Federal Budget 2007: More & Still More Government

[hiti]

If anyone thinks that families got a break with this budget, they are dreaming in Technicolor. Just like the $100 per month for children under age six was for day care, when in fact it wasn't even enough for beer and popcorn. Families now know how much of the $100 was an actual benefit after filling out their income tax and having to pay most of that money back to the "new" government. This budget is nothing but horse pucks.

Last year Steve increased my taxes and this year he gave me nothing. And that will apply to the majority of Canadians.

Just as it took Paul Martin years to straighten out Mulroney's mess, the longer this "new" government is allowed to stay in office the longer it will take to clean up their financial mess. And don't anyone suggest that Steve is an economist. He took a few accounting courses and his only work experience is as a lobbyist and politician.

Greg Weston has a good take on the budget here; http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2007/03...788940-sun.html but Greg is wrong about one thing. The Liberals in 2000 gave tax payers $100 billion in tax cuts right across the board and in 2005, Ralph Goodale cut the lowest tax rate from 16% to 15% and raised the personal exemption by $500 which make a welcome difference in everybody's pay cheque. George W. Harper and Flim Flam Flaherty canceled those tax breaks and lowered the GST so their rich buddies could save money on high ticket items while the middle class and low income tax payer paid again. Just as this budget is for the stay at home moms but the majority of moms who have to go to work get screwed.

This crappy "new" government doesn't even make a good "Liberal lite."

[geoffrey]

Ridiculous. Targetting tax cuts to families makes the system so much more complex. Everyone should get a nice big cut off their base rate. End of story. It's vote buying at it's best.

[noahbody]

If anyone thinks that families got a break with this budget, they are dreaming in Technicolor. Just like the $100 per month for children under age six was for day care, when in fact it wasn't even enough for beer and popcorn. Families now know how much of the $100 was an actual benefit after filling out their income tax and having to pay most of that money back to the "new" government. This budget is nothing but horse pucks.

Firstly, the $100/month is basically family allowance and it helps. Secondly, the conservative plan to create daycare spaces was to have it primarily funded by corporations; through tax incentives. This saves you and me money. Martin's dream of having equal access to all Canadians was nothing more than an election ploy to attract the stupid. By every Canadian, this would mean universal daycare in every town and city across Canada. How many billions and billions of dollars would this cost? Paid you you the taxpayer. In comparison $100 in the black is pretty good.

[geoffrey]

Sure, but I shouldn't be paying for it.

[Topaz]

The CPC are basically Liberal lite. The reason why is simple, because that is what's needed to win back to back majorities and elections. We don't really have a truly conservative party which want's to cut back on the size of government in all areas, and retain many traditional aspects of Canada. I'd assume that if we had PR we could see that come about.

I think Mulroney might be more of a "conservative" than this current PM.

I didn't get the reason behind the opposition's position on the budget, if it was voted down then I would imagine Canadian's would be more unhappy with the Liberal's and New Democrats than the Conservatives.

I doubt this current surplus is an "allusion".

How can a party call themselves "Conservatives" when most of the party are reformers/Alliances WITH thier way of thinking???

[Canadian Blue]

Well Topaz, they are called the Conservative Party of Canada.

As well I believe I already corrected you on a point you made earlier about Harper jumping parties, even though as we all should know the Reform party dissolved to form the CA, then both the CA and PC's dissolved to form the Conservatives, and both sides largely supported the merger by healthy majorities.

I don't know what you mean by "their way of thinking", since from what I can tell the current government is fairly centrist.

So just who is going to vote for Harper and the CPC?

The religious right and especially those with massive amounts of kids, those who are connected to the Oil patch and have income derived from there, rich seniors, and Quebec separatists, maybe, that is even in doubt.

Why would the religious right vote for a government which is pro-choice, and refuses to even bring up the issue of gay marriage or abortion anymore.

As well, please provide some sort of statistics to back up that statement, which is nothing more than a stereotype.

Hey.... you too??????

I see this in a lot of posts, how the Conservatives plan to acheive Majority status is by being the Liberals... Doesn't this just prove that Canadians, the majority of anyway, aren't interested in a Conservative government?

No, I think it proves Canadian's aren't people that put too much weight into ideology.

[Keepitsimple]

Sure it's a lot of politics but when you look at the underlying principles, you'll find a pretty consistent approach:

1) His first budget concentrated on the 5 priorities, an acknowledgement that families need help, and they paid down the debt.

2) This budget, his second, focused on the Fiscal Balance and families but also accompanied by an effort to address the environment (whether you believe his conversion or not, things are being done). It also started to formally address the Welfare wall and give help to raising children with disabilities. It still continues to pay down the debt.

3) I expect his next budget - which may in fact be the one that an election is based on - will have very broad-based tax cuts......so expect an election next spring.

