PM Harper today in his press
conference:
“We have tried to listen and tried to adapt our program where it’s
realistic to do so and where it’s responsible to do so to address the
demands of the opposition,” he said.“But there is a ‘fish or cut bait’ on this. You can’t pass the
throne speech one day and the next day say, ‘Well, we didn’t actually
mean to do it or we didn’t mean to give you a mandate.’ We will take
it as a mandate and we will take it as an ongoing question of
confidence to get those things done.”
Meanwhile:
Cheers,
lance
True story:
I’m in a 7-11 picking up a paper waiting to pay:
(This is just a few days before Harper becomes PM)
The guy in front of me also buying a paper with the front page headline: “Harper promises to cut the GST”.
He asks the store clerk: “Do you really think this asshole is going to do that?”
I immediatly reply: “Oh yes he will!”
The guy: “No he won’t”
I reply: “Vote for the Liberals then!”
As he’s walking out the door with a big grin he says:
“I don’t vote!”
“Here is a particular deceptive conservative policy belied by the recently announced record federal budget surplus; When the CONservatives lowered the GST and cancelled the reduction in the lowest marginal tax rate enacted by the previous Liberal government, they effectively raised the taxes of the majority of Canadians.”
A day or two before the Liberals fell in 2005 they introduced the tax reduction mentioned here — the death-bed act of a party with no real interest in relieving taxpayers, and no tradition in doing so, but wanting something to wave around in an election campaign. Yes, it was enacted, even though it wasn’t part of a budget (the way tax cuts are normally introduced), only because there’s a tradition in this country for fiscal measures to be enacted even without formal approval of the House. (I think this should be illegal, but it isn’t, yet.) What it boils down to is that the tax cut was merely a part of the Liberal election platform which they were able to get in through the back door — and they did this at a moment when they *knew* they were going to fall within hours. I’ve never heard any Liberals express any problem with the ethics of this (surprise!). The Conservatives rightly said it wasn’t part of *their own* platform, so they reversed it and replaced it with other tax measures.
Especially for a minority govt. in its last gasp, the tax cut was improvised and irresponsible — typically, Paul Martin was flying by the seat of his pants. But, hell, it was other people’s money. You can call this half-hearted two-day public relations trick a tax-cut if you like, but anyone with an open mind can see it for what it was.
STOPIGGY has a bid @ $0.25 each. Shucks, it’s a shave and a haircut, 2 bits.
…-
Is it time to roll out StephaneDionSucks.ca yet?
Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion had better be nice to his aide Gianluca Cairo. Over a year ago, I noted that Cairo had registered domains named “stephanedionsucks”. I wonder if Cairo would have any buyers if he decided to sell.
In June 2006, an aide to Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion, Gianluca Cairo, registered the following domains:
* stephanedionsucks.ca
* stephanedionsucks.com
* stephanedionsucks.org
* stephanedionsucks.net
…-
http://stevejanke.com/archives/242698.php
Wow!….this has been the best thread I’ve read in months.
OMMAG, MaryM, ET….et al….you guys ROCK!
When the writ is dropped…its gonna be a blood bath…
Libs are gonna be like deer caught in the headlights….the NDP will be just as irrelivant as always with the exception that they will steal left-lib votes by the score…and BQ will be reduced to a token party.
If PMSH keeps going for the jugular like he is this week…it will be the best christmas present ever….I can’t wait.
Harper is re-writting history everyday…It makes me proud to be Canadian again. The only thing still on my wish-list is a MSM that is fair and un-biased towards the Tories. I’ll be a good boy, I promise, till Christmas in hopes that I get that wish.
“Fish or cut bait”….. I’ll be laughing about that for a long time…Brilliant!
But seriously tho…we have them on the ropes…lets keep them there till they cry uncle…and then keep beating them over the head until the final bell rings….and then do it some more. It’s the least we can do for the LIEbrals.
Cheers everybody….( I’m in such a great mood! )
Arctic_front:
Thanks for reminding me:
FISH OR CUT BAIT!
If Pierre Bourque is a leftist, he hides it well.
Just check the December 2005 Bourque.com archives…
Grind Grit says “True story:
I’m in a 7-11 picking up a paper waiting to pay:
…The guy in front of me also buying a paper with the front page headline: “Harper promises to cut the GST”.
Here’s another true story; the day after the vaunted GST cut I paid the same price for that paper. It would seem that in flat fee purchases the GST cut benefited the vendors, not the consumers. This GST cut was an act of fiscal symbolism, not effect. It is not the most efficient way to provide tax relief to the poor or middleclass; it is regressive economic policy. You can find no serious economist that would recommend Harper’s “boutique” tax cuts and GST reduction before a reduction in the marginal tax rates
ET says “Lowering the GST means less money ‘out’ of pocket to the govt for the low income people. They already aren’t paying much in income tax!”
