# Retroactive income tax cut! Woohoo!



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Here's the basic scoop.


Everyone's basic personal amount has gone up to $9600 from $8929.
The lowest tax bracket has just gone back to it's original first half 2006 rate of 15.0%.
All of this is retroactive to the first day of this year.

For those making over $36000 without deductions, this'll mean around $235 back in your pocket. This also wipes around 300,000 low income Canadians off the taxpayers list. What's contributed to this income tax cut is the $15 billion surplus and the strong Canadian dollar.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

While I am not in this group, I am most pleased with the fact you state re "This also wipes around 300,000 low income Canadians off the taxpayers list." This is where our tax dollars need to be spent, helping those in need of a helping hand. Government should be a place where no one is left behind, and by helping a person today, we help them to help themselves.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

dona83 said:


> Here's the basic scoop.
> 
> 
> Everyone's basic personal amount has gone up to $9600 from $8929.
> ...



So they reinstated the Liberal cut... beejacon 

The GST cut, while popular is a mistake. 
Let's not forget that our biggest trading partner is the US and we depend on their economy, our strong dollar will not help in the long term.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Well that didn't take long, the end is still near eh AS.

Good thing we're not all doom and gloom:
"The government has exceeded our expectations," said John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and a long-time advocate of across-the-board tax relief. "They have moved away from these boutique tax cuts in favour of broad-based tax relief."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Jumbo, this goes to show that the Connies have next to no ideas of their own.

They are rolling back the 0.5% increase they put in place.
They are implementing the tax cuts to corporations that Dion called for.


The GST cut is bad policy.

As for the overall economy, have a look south: we will get some ripples of what is hapening there. 
The Connies have the biggest gov spending, they should reduce that.
Canadian don't have enough savings and it's almost assure that inflation will be hiding us soon.
This will be another case of "I told you so"....

I'm all for the income tax cuts.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I've heard Dion called a lot of things, but idea man was not one of them. The guy named his dog kyoto.

As for the GST, Canada didn't fall apart the first reduction, it will hardly fall apart this time either.

Good to hear that MS can't harp on that taxing the low income thing anymore.

And aren't you still waiting to say "I told you so" from when they got elected? Or is it for when they get re-elected?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I wonder which part of the hidden agenda they took this idea from.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> beejacon


Speaking of which, how long did Beej get banned for this time? beejacon


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

When/for what did Beej get banned? 

Re the GST, I don't see it as that great a tax break, but every bit helps, especially for those with lower incomes and a very tight monthly budget.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Continual partisan blinkers eh JJ?? - Harpo can do no wrong.....'cept AS happens to be correct. - it's exactly what the Libs had on the plate 'cept not so dumb as to apply a regressive cut like the GST.



> The Liberals brought in their own income-tax cuts in the dying days of the Paul Martin government but* those were reduced when the Conservatives came to office.*


 and ALL 20 Economist consulted by the Globe said the GST cut is dumbass.



> Mr. Dion is not alone in his objection to the GST cut. *A group of 20 economists surveyed last week by The Globe and Mail were unanimous in their rejection of the Conservative plan as a tax-cutting priority for Canada.*
> 
> All 20 economists said other tax cuts would be better for the country.
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Flaherty offers GST, income tax cuts
That's the Globe talking NOT the Star.....

There were other ways to deal with the windfall ( I suppose you'll give Harper credit for high resource prices next  ) - seems the Con prognostication on the economy is worse than Martin's - and he used to get ripped regularly by Harper and Co for high surpluses.

No reason to bring down the gov - they are steps in the right direction mostly.
I'm sure merchants are thrilled at the Jan 1 timing...AFTER the holiday season. Minor annoyance and of course beneficial to the gov coffers.

Now 1% for the cities would have impressed...not so many Con votes there....hmmm just about none, even fewer now.

Harper takes away the income cut already in place then gives it back and you're thrilled.....pardon me if I laugh at you being Conned.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Re the GST, I don't see it as that great a tax break, but every bit helps, especially for those with lower incomes and a very tight monthly budget.


Too bad that as a tax it's one of the fairer ones. 
A reduction in the GST benefits the rich over the poor. 
If I remember correctly, you applauded the reduction last time because it enabled you to purchase higher ticket items at a lower cost.

Further, the GST does not encourage to save (mostly spend).



> Orr is among most economists who dismiss the GST reduction as a political gimmick that's as overrated as it is politically popular. They say it does little to spur economic growth or competitiveness while enticing more spending at a time of massive debt.
> 
> "People can very carefully calculate how much they're saving, and it's really not that much," Orr said in an interview.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press: GST cut would buy about one pizza a month for most buyers: economist


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

> As for the GST, Canada didn't fall apart the first reduction, it will hardly fall apart this time either.


True - but that's because it's only a 1% cut, about $5.5 billion. Which sounds like a lot, but in the grand scheme of the Canadian economy, isn't a whole lot. The thing about GST cuts is, they only benefit you if you increase your current consumption (that is, reduce savings). If we want to grow the economy, we need to increase savings (greater savings = greater investment, greater investment = growth). Cutting the GST will not increase savings, so we won't see any real benefit to the economy... GST cuts make a good platform promise, because everyone hates the GST, but a bad economic move.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"A reduction in the GST benefits the rich over the poor." True on this point, AS. "If I remember correctly, you applauded the reduction last time because it enabled you to purchase higher ticket items at a lower cost." Not true on this point, however. I said it would be a benefit for those who purchased "big ticket items". I have not purchased any such items since the cut.

I still favor raising the tax floor to allow the working poor to keep more of their earnings. While I don't like to pay tax, it is the price we pay to live in a country such as Canada. I can make do with no tax cut and it won't negatively impact my standard of living. However, being able to keep thousands of dollars more of income before it is taxed will make a great impact for those who work and still struggle. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Demosthenes X said:


> GST cuts make a good platform promise, because everyone hates the GST, but a bad economic move.


There is no such thing as a bad tax cut.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here chew on this for a while VD and maybe your rose coloured glasses will clear a bit.....and this from the right wingers beloved Fraser Institute



> *We need a new fiscal anchor*
> 
> JASON CLEMENS AND NIELS VELDHUIS
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: We need a new fiscal anchor
_Jason Clemens is a resident scholar in fiscal studies and Niels Veldhuis is director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute._

In just two years ......want to try and lay that off on the Libs??

What happens when the economy turns south as it will..........??

Flaherty needs to get his own house in order - things are cheaper - start with a pay cut for the Ottawa oinkers and back to smaller gov which a real small c conservative considers critical to good gov.

Perhaps as Harper wants Manley's advice on Afghanistan he should heed him on the gov spending as well.

Refried beans......


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> "A reduction in the GST benefits the rich over the poor." True on this point, AS. "If I remember correctly, you applauded the reduction last time because it enabled you to purchase higher ticket items at a lower cost." Not true on this point, however. I said it would be a benefit for those who purchased "big ticket items". I have not purchased any such items since the cut.


My apologies.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

No problem, AS. Paix, mon ami. I am going to buy a snow blower, but that will be before the GST cut. Winter starts in early Dec. here in St.John's.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> In just two years ......want to try and lay that off on the Libs??
> 
> What happens when the economy turns south as it will..........??
> 
> Flaherty needs to get his own house in order - things are cheaper - *start with a pay cut for the Ottawa oinkers and back to smaller gov which a real small c conservative considers critical to good gov.*


That would be a good start. 
I hear that the PM has an "entourage" of 95 staffers....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Even the National Pest thinks Harper is no conservative



> Wednesday October 24, 2007
> 
> 
> National Post Guest Editorial Calls Canada's Conservative Government "The WIMP coalition"
> ...


Hey VD - perhaps you should take up your "no agenda" concept with high priest Flanagan.



> Now there is a surprising candour about the Harper government there for all to see.
> 
> It was Flanagan who wrote in a newspaper piece that the Conservatives should adopt a strategy of electoral "brinksmanship" and turn all their priority bills into confidence votes, to take advantage of the Liberals' weakness under Stéphane Dion.
> 
> ...


Who the hell do these clowns think they are fooling.......cept VD and ilk.

..no agenda???.....yeah..sure.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Paul Wells seems amused


> Back in the mid-'00s, we used to enjoy a chuckle whenever the Paul Martin crew would come up with some extraordinarily contrived sideshow in an attempt to bury an embarrassing headline. But even that PMO would never have thought it could get away with announcing tax cuts on 24 hours' notice, simply to bury an auditor general's report.
> 
> I used to work at a newspaper that, if it spotted such a transparent dodge -- at least from a Liberal government -- would have buried the tax cut on Page 4 and monstered the AG report. But there is no newspaper left in Canada with that kind of self-confidence, is there?
> 
> Is there?


Maclean's Canada - Blogs | Inkless Wells


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Hey VD - perhaps you should take up your "no agenda" concept with high priest Flanagan.


that would be a "neo agenda"


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

SINC said:


> There is no such thing as a bad tax cut.


I disagree, especially when it can end up costing the consumer money.

Let me explain.

Every business who charges GST to their customers must now handle the change. Once again, the Conservatives have failed to take into consideration how the timing of this change will affect businesses. January 1st, a holiday. Which means that many companies will have to make sure that if they do business on that day (i.e. retailers, gas stations, dining establishments - fast food or other, entertainment, etc.) they will have to either have extra staff on hand, or have staff on call. Either way they will have to pay someone to be available in case the change doesn't go through properly. There will be a cost to this which eventually will find its way down to the consumer.

