The Budget Vote

[Rovik]

The Liberals and NDP will vote against it while the Bloc will vote for it and in the process help the Conservatives pass it.

The Liberals and the NDP will vote against it citing the Conservatives' abandonment of the National Childcare Program, the Kelowna Accord and environment initatives. The Bloc wull vote for it because they know they could get hit hard and lose many seats in an early election.

So there it is. The separtist Bloc will keep the Conservatives in power for a while longer.

[Riverwind]

So there it is. The separtist Bloc will keep the Conservatives in power for a while longer.

The Liberals knew they could safely oppose the budget because the BQ has the most the lose by an election now. It is easy to oppose something and get score some cheap political points when there are no consequences.

[shoop]

Yup, that's pretty much it.

*If* need be the Liberals would have voted for this budget. You won't see very strong opposition to this budget from anybody. So it will fade into the twilight soon enough.

The Liberals knew they could safely oppose the budget because the BQ has the most the lose by an election now. It is easy to oppose something and get score some cheap political points when there are no consequences.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Good effort. Just look at the opposition scrambling around trying to to attack it.

Billy Graham and his mantra that "it will cost the taxpayers more money" without producing one shred of evidence to that effect.

And we have Smiling Jack talking about Kyoto. Kyoto? Who talks about that any more? And the fact that the aboriginals are getting short-changed. What government ever lost votes by NOT giving aboriginals enough money?

And a left-wing policy wonk on the CBC talking of the dangers in taking too many people off the tax rolls - could lead to a tax revolt by other taxpayers.

[August1991]

Decided.

Although the inaugural Conservative budget was immediately attacked by the Liberals and the New Democrats, who said it failed to meet the needs of working families, it won't mean the defeat of the Harper government because the Bloc Québécois says it will support the document.

G & M

[geoffrey]

The bottom line, Canadians will have more money in their pockets. Our country will be safer, our military respected.

That's all I need to see. It's a good step in the right direction, more tax cuts are needed though. This isn't enough yet.

Nothing is really around to address the fiscal imbalance and there is no gaurntees that Ottawa won't attack Alberta with another NEP. These are things I'm concerned about.

All in all the budget is acceptable, though it leaves alot more in tax relief to be desired.

If the NDP opposes it, it must be good at cutting the fat from the government and cutting entitlement from the Canadian psyche.

Most groups seem to be supporting, the police and border guards love it. So good, our officers are being protected. About time.

[August1991]

I don't like this budget, but I guess I should be happy that it's better than the NDP/Liberal concoction last time out.

The budget has too many complex, nickel-and-dime measures. Apprentice hires here, money for tools there. School textbook deductions. Metro pass deductions. Why the exemption for scholarships and bursaries? I know that the Tories promised some of these but the result will be more complicated tax forms.

What is this $1.5 billion in farm aid? What is this $500 million for pandemic preparation? (Who will get that contract?)

Why the cut in immigration visa fees?

What the heck is this business of a 15% tax rate to the 1 July and then 15.5% after?

The big ticket item is the $5.5 billion for "Waiting Time Reduction". (We'll have to see what that means exactly.)

The $100 million for border security is peanuts. The billion dollars for the military is probably better spent on transport planes rather than submarines.

Unfortunately, Harper has had to respect the Liberal/NDP promises from the past budget, a $3.3 billion shopping list.

I'm happy about the increase in the employment tax credit ($500 to $1000) and about the decrease in corporate taxes.

I'm happy that the Liberal's Kelowna aboriginal accord is excluded, as well as the Liberal Kyoto thingee.

I'm happy that the budget says nothing about increased funding for arts and culture.

Bottom line. Overall, the Tories are projecting that spending will rise from $210 billion to $223.6 billion. Huh?

Worse, the Tory's five-year spending projection is $10 billion higher than the Liberal spending projections.

This is a Conservative government?

[shoop]

Where are you getting your numbers from?

The Conservatives fiscal plan has spending $1.1 Billion LOWER than the Liberals projected to spend for 2006/7. This difference rises to the Conservatives planning to spend $7.5 Billion less the Liberals porjected for 2010/11.

This is from Page A4 of today's Post.

Worse, the Tory's five-year spending projection is $10 billion higher than the Liberal spending projections.

This is a Conservative government?

[August1991]

While it was widely expected that the Conservatives will aim to moderate spending by $22.5 billion over five years, the budget's summary statement of transactions shows that program expenses are up nearly $10 billion from the Liberal agenda.

