• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting I am seeing statements by people pissed about the closing of Kits Coast Guard base, they say "they voted and/or donated to CPC, but due to the handling of this file they will not repeat that". Another point was the absolute silence by the 2 MP's on the subject. I only got a response when I stuck my letter into a donation envelope. Last election I volunteered and donated and voted, this election I might still vote for them, only for a lack of better choice, but if many do just the bare minimum then they will not b able to organize enough to get the undecided vote or get people to the polls to vote for them.

I am 100% behind them on the foreign policy area, the firearms bills are just barely adequate (I think they overestimate any concern about revamping the Act properly) The handling of the Public Service is no different than the way the Liberals treated gun owners and in their rush to write laws and regulations they make a hash of it.   
 
As with every other country that has tried to make the rich support the rest, all they do is make the rich move to a more desirable area. Of course the social programs will never die, so the middle class gets to pick up the cost anyway.

Someone left their bag of idiots open.
 
In my estimation, the Liberals have given the Conservatives the key to victory. They intend to repeal income splitting and TFSA doubling. This will punish both groups the Liberals need to court in order to win - seniors, and the real middle class. These groups may just punish the Liberals for their stupid policies. Canadians vote with their wallets.
 
ModlrMike said:
In my estimation, the Liberals have given the Conservatives the key to victory. They intend to repeal income splitting and TFSA doubling. This will punish both groups the Liberals need to court in order to win - seniors, and the real middle class. These groups may just punish the Liberals for their stupid policies. Canadians vote with their wallets.

https://twitter.com/davidreevely/status/595328794816323584
 
ModlrMike said:
In my estimation, the Liberals have given the Conservatives the key to victory. They intend to repeal income splitting and TFSA doubling. This will punish both groups the Liberals need to court in order to win - seniors, and the real middle class. These groups may just punish the Liberals for their stupid policies. Canadians vote with their wallets.


I suspect this is actually aimed at the potential strategic voters, normally in the NDP's camp, but open to being persuaded to vote Liberal to get rid of the Conservatives.
 
Running with tax increases usually loses elections.  Tax cuts seem to work better.  As a Conservative - thank you Justin.
 
Income splitting alone saved me from not having a refund this year for the first time in my working life.

Trudeau's true colours have finally come out. He's a tax and spend guy trying to pay off families with an even bigger child tax credit. If I have a third child, under his plan, the feds will pay me $15,000 a year just because? That's a 20% pay increase tax free. Where the heck does that money come from? The people with money are the people smart enough to hide the money in tax loopholes or simply just move away.
 
Ah hell, just because the topic is tax savings  ;D

http://tax.libertarian.ca/

The CRA costs $7 billion a year just to operate. That's $7 billion a year that we pay just to take our money from us. For comparison's sake, the DND's budget is around $20 billion, so we are paying 35% of the DND's entire budget just to administer the tax system.
 
dapaterson said:
https://twitter.com/davidreevely/status/595328794816323584

That was funny.  But yeah, no way vader only makes 100 000 a year...
 
Crantor said:
That was funny.  But yeah, no way vader only makes 100 000 a year...

I don't know.  After the loss of the first Death Star I'm sure the Empire had to start cutting to free up funds for the second one; personnel costs are an obvious place to start.

And notice that the first Death Star was destroyed in 1977, yet the second one was operational (but not complete) in 1983 - only six years later.  Meanwhile, the NSPS was announced in June of 2010, almost five years ago...
 
PuckChaser said:
Income splitting alone saved me from not having a refund this year for the first time in my working life.

Trudeau's true colours have finally come out. He's a tax and spend guy trying to pay off families with an even bigger child tax credit. If I have a third child, under his plan, the feds will pay me $15,000 a year just because? That's a 20% pay increase tax free. Where the heck does that money come from? The people with money are the people smart enough to hide the money in tax loopholes or simply just move away.