January 1st, however things need to be planned for so most of the month of December and/or November will be used to do testing, etc. of whatever changes will need to take place. However this is also for most retailers the busiest time of the year. There are only so many hours in the day, so if extra hours are required, overtime will be needed. Another expense that will eventually filter down to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

And we wonder why we pay more for things in Canada??? Well maybe if our government would stop making tax changes, we wouldn't have the added IT expense to handle tax changes twice in an 18 month period. 

I have one FileMaker customer who will be affected by the tax change. They've got a custom invoicing system. I've already got code in the system to handle things like returns based on when the original date of sale took place. Now we'll need to put additional code in to see if (for a return) the original sale took place at 7% GST, or at 6% or at 5%. A unique situation perhaps but I'm sure that there are others similar to it. 

Making changes to the personal and corporate taxation doesn't cost the country as much money as making a change to the GST.

And honestly, do we really notice that we have had more money in our pockets since July 1st 2006?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oakbridge said:


> And honestly, do we really notice that we have had more money in our pockets since July 1st 2006?


We bought a brand new class A motor home when the tax dropped from seven to six per cent. I have a tidy little sum in my pocket, thanks.

And my small business takes me at least 30 seconds to move my GST down one per cent in our system. 

Perhaps I should have said, "There is no such thing as a bad tax cut", for me.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Oakbridge, you make some interesting points. However, even though it might be slightly irritating to make said GST change to custom invoicing systems, such a change is a one-time adjustment. You kind of make it sound like it's extra work day in, day out, for the rest of time.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> And honestly, do we really notice that we have had more money in our pockets since July 1st 2006?


No, many "upped" their prices or it makes so little difference.
I'd prefer that we get the GST where it is and do something for the environment...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Hey, when did our national debt disappear?

It didn't? Then why the heck are we cutting taxes? Our parents and grandparents saddled us with a government with so much debt that a huge chunk of our taxes go to interest payments.

Solution? Slow down on paying the debt, and pass the problem onto our kids! WOOHOO!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

tax cuts keep guys like SINC voting con and drinking the kool aid

complaints about paying down the deficit are reserved for Liberal governments


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> No, many "upped" their prices or it makes so little difference.


Really, where? Who?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Hey, when did our national debt disappear?
> 
> It didn't? Then why the heck are we cutting taxes? Our parents and grandparents saddled us with a government with so much debt that a huge chunk of our taxes go to interest payments.
> 
> Solution? Slow down on paying the debt, and pass the problem onto our kids! WOOHOO!


Didn't they just put a part of our surplus on the debt? Hopefully we'll see more of that in the future, along with more tax cuts. We didn't obtain that debt over night, and I don't think it should/will be payed off that way either.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Hey, when did our national debt disappear?
> 
> It didn't? Then why the heck are we cutting taxes? Our parents and grandparents saddled us with a government with so much debt that a huge chunk of our taxes go to interest payments.
> 
> Solution? Slow down on paying the debt, and pass the problem onto our kids! WOOHOO!


While we can't pay it all down, I agree with your sentiments.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Hey, when did our national debt disappear?
> 
> It didn't? Then why the heck are we cutting taxes? Our parents and grandparents saddled us with a government with so much debt that a huge chunk of our taxes go to interest payments.


First a lot of those payments go to Canadians - pension funds etc.
NO large organization works without debt.
You do not pay down your mortgage when your roof is leaking.

Canada's infrastructure which produces the wealth is in dire need of repair.
Your parents and grandparents also BUILT the water system, and schools and roads you use and THEY NEED REPAIR NOW.
They paid for the 407 which the Harris idiots then gave away to Spain just to note one monumental blunder by the Con thinkers of the day in Ontario.

Canada's balance of trade and various % of debt to GDP are exceptionally healthy......something Martin did on the backs of the municipalities and something that had to be done.
NOW we can reap the benefits ....'cept we're not - Cons are rolling in money and growing the bloody gov - not the country. 

What's unforgiveable is this Con gov showing the growth in cost of gov by % during boom times.....unconscionable...given they cored out vital programs like ECE.

We need a spending stimulus like a GST cut like a hole in the head right now given how hot the economy is in some areas. It's plain stupid as he was told in no uncertain terms by every expert.

1% of that GST to the cities is much needed and would help undo the damage done in correcting the national books.
Rural areas are dropping population like crazy and urban is growing yet not even the imbalance in voters per MP is addressed let alone the need for planned growth in the cities and the appropriate capital and long term funding for public transit.
Canada is SOOOOOO far oout of step on that with the Feds and Province both pikers.

The rough concept of a 1/3 to debt reduction, 1/3 to progressive tax restructures ( that might include incentives to save rather than cuts ) and 1/3 to new programs is quite reasonable in boom times.

Dropping debt reduction and providing stimulus by way of higher program funding works when a slow down occurs.

The inexperience of this gov shows....so many programs are rehashes of Martin - why ? because Martin was a very savvy finance guy respected by his peers all over the world.

Martin's problem was he simply would not follow through on doing what he talked about ...until it was too late.

His last financial plan was terrific - should have been done when he had a majority - - it took the Cons 2 years just to get close to where Martin was and there is still no ECE nor native settlement - both of which are shameful reminders of the Con mindset.

Gini gap continues to widen in Canada and public housing is in crisis. When the economy slows as it will - look out.
27 years waiting time for a 2 bedroom public spot.

We have public schools, libraries, highways, parks, hospitals, highways and other public wealth, there is simply no reason that cost effective housing stock cannot be part of the public infrastructure.

The working families and poor have not seen their incomes move at all.....yet housing costs are insane.
It can be done, it needs to be done.......this gov and the Liberals should be ashamed that is has not been a priority.

Especially THIS gov allowing the cost of gov to grow when they pretend to be conservatives. 

Take a pay cut oinkers.....things are cheaper now.
Be interesting to compare gov workers and politicians pay raises over the past 10 years versus the average Canadian and the lower percentile working Canadian.

Obscene is too mild a word.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The basic personal exemption is still far too low. It's probably at about half of what it should be. $9600 annually is $800 a month, still below the minimum wage by quite a bit. So someone making $900 a month still has to pay some tax? That's still working poor.

Somewhere along the line, I think way back in the 80s, the basic personal exemption amount stopped keeping up with inflation. When I was a low wage student I could count on not having to pay tax or getting it back as a refund. The CPP was also at 2.5% for employees then, now it's 5% or 10% if one is a low paid self-employed worker like a taxi driver, courier or on some kind of contract. The basic personal exemption doesn't cover the CPP either.

The BPE should go up by a bigger amount and should be indexed to inflation. Even a couple of hundred bucks in tax from someone who is making minimum wage or less than than 15,000 a year is a lot of money to them. Those at that level shouldn't be on the tax roles.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation site:



> The basic personal income tax exemption (BPE) in 2007 for Canadian taxpayers is $8,929. This means that only the first $8,929 of income is tax free. Canada’s BPE is one of the stingiest in the industrialized world. A minimum wage employee pays tax on almost half of their income! This punitive BPE punishes all Canadians, but especially low-wage earners and those just entering the workforce.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


From further reading I understand that the BPE is now indexed to inflation, which means that the Conservative's $670 increase in the BPE is actually a more modest increase of around $400 because the BPE would have been set to increase by 2 or $300 anyway. At any rate not the increase that is needed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

coming soon to a sidewalk near you......









_Tents attest to Los Angeles’s agreement to allow the homeless to sleep on sidewalks, at least until the city provides more housing._



> LOS ANGELES, Oct. 30 — Not so long ago, Kenneth Johnson, 29, lived in a West Los Angeles condominium with his wife and three children and earned $4,000 a month as a forklift operator.
> 
> Monica Almeida/The New York Times
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/31skidrow.html


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I think that the BPE exemption should be clawed back for wage earners like myself, which would then give more room to increase the BPE for the low wage earners in Canada. While I always like tax breaks, I don't need one to survive. We don't go on vacations more than once every 5-8 years, but it is because we are saving for retirement in our RRSPs and outside in CSBs. Thus, if my wife and I had to pay tax on all of the BPE that was clawed back, we would still be able to pay our taxes. Let this extra amount go to those who are planning how to survive in the next month, and not us who are planning to retire at age 65. Just a thought.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> NO large organization works without debt.


Nonsense.



MacDoc said:


> Canada's infrastructure which produces the wealth is in dire need of repair.


Make users pay for it.



MacDoc said:


> They paid for the 407 which the Harris idiots then gave away to Spain just to note one monumental blunder by the Con thinkers of the day in Ontario.


A consortium of companies operates it on behalf of the province on a long-term lease. The French who you admire build all new highways this way.



MacDoc said:


> NOW we can reap the benefits ....'cept we're not - Cons are rolling in money and growing the bloody gov - not the country.
> 
> 1% of that GST to the cities is much needed and would help undo the damage done in correcting the national books.


Let Ontario take back the GST reduction--the people living in cities will thank McGuinty. It will be painless.



MacDoc said:


> What's unforgiveable is this Con gov showing the growth in cost of gov by % during boom times.....unconscionable...given they cored out vital programs like ECE.


Cut more.



MacDoc said:


> The rough concept of a 1/3 to debt reduction, 1/3 to progressive tax restructures ( that might include incentives to save rather than cuts ) and 1/3 to new programs is quite reasonable in boom times.


Half to debt reduction, half to me.



MacDoc said:


> The inexperience of this gov shows....so many programs are rehashes of Martin - why ? because Martin was a very savvy finance guy respected by his peers all over the world.


