Tony Clements

[margrace]

Mr. Clements has sent us, his loyal constituants, by a 27 vote majority the following survey sheet. Free postage of course. He Says the Liberals think Families making over $37,000 per year are rich and want to claw back you Child Care Benefit. In a radius of one mile of our home there is one child who might qualify for this benefit. He asks do you want your benefit clawed back.

I could not find the Census stats for our Township but I did find them for a small village near us. It has a population of 986 people, the average wage is a little over $19,000 a year. There are 45 Children four and under in this village. There are 190 senior citizens with an average wage of $16,000. I don't know where the tax grab cutoff is but it you get the minimum Federal pensions you are paying income tax on some of that $12,000 a year, if you have any extra money, saved throught scrimping and saving all your life you lose some of that benefit if you try to pay bills with that money. We have enough in GIC's to pay for our funerals. Will there even be a tax on that?

Come on Mr. Clement isn't this a bit of a farce.

[hiti]

Aren't we all so lucky that Steve "may I call you Steve" Harper has reversed Paul Martin's tax cuts by raising the personal exemption, raising the lowest personal income tax rate and canceling the federal/provincial child care program, replacing it with beer and popcorn money that will be part of a poor families taxable income.

So what if it is costing me an extra $400 per year so "Steve" can keep the job he really likes.

Ba*tard.

[geoffrey]

replacing it with beer and popcorn money that will be part of a poor families taxable income.

However much I disapprove of the program, comments like that show that you are out of touch with real Canadians and reality. It's also the reason why I doubt if the Liberals will win even a minority next election.

Those attitudes impress nobody but the yuppies in Toronto and Montreal, not enough to win an election unfortunately for Dion.

[margrace]

But our then MP Andy Mitchell called a forum with reps from all organizations including child care people and that was the general consenus. Most of them said that the money would in some cases really help the children but in others it would just be what hiti said. more beer money.

They recommended a broad program that everyone could access. As I said in our immediate community one family would benefit and the truth is that this child's grandparents are sitting on a property worth millions of dollars. All around are seniors living off the pitance that the government pensions give them, but mind you they are not complaining. They of course are not supporting local business because they can't afford to. So our village is a wasteland of empty stores and buildings that have gone. Only the local food store does well, since that is all seniors and most others in our area must have.

In the summer of course,hords tourists and land owners of the many cottages in our area come in and complain about the lack of services and local shopping and then complain because of their taxes are going to roads, fire protection, school taxes,local emergency rooms etc. Things that they only want when they are here. The local people are not supposed to have these in the winter months.

They complain because the local farmers, of whom very few are left, use the roads with their slow moving machinery.

[Argus]

Mr. Clements has sent us, his loyal constituants, by a 27 vote majority the following survey sheet. Free postage of course. He Says the Liberals think Families making over $37,000 per year are rich and want to claw back you Child Care Benefit. In a radius of one mile of our home there is one child who might qualify for this benefit. He asks do you want your benefit clawed back.

So you're upset he's asking your opinion?

I could not find the Census stats for our Township but I did find them for a small village near us. It has a population of 986 people, the average wage is a little over $19,000 a year. There are 45 Children four and under in this village.

Who would all, presumably, get the child care benefit, right? So what's the problem?

[Argus]

Aren't we all so lucky that Steve "may I call you Steve" Harper has reversed Paul Martin's tax cuts by raising the personal exemption, raising the lowest personal income tax rate and canceling the federal/provincial child care program, replacing it with beer and popcorn money that will be part of a poor families taxable income.

So what if it is costing me an extra $400 per year so "Steve" can keep the job he really likes.

Ba*tard.

There never was a "federal/provincial child care program". It was all smoke and mirrors designed to fool simpletons. There was no national program. There were some limited agreements with specific provinces wherin the provinces agreed to take federal money but made no promise whatsoever of using it on child care. And I find it odd that you whine about cancelling tax cuts on the one hand, and then about the government not spending more money. Hey, if you want the government to spend money it has to increase taxes. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

[Argus]

But our then MP Andy Mitchell called a forum with reps from all organizations including child care people and that was the general consenus.

Oh please. A Liberal MP calls together social service and poverty reps and their "consensus" is that the conservative government is evil and its programs are terrible. This is a surprise to you? I could have given you their consensus before they ever met. No doubt they could have too. Such people tend to be unthinking reactionaries.

The fact is that social services are a provincial responsibility. The job of the federal government is to see to things like the military and foreign affairs and to redistribute money among the provinces. A national child care program would cost us a freaking fortune, because all the child care workers would need to be government employees and be paid accordingly.

