err Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 The promised Liberal tax cuts, intended to buy votes, could be better spent on providing services that the government should provide. The following is an exept from Linda McQuaig's column in today's Toronto star. The entire article can be seen at the following link: Buying votes at expense of building country a waste, Linda McQuaig Let's look at what the Liberals are offering with their dismal little tax cuts. Individually, almost nothing. For individual taxpayers, the total savings range from about $120 for a very low income taxpayer to about $360 for a high-income taxpayer, according to the government's own numbers. One would have trouble imagining a scenario in which these savings could significantly improve anyone's life. At the low end, the money could perhaps buy some clothing, groceries, a case of beer; at the upper end, a dinner out, a fancy toaster oven, some fluffy bathroom towels. But, pooled together, the tax-cut money amounts to $30 billion. A lot can be achieved with $30 billion. Some possibilities: providing top-notch diagnostic equipment in hospitals across the country, investing serious amounts in upgrading our universities and in early childhood education programs, properly funding public transit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 One would have trouble imagining a scenario in which these savings could significantly improve anyone's life. At the low end, the money could perhaps buy some clothing, groceries, a case of beer; at the upper end, a dinner out, a fancy toaster oven, some fluffy bathroom towels. But, pooled together, the tax-cut money amounts to $30 billion. It's that kind of whacky thinking that is democracy's great weakness - and might eventually endanger it.One cent from every Canadian is nothing, and wouldn't be noticed at all. But together, it could mean $300,000 for me. Now then, how far will I go in getting Paul Martin's ear and convincing him of my scheme? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted November 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 One would have trouble imagining a scenario in which these savings could significantly improve anyone's life. At the low end, the money could perhaps buy some clothing, groceries, a case of beer; at the upper end, a dinner out, a fancy toaster oven, some fluffy bathroom towels. But, pooled together, the tax-cut money amounts to $30 billion. It's that kind of whacky thinking that is democracy's great weakness - and might eventually endanger it.One cent from every Canadian is nothing, and wouldn't be noticed at all. But together, it could mean $300,000 for me. Now then, how far will I go in getting Paul Martin's ear and convincing him of my scheme? I couldn't help but not how you didn't quote or address the next lines in the Linda McQuaig quote... A lot can be achieved with $30 billion. Some possibilities: providing top-notch diagnostic equipment in hospitals across the country, investing serious amounts in upgrading our universities and in early childhood education programs, properly funding public transit. If you think in terms of investment, putting this money into health care could prevent the cries about how we need a parallel system because this one is too slow... and other such Conservative tripe.... Because these things don't seem to be priorities for Conservative types, do they... Well, they certainly don't appear important to August, who'd rather get a new toaster oven on her counter than have an MRI machine at her local hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 The promised Liberal tax cuts, intended to buy votes, could be better spent on providing services that the government should provide. The following is an exept from Linda McQuaig's column in today's Toronto star. "A lot can be achieved with $30 billion. Some possibilities: providing top-notch diagnostic equipment in hospitals across the country" ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> McQuaig is SO outdated, it's not even funny. Top-notch diagnostic equipment is as affordable to governments today as CRT 32" TVs are to the general population. It's not a big deal. And the ONLY reason Paul Martin's Liberals don't want to supply these is because, once that marvelous CAT scan, MRI or PET scan machine discovers a flaw, the follow up tests and procedures can be quite costly. So Martin's Liberals, in their ultimate wisdom, decided, seeing as how 80 or 90% of the time follow up tests come out negative anyway, to sacrifice the 10 or 20% or so of unfortunates who would come out positive. In other words, they are playing God. And that's scary. VERY scary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 Let's use the $30 million to get rid of Corporations and Mike Harris. Then we could use it to get rid of Mike Harris and the Corporations. Or how about we get rid of Big Business and Mike Harris.Seeing as they are the cause of all the problems in this country, if we spend all $30 million on getting rid of the problem of Corporations and Mike Harris everything should be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Circle Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 Let's use the $30 million to get rid of Corporations and Mike Harris. Then we could use it to get rid of Mike Harris and the Corporations. Or how about we get rid of Big Business and Mike Harris.Seeing as they are the cause of all the problems in this country, if we spend all $30 million on getting rid of the problem of Corporations and Mike Harris everything should be better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL. Not sure if I am getting your meaning here Stan. Let me see....hmmm.... So, get rid of Mike Harris and corporations? Or..... Get rid of the Corporations & Mike Harris! I am seeing a trend here........