I see. Martin invented these things? The Conservatives are both inexperienced and copying a wise finance minister at the same time? Gotcha.



MacDoc said:


> We have public schools, libraries, highways, parks, hospitals, highways and other public wealth, there is simply no reason that cost effective housing stock cannot be part of the public infrastructure.


Nonsense. And I will do my best to ensure that many of these are privatized to ensure that these public cash sinkholes aren't miscategorized as "wealth." It's like calling a 



MacDoc said:


> Especially THIS gov allowing the cost of gov to grow when they pretend to be conservatives.


They should be cutting programs, not adding to them,



MacDoc said:


> Be interesting to compare gov workers and politicians pay raises over the past 10 years versus the average Canadian and the lower percentile working Canadian.


When you decide to hand over your wealth, hospitals, roads, children, housing, etc. to a bunch of ninnies in government, why are you surprised they take big gulping slurps of your wealth as well? Handing your life over to government always results in this sort of abuse.


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

Meh. Make no mistake...what they give with one hand they will find a way to take back with the other.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The inexperience of this gov shows....so many programs are rehashes of Martin - why ? because Martin was a very savvy finance guy respected by his peers all over the world.


I am not sure cutting spending by a blanket 20% is 'savvy'.

I respect Martin for what he did and how the Liberals got our books back in order. But my respect is more along the lines of having the guts to do it. I doubt a Conservative could have pulled it off (given the predictable reaction from opponents).

The Reform Party also deserves a lot of credit for reducing the deficit. They pushed the issue to the forefront of the public.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It's complete nonsense to state that debt is required as it has paid for long-term infrastructure. Spreading those payments out over time means we are paying interest. The faster we pay down those debts, the more interest we save. That money could go to finance other programs.

It's simple math and economics. The less money you pay for what you have, the more money you will have for other things. Pay down the debt!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I see MF likes public risk for private profits.... 
But just don't make HIM pay for what HE uses....
Still living in your adolescent Rand dreamworld I see...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I see MF likes public risk for private profits....
> But just don't make HIM pay for what HE uses....
> Still living in your adolescent Rand dreamworld I see...


Speaking of dreamworlds, I'm still curious to know what retailers "upped" their prices on products to absorb GST cuts for themselves.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Lars said:


> Oakbridge, you make some interesting points. However, even though it might be slightly irritating to make said GST change to custom invoicing systems, such a change is a one-time adjustment. You kind of make it sound like it's extra work day in, day out, for the rest of time.


It's not the case that it is irritating, it's that for the two GST cuts, they couldn't have picked worse days. There used to be an unwritten rule in IT that you don't make changes on a Friday, especially to systems that were used over the weekend, because the regular IT staff wouldn't be around on a weekend in case anything went wrong. Both of the GST changes were made on statutory holidays. The first on a Saturday of a long holiday weekend in both Canada and the States (where a lot of systems come from). The point I was trying to make is that they throw these changes out there without any thought to those that must process them. When the original GST was introduced, businesses received some form of compensation for the costs involved in bringing in or updating their equipment (i.e. cash registers, computers, etc.). There has been no form of compensation offered to businesses for either of these GST cuts. 



SINC said:


> We bought a brand new class A motor home when the tax dropped from seven to six per cent. I have a tidy little sum in my pocket, thanks.
> 
> And my small business takes me at least 30 seconds to move my GST down one per cent in our system.
> 
> Perhaps I should have said, "There is no such thing as a bad tax cut", for me.


How many Canadian residents went out and made purchases like that? Not too many. As for moving the GST down one percent in your system, I'm guessing that you don't do returns (returns must be processed using the rate of the original transaction) or do any form of advance billing (i.e. support payments that are monthly but are billed yearly).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I see MF likes public risk for private profits....
> But just don't make HIM pay for what HE uses....


Yes, make me pay for what I use--please. I'm a lot more efficient at allocating my own resources and choosing what to spend them on than some government ninny.

If you want to hand over your personal responsibilities to those you think can do a better job than you can, then government is clearly the answer for you.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I see MF likes public risk for private profits....
> But just don't make HIM pay for what HE uses....
> Still living in your adolescent Rand dreamworld I see...


Actually transfer of risk to parties best capable of managing risk has been proven successful. 

A good example of this are recent P3 projects in BC. One such project is the Canada Line for which the contractor took all the risk with cost and scheduling. To date, they are months ahead of schedule and below budget. 

The left needs to get out of this zero sum game mentality. The world and our economy is not a zero sum game. Involving the private sector in public projects can be win-win for everybody. So far, it has a good track record in BC. Taxpayers are getting good value and a corporation is turning a profit.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Vandave said:


> A good example of this are recent P3 projects in BC. One such project is the Canada Line for which the contractor took all the risk with cost and scheduling. To date, they are months ahead of schedule and below budget.


Not using unionized city workers can get construction done faster? 

Having private companies bid on city work can get things done cheaper? 

Problem is people like Miller Time in TO has too many pockets to line with tax dollars, that will never work for him. And the unions, just imagine all of those people out of work, private companies will no longer need 4 people watching one person work. But of course getting rid of them would be disastrous, just imagine the bridges in Quebec, not falling down! :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The left needs to get out of this zero sum game mentality. The world and our economy is not a zero sum game. Involving the private sector in public projects can be win-win for everybody.


Come over and see Quebec overpasses... that's really worked out well...

A "for profit" is not always the best solution. The report came out and found that the private sector is the one to blame in this - of course taxpayers will be paying to fix the mess. I'm sure that all those engineers will be giving back their earnings... beejacon


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Come over and see Quebec overpasses... that's really worked out well...
> 
> A "for profit" is not always the best solution. The report came out and found that the private sector is the one to blame in this - of course taxpayers will be paying to fix the mess. I'm sure that all those engineers will be giving back their earnings... beejacon


In 2002, the bridge’s rating was lowered from ‘good’ to ‘acceptable.’ By 2004, its rating was returned to ‘good’ despite no work being performed.

In 1980, an inspection report indicated a leaking expansion joint existed and a cost estimate to repair it. A note on the report stated, “Forgotten. We have too much to do.”

“The biggest problem was Quebec’s transport ministry knew there was steel damage and a crack was forming, which they could have corrected at one time and they did not,”

I guess none of the above public sector incompetence is to blame. You want to talk about tax payers money, what about the cash paid to the boobs that rubber stamped bridge ratings for 30 years. 

It's bad for a company to build an inferior product, but it's even worse for a gov't to risk the lives of it's citizens by letting them use it by ignoring it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JJ, you should really read the report.
The cause of the accident was poor workmanship by the private sector.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JJ, NEVER question an opinion of a resident. They are correct every damn time.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> JJ, NEVER question an opinion of a resident. They are correct every damn time.


You mean never question a resident of Quebec right? 

AS I guess all of those things I pulled from the report was not visible on your screen? 

Yes improper reed bar installation and cheep cement made for a bad bridge, but it stood for over 30 years. And during that time your gov't several time noted that the bridge was a piece of sh!t and neglected to act on it. Until of course it was too late. As well, don't structures like that need gov't approval before it start getting used? Like it or not the private sector isn't solely to blame on this one.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

The federal government cuts to the GST aren't a mistake. 

They're ideological. Here's why. 

Tories think Ottawa has too much money while the provinces don't have enough. Instead of trying to fix that problem by monkeying with equalization, they're giving the provinces tax space to take up. 

This is not just about populist politics. It's actually a pretty smart and responsible way to deal with a federation of equals. It's also a way of ensuring maximum taxpayer accountability. Why? Because the jurisdiction collecting the one money should be the one spending it. 

Otherwise, things get out of whack. Provinces can spend more than they should because they know they can shake Ottawa down for the money. Ottawa raises too much money and can end up launching expensive and only marginally-useful national programs. 

Just a thought. 

As for personal tax cuts, thank god. I hate seeing nearly half of my families combined income flow out in income taxes, gas taxes, and GST.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

But Provinces don't want to look like the bad guy. They are always asking for their "fair share" well PST ensures that all of the money stays in your Province.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> AS I guess all of those things I pulled from the report was not visible on your screen?


You pulled the smallest amount without looking at the big picture.
You stated that the private industry would deliver quality goods.
In this case (as in many), it was shoddy work where the private industry cared more about profits than doing a half-decent job.
When it's noted that it's ****-poor work (from the private sector), you blame the gov.... :yawn:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Provinces can spend more than they should because they know they can shake Ottawa down for the money.


Ottawa can spend more they should ( which they are on government ) because they know they can shake down municipalities and return less by far than they get and pander to areas to get votes while totally ignoring others.

The infrastructure for cities needs $100 billion over the next decade just to get back in working order.

EVERY economist has said the GST rebate is the worst approach.

By all means use tax policy to redress imbalances.....that's not the way.
Nor is this

The cities are under represented by population per riding. This kind of polticking reeks.



> *Harper's team dumps city-friendly candidate*
> 
> Nov 01, 2007 04:30 AM
> Susan Delacourt
> ...


Dion will jump all over this and has ....



> *Dion ready to welcome ex-Tory candidate*
> 
> `It seems his values are very close to our values,' Liberal leader says
> Nov 02, 2007 04:30 AM
> ...


The Cons just want to sweep away annoying issues like poverty and housing and keep the champagne bubbles going up their nose. 

