|
|
Post by Roggy on Mar 28, 2011 22:37:02 GMT -5
dis: you're kind of in the mix . . . tell us about the CF18s. are they really necessary? its been suggested that unmanned drones will man the skies about the same time the jets are ready -- won't they be almost out-dated once they arrive [at their double-the-projected cost]? I would also like a bit more clarification here. This is what I think I know, if anyone (Dis?) can properly edumucate me, please do. I think the new F-35's are needed. Our CF-18's are old, seriously old. The Americans consider their's old and theirs have been upgraded several times beyond what ours are. We are a contributing partner to the F-35 development, money already spent, (By the Liberals!) Yet now they want to not buy any? At the discounted price we get because we were involved in development?? So the Liberals want to cancel the contract. How much did canceling the Sea King replacement contract cost us? How much more has been spent trying to replace the Sea Kings now, rather than when the Conservatives tried to do it before Chretien? How many extra dollars were spent on maintenance between now and then? Should we really go through that again with the F-35's, 10-15 years from now? edit: I looked this up on Wikipedia, it's ridiculous what happened when Chretien came to power on this topic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-124_Sea_King#Replacement $500 million in contract fees, 17 years and several crashes later, replacements should start arriving this year, almost 24 YEARS after the Conservatives decided on the first replacements. I vote Conservative. I probably also relate most to a Libertarian. (Fiscally, militarily conservative, socially liberal). I think we need to field a technologically advanced defence force, since we have so much to protect and so little to defend it with. From my vantage point, all the parliamentary contempt, wasted dollars etc etc are standard operating procedure with ANY government. Look back through newspapers, name me a single government that hasn't done extremely stupid things. Claims that democracy is threatened...really? Does a Conservative majority mean we all will lose the right to vote forever?? Democracy means we get to choose a government, I really don't see that changing anytime soon, no matter who gets elected. I, for one, hope we end up with a majority government, of any single party, because I'm completely sick of the BS negotiations that waste so much time and tax money to do anything in a minority government. Minority, Coalition, both mean negotiations between parties to get anything accomplished, generally so that no one is satisfied. Sorry if this seems disjointed, I'm not the most eloquent writer and I get kind of worked up about politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 0:11:04 GMT -5
dis: you're kind of in the mix . . . tell us about the CF18s. are they really necessary? its been suggested that unmanned drones will man the skies about the same time the jets are ready -- won't they be almost out-dated once they arrive [at their double-the-projected cost]? I would also like a bit more clarification here. This is what I think I know, if anyone (Dis?) can properly edumucate me, please do. I think the new F-35's are needed. Our CF-18's are old, seriously old. The Americans consider their's old and theirs have been upgraded several times beyond what ours are. We are a contributing partner to the F-35 development, money already spent, (By the Liberals!) Yet now they want to not buy any? At the discounted price we get because we were involved in development?? Besides my dashing good looks and charming personality (  ), I know a thing or two about military aircraft. Do we need F-35? Well, it comes to this, do we need to enforce our claims in the Arctic? Fighter planes are like enforcers on the team, we never need them but when it comes time and we have nothing, then we're full of hot air. No one should underestimate what military power means to geopolitics. Those who say that we are not going to fight the Russians, we don't have too. All we need is sufficient military presence and balls to act as a deterrence. Russians will NEVER, EVER do more then saber rattling when we have our really big brother just down the street from us. Are they the best plane? No. The best plane on the planet for us is the F-22 air-to-air gun slinger. The F-35 is the second best because it's more of a multi-role plane that we really don't need....but think we do. If the purpose is interdiction, then the F-22 is a Ferrari to a SUV. Faster, stealthier, deadlier. Think of the F-22 as the 4 generations advance over our Arrow. As for the CF-18. Put it this way. What our CF-18 does to the Libyan air force is what the F-35 can do to the CF-18's. It's simply an antique to 5th generation fighters. So why didn't we get the F-22? Simply put, it's an offensive weapon first and foremost. It would be a hard sell to Canadians that we are getting something that sole purpose is to kill other planes. it doesn't play well with our perception of who we are or what our intents are. Plus with with the F-35, we are a credible military buddy in operations like Libya. We don't expect to get into a gun fight so we buy the SUV. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyKYw_p1Hrc&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU(BTW, if events were different when I left Greece, I was heading for the air force. Why? Because they got laid a lot.) |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 0:17:47 GMT -5
