Canadian Election 2011

[ShawnD1]

like Harper will agree to that.

Harper is a retard but I don't think he knows that he is a retard. Last election the moderator asked what each would do to help or improve the economy. The left candidates said some stuff about spending I think, Harper said he would cut taxes. The liberal leader jumped on him and basically called Harper a retard because "companies losing money already pay no taxes" but Harper stuck to his cut taxes guns. I really don't think Harper understood why cutting taxes would make no difference when companies are losing money. His economics degree is probably from university of phoenix online.

 

[sdifox]

Harper is a retard but I don't think he knows that he is a retard. Last election the moderator asked what each would do to help or improve the economy. The left candidates said some stuff about spending I think, Harper said he would cut taxes. The liberal leader jumped on him and basically called Harper a retard because "companies losing money already pay no taxes" but Harper stuck to his cut taxes guns. I really don't think Harper understood why cutting taxes would make no difference when companies are losing money. His economics degree is probably from university of phoenix online.

:awe:

 

[silverpig]

The BEST question from a moderator I have ever heard in any debate was in one of the recent federal elections.

"Say something nice about the person next to you."

LOVED it. I hope it happens again.

 

[ShawnD1]

T
"Say something nice about the person next to you."

LOVED it. I hope it happens again.

I love it when moderators troll the debate like that. That's a question they probably didn't expect.

 

[yllus]

RESP as it stands right now does benefit the better off more than the not so well of because the not so well of doesn't have spare money to put into RESP. The proposed measure is a way to fix that no?

What would you suggest as an alternative?

I think the money would be better spent going directly to the universities - not to give out as burseries or scholarships, but in general to allow them to better their programs and perhaps expand enrollment. Post-secondary education in this country isn't incredibly expensive, but the quality isn't incredible either. Instead of packing more bodies into an average system I'd like to see the same amount of bodies in an above-average system.

On the first article: it is not complicated to set up an RESP. If you don't have one set up when you get money without the requirement of your own contribution (the new proposal), you're lazy. The reason the CESG is skewed towards the upper class is you need the ability to save. With this one you don't

Part of this plan will be funded by eliminating the tuition/textbook grants which are MASSIVELY skewed towards the upper class (my wife's family got back way more than I did, and even I got more than $4,000 back overall). This is the program least skewed towards the upper class in recent memory.

Even still, I don't see how this system doesn't benefit families sub-$50,000 more than anyone else. A family with two people earning $25,000 a year only pays $2,800 COMBINED in income tax (in Ontario courtesy of taxtips.ca).

And by the way, if this plan goes in and you're making more than $100,000, this plan is going to hurt you. You would have gotten more back claiming your kid's tuition/textbook amounts.

In terms of the corporate tax break stuff, that's a little outside of my expertise. Personally I would like to see this replace the current system, but reduce the amounts and give the benefit over a longer period of time (ex $500 a year from the time they're 10 etc).

The poor and working poor have only marginal interactions with banks - it's not generally a question of laziness, but of shame, fees, delays that act as a deterrent and ignorance about what they are entitled to. I can't recall where I've read about this, but here's a Globe & Mail article that talks about it from the perspective of mental health patients. I think the key problem for the working poor is the two week waiting period for cheques to cash, which is often a delay they can't afford.

I don't believe your math is correct regarding that total payable for a married couple each making $25,000. Roughly $20,000 a year isn't much to live on in Ontario, much less partially fund an occupation even if you kept working the same number of hours. There isn't going to be a great spike in people from low income families who go to school as a result of this, especially if a "hike" in corporate income taxes translates into lowered wages or fewer jobs.

 

[yllus]

Harper is a retard but I don't think he knows that he is a retard. Last election the moderator asked what each would do to help or improve the economy. The left candidates said some stuff about spending I think, Harper said he would cut taxes. The liberal leader jumped on him and basically called Harper a retard because "companies losing money already pay no taxes" but Harper stuck to his cut taxes guns. I really don't think Harper understood why cutting taxes would make no difference when companies are losing money. His economics degree is probably from university of phoenix online.

Why wouldn't cutting taxes help a company that isn't making a profit?

As far as the evidence to date has shown, Harper is correct. Here's the corporate income tax reading list that was provided to me by Worthwhile Canadian Initiative's Stephen Gordon if you'd like to read up on the issue. It's actually pretty interesting stuff.