TheStar.com | Canada | Dion ready to welcome ex-Tory candidate


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> You pulled the smallest amount without looking at the big picture.
> You stated that the private industry would deliver quality goods.
> In this case (as in many), it was shoddy work where the private industry cared more about profits than doing a half-decent job.
> When it's noted that it's ****-poor work (from the private sector), you blame the gov.... :yawn:


Must be in your dreamworld again, I didn't say the gov't was the only one to blame, they should be partly to blame. But I guess you need to believe your Provincial gov't looking out for you to sleep at night. Have fun driving on your rubber stamped gov't inspected bridges. :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JJ you’ve stated that Quebec would have been better roads if private firms had taken care of building the infrastructure


> Not using unionized city workers can get construction done faster?
> 
> Having private companies bid on city work can get things done cheaper?
> 
> Problem is people like Miller Time in TO has too many pockets to line with tax dollars, that will never work for him. And the unions, just imagine all of those people out of work, private companies will no longer need 4 people watching one person work. But of course getting rid of them would be disastrous, just imagine the bridges in Quebec, not falling down!


http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/57302-retroactive-income-tax-cut-woohoo-5.html#post599321

When it was pointed out to you that roads are privately build in Quebec, thus invalidating your argument, you changed optics and still try to blame the government.

The ideological bent that you show is evident in what you write. I’m really trying to be polite here JJ, but it’s rather difficult when you don't follow your own line of argument.

Once again, public risk for private profit is not always the most efficient way to go. It often leads to gross corruption and in the end the public pays for a few. Quebec roads and infrastructure will have to be repaired and some of this money will come from the rest of Canada. Fortier is giving out money like a drunken sailor all over my region. Thanks JJ.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> *That’s quite the Pantload there JJ. *You’ve stated that Quebec would have been better if private firms had taken care of building the infrastructure.
> 
> *The ideological bent that you show is evident in the drivel that you write.* I’m really trying to be polite here JJ, but it’s rather difficult when you can barely follow your own line of argument.


AS.... Please read this post.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> When it was pointed out to you that roads are privately build in Quebec, thus invalidating your argument, you changed optics and still try to blame the government.


Privately built yet gov't inspected and approved. The blame doesn't rest souly on the private companies as you would like to see it, they are hired by the ministry. Them allowing crappy work pass inspections encourages low bids and shotty work, you get what you pay for comes to mind.



ArtistSeries said:


> _*I*’m really trying to be polite here JJ_


Leading by example again eh.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

Oakbridge said:


> It's not the case that it is irritating, it's that for the two GST cuts, they couldn't have picked worse days. There used to be an unwritten rule in IT that you don't make changes on a Friday, especially to systems that were used over the weekend, because the regular IT staff wouldn't be around on a weekend in case anything went wrong. Both of the GST changes were made on statutory holidays. The first on a Saturday of a long holiday weekend in both Canada and the States (where a lot of systems come from). The point I was trying to make is that they throw these changes out there without any thought to those that must process them. When the original GST was introduced, businesses received some form of compensation for the costs involved in bringing in or updating their equipment (i.e. cash registers, computers, etc.). There has been no form of compensation offered to businesses for either of these GST cuts.


This is really a poor argument!! Any good/proffesional system allows you to input tax and pricing changes and effective dates at any time in advance... If it has to be done manually at the time either you are writing or are dealing with a poorly written product!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> Privately built yet gov't inspected and approved. The blame doesn't rest souly on the private companies as you would like to see it, they are hired by the ministry. Them allowing crappy work pass inspections encourages low bids and shotty work, you get what you pay for comes to mind.
> 
> Leading by example again eh.


By the way, I don't mean to just single out Artist Series. (I apologize for doing so) There have been quite a few comments from various members that have contained personal attacks. 

Let's stop please.

Thanks,

- ehMax


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Once again, public risk for private profit is not always the most efficient way to go. It often leads to gross corruption and in the end the public pays for a few. Quebec roads and infrastructure will have to be repaired and some of this money will come from the rest of Canada. Fortier is giving out money like a drunken sailor all over my region. Thanks JJ.


AS, at the end of the day the engineering firms and construction companies that build public infrastructure are the same. The government does not have the internal capability to construct a bridge. So, I think you are missing the point with you Quebec roads and infrastructure example. Are you suggesting that all construction work done in the private sector is shoddy work? 

What I am talking about is transfer of risk. The people doing the work are better able to manage risk (e.g. project delays, scope change) than the government is. The work still needs to meet appropriate engineered standards under either system. The inability of government to budget and project manage public projects has been demonstrated COUNTLESS times. In contrast, the private sector has a better track record. That said, there are exceptions to every rule. Pointing them out does nothing to prove a point.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure - 

Shall we chat about private nursery homes....nice party line there VD

Lack of oversight, mismanagement and out right predation can exist and does exist in some organizations regardless of being public or private.

Good managment, efficiency and spectacular success can and does exist in some organizations regardless of being public or private.

Let's take two....Enron and the LCBO.
'Nother two, Apple and Blackwater.
Bush and Clinton.
Calgary Olympics and Montreal Olympics.

Trying to fit reality into your pet world view of market forces uber alle is laughable.

There predators in any structure and there are those that do amazing works as well.
•••••



> *Dan Rather spotlights Van.'s poorest neighborhood*
> Updated Fri. Nov. 2 2007 10:27 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


Nice to see the 4th estate pulling its weight . :clap:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Sure -
> 
> Shall we chat about private nursery homes....nice party line there VD
> 
> ...


I never claimed this to be an absolute truth. As I said, there are exceptions to the rule on both sides. There are some government organizations that are well run and some corporations that are poorly run. The difference is that the private corporations go out of business when they fail, while government programs that fail just keep getting more money (good after bad).

Again the concept is quite simple. Those best capable of managing a risk are going to do the best job with it. It goes without saying.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

G-Mo said:


> This is really a poor argument!! Any good/proffesional system allows you to input tax and pricing changes and effective dates at any time in advance... If it has to be done manually at the time either you are writing or are dealing with a poorly written product!


Obviously you haven't worked in a retail organization's IT department. 

Yes for many businesses the changes are made in advance to take effect on a specific date. You plan and then test like crazy to make sure you've covered every possible situation. However until that clock rolls over to midnight on January 1st and you start entering in transactions you don't start to breath a sigh of relief. Therefore most smart retail companies who will do business on January 1st (and July 1st 2006) or who develop the systems that are in use by their customers who are open on January 1st (and July 1st 2006) will have people on call. There is a COST involved in this. 

Oh, by the way, when are you making these changes and testing these systems? Based on the date of the announcement, we'll have the months of November and December to develop, test, and deploy these changes. Some retailers do as much as 50% of their year's business during the 6 weeks leading up to Christmas. Their IT departments are already busy enough, do you really think that they have the time to perform this extra work? Oops, overtime which could be another potential COST involved in this. 

Any Mom & Pop style businesses who are using a simple cash register don't have the ability to program their cash registers in advance. So the people who sell/service/support those simple cash registers have to be on call on January 1st (and July 1st 2006) to walk the owners through making the change. 

What happens if they have lost their manuals in the past 18 months and can't remember how to change taxes? Maybe they purchased their machines a long time ago and don't have a service contract (many don't, registers in small establishments just run and run and run). 

At the time, I didn't have any direct involvement in cash register sales and/or support but 2 people from the Oakville area called me in June of 2006 asking if I did, or if I knew anyone who did. Fortunately I was able to find contacts that I could pass along to them. 

Based on your post, you'd make a great Conservative MP because you didn't take the time to think this through and consider all of the possibilities. 

The next time you might want to stop and think before making the suggestion that someone is writing a bad product.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> exceptions to the *rule*


the rule!!???........YOUR RULE ......a nice neo-con all good things flow from the market "rule".

You want to know why you get labelled?? - you parrot the meme "Polly wants private" incessantly. You don't even realize how embedded it is in your mindset.

Well thought out tensioned systems with offsetting checks and balances keep predation at bay and allows human activity shift between competitive and communal as situation and resources allow.

We are BOTH communal and competitive and our institutions need to accommodate both while keeping predation at bay, be it a person, group or another nation or a NIMBY meme.

No simplistic private versus public worldview will EVER accommodate the needed complexity of tensioning the various forces in society embodied by our mixed drives as individuals and communities.

There needs to be checks and oversight on all institutions regardless of their nature or purported intentions.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Nice rant, but it has nothing to do with my posts. You know very well I don't advocate unfettered capitalism as demonstrated by prior postings. 

MacDoc, my discussion is purely on transfer of risk. I'll say it again.. transfer of risk to parties best capable of managing it is economically more efficient. Don't you want to get the most bang for your taxpaying buck?

Let's look at construction of a bridge... The prime contractor is in a much better position to manage risk from time delays than some layer of government.


----------



## thegreenapple (Jan 3, 2006)

Oakbridge 
I do work for a " retail organization's IT department." 
and for us to change the tax on the POS its a sql script or a 2 min step (5 steps)
as for "mom & pop" I have helped my local shops and when they did not have the manual it was trip to google and i got it


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

thegreenapple said:


> Oakbridge
> I do work for a " retail organization's IT department."
> and for us to change the tax on the POS its a sql script or a 2 min step (5 steps)
> as for "mom & pop" I have helped my local shops and when they did not have the manual it was trip to google and i got it


Interesting that your organization takes such a casual approach to it's IT changes. 

Seriously I am happy to hear that you have assisted some of your local shops, but what about those shops that don't have someone like you? People who aren't internet savvy? 

Question for you based on the way your company processes their transactions. 

I purchase something for $10 on December 31st which is taxable at both levels (GST and PST) so my transaction is $11.40.