CTV

I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong. In particular, the Liberal five-year projections were pure PR fiction.

[August1991]

In fact, I'm wrong about a number of things.

The employment tax credit will start at $500 and rise to $1000. (This was eliminated by the Tories before and is now being reinstated.)

The Canada Council is in fact seeing its budget rise from $150 million to $200 million. (Why?)

There's $1.6 billion for police, borders, security of which $100 million just for giving guns to border guards. (Crime stats are in fact declining so I've never quite understood the Tory obsession with this issue.)

Overall though, this budget mostly fulfils Tory promises, tinkers with tax policies and doesn't make a serious effort to rein in spending. In fairness though, the Tories have only been in power for three months, and they have a minority government.

And thank God it's not a Layton-NDP budget.

[August1991]

Harper is some kind of micro-manager, over-calculating, detail-freak. I am certain he personally approved the following paragraphs. You want complxity? Read this:

The lowest personal income tax rate will be reduced to 15 per cent from 16 per cent effective January 1, 2005. The rate will be 15.5 per cent effective July 1, 2006. Accordingly, the full-year rate for 2005 will be 15 per cent, for 2006, 15.25 per cent and, for the 2007 and subsequent taxation years, 15.5 per cent. For the 2005 taxation year the 15-per-cent rate applies to taxable incomes of up to $35,595. For the 2006 taxation year the 15.25-per-cent rate will apply to taxable incomes of up to $36,378. The upper limit for the application of the 15.5-per-cent rate will be indexed for taxation years after 2006. These rates will also be generally used to calculate non-refundable tax credits and the alternative minimum tax for the 2005 and subsequent taxation years.

(Why didn't they just leave the tax rate at 15% and live with the consequences... )

The basic personal amount—the amount that an individual can earn without paying federal personal income tax—will be increased by $500 to $8,648 for the 2005 taxation year. For the first half of 2006 it will then be increased by indexation plus a further $200, for a total of $9,039. The basic personal amount will be reduced by $400 to $8,639 on July 1, 2006 at the same time as the GST rate is reduced. For the purpose of calculating personal income taxes for the 2006 taxation year, these two half-year amounts will be applied as an annual average of $8,839. For 2007, the $8,639 amount will be increased by indexation plus an additional $100. For 2008, it will be increased by indexation plus an additional $200. For 2009, it will be increased by indexation plus the greater of $600 and the amount required to raise the basic personal amount to $10,000.

Holy F**k! Why all this indexation crap when inflation is not a problem? Why not just say $7000 this year rising to $10000 in 2009? (These idiots are jiggering around a Liberal promise.)

Budget 2006 proposes to introduce a new Canada Employment Credit in recognition of work-related expenses incurred by employees.

The new credit will take effect July 1, 2006, and will provide tax relief on the lesser of $500 and the individual’s employment income for the year. Because this measure will take effect mid-year, the maximum amount on which the credit is calculated will be $250 for the 2006 taxation year. For the 2007 and subsequent taxation years, the maximum amount on which the credit is calculated will be increased to $1,000. The tax credit for a taxation year will be calculated by reference to the lowest personal income tax rate for the taxation year (i.e. 15.25 per cent for 2006 and 15.5 per cent for the 2007 and subsequent taxation years). The amount on which the credit is based will be indexed after 2007.

$250 this half year but $1000 for the next whole year? Why?

The GST transitional measures are even worse.

Finance

[scribblet]

Be interesting to hear how the liberals will come down on the corporate income tax down from 21 to 19 as it was planned by the Liberals for 2011, now it is for 2008.

What a lot of hot air from Graham et al, they should bring the gov't down, it'll guarrantee the CPC a majority.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Good effort. Just look at the opposition scrambling around trying to to attack it.

Billy Graham and his mantra that "it will cost the taxpayers more money" without producing one shred of evidence to that effect.

If you happen to be an average earner (around 40 Gs) your pocket was picked, you'll lose 100 bucks a year.

But if you are big time spender and purchase 10,000 worth of goods to which GST applies, you'll be back to even.

Bill Graham is right!

[geoffrey]

Good effort. Just look at the opposition scrambling around trying to to attack it.

Billy Graham and his mantra that "it will cost the taxpayers more money" without producing one shred of evidence to that effect.

If you happen to be an average earner (around 40 Gs) your pocket was picked, you'll lose 100 bucks a year.

But if you are big time spender and purchase 10,000 worth of goods to which GST applies, you'll be back to even.

