump to content

Would You Support a Tax Cut?


Guest ProudConservative

I think we should lower our taxes by  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. what precent?

    • 10% overall
      0
    • 20% overall
      0
    • 30% overall
      1
    • 40% overall
      0
    • 50% overall
      0
    • 60% overall
      0
    • 70% overall
      1

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 02/06/2020 at 02:00 PM

Recommended Posts

Guest ProudConservative

Lets Say that Canada had no debt, and we could agreed to lower our taxes, What precentage should our taxes be lowered by? How far could we lower taxes, without sacrificing our core values, like the right to an education, infrastructure, and safe communities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ProudConservative said:

Lets Say that Canada had no debt, and we could agreed to lower our taxes, What precentage should our taxes be lowered by? How far could we lower taxes, without sacrificing our core values, like the right to an education, infrastructure, and safe communities?

Putting a specific percentage number is difficult, as few people have the time or knowledge to go though each line item of a 300 some odd billion dollar budget. Though I most certainly agree we could get the equivalent( if not better) services at less cost, i feel that the amount of tax we pay is the wrong way to look at the problem. How the money is spent is. When i was younger and still lived paycheck to paycheck and was forced to budget i evaluated what i needed to spend to assure my basic needs were met and went from there, not immediately say where can i cut. This allowed me to figure out the real monthly costs for necessities, this is of course a micro example but I feel it would also apply in the macro 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t mind increasing spending for subways, high speed rail, and LRT’s, but there would have to be a dedicated tax for it that can’t go into a slush fund to pay for anything else.  Also, the tax has to be divided into two pieces, one for capital and one for operating expenses, so that once said project is constructed, the capital portion is removed.  Really this should be carved out of existing taxes such as the gas tax.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

Lets Say that Canada had no debt, and we could agreed to lower our taxes, What precentage should our taxes be lowered by? How far could we lower taxes, without sacrificing our core values, like the right to an education, infrastructure, and safe communities?

There's no point to this as we have an enormous debt and will have throughout your and my lifetime. I also think that too many Canadians have come to think of the government as their mom, there to solve all their problems and issues. Whatever is going wrong, they want "Mom" to solve it, regardless of whether that particular thing is even remotely related to what the government is supposed to be doing. The latest nonsense about affordable housing being one example, as the federal government has zip all to do with housing affordability or the rules, regulations and fees the provinces and municipalities impose which CAUSE the problem in the first place.

There are things government should do and things they should not. Government should build bridges and roads and highways and ports and airports. Government should not be involved in subsidizing or paying for art or entertainment of any kind, be it ballet, opera, theater, orchestras, writing, sculptures, paintings or public broadcasting. Government should provide the framework for an economy to flourish. It should not, in most cases, subsidize industries or businesses which are not otherwise economically viable. Nor should it regulate housing except very basically, as in not allowing a cement factory to be built in a residential neighbourhood, nor should govenrment build housing. Government should maintain relationships with foreign governments. It should not give them money. Government should provide a legal structure that is as simple, efficient, effective and easily understood as possible. Government should not enact myriad laws trying to get people to do things they don't want to do nor stop them from doing what they DO want without demonstrated necessity which usually involves harm to others.

Government should, in most cases, shut its fat face and stop bothering everyone, and regard itself as the people's servant, not their master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want a 70% cut in earned income from doing actual work, and a massive increase in tax on speculative gain.   But:  what I also want to see is a 70% reduction in government spending, as well as constitutional prohibition on deficit spending.   If you want to make idiotic promises and gifts to try to buy votes, you need to pay them during YOUR term of office.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ProudConservative

I voted for 30%, because... I don't want to end up with American style health care, and ghettos do to neglected communities. I would say that the biggest reason why were in massive amounts of debt, is due to the overhiring in the public sector... When you have government giving out grants to stupid research projects, that money could of been used to support a tax break, and fix our infrastructure.

I'm not a cheap person, who want's to see police make $40 000 a year instead of $60000, I just only want essential frontline workers hired, and not the useless people in the economy... that we don't need.

Socialism will teach you, that everyone deserves a government job. That we can't trust the private sector to be nice to their employees, so will have the government just create jobs out of thin air. What I think we need to do... is regulate the private sector, so the private sector ends up hiring more people with less skill and disabilities.