for the decrease in GST that they promised and followed thoguh with. I also don't want the Libs in so they can increase taxes even higher than they are now. you realize that if they Cons hadn't lowered the GST the deficit wouldn't be nearly as high as it is now, don't you? not sure that the few cents saved makes that much difference to the average person -- let's him buy an extra TH coffee a week, maybe. A tax like the GST permeates throughout our economy, which WE pay for. Those two points probably amount to about $300 a year directly and just as much indirectly. Better in my pocket then someone else's. Now, if you want to argue that we shouldn't have transfer payments, bailouts and economic hand outs stimulants, I'm all ears. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2011 5:35:40 GMT -5
dis: you're kind of in the mix . . . tell us about the CF18s. are they really necessary? its been suggested that unmanned drones will man the skies about the same time the jets are ready -- won't they be almost out-dated once they arrive [at their double-the-projected cost]? Morning Franko, Well, Roggy did a great job summing up our air force requirement, then HA sort of validated it. I'm not in on too much on air force operations, so all I can give you is an opinion. I think our F-18 is an old aircraft but the Canadian Forces (CF) has done a good job upgrading them especially during the Balkans war of the 90's. I think the CF finally realized that we had fallen behind and an upgrade program didn't take long from there. Even with the F-35 acquisition, though, the CF-18 is still a good aircraft. I'd hope they don't mothball the aircraft, but you never know. They may even find a buyer, who knows? Got to get ready to go to work. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 6:01:39 GMT -5
Thanks, Roggy [and HA]. Don't get me wrong here, I think that we need to keep our military "modern" [I'm an old AF brat] . . . but isn't one of the complaints about the CF-35s about mid-air refueling, which would be a problem in the Arctic? [OK, way to go, interweb . . . pro CF-35 blog. helps a bit; now to find an anti-plane article . . . balance, you know] |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 6:06:31 GMT -5
hmmm . . . Libertarian . . . so that's the colour I'm painted? I always thought I was a Red Tory [I'd say "blue Liberal" but they've been pretty blue following the last few elections so I'll refrain]: fiscally conservative but socially active [and what does that mean? that I care about people but don't want to spend money looking after them? I don't know!]
who is the head of the Libertarian Party of Canada? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2011 7:48:43 GMT -5
I am going for Conservative on the basis of military support (Liberals always have cut backs and to cancel the contract on those fighter jets is going to be costly) and for the decrease in GST that they promised and followed through with. I also don't want the Libs in so they can increase taxes even higher than they are now. The economy has being running prett smoothly aswell so that is a plus in my book. I also hate the idea of coalations....how Liberals can team up with their(and mine) nemessis the Bloc I just don't understand. So conservative it is. Not sure when or where the Liberals teamed up with the Bloc. The Bloc were never, and will never be, apart of any coalition by any party. The Bloc simply said they would support them. I will give you franko's "but they do it too" rebuttal. The Conservatives had the NDP and the Bloc write letters to the GG in 2004, asking the GG to look into other options if the Martin government should fall instead of going to an election. Layton and Duceppe have said those "options" were clearly defined as to install Harper as the PM propped up by NDP and Bloc support. Harper has recently said he never said he would be the PM, but that there would be a "co-operative effort" between the three parties. I liked Duceppe's response to that on Monday ... basically saying that Haprer walked into his office and asked him what he wanted in the speech from the throne if their coalition has to happen. Then asks [paraphrased] "But he didn't want to be PM finishing second? He says thats undemocratic? Who was to be PM then? The nasty socialist? The boogey man separist? Who else was left? It wasn't a co-operative effort, it was a coalition and Steven Harper was to be PM .. if iot walks like a dog and smells like a dog" You know, too bad Duceppe only runs candidates in Quebec ... because IMO, he is the best man to run the country - if only he was a separtist. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2011 7:52:26 GMT -5
