Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Star)   Canadian Finance Minister channels Towlie after his latest financial predictions were gloriously wrong... "I have no idea what's going on..."   (thestar.com) divider line 129
    More: Dumbass, Canadian Finance Minister, revenue shortfalls, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, deficits, clean up, election campaign, Michael Ignatieff, federal government  
•       •       •

6587 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2009 at 12:50 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-09-11 12:52:08 PM  
Blame America?
 
2009-09-11 12:52:20 PM  
Don't forget to bring a towel, eh?
 
2009-09-11 12:52:48 PM  
I have no idea what's going on most of the time, so I'm getting a kick...
 
2009-09-11 12:53:25 PM  
55.9 billion, oh that's so cute Canada. That was probably the equivalent to our cash for clunkers program.
 
2009-09-11 12:53:28 PM  
beat.bodoglife.com

/No comments.
 
2009-09-11 12:53:51 PM  
They're all a bunch of farking stoners up there anyway...
 
2009-09-11 12:54:03 PM  
you're a towel
 
2009-09-11 12:55:57 PM  
So, not trying to (really) stoke the flames (much), but how much better off would they be if they hadn't caved to the Liberals and NDP in trying to keep the government together from the Coalition of the Assinine?

/Hey somebody had to start it.
 
2009-09-11 12:58:18 PM  
What deficit & debt did Flaherty run up as the finance minister of Ontario?
 
2009-09-11 12:59:03 PM  
"I win. I win every time. Wethead. Towel off. Get out. Oh, you're blowin' the floor. Way to go."
 
2009-09-11 12:59:05 PM  
At least he's honest. Better than the Iraqi Minister of Information approach.

Hell, anybody who says they have an idea is lying.
 
2009-09-11 12:59:33 PM  
I think we just found a good use for the 94% of America's stimulous package that has yet to be spent. Buy Canada!
 
2009-09-11 01:06:47 PM  
Y'know, I don't like Harper any more than most (I voted Liberal federally), but I really farking wish the solution to government not working as planned would stop being "REFERENDUM!"

Dear Government Parties,
Please govern the country, and quit masturbating furiously at a chance to grab more political power for your party.
Fark you,
- Canadians
 
2009-09-11 01:08:55 PM  
LoLz and what would the Liberals or NDP do with the current economic crisis? Do they honestly think right now they would be managing any better, seriouslies. Well the Liberals I could see on relatively the same page on the Conservatives (they're both fiscally conservative dawg) but the NDP are in a dream world if they think they would manage the deficit any better ha ha.

/votez bloc!
 
2009-09-11 01:09:23 PM  
This guy is a moron, and a key reason the cons need to go. Remember last November? No Deficits! surpluses as far as the eye can see! Come February, oops, I guess there will, be a $32 billion deficit! Spring comes! Oops, $50 billion! Now its $55 billion! So in one year, he went from surpluses to a huge deficit, and no hope in sight for the next 5 years. Well done, moran.


The NDP would probably have better fiscal management than these clowns.
 
2009-09-11 01:11:35 PM  
GraysonAC: Y'know, I don't like Harper any more than most (I voted Liberal federally), but I really farking wish the solution to government not working as planned would stop being "REFERENDUM!"

Dear Government Parties,
Please govern the country, and quit masturbating furiously at a chance to grab more political power for your party.
Fark you,
- Canadians


Werd dawg. We should just petition the government to dissolve itself and then try to get representation in the British Parliament. Everyone hates Brown and still he's there, plus no more NDP we'd have Lib Dems and all those crazy bunch.
 
2009-09-11 01:12:22 PM  
sboyle1020: 55.9 billion, oh that's so cute Canada. That was probably the equivalent to our cash for clunkers program.

Yep, it really is cute, with about 85-90% less taxpayers to pay for this deficit than in the USA
 
2009-09-11 01:16:10 PM  
Look I say get rid of the universal healthcare. Should free up lots of cash and fire all those fat cats on teh Canadian Death Squads.