 

[actuarial]

I think the money would be better spent going directly to the universities - not to give out as burseries or scholarships, but in general to allow them to better their programs and perhaps expand enrollment. Post-secondary education in this country isn't incredibly expensive, but the quality isn't incredible either. Instead of packing more bodies into an average system I'd like to see the same amount of bodies in an above-average system.

I 100% agree. But there's no way to make that change so quickly. I think university should be a merit based public system, with only foreigners getting charged tuition. Federal transfer to universities is $X per Canadian student. The provinces transfer $X per student (negotiated on the provincial level), and out-of-province students pay the difference in tuition (if Alberta gives $5,000 per student and Ontario gives $6,000, then an Albertan going to UofT has to pay $1,000 but an Ontarian going to Calgary pays $0). Giving everyone (regardless of income) the same amount towards university is a step in that direction.

The poor and working poor have only marginal interactions with banks - it's not generally a question of laziness, but of shame, fees, delays that act as a deterrent and ignorance about what they are entitled to. I can't recall where I've read about this, but here's a Globe & Mail article that talks about it from the perspective of mental health patients. I think the key problem for the working poor is the two week waiting period for cheques to cash, which is often a delay they can't afford.

There's no fees or anything though. If the program is (here's $X for university) and the poor STILL won't take it, there's not much we can do to help other than taking their kids away from them.

I don't believe your math is correct regarding that total payable for a married couple each making $25,000. Roughly $20,000 a year isn't much to live on in Ontario, much less partially fund an occupation even if you kept working the same number of hours. There isn't going to be a great spike in people from low income families who go to school as a result of this, especially if a "hike" in corporate income taxes translates into lowered wages or fewer jobs.

I re-checked and the tool wasn't working for spousal income. It's $2,800 each (plus CPP and EI, though obviously those are separate). I was also being a dummy and thinking they were gonna raise income tax rates not corporate tax rates (you were clear, I was dumb).

 

[ShawnD1]

Why wouldn't cutting taxes help a company that isn't making a profit?

Companies only pay tax on net income. It would be near impossible to ever turn over a profit if taxes were applied to gross income.

 

[sdifox]

Why wouldn't cutting taxes help a company that isn't making a profit?

As far as the evidence to date has shown, Harper is correct. Here's the corporate income tax reading list that was provided to me by Worthwhile Canadian Initiative's Stephen Gordon if you'd like to read up on the issue. It's actually pretty interesting stuff.

If Expenses of company > Gross Income of company then corporate income tax on company = 0.

 

[sdifox]

I think the money would be better spent going directly to the universities - not to give out as burseries or scholarships, but in general to allow them to better their programs and perhaps expand enrollment. Post-secondary education in this country isn't incredibly expensive, but the quality isn't incredible either. Instead of packing more bodies into an average system I'd like to see the same amount of bodies in an above-average system.

I don't trust the universities that much :biggrin:

Problem with direct injection is that post secondary education is deemed to be provincial jurisdiction. Gets messy.

Personally I want something that is as cheap as possible to implement. Direct funding to university does not help the poor any better than the current situation.

 

[yllus]

Re: Paying taxes when you don't turn a profit - ah, of course.

What do you guys think of the income splitting proposal (Conservatives), and the enhancements to CCP and new Secure Retirement Option (Liberals)? I'm not quite happy with either.

With income splitting, my issues are that it's to take effect in the 'far' future (2015?) and that it's to be limited to only couples with children under the age of 18. I know that there are some good reasons for the government to incentivize people to settle into couples and reproduce, but as a matter of fairness this should be applied to all households regardless of whether or not they have children.

The CCP changes - obviously we'll all be higher premiums, and for the GRO, my worries are that it could be underfunded and end up like Social Security in the U.S., and that if fiscal mismanagement or losses take place, as is always possible, the taxpayers will naturally be called on to make up the difference.

Now the benefits: Income splitting would chop a pretty significant amount off of a couple's taxes, no question about that. An enhanced CPP doesn't (as far as I know) suffer from not being sustainable, so it's not money we'll never see - unless you means-test out of getting it back. The Guaranteed Retirement Option isn't a bad idea for the exact reasons I was discussing with actuarial earlier - people would pretty much just check a box on a form once and the government would automatically start saving for their retirement. They could do the same at a bank and get better rates, but it appears that people don't often want to do that.

