Promises are like babies: easy to make, hard to deliver
I see that our good ol' pal McGuinty is at it again. Funny, you would think that if he was serious about not raising taxes [again], he would have made an appearance at this gathering on monday to commemorate the four year anniversary of his tax promise (said with tongue-in-cheek):
I wholeheartedly agree with the CTF's statement: "voters are tired of politicians who promise one thing during an election and then do the exact opposite after they are elected. It is time for a return to honesty in politics.”
At this point in time, I think the best thing for Ontario taxpayers and voters, IMO, would be a Truth in Politics Act. Something that I have mentioned before on this blog.
Promise Breaking Update
Full marks to whoever came up with this Youtube [Simpsons] ad regarding Dalton's broken promises. (Deja Vu is not bad either)
(Hat tip Scott Hennig and kit)
21 Comments:
Ontario voters have my sympathy. They have a choice between the leader who promises health premiums and another who wants creationism taught in schools.
With promises like these, I'm surprised a third party other than the NDP hasn't emerged.
Couldn't be any worse than Harper who lied about the Atlantic Accord, Income Trust, Not to raise taxes (0.5 per cent increase), Accountability (Emerson), Elected Senate (Fortier). McGuinty looks like an amateur compared to this guy.
As much as I hate to defend John Tory, who are you to say creationism shouldn't be taught in a religious school?
If a parent wants their kids to be taught creationism, they're going to be taught creationism, whether or not they're in a public school. I honestly don't see what difference it makes.
And who are you to say what schools parents have to send their children to, and what schools they have to pay for? Is saying secularism is superior to orthodox Christianity any better than saying Christianity is better than Islam?
That said, screw religious school funding and let's just go straight to the voucher system.
As a parent, I have the right to deny my kid being taught creationism. I know you value choice janet, but where does it end, having a school for two kids that won't be taught by someone wearing pink. Sheesh!
Choice is good, but there has to be comformity.
Premier pinnochio promises no new taxes but won't sign a bloody pledge. Looks like he's not throughly planning his objectives. McGuinty will say anything to get elected.
I don't know what all the noise is about? Dalton kept his promise on taxes. The Health levy is a user fee. Ontario voters will remember the plethora of user fees that the Harris government implemented. Am I ever going to vote for that bunch of liars again? Stay put with Dalton very much the lesser of the two evils.
Phil said: "Dalton kept his promise on taxes. The Health levy is a user fee."
Wrong. Dalton has never referred to this as a "user fee". At best, he regards it as a "health levy" and at worst "a tax".
Big difference considering a levy is something imposed by government where the person has no choice over it regardless if he/she used the service or not.
A user fee is self explanatory, in that, a fee is paid after a service is rendered.
===================================
Dictionary.com:
user's fee
– (noun) a fee charged for the use of something, as one charged by a city government for the use of one of its services, as garbage collection or fire protection.
levy
- (noun) an imposing or collecting, as of a tax, by authority or force.
As an NBer in ontario its a bit disillusioning to see so much attention to ontario politics at NB websites. Ontario already thinks its the centre of the universe and this just feeds into it.
As for 'what is taught in schools', who WE are are the ones paying for the system. When ANY Premier starts dictating what should be in curriculae then its cause for concern. He may think UFOlogy should be taught in schools too, and just hasn't said.
As for terminology, they've been pretty clear all along that it is a health PREMIUM. Try posting the definition of the word though and it won't get you very far.
At least to his credit, when the PREMIUM was laid it was laid progressively, which meant the more money you earned, the more you paid. Compare that to Graham's liberals where the smallest tax increase went to those earning $110,000 and more in a province where the richest 10% are the richest in all of Canada.
The largest tax increase by Graham went to middle income earners at the 32-45 range. So give me that kind of tax increase, er, PREMIUM, any day of the week. And just like New Brunswick, it was pretty much necessary to bail out the policies of a previous tory government that had fudged the books as well and was about to implode just like NB's liberals had to face.
mikel said:
"At least to his credit, when the PREMIUM was laid it was laid progressively, which meant the more money you earned, the more you paid."
Right because as we all know rich people spend more time and are more of a burden on the health care system than the middle class or the poor.
Progressive = unfair = discriminatory. And no I am not Rich.
What if -go figure- we as members of society paid a small premium/tax/levy/user fee every time we used the system?