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted November 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 The promised Liberal tax cuts, intended to buy votes, could be better spent on providing services that the government should provide. The following is an exept from Linda McQuaig's column in today's Toronto star. "A lot can be achieved with $30 billion. Some possibilities: providing top-notch diagnostic equipment in hospitals across the country" ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> McQuaig is SO outdated, it's not even funny. On what kind of wisdom do you base this kind of statement. This isn't outdated... it actually has todays date on it.... and it is pertanent to our immediate political situation.....Top-notch diagnostic equipment is as affordable to governments today as CRT 32" TVs are to the general population. It's not a big deal. A bit of a credibility problem here...Actually... not worth even answering this one.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 One cent from every Canadian is nothing, and wouldn't be noticed at all. But together, it could mean $300,000 for me. Now then, how far will I go in getting Paul Martin's ear and convincing him of my scheme? I'll leabve the convincing to you, but here is a way to guarantee a meeting. Call Paul on his private line and pretend you're Chuck Guite. Tell him you're wondering if he wants to discuss all this videtape you have compiled over the years from the secret cameras..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speaker Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Let's use the $30 million to get rid of Corporations and Mike Harris. Then we could use it to get rid of Mike Harris and the Corporations. Or how about we get rid of Big Business and Mike Harris.Seeing as they are the cause of all the problems in this country, if we spend all $30 million on getting rid of the problem of Corporations and Mike Harris everything should be better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ok now we're talking serious stuff here. I like this idea, the figure is actually thirty Billion in the article quoted. How much foriegn ownership could we buy back with that kind of money? And if instead of these inconsequential tax cuts we were to increase taxes by a similar amount, we could buy back that much more. I think you're on to something here Canuck E Stan.. Now if we could only get the prominent Canadian businessmen, like for instance Paul Martin to invest in CANADIAN companies instead of off shore tax shelters, man we'd be rolling in our own. I'm for starting up a lobby group to do this, anyone interested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Didn't McQuaig lose all credibility with Shooting the Hippo? As much as she argued that debt growth was due more to interest building on itself than social programs, she missed a major point. Debt has to be paid, it isn't a discretionary line item. btw Stan, I'll take big companies and Mike Harris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaro Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Didn't McQuaig lose all credibility with Shooting the Hippo?As much as she argued that debt growth was due more to interest building on itself than social programs, she missed a major point. Debt has to be paid, it isn't a discretionary line item. btw Stan, I'll take big companies and Mike Harris. You must truly despise Mulroney then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Don't really get it, but short answer is no. Mulroney took the first steps in the direction of cutting the deficit. Yes, he probably didn't go far enough but his was the first government in what 30 years to run an operating surplus. Didn't McQuaig lose all credibility with Shooting the Hippo?As much as she argued that debt growth was due more to interest building on itself than social programs, she missed a major point. Debt has to be paid, it isn't a discretionary line item. btw Stan, I'll take big companies and Mike Harris. You must truly despise Mulroney then? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Didn't McQuaig lose all credibility with Shooting the Hippo?As much as she argued that debt growth was due more to interest building on itself than social programs, she missed a major point. Debt has to be paid, it isn't a discretionary line item. btw Stan, I'll take big companies and Mike Harris. I take it from your comments that you're trying to pretend you read "shooting the Hippo", which, while it talked about deficits, was more about the right wing's (and Bank of Canada's) obsession with zero-inflation, and what they were willing to do to the majority of the population for the sake of the few. For example, the high interest rates in the early eighty's that forced so many people to lose their homes. This extremist level of inflation fighting was not necessary, and probably did more damage to the country, its economy, and its citizens than can be justified. Maybe you should try reading some of her books, or even her column in the Toronto Star (it's free Shoop)... You might learn something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 You can't leave us hanging there Err, Let's not forget to mention Mike Harris and the Corporations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Top-notch diagnostic equipment is as affordable to governments today as CRT 32" TVs are to the general population. It's not a big deal. A bit of a credibility problem here... Actually... not worth even answering this one.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What .... paying 2 million dollars for a CAT scan machine scares you? Car mechanics are spending more than that to have state of the art diagnostic equipment in their corner garages, and it generaly pays for itself in less than two years. WE HAFF TO TALK, ERR!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted November 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Top-notch diagnostic equipment is as affordable to governments today as CRT 32" TVs are to the general population. It's not a big deal. A bit of a credibility problem here... Actually... not worth even answering this one.