When the Liberals took over the province of Ontario they made a lot of noise about health care and poverty issues. But that's all it was: noise. They did nothing. Just as the federal Liberals beat their chests every election for the last fifteen years talking about their love of the social safety net and their determination to defend it. But again, it was and remains noise. They cut money to health, education and welfare as it suited them. There were no national policies to aliviate poverty or child poverty, no programs to care for the homeless, no efforts at combating the lack of child care.

[guyser]

In the summer of course,hords tourists and land owners of the many cottages in our area come in and complain about the lack of services and local shopping and then complain because of their taxes are going to roads, fire protection, school taxes,local emergency rooms etc. Things that they only want when they are here. The local people are not supposed to have these in the winter months.

They complain because the local farmers, of whom very few are left, use the roads with their slow moving machinery.

You do realize that those "hordes of tourists and cottage owners" are the number one reason you have the level of services you have? You do realize that the tax burden to keep your area vital (and I know your area VERY well) has been shifted to the cottagers, you know...because they are all rich? You do realize that the schools the kids go to in your area ,on average, are better funded because cottagers pay but cannot use?

And if you live in any one of the small towns that inhabit your area , you realize that your taxes are artificially low , as town councils and management pretty much sock it these same cottagers?

I bet you wouldn't like to pay your taxes and receive exactly this much------> NADA!

Cottagers get all this for their ridiculous taxes....no garbage pickup (for the most part) , no water, no sewer,no right of education in that area . If you dont like tourists and cottagers keeping your town vital, if you dont like the same people funding all the goods in your town , then perhaps you should move?

[margrace]

Yes you sound like one. Changing the tax system to reflect the true value of properties sure made a lot of cottagers angry. I do have some sympathy. The taxes should have been fair all along. Expecting the local peasants to pay your way had to catch up with you sometime.

[guyser]

. Expecting the local peasants to pay your way had to catch up with you sometime.

I am sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this. PLease explain?

[hiti]

Aren't we all so lucky that Steve "may I call you Steve" Harper has reversed Paul Martin's tax cuts by raising the personal exemption, raising the lowest personal income tax rate and canceling the federal/provincial child care program, replacing it with beer and popcorn money that will be part of a poor families taxable income.

So what if it is costing me an extra $400 per year so "Steve" can keep the job he really likes.

Ba*tard.

There never was a "federal/provincial child care program". It was all smoke and mirrors designed to fool simpletons. There was no national program. There were some limited agreements with specific provinces wherin the provinces agreed to take federal money but made no promise whatsoever of using it on child care. And I find it odd that you whine about canceling tax cuts on the one hand, and then about the government not spending more money. Hey, if you want the government to spend money it has to increase taxes. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

Do you seriously think that people have forgotten about Ken Dryden crossing the country, signing early learning and child care agreements? No we haven't forgotten and neither have the children who have been deprived by this "new government" cancellation of their programs and replacing it with beer and popcorn money.

September 29, 2005 BC signed an agreement, joining Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Alberta.

Quote- "The surest measure of a forward-looking society is the effort it makes to help its youngest citizens," said Prime Minister Martin. "This Agreement in Principle between Canada and British Columbia moves us closer to a shared vision for early learning and child care. Decades ago, it was a series of such agreements that led to the creation of Medicare in Canada —a program that now helps to define us as Canadians."

"We want to ensure that B.C. families have access to a sustainable, flexible, and affordable early learning and child care system that will ensure B.C. children get the support they need to thrive and succeed," said Premier Campbell. "The agreement we have signed today will help parents balance the demands of work and family, and assist child care providers with new funding opportunities. It is a critical step in achieving our goal of providing the best systems of support for British Columbians in need."

This announcement follows the Government of Canada’s February 2005 budget commitment to invest $5 billion over five years to enhance and expand high-quality developmental early learning and child care in collaboration with provinces and territories. -end quote.

So although Cons throw up smoke and mirrors and think parents are all simpletons, the child care program and funding really, really existed with seven provinces signed on and starting to implement the programs that the funds provided for. Since Steve Harper has replaced this program with his popcorn and beer money funds, Alberta schools have canceled after school programs and the Alberta governments search for qualified, approved homes to become day care has ended. Even some day care have closed because they cannot afford the staffing.

And all this was happening, early childhood development and child care with funds allocated.... AND a personal tax cut with lowered personal exemptions too boot. All that Steve has canceled. Apparently he found it too complicated to understand how to help Canadians with child care and lower taxes. Paul Martin and Ken Dryden did not find this too complicated.

So Steve........... what the f*** did you do with all that money????

The fact is that social services are a provincial responsibility. The job of the federal government is to see to things like the military and foreign affairs and to redistribute money among the provinces. A national child care program would cost us a freaking fortune, because all the child care workers would need to be government employees and be paid accordingly.