/invest in a bloated military budget like a REAL country
 
2009-09-11 01:17:34 PM  
Remember when the the government would end up with a bigger surplus than it predicted? Martin expected 1.9 billion and got 9.1. Even Rick Mercer was impressed.

That doesn't happen anymore.
 
2009-09-11 01:18:07 PM  
sentunim: but the NDP are in a dream world if they think they would manage the deficit any better ha ha.

Too true. It'd be like some governor of Alaska becoming Vice President, or something similarly crazy.
 
2009-09-11 01:18:12 PM  
Hey you cant blame the Cons! What would the Liberals have done different? I mean Stephen Harper is an economist guys! It's the best we've got....


Ugh fark the conservatives and the liberals... My friend is an assistant to an MP, we try to not talk politics cause I'd just kick him in the teeth and he'd punch me in the sack.
 
2009-09-11 01:20:35 PM  
Bondith: Remember when the the government would end up with a bigger surplus than it predicted? Martin expected 1.9 billion and got 9.1. Even Rick Mercer was impressed.

That doesn't happen anymore.


Oil prices have gone down, and the whole global economic crisis thing didn't help, since we're an exporting country.

Seriously, I'll blame Harper for a lot of stuff, but Canada's finances don't turn on a dime. He's a douche, but he gets a pass from this Liberal on that, at least.
 
2009-09-11 01:21:22 PM  
"I have no idea what's going on..."

Sounds like the CONservative government, in general. They've had no real long-term plan, and have been going away from their 'traditional' values to maintain power.

We need to add the Jim Flaherty Face to the Canadian political lexicon. Every time I see a picture of the guy or see him on TV, he has this bewildered "I am way over my head" look to him.

www.cbc.ca
1.bp.blogspot.com

/hotlinked
 
2009-09-11 01:23:00 PM  
GraysonAC: Y'know, I don't like Harper any more than most (I voted Liberal federally), but I really farking wish the solution to government not working as planned would stop being "REFERENDUM!"

Dear Government Parties,
Please govern the country, and quit masturbating furiously at a chance to grab more political power for your party.
Fark you,
- Canadians


They don't really have a lot of options. Harper showed his stripes when he decided to go after their funding.

Imho, the whole "government with the most seats gets the government" approach is flawed - in the case of a minority, a coalition should be the default approach. Let parties present coalition plans and the House, at large, can vote on them. If a party has majority, they can take the government singlehandedly. If they have a minority, then they need to find somebody on the floor they can compromise with. It would stop all these asinine deadlocks.
 
2009-09-11 01:24:52 PM  
Well he should stop getting high to come up with ideas. He should come up with ideas, THEN get high to celebrate.
 
2009-09-11 01:25:54 PM  
The most amusing thing about that article, was I read it last night and it was right after a friend of mine insisted things would be worse under the Liberals. I highly disagree. The Conservatives are essentially Canada's worst party. Even better yet: These are the morans who farked up Ontario under Harris. Why did anyone vote for them?

Führer err Dictator err President Harper said it best: We won't know Canada anymore after him. I wish someone had the balls to for the treehugging-socialist-liberal coalition and kick his ass out.

/voted Liberal
//voting Green
 
2009-09-11 01:26:19 PM  
GraysonAC: Bondith: Remember when the the government would end up with a bigger surplus than it predicted? Martin expected 1.9 billion and got 9.1. Even Rick Mercer was impressed.

That doesn't happen anymore.

Oil prices have gone down, and the whole global economic crisis thing didn't help, since we're an exporting country.

Seriously, I'll blame Harper for a lot of stuff, but Canada's finances don't turn on a dime. He's a douche, but he gets a pass from this Liberal on that, at least.


Oil prices are down from when the Liberals were in power? Really?

year price infl adjusted
2000 $27.39 $34.29
2001 $23.00 $28.03
2002 $22.81 $27.33
2003 $27.69 $32.47
2004 $37.66 $42.97
2005 $50.04 $55.21
2006 $58.30 $62.36
2007 $64.20 $66.66
2008 $91.48 $91.35

Current - $70 something. . .