I choose to return it on January 2nd. How much will I receive back?

The correct answer should be $11.40. Unfortunately what most businesses systems will calculate will be $11.30. 

The main point of my last post was that even if it is a 5 minute job then it is not really a 5 minute job. Somebody has to review the tax changes and determine what has to be done. Even with this change, someone has to give it a review to see if anything has changed since the 2006 change. Let's say that is also a 5 minute job although if you've ever read a GST or PST bulletin, you'll know that it is not a 5 minute read. Somebody has to make the change, so now we're up to 10 minutes. Somebody has to test the change, so now we're up to 15 minutes. And that is if you decide to take the shortcut and not provide the accurate amount on returned transactions. Add provisions for processing two different tax levels based on the date of the original transaction and no way is it a 5 minute job. 

For an accurate perspective on what really took place in July 2006, I suggest you read this article from the CBC web site regarding what one Manitoba POS company went through to service their customers in June of 2006. I only just now found and read this article. My point is substantiated, the owner expected that 60 to 75% of his staff were going to work that long weekend in July 2006.


----------



## thegreenapple (Jan 3, 2006)

well for one i support Domino's Pizza and if your going to return a pizza.......

otoh the POS software was designed for tax changes and if the sale was before the change that sales data is not removed and is what is used 

I also have a few friends that support esprie and they tell me that they have no issues with the tax change 

not saying shops/people will not but if they have a support team this issue should have been looked at along time ago and or designed in to the software 
as the only thing for sure in life is death (and i heard that may change too)


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

thegreenapple said:


> well for one i support Domino's Pizza and if your going to return a pizza.......
> 
> otoh the POS software was designed for tax changes and if the sale was before the change that sales data is not removed and is what is used
> 
> ...


Granted it was a very informal survey but when I asked some people I knew when the last change was implemented, none of their systems were going to handle returns made before the change took place. They had instructed their stores to offer customers a manual refund if anyone complained. 

How can you say that this should have been looked at long ago when the legislation wasn't introduced until last week?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Oakbridge said:


> Granted it was a very informal survey but when I asked some people I knew when the last change was implemented, none of their systems were going to handle returns made before the change took place. They had instructed their stores to offer customers a manual refund if anyone complained.
> 
> How can you say that this should have been looked at long ago when the legislation wasn't introduced until last week?


I think he means changing tax rates should be included in the design of software.

I do recall my 2nd year in university a professor telling us that only two digits were reserved for year of dates.

I raised my hand and asked why software wasn't being designed and/or repaired to use 4 digits for the year of a date, since come the year 2000, there would be problems with only 2 digits.

He shrugged his shoulders and said that it will be dealt with later.
Later I found out he had his own consulting group working out the university.

IBM et al made out like bandits during this "retrofix" (typo on purpose)
All because someone didn't bother with some forward thinking

Now, I know that in the early days of computing there were many worries about the cost of data storage and that 2 digits saved massive amounts of space vs. 4 digits, but I wonder how much did it cost to fix all this after the fact?

And let's not forget that using 4 digits would have made sorting by date infinitely easier since the date format of yyyy/mm/dd (all being numbers) automatically sorts itself without the need for complicated algorithms to compute a number for a particular date which could then be sorted

for me, I wrote my own "invoice/purchase order" systems so it's pretty easy to change the GST or other tax rate, but last year's mid year change was more complicated since I had to create 2 databases for that year; 7% GST and 6% GST invoice and purchase order databases

luckily I don't deal in returns, but I imagine could have by just going into the 7% GST invoice file and creating a reverse transaction

anyway, I do sense that some software makers program for today with little if any regard for tomorrow.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I think he means changing tax rates should be included in the design of software.
> 
> I do recall my 2nd year in university a professor telling us that only two digits were reserved for year of dates.
> 
> ...


I worked for a mini company in the mid to late 80's who had a manufacturing software package that used a single digit for the date. We discovered it late in 1988 when companies were trying to work on advanced orders for their customers for 1990 and they kept 'losing them'. It turned out that they were showing up at the wrong end of the list (sorted on the zero) and were there all along but of course the warning flags went up and a bunch of recoding took place. 

At the time I was Product Marketing Manager for the Retail software and right away I went to the lead developer who assured me that we were using 2 digits. I asked "what do we do in 10 years?" and the response was "we'll worry about that in 10 years... if we're still around." 

You are correct, the main reason for using anything less than 4 digits for a year was the incredibly high cost of storage. It's only been in roughly the last 5-7 years that storage costs have dropped so much. 

I think that we tend to lose sight that the computer industry is still in it's infancy or perhaps now in it's 'toddler' years. The automobile has been in mass production for 100 years and they still get screwed up at times. The personal computer has been in mass production for roughly 1/4 of that time.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Oakbridge said:


> I worked for a mini company in the mid to late 80's who had a manufacturing software package that used a single year for the date. We discovered it late in 1988 when companies were trying to work on advanced orders for their customers for 1990 and they kept 'losing them'. It turned out that they were showing up at the wrong end of the list (sorted on the zero) and were there all along but of course the warning flags went up and a bunch of recoding took place.
> 
> At the time I was Product Marketing Manager for the Retail software and right away I went to the lead developer who assured me that we were using 2 digits. I asked "what do we do in 10 years?" and the response was "we'll worry about that in 10 years... if we're still around."
> 
> ...


1. i assume you meant to type; "single digit for year of date"

2. that would mean that you believe storage costs have only dropped significantly post year 2000?
I think it was quite a bit before then

hard drive space costs over the years

but let us weigh the cost of additional storage with the costs associated with fixing the now infamous Y2K bug

the amount of time spent discussing it in companies, the overtime, the actual costs to fix it, the wasted employee time while systems were being fixed

I would suggest all those costs greatly outweighed the cost of storage and any company that had the foresight to have used 4 digits for years instead of 2 should have been rewarded with lots of contracts and business
and
those that only used 2 digits should be reported to Better Business Bureaus for creating bad software and be punished for producing a product they knew was going to fail


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> 1. i assume you meant to type; "single digit for year of date"
> 
> 2. that would mean that you believe storage costs have only dropped significantly post year 2000?
> I think it was quite a bit before then
> ...


Yes I did mean single digit, I've made the change in my original post.

What was done back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's was terrible but it is typical of both business and government. The environment, government debt, the Social Insurance System (and Social Security in the States), all of these are perfect examples of "not having to worry about it on my watch, let the next guy deal with it". 

Even most individuals are guilty of it with regards to their retirement savings. 

I don't believe that too many companies developing software were aware of the impact that Y2K was going to have. To say that they should have been reported is a bit much.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Somewhat back on topic



> *From restless communities to resilient places: fixing our municipal fiscal imbalance*
> 
> MIKE HARCOURT
> Special to Globe and Mail Update
> ...


:clap:......now let's see it happen


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Intaxication- feeling of euphoria associated with tax refund. Last until you realise it was your money in the first place!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

rondini said:


> Intaxication- *feeling of euphoria* associated with tax refund. Last until you realise it was your money in the first place!


feeling of euphoria???? Yeah right... Drop your pants and grab your ankles more like!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How about we REVERSE this 

Keep the taxes at home.....
_The split of government revenues in Canada is 50 per cent federal, 42 per cent provincial — and 8 per cent municipal. _

Let the Feds beg.....

I'd even settle for 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 :clap:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'm sorry but with fiscally irresponsible municipal gov'ts like TO, it is no wonder the feds are reluctant to give them a cut of anything. Support specific causes like transit directly, but to blindly give them 1% of anything is like flushing cash down the toilet.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> I'm sorry but with fiscally irresponsible municipal gov'ts like TO, it is no wonder the feds are reluctant to give them a cut of anything. Support specific causes like transit directly, but to blindly give them 1% of anything is like flushing cash down the toilet.


Like the present feds are more responsible? Please.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So fiscally responsible govs like Mississauga should suffer even IF your "ideas" about Toronto were correct??

In boom times the current supposed conservatives, more accurately labelled Cons have let the the Fed gov grow as % of GNP - THAT IS FLAT OUT IRRESPONSIBLE...there is NO EXCUSE.

Did you actually READ were the deficit gap lies......it's not between province and Fed much - it's between Prov/Fed and the municipalities.

It's reality challenged comments like yours that make me despair of Canadian voters.

No question Toronto has its warts and problems but bandaiding everything and cleaning up after a dolts like Lastman and Harris et al make it all that much harder.

The GTA is far behind on getting efficiency gains through shared costs thanks to Lastman boycotting EVERY SINGLE MEETING of the task force.

No city on the PLANET that I know of shoulders the burden of public transit the way Toronto has been forced to by the leeches up the line.

The resource windfall for the nation is being pissed away by Harper and Stelmach that COULD be building our urban infrastructure and diversifying industries the way Norway has.

Time to get a real fiscal conservative running the PCs instead of neoCon ideologues with poor management skills.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So fiscally responsible govs like Mississauga should suffer even IF your "ideas" about Toronto were correct??


I am far from being an expert on politics and how cities are run but every time I hear that Mississauga is _fiscally responsible_ or when I hear that they have managed to keep taxes low I wonder the same thing.

Are they actually fiscally responsible or are they living off of the massive developer fees that they have taken in over their 40 years of being in existence? 

And what happens when they run out of land to be developed? Compared to what they have had, they are quickly running out of land.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

They go cap in hand to the feds like the rest of them.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The federal government should make available 1 per cent equivalent of the GST (about $5-billion) to the provinces to devolve to municipalities.
> 
> Provincial governments should transfer a similar amount (about 1 per cent of the PST).
> 
> ...