We can't just have the winner takes all mentality.... Where corporations can post jobs on 100 website, and filter through hundreds of applicants... This gaurentees that people who are struggling will never get an entry level position.

So I would creat a new tax policy.... Where companies... that fail to create entry level possitions are forced to pay a tax hike.... over companies that create more entry level positions, and job opportunies for people with less education.

The whole premise is to eliminate the need for disability assistance payed by taxes, and instead give offset the taxbreak to thouse companies who pull more weight in hiring.

So I'n a way I support a social safety net... I just want the private sector pulling more weight. The last thing i'll support is free money, or a gurentted basic insome.... becase it rob's people of their dignity, and create over dependency... instead of providing a pathway towards a career.

You also end up destorying more jobs with the Yang style gaurenteed basic income, because you will have to put massive amount of taxes on all coorporations to pay for it. You could grind the economy to a hault. Then you end up with more crime, and social alientation. I think guarenteed basic income is a terrible idea.

Edited by ProudConservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I want a 70% cut in earned income from doing actual work, and a massive increase in tax on speculative gain.   But:  what I also want to see is a 70% reduction in government spending, as well as constitutional prohibition on deficit spending.   If you want to make idiotic promises and gifts to try to buy votes, you need to pay them during YOUR term of office.

I agree with fairly strict rules on deficit spending.  Governments don’t know how to prioritize spending and make hard choices within the constraints of a budget, which is basically mismanagement of taxpayers’ money. It’s one thing in a time of crisis, but to raise debt during periods of growth is irresponsible.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ProudConservative
46 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree with fairly strict rules on deficit spending.  Governments don’t know how to prioritize spending and make hard choices within the constraints of a budget, which is basically mismanagement of taxpayers’ money. It’s one thing in a time of crisis, but to raise debt during periods of growth is irresponsible.  

The best way to get out of debt, would be to fire all the non-essential workers in the public sector.... and hope the private sector bails them out with job offers. Tear up our old treaties, and stop giving natives free money, inless the agree to work 9-5... like everyone else. No more trying to appease natives... like American's try and appease Israel.

Relocate all northern reserves, bring these people to the city, or cut off public funding if they refuse to move. Canada can no longer afford to give tax exemptions to natives, and our settler treaties should be made invalid... since no living person agreed to the terms.

Lets not forget Alberta.... start treating them with respect and build national infrasturure protects, to provide jobs and revenue. For once, can the rest of Canada be thanking Alberta for their great contributions to the Canadian economy? Can we treat them like a province instead of a colony? Can the dips@hit professors, in the communist universities be grateful... that alberta helps provide affordable natural gas, so they can heat their homes in the winter?

Also Canada might consider spending more on the military... With the American's 23 Trillion in debt, and desperate... With America going bankrupt, and becoming less stable, It might be a good idea for Canada to build a few hydrogen bombs from the leftover plutonium in our nuclear reactors....

Let's say in 50 years, America trys to invade a Canadian city.... It might be a good idea to have some 10 megaton hydrogen balistic missles around, so they think twice. This is the time for Canada to join the nuclear club... instead of waiting until it's to late.

The American's already support this philosophy, because they push the second admendment, incase America goes tyranical. Having the worlds most powerful military on your doorstep isn't always a good thing. Canada needs to be prepared. We don't have to waste our money on airfract carriers, but having a small nuclear arsenal, would provide the best bang for our buck, to ensure national defence.

Edited by ProudConservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can’t just forcibly move people.  Those lands are protected by treaties.  There are some very impoverished , small, remote reserves that are not working for the residents.  It would be in their interests to leave but the interest has to come from them.  Indigenous affairs have to be decided by Indigenous, recognizing that as long as taxpayers fund these initiatives, there will be limits to what voters will support, and they can always turn off the tap to some extent, which is why finding their own revenue sources and becoming self-sufficient is so important for Indigenous communities that choose to stay on reservations, segregated from non-Indigenous people.  Without economic self-sufficiency there can be no political self-sufficiency.  Personally I don’t understand why remaining segregated is necessary or good, but my opinion doesn’t come into it.  

