Pandering to your base? Electioneering? Or both?
Regardless, I like the sounds of this:
Canadians can expect to see more tax cuts and fewer internal trade barriers after Tuesday's highly anticipated throne speech, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Monday after an event in Toronto.Finally, a government showing signs that they still know where their principles lie or 'bread is buttered' so to speak.
Update
Speaking of fair tax systems, according to the Tax Foundation, it would appear our neighbours to the south [Maine] are one of the ten states in the US with the least hospitable business tax climates. I guess all those meetings with our tax-and-spend premier, Shawn Graham, are now starting to pay off for Governor Baldacci. ;-)
17 Comments:
A little too late for some of us out west.
"We've already committed to reducing personal income taxes and reducing corporate taxes more," he said. "Canadians pay too much tax. You can expect to see more of that in the future."
That's funny, I seem to remember paying more tax the last time I filled out my personal income tax forms. Some tax cut that was.
"Canadians pay too much tax."
Somebody present this guy with a medal.
Does that mean we should forgive them for their summer spending spree where they issued 78 press releases in which they announced, re-announced, or took credit for more than $5-billion in spending?
There is no question that this government has had their fair share of shortcomings on fiscal [tax] policy, however, if this is any indication of the direction they are charting out for the future, it is definitely good news for Canadians.
To be honest, the real foes to our economy can be found in the provincial circles. All you have to do is look at the regressive tax increases added on by the McGuinty and Graham governments. When every other region and country are looking at ways to reduce the tax burden on its citizens, these guys are continuing to stick it them.
Let's hope Dalton doesn't break his word [once] again as I hear he is flirting with increasing the PST by 2 per cent in order to pay off Miller for being silent during the campaign. To me, that would be atrocious for a province that we rely on as one of our national economic generators.
You really ought to change that, SOME canadians pay too much tax. The country is absolutely awash in private wealth. Since Martin the tax cuts to the rich have gone way past Bush's 'help the rich' tax scheme.
I can't even count the number of hummers, beamers, porsche's, and audi's I see on the road daily here, and the houses are getting up into feudal landlord proportions. The middle class may be borderline, but the wealthy have more money than they know what to do with.
However, the feds can't do anything about interprovincial trade barriers.
SOME canadians pay too much tax
With a multi-billion dollar surplus clearly we ALL pay too much tax.
There was some targeted tax cuts last time. Hopefully there's a bit more of across the board drop this time and the provinces don't jack ours up at the same time, like a certain N.B. premier.
Flaherty should be proposing ways to pay down our national debt; not cutting taxes further. The economy is red hot and doesn’t need anymore boosts by cutting taxes, we our high dollar we need to invest.
The country is absolutely awash in private wealth. Since Martin the tax cuts to the rich have gone way past Bush's 'help the rich' tax scheme.
I can't even count the number of hummers, beamers, porsche's, and audi's I see on the road daily here, and the houses are getting up into feudal landlord proportions. The middle class may be borderline, but the wealthy have more money than they know what to do with.
People on the left always make this claim, in that, only the rich get richer when it comes to tax cuts and the poor get poorer, but this just isn't the case.
Take the Bush tax cut as an example, according to the Tax Foundation (sorry this is twice I've referred to this today) the lower and middle class have benefited [link]:
"In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. On the other hand, in that same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent."
Now I know the figures don't show them getting wealthy as quickly, however, you have to remember that the wealthy carry a larger share of the tax burden. In other words, the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of the country's taxes. But at the same time, the wealthy earn just over one-fifth of America's adjusted gross income. So tell me mikel, just how fair is that?
Don't forget NBtaxpayer there are those on the far left that aren't interested in fair. They want income redistribution so that everyone makes the same. It doesn't matter if you have a certain skill or you work really hard. The bum who has no interest in working should make the same as you in their mind. There's a word for that, let me think...oh yeah, communism.
As a grandfather and retiree, it's nice to see more tax cuts on the radar screen, but to be honest, I would rather see our government pay down the debt as it will help my kids and grandkids in the future. Either way, it's hard to argue against policies like that.
First off, you guys really should stop using words like 'left' and 'communism', since it just makes you sound like Fox. I believe it was NBT who said that if you have to create straw men every time you get into a debate then you obviously don't have much of an argument to begin with.
As for ideology, if you happen to think that Bill Gates 'works harder' than an electrician then that's your business, your every royal families wet dream. Just look how much work the landlord does driving around checking his properties while we just hay in the field.
Nobody is talking about ideology though, we are talking about tax cuts and wealth-and we aren't talking about the US. The reality is that there is tons of money in Canada-are you saying there isn't? So maybe these figments of your far left imaginings keep saying it because ITS TRUE.
And again, you guys get conservatives mostly at your websites. You don't get single moms or the people at the low end of the spectrum who are far better off with more services than with a tax cut that will get them maybe a couple of hundred dollars if they're lucky. Oh, but I forgot, they are just lazy good for nothings who don't deserve any more anyway.
This is what makes people suspicious about exactly who you guys are. You guys want to talk about fair, but you never even mention that the largest tax increase in NB is the middle class, much higher than the increase for those making over 110,000. Fairness would obviously mean that everybody would have AT LEAST the same increase, and fair in Canada has meant that if you have more money then you pay more taxes, meaning increases should be HIGHER for the wealthiest. So when you are talking about 'fairness', well, you really ought to look in a mirror.
