Liberals planning tax cuts

[apollo19]

from: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...90-8cf4bdb36487

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Liberals plan to introduce broad-based income tax cuts and run on them in the upcoming federal election.

The government will provide details of the plan over the coming weeks and introduce it as part of the economic program around which they will build their campaign platform.

"There are several different tax brackets covered by this. It's broad-based," one government official said of the plan.

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale has described low taxes as a key element in creating a leaner, smarter economy capable of competing with rising powers like China and India.

He said in a speech earlier this month that the government expected to "do more" on income taxes.

"It's about fairness and higher disposable incomes for ordinary Canadians, and it's all about jobs, jobs, jobs," Goodale said.

The story also mentions how for every percentage point drop in income tax rates, it costs the feds $1billion lost in revenue. This seems contrary to the Star article which said the Liberals would be going against the right. I think this is Martin's true centre-right side coming out finally, and it should be interesting to see two partys offering to cut income taxes, and one advocating more social spending in the next election. Hopefully the Conservatives can offer a comprehensive policy, and we will have a real election with all parties offering different views, focusing more on economics rather then social issues.

[Toro]

Good for Martin.

[fellowtraveller]

we will have a real election with all parties offering different views, focusing more on economics rather then social issues.

I do appreciate your optimism, but it is far more likely that we'll have an election driven by Liberal fearmongering on healthcare- with Klein, Harper and their running mate - Satan - as the whipping boys. Business as usual, in other words.

[Riverwind]

I do appreciate your optimism, but it is far more likely that we'll have an election driven by Liberal fearmongering on healthcare- with Klein, Harper and their running mate - Satan - as the whipping boys.  Business as usual, in other words.

It takes two to tangle. If all Harper can do in an election campaign is rant about corruption and grossly exaggerated the extent of the sponsorship scandal then he deserves any dirt the Liberals hurl at him.

The country needs an election about the issues and the future not endless re runs of past wrong doings.

[fellowtraveller]

That is not what happened in the last election, or the one before that, or the one before that......

In any case, I find it reasonable for a party to comment on the facts in front of them, the performance of their opponent. I find it unreasonable to demonize your opponents for things they have not done and have stated they will not do.

But that is just me.

[tml12]

I do appreciate your optimism, but it is far more likely that we'll have an election driven by Liberal fearmongering on healthcare- with Klein, Harper and their running mate - Satan - as the whipping boys.  Business as usual, in other words.

It takes two to tangle. If all Harper can do in an election campaign is rant about corruption and grossly exaggerated the extent of the sponsorship scandal then he deserves any dirt the Liberals hurl at him.

The country needs an election about the issues and the future not endless re runs of past wrong doings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with most of your argument...elections should be run on issues and not on who did this and that.

However, those Liberals involved in the scandal need to be implicated. It seems obvious that Chretien turned a blind eye but I am not so sure Martin did.

I am not sure we will ever truly know all of what Martin knew but as for Chretien, I am sure he is more to blame than Martin.

[Montgomery Burns]

The story also mentions how for every percentage point drop in income tax rates, it costs the feds $1billion lost in revenue.

That's the opinion of the liberal Canadian Press. However, the US took in $70 billion more thatn they expected from the 2004 tax year. The Bush tax cuts; more jobs; more people paying tax, CPP and EI; staying out of trouble; staying off EI and especially welfare; companies expanding, making more money because of the good economy and also paying more tax. It's just common sense. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of a $1 billion drop in revenue per percentage point.

When Martin announced this, I felt that his corrupt-to-the-core govt was trying to bribe me.

[err]

The story also mentions how for every percentage point drop in income tax rates, it costs the feds $1billion lost in revenue.

That's the opinion of the liberal Canadian Press. However, the US took in $70 billion more thatn they expected from the 2004 tax year. The Bush tax cuts; more jobs; more people paying tax, CPP and EI; staying out of trouble; staying off EI and especially welfare; companies expanding, making more money because of the good economy and also paying more tax. It's just common sense. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of a $1 billion drop in revenue per percentage point.

When Martin announced this, I felt that his corrupt-to-the-core govt was trying to bribe me.

Your dialog seems confused... Bush's tax cuts caused more jobs in Canada ?? more people paying tax in Canada ??? CPP, EI... Your statement "It's just common sense" doesnt seem to apply to your post...

It is Paul Martins that has had control of the reigns of the Canadian economy for over 10 years now, not George Bush. It seems ironic that you should be talking about the great state of the Canadian economy that has been under Martin's watchful eye...

However, Montgomery, it should be quite obvious (using a first approximation) that an N percent drop in the tax rates should produce an N percent drop in total revenue.

But, as much as I hate to agree with Montgomery on anything, I will agree that Martin is trying to buy votes.... Conservative votes....

[Yaro]

That's the opinion of the liberal Canadian Press. However, the US took in $70 billion more thatn they expected from the 2004 tax year. The Bush tax cuts; more jobs; more people paying tax, CPP and EI; staying out of trouble; staying off EI and especially welfare; companies expanding, making more money because of the good economy and also paying more tax. It's just common sense. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of a $1 billion drop in revenue per percentage point.

When Martin announced this, I felt that his corrupt-to-the-core govt was trying to bribe me.

No that’s the opinion of every even moderately educated economist, the US didn't take in more in taxes, their dollar dropped in value because they printed more then any other period in history. Please don't talk about common sense and economics because you’re clearly severely underinformed for a discussion of either.