Like this tweet says:

lg666 ‏@Lorne666  · 5h5 hours ago 
@JustinTrudeau @cafreeland-really?UR going to tax us, in our 60's-to subsidize 2people making 100k/yr 4k every year!-dumb before, dumber NOW

 
ballz said:
Ah hell, just because the topic is tax savings  ;D

http://tax.libertarian.ca/

The CRA costs $7 billion a year just to operate. That's $7 billion a year that we pay just to take our money from us. For comparison's sake, the DND's budget is around $20 billion, so we are paying 35% of the DND's entire budget just to administer the tax system.

- Seven billion is how much of a percentage of our national budget? Not much. Try getting a famous charity - like Greenpeace - to operatate with that low of a fundraising budget.
 
TCBF said:
- Seven billion is how much of a percentage of our national budget? Not much. Try getting a famous charity - like Greenpeace - to operatate with that low of a fundraising budget.

This comparison to a charity doesn't make much sense to me. Those charities use money to make money, much more comparable to a private business. Also, I can choose whether or not I want to pay money into a charity. The government takes money by force. If I give money to a charity that continues to suck and fail, that's my own fault.

How many charities would cease to exist if they ran a deficit for decades at a time? Or in the case of the Conservative government, have averaged a negative balance of (I'm guessing) around 10% per year, since coming to power in 2006. Greenpeace has more money than the church and the Government of Canada is operating in the red.
 
ballz said:
This comparison to a charity doesn't make much sense to me. Those charities use money to make money, much more comparable to a private business. Also, I can choose whether or not I want to pay money into a charity. The government takes money by force. If I give money to a charity that continues to suck and fail, that's my own fault.

How many charities would cease to exist if they ran a deficit for decades at a time? Or in the case of the Conservative government, have averaged a negative balance of (I'm guessing) around 10% per year, since coming to power in 2006. Greenpeace has more money than the church and the Government of Canada is operating in the red.

- Moot.

- My point was on the percentage used to GET the money, not the morality or justice of it. My point stands.
 
TCBF said:
- Moot.

- My point was on the percentage used to GET the money, not the morality or justice of it. My point stands.

Well I'm glad you declare "moot" like you are the authority or something. I didn't realize that's how this works.

Your point is based on a comparison that makes no sense. It's apples to melons. The money is collected through legislation. The CRA's budget is used to administer the money collected. Your comparison would be correct if you were comparing how much Greenpeace pays in accounting expenses. It would still be irrelevant, however, because you are comparing a charity to a government which is just bananas. But comparing a charity's cost of raising revenue to a governments cost of raising revenue is RTFO 'er.

Try comparing the Swiss Federal Tax Administration budget to the CRA as a percentage of each country's revenue for a fair comparison.

But you keep going with your point, I'm not sure what it is yet. Are you trying to argue that our tax system is efficient or that a flat tax wouldn't be lightyears cheaper to administer? I'm dying to hear.
 
"■The 22-per-cent tax rate for anyone with a taxable annual income between $44,701 and $89,401 would be cut to 20.5 per cent."

That's worth $670 (per year).

"■The Conservatives' income-splitting tax credit would be scrapped."

I suppose for many of those who benefit from it, the value is more than $670 per year.

"■The near doubling of the tax-free savings account contribution limits announced in the federal budget would be cancelled."

If I can contribute an extra $5K per year over the next 10 years, in instruments returning 5%-7% (easily achievable), that would be worth $2,500 to $3,500 per year at that point.  But the break-even for 5% (the compounded growth versus the $670 per year) occurs just a little after 4 years in.  I'd much, much, much rather have the higher contribution limit than the tax cut.

The arithmetic needs to be thrown back in the Liberals' faces, loudly and repeatedly.  It is certain they ran the numbers themselves and are fully aware of the likely effects; it is equally certain they put this together deliberately to pay for new spending.

Also, the more progressive (imbalanced against higher income earners) the tax system, the more vulnerable revenues are to a sharp drop during economic downturns.  Increased fiscal instability is not good.
 