Maybe if Harper hadn't gone and cut taxes, you know, the INCOME side of govt. they wouldn't be ins om much trouble. But since there goal is to gut government and kill programs the best way to do it is to cut income and be "forced" to reduce spending. Say goodbye to the Canada you know and love, the Cons are going to leave an empty shell behind.
 
2009-09-11 01:27:24 PM  
Flaherty, you dumb fark. Dammit.
 
2009-09-11 01:28:06 PM  
GraysonAC: Y'know, I don't like Harper any more than most (I voted Liberal federally), but I really farking wish the solution to government not working as planned would stop being "REFERENDUM!"

Dear Government Parties,
Please govern the country, and quit masturbating furiously at a chance to grab more political power for your party.
Fark you,
- Canadians


The problem with today's Conservative Party is that it's been completely co-opted by Reform morons. The Red Tory's that gave the party at least a modicum of sanity were expelled and replaced with Republican-wannabes. They aren't at all interested in balancing the budget because they're following the same plan Regan used to dismantle the US's social system:

1) Cut taxes
2) Spend outrageous amounts on pointless things like the military and feel-good campaigns (tax free savings account) that help few.
3) Claim that government spending is out of control and thus that we will have to make 'sacrifice' some of our popular social programs. No one would ever accept such cuts outright, but if the budget has to be balanced the answer is never to rescind the tax cuts and stupid spending that got us into the mess in the first place.
 
2009-09-11 01:28:11 PM  
The obvious solution to this is to bump the GST back up to 7% where it should be. Cutting that tax was a retarded political pandering move with no basis in good economics or reality. I'll vote for any political party that offers to raise the GST back up.

If they offset the GST tax increase with a corresponding decrease in income tax, that'd be peachy, but I'd wait until the deficit recovers before making that move. Borrowing money unnecessarily angers me.

/Serious.
 
2009-09-11 01:32:16 PM  
NeuroticMan: The obvious solution to this is to bump the GST back up to 7% where it should be. Cutting that tax was a retarded political pandering move with no basis in good economics or reality. I'll vote for any political party that offers to raise the GST back up.

If they offset the GST tax increase with a corresponding decrease in income tax, that'd be peachy, but I'd wait until the deficit recovers before making that move. Borrowing money unnecessarily angers me.

/Serious.


Isn't that more regressive? GST is flat, while income tax is progressive. Wouldn't a cut to income tax with a corresponding GST hike be effectively a tax hike for the middle/lower-middle class and a tax cut for the rich?

Either way, playing with GST is an obviously good political move - people don't really notice exactly how much their income tax is, just a vague notion. GST is far more visceral, particularly since we, for some reason, don't hide it in a VAT like the Brits do.
 
2009-09-11 01:35:43 PM  
Pxtl:
Isn't that more regressive? GST is flat, while income tax is progressive. Wouldn't a cut to income tax with a corresponding GST hike be effectively a tax hike for the middle/lower-middle class and a tax cut for the rich?


Most of the economists said a GST cut was a stupid move, and an income tax cut was far more beneficial to the poor. GST isn't charged on things like groceries, but it can make up a big hunk of cash on luxury goods like expensive cars, electronics etc. So the GST is more of a tax on the wealthy with disposable income. Cutting the GST was purely a political move, and its coming back to bite them in the ass. They should have kept the Liberals income tax cut, that actually helped the poor.
 
2009-09-11 01:36:58 PM  
We stand On Guard for thee
 
2009-09-11 01:37:24 PM  
Bondith 2009-09-11 01:17:34 PM
Remember when the the government would end up with a bigger surplus than it predicted? Martin expected 1.9 billion and got 9.1. Even Rick Mercer was impressed.

That doesn't happen anymore.
____________________________________________________________________
Martin was a thief and a liar.

He cooked the books (ie: didn't allocate debt payment in the budget then came up with a huge "surplus" and which he put towards debt payment), stole from the EI fund, butchered the military, healthcare and education systems and created MASSIVE tax increases in doing so.