. I can't vote Liberal because as far as I'm concerned they're a bunch of spineless crooks who stand for nothing by lining their own pockets. Their actions during these past minority years have shown this - they've given in on a half a dozen Conservative bills and propped up the government mainly because they didn't think they could win an election. I don't want leaders that compromise their ideals for political expediency. If they hadn't of propped up the Harper government then Harper would have gotten an overwhelming majority. The public say they don't want an election NOW (do they ever?) but can you imagine if Ignatieff stuck to his guns and brought down the government (whether it was a legitimate excuse or not) in the first year or two? I don't think it was so much that THEY couldn't win an election, but rather do we risk pissing off an electorate that has gone to the polls 3 times in 5 years already. |
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on Mar 29, 2011 7:57:11 GMT -5
I was going to get into the whole arctic protection and Russian thing, but I didn't want to sound like an alarmist. Clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks there may be a long term threat to our soverignty in the North. One "Disputed" area, one Russian drilling rig and the snowball starts rolling. Thanks for saying things that I wanted to better than I could. I agree whole-heartedly with HA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2011 8:09:30 GMT -5
From my vantage point, all the parliamentary contempt, wasted dollars etc etc are standard operating procedure with ANY government. Look back through newspapers, name me a single government that hasn't done extremely stupid things. Claims that democracy is threatened...really? Does a Conservative majority mean we all will lose the right to vote forever?? Democracy means we get to choose a government, I really don't see that changing anytime soon, no matter who gets elected. I, for one, hope we end up with a majority government, of any single party, because I'm completely sick of the BS negotiations that waste so much time and tax money to do anything in a minority government. Minority, Coalition, both mean negotiations between parties to get anything accomplished, generally so that no one is satisfied. Sorry if this seems disjointed, I'm not the most eloquent writer and I get kind of worked up about politics. I know franko said there were other charges of contempt of parliament against governments - but i can't for the life of me find one. All I can find is businessmen (1913), an RCMP commisioner(2008), and a privacy commisioner (2003) were citing for contempt for misleading committees. Not the House of Commons. Another example is a committe found former MP Auguste Choquette’s attitude “intemperate and irresponsible”, but that's still not the House of Commons. In most of the above examples, it didn't go any further after the citation or an apology ... but this is the first time a PM and a sitting GOVERNMENT has been found in contempt. There is still talk about formally charging Harper and/or Oda. Yes we can vote Harper out on the third Tuesday in October in 2015. Yay! That should be right around when he get to that splitting income tax benefit ... i hope no one holds their breath over that. We have booted other governments out for one such similar instance like this (with no contempt charges, cause what other governments did wasn't lie to parliament but waste money (and possible fraud)- which we rightfully booted them out for). But we can live with Harper doing it 5 times (at least by my count), and with a majority it will only get worse ... IMO, he just can't be trusted. Not saying the other parties can (I don't want a Liberal majority either), but the only way to reign in Harper is with a minority government (I can live with that). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2011 8:37:21 GMT -5
I don't doubt we need the aircrafts ... and I want our military beefed up and strong as much as the next guy. So how do we fund all this? The Conservatives say it is going to cost $17.6 Billion ..... but the following article (this estimate was another example cited in the contempt charges too btw) says the Conservatives are using questionsble means to arrive at their estimate ... and the opposition is arguing (and I think it has been proven, could be wrong there) that the Conservatives deliberately misrepresented the estimate.
OTTAWA — A cost analysis of the controversial F-35 jet fighter purchase done by Canada’s budget watchdog has received an unfavourable peer review by a U.K-based aerospace engineer commissioned by the federal government.
Marin Guenov, the head of Cranfield University’s aerospace engineering department, argues the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report — which pegs the cost of the purchase at nearly double the government’s estimate — is flawed.