Lawrence Martin makes an interesting observation in a column in the Globe and Mail regarding the potential impact of an NDP victory in Alberta (if that happens) on the federal election:


    "... good showings by provincial parties don’t often translate to better results for the federal party in the province in question. Often the opposite is the case. In Ontario, the opposite is almost always the case.

    All that said, a win by Ms. Notley today in the Alberta election would be a major boost for Mr. Mulcair and the federal party – and one that comes at a critical time.

    Should the leftists do the gobsmackingly unthinkable in what is still considered Canada’s most right-wing province; should they topple one of the most formidable political dynasties in our history, the NDP brand will be strengthened
    across the board just months before a federal election.

    This won’t translate into a big harvest of seats for the federal party in Alberta. Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn’t fumbling away his base there like the provincial Conservatives are. But it will provide a shot of credibility and
    momentum for the New Democrats. Voters who have paid little attention to them or who have been caught up in old stereotypes – Bolsheviks! No thank you – will give the party a new look. If the NDP isn’t too scary for Albertans,
    who is it too scary for?
    ...
    A victory by her would be grim news for both the federal Conservatives and Liberals, but worse for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. Mr. Harper would loathe seeing the NDP at the controls of the province that is his base and his party’s base.
    But he’ll likely hold his Alberta seats. Across the country, he knows that a rise in New Democratic fortunes comes mainly at the expense of the Liberals. The more vote-splitting among progressives the better. If the two main
    opposition parties are neck and neck, Mr. Harper’s chances of winning are enhanced."

I believe that strategic voting will be a factor in 2015: M Trudeau needs to persuade voters who normally favour the NDP to abandon that ship and join him in defeating Prime Minister Harper. M Mulcair needs to do the same. Prime Minister Harper needs to encourage each of them to attack the other.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Coipyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a useful analysis* of M Trudeau's socio-economic policy initiative:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-youre-in-the-right-tax-bracket-trudeau-has-a-platform-for-you/article24247698/
gam-masthead.png

If you’re in the right tax bracket, Trudeau has a platform for you

JOHN IBBITSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, May. 04 2015

What is the middle class? For Justin Trudeau, it’s a tax bracket.

The Liberal Leader is dedicating himself, his party and his electoral prospects to making life easier for people earning between $44,700 and $89,401 a year. They would get a major tax cut and enhanced child-care benefits in the election-platform plank that Mr. Trudeau revealed Monday.

If you make less than that, especially if you’re childless, Monday’s announcement offers you less. If you make more, the tax benefit diminishes proportionately as your income goes up. For the one-per-centers earning more than $200,000, there’s even a tax increase.

The new policy is simple, powerful and politically effective. If Mr. Trudeau can sell it, then he could win the Oct. 19 federal election.

But first he has to persuade people making between $44,700 and $89,401 that he truly, deeply believes in them, and not much else.

The great strength of Monday’s announcement is its minimalism. It creates no new programs or bureaucracies, requires no complicated negotiations with the provinces, adds no more pages to the tax code.

It punishes the wealthy, and focuses laser-like on the middle of the middle. It is as important for what it leaves out as for what it includes.

Though there will be future planks and other announcements, the tax cut and child benefit takes up much of the available fiscal room.

If you believe that Canada has dug itself an infrastructure hole, and that Ottawa should be spending more to repair it, then be warned: Mr. Trudeau’s middle-class tax cut sucks up so much money that there will be little for trains and airports and sewers and highways.

If you believe that fighting global warming should be the first priority, then be warned: There will be few dollars available for converting from mean to green.

Many activists who are sick to death of years of Conservative hostility to their cause, whatever that cause might be, and who have poured their aspirations into the empty vessel known as Justin Trudeau, may only now be realizing that their hopes were misplaced.

