Feds' Tax Cuts: Smart Strategy

[CentreHice]

I just heard on the news that the proposed federal tax cuts COULD be too deep and far-reaching. That may cause the oppostion to band together and force an election.

That's a brilliant strategy. Most people think we're taxed to death.

I think the national sentiment would be: "We need tax relief, and the PCs want to give it to us. The other parties don't. Not only that, they're forcing another election which takes more from the taxpayer. Time for a PC majority."

Pretty smart. Win/win for Harper. If no election is forced, he still gets full marks for the relief.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

centrehice said:

I just heard on the news that the proposed federal tax cuts COULD be too deep and far-reaching. That may cause the oppostion to band together and force an election.

That's a brilliant strategy. Most people think we're taxed to death.

I think the national sentiment would be: "We need tax relief, and the PCs want to give it to us. The other parties don't. Not only that, they're forcing another election which takes more from the taxpayer. Time for a PC majority."

Pretty smart. Win/win for Harper. If no election is forced, he still gets full marks for the relief.

Actually, the only person in the country who wants an election is Harper.

* He knows that tax cuts will be extremely well received by the public.

* He knows that the opposition parties will convey the wrong message if they vote against tax cuts.

* He knows the Liberals are leaderless and in shambles.

I think he and his government have done a pretty good job but I still wouldn't trust him with a majority.

Cheers.

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

the only person in the country who wants an election is Harper.

Dis, they say that no Canadian wants an election until there is one; then we ask "what took so long?".

Right now it's all about spin. Harper is spinning well; Dion slip-sliding away; Layton will continue in third, hoping enough Liberals will come over to his side to make the NDP the official opposition (never happen).

The only thing in the Liberal arsenal right now is the "Harper is scary" theme, and it's been over-used. They can't say "look what he's done" because he's fulfilled all of his promises. They can't say "but you don't know what he will do" because he can say "I'll tell you what I'll do then do it, just like last time".

I wonder if there are enough voters like you that say "I'm still not sure", or if they'll hold their noses and vote Conservative and say "can't be worse than what the Liberals did", and suffer for 4 years before turfing them out. But then mini-Trudeau should be ready to head the Liberal Party and be annointed King Saviour leader.

[CentreHice]

Yes, I agree that Harper wants that majority sooner than later...and in actuality, HE will be the one forcing the election if the cuts are indeed too far-reaching.

But the public won't see it that way. They'll hear "tax cuts" and see the opposition as forcing the election, costing taxpayers even more.

The tax cuts announced soon should be looked at very carefully to see if they are, in fact, designed to cause the election ball rolling.

Not saying I agree with it....but it IS a crafty political move....especially seeing as Dion and the Libs are experiencing a huge image problem.

[BadCompany]

I do not think that THIS government has anything to worry about, when it comes to proposing tax cuts, but not all governments can say the same thing. Jean Charest here in Quebec proposed $950 million in tax cuts, and was flatly rejected by both the official opposition parties AND the people of Quebec.

Imagine that eh? The highest taxed region in North America rejected nearly a billion dollars in tax cuts.

Having said that – and we will almost certainly hear from the lobbying groups the second the cuts are announced – many people think that the money can be better spent elsewhere. Here in Quebec the cry was to reduce the provincial debt, and pump money into health care and education. All noble uses for our tax money. One can make the same argument on the Federal level. They say that the surplus is going to be $14 billion this year? They also say that a 1% cut in the GST will reduce federal income by $5 billion? So cut the GST by 1%, and then put the remaining $8-9 billion into the military. That would help rectify a decade of budget cuts and move our men and women in uniform back to the big-boys table on the world stage, would it not?

Of course, a “peace loving nation” like Canada would never do that. Alas… I think it would be a good idea. But then, I think Canada should have mandatory military service too, so what do I know?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

I do not think that THIS government has anything to worry about, when it comes to proposing tax cuts, but not all governments can say the same thing. Jean Charest here in Quebec proposed $950 million in tax cuts, and was flatly rejected by both the official opposition parties AND the people of Quebec.

Imagine that eh? The highest taxed region in North America rejected nearly a billion dollars in tax cuts.