Taxes are taxes are taxes. Who cares in municipal taxes are cut in half? Transferring money from each level of government is not efficient nor does it breed responsibility.

The balance of taxes for the feds, province and municipalities definitely needs to be re-thought. The first step is to define levels of responsibility more clearly. Ideally, we would have very little overlap is service responsibility. Once you define roles, then you can put a cost estimate on what it takes to deliver such services. From there you can figure out how much to tax. 

If the provinces feel they need more revenue, then feel free to take the next % cut from the GST. So far, no takers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Always the apologist. So Harper looks like Santa Claus and the Provinces land municipalites look like the Grinch......IT'S THEIR MONEY!!!!! 

YOu writing Harpos campaign plan??

As for the rich paying all them taxes.......

•••
no wonder our GNI index is slipping



> *Rich taxed less, study finds*
> 
> TORY ZIMMERMAN/TORONTO STAR
> 
> ...


When I see the Federal gov shrinking as a percentage of GDP and tax flows returned to to the source of transaction instead the kind of nonsense of GST cuts then I'll believe there is a decent conservative small gov manager aboard.

Right now all I see is a power hungry politician not listening to advisors.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> When I see the Federal gov shrinking as a percentage of GDP and tax flows returned to to the source of transaction instead the kind of nonsense of GST cuts then I'll believe there is a decent conservative small gov manager aboard.
> 
> Right now all I see is a power hungry politician not listening to advisors.


Really? You actually think Harper is making choices only to get elected and to please the electorate? He hasn't waffled on many issues that do not play well with many Canadians. For example, he could take a more fence-sitter position on Afghanistan but instead he took a stand. He made a very unpopular decision regarding income trusts. His position on same sex marriage was definitely in the minority and did not reach out to the centre.

Harper has a track record of being a leader and actually taking positions on issues. While I don't agree with him on all policies, I like to see a leader that actually takes a stance. It's very refreshing in contract to Mr. Dithers.

I think SOME people are making too much out of the GST issue. Whether you cut that or income tax is a debate for Economists. For the most part I think it is a wash. We can cut both consumption taxes and income taxes and the Conservatives are doing just that. Seems reasonable to me. 

Much of the left have criticized Conservatives for not giving enough tax relief for low income people. People at the low income scale aren't paying income taxes to begin with. Cutting income taxes further doesn't have an effect. However cutting consumption taxes does. Your Star article seems to agree with me on this point.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Always the apologist. So Harper looks like Santa Claus and the Provinces land municipalites look like the Grinch......IT'S THEIR MONEY!!!!!


Please read my post again. I think I was clear that a rebalancing of tax revenues was needed. So I am not sure where you are going with your comment because we are in agreement here.



MacDoc said:


> YOu writing Harpos campaign plan??


Who's campaigning? :lmao: Certainly not the Liberals. :lmao: 

As far as I am concerned, you reap what you sow. When Harper won his minority he reached out to the NDP and Liberals and they slammed the door shut on him. And now, he is in the driver seat and doesn't have to take them very seriously. Too bad, so sad...

I said the day after the last election that all the parties needed to cooperate and set an agenda that they could all live with. The Bloc were the only ones to step up.  



MacDoc said:


> As for the rich paying all them taxes.......


The reality is that the top 10% of earners pay about 50% of the tax in this country. I am sorry if that doesn't fit with the agenda of the left in claiming the rich are stealing from the poor and not paying tax.

Again, we need to get away from this zero sum game mentality. I believe that the overall size of the 'pie' can be increased by cutting taxes. I don't believe that we are at the most efficient level yet and still have a ways to go in cutting. This is a win-win for everybody. Ya, ya, ya... I know what you are thinking... Neo this and neo-that...tptptptp


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

> Lee said although the lowest income earners generally pay no or very little income tax, they do pay a disproportionately high amount in relation to their income in *sales taxes*, property taxes and other government revenue generators, such as gaming and liquor sales.


So how does reducing the GST not help low income earners? I'm no financial advisor but if I only made $13,523 a year I wouldn't be using it to buy alcohol and lotery tickets either.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Love your spin - angling for Con campaign manager???

they pay 50% of the taxes *AND earn 60% of the income and rising.*

GST cut benefits those with high disposable incomes way out of proportion to those with very little. That's why it's regressive.

This is NOT the Canada I want.



> *Rich, poor gap widens*
> 
> Few income gains during past 30 years for families with kids, Ontario study says
> May 07, 2007 04:30 AM
> ...


There are far far better ways of adjusting tax policy.......as every single economist told Harper.....but of course "Father knows best" 










Study after study has shown societal health and actual health........there are benefits FOR ALL when the rich poor gap is reduced.

But keep beating the Con drum....just ignore that social and economic and health catastrophe unfolding to the south.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think groups like the CCPA are missing the larger picture. Income ratios are a metric, not an end. 

You talk about studies linking societal health to income ratios. Then please explain why our societal health in Canada has increased in almost all metrics (employment, crime rates, etc..) over the last 20 years when seemingly your studies would have predicated the opposite.

I think the bigger question is WHY. This isn't just a tax issue. It is a reflection of what is happening in the private sector. The private sector is placing a high value of certain types of workers. A lot of people in the upper 10% are entrepreneurs or corporate executives. They get paid high because they either take big chances or have big responsibilities. They are delivering value to our economy. 

If you want to talk about declining take home pay, then start looking at the biggest cause... taxes. Compare the amount of tax the average Canadian pays today to that of the 60's or 70's. It is only in the last 5 years that this trend has reversed.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Really? You actually think Harper is making choices only to get elected and to please the electorate? He hasn't waffled on many issues that do not play well with many Canadians. For example, he could take a more fence-sitter position on Afghanistan but instead he took a stand. He made a very unpopular decision regarding income trusts. His position on same sex marriage was definitely in the minority and did not reach out to the centre.


Yes VD, his choices are populist and nothing more.
I wish for once people would move away from "spin" and party lines and debate the issues here. 
Support Harper all you want, but he has not elevated the level of politics in Canada. If anything it's more cynical.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think *SOME* people are making too much out of the GST issue. Whether you cut that or income tax is a *debate for Economists.* For the most part I think it is a wash. We can cut both consumption taxes and income taxes and the Conservatives are doing just that. Seems reasonable to me.


All say it's bad....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> All say it's bad....


And most Canadians say it is good. It is their money, so I think their opinions do count.

Harper is cutting both the GST and Income tax. So, as a minimum you agree with half of what he is doing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes VD, his choices are populist and nothing more.


That's not what you were saying about Afghanistan and same sex marriage months ago.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> That's not what you were saying about Afghanistan and same sex marriage months ago.


I'm talking about the GST cut.
When it comes to Afghanistan, he's using my money to sell it. 
SSM, he did not offer his opinion, he uses innuendo and vagueness. 
It does make it easy to spin...
So "do we cut and run" or stay until 2009? What is the Harper position?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gov is getting bigger as a % under the Cons.

Taxes regressive and getting worse.

Rich/poor gap increasing.



> Nowhere in the article does it even mention the possibility that any portion of the swelling surplus could be invested in social programs – such as health care and education – *despite the fact that polls have consistently shown Canadians strongly favour this sort of social investment over tax cuts.*
> 
> While the Harper government avoids putting surplus funds into social programs, it has found a new favourite place to direct our surplus tax dollars: the military.
> 
> ...


_

Not the Canada I want, not the Canada most Canadians want.

Harper killed wonderful programs like the ECE program and native claims program that were hard won agreements by all the people involved and every province.

He's a tinpot wannabe.... 




The Harper government has managed to cultivate a media image as moderate and well within the Canadian mainstream. But its spending priorities tell another story. While it has lavished money on the military, it has been miserly when it comes to social needs, even cancelling the fledgling national child-care program

Click to expand...

...no agenda??.....yeah right....._


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Back a couple of years, people were bitching the government didn't spend enough on the military.

Now that the problem has been corrected, they're still bitching. Go figure.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Back a couple of years, people were bitching the government didn't spend enough on the military.
> 
> Now that the problem has been corrected, they're still bitching. Go figure.


I never complained about military spending.
Maybe it's the record no-bid contracts....

As the Doc points out, all it going to the army...

As for the tax cuts, VD, Harper is only reinstating Liberal tax cuts - he did raise them first...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm talking about the GST cut.


You used plural in response to mine. I guess you agree with me on my points then.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You used plural in response to mine. I guess you agree with me on my points then.


what is the Harper position on the "mission"?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> what is the Harper position on the "mission"?


To fulfill our current committments to NATO (i.e. February 09).

Our involvement after that will depend on the findings of the Afghanistan study panel, which is a non-partisan committee. 

Seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> To fulfill our current committments to NATO (i.e. February 09).
> 
> Our involvement after that will depend on the findings of the Afghanistan study panel, which is a non-partisan committee.
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me.


What happened to "cut and run"?
Hillier and Harper are not spouting the same arguments.

As for that committee....


> Crafty PM ensures war won't be liability
> It seemed simple enough for Harper to announce a panel to pick one of four options for Canada's military future in Kandahar beyond February 2009 -- an exclusive focus on security force training, a retreat to less dangerous areas of Afghanistan, ceasing military operations for reconstruction work, or a full military withdrawal from the country.
> 
> That alone would qualify as a smart pre-election move with superior optics and plenty of risk-reduction potential in the event of tragedies during a vote.
> ...