“I do not have reasons to doubt the integrity of the authors of the PBO report or their good intent,” he concludes in his two-and-a-half page report obtained by Postmedia News.
“However, after examining the report, I believe that some of the assumptions and the methodology used to produce the estimates are questionable. I would also strongly recommend a further investigation.”
He argues the PBO used an approach to cost estimation that’s generally used in the early stages of design which isn’t the case here since the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has been in the works for more than a decade.
The method also doesn't take into account changing technology, market conditions, and risk sharing arrangements, he said.
He also had concerns about the PBO report’s average unit cost per aircraft of $128.8 million US over the entire program and the manner in which the PBO arrived at Canada’s average unit cost of $148.5 million US which is said to be higher since Canada will take possession of the aircraft sooner rather than later.
The government has forecasted the unit cost at about $75 million CDN and the total cost of the project at $17.6 billion US. The PBO argues the total price tag is more like $29 billion US.
Reached at home late Thursday, Geunov said he was asked to conduct the peer review several days ago by Canada’s Department of National Defence.
He was reluctant to go into detail about his findings but noted he’s done many peer reviews during his career and that his findings on this one are based strictly on his expert opinion.
A source confirmed that this was the only peer review sought out by the government.
The peer review came to light a day after the PBO issued a a second report that again refutes the government’s cost estimates. The rebuttal came almost a week after the government released a more detailed cost analysis in response to criticism following the first PBO report in what’s shaping up to be an endless game of he said, she said.
But that's ok. I've got it all under control ... This income splitting tax break is going to cost the government around $2.4 Billion annually (I'm using Harper's speech where he said 1.8 million families would receive an extra $1300 back).
So if we use Harper's own number $17.6 Billion (US) + $2.34 Billion (CAN) = about $20 Billion (more if our dollar goes kaplooey).
If we roll back Harper's corporate tax cuts to the 2007 rate of 22% the government coffers would would generate $41.8 billion over the next four years and regain $13.7 billion of annual revenue by 2013-14.
But we can't do that ... no one like to be hit with a tax increase and really I don't think the businesses deserve that either. But Harper's plan is to lower the current value of 18% to %15 by 2012. If we keep the tax rate where it is, don't lower it, (we are coming out of the crisis, and I really don't see businesses collapsing all around me), they seem to be surviving quite well at 18% .... well just maintaining the status quo would save $14.4 billion over the next four fiscal years and $5.8 billion of annual revenue by 2013-14.
Planes bought and income splitting can be done next year ... c'mon Harper, you want my vote, there is one way of getting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2011 8:47:39 GMT -5
I am going for Conservative on the basis of military support (Liberals always have cut backs and to cancel the contract on those fighter jets is going to be costly) and for the decrease in GST that they promised and followed through with. Being retired military I'm voting Tory as well, TD. The Tories have shown outstanding support for our military and because of that Canadian troops are back in the forefront of respectability. They've purchased the necessary items for the CF to properly conduct operations in a war environment. Conversely, the Liberal stance is, "why should we buy this and that when our allies can provide it?" However, the Tories also tried tabling the cancelation of the age-65 clawback on military and RCMP pensions. The ones who torpedoed that were the Liberals. Another thing I liked was how they initiated the splitting of pensions. As it was before, I had to hide a lot of my military pension in RRSPs and the like. Now, I can give half of my pension to Mrs Dis, which brings down my taxable income substantially. However, if it works against us I have the option to leave things as they are. It has nothing more to do with bringing down the Conservatives. A vote for any of the three opposition parties means a vote for a coalition. They've done it before and they'll do it again; however, any coalition means making a pact with the BLOC. And if that coalition is to function it has to be give and take by all three parties. Easier said than done. As an aside, the only thing that concerns me about a Tory majority (other than Harper running it) is if they re-visit the capital punishment issue. I don't want the death penalty back in Canada. I don't want it in any shape or form and if a (possible) Tory majority passes it, I think we'll see an entire Liberal campaign revolving around that, and that might be their ticket back to respectability and a minority Grit government; not that I want to see that either mind you. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 11:00:12 GMT -5
