The CPCs only hope of winning the next election

[tml12]

I am worried about the costing out of this promise. It might not be as effective or as fair as a general tax cut.

I think while any tax cut will be popular, a deficit will not be.

It probably won't lead to a major deficit, if any.

We've already got a huge national debt, I should add.

[jdobbin]

It probably won't lead to a major deficit, if any.

We've already got a huge national debt, I should add.

Are you an accountant or economist? Do you know how much it will cost? I certainly don't. How can you claim it won't lead to a deficit when most economists aren't even sure?

[geoffrey]

. Ah, why bother! You've learned good fiscal and economic policy and the real facts from National Post journalists (or thought you did) and urban myths and you'll keep repeating your beliefs about reality like a broken record no matter what. I find it fascinating how myths and falsehoods make their way around and I find it pretty awkward that some religiously worship them.

It's an awful reflection on our education system when a graduate level economist can't refute the points of some accountant quack and resorts to personal attacks instead.

What was your Master's Thesis on Saturn? How to debate without using facts in relation to economics?

[tml12]

It probably won't lead to a major deficit, if any.

We've already got a huge national debt, I should add.

Are you an accountant or economist? Do you know how much it will cost? I certainly don't. How can you claim it won't lead to a deficit when most economists aren't even sure?

Just a guess...we'll see when the numbers are laid out.

The fact is you can't have the Trudeau welfare state without a huge deficit.

[jdobbin]

Just a guess...we'll see when the numbers are laid out.

The fact is you can't have the Trudeau welfare state without a huge deficit.

Just a guess but you can't have tax cuts without cutting spending or you end with a huge deficit.

Your confidence in Harper is almost blinding. I'd be asking questions no matter what party was in power.

[tml12]

Just a guess...we'll see when the numbers are laid out.

The fact is you can't have the Trudeau welfare state without a huge deficit.

Just a guess but you can't have tax cuts without cutting spending or you end with a huge deficit.

Your confidence in Harper is almost blinding. I'd be asking questions no matter what party was in power.

Who said I wasn't asking questions? Ultimately, we'll all see what happens.

My confidence in Harper is not blinding...in fact, I am greatly concerned he might try to go Liberal lite in the next election. We need to win as a true-blue blooded Conservative Party. Canada needs that. Harper needs to win over the centre with his brand of moderate conservatism. I should add: your dislike of Harper is a bit much...what don't you like about him?

[Saturn]

It probably won't lead to a major deficit, if any.

We've already got a huge national debt, I should add.

Are you an accountant or economist? Do you know how much it will cost? I certainly don't. How can you claim it won't lead to a deficit when most economists aren't even sure?

Well, no one has a crystal ball to accurately predict how much it will cost. Of course, the cost will depend on the exact details of the income-splitting plan. Having worked with income and tax data a lot (but not used it specifically to estimate the cost of "complete" income-splitting) my estimate of the cost everything else remaining the same is roughly $5 billion annually. Accounting for behavioural changes (people deciding to work less or quit altogether due to income-splitting) puts my estimate somewhere between $5 and $8 billion. Garth Turner, the greatest (open) proponent of income-splitting in Parliament and the guy whose government buried the country under the largest peacetime debt, in typical conservative fashion called me crazy and uneducated for that estimate and stated that a study he had commissioned had estimated the cost at $1.5 billion. The article I quoted earlier said that a study commissioned by him (whether it's the same study or a different one) put the cost at $5 billion. I would love to take a look at this study but I doubt that I'll get a chance. And then there is another 1% drop in the GST at $5 billion and lots of military spending in Afghanistan and for equipment, and additional spending for the environment and given the record of using the most optimistic scenarios for revenues and the cost of programs of the Mulroney/Harris crowd running the this government, I think that there is a fair chance that the feds are headed for some deficit spending. Not that they will admit to it even when they are in the red and everyone knows it.