Having said that – and we will almost certainly hear from the lobbying groups the second the cuts are announced – many people think that the money can be better spent elsewhere. Here in Quebec the cry was to reduce the provincial debt, and pump money into health care and education. All noble uses for our tax money.

Imagine, taxpayers and voters who actually give a hoot.

One can make the same argument on the Federal level. They say that the surplus is going to be $14 billion this year? They also say that a 1% cut in the GST will reduce federal income by $5 billion? So cut the GST by 1%, and then put the remaining $8-9 billion into the military. That would help rectify a decade of budget cuts and move our men and women in uniform back to the big-boys table on the world stage, would it not?

It's a worthwhile initiative, BC, but I think, in addition to the military, there would be a strong lobby for upgrading health care here in the country as well. And they'd have a good point too.

Of course, a “peace loving nation” like Canada would never do that. Alas… I think it would be a good idea. But then, I think Canada should have mandatory military service too, so what do I know?

Feel like starting a thread on this? It's on a completely different topic, but we were talking about this only last evening when we were out to dinner with friends. Manditory national service for persons 19 years of age. The options for an 18-month tenure:

* military service,

* police services,

* firefighting services, or

* customs Canada.

Then we talked about how this would affect immigrants as well. Manditory national service would be a requirement prior to applying for citizenship.

As far as taxes go, this would be putting taxpayers' monies to excellent use IMHO.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

franko said:

The only thing in the Liberal arsenal right now is the "Harper is scary" theme, and it's been over-used. They can't say "look what he's done" because he's fulfilled all of his promises. They can't say "but you don't know what he will do" because he can say "I'll tell you what I'll do then do it, just like last time".

WHAT???

I think every person in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan would beg to differ on this.

Saying "Harper", "keeps" and "promises" in the same sentence is downright laughable. Our three provinces get pushed aside and stepped on and its ok and people think Harper is so high and noble .... he did it to us, and with a majority you can bet he will do it to you to.

Keeps his promises huh? *cough* Income trusts *cough* (my mother lost out there, she voted for him because of his tough stand on this issue and then he turned around and caved in)

Saskatchewan is suing the federal government because they broke a promise (a written promise by the way) that no province would be adversely affected in the new equalization formula.

And he promised Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan that non-renewable resources should be for the primary benefit of the province and he would exclude them from any equalization calculation - he even likened in to the similar break that Alberta received when it was developing its oil industry.

The only promise I have seen him keep is he crime stance .....

If he gets a majority, I'll make a bold prediction .... a Conservative majority will result in the break-up of the country before 2012.

[HabSolute]

skilly said:

If he gets a majority, I'll make a bold prediction .... a Conservative majority will result in the break-up of the country before 2012.

You also predicted 3-8 for the Habs in October... ;D

In any case, I could use a few more dollars in my pocket !

[franko]

skilly said:

franko said:

The only thing in the Liberal arsenal right now is the "Harper is scary" theme, and it's been over-used. They can't say "look what he's done" because he's fulfilled all of his promises. They can't say "but you don't know what he will do" because he can say "I'll tell you what I'll do then do it, just like last time".

WHAT???

I think every person in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan would beg to differ on this.

Crass answer: who cares? [their crass answer, not mine]

Newfoundland has been written off.

Nova Scotia has been partially bouoght off.

Saskatchewan is NDP and Conservative territory with scattered Liberals. Swing votes will keep it about the same.

Keeps his promises huh? *cough* Income trusts *cough* (my mother lost out there, she voted for him because of his tough stand on this issue and then he turned around and caved in)

This will be a point of attack but there will be an apology (not a shrug of the shoulders) and an explanation that will not be enough for some but will be for others.

If he gets a majority, I'll make a bold prediction .... a Conservative majority will result in the break-up of the country before 2012.

Naw . . . it'll take a couple of majority Conservative governments to get anywhere near that. ;D

[Cranky]

skilly said:

.... a Conservative majority will result in the break-up of the country before 2012.

Not that bold a prediction.

[MC Habber]

centrehice said:

I think the national sentiment would be: "We need tax relief, and the PCs want to give it to us. The other parties don't. Not only that, they're forcing another election which takes more from the taxpayer. Time for a PC majority."