 

[sdifox]

Re: Paying taxes when you don't turn a profit - ah, of course.

What do you guys think of the income splitting proposal (Conservatives), and the enhancements to CCP and new Secure Retirement Option (Liberals)? I'm not quite happy with either.

With income splitting, my issues are that it's to take effect in the 'far' future (2015?) and that it's to be limited to only couples with children under the age of 18. I know that there are some good reasons for the government to incentivize people to settle into couples and reproduce, but as a matter of fairness this should be applied to all households regardless of whether or not they have children.

The CCP changes - obviously we'll all be higher premiums, and for the GRO, my worries are that it could be underfunded and end up like Social Security in the U.S., and that if fiscal mismanagement or losses take place, as is always possible, the taxpayers will naturally be called on to make up the difference.

Now the benefits: Income splitting would chop a pretty significant amount off of a couple's taxes, no question about that. An enhanced CPP doesn't (as far as I know) suffer from not being sustainable, so it's not money we'll never see - unless you means-test out of getting it back. The Guaranteed Retirement Option isn't a bad idea for the exact reasons I was discussing with actuarial earlier - people would pretty much just check a box on a form once and the government would automatically start saving for their retirement. They could do the same at a bank and get better rates, but it appears that people don't often want to do that.

Income splitting is not a good plan. They didn't implement the full recommendation from the think tank, which included if you are single your first kid can split your income, so the proposal is crippled. Also, couples already file as 1. so, not much diff. The far in the future bit is just laughable. That proposal says vote for us not just this time, but next time too and we'll see if we can deliver. No thanx.


CPP needs to be enhanced. Same with the secure retirement. Both NDP planks.

 

[silverpig]

I'm not a fan of the income splitting provision, despite the fact that it will definitely help me out. I'm just not a huge fan of social engineering by the government by way of tax incentives to promote a certain type of family.

A household with a $120k earner and a stay-at-home parent is more privileged than a household with two $60k earners, so I don't feel like the single $120k earner should be given a tax break. If anything, the 2x$60k household should be given the tax break.

 

[silverpig]

So the Greens have challenged the CRTC in the court of appeals, trying to force a ruling so they can participate in the online debate. If the appeal goes through, then it may be the case that EVERY party would be able to be present.

Moderator: Thanks to all the candidates for attending this, a historic event in Canadian politics, the first mega debate including ALL the political parties. Let's go around the table and have everyone introduce themselves.

Conservative: Thanks Moderator. I'd just like to say that the Harper government would be dedicated to lowering taxes, improving the economy, and staying the course without pandering to any other political parties or forces in the country.

Liberal: BRB, gone to USA.

NDP: LOWER CREDIT CARD RATES! RAISE TAXES! HELP FAMILIES! *begins to sob*

Green: Hey! Let me speak! It's complete BS that we don't get to participate ever!

Moderator: Uh, but you're here now aren't you?

Green: SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT!

Moderator: Uh, okay... continuing on...

Bloc Quebecois: ...

Moderator: It appears the Bloc Quebecois leader has pulled his part of the table away from everyone else, and is trying to plug his laptop into the power port on the Liberal part of the table... oh for frack's sake...

Bloc Quebecois: Vivre Quebec!

Moderator: This is an english language debate, please keep your comments in english.

Bloc Quebecois: That WAS english mofo.

Moderator: *sigh* Okay. Next?

Animal Alliance Party: Moo! Moo!

Moderator: Uh? What? Why are you talking like a cow?

Animal Alliance Party: Because they can't speak for themselves! The animals need us to speak for them! Moo! Moo!

Moderator: Geez. Okay, next?

Canadian Action Party: Thanks. The CAP believes Canada needs to maintain its sovereignty and not be slaves to the private banks which own our debt!

Moderator: This was supposed to be an introduction, but okay.

Christian Heritage Party: Let us pray...

Moderator: Actually, let's not and just say we did.

Communist Party: Workers of the world unite!

Marxist-Leninist Party: Hey! That's OUR line asshole!

First People's Party: It's about freaking time!

Moderator: Too true...

Libertarian Party: We want to be elected just so we can pretty much disband the government. We are also in favour of euthanasia, for obvious reasons.

Moderator: Makes sense...

