Will there be a Fall 2007 election?

[WestViking]

Ever see a 2006 tax form before the CPC budget reverse it? The Liberal tax cut was law.

That was a sham. The .5% reduction was part of Martin's (pre-election) November 2005 economic update. His government was defeated before the tax reduction was made law. In short, Martin misled the public by having tax forms changed before it was legal to do so. Reality bites.

You must have missed the fact that government expenditures increased faster than the GDP. Do you know what that means? The government has more money. And do you know what that means? We have less.

So did revenues. Bill C-52 spent 5 days in Finance Committee hearings and 11 days in Commons debate. Where were the opposition motions to cut spending and taxes? Get back to me when you find them.

[WestViking]

PM, opposition agree: no election please

Canada.com

Reuters

Sunday, June 24, 2007

LINK

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal opposition leader Stephane Dion agreed on one thing on Friday: neither want an election any time soon.

"As I said all winter long, Canadians don't want another election," Harper said in a speech to mark the end of Parliament's spring session.

Harper has been in office for about 18 months and on Friday the Conservatives' second budget was passed by Parliament, a feat he boasted had not been achieved by a minority government in four decades.

But polls show his party does not have enough support to win more than half of the seats in Parliament if a vote were held now. In fact, one poll this month put support for the Conservatives three percentage points behind the Liberals.

The Liberals have not managed to improve their fortunes either under Dion.

Dion was quick to dismiss any suggestion he might pull the plug on the minority Conservative government as a protest against its environmental policy, which he called a sham.

"There are many, many things that I find wrong in this government and it's not a reason for me to say that, because these things are wrong, I'm ready to call an election," he told reporters.

[jdobbin]

You conveniently omit that revenues, which budgets are drawn from, are at an all time high. So of course this budget would have higher spending, and of course next year probably will too.

The Tories will cut taxes when the election is called, and level headed people will like them for it. Some left wingers will want to give the tax cuts back, however. Ignore them.

This last budget, in theory, was an election budget. There were no significant tax cuts.

Of course the budget would have higher spending? Why, of course? Are these not Conservatives? Why are they spending at 3% to 4% higher than they promised in the last election?

[Remiel]

I do not care if Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion do not want another election. I want another election, .

[WestViking]

You conveniently omit that revenues, which budgets are drawn from, are at an all time high. So of course this budget would have higher spending, and of course next year probably will too.

The Tories will cut taxes when the election is called, and level headed people will like them for it. Some left wingers will want to give the tax cuts back, however. Ignore them.

This last budget, in theory, was an election budget. There were no significant tax cuts.

Of course the budget would have higher spending? Why, of course? Are these not Conservatives? Why are they spending at 3% to 4% higher than they promised in the last election?

The last budget was crafted to avoid an election. It was not an 'election budget' in the usual meaning of the term.

[jdobbin]

The last budget was crafted to avoid an election. It was not an 'election budget' in the usual meaning of the term.

I don't know how you can say that. All the spending announcements prior to the budget and the budget itself were supposed to launch into a spring election. What happened though were a few polls had the Tories drop lower than 40% and now they sit in the low 30s. Harper pulled back from going to the voters.

Don't forget that the Tories rented a headquarters, hired the buses and were ready to hit the ground because they believed they were going one way or the other.

[Michael Bluth]

The last budget was crafted to avoid an election. It was not an 'election budget' in the usual meaning of the term.

I don't know how you can say that. All the spending announcements prior to the budget and the budget itself were supposed to launch into a spring election. What happened though were a few polls that had the Tories drop lower than than the 40% that they briefly touched before sinking to the low 30s now. Harper pulled back from going to the polls.

Don't forget that the Tories rented a headquarters, hired the buses and were ready to hit the ground because they believed they were going one way or the other.

WK can say it because it's true.

How do you know what the budget was "supposed" to do?

A few polls? What are you talking about? Very poorly written for a "professional writer".

The Conservatives found that people didn't want an election and they did not want that to be the issue.

The Conservatives still have the HQ.

[jdobbin]

That was a sham. The .5% reduction was part of Martin's (pre-election) November 2005 economic update. His government was defeated before the tax reduction was made law. In short, Martin misled the public by having tax forms changed before it was legal to do so. Reality bites.

The tax changes took effect January 1, 2006. They became law.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ion2006&no_ads=

Reality bites.