Not sure when or where the Liberals teamed up with the Bloc. The Bloc were never, and will never be, apart of any coalition by any party. The Bloc simply said they would support them. in that case, Duceppe should stop with trotting out the coalition letter. meh, its all semantics anyway. methinks you may have misread me [or maybe I just miswrote]. it ain't my rebuttal at all: he hit me first didn't work for my children and it shouldn't work for any of the parties in this election -- Cons pointing to Lib misdeeds or Lib/NDPs pointing to Con misdeeds. that's the one side of the story [and it may be a very true side of the story . . . but I always like to hear both sides before deciding both are embellishing]. agree wholeheartedly. I think that's what you meant, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 11:01:47 GMT -5
you realize that if they Cons hadn't lowered the GST the deficit wouldn't be nearly as high as it is now, don't you? not sure that the few cents saved makes that much difference to the average person -- let's him buy an extra TH coffee a week, maybe. A tax like the GST permeates throughout our economy, which WE pay for. Those two points probably amount to about $300 a year directly and just as much indirectly. Better in my pocket then someone else's. confession: I waited [knowing the GST was to go down] to buy my car: 1% is 1% [and by then it was 2%] -- agreed, better in my pocket then someone elses. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 11:03:33 GMT -5
. I can't vote Liberal because as far as I'm concerned they're a bunch of spineless crooks who stand for nothing by lining their own pockets. Their actions during these past minority years have shown this - they've given in on a half a dozen Conservative bills and propped up the government mainly because they didn't think they could win an election. I don't want leaders that compromise their ideals for political expediency. If they hadn't of propped up the Harper government then Harper would have gotten an overwhelming majority. The public say they don't want an election NOW (do they ever?) but can you imagine if Ignatieff stuck to his guns and brought down the government (whether it was a legitimate excuse or not) in the first year or two? I don't think it was so much that THEY couldn't win an election, but rather do we risk pissing off an electorate that has gone to the polls 3 times in 5 years already. naw, they also couldn't win and they knew it. even after he put Harper "on watch" they still didn't bring the government down . . . and then the NDP got in the game which gave Iggy some space to be more of an opposition [but still not much of an opponent]. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 11:12:13 GMT -5
I know franko said there were other charges of contempt of parliament against governments - but i can't for the life of me find one. All I can find is businessmen (1913), an RCMP commisioner(2008), and a privacy commisioner (2003) were citing for contempt for misleading committees. Not the House of Commons. I guess I wasn't clear. the charges were raised and then brought to committee, but because there were majority governments they went no further. only because it was a foregone conclusion because the there were more opposition members on the committee than government members. it won't go past the talk stage . . . but anti-Cons will blather on about it for years and pro-Cons will try to bury it/ignore it. retraction: it won't go on for years, only until another scandal comes. then the Cons will lose, and it will be talk until the Libs [or the LibDPs if and when they amalgamate/form a coalition (the Reform/PCs are considered a "coalition" by some)] do something scandalous to change the conversation. looks like Dis is. I think that should the Cons win a majority it will be in their budget just before an election call. politicians. Iggy isn't the only one not in it for you. I think that we've gone as far as we can with a Cons minority government. it either needs to be a Cons majority [you'll survive 4 years] or a Lib minority [which might survive 3 years, propped by the NDP -- the Libs are willing to start new programs to stay in power, I think the Cons won't]. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 11:23:31 GMT -5
Harper's plan is to lower the current value of 18% to %15 by 2012. If we keep the tax rate where it is, don't lower it, (we are coming out of the crisis, and I really don't see businesses collapsing all around me), they seem to be surviving quite well at 18% .... well just maintaining the status quo would save $14.4 billion over the next four fiscal years and $5.8 billion of annual revenue by 2013-14. on the business tax thing :
[The Liberals] have argued the Conservative plan to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15% from 18% is “not needed” and the money should be used to pay down the deficit and on other priorities. In effect, Mr. Ignatieff had no money to spend on his homecare and low-income student scholarship programs, so he set up the straw man of greedy banks and oil companies filling their coffers at the expense of the ubiquitous “hard working, thinly stretched Canadian family.”
