Promised Liberal Tax Cuts - What will they buy ?

[Biblio Bibuli]

I believe the tax cuts are for more than personal income. They are also estimated at $30 billion over a five year period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm ... I always assume that he is bang on, so I presumed his calculations would be too.

Thinking back to the article I read in yesterday's NP, titled "Where are the female Einsteins?" makes me wonder if he in fact is a ............. ah never mind it's just a silly thought.

Hmm hmm hmm.

[Guest eureka]

Mulroney ran the biggest deficits Canada had experienced and they peaked at the end of his term. They began to be reduced immediately the Liberals took office.

[August1991]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's true that Mulroney ran the first operating surplus in about 20 years and his GST was a contributing factor in eliminating the deficit in the 1990s, when the economy was growing steadily after inflation had been tamed.

But I'll repeat as many times as I have to that the budget deficit/surplus is irrelevant. Government spending is the key variable and I am utterly appalled by what I have seen in Ottawa in the past few days. It is simply too easy to spend other people's money.

Anyone who advocates increased government spending must be on drugs or so ideologically inclined that the effect is the same.

Fortunately, no one will ever see much of this money so this is mostly empty rhetoric, a common ailment of the Left.

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 think the calculations are based on five year totals. This is usual for federal government spending estimates.

[BHS]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you high?

[err]

It's true that Mulroney ran the first operating surplus in about 20 years and his GST was a contributing factor in eliminating the deficit in the 1990s, when the economy was growing steadily after inflation had been tamed.

That's right. Mulroney's GST got money out of everybody's pockets, and it was and remains to be a great revenue generator. However, even though it comes out of everybody's pockets, business gets all of theirs back... So Mulroney found an excellent way to tax the public, and not business.

But I'll repeat as many times as I have to that the budget deficit/surplus is irrelevant. 

.... really...

Government spending is the key variable and I am utterly appalled by what I have seen in Ottawa in the past few days.  It is simply too easy to spend other people's money. 

Buying votes with our money instead of delivering services for us with our money... it is appalling...

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 think the calculations are based on five year totals. This is usual for federal government spending estimates.

Enough for some fluffy bath towels and a hairdo, and a bottle of scotch...

[Yaro]

It's true that Mulroney ran the first operating surplus in about 20 years and his GST was a contributing factor in eliminating the deficit in the 1990s, when the economy was growing steadily after inflation had been tamed.

Ok let me get this straight after just saying

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.

In which you take a direct swipe at the notion of ignoring debt financing, you go on to now say

But I'll repeat as many times as I have to that the budget deficit/surplus is irrelevant. Government spending is the key variable and I am utterly appalled by what I have seen in Ottawa in the past few days. It is simply too easy to spend other people's money.

That’s a pretty severe lapse in logic. And not just on saying that budget deficits and surpluses are irrelevant, which unless you have a pretty impressive explanation for I am thinking would have failed you in a first year macro economics course.

Anyone who advocates increased government spending must be on drugs or so ideologically inclined that the effect is the same.

Fortunately, no one will ever see much of this money so this is mostly empty rhetoric, a common ailment of the Left.

So there is no circumstance under which increased government spending is a good thing? Does that go for the military and police forces as well?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just drunk in this thread.

[speaker]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you high?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am I high? no, no but I am having fun with some of the great ideas floating around here. oh wait a minute I haven't stumbled into the training room for the house of sober second thought have I? Senator Speaker, No there's a job I wouldn't do if the paid me... well ... but no, that's one problem I'm not very likely to have to worry about.

Just the ideas are great though, so many people watch cartoons or read the strips these days maybe it's a way to reach them about the problems we're talking about here. A full length disney style cartoon about the war against the Darth Earthdestroyer. Talking about what we could be doing with all this money the Feds have taken from us. I wonder if in the interests of cultural soverainty if the Liberals wouldn't spring for a little cash. No not likely huh? I wonder if in the interests of cultural suzerainity the American governmant might. Stranger things have happened.

But if that was to happen I'd probably have to move into the states and I have no more interest in that than I do in seeing the States move in here, which is why I liked Canuck E Stans idea of using this money to buy back our economy from the crumbs in the multinationals.

So I guess I'm a little torn by the number of options for this huge sum of money that is at the same time insignificant on the other scale. but hey, when one is presented with more than one potential avenue there's no saying you can't walk down each and every one.

[PocketRocket]

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.

"Eagle Eye"??? Nicest thing I've been called all day.

But then again, I just got up.

BTW, where else did I say something about being surprised today (yesterday, whatever)???