While he was doing that all the other western nations were injecting stimulus into their economies because of the MASSIVE GDP boost they (and we) recieved from the IT boom in the 90s (you know, that little thing called the internet that no one had heard about until then). Ireland even instituted free university for all and benefited from it a great deal. Why do you think that all the other western nations eliminated their deficits at the same time we did? Martin didn't touch thier budgets and most of them increased infrastructure and social spending.

Martin and Chretien did more harm then good with thier budgets. It was the IT boom which caused a massive boost to our GDP that allowed us to balance the books despite liberal mismanagement.
 
2009-09-11 01:38:43 PM  
NeuroticMan: The obvious solution to this is to bump the GST back up to 7% where it should be. Cutting that tax was a retarded political pandering move with no basis in good economics or reality. I'll vote for any political party that offers to raise the GST back up.

If they offset the GST tax increase with a corresponding decrease in income tax, that'd be peachy, but I'd wait until the deficit recovers before making that move. Borrowing money unnecessarily angers me.


I agree the GST cut was completely unnecessary, but I'd actually rather they bump income taxes up and keep the GST low for the simple fact that sales taxes are always regressive.

The one thing they definitely have to get rid of is the tax-free savings account. It's literally a ticking time bomb that only really benefits the rich. The cost right now is fairly low, as the amount of interest you'll earn on even the maximum contribution of $5000 is pretty insignificant. However, as that adds up year after year, it becomes a major expense - in twenty years it will cost us billions. And for what? Few Canadians can afford to save that much per year after maxing their RRSP contribution and investing (both of which provide more bang for the buck), meaning that the only people who can really take advantage of this are those with large amounts of disposable income. It's nothing but a tax shelter.
 
2009-09-11 01:38:58 PM  
ROBO-Jesus: The problem with today's Conservative Party is that it's been completely co-opted by Reform morons. The Red Tory's that gave the party at least a modicum of sanity were expelled and replaced with Republican-wannabes. They aren't at all interested in balancing the budget because they're following the same plan Regan used to dismantle the US's social system:

1) Cut taxes
2) Spend outrageous amounts on pointless things like the military and feel-good campaigns (tax free savings account) that help few.
3) Claim that government spending is out of control and thus that we will have to make 'sacrifice' some of our popular social programs. No one would ever accept such cuts outright, but if the budget has to be balanced the answer is never to rescind the tax cuts and stupid spending that got us into the mess in the first place.


THIS. Stephen Harper is Canada's highest-spending PM in history, by a long shot. Watching Andrew Coyne (a small-c conservative commentator) despair over the death of conservative fiscal prudence on the National when that budget was tabled last year would have been funny if it wasn't so sad.

I agree with your post in principle, however I must disagree with your characterization of military spending and the TFSA as 'feel good campaigns.' I'm in the military, so I'm biased, but I think that Canadians get very good value for the money they put into the Forces in terms of combat effectiveness vs dollars spent. Also, I've maxed out my TFSA this year (and plan to continue to do so). I think implementing it was one of the only good ideas the gov't has gotten accomplished this year. I'm also happy because with the market recovery, my TFSA is up SIXTEEN PERCENT since January. Wooo!
 
2009-09-11 01:41:04 PM  
Hey guys ... remember that we bought a car company? Remember that we had 3,000,000 people go on pogey? Remember that Ontario (onetime economic engine) is now a recipient of transfer payments? Remember that tax revenues have collapsed because people really aren't making as much? Where the fark do you think the money is coming in from? Sure as Hell people would howl if the money stopped flowing out.

/Think people, please.
//Yes they made mistake, any other party could have done better?
 
2009-09-11 01:43:36 PM  
The next Question Period in Parliament is going to be epic
 
2009-09-11 01:45:15 PM  
Pxtl: NeuroticMan: The obvious solution to this is to bump the GST back up to 7% where it should be. Cutting that tax was a retarded political pandering move with no basis in good economics or reality. I'll vote for any political party that offers to raise the GST back up.