However, in a devastating article in the Financial Post recently, tax expert Jack Mintz eviscerated the Liberal position. For one, the foregone revenue is really $4.5-billion, not the $6-billion the Liberals routinely quote. Secondly, Mr. Mintz pointed out that the revenue loss is almost neutral after a number of subtle behavioural factors are taken into account. For example, one study he carried out suggests a one point reduction in the corporate tax rate expands the tax base by as much as 7.5%. Even if a conservative estimate for the Tories’ three-point reduction is made, he suggested the tax base could expand by 10%. A further off-setting of overall tax revenues would come from the provinces seeing their corporate income rise because of the expanded base.
As a result, for near neutral cost, Canada could see an increase in capital investment that Mr. Mintz estimated could reach $50-billion within seven years. “It’s a slam dunk in policy terms,” he concluded.
of course, he may be part of the Conservative campaign and trying to make things look good . . . and an economist who disagrees will probably be trotted out.
I like this though: Neither side has a monopoly to the correct answers on these complex issues but they are at least offering voters clear and contrasting positions. How those different priorities are received by voters will shape the campaign.
are you looking for a cabinet position as Finance Minister? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 11:48:43 GMT -5
[quote author=franko board=NonHockey thread=15909 post=362847 time=1301415133...looks like Dis is. I think that should the Cons win a majority it will be in their budget just before an election call. Actually, I was referring to the pension split that I've taken advantage of since it came out. Are the Tories referring to this or another initiative? Cheers. [/quote] sorry, Dis, I was thinking income split four years hence |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2011 11:51:22 GMT -5
... looks like Dis is. I think that should the Cons win a majority it will be in their budget just before an election call. Actually, I was referring to the pension split that I've taken advantage of since it came out. Are the Tories referring to this or another initiative? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 12:22:01 GMT -5
dis: you're kind of in the mix . . . tell us about the CF18s. are they really necessary? its been suggested that unmanned drones will man the skies about the same time the jets are ready -- won't they be almost out-dated once they arrive [at their double-the-projected cost]? Morning Franko, Well, Roggy did a great job summing up our air force requirement, then HA sort of validated it. I'm not in on too much on air force operations, so all I can give you is an opinion. I think our F-18 is an old aircraft but the Canadian Forces (CF) has done a good job upgrading them especially during the Balkans war of the 90's. I think the CF finally realized that we had fallen behind and an upgrade program didn't take long from there. Even with the F-35 acquisition, though, the CF-18 is still a good aircraft. I'd hope they don't mothball the aircraft, but you never know. They may even find a buyer, who knows? Got to get ready to go to work. Cheers. The CF-18 aren't scrap metal. They are still as good as any plane that anyone has except for the Americans. If memory serves me right, they are upgraded or getting upgraded to CF-18C level with some new electronics. Eventually, we their frames will have too many hours and they will be mothballed. We use to have one of the most powerful air-forces on the planet just after WW2 and now, we are down to buying 50 or so planes. *sigh* ~~~~~~~ To those who worry or concerned about "single sourcing", it's an irrelevant issue. You want the BEST plane in the world, you buy the F-22. You want the SECOND best plane in the world, you buy the F-35. You want the THIRD best plane in the world, you have a run-off competition. So choose. As for the issue of manufacturing. You will NOT get technology transfer from the Americans on the F-22. You will get some component transfer on the F-35. I don't know any of the contractual details nor have seen an unbiased opinion. Last but not least.....be careful of the sources you read on planes. There is a lot of media "expertise" with an agenda. I read one article where the guy presents himself as an expert and goes on and on about unmanned aircraft and how they are the future. Even went into some detail about various unmanned aircraft currently flying. Then he "concluded" we should spend nothing on planes now, not a dime......because children are hungry. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 12:26:09 GMT -5