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What .... paying 2 million dollars for a CAT scan machine scares you? Car mechanics are spending more than that to have state of the art diagnostic equipment in their corner garages, and it generaly pays for itself in less than two years. WE HAFF TO TALK, ERR!! I think you'll find that a CAT scan machine is a LOT more than 2 million dollars. And if they were 40 million dollars and necessary, then I still suggest that our government set their priorities in the proper places and buy the machines, not the votes. I don't need the fluffy towels or toaster oven that badly, but should I require chemotherapy in 15 years, I would be glad to have the facilities, and look back at my big sacrifice of a few hundred dollars per year and say it was worth it. Selling our country out for a few hundred dollars per taxpayer is inexcusable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Like Naomi Klein, I gave up on reading McQuaig after reading two of her columns. I wouldn't pad her little socialist bank account by buying her book. My comments are accurate. Maybe you should try reading some of her books, or even her column in the Toronto Star (it's free Shoop)... You might learn something... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speaker Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 So maybe this idea of canuck e stan's to buy out the corporations is a little ahead of it's time, the great ones always are, how about if we pay off our national debt to Mother Nature instead. I understand from talk in the street that She can be a mean old loan shark so we should start counting our kneecaps because we've been borrowing against our kids ability to pay back for quite a while now. I mean you can only ask someone who is being compromised to be patient for just so long. and then "one of these days Madge, pow right to the moon!" an air less, waterless, soylent green kind of world. pause to consider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 So maybe this idea of canuck e stan's to buy out the corporations is a little ahead of it's time, the great ones always are, how about if we pay off our national debt to Mother Nature instead. I understand from talk in the street that She can be a mean old loan shark so we should start counting our kneecaps because we've been borrowing against our kids ability to pay back for quite a while now. I mean you can only ask someone who is being compromised to be patient for just so long.and then "one of these days Madge, pow right to the moon!" an air less, waterless, soylent green kind of world. pause to consider <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anthropomorphism. It works for Disney, and it can work for you too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 I think you'll find that a CAT scan machine is a LOT more than 2 million dollars. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> YOU THINK ??? http://www.facsnet.org/tools/health/fishman.php “Technology is developing rapidly, and the technology is not cheap. A CT scanning machine costs about $1-1.2 million." :angry: WRONG BUCKO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketRocket Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Bad math???? I'm quite surprised no one else here has spotted this. She says the taxes, which range between $120 and $360 per person will total $30 billion. But Canada's population is estimated at 32,389,712. Even if every Canadian got the full tax cut of $360, that would still total less than $12 billion. Now when you consider that some of these people are not even in the workforce (children and stay-at-home parents for example) and have no taxable income whatsoever, and many others will be getting the much lower figure of $120 deducted, that figure plummets. Even if we average every Canadian man, woman and child at a cut of $200, then the "savings" figure drops to less than $6.5 billion, quite a far cry from the $30 billion figure cited. I wonder where she got her calculator, because she should be bringing it back for a refund, tax included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 I'm quite surprised no one else here has spotted this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, Eagle Eye, that's twice today that you act surprised at how unobservant we are. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something? Anyhow, I plead guilty to both these charges. Have to jog a little longer I guess so that more oxygen reaches my brain. What's your weekly mileage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speaker Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 So maybe this idea of canuck e stan's to buy out the corporations is a little ahead of it's time, the great ones always are, how about if we pay off our national debt to Mother Nature instead. I understand from talk in the street that She can be a mean old loan shark so we should start counting our kneecaps because we've been borrowing against our kids ability to pay back for quite a while now. I mean you can only ask someone who is being compromised to be patient for just so long.and then "one of these days Madge, pow right to the moon!" an air less, waterless, soylent green kind of world. pause to consider <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anthropomorphism. It works for Disney, and it can work for you too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and look how well disney did with it, now if I knew someone who could do cartoons.. something along the lines of Zena Princess Warrior, or maybe the little mermaid with a mean streak, ya never know ya just never know. On the other hand perhaps the character is already set in stone Gaia, neighbourhood loan shark, sure, you looking for a few more trillion to finance your lifestyle, heck no problem, I have a very nice fish stock off the coast of australia you can exploit and some savannah in africa that is really under utilized. Now how would you like to pay for this. Yes I can see it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaro Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Don't really get it, but short answer is no. Mulroney took the first steps in the direction of cutting the deficit. Yes, he probably didn't go far enough but his was the first government in what 30 years to run an operating surplus. Your kidding me right? You didn't seriously just say that? Its some kind of joke that I am not getting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 I believe the tax cuts are for more than personal income. They are also estimated at $30 billion over a five year period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.