Scrap Nanny State and Return Our Cash

[southerncomfort]

Wowzer, Mikey tell it like it is i'll go for this one anytime.

In fact, the answer to both problems is entirely obvious and is found in one measure: Cut income tax by 30% immediately.

Scrap the baby bonus just as we have scrapped socialized daycare and allow parents, along with non-parents and anybody and everybody else, to choose to do what they want with their money. Because it is, yes, their money.

The daycare fetish is merely one example of our sorry dependency on the state. We hand over our money to people who happen to have jobs in the civil service or have managed to find a seat in Parliament, often through vulgar ambition rather than ability, and ask them to use that money to raise our children.

read the rest of it here http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...06/1566801.html

[Hicksey]

I like the idea.

But watch out for the offensive from the Liberals and NDP.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Wowzer, Mikey tell it like it is i'll go for this one anytime.

In fact, the answer to both problems is entirely obvious and is found in one measure: Cut income tax by 30% immediately.

Scrap the baby bonus just as we have scrapped socialized daycare and allow parents, along with non-parents and anybody and everybody else, to choose to do what they want with their money. Because it is, yes, their money.

The daycare fetish is merely one example of our sorry dependency on the state. We hand over our money to people who happen to have jobs in the civil service or have managed to find a seat in Parliament, often through vulgar ambition rather than ability, and ask them to use that money to raise our children.

read the rest of it here http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...06/1566801.html

Spot on but after the Martinizers bribed some of the public (those with day care fetishes) with the taxpayers money the Harperites couldn't just take it away - they had to come up with another way of dishing out goodies.

The whole thing makes me sick. :angry:

[Nocrap]

Wowzer, Mikey tell it like it is i'll go for this one anytime.

In fact, the answer to both problems is entirely obvious and is found in one measure: Cut income tax by 30% immediately.

Scrap the baby bonus just as we have scrapped socialized daycare and allow parents, along with non-parents and anybody and everybody else, to choose to do what they want with their money. Because it is, yes, their money.

The daycare fetish is merely one example of our sorry dependency on the state. We hand over our money to people who happen to have jobs in the civil service or have managed to find a seat in Parliament, often through vulgar ambition rather than ability, and ask them to use that money to raise our children.

read the rest of it here http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...06/1566801.html

Spot on but after the Martinizers bribed some of the public (those with day care fetishes) with the taxpayers money the Harperites couldn't just take it away - they had to come up with another way of dishing out goodies.

The whole thing makes me sick. :angry:

You know what? I actually agree in part, though I would never advocate cutting social programs, because we all benefit regardless of income. Hunger begets crime, and I don't need any in depth studies or statistics to show me this.

I also believe that public health, education, crime and defense are vital needs, and should remain on the federal agenda.

But perhaps a major tax cut ithat would result in more money in our pockets (and not just cleverly disguised cuts that give us only a couple of bucks) would not be such a bad thing.

The baby bonus when it was first initiated, was to allow all children to be able to go to school. Many were unable to due to lack of clothing or a need to help out at home.

We were right to scrap it and wrong to bring it back.

Social programs should only be for those who need them and any tax credits SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCOME BASED!!!!. The rich don't need more money.

And for those who don't believe that the rich should support the poor....remember...for the most part the poor support them. Working stiffs buy the goods that keep the economy moving and keep their companies going.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Social programs should only be for those who need them and any tax credits SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCOME BASED!!!!. The rich don't need more money.

If Martin had come up a plan to assist ONLY low income people to allow them to send their kids to day care (with corresponding money to low income familes who DON'T want the send their kids out for upbringing) that might have been acceptable.

[Renegade]

Social programs should only be for those who need them and any tax credits SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCOME BASED!!!!.

NoCrap, wern't you the one advocating for univerisal public healthcare? Are you now saying that social programs should only be for those in low income categories who couldn't otherwise afford them?

The rich don't need more money.

But so what. Many tax credits are created to incent certain behaviour or actions on the part of the taxpayer. It is not really based upon the "need" of the taxpayer.

And for those who don't believe that the rich should support the poor....remember...for the most part the poor support them. Working stiffs buy the goods that keep the economy moving and keep their companies going.

I'm one of those who don't believe that the rich should support the poor through the taxiation system. You state that the poor support the rich by buying goods.. However a fair trade of goods for money takes place. The "poor" or consumers in general get goods in exchange for their money. They are not "owed" anything further by company owners.

If I were to use your logic, I could state that the "rich" support the poor by giving them jobs they otherwise wouldn't have, so by extension, the "poor" owe the "rich"

BTW Nocrap, how is you would propose to fund a tax cut without also cutting social programs?

[Renegade]

Social programs should only be for those who need them and any tax credits SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCOME BASED!!!!. The rich don't need more money.

If Martin had come up a plan to assist ONLY low income people to allow them to send their kids to day care (with corresponding money to low income familes who DON'T want the send their kids out for upbringing) that might have been acceptable.

Acceptable to who? Not to the scores of the middle class who supported Harper's $1200 bonus.

[margrace]

Social programs should only be for those who need them and any tax credits SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCOME BASED!!!!. The rich don't need more money.