Therefore if you're one of those people who rely on other methods and means to ensure your health (such as living and eating well, not going to the Emergency room for a tummy ache) then you are charged less and those who don't take care of themselves, or rush to the state funded health care trough every time they skin their knee pay more.
He will win again because the sheep living in Toronto won't vote for anyone Conservative. Tory Tory's trying hard with his faith based schools policy to win the ethnic vote in Toronto because he know without winning Toronto you can't win the province.
Forget about the health tax, why doesn't anyone ask Dalton why Ontario businesses face the highest tax rate in the country (yes,even higer than Quebec). Since he's been in office, our economy hasn't performed better than the overall Canadian economy. We're moving towards being a "have not" province for god sakes.
Wow, the ontarians are taking over:) This isn't a health care debate, however, those are two separate issues. Virtually every industrial government in the world agrees that progressive taxation is the most fair.
For Zip, if you are NOT rich, but make the average wage,then how would you feel living in New Brunswick and finding out your taxes are going up by 6% and people who earn more than $110,000 only have an increase of half that? Maybe your fine with it, but that would be very strange thinking.
I haven't seen the studies, so I don't know whether rich people use hospital services more or not, however, as an ontario taxpayer, I'm quite happy that if taxes ARE going up (oops, sorry, PREMIUMS), then at least the more money you make, the more you pay. And since I'm in the upper 5% tax bracket, I pay A LOT, and hell, I even need surgery that OHIP won't even cover. But at least thats 'fair'.
There's a whole other argument to be talked about for 'those who don't take care of themselves' and we talked about that a few posts down. I was quite miffed that McGuinty backed off on the 'junk food tax', because thats one way to get those people to pay more, just like cigarettes and booze. I think a junk food tax and legalizing pot and putting a tax on that would probably just about pay for that 'across the board' tax cut that NBT is hankering after.
For Doug, you really ought to visit the maritimes before making statements like that. Business taxes are higher, because the market is here. I grew up in Oromocto and apart from two anchor stores, the other stores usually changed hands every year or two.
I think maritime small businesses should be far more vocal. Its one hell of an accomplishment to run a business with a local population of 9000, many of which don't have full income, with incomes far less than ontario. That ANY businesses succeed is a real triumph.
Ancaster is a pretty swanky area, you'll be hard pressed to find its equal out east or in the prairies. Here in Waterloo, the region is growing so fast the councillors almost literally sit and giggle all the way through meetings. Waterloo was recently voted "most intelligent community in the world" (yeah right) and its growing so fast that there's hardly any environment left.
mikel, I live in Ontario. New Brunswickers elected their government. Your provincial problems are yours to sort out.
I believe that we should pay for what we use. I believe that we are all equal. That means we pay equally and the only way to do that is to pay for what you use. It's not so strange. Not strange at all.
Christ.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION.
More taxes will not make you more equal!
More programs will not make you free!
And more government will not make you governed any better!
Let's keep the swearing and profanity to a minimum. Anyway, carry on as you were (without the swearing, that is!)
Mikel said: virtually every industrial government in the world agrees that progressive taxation is the most fair.
First of all, IT'S NOT A SURTAX (a tax on a tax). It's a tax on your taxable income level. Ontario already has a surtax. The health premium tax is a horribly regressive tax. Please, anyone in favour of this tax/premium (whatever you want to call it), can you sincerely claim that this tax is not highly regressive? I'm sure many of those in favour of it were slamming the 1% GST cut.
Seriously, I like Hampton's idea of a 'rich tax' way better. At least it has the virtue of being more 'progressive' than McGuinty's tax. It adds another layer, multiplies the number of marginal rate brackets for Ontario taxpayers, and is just generally a pain in the rear.
I think McGuinty's lies are a real economic issue and people need to know the books were opened to him, therefore, he needs to be held accountable for his lies. Plain and simple.
This is the definition of a regressive tax:
"A tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people. "
The health premium is based on taxable income, as the above says, the more you earn, the more you pay. That's the OPPOSITE of a regressive tax, which is a progressive tax.
This isn't an ideological debate on the structure and function of government, though I'll debate that anytime. The simple point was made that Ontario's 'premium' is progressive, while New Brunswick's tax hike was regressive (except for the lowest income level).
The word 'premium' says it all-it's insurance, just like the whole health care system. Obviously that was just wordplay by McGuinty, but I could see how it would be necessary.