The Federal Government of Canada supports health, post-secondary education, and social assistance and social services (including early childhood development and early learning and child care). Since balancing the budget, federal health funding has increased by $41.3 billion through the 10-Year Plan. Federal funding in support of post-secondary education and social assistance and social services, including early childhood development and early learning and child care was scheduled to increase by 8%. I know that Steve Harper canceled some of these transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and early childhood development.

So no, social services are not provincial responsibilities. They are shared with Federal standards applied for all provinces.

I don't believe Steve's kool-aide regarding federal/provincial responsibilities. Canada has standards for things like health care, social services, education that are enforced federally.

It is only right to have federal standards that cross provincial lines.

I wish Steve would just shut up about his twisted view of Canada. We are not a country where everyone is on their own and better pull themselves up by the boot straps.

[margrace]

. Expecting the local peasants to pay your way had to catch up with you sometime.

I am sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this. PLease explain?

Oh yes you do. Cottagers with lake front properties paying the same taxes as people on small county and village lots and then selling the properties for huge amounts of money, how you can call that fair proves the greed. Its time you paid your bills.

[guyser]

. Expecting the local peasants to pay your way had to catch up with you sometime.

I am sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this. PLease explain?

Oh yes you do. Cottagers with lake front properties paying the same taxes as people on small county and village lots and then selling the properties for huge amounts of money, how you can call that fair proves the greed. Its time you paid your bills.

You know Margrace, that is what I thought you meant but I wanted to see you spell it out for me. And now it is obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Actually it is less than that frankly.I pay the same taxes as a waterfront owner that you do as a homeowner in town? Oh my that is laughable .

Check your facts and come back with new info. You are woefully misinformed. Your town is subsidized by those horrible cottagers.

[margrace]

Oh I am well aware that you people are now paying your bills. Mr. Harris took care of that didn't he. And yes you have no idea of how we locals live.

[guyser]

Oh I am well aware that you people are now paying your bills. Mr. Harris took care of that didn't he. And yes you have no idea of how we locals live.

Thats just it Margrace, we are paying our bills, always have, just that for the last 15 years we are paying YOUR bills too.

Just to refresh your memory...I get, no garbage pickup, no water, no sewer , no plowing. So, please tell me what I get for my taxes...OR...tell me what you get for MY taxes that I pay?

Do not confuse the issue by implying that we don't want to pay. I know that Hosps need funding, roads schools and infrastructures need upkeep and I want to pay for that. What we want to pay is an equitable amount.

Care to put in print what your taxes are and what you pay...size of lot etc ??The proof will be in the pudding.

[margrace]

So if my property is worth $90,000 and yours is worth $300,000 they should be taxed the same amount? That was the way it was before Mr. Harris and there has been a horrendous amount of complaining about having to pay full market value.

[guyser]

So if my property is worth $90,000 and yours is worth $300,000 they should be taxed the same amount? That was the way it was before Mr. Harris and there has been a horrendous amount of complaining about having to pay full market value.

You don't see the false value in your example?

[Saturn]

Mr. Clements has sent us, his loyal constituants, by a 27 vote majority the following survey sheet. Free postage of course. He Says the Liberals think Families making over $37,000 per year are rich and want to claw back you Child Care Benefit. In a radius of one mile of our home there is one child who might qualify for this benefit. He asks do you want your benefit clawed back.

And I bet the possible anwers to the survey are "No!" and "No." along with some nonsence about how great the PM and the Conservatives are and how their only goal in life is to support Canadian families.

Mr. Clement shows yet again that he is a lying weasel because the CCTB clawback is very small and even families (with 2 children) earning as much as $110K/year will qualify to receive benefits. With the elimination of the under-7 supplement by the conservatives, this will go down to about $95K/year. In fact, over 90% of families receive the CCTB and I can assure you that there is no riding in the country rich enough to have only 1 child qualify for the benefit. The only change the Conservative UCCB will provide is that families with lower and middle incomes will receive significanlty less in CCTB than they did before and the top 10% of earners who did not qualify for the CCTB before will now receive money from the UCCB. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/icbc/simnet/...B&baseYear=2005

The UCCB is NOT a child-care program. This is a vote-buying, beer-popcorn-and-Florida vacation, and huge-waste-of-money program that the Conservatives thought up to get people with children to vote for them. The UCCB is designed as a good advertising campaign - to exagerate greatly the quality of a marginally useful product. The Benefit has nothing to do with Child Care, most of the people who received it are those who need it least, and it grossly exagerates the amount of money parents will actually receive.