Bill Graham is right!

Where are you getting this information? Most people spend at least $10,000 a year in GST goods. Think of your house, that has GST and mortgages are most of the time the biggest expense of low income Canadians. It might not help you now because you've already bought the house, but think of all the future home owners that will have $2-5k on their houses... divide that from the 20 years for a mortgage and you get $100-$250 a year in GST savings. Then add your car. Then add your utilities.

Come on now, GST costs people a ton of money. It is the most regressive tax, as the poorest people on the street still pay it. 655,000 were cut from the tax rolls by Harper's budget, that's a significant number of people that will have more money to make their ends meet.

[scribblet]

Good effort. Just look at the opposition scrambling around trying to to attack it.

Billy Graham and his mantra that "it will cost the taxpayers more money" without producing one shred of evidence to that effect.

If you happen to be an average earner (around 40 Gs) your pocket was picked, you'll lose 100 bucks a year.

But if you are big time spender and purchase 10,000 worth of goods to which GST applies, you'll be back to even.

Bill Graham is right!

No he isn't, your pocket wasn't picked at all, all he did was roll back a benefit promised by the liberals, the tax credit for workers more than offsets that. Course the usual suspects will be whining, the day care advocates and Kyoto pushers, but that is to be expected.

The GST cut will benefit the lower income more as the spend a higher percentage of their income on goods and services than higher income people.

It does signal a new direction for Canada as it is big on tax cuts and reins in program spending, a cood move, and they kept their election promises - a government that Canadians can trust.

The Liberals were growing spending by 14.4% in 2004-05 whereby the CPC have predicted an increase in program spending by only 5.3% this fiscal year, and 4.1% in 2007. 0 increase in spending would be prefereable, but cutting in back is a step in the right direction.

I would have preferred more broad based tax cuts, and a lower increase in spending, it wasn't quite what I was looking for, for its a start.

And darn it, I want bigger and better pensions !!!

[Guest Warwick Green]

Good effort. Just look at the opposition scrambling around trying to to attack it.

Billy Graham and his mantra that "it will cost the taxpayers more money" without producing one shred of evidence to that effect.

If you happen to be an average earner (around 40 Gs) your pocket was picked, you'll lose 100 bucks a year.

But if you are big time spender and purchase 10,000 worth of goods to which GST applies, you'll be back to even.

Bill Graham is right!

All Billy Boy was able to talk about was the increase in the marginal tax rate from 15% to 15.5%. No recognition given to the reduction of the GST, the child care allowance or the myriad other tax changes favorable to the taxpayer. We would have seen none of these if the Martinites were still in power.

[fixer1]

Not a whole lot of stuff in this budget for me, but I do believe that young families and and the low and mid incomes earn ers will be far better off now then they were before. That to me is more important then my own personal position. I do get a bit of a tax break as mose of my income is from investments, and non-taxable disability pension.

I see this as a good step forward and the first of what will become known as the return to our senses budgets. The Liberals will not be ready to even try and challenge this government or any other for at least a decade, as any move now will only drop them to below NDP status. There is not one person run ning for their party leader that will instll any kind of support from the voters, and as long as the CPC can run and make budgets like this, they will have np problem making the minority work. The only thing that may make a change and that is id the CPC see it it ripe for an election to be held to gain a majority government. That could be a wild card for now. But as for any party being able to bring down this minority on their own goes, that is not even an option.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Not a whole lot of stuff in this budget for me, but I do believe that young families and and the low and mid incomes earn ers will be far better off now then they were before. That to me is more important then my own personal position. I do get a bit of a tax break as mose of my income is from investments, and non-taxable disability pension.

I see this as a good step forward and the first of what will become known as the return to our senses budgets. The Liberals will not be ready to even try and challenge this government or any other for at least a decade, as any move now will only drop them to below NDP status. There is not one person run ning for their party leader that will instll any kind of support from the voters, and as long as the CPC can run and make budgets like this, they will have np problem making the minority work. The only thing that may make a change and that is id the CPC see it it ripe for an election to be held to gain a majority government. That could be a wild card for now. But as for any party being able to bring down this minority on their own goes, that is not even an option.

The value of the budget (with its many specific measures) almost has to be examined on a case-by case basis. My daughter (a stay at home with twin 2-yr olds and no source of income) is very happy. With the Liberals she was offered a day care plan of no use to her.

Being interesting to see how the Liberal leadership candidates react. I suspect it will be typical. Not enough money for the environment, for aboriginals, for day care etc, etc. In other words, same-old, same-old.