... looks like Dis is. I think that should the Cons win a majority it will be in their budget just before an election call. Actually, I was referring to the pension split that I've taken advantage of since it came out. Are the Tories referring to this or another initiative? Cheers. Yes. I'm fuzzy on the tax implications because we have someone doing it for us but from what I understand, parents can split their incomes to reduce their tax burden. Which I think it means that if one parent is making a hundred grand and the other 40, they will be taxed at 70 grand. I am NOT sure about this but that's what it sound like to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 12:31:36 GMT -5
Harper's plan is to lower the current value of 18% to %15 by 2012. If we keep the tax rate where it is, don't lower it, (we are coming out of the crisis, and I really don't see businesses collapsing all around me), they seem to be surviving quite well at 18% .... well just maintaining the status quo would save $14.4 billion over the next four fiscal years and $5.8 billion of annual revenue by 2013-14. on the business tax thing :
[The Liberals] have argued the Conservative plan to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15% from 18% is “not needed” and the money should be used to pay down the deficit and on other priorities. In effect, Mr. Ignatieff had no money to spend on his homecare and low-income student scholarship programs, so he set up the straw man of greedy banks and oil companies filling their coffers at the expense of the ubiquitous “hard working, thinly stretched Canadian family.”
However, in a devastating article in the Financial Post recently, tax expert Jack Mintz eviscerated the Liberal position. For one, the foregone revenue is really $4.5-billion, not the $6-billion the Liberals routinely quote. Secondly, Mr. Mintz pointed out that the revenue loss is almost neutral after a number of subtle behavioural factors are taken into account. For example, one study he carried out suggests a one point reduction in the corporate tax rate expands the tax base by as much as 7.5%. Even if a conservative estimate for the Tories’ three-point reduction is made, he suggested the tax base could expand by 10%. A further off-setting of overall tax revenues would come from the provinces seeing their corporate income rise because of the expanded base.
As a result, for near neutral cost, Canada could see an increase in capital investment that Mr. Mintz estimated could reach $50-billion within seven years. “It’s a slam dunk in policy terms,” he concluded.
of course, he may be part of the Conservative campaign and trying to make things look good . . . and an economist who disagrees will probably be trotted out.
I like this though: Neither side has a monopoly to the correct answers on these complex issues but they are at least offering voters clear and contrasting positions. How those different priorities are received by voters will shape the campaign.
are you looking for a cabinet position as Finance Minister?It may not be needed. And I don't want to see it. But, money is fluid and it will go to the lowest tax haven. As far as I know,the only way to force companies to keep and spend money in Canada is by restricting capital flow. That wont work either because they simply will up the price of goods at the source. Then we will have to have import taxes. So do we want import taxes and capitol restrictions? Let me know because I have a plant full of equipment and just ready to go......before I need a cane. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 12:36:55 GMT -5
I was going to get into the whole arctic protection and Russian thing, but I didn't want to sound like an alarmist. Clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks there may be a long term threat to our soverignty in the North. One "Disputed" area, one Russian drilling rig and the snowball starts rolling. Thanks for saying things that I wanted to better than I could. I agree whole-heartedly with HA. We're Canadian. Just ask any NDP'er and they will tell you that EVERYBODY loves us. I believe that too....I really do.....and keep a gun handy for those who don't. If anyone thinks that the UN will come and settle any disputes we have with the Russians, just let me know. I own a bridge in Quebec and will let it go cheap to the first buyer with CASH. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Mar 29, 2011 12:45:17 GMT -5
I don't want leaders that compromise their ideals for political expediency. Doesn't that sum up the history of politics in all walks of life? ;D The more I read about libertarianism, I think that's where I've stood for a long time. Still have to read more about it, though. ================================== I haven't been following our politics for a couple of years now. I have no idea what's going on, so no valid opinion from me. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 12:57:27 GMT -5
