The perfect Paul Martin Moment

[Argus]

To liberals, "compassion" means giving less productive people the fruits of the efforts of more productive people. -- Thomas Sowell

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What an offensive statement! Mentally and/or physically disabled individuals are often less productive. Many of them work and of those who don't, I suspect abilities might be a problem. What's wrong with more productive people giving them the fruits of their labour? Are you suggesting that we return to an era where private charity was the only help available to those who can't work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one is talking about the disabled. Which I believe you know full well. I've observed a pattern of dishonesty in your postings.

The fact is there are millions of Canadians who pay no taxes. Instead, the government taxes the rest of us more, then gives some of our money to those people who pay no taxes. Some of them are disabled. Some of them are lazy. Some of them are uneducated and unmotivated. Warehousing these people is a waste of resources. Taxing more productive people and giving the money to the lazy damages their motivation for being productive in the first place.

[Argus]

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"

But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." -JOHN F. KENNEDY

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The irony is that Kennedy, if he appeared in Canada today, would be derided as a dangerous, heartless neo con by the NDP and Liberals.

[kimmy]

The GST is not regresive for the reasons that have been given. Simply, it does not affect the lower income groups disproportionately. Economically, the reason for consumption taxes is that they are held to discourage wasteful spending and to encourage investment for productive purposes.

Hey, I've got a big fat expert opinion who disagrees:

The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. I doubt that any looked foolish arguing that.

Yup, you said it. Click here for details.

How is it, eureka, that 2 months ago you considered the GST to be "unquestionably a regressive tax", but now you argue the opposite?

Have you uncovered surprising new research in the past 2 months to reverse your opinion of the subject?

At what point in the past 2 months did the GST cease being regressive? Was it the exact moment at which Harper said he planned to reduce the GST?

I'm very interested to hear the details of what changed your mind and when you came to this decision.

-k

[normanchateau]

Taxing more productive people and giving the money to the lazy damages their motivation for being productive in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What federal politician or political party is campaigning on a political platform of giving money to lazy people? Who, other than a lazy person or an insane one, would vote for them?

[Yaro]

What I find offensive is how the Christians stole Saturnalia from the pagans and renamed in Christmas. I mean come up with your own holidays!

Oh, and the GST is a progressive tax, but not by much.

What determines whether a tax is progressive or regressive is the rate at which people of different income levels have it applied. Because low income earners receive a GST rebate (they still do that right?) it would have to be considered progressive although not significantly so. A flat tax with a bare leaning to progression.

[kimmy]

Oh, and the GST is a progressive tax, but not by much.

What determines whether a tax is progressive or regressive is the rate at which people of different income levels have it applied. Because low income earners receive a GST rebate (they still do that right?) it would have to be considered progressive although not significantly so. A flat tax with a bare leaning to progression.

Sure, I've got no problem with that logic.

I'm just fascinated to hear how eureka could be so adamant that the GST is regressive 2 months ago, yet feel completely opposite today.

He seems to have had some sort of life-changing epiphany. I'm hoping he'll share it. Should be fascinating.

-k

[southerncomfort]

I understand your moniker, Southern Comfort. It must give you great comfort parroting the silly and unsupportable statements that come from the mouths of the Republicans from the South.

Your statements could do with a little enlightend commentary from some who might think that way. I suspect, though, that it will be hard to find them since no economist with more than half a brain thinks so.

It will be equally difficult to find support for the Bush/Reagn.Thatcher ideological claptrap.

It really is sad that people who profess interest in political affairs can be so steeped in mythology as reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't understand my monicker at all so get it right before you start with ad hominems. Southern Comfort is a cocktail, my favourite drink, nothing to do with the U.S. or it politics. What is really sad is how some dippers can be so steeped in their own fantasy that they have to put down and sneer at everyone who doesn't agree with their own claptrap. Maybe some facts and enlightenment is needed at your end.

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy:

The GST is regressive if not properly directed and I think I have written that somewhere. It is, though, a progressive form of taxation where it is accompanied by the appropriate exemptions. It does encourage invstment and savings which is the important difference in the two party proposals.

[BubberMiley]

Tax reductions don't enable somebody trying to support a family on $10 an hour. Even if they weren't taxed at all, they'd still be screwed. You can't tax a populace to wealth, but you can tax a society to a reasonable state of social stability so that wealth can grow. Nobody makes money in social chaos, and our social safety nets can prevent that. It's really all about balance; you can't go too far in either direction. You certainly don't want to tax people to the extent that their efforts go unrewarded, but you also don't want to remove taxation to the extent that our roads, education system, healthcare, and social programs completely fall apart. The maximum prosperity for all lies somewhere in the middle (but don't think I'm saying the Libs have the monopoly on that middle ground).

[hiti]

Harper's tax policies bring to mind visions of Brian Mulroney running huge deficits and Mike Harris slashing programs to pay for his tax cuts and the suffering he caused to those who needed a hand-up, not a slap down.

[Montgomery Burns]

Anybody see the Party's Christmas Messages/Greetings?

The Conservative greeting:

Number of words: 58

Number of references to election issues: 0

Number of references to the election: 0

Uses the of word "Christmas": 2

The NDP message:

Number of words: 90

Number of references to election issues: 0

Number of references to the election: 0

Uses the of word "Christmas": 1 (plus a Happy Hanukkah, which was nice)

The Liberal message is a full page in length:

Number of words: 390

Number of references to election issues: 5

Number of references to the election: 2

Uses the of word "Christmas": 0

Source: Angrygwn

[The Honest Politician]

From a strictly political standpoint, the Liberal message kicked ass.

As far as a Christmas greeting the conservatives was by far the best.

The NDP thing sucked.

[kimmy]

The Liberal message is a full page in length:

Number of words: 390

Number of references to election issues: 5

Number of references to the election: 2

Uses the of word "Christmas": 0

I like the photo of the disguised ad-exec slipping PMPM a festively-wrapped envelop full of cash.

-k

[August1991]

You may be on to something, Kimmy. Take a look at this photo, paying particular attention to the glasses.

Now, compare them to "Santa's".