Marijuana Party: Duuuuuuuude. Anyone wanna go halfers on a pizza?

People's Political Power Party of Canada: P-P-P-PowerParty!

Pirate Party of Canada: Ha! Sweet. I just hacked your wireless network and now this debate is being streamed live on youtube. Take THAT! Arrrrrr!

Progressive Canadian Party: We know we're irrelevant, we just came for the free food.

Rhinoceros Party: Frack. You. All. Let's just invade Belgium and steal their beer and be done with it.

United Party of Canada: Bloc, why so srs?

Western Block Party: We like fishing, farming, forestry, oil, and gas. We should be called the FFFOG party. FFFOG.

Moderator: ...and that's all the time we have for the debate tonight. Thanks for tuning in.

 

[tokie]

I keep seeing this Conservative ad saying that "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for Michael Ignatieff".

Uh, really? They spent money on these and are airing them at prime time? Stupidest thing I have seen yet.

 

[sandorski]

I keep seeing this Conservative ad saying that "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for Michael Ignatieff".

Uh, really? They spent money on these and are airing them at prime time? Stupidest thing I have seen yet.

hehe, ya, seems odd, but it's their money.

 

[silverpig]

I keep seeing this Conservative ad saying that "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for Michael Ignatieff".

Uh, really? They spent money on these and are airing them at prime time? Stupidest thing I have seen yet.

I seem to be getting less and less impressed with the Conservatives since the election was called.

 

[iGas]

So the Greens have challenged the CRTC in the court of appeals, trying to force a ruling so they can participate in the online debate. If the appeal goes through, then it may be the case that EVERY party would be able to be present.

It look like Green Party is trying to go main stream and take on main stream issues.

Green doesn't really have a strong mandate.

Their leader Elizabeth May does not have a good background track record. She defaulted on her student loan and let everyone pay for her education. She is an American born citizen, and she was the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada (that protested and disrupted many Canadian projects, they got their support monies from American businesses to lobbies against Canadian businesses...much of the oil, gas, lumber, and fishing projects). Currently she is rubbing elbows with money/people that make their monies from the government cash grab green/environmental projects (maybe I should attend one of their private tea party to see what she really is from the inside...was invited but declined every single time).

From what I have heard of Johan Hamels (what I gathered he is a bit of a chauvinist) of Green Party is a very intelligent man but he have his own agenda which he wants to steer in a different direction than Elizabeth May, hence there is a strong conflict and is not a positive force.

IMHO, Green Party isn't going to win any more seat this time round, but it will be interesting to see how this election develop and give GP a more main stream direction (NDP is the party that really fear Green because they are the one that take votes from the NDP).

Western Bloc Party have no business being in Canada IMHO, because of its mandate and Douglas H. Christie.

Douglas Hewson "Doug" Christie, Jr. (born April 1946) is a Canadian lawyer and far-right political activist based in Victoria, British Columbia.

He first came to national attention as a lawyer in 1983 when he became James Keegstra's attorney after the schoolteacher was fired from his job and criminally charged with willfully promoting hatred by teaching his students that there was a Jewish conspiracy, along with spreading other antisemitic ideas. His defence of Keegstra brought him to the attention of Ernst Zündel who retained Christie in September 1984 to defend him against criminal charges related to Holocaust denial with co-counsel Barbara Kulaszka. Christie would act as Zündel's attorney in several cases over the subsequent two decades up to his deportation from Canada in 2005. Christie's advocacy on behalf of Keegstra and Zündel has led to him acting as legal counsel in a number of notable cases involving far-right figures including:

Ernst Zündel
Terry Long, former leader of the Aryan Nations in Canada;
Malcolm Ross of New Brunswick who, like Keegstra, was a teacher fired for anti-Semitic activity;
three alleged leaders of the Ku Klux Klan in Manitoba;
Rudy Stanko of the World Church of the Creator;
Tony McAleer after he was charged with broadcasting hate speech over the phone and online;
John Ross Taylor of the Western Guard Party and Aryan Nations;
Imre Finta who was alleged to be a Nazi war criminal and collaborator (see R. v. Finta);
Doug Collins, a late newspaper columnist brought before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission for antisemitic and racist comments;
Paul Fromm, head of the far-right "Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform" and "Canadians for Freedom of Expression", and participant in neo-Nazi and racist gatherings, who was fired from his job as a teacher for his political activity;
Lady Jane Birdwood, a British follower of Oswald Mosley and distributor of hate propaganda;
Wolfgang Droege of the Heritage Front;
David Ahenakew, who acknowledged making antisemitic comments in a 2002 interview with the Saskatoon StarPhoenix
Jack Klundert, a Windsor optometrist who does not believe the Constitution of Canada grants the Federal Government the power to collect income tax[1]
Christie posted material on the former website operated by Bernard Klatt, on what had been called "Canada's most notorious source of hate propaganda."[2][3]