Actually, I was referring to the pension split that I've taken advantage of since it came out. Are the Tories referring to this or another initiative? Cheers. Yes. I'm fuzzy on the tax implications because we have someone doing it for us but from what I understand, parents can split their incomes to reduce their tax burden. Which I think it means that if one parent is making a hundred grand and the other 40, they will be taxed at 70 grand. I am NOT sure about this but that's what it sound like to me. income splitting will be brought in. and yes, each will be taxed on 70Gs |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2011 12:58:02 GMT -5
I have no idea what's going on, I had no idea you were in politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2011 12:59:28 GMT -5
Actually, I was referring to the pension split that I've taken advantage of since it came out. Are the Tories referring to this or another initiative? Cheers. Yes. I'm fuzzy on the tax implications because we have someone doing it for us but from what I understand, parents can split their incomes to reduce their tax burden. Which I think it means that if one parent is making a hundred grand and the other 40, they will be taxed at 70 grand. I am NOT sure about this but that's what it sound like to me. Well, from what the lads here at work are telling me, this income split will occur once the federal deficit is gone. Apparently, according to Harper this will take five years ... err ... yeah .... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 29, 2011 13:01:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2011 13:04:18 GMT -5
Morning Franko, Well, Roggy did a great job summing up our air force requirement, then HA sort of validated it. I'm not in on too much on air force operations, so all I can give you is an opinion. I think our F-18 is an old aircraft but the Canadian Forces (CF) has done a good job upgrading them especially during the Balkans war of the 90's. I think the CF finally realized that we had fallen behind and an upgrade program didn't take long from there. Even with the F-35 acquisition, though, the CF-18 is still a good aircraft. I'd hope they don't mothball the aircraft, but you never know. They may even find a buyer, who knows? Got to get ready to go to work. Cheers. The CF-18 aren't scrap metal. They are still as good as any plane that anyone has except for the Americans. If memory serves me right, they are upgraded or getting upgraded to CF-18C level with some new electronics. Eventually, we their frames will have too many hours and they will be mothballed. We use to have one of the most powerful air-forces on the planet just after WW2 and now, we are down to buying 50 or so planes. *sigh* ~~~~~~~ To those who worry or concerned about "single sourcing", it's an irrelevant issue. You want the BEST plane in the world, you buy the F-22. You want the SECOND best plane in the world, you buy the F-35. You want the THIRD best plane in the world, you have a run-off competition. So choose. As for the issue of manufacturing. You will NOT get technology transfer from the Americans on the F-22. You will get some component transfer on the F-35. I don't know any of the contractual details nor have seen an unbiased opinion. Last but not least.....be careful of the sources you read on planes. There is a lot of media "expertise" with an agenda. I read one article where the guy presents himself as an expert and goes on and on about unmanned aircraft and how they are the future. Even went into some detail about various unmanned aircraft currently flying. Then he "concluded" we should spend nothing on planes now, not a dime......because children are hungry. I have reservations about the F-22, HA. I can elaborate on that more later (between classes right now). As it is now, the F-35's can only be serviced in the USA and when we mention them for arctic operations they're like any other VTOL aircraft out there; they suck when put up north. Very quickly, take a look at the total cost of the F-35's and then take a look at the F-18 Super Hornet, which is one of the best aircraft in the US arsenal. $85 million a pop as opposed to .... Have to run man. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2011 13:15:10 GMT -5
I have reservations about the F-22, HA. I can elaborate on that more later (between classes right now). As it is now, the F-35's can only be serviced in the USA and when we mention them for arctic operations they're like any other VTOL aircraft out there; they suck when put up north. Very quickly, take a look at the total cost of the F-35's and then take a look at the F-18 Super Hornet, which is one of the best aircraft in the US arsenal. $85 million a pop as opposed to .... Have to run man. Cheers. Dis, the F-35 comes in two versions. The VTOL and CTOL one. We are getting the conventional one. As for the Super Hornet. If you have air superiority and force of numbers, I agree, but if you intend to interdict at long ranges, no. You need speed and stealth. |
|
), I know a thing or two about military aircraft. 