My other point about ontario is that if you think things are bad in ontario, try living in the maritimes. Like I've said, I live in a city about the size of Saint John, and the poorest area of the city looks like a regular suburb back home. I know the three visibly homeless people by name. While there is the same level of poverty, the services here beggar comparison. The churches here deliver food to people 365 days a year and the regional government provides services here that the provincial governments back home can't provide.
Buddha
Less taxes will not make you equal.
Fewer programs won't make you free.
And less government won't make you governed better
either.
It's called the evolution theory for a reason. It's a theory with science to back it up. Intelligent Design has science to back it up as well. Some people don't like the science that backs up evolution and others don't like the science that backs up ID. I really fail to see the problem with teaching multiple theories.
That's because ID isn't a 'theory'. Just because some religious people believe it, doesn't make it a theory.
I think the better point made is that in public schools NO theory should be taught, because once you start reading about them its clear that these are extremely difficult scientific concepts (well, ID isn't).
The difference is that evolution has had over a hundred years of testing to back it up, ID is at most ten years old. UNLESS you accept that ID is simply another word for christianity, and that gets back into the whole 'teaching religion in public schools' debate.
Its no surprise that virtually the only ID people are evangelical christians. And its no surprise that they never actually define 'intelligent' either. But people have been poking and debating it for the past decade, if it holds up for ninety years then perhaps its debateable.
So far its not holding up well, one of its main arguments has been resurrected from the middle ages when the 'theory' was backed up with an inquisition: "are you arguing with us?" That 'stick' is gone, and it takes about ten minutes of research to poke fifteen million holes in the 'theory'. Native mythology claims we're living on a turtle-now prove that we're not. Oh, and by the way, its an invisible turtle that can't be seen, heard or felt. Good luck.
Hate to burst your bubble mike but ID is a theory with scientific data and scientists backing it up. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.
However I can understand why you wouldn't know about it. It's completley ignored in the school system with another "theory" being presented as fact while at the same time being called a theory. Part of schooling and science is to present all sides and come to an informed decision. Not so in our schools. It's kind of like mainstream media.
I really fail to see the big deal. Parents could opt their kids out of ID just as they can at some schools with evolution or what would likely happen is the majority would stay in class and compare both.
Uh, no its NOT. I know plenty about ID, not from school of course, when I was in school there was no such thing, however, I"ve helped produce several podcasts on both sides of the aisle, on scientific podcasts as well as religious ones.
Once again, the failure of the school system is rampant, since most people have no idea what is meant by a scientific theory vs. something that just pops into their head. "I have a theory that paper mache contains the secrets of the universe" is not a scientific 'theory', its just an idea.
The same is true of Intelligent Design. What I LIKE about intelligent design is that its brought science to the mainstream (a bit) and its very good at poking holes at specific evolutionary theories that got a free pass before.
However, poking holes in a theory does not make a theory. You can't PROVE intelligence without DEFINING intelligence, and thats virtually never done. The only time it IS done is to define intelligence so vaguely that it includes ALL design, and then of course design is defined to mean anything that has mass or even energy.
The simple fact is that a scientific theory MUST be empirically testable. Otherwise its not a scientific theory.
I hate to burst your bubble but those theories you are talking about that 'scientists' are espousing are EVOLUTIONARY theories, when they are theories at all.
Some are just outright stupidity, like the watch "theory" (again, NOT a scientific theory), or the 'story' about bacterial flagellum, which essentially says that IF something seems complicated, then it must be 'by design'. Again, thats NOT a scientific theory, its a PHILOSOPHICAL one, so it belongs in a philosophy or religious studies class, NOT a science class.
But like I said, it has nothing to do with what I 'like', it has to do with the definition of a scientific theory. Anything that gets more people interested in science I am all for, and anything that brings scientists out of their ivory labs and into public debate is great. So I DO like it, but for what it is, not what I THINK it is.
What is interesting to compare is theoretical cosmology. I heard a podcast that dumped all over astrology, UFO's, etc., and basically called people idiots who believed in them. However, lack of evidence is not proof of a theory, and you can't 'test' a negative.
But in that same podcast they were talking all about theoretical cosmology, namely all these bigwig astrophysicists who were talking about the origin of the universe. THESE guys weren't doing science either, but coming up with all kind s of crazy theories and were given a 'free pass' just because they held a position at a university. If you can't test it, its not a valid theory-and certainly shouldn't be taught to kids.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home