[Michael Bluth]

The tax changes took effect January 1, 2006. They became law.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ion2006&no_ads=

Reality bites.

They were staggered changes.

The half-point cut didn't come into effect on January 1, 2006.

Please, try and not misrepresent such a basic fact. It doesn't help discussion.

All it really does is further the reputation for misrepresentation of Liberal supporters.

[WestViking]

The tax changes took effect January 1, 2006. They became law.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ion2006&no_ads=

Reality bites.

They were staggered changes.

The half-point cut didn't come into effect on January 1, 2006.

Please, try and not misrepresent such a basic fact. It doesn't help discussion.

All it really does is further the reputation for misrepresentation of Liberal supporters.

They did not - from the piece you quoted:

Liberals - The Liberal government increased the basic personal exemption by $500 in last November's fiscal update, and trimmed the tax rate at the bottom income bracket to 15 per cent from 16 per cent.

The November 2005 fiscal update was not presented to Parliament for ratification; The tax changes were promised by Martin, but were never ratified by Parliament as law because we went into an election. The article you link to makes it very clear that the tax reduction would only take effect if the Liberals returned to power - which they did not. The tax reductions for the lowest tax bracket you speak of are clearly shown in the article you cite under the heading: "WHAT THE PARTIES ARE PROMISING". Thank you for the verification of my position.

[jdobbin]

They did not - from the piece you quoted:

Liberals - The Liberal government increased the basic personal exemption by $500 in last November's fiscal update, and trimmed the tax rate at the bottom income bracket to 15 per cent from 16 per cent.

The November 2005 fiscal update was not presented to Parliament for ratification; The tax changes were promised by Martin, but were never ratified by Parliament as law because we went into an election. The article you link to makes it very clear that the tax reduction would only take effect if the Liberals returned to power - which they did not. The tax reductions for the lowest tax bracket you speak of are clearly shown in the article you cite under the heading: "WHAT THE PARTIES ARE PROMISING". Thank you for the verification of my position.

The first 1% went into effect January 1, 2005. It went out on the tax forms and people could claim it for the 2006 year up until the first Conservative budget.

I know a few lower income people who benefited from that tax break. Perhaps Geoffrey who is an accountant can brief you on this. It certainly was on the tax forms. It wouldn't have been had the tax been cancelled retroactively to January 1.

[hiti]

That was a sham. The .5% reduction was part of Martin's (pre-election) November 2005 economic update. His government was defeated before the tax reduction was made law. In short, Martin misled the public by having tax forms changed before it was legal to do so. Reality bites.

The tax changes took effect January 1, 2006. They became law.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ion2006&no_ads=

Reality bites.

Those Martin tax cuts went into effect Jan 1 2005

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2006/

And why, jdobbin and WestViking did you not file a tax return for 2005???

[jdobbin]

Those Martin tax cuts went into effect Jan 1 2005

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2006/

And why, jdobbin and WestViking did you not file a tax return for 2005???

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. The cuts were retroactive to January 2005.

[jbg]

Those Martin tax cuts went into effect Jan 1 2005

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2006/

And why, jdobbin and WestViking did you not file a tax return for 2005???

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. The cuts were retroactive to January 2005.

That doesn't mean they were approved.

[Michael Bluth]

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. The cuts were retroactive to January 2005.

That doesn't mean they were approved.

Some of the cuts were.

The 1/2 point cut the Conservatives reversed wasn't. Ergo taxes weren't raised.

[WestViking]

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. The cuts were retroactive to January 2005.

That doesn't mean they were approved.

Some of the cuts were.

The 1/2 point cut the Conservatives reversed wasn't. Ergo taxes weren't raised.

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale introduced Bill C-80, 'An Act to implement certain income tax reductions' for first reading November 23, 2005. A summary of Bill C-80 follows:

Bill C-80 SUMMARY

This enactment

(a) provides an increase of $500 to the basic personal amount — the amount of income that Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax — effective January 1, 2005, and makes consequential amendments to other personal amounts accelerating the increases to the personal amounts implemented pursuant to the 2005 federal budget; and

( reduces the lowest 16% federal income tax rate to 15%, effective January 1, 2005.

Bill C-80 never made it past first reading and died on the order paper. No part of the Martin government retroactive income tax reduction for 2005 was legal.

