NDP = Hand in the Pocket

[mar]

However, there is a major problem with the GST cut.

To begin with, few economists favour the idea (though why the news channels are not having discussion of this is anybody's guess).

More pertinent, in the debate, Mr. Harper answered Mr. Duceppe's statement that Quebec would lose 200 million from the GST cut by promising to re-imburse Quebec for the loss (this sudden revelation by Mr. Harper also did not cause much media comment, unlike Paul Martin's). The tax formula used in the Atlantic provinces would result in a similar problem.

So now we have a drop in federal tax revenue resulting from the 1% cut PLUS the cost of re-imbursing the provinces for their drop in revenue.

Now, Quebec's (highly questionable) tax-on-tax cascading formula will result in an actual revenue drop if GST is lowered. Other provinces - say Manitoba - who do not cascade tax will, on paper, lose nothing. However, if the federal government makes a transfer payment to Quebec to cover lost revenue does anyone believe that all provinces and territories won't demand a smiliar payment? They will use a number of arguments, not the least of which will be why should they be punished for implementing the federal government's preferred tax calculation scheme while Quebec is rewarded for it? If transfer payments are not made why would they not immediately convert their tax calculation formula to Quebec's and ensure themselves future compensation?

So we have a GST cut that delivers small amounts of money to lower income people, much more to those making large retail expenditures. Now we discover the cost will be much greater than what is projected due to compensation to the provinces. Backtracking on compensating Quebec will result in a huge federal-provincial battle. Compensating Quebec and not other provinces will do the same and possibly result in provinces implementing a cascading tax formula which will result in a higher combined GST/PST for their residents, wiping out part of the 1% cut.

So what will be cut to pay for this and is it even worth the trouble?

AND . .

Why is the media not asking:

1) Is this simply an election promise that the Conservatives don't intend to implement? They can cite provincial disagreements as a reason for dropping it or being unable to even pass legislation in a minority government.

2) What would be the real cost of this cut?

[Guest eureka]

Yes, August; that would seem to be the case properly balanced. What would happen is clear from the way people have fallen for the false notions as displayed on the forums.

These "Conservatives" would be marching on Harper's campaign office with pitchforks at the ready.

[slapshot10]

Only fools buy Harper. Selfish fools who cannot see beyond their noses.

You sound sooo brained washed! Try thinking outside the box. Liberals are so dishonest it is disgusting. They have created the worst relations with our largest trading partner, and created a mockery of our democratic system by believing they are above the law. They are more interested in self preservation then the general well being and growth of our nation. Their words are beginning to bounce off people's ears as finally we are beginning to see through their empty promises. Even U2's Bono has dropped Martin for his empty promises.

Canada has harder times ahead of us. Raising interest rates and inflation will hammer the housing market, while the stronger Canadian dollar will adversely effect the export market. Personal bankruptcies will continue to raise due to our society trained to max out our credit lines. The Liberals did not bring in enough economic sustainable growth during this easiest of times to govern during the low low interest rate era, yet still they only sit around patting themselves on their backs.

Only fools follow fools in a sinking ship. Maybe you should ask yourself which ship you are riding.

[mar]

...

Canada has harder times ahead of us. Raising interest rates and inflation will hammer the housing market, while the stronger Canadian dollar will adversely effect the export market. Personal bankruptcies will continue to raise due to our society trained to max out our credit lines.

This would be a nice argument IF Canada's economy had not performed so spectacularly under the current Liberal reign, vastly outstripping Mulrooney's Conservative stewardship and IF the principal architect of that policy was not the current prime minister.

Gee! Didn't the U.S. Republicans promise that they would manage the economy better than the Democrats had? There was a promise that was sure fulfilled, huh?

If the over-riding concern, the one that motivates the entire voting process for you, is the economy, why would you vote against a party that has proven they can manage the economy and government budget effectively and one who claim they can but has shown no evidence of it?

Who's the fool?

[speaker]

Unfortunately this is the kind of partisan bile that locks people into denying facts when a party gets into power and ends up having a wreck because of the inability of it's members to see anything but their ability to profit from their position. It happens. When it happens who among you will have the courage to stand up to it? After all you've invested a significant portion of your self esteem in this kind of promotion/defense.

What, is it possible you were wrong? Were misled? Naahhh. We've seen it too many times folks, get over it. Unless you stand to personally gain from partisan party politics there is no percentage in developing such an attitude. Lib, Con, or NDP, if you do stand to gain then you sure as aitch shouldn't be involved in politics because sooner or later you're going to be one of the ones we love to hate.

[newbie]

Even U2's Bono has dropped Martin for his empty promises.

Now that's just not fair. :angry:

[August1991]

More pertinent, in the debate, Mr. Harper answered Mr. Duceppe's statement that Quebec would lose 200 million from the GST cut by promising to re-imburse Quebec for the loss (this sudden revelation by Mr. Harper also did not cause much media comment, unlike Paul Martin's). The tax formula used in the Atlantic provinces would result in a similar problem.