Mr. Trudeau and his team of advisers believe that the real crisis of our time is the concentration of wealth among upper-income earners at the expense of the distressed middle. Their proposed solution is to expropriate a portion of that wealth and deliver it, not to the oppressed, but to the suburbs, to two-income, white-collar commuters who wonder why they work so hard and never get a raise. This tax cut’s for them.

The more aspirational among them, who see their current income as a way-station on the road to something better, might not be impressed at the Liberals’ willingness to raid what they hope will be their future earnings.

Also, a $60,000 income in Trois-Rivières delivers a much greater level of affluence than a $60,000 income in the Lower Mainland. Using income to define the middle class defies economic geography.

Speaking of Trois-Rivières, Mr. Trudeau has clearly decided to ignore the NDP. If they want to tailor policies for lower-income workers, if they want to guarantee subsidized daycare spaces, if they want to fight climate change, the Liberals are happy to let them.

It can be exceedingly dangerous to turn your back on Thomas Mulcair. But Mr. Trudeau clearly sees this election as a contest between himself and Mr. Harper.

The Prime Minister has dedicated his entire political life to understanding, representing and defending the suburban middle class. He will fight Justin Trudeau to the political death over them.

If Mr. Trudeau has an advantage, it is that the Conservatives’ plethora of targeted tax cuts, tax credits and tax-free accounts have accumulated like barnacles over the past decade. The Liberal platform of 2015 is as clean and simple as the Tory platform was in 2006.

Also, Mr. Harper is not willing to punish upper-income earners in order to reward those in the middle, and Mr. Trudeau is. To that extent, this is an ideological battle.

Mr. Trudeau’s biggest challenge is to persuade those middle-income voters that he gets them and is willing to fight for them. It may be a hard sell, at least at first, for the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

But it’s what he has to do. This tax cut is a good start. He has five months. Everything depends upon it.


This, in my opinion, is the key:

    First: "Mr. Trudeau and his team of advisers believe that the real crisis of our time is the concentration of wealth among upper-income earners at the expense of the distressed middle. Their proposed solution is to expropriate a portion of
              that wealth and deliver it, not to the oppressed, but to the suburbs, to two-income, white-collar commuters who wonder why they work so hard and never get a raise. This tax cut’s for them;" and

    Second: " Also, a $60,000 income in Trois-Rivières delivers a much greater level of affluence than a $60,000 income in the Lower Mainland. Using income to define the middle class defies economic geography."

I agree with John Ibbitson that:

    "... Mr. Trudeau has clearly decided to ignore the NDP. If they want to tailor policies for lower-income workers, if they want to guarantee subsidized daycare spaces, if they want to fight climate change, the Liberals are happy to let them ...
      It can be exceedingly dangerous to turn your back on Thomas Mulcair. But Mr. Trudeau clearly sees this election as a contest between himself and Mr. Harper;" and

    "The Prime Minister has dedicated his entire political life to understanding, representing and defending the suburban middle class. He will fight Justin Trudeau to the political death over them."

I think M Trudeau has made two blunders, neither of which may be overly serious:

    1. He's defined the "middle class" in too narrow a range; and

    2. He's leaving his left flank, where M Mulcair has strength, open.
 
And, in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Jeffrey Simpson builds on the notion that M Trudeau has made a blunder and is dancing to Prime Minister Harper's tune:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/on-tax-cuts-trudeau-shouldnt-play-on-the-tories-turf/article24254907/
gam-masthead.png
[
On tax cuts, Trudeau shouldn’t play on the Tories’ turf

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, May. 05 2015

The Harper Conservatives have made the Trudeau Liberals come to them. The Conservatives have set the terms of the national debate, and the Liberals have responded. There are exceptions, of course, but the party that frames a national debate usually wins it.

Yes, the two parties differ, especially as the Liberals now want higher taxes on those earning more than $200,000 a year and the Conservatives do not. But the essence of their political fight is essentially about which party can cut taxes more and in the most politically enticing way on what both call the “middle class.” (The poor have been all but excised from political discussion, as if they did not exist.)