Not my sentiment. Not by a long shot. I can understand that there are economic arguments in favour of lowering taxes - that it will increase spending and ultimately lead to higher tax revenues and so on. Not that I necessarily endorse those arguments, but they make some kind of sense. But the idea that this is going to provide relief?

The government estimates that as a result of its tax changes, the 2008 tax savings will be:

* Almost $180 for the average family earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year.
* Almost $400 for the average family earning between between $45,000 and $60,000 a year.
* Just over $600 for the average family earning between $80,000 and $100,000 a year.

Is a family earning 80-100K a year really going to get a lot of "relief" from an extra 50 bucks a month? Is someone earning 15-30K going to notice an extra $15 a month? Someone who earns $100,000 per year from age 25 to 65 would save $24,000 over their entire life as a result of this. I'd much rather see the money spent on healthcare and education.

If people are looking for serious tax relief, it's neither forthcoming nor practical, IMO.

[franko]

Economists say that my take on the tax system doesn't work. I'm for a flat tax.

First $20,000 = no tax.
After $20,000 = 15% tax: 10% federal, 5% provincial.

If that isn't enough revenue (looking at what people pay now), then after $50,000 another 5% and 2%, or something of the sort.

I realize that this means that people earning minimum wage won't be paying income tax, even if they work full time. At least they'd be able to eat. $1,650/month doesn't get you very much in a city.

And don't give me "raise the minimum wage to $14. an hour" as some sociologists have suggested as the minimum people need to live on -- that's inflationary, and all it will do is reaise every other wage and cost, meaing instead of eking out on $8 an hour it'll be eking out on $14. an hour.

And people . . . be compassionate. Give to someone in need, whether you think they deserve it or not.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

And don't give me "raise the minimum wage to $14. an hour" as some sociologists have suggested as the minimum people need to live on -- that's inflationary, and all it will do is reaise every other wage and cost, meaing instead of eking out on $8 an hour it'll be eking out on $14. an hour.

You can make the same argument about tax cuts - that they cause inflation. Raising taxes (for those in a certain income bracket) could actually reduce the cost of living.

[franko]

machabby said:

franko said:

And don't give me "raise the minimum wage to $14. an hour" as some sociologists have suggested as the minimum people need to live on -- that's inflationary, and all it will do is reaise every other wage and cost, meaing instead of eking out on $8 an hour it'll be eking out on $14. an hour.

You can make the same argument about tax cuts - that they cause inflation. Raising taxes (for those in a certain income bracket) could actually reduce the cost of living.

Unfortunately, it's my income bracket that gets hit, not those higher up!

My daughter made about $15,000 last year . . . low paying jobs as she saves for university, no longer wanting to live at home so she moved out and shared an apartment with a couple of other girls . . . and gets auditted! in-con-ceivable!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

machabby said:

You can make the same argument about tax cuts - that they cause inflation. Raising taxes (for those in a certain income bracket) could actually reduce the cost of living.

Unfortunately, it's my income bracket that gets hit, not those higher up!

My daughter made about $15,000 last year . . . low paying jobs as she saves for university, no longer wanting to live at home so she moved out and shared an apartment with a couple of other girls . . . and gets auditted! in-con-ceivable!

"Are you sure you know what that word means? I don't think it means what you think it means ..."

Audited? Give me a break ... or her a break at the very least.

Sigh!

[Cranky]

franko said:

And don't give me "raise the minimum wage to $14. an hour" as some sociologists have suggested as the minimum people need to live on -- that's inflationary, and all it will do is reaise every other wage and cost, meaing instead of eking out on $8 an hour it'll be eking out on $14. an hour.

And people . . . be compassionate. Give to someone in need, whether you think they deserve it or not.

You are not going to believe how right you are on this. I start manual laborers at $10 and they get reviewed every three months the first year. At the end of the first year they are $12.00. The it's about a dollar a year. I have people who don't do anything someone off the street can't learn in ten minutes and they are making $18.00 and they are NOT happy.

Always the same things......"how can we afford to have two cars and a house on $18.00 an hour". Well, buddy, try getting an EDUCATION or a SKILL to earn MORE. If you raise the level to $14.00 for unskilled workers, then they the ENTIRE economy will raise to that level and those earning that money sill STILL not have enough.