OMG!

Quebec would not lose $200 million. That money would return to people in Quebec. The Quebec government would lose $200 million. A government and a place are two very different things.

If the Quebec government (or any of the provincial governments in the maritimes) wants to recuperate that money, then it need only raise taxes on its citizens.

[This point came up in the French debate and Bernard Derome also asked the question to Harper directly in an interview on Le Point last night. I was surprised that Harper didn't correct this notion but I suspect right now, Harper is trying to be sympathetic to people, not anatagonistic.]

BTW, a similar faulty reasoning underlies the so-called "fiscal imbalance". If provincial or municipal governments need more money, all they have to do is impose higher taxes on their own citizens. When they say that the federal government has too much money, what they are really saying is that they want the federal government to collect the money - or more likely, they want the federal government to impose taxes on citizens in another jurisdiction. There is a name for that: it's called "other people's money".

[Hicksey]

What simplistic nonsense this is. Harper's proposals will not create any jobs. The GST cuts will, as almost every economist who has commented on the proposal says, harm Investment ans Savings - the factors that have declined in economic performance - and thereby hurt productivity and economic growth.

The Conservative platform is not about growth or creating jobs. Ot is about holding the underclass that has been growing since 1980 firmly in its place at the bottom. It will create about as many jobs as daycare spaces - none.

Ontario bought the same crap from Harris and is still struggling to recover its lost opportunities.

The class warfare message is tired, eureka.

Explain how thriving business does not create jobs. Explain how more money in peoples' pockets to spend hurts economic growth.

Daycare spots are overrated. They help 9-5ers and nobody else. I don't live in Toronto or some other metropolitan center. It is useless to people working afternoons or midnights. In my area, in addition to there not being care available for my shift, there is an income cap on the care of $25,000 per year so I can't access it to begin with. The little money Harper is offering won't solve all but it will stem the hemorraging.

Try not to be silly with your "class warfare."

Thriving business does create jobs. That is why he discouragement of business by liliting business investment through the economically illiterate ideas of Harper will reduce jobs and investment.

Daycare spots are not overrated as every other democracy except the US has discovered. It is unfortunate for you if you cannot benefit from daycare but don't deny benefit to the world.

(1)Explain yourself how Harper will put money into peoples' pockets. He will mo. Even those pockets that do have a few bits of change put into them will have more than they gain taken out by the need of Provinces to replace the lost services: inefficiently replaced by a multiplicity of programmes.

Only fools buy Harper. Selfish fools who cannot see beyond their noses. Take another look at the effects of Harris. It is all too obvious to those who would see.

BOLDED

What?!?

UNDERLINE

It's Martin and Layton running around talking about UNIVERSAL child care -- not me. If every Canadian can't access it, then its not UNIVERSAL. Between the federals overtaxing me and the provinces taking even more every year and the municipalities taking more, and the natural gas bills going up and the hydro bills going up and the gasoline bills going up -- something has to give. And you know what, I'll take 200 per month for my wife to stay home and take care of my children over zero because I can't afford day care -- I need to stop the economic hemorraging.

(1) Tax cuts to make businesses more profitable make businesses that are more likely to invest in growth. Growth creates jobs. As far as how he will put more money in my pocket ... his programs to pay for the tools of my trade, the GST cut, the Child Care Allowance put around 2000-2500 in my pocket that isn't there now. Martin's $500 extra of nontaxable income puts a total of $200 in my pocket assuming 40% taxation between federal and provincial taxes. The conservative programs don't solve all, but they go about 300% father toward stopping the hemorraging.

[mar]

OMG!

Quebec would not lose $200 million. That money would return to people in Quebec. The Quebec government would lose $200 million. A government and a place are two very different things.

If the Quebec government (or any of the provincial governments in the maritimes) wants to recuperate that money, then it need only raise taxes on its citizens.

[This point came up in the French debate and Bernard Derome also asked the question to Harper directly in an interview on Le Point last night. I was surprised that Harper didn't correct this notion but I suspect right now, Harper is trying to be sympathetic to people, not anatagonistic.]

...

Sorry, Dr. Semantics,

read government of Quebec for Quebec in my statement and either way Harper promised to reimburse them, which was my point.

What is more troublesome is it won't end there. I've outlined this on other threads so the short form: If he doesn't compensate Quebec a Conservative government will begin their term with a bitter dispute with Quebec. If he does, first the Atlantic provinces, then others will demand compensation. You KNOW they will.

[speaker]

(1) Tax cuts to make businesses more profitable make businesses that are more likely to invest in growth. Growth creates jobs.

Whose hands are in whose pockets? When we give tax cuts to businesses that currently operate in Canada the benefits to society are split between those companies that are too small to do their contracting out to third world slave masters and those who are big enough to benefit from these tactics. This is where jobs? are being created. In my experience the bigger the business the bigger the share of the governmental benefits.