Cutting taxes is the Conservatives’ bread-and-butter. It’s what gets them up in the morning. They own the cutting taxes mantra. Now the Trudeau Liberals want to fight in the same political space. It’s a fight the Liberals will be hard-pressed to win.

Some voters will perhaps parse the tax plan unveiled this week by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and compare it favorably to the policies of the Harper Conservatives. Most voters, however, will be confused by the competing plans.

The Conservatives have a Child Tax Benefit and the Universal Child Care Benefit that they expanded in the recent budget; the Liberals propose a Canada Child Benefit, a “tax free” payment of up to $533 a month for each child. The Conservatives’ plan will cost over $4-billion, the Liberals’ plan $2-billion. Then the Liberals throw in a middle-class tax cut costing another $3-billion, as a response to other tax goodies the Conservatives have spread around.

Middle-income voters will struggle to sort out the different plans. If they vote on which party has done or will do the most for them – which the two major parties seem to believe the forthcoming election will be about – then why not stick with the party that’s been handing out lower taxes since being elected? Not by accident, the Conservatives’ expanded Universal Child Care Benefit cheques will be arriving in the mail before the summer. Politically, the cheques are a bird in hand as opposed to the Liberals’ plan that will remain in the bush.

To put matters another way, if the defining issue of the campaign will be which party will lower the tax burden the most for the middle class, the Conservatives’ will likely win. The irony of this competition to lower taxes the most is that almost every pollster finds that reducing taxes is not the most important issue for Canadians. Only a minority of Canadians list lower taxes as among their highest priorities for Canada.

Leaving the NDP aside for the moment, the Liberals’ policy plan speaks volumes about what Canadian politics – and perhaps we might say Canada – has become. The Conservatives, as we know, do not believe in collective solutions to societal problems. Their instinct is not to use the government to build a better society, because they fundamentally distrust the state’s ability to get it right.

Conservatives say time and again: Taxpayers not governments know best how to spend “hard-earned dollars.” If you want collective action to achieve social goals, vote for someone else. National visions, collective dreams, large goals have disappeared from Canadian politics, replaced by appeals exclusively to economic self-interest.

The Conservatives election pitch will be simple: lower taxes, smaller government and keeping Canadians safe. Now, the Liberals have essentially signed off on the first two Conservative slogans, while suggesting they would achieve these goals somewhat differently.

The Liberals’ biggest divergence from the Conservatives – and from the NDP that has pledged no tax increases on any Canadian, just companies – is to create a new tax bracket of 33 per cent for those with incomes above $200,000. This new tax, the Liberals believe, will bring in an additional $3-billion, which it likely will not, given the ability of people earning this kind of income to restructure their affairs.

Taxing the more affluent is likely good politics, except perhaps in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, where provincial governments just raised taxes on the affluent. In Quebec, taxes on the better-off have always been the highest in Canada.

The Liberals will also pay for a small part of their tax plan by using some of the anticipated federal $1.7-billion surplus for 2016-2017. Come to think of it, isn’t this precisely what Conservatives would do: return a surplus to “hard-working taxpayers.”


I think Mr Simpson "gets" the Conservatives when he says: "Conservatives say time and again: Taxpayers not governments know best how to spend “hard-earned dollars.” If you want collective action to achieve social goals, vote for someone else ... The Conservatives election pitch will be simple: lower taxes, smaller government and keeping Canadians safe."

He goes on to say, "Now, the Liberals have essentially signed off on the first two Conservative slogans, while suggesting they would achieve these goals somewhat differently."

Unless M Trudeau has yet another tax increases in his hip pocket or unless he plans to cut, discretionary spending ~ things like defence and veterans' benefits ~ then there is no money for much, Much, MUCH needed infrastructure maintenance and repair, nor for expanded mass transit ... Premier Wynne and big city mayors will not be pleased.


Edited to add:

But, on the plus side, M Trudeau has ventured, at long last, into the realm of policy and we must all welcome that. Good for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top