They too, are probably paying more income taxes. I might mention that in its first budget the CONservative government lowered the basic personal exemption by $400, in addition to increasing the lowest marginal tax rate by 1 %. The basic exemption is the amount of tax free earnings allowed. In 2006 it averaged $ 8,839. In simple terms, the Liberals allowed POOR people to earn 400 more tax free than Canada’s New Government™ did.
MJ at 5:40 proffers a procedural argument to avoid the substantive one: the Liberals lowered taxes in a comprehensive and prudent manner and the CONservatives raised taxes on the average Canadian.
joebaloni – the fact that the ‘day after’ the GST cut you paid the same price for the paper merely means that the cash register hadn’t been changed; all businesses said that there would be a time lag and registers and computers were adjusted; it’s not a nefarious scheme.
You say that ‘poor people’ are ‘probably’ paying more income taxes with the cut in GST. Prove it. Don’t just say ‘probably’. That remains an opinion and not fact.
The major focus of an economic change must be on the prime economic class – the middle class. Canada, because of its Liberal policies, is primarily middle class; it has never been fiscally allowed to develop a high income investor class. The number of people with incomes over 200,000 is miniscule and that means that Canadians can’t finance their own industrial establishments; they must rely on foreign capital. And equally, Canada under the Liberals has expanded its lowest class by its generous welfare benefits; people find it more functional to remain at that level rather than take the risks of employment.
You are wrong on your rates. The basic exemption under the Conservatives increased in 2007 to 8,929 from 8,839. Then, what you are ignoring is that the taxable income levels changed. Under the CPC, the first 37,178 was taxed at 15.50. Under the Liberals, the first 36,378 was taxed at 15.25.
So- the CPC raised the income tax .25%, but, increased the basic personal exemption by $90, and increased the amount you could have taxed at the lowest rate by 800. So, under the CPC, you could earn 800 more at this low rate, and keep 80 more out of taxation. The Liberal rate meant only that you saved 214.95 in income taxes. But remember, the Liberal rate meant that your 800 above that lowest level was taxed at 22% rather than 15.25. That’s $176 tax – which means that under the Liberals, you ‘saved’ only 38 dollars. And you spent more on GST than that, per year.
So- which policies benefit Canadians?
Where is Dion? Any rumours of his stepping down?
Where are Marrisen and Spiderman Bornman?
House of Infamy: April 2006
Spiderman in a Web of Intrigue, in the Tyee, bcpolitics.ca and Vive le ….. Like David Basi, Mark Marrisen, Bruce Clark, Erik Bornman and I could go on, …
houseofinfamy.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
Joebaloni (appropriately enough)
Let’s see, the next day you bought a paper and the price was the same? 75 CENTS for a paper and the price was the same? And this is an example of how the conservative GST (and by extension their fiscal) policy has failed? So, then the newspaper should have changed its masthead to read 74 cents?
Hmm, if you sold the trailer and bought a house would the price be the same? Probably not. 6% on 100 000 dollars actually adds up to real money for those of us who periodically find work.
We agree on one thing; the GST cut was symbolic. But, that was its entire purpose. We finally had a politician promise one thing during the campaign – AND THEN ACTUALLY DO IT.
God.
Is the Prime Minister right or wrong to threaten opposition parties with a snap election if they use obstructionist tactics to stall legislation – or make non-negotiable demands for an Afghanistan withdrawal deadline.
He’s just playing politics, hoping to cause an election because the Liberals lack money for a campaign & the Conservatives have plenty
17.8%
I agree with the PM. If he can’t govern, it’s time for an election
82.1%
Total Votes: 672
cfra.com
In his throne speech (or before the vote) Harper should mention closing the election financing loophole that allows big loans to be written off indefinitely. Since we know through media reports that the Liberals have secured 18 million dollars in financing in case of an election call, threatening to close the loophole will create yet another dilemma for Dion. If he goes immediately to an election he’ll have lots of money to spend with impunity (while still being trounced by Harper), but if he staves off the election by letting the throne speech pass he’ll be forced to vote with the government in a very first confidence motion to close the loophole and bid adieu ma cherie to his money scheme, or precipitate an election over it. Simplistic and effective.
Value added taxes like GST are very harmful to economy where income and other taxes are imposed. The economic theory is clear, value added taxes are good because they don’t tax savings and provide equal footing for importers and exporters. They cannot, however, overcome the economic distortions of income taxation and welfare politics.
We need a pure VAT system, whatever the percentage, to replace ALL other forms of income, and sales taxes. IOW would you rather have half your income confiscated in this or that tax, or have a tax on purchase, even if it’s, say, 30%, with measure in to deal with transition effects for lower income Canadians?