If they offset the GST tax increase with a corresponding decrease in income tax, that'd be peachy, but I'd wait until the deficit recovers before making that move. Borrowing money unnecessarily angers me.

/Serious.

Isn't that more regressive? GST is flat, while income tax is progressive. Wouldn't a cut to income tax with a corresponding GST hike be effectively a tax hike for the middle/lower-middle class and a tax cut for the rich?

Either way, playing with GST is an obviously good political move - people don't really notice exactly how much their income tax is, just a vague notion. GST is far more visceral, particularly since we, for some reason, don't hide it in a VAT like the Brits do.


Ah, but the GST IS a progressive tax! Think about what poor people spend most of their money on: Groceries, rent, kids clothes. None of those items have GST applied to them (except for junk food, anyways). The people paying the most GST are the people who are going out buying TVs, new cars, fridges, etc, etc. In other words, the upper middle class and the upper class. If I had my way, the GST would be at 10%, offset by an increase in the minimum threshold of income that everyone gets free before they have to pay income taxes.

That way, the working poor would get a significant income tax break and more of the tax burden would be imposed on the consumption of the upper classes (including me, I suppose.)
 
2009-09-11 01:47:31 PM  
apeman12: So, not trying to (really) stoke the flames (much), but how much better off would they be if they hadn't caved to the Liberals and NDP in trying to keep the government together from the Coalition of the Assinine?

You mean like how Harper toppled the Martin gov't?
 
2009-09-11 01:48:22 PM  
NeuroticMan:
I agree with your post in principle, however I must disagree with your characterization of military spending and the TFSA as 'feel good campaigns.' I'm in the military, so I'm biased, but I think that Canadians get very good value for the money they put into the Forces in terms of combat effectiveness vs dollars spent. Also, I've maxed out my TFSA this year (and plan to continue to do so). I think implementing it was one of the only good ideas the gov't has gotten accomplished this year. I'm also happy because with the market recovery, my TFSA is up SIXTEEN PERCENT since January. Wooo!

I made another post detailing my criticism of the TFSA, and why it's (overall) a bad program. As for military spending, a bit more is in order considering a) the military has been fairly starved in some areas and b) we are actually in a war, but I don't buy all the rhetoric about "arctic sovereignty" and honestly think that Afghanistan is just a waste of lives and money.
 
2009-09-11 01:49:50 PM  
The_Fuzz: This guy is a moron, and a key reason the cons need to go. Remember last November? No Deficits! surpluses as far as the eye can see! Come February, oops, I guess there will, be a $32 billion deficit! Spring comes! Oops, $50 billion! Now its $55 billion! So in one year, he went from surpluses to a huge deficit, and no hope in sight for the next 5 years. Well done, moran.

Stolen from here (new window)

Feb. 5, 2008. "The way to manage this economy through difficult global times is not-as the Liberal Party would do-to drive us into deficit."

Oct. 7, 2008. "I know economists will say that we can run a small deficit, but the problem is once you cross that line, as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control, and we want to avoid the kind of government, household and trade deficits we see in the United States."

Oct. 14, 2008. "We'll never go back into deficit."

Oct. 17, 2008. "I believe, based on everything I've seen so far, that there's no reason why the government of Canada won't stay in balance, why we can't maintain a balanced budget this year," Harper said, speaking after a meeting in Quebec City with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. But for future years, he said it would be premature to say if his government will be able to maintain a surplus. "Others are speculating about future years. I don't think we're yet in position to know all the information in that regard and I think it would be premature to speculate on that."

Nov. 6, 2008. "One message was very clear. Don't be afraid to run a deficit if the deficit is in the best interests of the economy."

Nov. 24, 2008. "The government of Canada today is in surplus," he said Sunday at the conclusion of the summit. "The government of Canada today is not planning a deficit. But if the government of Canada decides ... that we do have to engage in fiscal stimulus, that government spending is essential not just to shore up economic activity but investment markets, that would be the occasion we would go into what would be called a cyclic or a short-term deficit. But we would only do that if we can assure ourselves that we can do that while preserving a structural surplus, that any return to a normal level of economic growth will immediately take us out of deficit. And that's the only condition under which we would consider that set of actions."