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something?

Is there a right side???

Anyhow, I plead guilty to both these charges.

You've been charged???

Have to jog a little longer I guess so that more oxygen reaches my brain.

Coffee works for me.

What's your weekly mileage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't checked my odometer.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Have to jog a little longer I guess so that more oxygen reaches my brain.

Coffee works for me.

I know I know, coffee speeds me up too. But I already always do caffeinate myself up to my eyeballs before I run, so, like I said, I'll have to stay out longer.

What's your weekly mileage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't checked my odometer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aah, so you've bought that expensive little gadget that let's you know how far you've jogged.

You know, PR, I've been thinking about how lucky we are that we've put in the time and effort (6 months of 5 or 6 hours a week of slow joging or power walking) the time it takes to start feeling the aerobic benefits. And how lucky are we that we then persevered for another 6 months, the time it takes to get to the point when aerobic exercise becomes aphrodisiacal and we got hooked and are actually looking forward to our long runs, power walks, swims or bike rides?

I bet you that many MLFers don't know what they are missing.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I bet you that many MLFers don't know what they are missing.

I also bet you that none of the MLFers know that an empty 591 milliliter bottle of Gatorade (with it's cap on) makes for an excellent toy.

When flipping it over, it doesn't just fall, but it literally flips over. The trick is, of course, to make it stand on it's head. That's where the angle you let it fall from comes into play.

I'ts lots of fun and makes for an excellent Christmas present.

Have you tried it yet?

PS: The U.S. 591 ml bottles look identical and taste just as good, but they don't flip as well.

[Biblio Bibuli]

PS: The U.S. 591 ml bottles look identical and taste just as good, but they don't flip as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I always wondered why the U.S. Costcos sell them (a case of 24) for five bucks less.

Now I know.

[scribblet]

Those promised liberal tax cuts and their spending spree of late could be a problem.

According to the Ottawa Citizen today : $2.6-billion-a-day spending habit this week may have backfired, the federal government was forced to acknowledge yesterday a $200-million error in its recent fiscal update. A tracking of government spending promises by CanWest News Service since Monday shows $13.02 billion in 79 announcements this week. Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said during yesterday's Question Period that the federal government provided only $538 million for climate-change funding in the Canada-Ontario agreement signed in May despite the $738-million figure found in the fiscal update document. A senior Finance official explained the error was created by the "accidental" addition of an extra $200 million in funding for the year 2010-11. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, who brought the error to the House's attention, wondered how many more millions of dollars were overspent during this week's "flood" of spending announcements

The first think Harper should do when he wins this election, is put everything on hold and have a forensic audit of all accounts and holdings. I don't trust Martin.

[Toro]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But by that thinking, its only $120 to $360 per person for healthcare! How can that help anyone? What's that, one trip to the emergency room per year per person?

McQuaig, as classy of a person as I think she is, is clueless. That's money that's going back to individuals to spend as they see fit. If its "only" that much money, why not tax that much more this year. And next year. And next year again. Its only a couple hundred bucks per person per year! What does that matter? Think of all the good government could do with the money? 'Cause government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

[Toro]

Sorry to be jumping into this late, but I have a question. From the link

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.

There are about 30 million Canadians. $30 billion divided by 30 million is not $120 to $360 but $1,000 per person! For a family, that's serious money.

What am I missing here?

Oh, I see PocketRocket and eureka have beaten me to it.

I believe the tax cuts are for more than personal income. They are also estimated at $30 billion over a five year period.

That's still a ton o' money over five years. For a family of four, that's a lot of dough. For a low-income family of four, that's about $2,000. Surely that's worthwhile for low-income earners.

[Toro]

Didn't McQuaig lose all credibility with Shooting the Hippo?

YES!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Toro,

That's still a ton o' money over five years. For a family of four, that's a lot of dough. For a low-income family of four, that's about $2,000. Surely that's worthwhile for low-income earners.

It works out to about 55 cents a day. The Mojo Candy Corp. must be all a-quiver. I can imagine better things that the gov't could do with $30 billion (mind you, I have seen a lot more wasteful things too).

I think the Canadian public should be asked "What would you do with an extra 55 cents a day!?"

Possible answers; "I'd hire me another mexican!"

"I could buy a newspaper! Well, not a real newspaper, just the Calgary Sun, I suppose."

"At a meter in downtown Calgary, that's a whole 9 minutes of parking!"

Of course, 55 cents was the average, the 'low income' bracket is reputed to get (or keep an extra) 33 cents a day.