[Saturn]

. Ah, why bother! You've learned good fiscal and economic policy and the real facts from National Post journalists (or thought you did) and urban myths and you'll keep repeating your beliefs about reality like a broken record no matter what. I find it fascinating how myths and falsehoods make their way around and I find it pretty awkward that some religiously worship them.

It's an awful reflection on our education system when a graduate level economist can't refute the points of some accountant quack and resorts to personal attacks instead.

What was your Master's Thesis on Saturn? How to debate without using facts in relation to economics?

Geoff, this was a general observation, not a personal attack against you in particular. Secondly, have neither the time, nor the desire to refute your points because for one, I don't think that we speak the same language and two, you've made up your mind without looking at the facts and in cases like this the discussion typically turns into trying to dispel religious myths or beliefs or something equally impossible.

However, something that even an accounting quack can benefit from is being a little more consistent in your views instead of turning 180 degrees from one day to the next, watching the direction of an argument and checking the validity of your arguments instead of just making an assumption and stating it as if somehow has to reflect reality because your observations/beliefs dictate so.

[geoffrey]

However, something that even an accounting quack can benefit from is being a little more consistent in your views instead of turning 180 degrees from one day to the next, watching the direction of an argument and checking the validity of your arguments instead of just making an assumption and stating it as if somehow has to reflect reality because your observations/beliefs dictate so.

I have found my views to be quite consistant. It's one thing to argue against my points, but to just dismiss them because they are wrong to you, without even giving a reason why... that's something else. I don't know why you bother engaging in debate if your going to just wholesale dismiss everything others say without giving a counter argument.

--

And to Dobbin... I doubt if this would likely enter the deficit area. The CPC is smarter than that, they realise the political consequences. I've heard $4b thrown around, within the last surplus. Who knows how long times like this are going to last though. If the government continues to increase spending at two or three times the rate of inflation, we're going to be driven into the ground regardless of the tax cut.

Either way, with or without the cut, the purse strings are going to be tightened in the near future.

[jdobbin]

And to Dobbin... I doubt if this would likely enter the deficit area. The CPC is smarter than that, they realise the political consequences. I've heard $4b thrown around, within the last surplus. Who knows how long times like this are going to last though. If the government continues to increase spending at two or three times the rate of inflation, we're going to be driven into the ground regardless of the tax cut.

Either way, with or without the cut, the purse strings are going to be tightened in the near future.

Just the same, I would want this costed out.

Is it the best tax cut and fairest tax cut. I'd be curious to know that.

I disagreed with the GST cut. I preferred an income tax cut.

[geoffrey]

Just the same, I would want this costed out.

No doubt we should know the costs. But be very careful and consider the reality of having more money paying down the government debt, or paying down your debt before you jump to a conclusion if indeed it results in a net deficit.

Is it the best tax cut and fairest tax cut. I'd be curious to know that.

No, it gives nothing to single people, nothing to two high income earning families. It's generally for stay at home moms/dads. Or where you have the six-figure man/woman and the P/T spouse.

The fairest tax cut I suppose looked at simply would be an across the board cut in the lowest income tax bracket.

I disagreed with the GST cut. I preferred an income tax cut.

Maybe. Maybe not. Taxing consumption has negative outcomes (as does taxing income). The GST is also highly evaded, unlike income tax. Reducing evaded taxes creates more fairness in the system. The GST cut benefitted mostly middle or middle-high income earners, lets say $70k-150k. Under that or over that the benefits are really marginal at best.

Making the cut in two steps added considerably to the cost of the implementation.

[jdobbin]

No doubt we should know the costs. But be very careful and consider the reality of having more money paying down the government debt, or paying down your debt before you jump to a conclusion if indeed it results in a net deficit.

No, it gives nothing to single people, nothing to two high income earning families. It's generally for stay at home moms/dads. Or where you have the six-figure man/woman and the P/T spouse.