It may look a little unfocused when you look at all the odds and ends that make up the budget but when you put them all together, you get 5 Priorities (6 with the environment), help for families, the Fiscal Balance and low-incomes, and next, broad-based tax relief......and they've really only been in power for 15 months. He's doing basically what he said he'd do. Sure, there's a lot more work to do in many of these areas but it's a good start. When you have one bunch saying it's not enough and another bunch saying it's too much, you know you're doing something right.

[White Doors]

Yes, highly taxed countries correspond directly with a very low birth rate.

And even lower taxed countries (like the USA for example) show the exact same low birth rate.

Prosperity is the common factor, not taxation.

proven to be false.

The USA has the only self sustaining birth rate in the G8. Coincidentally, they are also the lowest taxed.

Btw, Some African and South American nations have absurdly high rates of taxation and equally high birth rates

and how prosperous are they?

you are getting confused.

[jdobbin]

proven to be false.

The USA has the only self sustaining birth rate in the G8. Coincidentally, they are also the lowest taxed.

Citation?

[White Doors]

Sure, but I shouldn't be paying for it.

whatever Geoffery. You live in a society. Get your head out of your arse and look at what's good for the country and not what's good for Geoffrey. It's attitudes like this that have made Canada the country that you so despise.

At least be consistent in your whining.

[White Doors]

proven to be false.

The USA has the only self sustaining birth rate in the G8. Coincidentally, they are also the lowest taxed.

Citation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertili...e_world_map.PNG

[jdobbin]

Sure it's a lot of politics but when you look at the underlying principles, you'll find a pretty consistent approach:

1) His first budget concentrated on the 5 priorities, an acknowledgement that families need help, and they paid down the debt.

2) This budget, his second, focused on the Fiscal Balance and families but also accompanied by an effort to address the environment (whether you believe his conversion or not, things are being done). It also started to formally address the Welfare wall and give help to raising children with disabilities. It still continues to pay down the debt.

3) I expect his next budget - which may in fact be the one that an election is based on - will have very broad-based tax cuts......so expect an election next spring.

It may look a little unfocused when you look at all the odds and ends that make up the budget but when you put them all together, you get 5 Priorities (6 with the environment), help for families, the Fiscal Balance and low-incomes, and next, broad-based tax relief......and they've really only been in power for 15 months. He's doing basically what he said he'd do. Sure, there's a lot more work to do in many of these areas but it's a good start. When you have one bunch saying it's not enough and another bunch saying it's too much, you know you're doing something right.

Actually, the feeling is they have broken their promise not to spend over the inflation rate.

[jdobbin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertili...e_world_map.PNG

Show me the link that taxation is directly rated to fertility rates.

[White Doors]

Listen buddy. I showed you the fertility rates of any countries that you cared to look at.

For the developed world the USA is the only country that has a self-sustaining birthrate. None of the others do. All the other countries pay significantly more in tax and also have appreciably more socialized day care. These are commonly known facts.

cite it yourself.

[jdobbin]

Listen buddy. I showed you the fertility rates of any countries that you cared to look at.

For the developed world the USA is the only country that has a self-sustaining birthrate. None of the others do. All the other countries pay significantly more in tax and also have appreciably more socialized day care. These are commonly known facts.

cite it yourself.

Look, you might be able to point out taxation is lower and fertility rates are higher in the U.S. but it doesn't link the two together. It doesn't.

You are making connection with no evidence to back it up. Why is the fertility rate higher? Is it because of religion? Is it because of GDP? Is it because of taxation? Is it because of healthcare? There are so many factors.

What you have is a hypothesis. It isn't a fact.

[White Doors]

Well you seem to disagree.

Here is a link backing up my claim.

http://notapundit.wordpress.com/2007/02/05...mily-formation/

Ehrlich and Kim estimate that Social Security taxes account for more than one-quarter of the decline in U.S. fertility rates since 1950. For countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as a whole, Social Security taxes account for almost half the drop in fertility rates, the authors say

As a result, payroll taxes “diminish the incentive of individual workers to bear and invest in children, save for retirement, or generally form families altogether, because they lower the private rewards from family investments relative to alternative individual pursuits,” they say.

Higher taxes “could actually exacerbate the downward trends in key demographic variables, even if it could alleviate the financial burden on (pay-as-you-go) systems in the short run,” Ehrlich and Kim say in their paper

I would have thought it common sense that the more disposable income a family has the more likely they are to have more than one child, but I guess not...

[Catchme]

If anyone thinks that families got a break with this budget, they are dreaming in Technicolor. Just like the $100 per month for children under age six was for day care, when in fact it wasn't even enough for beer and popcorn. Families now know how much of the $100 was an actual benefit after filling out their income tax and having to pay most of that money back to the "new" government. This budget is nothing but horse pucks.

Last year Steve increased my taxes and this year he gave me nothing. And that will apply to the majority of Canadians.

Just as it took Paul Martin years to straighten out Mulroney's mess, the longer this "new" government is allowed to stay in office the longer it will take to clean up their financial mess. And don't anyone suggest that Steve is an economist. He took a few accounting courses and his only work experience is as a lobbyist and politician.