But by that thinking, its only $120 to $360 per person for healthcare! How can that help anyone? What's that, one trip to the emergency room per year per person?

Which would you give up first, one trip to the emergency room or one X-Box?

[err]

But by that thinking, its only $120 to $360 per person for healthcare!  How can that help anyone?  What's that, one trip to the emergency room per year per person?

McQuaig, as classy of a person as I think she is, is clueless.  That's money that's going back to individuals to spend as they see fit.  If its "only" that much money, why not tax that much more this year.  And next year.  And next year again.  Its only a couple hundred bucks per person per year!  What does that matter?  Think of all the good government could do with the money?  'Cause government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

Toro.... How can that much of a return help anyone... that's exactly McQuaig's point. However, 30 Billion dollars is a considerable amount of money, which could make a huge difference in delivey of the emergency room services if it were applied to health care.

At $6 Billion/year, everybody could get a new toaster oven and some towels. However, if you were naive as you suggest, you might consider that this much money could pay for 50 thousand new emergency room doctors (paying each of them $120K/yr)... And that would make a huge difference to how long you waited in the emergency room. Or how about, more practically, 10 thousand new doctors, 20 thousand new nurses, and a whole bunch of modern diagnostic equipment.

But I guess you know that spending the money on all these doctors and nurses is really a clueless thing to do with money when everybody could get a new deluxe toaster oven instead...

I imagine that either the CPC or Liberal party would be looking out for sharp thinkers like yourself.....

[Toro]

$6 billion into the Canadian economy by consumers is A LOT of money. Its better spent in the hands of the people who earned it.

If you think 55 cents a day isn't much, send me $0.55 a day for the next five years. PM me and I'll send you my address.

If its "only" 55 cents a day, lets cut welfare benefits by 55 cents a day. Clearly, if its "only" 55 cents per day, they don't need it. Its what, a pack of gum a day? The poor can get by without that one pack of gum a day. Heck, they can get by without two packs of gum! We can save a $1 per day!

[Toro]

Toro.... How can that much of a return help anyone... that's exactly McQuaig's point.  However, 30 Billion dollars is a considerable amount of money, which could make a huge difference in delivey of the emergency room services if it were applied to health care. 

At $6 Billion/year, everybody could get a new toaster oven and some towels.  However, if you were naive as you suggest, you might consider that this much money could pay for 50 thousand new emergency room doctors (paying each of them $120K/yr)... And that would make a huge difference to how long you waited in the emergency room.  Or how about, more practically, 10 thousand new doctors, 20 thousand new nurses, and a whole bunch of modern diagnostic equipment.

But I guess you know that spending the money on all these doctors and nurses is really a clueless thing to do with money when everybody could get a new deluxe toaster oven instead... 

I imagine that either the CPC or Liberal party would be looking out for sharp thinkers like yourself.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I imagine they would be ... if the bloody taxes weren't so high! Maybe guys like me would be more inclined to either stay or come home to Canada where we could generate revenue and pay a fair amount of taxes instead of doing it down here in the States.

I once was a part of a small group of people watch Buzz Hargrove speak. It was in the mid-90s when the Liberals had cut taxes for a family of 4 by about $3,500. After criticizing the cut, Buzz was asked what he was going to do with his windfall. He said he was going to spend the money "on what every other Canadian was going to spend it on, a Caribbean vacation." THAT'S why guys and gals like McQuaig and Buzz are (somewhat) clueless.

The way the debate is being framed is disingenuous because the critics are using different time frames and comparing aggregates with per capita data. Hey, I can play that game to. Good for the Liberals for proposing this $600 billion tax cut ($6 billion per year over 100 years as I knowingly manipulate the time frame to illuminate my argument).

Notice how this debate is being framed. Its

- "$30 billion" over 5 years for spending on medicare v. $120 per person for one year.

- 50,000 emergency room doctors v. a shiny toaster.

- an emergency room visit v. an X-box.

- 55 cents a day for mojo candy v. well, nothing.

If the range is $120 to $360 per person, take $240 as the average. For a family of 4, that's $4,800 over five years. For a poor family, its $2,400. Instead of making silly analogies about toasters, x-boxes and mojo candy, how about food, or clothes, or school supplies? How about transportation? How about for energy consumption. How about to pay the rent or the mortgage. How about for day to day living items that most household disposable income is spent on? Why focus on frivolous items? Because the opponents of the tax cuts want to boil it down to something life-saving v. something trite. Well, five grand ain't trite, and the average person knows it.

Good for the Liberals. Its our money. Return it to us. That's governing.