Crafty PM ensures war won't be liability

I could save Canadian taxpayers money and give you the results of that report today....
The panel will report what Harper wants - all the will be left is for selling job to start...

As for clear,
Harper went from we wont be "cutting and running” and we'll be in Afghanistan until the “fight is finished” - yadda yadda...

Then we had "a consensus among Canadians on how we move forward"

The a vote in parliament, a new mission after 2009, followed by "no parliamentary vote on Canada’s role in Afghanistan unless an opposition party supported extending the existing mission after February 2009".

Then "I don’t see the necessity of rushing into a vote unless we’re able to have a situation where a vote would be successful,”

The "current configuration will end in February 2009". Followed by the foregone conclusion of the Manley report... 
And the Throne Speech that stated we'd be there in 2011...

Harper is lying about this mission...



> PM dismisses Hillier's Afghan assessment
> 
> FINBARR O’REILLY/REUTERS
> Afghan National Army troops patrol an area near the Taliban stronghold of Panjwaii town in Afghanistan’s southern Kandahar province.
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | PM dismisses Hillier's Afghan assessment


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Not the Canada I want, not the Canada most Canadians want.


And that is where this country sits politically. No Party offers what most Canadians want. Your expectations don't match reality, nor does your political vision match what most Canadians want.

Each Party is supported by a minority of Canadians, of which the Conservatives have the largest share. That gives them the right to govern. It also gives the opposition the right not to support their agenda. And so far, they have. 

Most minority governments only last 1.5 years. We are now well past that and seem to be a ways away from the next one. Clearly, the Conservatives aren't that far off from what the other parties consider to be acceptable.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> And that is where this country sits politically. .


What? No answer to this post: http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/57302-retroactive-income-tax-cut-woohoo-11.html#post602131


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> And that is where this country sits politically. No Party offers what most Canadians want. Your expectations don't match reality, nor does your political vision match what most Canadians want.
> 
> Each Party is supported by a minority of Canadians, of which the Conservatives have the largest share. That gives them the right to govern. It also gives the opposition the right not to support their agenda. And so far, they have.
> 
> Most minority governments only last 1.5 years. We are now well past that and seem to be a ways away from the next one. Clearly, the Conservatives aren't that far off from what the other parties consider to be acceptable.


That's a crock - 2/3 of the country are in general agreement on the nature of social services. It's just split amongst 3 parties.

Those three parties have far and away more in common on this aspect than the Con constituency as the current party presents itself.

a) as per Flannigan - it's a smoke screen for the REAL Con agenda.

b) there was a lot of agreement on a number of bills including green - who shot them down???

That there is a POLITICAL division in no way implies there is a fundamental social policy disagreement.

Harper is exploiting the situation politically just as Chretien exploited the right wing rift which BTW is incipient again.

You just toot the party tune with no critical thought as to why ALL the economists and other senior advisory figures on taxation gave a thumbs down to the GST pork.

I notice you dodge around the growing gov aspect - Harper does it - must be okay......

There is some truth in this










addressing taxation other ways would be far more effective and Harper was told that last time as well.
The truth of it has not changed and the rich poor gap will continue to grow to all our detriment.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What? No answer to this post: http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/57302-retroactive-income-tax-cut-woohoo-11.html#post602131


What do you want answered?

Yes, Harper and Hillier have sent mixed messages. Hillier doesn't make policy, Parliament does. But Parliament also needs to listen to the experts who know what is happening on the ground. The comments by Hillier are not encouraging because they suggest a longer term mission is needed. We need to deal with reality and not sugar coat it. If it takes 10 more years, then let's make our decision on that basis and not have a situation where we keep renewing our mission every couple years for another decade. 

Yes, the committee was political genius on Harper's part. I only say this from the perspective of deflecting the issue away from a potential election. I also happen to think a non-partisan committee is a good way of dealing with the issue. Did Harper stack the deck to his political favour? Yes. He removes the ability of the Liberals to complain too loudly should the committee not agree with their political stance. I don't believe the outcome of their study is predetermined like you are assuming. I trust the people Harper placed on the committee to make an unbiased and well thought out recommendation.

The downside of a committee is that it will likely end up being a compromised recommendation with a bit of everything in it (e.g. peacekeeping, construction, training police, moving out of Khandahar and staying for a longer period while reducing troops).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That's a crock - 2/3 of the country are in general agreement on the nature of social services. It's just split amongst 3 parties.


And those 3 parties are free to form a government and not support the Conservatives. If they have so much in common, then why isn't it happening?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> What do you want answered?
> 
> Yes, Harper and Hillier have sent mixed messages. Hillier doesn't make policy, Parliament does. But Parliament also needs to listen to the experts who know what is happening on the ground. The comments by Hillier are not encouraging because they suggest a longer term mission is needed. We need to deal with reality and not sugar coat it. If it takes 10 more years, then let's make our decision on that basis and not have a situation where we keep renewing our mission every couple years for another decade.
> 
> ...


What happened all the contradictory information. Even your comments make is sound like a spaghetti mashup...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> And those 3 parties are free to form a government and not support the Conservatives. If they have so much in common, then why isn't it happening?


It's amazing how you switch from ideology and mix in political reality to suit your arguments.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here comes trouble. 










They call her Hurricane Hazel for good reason 



> *McCallion leads while PM sleeps*
> 
> Nov 09, 2007 04:30 AM
> *Neglect by the federal government is putting Canada's cities at risk of budget breakdown and, quite literally, physical collapse.*
> ...


TheStar.com | comment | McCallion leads while PM sleeps

••

Oh BTW she's a conservative....a real one - not the NeoClown type Harper et al.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good on Hazel for having the good sense to charge her own constituents for the deficit they themselves have built up over the years instead of pretending that money from Ottawa would be "free." Spend locally, tax locally.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Here comes trouble.


One wonders why some are ready to swallow the puffery



> *Harper rejects financial aid for cities*
> 
> Premier Dalton McGuinty took a message from the cities to Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday: Please help.
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Ontario | Harper rejects financial aid for cities



> *Millions invested in GTA, Harper says*
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper told an enthusiastic crowd of supporters last night the GTA would be better served by having more Tory representatives.
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | News | Millions invested in GTA, Harper says

I wonder if Khan will ever release that junket... I mean report...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Good on Hazel for having the good sense to charge her own constituents for the deficit they themselves have built up over the years instead of pretending that money from Ottawa would be "free." Spend locally, tax locally.


what an idiotic statement - The Feds have taken far more out of the GTA than they've put back and do so every single month.

How about the GTA just KEEP local GST transactions and income tax and spend it locally - that'll knock some 20% out of the Federal budget. About right.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc, maybe all the little towns and cities should set up tollbooths going in and out - that way goods and services entering would be subject to a "transportation tax"....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Take that vision to its extreme and why bother with a nation called Canada at all? Heck, let's just go back to feudal city states... nothing a few dozen moats, drawbridges and vats of boiling oil won't cure.

Anyway, careful with that "idiotic statement" crack, MD... you'll be taken down a peg by the Gentle Overlords.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max said:


> Take that vision to its extreme and why bother with a nation called Canada at all? Heck, let's just go back to feudal city states... nothing a few dozen moats, drawbridges and vats of boiling oil won't cure.
> 
> Anyway, careful with that "idiotic statement" crack, MD... you'll be taken down a peg by the Gentle Overlords.


Now Max, you are on the right track! :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Harper rejects financial aid for cities
> 
> Nov 09, 2007 04:30 AM
> ROBERT BENZIE
> ...


shafted - that's right....

The NeoClowns suck it in from the local areas, grow their own gov spending, spend what their lobbyists tell on the military toys, allow Alberta to **** upriver of the planet and then shrug when the cities want their fair share of the tax base.

NOW the "agenda" shows.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> what an idiotic statement - The Feds have taken far more out of the GTA than they've put back and do so every single month.


By your own logic, they have to send more money to Ottawa than they receive to keep Canada as a country afloat. That's the nature of Canadian federalism. Only a feudal lord would expect to keep the amount he taxed entirely within his fiefdom.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Here comes trouble.
> 
> Oh BTW she's a conservative....a real one - not the NeoClown type Harper et al.


The provinces are free to take up the 1% GST cut and give it to their municipalities should they wish.

Hazel should be talking to her Premier, not to Harper.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'ts just a publicity stunt VanDave. The provinces could do it tomorrow--but they want to pretend that others are funding "the cities." 

Besides, if it came from the feds through some insane plan, it would have to be apportioned to the cities based on population--and of course those cities with a high population are in heavily populated provinces, which produce the most tax revenue...

Hazel's solution is smarter, except the kvetching bit.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF is right, the provinces could indeed ad one or even two percent to their sales tax specifically earmarked to go to municipalities. But that would be asking the residents of TO to pay their own way. They would much rather have the rest of Canada chip in to lessen their load.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> MF is right, the provinces could indeed ad one or even two percent to their sales tax specifically earmarked to go to municipalities. *But that would be asking the residents of TO to pay their own way. They would much rather have the rest of Canada chip in to lessen their load. *


Again with the untruths? I know Ehmax asked to debate the ideas but SINC as a so-called journalist a little research would be in order...


> Ontario is the only province to have never received equalization payments.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Geez what a flawed understanding. You should be outright ashamed of the ignorance that statement flaunts.

The GTA is about 20% of the *NATIONAL GNP *- the i/o gap about $4-5 Billion MORE paid out to the upper govs in taxes than the GTA receives in return.