Nov. 27, 2008. "Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, Canada is not currently running a deficit and this is thanks to the good management of the Minister of Finance, who will present his economic and fiscal update later today."

Dec. 1, 2008. "If we run a deficit of $30 billion in this country, we are running a structural deficit. It took a long time to get out of that problem. We have taken the long-term view, the view that says we have to help Canadian business with the Bank of Canada, with Bill C-50, with ensuring adequate credit in this country. There are more provisions in that regard in the fall economic statement, all good for the country, not running big deficits."

Dec. 16, 2008. "We're going to have to run a deficit, do some spending measures we hadn't planned on doing, but I think, if we do those things, we should be able to come out of this (economic downturn) pretty strong in due course."

Jan. 23, 2009. "I think we're in a rare time where you need a deficit."

Jan. 27, 2009. "There will be no long-running or permanent deficit ... As the economy recovers, we fully expect to emerge from deficit and return to surplus within five years."

May 14, 2009. "Our deficits will be large, but they will be temporary," Harper told Quebec municipal leaders gathered for an annual convention. "In fact, in the short term, they will be as large as they have to be to help us weather this recession. As a country, we can afford it. But only if these deficits are temporary and our stimulus spending ends when the recession ends."

May 26, 2009. "We will run a substantial short-term deficit this year which I would estimate at more than $50 billion."

June 11, 2009. "Our deficit will be significant but is affordable."

June 13, 2009. "He's wrong," Flaherty told journalists in a conference call from a G8 finance ministers' meeting in Lecce, Italy. "Because he says growth rates likely will be slower than I had predicted. Now, if you make an assumption with respect to lower growth rates, then you get the results that he postulates. But anybody can do that."

June 25, 2009. "If you take out the one-time spending, we have a deficit of only about 1.5% of GDP and we should easily recover from that in the two years following the recession."

July 10, 2009. "We will allow the deficit to persist if necessary. We will not, in order to meet some timetable, start raising taxes and cutting programs. That's a very dumb policy ... If the recession turns out to be longer than that, for example, or the recovery turns out to be shallower, then that will change the pattern of the recovery from the current deficit."
 
2009-09-11 01:54:04 PM  
Oh, boy, I just read that Harper wants to let the Europeans fish in Canadian waters as well as set quotas after they banned seal products in the EU.

Newfoundland is going to have a farking freak out about this.
 
2009-09-11 01:54:33 PM  
ROBO-Jesus: NeuroticMan: The obvious solution to this is to bump the GST back up to 7% where it should be. Cutting that tax was a retarded political pandering move with no basis in good economics or reality. I'll vote for any political party that offers to raise the GST back up.

If they offset the GST tax increase with a corresponding decrease in income tax, that'd be peachy, but I'd wait until the deficit recovers before making that move. Borrowing money unnecessarily angers me.

I agree the GST cut was completely unnecessary, but I'd actually rather they bump income taxes up and keep the GST low for the simple fact that sales taxes are always regressive.

The one thing they definitely have to get rid of is the tax-free savings account. It's literally a ticking time bomb that only really benefits the rich. The cost right now is fairly low, as the amount of interest you'll earn on even the maximum contribution of $5000 is pretty insignificant. However, as that adds up year after year, it becomes a major expense - in twenty years it will cost us billions. And for what? Few Canadians can afford to save that much per year after maxing their RRSP contribution and investing (both of which provide more bang for the buck), meaning that the only people who can really take advantage of this are those with large amounts of disposable income. It's nothing but a tax shelter.


Yeah, it's a tax-shelter, I'll agree with you on that, but I don't think the consequences will be as grave as you're painting here. For one thing, I've already paid income tax on the money I'm depositing in my TFSA, unlike my RRSP where the money I contribute is tax-free completely. The only tax holiday I get is on the capital gains of any increases in my investments in the market which MIGHT add up to a few hundred dollars per year, per $5000 invested in my TFSA. So, a few hundred dollars per year, times lets say half of all Canadians who MIGHT max out their accounts, and we're only looking at 2 billion dollars of revenue loss per year for the government.

