Federal Election Thread

[NLengr]

Marriage was a religious ceremony before the federal government even existed.

 

That doesn't give them exclusive rights over a word. Besides, marriage predates organized religion anyway. My jest about the word says nothing about the points I made about the charter and the legality of what was proposed.

 

As for the pic, it's basically a statement that a flat tax provides more relative benefits to the wealthy, than to the middle and lower classes. Tax cuts to the wealthy as a benefit for all is a staple of supply side economics. That was a core idea in Reaganomics. It doesn't work. The pic has nothing to do with "rich people keeping cash in their house?".

 

The economy didn't improve after Reagan. It was already doing well in the mid 1980's. There was a recession in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Didn't recover until after Clinton took power.

[blind_synergy]

Not saying that you are wrong, I don't have alot of information on this topic but is there any evidence of what you said? What do you mean by "sit on their money"? Worst case scenario they have it sitting in banks at low interests rates where the bank is basically using it for it's own investment purposes, thus stimulating the economy in some way. Best case they use it more actively to invest, start businesses, finance their kids education...

I'm just not sure what you mean by "sitting on money". Would an ideal society be one where everyone lives paycheck to paycheck?

 

The most recent example to look at would be the 2001 Bush tax cuts; there's no real evidence that they worked (yet Republicans were dead set on extending them; the biggest effect of the tax-cuts was probably the rise of income inequality). Anyways, there's much more involved than what I said in my simplified example. There isn't an infinite amount of wealth to circulate in an economy, and there is absolutely no firm evidence that trickle-down economics works (or horse-and-sparrow theory or supply-side economics or whatever you want to call it).

 

Economist sources: Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, William Gale, Peter Orszag, and Mark Zandi.

[Erk]

I'll add mine too (dream platform):

-Pull out of Afghanistan and only get into war in situations where we've been attacked and keep the mission direct, simple, and quick (airstrikes)

-Push for more arctic military presence.

-Let the provinces handle 100% of healthcare, EI, pensions, welfare, etc.

-Get rid of equalization payments.

-Cut all arts/cultural/multicultural funding and sell the CBC.

-Dismantle the CRTC.

-Legalize marijuana and regulate and tax it.

-abolish the senate.

-Ban immigration of 55 yr old and older.

-Make taxes fair so the rich aren't unfairly targeted (flat rate?)

-Protect manufacturing jobs.

-Let provinces regulate abortion and same-sex marriage issues (notwithstanding clause?)

-bring back the death penalty for most horrible crimes (rape, murder).

 

Wow, count me as another one that agrees with hardly anything in your platform not that you're a bad person, I just wouldn't vote for you in politics.

[blind_synergy]

And for my tax proposal, I think its completely fair. Obviously for those making next to nothing, they should be exempt from such a flat rate but I think its bordering on the line of socialism when we specfically target the rich. In addition, what drive is there to pursue a work harder if you have to give more to the gov't? I know you guys say it now, but wait until you become doctors and how many of you try to find loopholes and what-not to keep what you earned. Don't get me wrong, I don't care about money but its called fairness. There is a duty to give a certain amount for services but not to the point where you are chosen out of line and asked more a bigger portion of your pie.

 

If you`re the fat guy holding twenty pies with blueberry stains all around your mouth, I think it`s completely fair; especially since that guy is allowed to live in a country where he can horde so many pies.

 

What you`re proposing seems to be based more in some misbegotten philosophical ideal rather than pragmatic fiscal sense; any thoughtful economist would tell you such a flat tax rate would lead to a massive income gulf between the poor and wealthy thus stratifying an already stratified society, not to mention gutting almost all of our government programs.

[seeking1]

What you're warning of is only under high tax rates. If we lower taxes, obviously by cutting things like culture funding, to the point where there is no difference, any economist would tell you that the effect would be minimal all the while maximizing fairness.

 

Good joke, lol.

[NLengr]

The CRTC is a total mess. I agree. Needs to be overhauled at a minimum.

 

As for the argument that without reducing taxes on the wealthy, people won't be motivated to work harder, that's complete baloney. Under our current tax system people are still working hard to get ahead. I haven't seen any upper class people sddenly quit working because it's too hard to get even more wealth. You are making a philosophical argument that doesn't apply in the real world.

 

As for funding tax cuts, cutting arts and the CBC would not even dent the amount of money you would need to find to cut taxes. Healthcare, soctal programs, military spending, infastructure all toss comsume way way more and would need to be reduced to apply large tax cuts. Either way, given the fact we are now running a deficit, we shouldn't be talking tax cuts. We should be trying to balance the budget. As has been previously stated, tax cuts to the well off don't create wealth in the real world.

 

As for maximizing fairness, it seems hardly fair to shift additional tax burden to the middle and lower classes, who are least able to afford it, while giving less tax burden to those upper class persons who are already doing quite well for themselves.

[blind_synergy]

What you're warning of is only under high tax rates. If we lower taxes, obviously by cutting things like culture funding, to the point where there is no difference, any economist would tell you that the effect would be minimal all the while maximizing fairness.

 

A flat tax rate, regardless of whether it's high or low, would INCREASE income inequality.

 

If A makes $100 a year and B makes $10000 a year, the ratio between their remaining incomes once taxes are deducted would remain the same wether it's a 10% or 25% income tax rates.

[blind_synergy]

The CRTC is a total mess. I agree. Needs to be overhauled at a minimum.

 

As for the argument that without reducing taxes on the wealthy, people won't be motivated to work harder, that's complete baloney. Under our current tax system people are still working hard to get ahead. I haven't seen any upper class people sddenly quit working because it's too hard to get even more wealth. You are making a philosophical argument that doesn't apply in the real world.