Even then it does not receive equal payments even for identical programs - immigration support for instance is much higher per capita i Quebec than for the GTA and yet Toronto far and away gets more immigrants than ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY 

It also has a MUCH higher number of people per riding so is under represented in Ottawa.

The whole thing sucks and Harper is digging himself a big political hole - East Coast gone, Sask gone, Quebec marginal....and Ontario??........this is about right










for a denizen of a province that makes its living on sucking dirty water from the ground and pissing it into the atmosphere you should be ashamed of pointing fingers in such an ignorant manner.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Again with the untruths? I know Ehmax asked to debate the ideas but SINC as a so-called journalist a little research would be in order...


Apparently you cannot distinguish between "untruths" and opinions. The post was my opinion.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Apparently you cannot distinguish between "untruths" and opinions. The post was my opinion.


Hiding behind opinion.....  

It seems more like "fantasy", "fiction" or "lies" - take your pick.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That ol' Neocon "gut feeling".....don't bother with annoying things like facts....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I agree with the problem that municipalities don't take in much tax revenue. 

I also agree that the balance of taxation between the 3 government levels needs work along with the federal transfer payment program.

But, I don't agree with MacDoc's proposed solution. The three levels of government shouldn't have to go around begging for more money. They should have the power to generate their required revenues through taxation.

By the sounds of it, MacDoc doesn't agree with the federal transfer system because Ontario puts more in than it gets back. But... that's the whole design. If you think Ontario is getting shafted, the West gets it even more so on a per capita basis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is the nature of a "mixed" economy folks. It's the Canadian social safety net on a grand scale. Toronto is a wealthy citizen who has just finished decades of spending like a drunken sailor. The rest of the country is just instituting a "progressive" tax on Toronto's income, pointing out its wretched excess as a special reason to maintain its tax burden.

Whenever rich individuals in Canada receive a tax cut, the cries on EhMac rise to the skies--"make the rich pay." Of course Ontario has no equalization payments coming in. They are "the rich."


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The whole thing sucks and Harper is digging himself a big political hole - East Coast gone, Sask gone, Quebec marginal....and Ontario??........this is about right


TORONTO (Reuters) - The Conservatives powered ahead in an opinion poll released on Saturday, reaching their highest level of popular support since the 2006 federal election with figures that could give them a majority government.

The poll, by Ipsos Reid for the CanWest group of newspapers, shows the Conservatives with 42 percent support, up from 39 percent a week ago

Federal Conservatives gain support: poll - Yahoo! Canada News


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Dumb move, fellas, provoking Mayor McCallion*
> Email Story Email story
> 
> Nov 10, 2007 04:30 AM
> ...


TheStar.com | News | Dumb move, fellas, provoking Mayor McCallion


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hazel must look like a pretty imposing figure from where you sit MacDoc. In my dealings with her I've found her very straightforward and likeable. 

But on a federal scale, she's small potatoes. Let her work her magic on McGuinty first.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Hazel must look like a pretty imposing figure from where you sit MacDoc. In my dealings with her I've found her very straightforward and likeable.
> 
> But on a federal scale, she's small potatoes. Let her work her magic on McGuinty first.


I'm wondering if you have a focus issue?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I've found her very straightforward and likeable.


So has the rest of the country and the world and some 95% of her constituents.
Unlike the NeoClowns in Ottawa.

Hazel is speaking for the municipalities and Harpos few grass roots are brown and wilting there.
The demographics are on her side as well...rural Canada is shrinkig rapidly...even Alberta is waking up from its populist daze.

She speaks for the small c conservatives which is currently MIA and which the current Cons do not represent.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

She's fesity all right, but I have no idea of how her clout works federally. No mayor seemed to have much luck with bending the ear of any PM in recent memory. 

I'm still surprised she hasn't asked McGuinty to kick in even a half-cent increase in PST, something that could be done immediately, with no pain, and no relative increase in Ontario's tax burden.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> She speaks for the small c conservatives which is currently MIA and which the current Cons do not represent.


Aren't Liberals more small C than Conservatives? Martin seemed like a small c conservative...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah absolutely - I think it was Hebert that observed correctly that Martin would have been a conservative PM/finance guy in almost any other age.

This is a challenge for the Liberals as they clearly are shifted left with Dion and Rae so that small c is open but not to the likes of Harper.

Bring an east coaster Progressive into play and the the middle IS up for grabs.
Harpers sheepskin is getting ragged.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Bring an east coaster Progressive into play and the the middle IS up for grabs. Harpers sheepskin is getting ragged.


I think Harper is doing extraordinarily well with the middle.

As we have discussed before, the Conservative base is about 30% of the electorate. If they are polling at 42%, that means they have grabbed a very sizable chunk of the middle.

The way I see it, each party has the following CORE support levels:

- Bloc 10%
- NDP 15%
- Liberal 30% (arguably 35%)
- Conservative 30%
- Green 5%
- small c Conservative / right Liberals 5 to 10%

By my math, the Conservatives have taken the small c Conservative vote in addition to some of the Liberal vote (the Liberals are polling at 28%).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Polling blips - we've been over that before.
Yes Harper has made some inroads in the middle but also is fraying elsewhere.

I'd say core for right wing is more like 28%, 32% for the libs and 15 for the NDP, 10 for the bloc.

Quebec is a swing province for majority and so is Ontario.

Greens are a wild card as they CAN draw from anywhere tho mostly the left.

Harper and Flaherty are the main problem - few believe there is any core change from Family Coalition and Harrisite past.
Dolts like Day in positions of responsibility do not help.

I think Canadian voters have put in a mix they want. A minority gov representing the various views and somewhat regional.

The problem is Harper and to a lesser degree all the leaders who refuse to cooperate to govern the nation.

There was good legislation shot down and delayed for no other reason than political or ideological reasons, grandstanding.....Layton in particular, Harper specifically.

GOVERN as a minority where a high degree of consensus is REQUIRED.
True small c like Hazel easily see through the "look at me I'm centrist" song and dance routine put up by Harper and Flaherty.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Woohoo??????........* 39¢ a day if that. *



> As a result, Flaherty's income tax moves do little for Canadians with the smallest earnings packets, economic analysts say.
> 
> First of all, it's universally noted the reduction in the lowest income tax rate to 15 per cent only reverses a tax increase brought in by Flaherty in his 2006 budget. Taxpayers are getting a benefit they would have received anyway had he not raised income taxes last year.
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Tax cuts won't buy a cup of coffee

Hard even to find a cuppa for that these days.


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> The federal government cuts to the GST aren't a mistake.
> 
> They're ideological. Here's why.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have put it better. 

If the Feds decided to give 1% of the GST to cities, then there would just be endless bickering about the distribution of that, just like there is with equalization.

Didn't the city of Toronto get the exclusive ability to levy a general sales tax? They got 1% of room to do it a year ago, and now have another 1%. Where's the action being taken on this? Wouldn't it be just as easy for the province to give all municipalities this ability like elsewhere in the civilized world?

But no, it's just too easy I guess. If the feds gave a percent or two, then Millertime could just whine and complain that it wasn't enough and that they aren't getting their fair share of the pot and the figures were somehow skewed. If they have to levy the tax themselves they would have to do all the legwork themselves, and would have have no excuse at all to complain, but gosh, we can't have that. It's just way easier to sit back and be given handouts, then just blame the feds!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Man do you have the horse and cart backwards......the taxes are generated HERE and shipped up river.

All of the collection mechanism lies with Ottawa - each GST return is locked to a postal code.

You think it's rocket science to figure out how much each municipality gets every quarter?? ...and cut a cheque.

You seem exactly the kind of let's generate MORE GOV that Harper has exhibited 

You seem to think it's the Feds written in stone right to collect and then dole out as they see fit. 
In fact it should be reversed.

ALL the tax collected locally and then let the Feds come begging. Until that fine day the mechanism is with the Feds and there would be no bickering - if it's payable within the designated postal code it belongs to that municipality.

Transfer payments are ENTIRELY different, based on a complex formula.

1% is not hard to calculate or distribute for the municipalities when you are already getting the rest from specified locations.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

NBi Boker has it dead right and MacDoc dead wrong. Just let the provinces deal with it. They have exactly the mechanism that the GST people do. This is a no-brainer.

Canada is a federalist state. It's ludicrous to suddenly demand that the federal government go begging to the municipalities for money. 

The cities and provinces are--once again--too gutless to use their taxation powers to extort the revenue they think they need. They want their constituents to believe it came from somewhere else.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> NBi Boker has it dead right and MacDoc dead wrong. Just let the provinces deal with it. They have exactly the mechanism that the GST people do. This is a no-brainer.
> 
> Canada is a federalist state. It's ludicrous to suddenly demand that the federal government go begging to the municipalities for money.
> 
> The cities and provinces are--once again--too gutless to use their taxation powers to extort the revenue they think they need. They want their constituents to believe it came from somewhere else.


You need to re-read the Canadian constitution, 1982 or so.

And by the way, cities can't charge their own GST. They can enforce their own levies and taxes, but they cannot have a slice of the GST because some provincial law says so; it doesn't; it couldn't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> And by the way, cities can't charge their own GST. They can enforce their own levies and taxes, but they cannot have a slice of the GST because some provincial law says so; it doesn't; it couldn't.


Gee, you mean they can't call it the GST??? Follow the thread OK? They levy their own taxes equivalent to the GST. Or they get the province to increase the PST. 




HowEver said:


> You need to re-read the Canadian constitution, 1982 or so.


That's a big document. *You* need to be more specific.


----------