Also, it’s absurd to try to “defend” ourselves from the Americans.  We have too much in common and they’re too overpowering to ward off except in mostly superficial ways.  I do think it’s good and necessary to have our own laws and foreign policy because we do see things differently and we prefer our way, obviously.  Our good soft power has to be backstopped however by much better hard power, as it was 60 plus years ago.  If we have enough of the best gear to patrol our coasts and make our NATO contributions, that’s all we need.  Yes, as long as we can wield nukes, we’re a threat to any comers.  We should keep an arsenal of them.  

On Alberta, the feds were supportive in buying TransMountain, but they’ve created onerous regulation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ProudConservative
11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You can’t just forcibly move people.  Those lands are protected by treaties.  There are some very impoverished , small, remote reserves that are not working for the residents.  It would be in their interests to leave but the interest has to come from them.  Indigenous affairs have to be decided by Indigenous, recognizing that as long as taxpayers fund these initiatives, there will be limits to what voters will support, and they can always turn off the tap to some extent, which is why finding their own revenue sources and becoming self-sufficient is so important for Indigenous communities that choose to stay on reservations, segregated from non-Indigenous people.  Without economic self-sufficiency there can be no political self-sufficiency.  Personally I don’t understand why remaining segregated is necessary or good, but my opinion doesn’t come into it.  

Also, it’s absurd to try to “defend” ourselves from the Americans.  We have too much in common and they’re too overpowering to ward off except in mostly superficial ways.  I do think it’s good and necessary to have our own laws and foreign policy because we do see things differently and we prefer our way, obviously.  Our good soft power has to be backstopped however by much better hard power, as it was 60 plus years ago.  If we have enough of the best gear to patrol our coasts and make our NATO contributions, that’s all we need.  Yes, as long as we can wield nukes, we’re a threat to any comers.  We should keep an arsenal of them.  

On Alberta, the feds were supportive in buying TransMountain, but they’ve created onerous regulation.  

I never signed those treaties, so why should a gun be forced to my head as a taxpayer... Telling me to "Pay my rent", when I never agreed to those terms. Elizabeth May might label me a settler, but I am no settler.... and I'm extreamly angry towards the accademic left... raising a generation to believe that we're the imposters, and we should role over backwards in appology towards our native Canadians... who quite frankly, never seen to be taking the ignitive to help themselves. Believe me, if I was in charge... I would show those natives some tough love, like you wouldn't believe... and we would get onto more important things... like paying down our debt, and building infrastucture... instead of blowing billions on aircraft... and supply routes to arctic reserves.

I wouldn't force them to move... Just cut all public funding for their remote communities... If they want to live in igloos and hunt seals, that's their choice. Just don't expect free housing, and free food. When it cost $15 to ship orange Juice to the arctic.

Edited by ProudConservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

I wouldn't force them to move... Just cut all public funding for their remote communities... If they want to live in igloos and hunt seals, that's their choice

We, as in "we colonists", forced aboriginals onto these "remote communities", literally making them ask permission to leave for the day, and if caught "off res" without a pass, putting them in jail.  This was officially in place until the 1940s, so its within living memory.  And until the 60s, leaving the reserve to work or attend post-secondary education meant they'd lose their status and the right to return to the reserve.  

So what we have is a situation where we forced people off huge territories,  onto small plots of land, essentially imprisoning them there, denying them the ability to leave and return at will.  So, they've tried to make homes there, because what choice did they have?

But now, we've forgotten all that and blame them for "not leaving" and demand that they again leave the place they've (been forced) to call home since the 1800s.

Sure, we weren't making the decisions to put them on reserves and refusing to let them leave.  But that doesn't give us the right to blame them for being on reserve now, and use the same kind of bullying tactics we used to put them on reserves, to make them leave now. 

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We, as in "we colonists", forced aboriginals onto these "remote communities", literally making them ask permission to leave for the day, and if caught "off res" without a pass, putting them in jail.  This was officially in place until the 1940s, so its within living memory.  And until the 60s, leaving the reserve to work or attend post-secondary education meant they'd lose their status and the right to return to the reserve.  

So what we have is a situation where we forced people off huge territories,  onto small plots of land, essentially imprisoning them there, denying them the ability to leave and return at will.  So, they've tried to make homes there, because what choice did they have?

But now, we've forgotten all that and blame them for "not leaving" and demand that they again leave the place they've (been forced) to call home since the 1800s.