[scribblet]

Graham can safely huff and puff all he wants, along with Layton as the Bloc has agreed to support the budget. Guess it just goes to how you can't teach old liberal dogs new tricks - they can safely vote against it.

Some of Graham's problems listed here, provides some good entertainment at least.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...get2006&no_ads=

Despite opposition from both the Liberal and NDP parties, the first Conservative budget in over a decade will likely pass because of the endorsement of the Bloc Quebecois.

I like this part, guess Duceppe is expecting the CPC to last at least another year -

"The real budget will be next year and Mr. Harper will have to deliver on that," he said.

Leader of the Opposition Bill Graham said he would feel "ashamed" if he did not vote against the budget.

"I don't think that the people who have voted for the Liberal Party and asked us to be the custodians of their principles and their ideals, in this House of Parliament, would want us to vote in favour of this budget," he said.

"In fact, I would be ashamed if I went back to my electorate and said, 'Yes, I could vote for it."

Graham said the budget offers little financial help for upper-income Canadians.

"In terms of taxes, there's little benefit to lower and middle-income Canadians and lots of benefits to upper-income Canadians in it," he said. "But ultimately, there's going to be tax increases in spite of what the minister is saying for those least able to afford them."

Graham also said the budget "totally eviscerates our Kyoto responsibilities."

The Conservative government has said it will drop Canada's Kyoto programs in favour of "made in Canada" solutions to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile, NDP Leader Jack Layton also said he will not endorse the budget, citing a lack of real benefits for child care.

"What this budget fails to do is invest in the things that working families need for their families, like child care spaces," he said.

"There's just no long-term funding for child care spaces, so we can get places where kids can be looked after. And certainly $100 a month isn't going to do the job. Secondly, nothing for post-secondary education to keep the costs of going to school down."

[Biblio Bibuli]

Good effort. Just look at the opposition scrambling around trying to to attack it.

Billy Graham and his mantra that "it will cost the taxpayers more money" without producing one shred of evidence to that effect.

If you happen to be an average earner (around 40 Gs) your pocket was picked, you'll lose 100 bucks a year.

But if you are big time spender and purchase 10,000 worth of goods to which GST applies, you'll be back to even.

Bill Graham is right!

All Billy Boy was able to talk about was the increase in the marginal tax rate from 15% to 15.5%. No recognition given to the reduction of the GST, the child care allowance or the myriad other tax changes favorable to the taxpayer. We would have seen none of these if the Martinites were still in power.

I made a mistake in my calculation. As it turns out the average earner's (that's me) yearly take home pay will shrink by over $200.

I know I will not even get close to recouping that money by getting on Harper's social engineering bandwagon.

And since I enjoy my tobacco and liquor .... all I can say is ...... GOD WILL GET YOU FOR THAT, STEVIE BOY!!!

[politika]

Can somone help me with a question. If the COnservatives plan to spend over 5 billion dollars on defense, is that all th emoney that is going towards it? Or is their other defense money's floating around our their somwhere at the Government's disposal?

What is your guys take on the defense spending is it really Conservative?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Most people spend at least $10,000 a year in GST goods. Think of your house, Then add your car.

Come on now, GST costs people a ton of money.

You know that new car smell? I hate it!

The same goes for houses!

And so do most other people, for how else would used car and used house sales outnumber the new ones by such a large margin?

[geoffrey]

The fact that you don't like new home smells is really of no concern to me or anyone in Canada.

In Alberta, we are facing a housing shortage, and much of home purchases is families moving into their first, new, home. $3000 off the top of their housing prices is a major windfall for new families just getting into the housing market, and its no laughing matter.

This GST cut is very progressive, it allows families to more easily gain a strong financial foothold for their future.

The GST cut puts more money back into Canadian's pockets than the Liberal Income tax cut. What else do I need to know?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

What else do I need to know?

You need to kow that 'biblio bibuli' is merely a troll yanking your chain for 'shits and giggles'.

[Biblio Bibuli]

In Alberta, we are facing a housing shortage, and much of home purchases is families moving into their first, new, home.

I looked up Calgary Real Estate ...... and look what I found:

http://www.cren.ca/content_view2?CONTENT_ID=1744

2005 New Home Maket ..... 12,200

2005 Resale Market ........ 42,400

Which means that in 2005 4 out of 5 Calgary home buyers did NOT pay the GST.

Nationally it's more like 6 out of 7 (my estimation).