Everything is good, as soon as a recession hits and we can't come out of it, then we will get a reality check.

[Skilly]

franko said:

Crass answer: who cares? [their crass answer, not mine]

This is just it ... no one cares. All anyone does is read the Globe and Mail, or the National Post and they think they have all the facts. Our newspaper here spends time rebutting the errors in those two rags. No one wants to actually take the time to sit down and hear the arguements.

With or without Harper's money Newfoundland will be a "have" province next year ... that's right we will not be receiving equalization next year. But under Harper's proposed admendments, if we do what Nova Scotia did, we would receive equalization until 2020. How is that good for the country or Newfoundland?

The center of the universe is so worried that another province may actually surpass them on a per-capita basis economically .... but really does anyone really think that if it happened Newfoundland would be better off than Ontario? The arguement only makes sense if Ontario and Newfoundland had the same unemployment rate and average salary -which we don't, not even close.

I don't trust Harper one iota. His whole term has been saying one thing and doing another ...

.... I had a call last night from a political pollster. At first I thought it was a Consercative sponsor poll. Asked me who I thought was best to run the country (I said Harper), who I thought would be best for health care (I said Layton), who would be best for Newfoundland (I said Dion). Then she went into a speel about Dion was against the Atlantic Accord and would that affect my vote (I said no), if I thought the Atlantic Accord would affect my vote for Harper (I said he isnt getting my vote) .... who I'd vote for if an election was called today (Liberal). Then she listed off 6 candidates who may be running in my district and on a scale of 1 to 5 how I would vote ... that when I realised this must have been an NDP sponsored poll (they listed off one of each and 4 NDPs). Wish I knew that up front ... would have answered some questions differently ...LOL

[Cranky]

skilly said:

.... I had a call last night from a political pollster. At first I thought it was a Consercative sponsor poll. Asked me who I thought was best to run the country (I said Harper), who I thought would be best for health care (I said Layton), who would be best for Newfoundland (I said Dion). Then she went into a speel about Dion was against the Atlantic Accord and would that affect my vote (I said no), if I thought the Atlantic Accord would affect my vote for Harper (I said he isnt getting my vote) .... who I'd vote for if an election was called today (Liberal). Then she listed off 6 candidates who may be running in my district and on a scale of 1 to 5 how I would vote ... that when I realised this must have been an NDP sponsored poll (they listed off one of each and 4 NDPs). Wish I knew that up front ... would have answered some questions differently ...LOL

Polls mean absolutely nothing if the questions are biased...and most of them are. I went into a spiel in the other thread about how phrasing a question makes for completely different answers.

Somewhere ins CEGEP, I took a political and polls was one of the things that we took apart. I still remember the example of "biasing" polls.

Question: Do you like to save kittens? Something like 90% of the people said yes. Now if the question changed to "Would you like to save the kittens by killing all the dogs" then it went down to 7%. Wording is everything, followed by timing.

[CentreHice]

machabby said:

centrehice said:

I think the national sentiment would be: "We need tax relief, and the PCs want to give it to us. The other parties don't. Not only that, they're forcing another election which takes more from the taxpayer. Time for a PC majority."

Not my sentiment. Not by a long shot. I can understand that there are economic arguments in favour of lowering taxes - that it will increase spending and ultimately lead to higher tax revenues and so on. Not that I necessarily endorse those arguments, but they make some kind of sense. But the idea that this is going to provide relief?

The government estimates that as a result of its tax changes, the 2008 tax savings will be:

* Almost $180 for the average family earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year.
* Almost $400 for the average family earning between between $45,000 and $60,000 a year.
* Just over $600 for the average family earning between $80,000 and $100,000 a year.

Is a family earning 80-100K a year really going to get a lot of "relief" from an extra 50 bucks a month? Is someone earning 15-30K going to notice an extra $15 a month? Someone who earns $100,000 per year from age 25 to 65 would save $24,000 over their entire life as a result of this. I'd much rather see the money spent on healthcare and education.

If people are looking for serious tax relief, it's neither forthcoming nor practical, IMO.