Sure, we weren't making the decisions to put them on reserves and refusing to let them leave.  But that doesn't give us the right to blame them for being on reserve now, and use the same kind of bullying tactics we used to put them on reserves, to make them leave now. 

Not the whole story at all.  Generally the farther north you go the less the pre-European arrival  Indigenous settlements changed, though satellite tv and imported housing and infrastructure abound.  For example, Nunavut is totally self-governed by Indigenous.  Nevertheless, Revenue Canada welcomes donations, so you can always up your personal tax percentage and leave a note that you want it all dedicated to Indigenous Affairs.  I’m quite sure they’d honour that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

Lets Say that Canada had no debt, and we could agreed to lower our taxes, What precentage should our taxes be lowered by? How far could we lower taxes, without sacrificing our core values, like the right to an education, infrastructure, and safe communities?

Reagan ushered in a very large tax cut and it never generated the revenue he claimed it would and then ushered in the largest tax increase in US history. Tax cut gurus forget this. On the other hand tax increases are a dangerous thing because they can cause businesses to leave for other jurisdictions with lower targets. So trying to figure out how much tax you can charge before you make your businesses uncompetitive or cause people to stop spending and trigger a recession either way is a tough one.

The crucial element is not wasting the money you do take in with tax revenue. When you have governments like Trudeau's or Wynne's that engage in spending many more times then what they take in you create deficits and the interest on the deficits means generations after people are paying taxes for a snow-balling interest rate without ever touching the principal balance of debt causing governments to want more taxes.

The key is getting rid of as much government as is possible and still be able to operate. What we do not do in Canada and have never done with sufficient attention is have provinces and federal governments when they have overlapping services work out arrangements where one of the two levels services both. We have far two many provincial and governments not only being redundant but operating in conflict adding to expenses.

Politicians only care about their next election or two. So they do not think long term. Government officials, i.e., the permanent bureaucrats are not spending their own money, thus they don't have that direct vested interest in not wasting money. They can also obtain any bonuses not  by actually cutting redundant management but simply cutting essential front line services leaving the bloated and useless levels of management that waste the money in place. Furthermore bureaucrats build empires they try make their units as large as possible and at the end of the fiscal year if they have not spent all their money, they then rush out and waste it for fear their savings will lead to cuts in their budget the next year.

The solution? Shoot everyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Not the whole story at all.  Generally the farther north you go the less the pre-European arrival  Indigenous settlements changed, though satellite tv and imported housing and infrastructure abound.

They were still affected, and not for the better.  "Less" impacted isn't the same as 'treated with respect and honesty'.

Quote

 For example, Nunavut is totally self-governed by Indigenous.  

Then I guess they don't need to forced off reserve, as PC would have us do. 

27 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Nevertheless, Revenue Canada welcomes donations, so you can always up your personal tax percentage

The constant push by short-thinking and greedy capitalists to 'reduce taxes' is not to the benefit of most of the people in Canada.   Just like anyone, I appreciate a few extra dollars on my pay cheque, but when I see the damage actually done by the reduction in taxes, combined with corporate bail-outs and corrupted political systems and people, I wonder how long it will take people in general to understand that promises to 'reduce taxes' isn't a cure-all - it's kinda like giving someone a 10-cent sucker so you can bumfck'em.  Sure, the sucker tastes good - but damn, there's consequences!  It's funny how the countries with the happiest and most prosperous people tend to come from those places which have high taxes and plenty of state-sponsored 'goodies', eh?  No suckers/bum-fcking for them!  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

Lets Say that Canada had no debt, and we could agreed to lower our taxes, What precentage should our taxes be lowered by? How far could we lower taxes, without sacrificing our core values, like the right to an education, infrastructure, and safe communities?

Canada will never ever be debt free . . . . so, the questions in the OP is as relevant as:  What color should we change the sky to?  Should we outlaw night time?   :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, dialamah said:

They were still affected, and not for the better.  "Less" impacted isn't the same as 'treated with respect and honesty'.

Then I guess they don't need to forced off reserve, as PC would have us do. 