If Martin had come up a plan to assist ONLY low income people to allow them to send their kids to day care (with corresponding money to low income familes who DON'T want the send their kids out for upbringing) that might have been acceptable.

Acceptable to who? Not to the scores of the middle class who supported Harper's $1200 bonus.

Yes lets get rid of all social programs, and lets start with the Military.

[scribblet]

I never actually considered the Military a social program. Maybe we should start with the elimination of OAS, after all, its a 'freebie' isn't it.

[Renegade]

Yes lets get rid of all social programs, and lets start with the Military.

But what would Toronto do when it starts to snow?

[scribblet]

Yes lets get rid of all social programs, and lets start with the Military.

But what would Toronto do when it starts to snow?

Mayor Miller will figure that one out, geez, maybe could get some of those 'welfare bum' out shovelling LOL

[BubberMiley]

Get rid of all those free roads for lazy motorists too.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Social programs should only be for those who need them and any tax credits SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCOME BASED!!!!. The rich don't need more money.

If Martin had come up a plan to assist ONLY low income people to allow them to send their kids to day care (with corresponding money to low income familes who DON'T want the send their kids out for upbringing) that might have been acceptable.

Acceptable to who? Not to the scores of the middle class who supported Harper's $1200 bonus.

Acceptable to me from a policy point of view.

Of course it wouldn't be acceptable to those who take care of their own kids. They would not have been on the Martin gravy train.

[Renegade]

Get rid of all those free roads for lazy motorists too.

Right. and eliminate the gas tax that pays for those "free" roads.

[margrace]

I never actually considered the Military a social program. Maybe we should start with the elimination of OAS, after all, its a 'freebie' isn't it.

Everything the gov't pays for is a social program and Bush already wants to scrap seniors benefits,so why would Harper be any different

[scribblet]

I never actually considered the Military a social program. Maybe we should start with the elimination of OAS, after all, its a 'freebie' isn't it.

Everything the gov't pays for is a social program and Bush already wants to scrap seniors benefits,so why would Harper be any different

Really. Who in ell cares what Bush does, but you might want to provide a source for that statement and exactly what it has to do with Canada. If you think Harper wants do away with senior's benefits, also please provide proof as to that statement, and provide the policy etc. etc. sniping doesn't make it so, and I'll bet you can't.

[Hicksey]

Get rid of all those free roads for lazy motorists too.

Right. and eliminate the gas tax that pays for those "free" roads.

I have an idea. We should limit government profits on goods to the same levels taken by the companies that sell them. So instead of 42.5 cents of a one dollar litre going to taxes it would be closer to 10 cents.

[Renegade]

I never actually considered the Military a social program. Maybe we should start with the elimination of OAS, after all, its a 'freebie' isn't it.

Everything the gov't pays for is a social program and Bush already wants to scrap seniors benefits,so why would Harper be any different

margrace, your definition of a social program is significantly different than anyone elses. For example, would you consider interest cost to service the debt a social program? Most people wouldn't.

I doubt that Bush would scrap seniors benefits, it would cut into his power base.

[scribblet]

t

margrace, your definition of a social program is significantly different than anyone elses. For example, would you consider interest cost to service the debt a social program? Most people wouldn't.

I doubt that Bush would scrap seniors benefits, it would cut into his power base.

Bush actually has never (to my knowledge) said he intends to scrap senior's benefits. I believe there was a proposal to cut survivor benefits, (their social security includes survivor benefits)

There was the proposal that individuals have a choice as to how they handle their deductions. (U.S. folks have tax deductions for social security) I think he wanted people to put the money into inidividual RRSP style (400 K ?) accounts rather than have the gov't handle it. I believe their social security fund is almost insolvent, as our CPP was a while ago.

I believe the U.S. today defines its social security benefits as a 'defined benefits program' not the sole means of support. The more you pay into it the more you get back (as in our CPP )

However, I don't believe it passed, although I think some republicans said they would vote for it if the old plan was kept and people given a choice - not sure.

Either way, I'm not sure where in our constitution it says that people should rely on the government for all things.

[Hicksey]

margrace, your definition of a social program is significantly different than anyone elses. For example, would you consider interest cost to service the debt a social program? Most people wouldn't.

I doubt that Bush would scrap seniors benefits, it would cut into his power base.

Bush actually has never (to my knowledge) said he intends to scrap senior's benefits. I believe there was a proposal to cut survivor benefits, (their social security includes survivor benefits)

There was the proposal that individuals have a choice as to how they handle their deductions. (U.S. folks have tax deductions for social security) I think he wanted people to put the money into inidividual RRSP style (400 K ?) accounts rather than have the gov't handle it. I believe their social security fund is almost insolvent, as our CPP was a while ago.

I believe the U.S. today defines its social security benefits as a 'defined benefits program' not the sole means of support. The more you pay into it the more you get back (as in our CPP )

However, I don't believe it passed, although I think some republicans said they would vote for it if the old plan was kept and people given a choice - not sure.

Either way, I'm not sure where in our constitution it says that people should rely on the government for all things.

Trudeau's government wrote it so I'm sure if you look you find it somewhere. You might also notice another suspicious omission on the issue of property rights -- we don't have any.