 

[sdifox]

It look like Green Party is trying to go main stream and take on main stream issues.

Green doesn't really have a strong mandate.

Their leader Elizabeth May does not have a good background track record. She defaulted on her student loan and let everyone pay for her education. She is an American born citizen, and she was the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada (that protested and disrupted many Canadian projects, they got their support monies from American businesses to lobbies against Canadian businesses...much of the oil, gas, lumber, and fishing projects). Currently she is rubbing elbows with money/people that make their monies from the government cash grab green/environmental projects (maybe I should attend one of their private tea party to see what she really is from the inside...was invited but declined every single time).

From what I have heard of Johan Hamels (what I gathered he is a bit of a chauvinist) of Green Party is a very intelligent man but he have his own agenda which he wants to steer in a different direction than Elizabeth May, hence there is a strong conflict and is not a positive force.

IMHO, Green Party isn't going to win any more seat this time round, but it will be interesting to see how this election develop and give GP a more main stream direction (NDP is the party that really fear Green because they are the one that take votes from the NDP).

Western Bloc Party have no business being in Canada IMHO, because of its mandate and Douglas H. Christie.

So close to a million Canadians voted for Green and they should just be ignored? I am not saying give them the government, but look at PQ, they got about 500k or 55% more votes than the Green, but PQ got 49 seats. And I would put PQ in the same category as Western Block Party.


Like I said before, it's high time we go proportional. Parties are scared of proportional because then they actually have to field good people in ALL ridings.

 

[sdifox]

I keep seeing this Conservative ad saying that "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for Michael Ignatieff".

Uh, really? They spent money on these and are airing them at prime time? Stupidest thing I have seen yet.

Doesn't sound as good as "Harper Government's Economic Action Plan is working." I guess :biggrin:

 

[jamesnw]

Vote NNPC! Problem solved.

_________________
http://nnpc.ca

 

[actuarial]

I'm not a fan of the income splitting provision, despite the fact that it will definitely help me out. I'm just not a huge fan of social engineering by the government by way of tax incentives to promote a certain type of family.

A household with a $120k earner and a stay-at-home parent is more privileged than a household with two $60k earners, so I don't feel like the single $120k earner should be given a tax break. If anything, the 2x$60k household should be given the tax break.

But you do believe the 2x$60K household should be given one? Under the current system they pay significantly less in income tax. Why should on family have to pay more in taxes with the same gross income.

 

[lord_emperor]

Pirate Party of Canada: Ha! Sweet. I just hacked your wireless network and now this debate is being streamed live on youtube. Take THAT! Arrrrrr!

/win

 

[silverpig]

But you do believe the 2x$60K household should be given one? Under the current system they pay significantly less in income tax. Why should on family have to pay more in taxes with the same gross income.

I'm actually okay with how a 2x$60k household is taxed. I mean, I don't have any particular reason why I would change it.

The progressive tax system is designed to take more from the people who can afford it. 1x$120k can afford it more than 2x$60k.

The childcare savings (if any) as well as not having to have the second car, or at least not having to pay for the extra gas and insurance to transport the second earner to work and back is likely more than enough to even out the extra tax the 1x$120k would pay.

 

[yllus]

I've been too busy at work to do much reading about politics, but I caught that the full Liberal platform was recently released. Haven't read it yet.

Canada.com has a site up called Decision Canada that tracks all of the promises made by each major party, which is great for an at-a-glance summary of where everyone stands.

The NDP's Jack Layton just committed to doubling pensions for seniors, which nicely sticks to his overall goal of only proposing policy that Canada cannot afford.

The biggest and possibly most underreported item is that the Liberals seem to be endorsing a cap-and-trade environmental policy. (Trying to find a neutral article on this subject but failing.)