The constant push by short-thinking and greedy capitalists to 'reduce taxes' is not to the benefit of most of the people in Canada.   Just like anyone, I appreciate a few extra dollars on my pay cheque, but when I see the damage actually done by the reduction in taxes, combined with corporate bail-outs and corrupted political systems and people, I wonder how long it will take people in general to understand that promises to 'reduce taxes' isn't a cure-all - it's kinda like giving someone a 10-cent sucker so you can bumfck'em.  Sure, the sucker tastes good - but damn, there's consequences!  It's funny how the countries with the happiest and most prosperous people tend to come from those places which have high taxes and plenty of state-sponsored 'goodies', eh?  No suckers/bum-fcking for them!  

 

 

The impact happened in both directions and Indigenous benefitted too.  No one has to leave the reserve, though some should.  Not all reserves are sustainable or successful.  The excuse to maintain all at any cost for cultural reasons is unnatural meddling and not the way healthy natural economies work.  By throwing money at unsustainable propositions we create false economies that hurt everyone in the long run.  Again, the decisions to leave, stay, relocate, or shut down the reserve have to come from Indigenous or the problems will always be blamed on outside intervention.  All we can do is maintain funding with raises for inflation.  Personally I think reserves and status cards are unhelpful forms of segregation, but there are many vested interests among Indigenous who want the system to stay as is.   Some reserves do quite well, but I’d like to know how much money flows to these reserves from taxpayers versus how much they raise on their own from resource development, especially since no taxes are collected from Indigenous earning income on reserves.  It’s all a bit sketchy and there has been much mismanagement and band corruption.  I would like to see the military help fix water and infrastructure on some reserves, including providing training.  Children deserve clean drinking water and decent housing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

The best way to get out of debt, would be to fire all the non-essential workers in the public sector

Fire may be a little strong, but to disband the unions of non-essential workers and bring in a independent consultant, to evaluate what is needed, and to rearrange the public sector to be more merit based would definitely save us some money.

16 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

and stop giving natives free money

Now this statement just shows an ignorance to the reality. I was fortunate enough to spend some time in the far north for work, My responsibilities involved participating in band councils and other meetings between different levels of government. 

Putting aside those that are corrupt or those simply of bad faith( on both sides) I can promise you they don't want "free money". 

From my perspective the phrase " the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. Often we from "the south" ( I literally laughed the first time they refered to Edmonton as the south) try and do the right thing but are grossly misinformed about not only there needs but their way of life. 

I specifically had more than one conversation with people saying " I don't need another snowmobile, i need employment opportunities. You can't work 9-5 as you said if there's no jobs to be found. What we do is send money to ease our conscience without actually considering their reality. Money as we understand it doesn't hold the same weight up north

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

So what we have is a situation where we forced people off huge territories,  onto small plots of land, essentially imprisoning them there, denying them the ability to leave and return at will.  So, they've tried to make homes there, because what choice did they have?

We haven't forced anyone to stay on reserves in quite some time. And the point under discussion is persuading them to move back in with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shady said:

That's completely false.  Revenues doubled.

No what happened was the tax cuts did not produce the revenue he claimed  so tax increases had to be instituted to generate revenue.

source:https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

"As projections for the deficit worsened, it became clear that the 1981 tax cut was too big. So with Reagan’s signature, Congress undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut by raising taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. George H.W. Bush signed another tax increase in 1990 and Bill Clinton did the same in 1993. One lesson from that history: When tax cuts are really too big to be sustainable, they’re often followed by tax increases."

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Fire may be a little strong, but to disband the unions of non-essential workers and bring in a independent consultant, to evaluate what is needed, and to rearrange the public sector to be more merit based would definitely save us some money.

Now this statement just shows an ignorance to the reality. I was fortunate enough to spend some time in the far north for work, My responsibilities involved participating in band councils and other meetings between different levels of government. 

Putting aside those that are corrupt or those simply of bad faith( on both sides) I can promise you they don't want "free money". 

From my perspective the phrase " the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. Often we from "the south" ( I literally laughed the first time they refered to Edmonton as the south) try and do the right thing but are grossly misinformed about not only there needs but their way of life. 

I specifically had more than one conversation with people saying " I don't need another snowmobile, i need employment opportunities. You can't work 9-5 as you said if there's no jobs to be found. What we do is send money to ease our conscience without actually considering their reality. Money as we understand it doesn't hold the same weight up north

I agree on the most part, but there is an important consideration:  If there are no jobs in the community, it may be necessary to leave it.  This is the problem with trying to cordon of parts of the country as little preserves of the past.  There are ways of protecting cultures and values despite moving.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...