In typical Conservative fashion the payment distribution is made in the most expensive in-your-face manner to ensure that people don't forget about the cash Canada's New Government sends to them. Millions of cheques are printed each month and sent off to parents across the country at the cost of over $20 million just for printing and mailing the cheques. Other much more efficient ways of making the payments, such as adding the $100 to the CCTB (coincidentally over 90% of parents are already enrolled in the CCTB), were set aside because the advertising value of depositing the money in the parents' bank account is much lower than sending them a cheque 12 times a year. At the same time, the CCTB under-7 supplement is quietly removed from the CCTB payments - hopefully nobody will notice. Yet another benefit to sending a $100 cheque is that people think they are getting $100, when unlike most other similar benefits, the UCCB is taxable income so most parents will end up getting $50-$60 or so.

[Renegade]

So if my property is worth $90,000 and yours is worth $300,000 they should be taxed the same amount? That was the way it was before Mr. Harris and there has been a horrendous amount of complaining about having to pay full market value.

Why is it relevant how much a property is worth? Should two properties which consume comparable levels of services pay the same level of taxes regardless of their worth?

[guyser]

So if my property is worth $90,000 and yours is worth $300,000 they should be taxed the same amount? That was the way it was before Mr. Harris and there has been a horrendous amount of complaining about having to pay full market value.

Why is it relevant how much a property is worth? Should two properties which consume comparable levels of services pay the same level of taxes regardless of their worth?

And in fact , she could have a much larger property, a larger house , and still pay very little in comparison.Hello to Market Value Assessment.

And as an aside, my neighbour sold her cottage , and then tacked on almost $300,000 for contents. The price it "sold" for is now the benchmark. Can you say PO'd?

[margrace]

The interesting thing is that when market assesment value came in our house was valued by MPAC at more than double what we paid for it.

When I asked a real estate agent about it she said we would be lucky to get what we originally paid for it. When I asked MPAC where they got the value I was told we were valued against a property in Richmond Hill. For you information that is one of the priciest neighbourhoods in Ontario. We had to pay taxes for two years on the inflated estimate until the Liberal Gov't came in and they cut the value in half. Our taxes dropped by $1000.

[madmax]

Mr. Clements has sent us, his loyal constituants, by a 27 vote majority the following survey sheet. Free postage of course. He Says the Liberals think Families making over $37,000 per year are rich and want to claw back you Child Care Benefit. In a radius of one mile of our home there is one child who might qualify for this benefit. He asks do you want your benefit clawed back.

Come on Mr. Clement isn't this a bit of a farce.

Well, he had a landslide of 27 votes. The bottom line is , will he get re elected? My guess is yes he will.

[Renegade]

The interesting thing is that when market assesment value came in our house was valued by MPAC at more than double what we paid for it.

When I asked a real estate agent about it she said we would be lucky to get what we originally paid for it. When I asked MPAC where they got the value I was told we were valued against a property in Richmond Hill. For you information that is one of the priciest neighbourhoods in Ontario. We had to pay taxes for two years on the inflated estimate until the Liberal Gov't came in and they cut the value in half. Our taxes dropped by $1000.

Great story. But maybe you can try and address the question. Should the taxes on a house be based upon the services provided?

[margrace]

Should the taxes be based on the services provided. So what you are saying is that market value and increased value when sold are not viable. This could bankrupt the small twps in our area because if it is set up that way a lot of seniors and low income earners providing services in this area would lose their homes. As I said at first, The income of a lot of people living in cottage country but not owning cottages on water is around $19,000. They could not afford to pay the taxes the way you propose.

This whole idea was set up as I understand it to get the City of Toronto out of its problems. People living in that city were paying 1940 assessments on property so Mr. Harris decided to rectify it. You all must have though he was right because you put him in for two sessions with a large majority.

It seems to me when the facts came in there was a large change in the vote.

[Renegade]

Should the taxes be based on the services provided.

Yes that is the question. And your answer is?????

So what you are saying is that market value and increased value when sold are not viable.

Viable yes, relevant no. If you are taking about recreational properties (ie not primary residences), the increase in value is taxed as capital gains at the time the property is sold. IMV, flucations in house value should not have a bearing on real estate taxes paid.

This could bankrupt the small twps in our area because if it is set up that way a lot of seniors and low income earners providing services in this area would lose their homes. As I said at first, The income of a lot of people living in cottage country but not owning cottages on water is around $19,000. They could not afford to pay the taxes the way you propose.

Then, either they are living in homes they can't afford or they are expecting someone else to foot the bill for services they consume. Which is it?

This whole idea was set up as I understand it to get the City of Toronto out of its problems. People living in that city were paying 1940 assessments on property so Mr. Harris decided to rectify it. You all must have though he was right because you put him in for two sessions with a large majority.

Yes I thought it was right to address the disparity in real-estate taxes between suburbs and city. While changes he made did somewhat resolve the disparity, it still did not tax based upon services consumed. IMV Mike Harris did much more good than harm, so even if I didn't agree with him about everything, I was more than willing to re-elect him.