Text of Bill C-80

Staus of Bill C-80

We could hold an inquiry into who authorized illegal changes to the 2005 tax year forms, but only if Liberals keep insisting there was a fictitious tax hike in 2006.

[jdobbin]

We could hold an inquiry into who authorized illegal changes to the 2005 tax year forms, but only if Liberals keep insisting there was a fictitious tax hike in 2006.

What the Tories did do is reverse a policy that would have benefited lower income people more than a GST cut.

And now their budgets are way over the what they said they would spend in the campaign. All that money spent and still not enough to get into majority territory.

[jbg]

What the Tories did do is reverse a policy that would have benefited lower income people than a GST cut.

And now their budgets are way over the what they said they would spend in the campaign. All that money spent and still not enough to get into majority territory.

1. You're assuming that the Liberals would not have reversed it; and
   
2. Isn't the GST a regressive tax which takes more from the poor? I mean assuming that the poor consume pretty much all of their income isn't a one point cut in the GST worth more than a 0.5% nonreduction in income taxes?
   

[jdobbin]

1. You're assuming that the Liberals would not have reversed it; and
   
2. Isn't the GST a regressive tax which takes more from the poor? I mean assuming that the poor consume pretty much all of their income isn't a one point cut in the GST worth more than a 0.5% nonreduction in income taxes?
   

Lower income people get a GST tax credit based on their incomes.

At the time the policy was announced, it was hailed as a far better tax benefit for the poor than a GST cut.

Why would the Liberals have reversed this tax policy? That's like me saying now that it is possible that the Tories will reverse their GST tax cut proposal. I have no evidence of it but it sounds good when I say it.

[WestViking]

We could hold an inquiry into who authorized illegal changes to the 2005 tax year forms, but only if Liberals keep insisting there was a fictitious tax hike in 2006.

What the Tories did do is reverse a policy that would have benefited lower income people more than a GST cut.

And now their budgets are way over the what they said they would spend in the campaign. All that money spent and still not enough to get into majority territory.

Policy? What policy? If reduced taxation was policy, the Liberals would have included it in their spring 2005 budget. They did not. Bill C-80, introducing a retroactive tax cut was introduced on November 23, 2005 and the Election Writ was issued November 28, 2005. Martin knew he was cooked, and acted out of spite. He has not been held accountable for illegally changing tax forms or the cost to the treasury as he should have been.

I would like to see lower taxes, but do not condone implementing a tax reduction without the sanction of Parliament. The reason is very simple; if income tax can be reduced on the whim of the Prime Minister, it can also be increased in the same capricious manner. No PM should wield that sort of power.

[jdobbin]

I would like to see lower taxes, but do not condone implementing a tax reduction without the sanction of Parliament. The reason is very simple; if income tax can be reduced on the whim of the Prime Minister, it can also be increased in the same capricious manner. No PM should wield that sort of power.

Sort of like Senate elections?

[WestViking]

I would like to see lower taxes, but do not condone implementing a tax reduction without the sanction of Parliament. The reason is very simple; if income tax can be reduced on the whim of the Prime Minister, it can also be increased in the same capricious manner. No PM should wield that sort of power.

Sort of like Senate elections?

You make no sense whatever.

[jbg]

Bill C-80, introducing a retroactive tax cut was introduced on November 23, 2005 and the Election Writ was issued November 28, 2005. Martin knew he was cooked, and acted out of spite. He has not been held accountable for illegally changing tax forms or the cost to the treasury as he should have been.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder if the "retroactive tax cut" is similar in spirit to the Opposition envinronmental bill; an effort to foist on the government an unworkable policy straitjacket, so they get the job of delivering to the voters bad news.

if income tax can be reduced on the whim of the Prime Minister, it can also be increased in the same capricious manner. No PM should wield that sort of power.

Being a country with a separation of popwers I agree wholeheartedly, but isn't that what happens in majority governments? Aren't the votes on money bills whipped, even under Harper's proposals for more "free votes"?

[jdobbin]

You make no sense whatever.

You said the sanction of Parliament is needed for legislation. Senate terms and elections do not have that sanction yet Harper expects based on his whim that he can push it through.

[Mad_Michael]

I'd say a Fall election is extremely unlikely as Ontario will be at the polls in October.