Ah, MCH....but you're thinking about it too much and looking deeper...to the point of showing facts!

Most people hear "tax cuts" and think "Yippee!". And that's what this strategy is banking on.

[seventeen]

badcompany said:

But then, I think Canada should have mandatory military service too, so what do I know?

Whew!....I'm too old for the draft. I am to old for the draft, right? I have a bad back and hernia surgery...I can't serve in Afghanistan, or any stan.

[seventeen]

skilly said:

If he gets a majority, I'll make a bold prediction .... a Conservative majority will result in the break-up of the country before 2012.

The man is a fundamentalist. To me, that's a dirty four letter word. We're safe enough as long as he doesn't have a majority. Once he can tell everyone to jump in the lake, we're in trouble.

[MC Habber]

centrehice said:

machabby said:

Not my sentiment. Not by a long shot. I can understand that there are economic arguments in favour of lowering taxes - that it will increase spending and ultimately lead to higher tax revenues and so on. Not that I necessarily endorse those arguments, but they make some kind of sense. But the idea that this is going to provide relief?

The government estimates that as a result of its tax changes, the 2008 tax savings will be:

* Almost $180 for the average family earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year.
* Almost $400 for the average family earning between between $45,000 and $60,000 a year.
* Just over $600 for the average family earning between $80,000 and $100,000 a year.

Is a family earning 80-100K a year really going to get a lot of "relief" from an extra 50 bucks a month? Is someone earning 15-30K going to notice an extra $15 a month? Someone who earns $100,000 per year from age 25 to 65 would save $24,000 over their entire life as a result of this. I'd much rather see the money spent on healthcare and education.

If people are looking for serious tax relief, it's neither forthcoming nor practical, IMO.

Ah, MCH....but you're thinking about it too much and looking deeper...to the point of showing facts!

Most people hear "tax cuts" and think "Yippee!". And that's what this strategy is banking on.

By trying to buy our votes, is Harper ceding the moral high ground to the Liberals?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

machabby said:

centrehice said:

Ah, MCH....but you're thinking about it too much and looking deeper...to the point of showing facts!

Most people hear "tax cuts" and think "Yippee!". And that's what this strategy is banking on.

By trying to buy our votes, is Harper ceding the moral high ground to the Liberals?

Well, on this premise any initiative by any government can be construed as trying to buy votes.

What's unusual about this initiative, though, is that moves like this are usually done just before election time. This isn't the case here.

However, the timing is right and Harper knows that. The other parties are struggling right now and can't afford to go to the poles for fear that they would strengthen the Tories.

It might not be an election time mini budget, but it was done for political gain as well. Another difference; couldn't see the Liberals doing this. But, they were quick to rob us.

Cheers.

[franko]

seventeen said:

fundamentalist.

Definition, please.

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

However, the timing is right and Harper knows that. The other parties are struggling right now and can't afford to go to the poles for fear that they would strengthen the Tories.

Except . . . Decima put the Conservatives at 33%, compared with 29% for the Liberals, despite weeks of media coverage in which Grit leader Stephane Dion has been portrayed as the Inspector Clouseau of Canadian politics. article: Perplexing Poll

[HabSolute]

skilly said:

If he gets a majority, I'll make a bold prediction .... a Conservative majority will result in the break-up of the country before 2012.

Who cares, the end of the world is Dec 21st, 2012 anyway.

[Cranky]

franko said:

seventeen said:

fundamentalist.

Definition, please.

Me, running through the woods naked.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

By trying to buy our votes, is Harper ceding the moral high ground to the Liberals?

I don't mind the vote buying ... it's that he is essentlially buying our votes with our own money (that federal surplus is because we are grossly over-taxed) that irks the jeepers out of me.

[Skilly]

disgruntled70shab said:

It might not be an election time mini budget, but it was done for political gain as well. Another difference; couldn't see the Liberals doing this. But, they were quick to rob us.

Cheers.

All politicians are the same Dis ... if they are not getting anything out of it, then they are not going to support it. Which is why the East will always be the black sheep - our 32 seats mean nothing to the suits in Ottawa when the rest of the country has 270 for the buying errr taking .. yeah that's it.