Greg Weston has a good take on the budget here; http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2007/03...788940-sun.html but Greg is wrong about one thing. The Liberals in 2000 gave tax payers $100 billion in tax cuts right across the board and in 2005, Ralph Goodale cut the lowest tax rate from 16% to 15% and raised the personal exemption by $500 which make a welcome difference in everybody's pay cheque. George W. Harper and Flim Flam Flaherty canceled those tax breaks and lowered the GST so their rich buddies could save money on high ticket items while the middle class and low income tax payer paid again. Just as this budget is for the stay at home moms but the majority of moms who have to go to work get screwed.

This crappy "new" government doesn't even make a good "Liberal lite."

You are correct Hiti, and how some are saying shouldn't the people getting shafted who have no families, really be interested in the greater good of those who do, is absolute BS, if people cannot afford to have children, why should those who do not support them? They should not, I say; "have kids in the amount you can afford, and leave my money alone thank you very much."

-----------------------------------------------

Jdobbin, you will not get a citation regarding the comments about the USA have the only stable birth rates and lower income taxes, because it is not true. Plus they pay more for health care and millions have no coverage.

[jbg]

I'd say rather that Harper has achieved his real purpose with this budget: make utter fools of the BQ and PQ. This hasn't been lost on voters outside of Quebecers and certainly not on voters in Quebec.

How does this budget make "fools" of the (fill in the blank) _____ Quebecois? I'm curious, as an American. PM if you want to send more than what you'd post.

[daniel]

...if people cannot afford to have children, why should those who do not support them? They should not, I say; "have kids in the amount you can afford, and leave my money alone thank you very much."

If everybody thought like this, there would be nobody left on Earth.

[White Doors]

They should not, I say; "have kids in the amount you can afford, and leave my money alone thank you very much."

Then explain your position on government run day care that would be exponentially more expensive.. and yet you are all for it.

haha

you must twist yourself into pretzel like shapes dancing around your lies and partisanship. You posts are a joke on this forum and all can see and say that. How does that make you feel?

Jdobbin, you will not get a citation regarding the comments about the USA have the only stable birth rates and lower income taxes, because it is not true. Plus they pay more for health care and millions have no coverage

wrong and wrong.

at least you are consistent in your wrongness.

[White Doors]

If everybody thought like this, there would be nobody left on Earth.

Change that to only feminists left on earth and she would be all for it.

She is a hack.

[Saturn]

The credentials of 'conservatives' to be fiscally irresponsible is now well established. Between Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, Mulroney and Harper, those who call themselves 'conservative' have proven that they cannot be trusted with the nation's finances. Ontario's Mike Harris falls into the same category.

"Fiscally conservative" means spending and investing wisely. "Fiscally Conservative" means piling up debt by blowing billions on useless consumption to keep the voters happy while handing over public assets and giving big tax cuts to your friends and screwing the economy overall. Reagan, Mulroney, the Bushes, and Harris did just that - handing out some cash to the voters to keep them happy and busy drooling over their own handouts while filling up their own and their buddies' coffers, then sticking the stupid voters with enormous debt/interest bills. Harper is doing just the same - a chicken wing in every pot, big purchases in one-bid contracts, and one big fat nothing for the economy - no serious investment, no long-term plan - just nothing. That's what "fiscally Conservative" means - spend like the world will end at the end of your term in office...After us, the deluge!

Apparently the only fiscal conservatives I've seen in the last twenty years were Bill Clinton and Paul Martin.

Indeed. Their problem though was that they left their economies and their finances in too good a shape, providing way too much money for their "fiscally Conservative" successors to blow on nonsense.

[Saturn]

...if people cannot afford to have children, why should those who do not support them? They should not, I say; "have kids in the amount you can afford, and leave my money alone thank you very much."

If everybody thought like this, there would be nobody left on Earth.

In third world countries everyone thinks like this, yet they have the highest birthrates on the planet.

[White Doors]

In third world countries everyone thinks like this, yet they have the highest birthrates on the planet.

wrong, in undeveloped countries it is economically beneficial to have children to help out with the farming, fishing etc.

[Saturn]

Look, you might be able to point out taxation is lower and fertility rates are higher in the U.S. but it doesn't link the two together. It doesn't.

You are making connection with no evidence to back it up. Why is the fertility rate higher? Is it because of religion? Is it because of GDP? Is it because of taxation? Is it because of healthcare? There are so many factors.

What you have is a hypothesis. It isn't a fact.

There is a link between taxes and fertility and that link is intelligence+education. There is a strong causal relationship between smarts and fertility and a strong relationship going both ways between smarts and taxes. Pardon my lack of PC but what WD is saying is that reducing taxes will cause people to lose their brains which in turn will cause them to procreate more. While policy can make the population less smart overall, this will take decades to achieve. Dropping taxes to 0 in the EU will not cause birthrates there to increase to third world levels - not in my lifetime anyway.