When you consider how beneficial it is to a country to encourage citizens to save money, rather than run their lives on credit, I think the benefits to society outweigh the negatives on government finances.
 
2009-09-11 01:54:46 PM  
 
2009-09-11 01:58:20 PM  
Bondith: Remember when the the government would end up with a bigger surplus than it predicted? Martin expected 1.9 billion and got 9.1. Even Rick Mercer was impressed.

Martin was also fudging his numbers though; he'd estimate low knowing full well that the final result would be higher.

Pxtl: Imho, the whole "government with the most seats gets the government" approach is flawed - in the case of a minority, a coalition should be the default approach. Let parties present coalition plans and the House, at large, can vote on them. If a party has majority, they can take the government singlehandedly. If they have a minority, then they need to find somebody on the floor they can compromise with. It would stop all these asinine deadlocks.

I think part of the problem is that we were so used to majorities that people still haven't adjusted to minorities yet. Therefore, as much as they talk about how it's nice because minorities have to compromise, what they mean is that the parties they don't like have to compromise with the one they do, and damned if the one they do will deign it necessary to compromise.

Personally, I want to see us more to some form of PR; majorities would become virtually impossible save in a few odd cases (Mulroney's 50.03% of the vote in 1984, for example), which would require parties to actually work together rather than forever chasing after the golden ring of majority government.

The Itis: The next Question Period in Parliament is going to be epic

Really? Because I can already predict that it's going to be a bunch of people shouting at the opposite benches, lots of angry red-faced finger-jabbing, lots of talking point soundbites, lots of avoiding the questions, and no actual substance.

And that's just from John Baird...
 
2009-09-11 01:59:30 PM  
NeuroticMan: Pxtl: NeuroticMan: The obvious solution to this is to bump the GST back up to 7% where it should be. Cutting that tax was a retarded political pandering move with no basis in good economics or reality. I'll vote for any political party that offers to raise the GST back up.

If they offset the GST tax increase with a corresponding decrease in income tax, that'd be peachy, but I'd wait until the deficit recovers before making that move. Borrowing money unnecessarily angers me.

/Serious.

Isn't that more regressive? GST is flat, while income tax is progressive. Wouldn't a cut to income tax with a corresponding GST hike be effectively a tax hike for the middle/lower-middle class and a tax cut for the rich?

Either way, playing with GST is an obviously good political move - people don't really notice exactly how much their income tax is, just a vague notion. GST is far more visceral, particularly since we, for some reason, don't hide it in a VAT like the Brits do.

Ah, but the GST IS a progressive tax! Think about what poor people spend most of their money on: Groceries, rent, kids clothes. None of those items have GST applied to them (except for junk food, anyways). The people paying the most GST are the people who are going out buying TVs, new cars, fridges, etc, etc. In other words, the upper middle class and the upper class. If I had my way, the GST would be at 10%, offset by an increase in the minimum threshold of income that everyone gets free before they have to pay income taxes.

That way, the working poor would get a significant income tax break and more of the tax burden would be imposed on the consumption of the upper classes (including me, I suppose.)


You also get a GST rebate if your earnings don't cross a certain line (I think that's how it works)
 
2009-09-11 02:00:12 PM  
FunkOut: Oh, boy, I just read that Harper wants to let the Europeans fish in Canadian waters as well as set quotas after they banned seal products in the EU.

Newfoundland is going to have a farking freak out about this.


You're joking. Please be joking.
 
2009-09-11 02:00:17 PM  
OK maybe just me, but did anyone else have a double-take on the article photo and think Ricky Gervais?
 
2009-09-11 02:03:20 PM  
As usual finance minister Flatulence exposes his shortcomings. Stand by to tighten your belts because the Conservatives don't begin to understand how to run an economy.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report