The fairest tax cut I suppose looked at simply would be an across the board cut in the lowest income tax bracket.

Maybe. Maybe not. Taxing consumption has negative outcomes (as does taxing income). The GST is also highly evaded, unlike income tax. Reducing evaded taxes creates more fairness in the system. The GST cut benefitted mostly middle or middle-high income earners, lets say $70k-150k. Under that or over that the benefits are really marginal at best.

Making the cut in two steps added considerably to the cost of the implementation.

Most of what you said here indicates to me that a cross the board tax cut is the most effective and fairest thing for Canadians.

[geoffrey]

Most of what you said here indicates to me that a cross the board tax cut is the most effective and fairest thing for Canadians.

The issue is so complex that it's hard to really say, but my opinion would agree with you. That being said, I'll glady take any tax cut given.

[tml12]

Most of what you said here indicates to me that a cross the board tax cut is the most effective and fairest thing for Canadians.

The issue is so complex that it's hard to really say, but my opinion would agree with you. That being said, I'll glady take any tax cut given.

So will I!

[Catchme]

What I can't understand is the "socialist" children of families with big money.

They do not understand that the left will not bring the poor up but will bring the rich down.

My family gives money to charity and various causes.

I can't understand how you can spin a tax cut for the wealthy under the false appearance of a childcare plan into a left-wing attack on the rich. Your family should have spent more on your education and less on charity.

[Saturn]

However, something that even an accounting quack can benefit from is being a little more consistent in your views instead of turning 180 degrees from one day to the next, watching the direction of an argument and checking the validity of your arguments instead of just making an assumption and stating it as if somehow has to reflect reality because your observations/beliefs dictate so.

I have found my views to be quite consistant. It's one thing to argue against my points, but to just dismiss them because they are wrong to you, without even giving a reason why... that's something else. I don't know why you bother engaging in debate if your going to just wholesale dismiss everything others say without giving a counter argument.

You first said that you shouldn't be paying for other people's kids and then you argued in favour of "childcare" plans that will give parents (and others) tax breaks that you will pay for.

You argued that welfare should be nixed because Alberta is experiencing a labour shortage as unemployment rate is near 3% and then you go on defending another type of handout that will put workers out of the labour market because with unemployment at 6.8% this handout will have no impact.

You said that the government shouldn't redistribute wealth through taxation then you argued that the government should finance the debts of people who don't know how to manage their finances, because it can borrow at lower rates, through taxation. This btw is one of the most ridiculous proposals I've heard in a long time and I'm not sure that even the Communist party will go for that.

Overall, you are making it very difficult to take your arguments seriously. You jump all over the place and make it nearly impossible for others to argue for or against your position because your position is unclear and changes from day to day.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm sure I'll get pilloried for this but I think it's important - from a long term perspective - to direct tax relief to two parent families - traditional if you like. If we can start to reverse the trend of both family members working their buns off and not finding the time to raise a family, it will help society as a whole. If the tax system, through income-splitting, child benefits, etc. can keep a mother or father home for extended periods - that would be a tremendous help. We need to increase our population growth - it's negative right now if you factor out New Canadians who when they arrive, are still mostly in traditional family mode. I have no doubt though, that following generations of formerly new Canadians will experience the same "drag" on starting and growing a family - economic realities and keeping up with the Jones' or Leungs or Hibabs.

As for single parent families - I don't have all the answers but obviously, that would have to be addressed differently. Divorces are always messy but there is usually child-support. Out-of-wedlock often falls into provincial government support like welfare. It's all very messy.

[tml12]

What I can't understand is the "socialist" children of families with big money.

They do not understand that the left will not bring the poor up but will bring the rich down.

My family gives money to charity and various causes.

I can't understand how you can spin a tax cut for the wealthy under the false appearance of a childcare plan into a left-wing attack on the rich. Your family should have spent more on your education and less on charity.

Bet that's the funniest thing you've heard in your life catchme...