But for the US, most of the tax cuts are being phased in after 2005, AFTER the information presented above (and I'm sure that extra $350 goes a long way as services continue to get axed). There's this:
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
# By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go to just 1.4 million taxpayers.
# Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.
# In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.
* For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place.
* Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter.
I believe it was NBT who said that if you have to create straw men every time you get into a debate then you obviously don't have much of an argument to begin with.
For the record mike, you were the one who initially brought up comparisons of Canadian tax cuts to US tax cuts. Which is why I used the term "left" in my rebuttal (i.e. the American left's arguement to Bush's tax cuts).
Which is why I'm surprised that you're pegging me as debating unfairly. I haven't insulted you with ad hominems or personal attacks. I just laid out the facts as I see them with the help of the Tax Foundation (US).
Anyway, thought I would get that off of my chest. Now debate away. But be fair and clean everyone.
Except those kind of tax policies drive the "rich" away. The "rich" aren't a disease as mike tries to portray. The great thing about living in North America is that theoretically we all have the opportunity to make a pile of money if you have a talent and/or work hard or sometimes just get plain lucky. I'm far from rich but I don't look with jealousy when someone drives by in a fancy car and think they should be driving a Pinto and giving their money to me via government bureaucracy. That attitude drives the rich away. That talk plays great at Liberal conventions and union meetings but in reality we need the rich.
I didn't say anything about the US and Canada comparison, its a fine comparison and I rebutted it easily and it makes a good point. However, as a recipient of several republican mailing lists, I can tell you that opposition to Bush's tax cuts didn't just come from 'the left'. Much of the loudest criticisms of it came from republican organizations.
Like I said, the criticism was simply aimed at the term-republicans are hardly 'the left' and other opponents were independants. That was just helpful advice though, like I said, if you want to sound like Fox that's your business, but like Fox, it guarantees that the only people who will be interested in your view is the choir, and I assume thats not your target. You and Spinks throw the term around seemingly to simply mean "if it comes from (what I call) the left then it must be wrong".
If you want to say WHO said the argument then thats fine, that can be debated by checking the source, but seeing as how I doubt you and Spinks are big readers of 'the left' it always seems odd whenever you talk about these so called arguments as though you were 'at the meeting' or something. I've noticed that it is generally simply what MEDIA call 'the left' that is often being debated. As somebody at the IRving website noted about Spinks, they "used to know what is meant by the right". In short, anytime you have to write 'right' or 'left' you are being intellectually lazy and often dishonest (since the view of what 'left' means is often highly dubious)
As for Spinks view, as usual its completely the OPPOSITE of reality, and I can prove it, not just spout an opinion.
There is a vague truth to it, so you can talk about KC Irving leaving. However, wealth is created IN Canada, which means this richest 1% for example, have nowhere to go. Simply tax their resources. The richest man in Canada is George Weston-IF he left the country you can simply tax WHERE he gets him money from, companies which do business exclusively in Canada.
Irving is the same, the problem of course is that government is made up of either these same people or else their lackeys, so that doesn't happen. Irving is still allowed to do business with impunity.
There is ZERO evidence that the above is true. It was the late 80's when tax havens first started opening up, but there was no mass exodus of the wealthy to Canada because suddenly Canada had tax havens. If the rich wanted a tax haven, they could simply LIVE in the caribbean or Switzerland. But they can't because access to their resources is IN Canada.
In Ireland last year the government had a massive crackdown on tax havens. The wealthy were told they had eight months to declare all such wealth and after that they were going to start pressing charges. However, there was no exodus from Ireland. There are limited cases if one's wealth and citizenship is divided equally among various countries, but that is a small percentage.
Again, if you happen to believe that Jim Irving is a much harder worker than a shipbuilder or retail worker that's your business. The Irvings CAN"T leave New Brunswick because this is where there land and resources are. What COULD have been done is as soon as KC Irving left the province could have upped the tax on his many various holdings, but of course with the control they have over the legislature that doesn't happen.
ANd of course there is considerable debate that the province would be MUCH better off if the Irvings DID leave.
ANd of course people like Irving are just the largest examples. Other among the wealthiest include various civil servants whose job depends on their locality and there is little evidence they'd get a similar job elsewhere.
Now, you can note that I COULD have said "thats an argument that always comes out of ..." however, its hardly true. THe 'right' has never had the protection of massive wealth as their cause, and 'conservatives' have spent most of their history fighting against the abuses of the rich (certainly not Liberals). So such terms are useless, you guys are on your own protecting the poor Irvings and Westons of the world because they are 'such hard workers'. And again, it doesn't take much thought to think 'if these guys spend so much time protecting the wealthiest people, I wonder who they REALLY are'. Again, thats constructive criticism, but I don't know, you guys could be Jamie Irving or something.
Something very important is starting to happen and will blow up in Harper's face if tax cuts aren't announced in this budget, and that's that folks who wouldn't have thought twice before allowing one of those massive CPC signs up on a tiny front lawn in the past are actually starting to wonder where they'll cast their ballots.
Goes to show - if you want a political party to give a crap about what you think, the last thing you should ever do is tell them they can count on your vote.
janet: isn't Jeff Watson your MP?? If he is, nuff said there.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home