 

As for funding tax cuts, cutting arts and the CBC would not even dent the amount of money you would need to find to cut taxes. Healthcare, soctal programs, military spending, infastructure all toss comsume way way more and would need to be reduced to apply large tax cuts. Either way, given the fact we are now running a deficit, we shouldn't be talking tax cuts. We should be trying to balance the budget. As has been previously stated, tax cuts to the well off don't create wealth in the real world.

 

As for maximizing fairness, it seems hardly fair to shift additional tax burden to the middle and lower classes, who are least able to afford it, while giving less tax burden to those upper class persons who are already doing quite well for themselves.

 

The issues most people seem to have with the CRTC nowadays is that its rulings have consistently favoured large established Canadian corporations and done very little to protect consumers; removing it would only maintain the status quo, not change it. An overhaul, like you said, is needed (not to do away with it altogether).

 

And you're again right, cutting cultural programs wouldn't even put a dent in the budget. Perhaps he means to say the money would be saved by downloading all costs to the provinces? Then we'd be having the same debate about provincial taxes rather than federal.

[NLengr]

By the way, can you cite any neutral sources that state the CBC is biased?

 

As for the election, the Cons under Harper have always been extremely media hostile. They will go to great lengths to control the message and limit the press's ability to report. This benefits NOBODY in the public. A govt. that won't answer public questions is a government you can't trust. The cons are pissed whenever any media asks them anything that's not scripted.

 

http://www.caj.ca/?p=692

 

Wasn't the Harper conservatives the ones who promised "Transparency" In government? Guess that was a lie too.

[NLengr]

So your reply is you don't have any sources then?

 

Opinion isn't fact.

[blind_synergy]

So what are you trying to say? We should get involved with A and B so that both end up having the same income. Its not the job of the government to make sure everyone is equal (communism). Its their job to make sure everyone had an equal opportunity.

 

The CBC is biased to the core. There's no need for any sources. Its a common fact just like National Post is conservative and Toronto Star is liberal.

 

I wasn't talking about fairness and philosophy; this brings us back to my initial point that you're thinking ideologically rather than pragmatically. Ballooning income inequality is nothing but bad for the national economy; it would crush the middle class.

 

Anyways, your last argument is nothing but a straw man. I said a flat tax rate would increase income inequality. You said it wouldn't if the taxes were low enough. I argued, effectively I think, that the tax rate in of itself wouldn't matter. You then followed up by pretty much calling me a commie, which is our straw man.

[NLengr]

He's not saying the govt. should regulate earnings to ensure absolute equality. Address his points with your own counterpoints refuting them instead of attacking a strawman argument.

[NLengr]

Its not just my opinion. Most journalists and Canadians that care think this too.

 

Again, if it's that common of a belief some sources from an unbiased group should be easy to find.

 

Until you provide evidence, then yes, it's your opinion.

 

I could say that vaccines have a role on autism, lots of the Canadian population would agree with me, but it doesn't make it fact.

[LupeFiasco]

I think everyone will agree that CEOs and other company executives are VASTLY overpaid. Back in the day, income inequality wasn't much of an issue (60 years ago). The root cause of income inequality, in my opinion, comes from society fraying away from "valuing" manufacturing and producing goods. Nowadays, people are making money from money, and they are really good at it.

 

Things need to change.

 

Those who believe in trickle down economics say the Unions are partly to blame. I see where they're coming from BUT corporations can't complain about taxes and the like; they always seem to find ways to evade them. For example, GE paid nothing in taxes last year!!!! And they actually got like a 4 billion dollar rebate. I don't have a relevant Canadian example.

 

Regardless, that is ridiculous!

 

Thoughts?

[sgt.pepper]

Again, if it's that common of a belief some sources from an unbiased group should be easy to find.

 

Until you provide evidence, then yes, it's your opinion.

 

I could say that vaccines have a role on autism, lots of the Canadian population would agree with me, but it doesn't make it fact.

 

LOL. Do you read newspapers with a brain? I don't watch the CBC, so i can't comment, but the Toronto star. Why don't you read once a while. Count how many articles are written that highlight negative things about liberals and their polices. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics .

[NLengr]

First, you're misspelling CBC. It's not spelled Toronto Star. We were not discussing the Toronto Star.

 

Second, the Toronto Star is a privately owned newspaper. They can print the opinion pieces they like, just as the Globe and the Post can do the same. This is beside the point anyway.

 

Finally, ironically, you start making childish insults regarding intelligence, but you fail to comprehend what the entire point of the post was. Go back, read it again, and attempt to refute my posting with facts, or at least something on the same topic. Once again I will ask, can you provide unbiased sources showing that the CBC is a biased source of news?

 

By the way, my regular national newspapers are both the Post and the Globe. I have never picked up a copy of the star.

[Erk]

The CBC is biased to the core. There's no need for any sources. Its a common fact just like National Post is conservative and Toronto Star is liberal.

 

Funny, then, that in my large international news-gathering group working to accumulate data on the Japan earthquake and tsunami, CBC was considered one of the top English sources for unbiased, clear, non-sensational reporting. Yep, that's something we should get rid of. Interestingly, the other major one was the BBC... which is also publicly funded.

 

Some may argue that CBC has issues with its portrayal of the Canadian government, although I personally disagree strongly (they criticise everyone equally, and frankly we've not had a good enough government to be beyond critique in decades at least), but in apolitical reporting they are one of the very best I've seen. This is from the perspective of reading multiple news sites from different countries, including non-English news sites.

[blind_synergy]

I didn't call you a commie so don't make these weird claims. You have no evidence whatsoever that a low flat rate tax would destroy the middle class nor would it increase income inequality. Even if the rich saved whatever money they saved, it wouldn't hurt the economy as its not spending that boosts the economy, its production.

 

There are two main reasons why economists occassionally toy with the idea of flat tax rates.

 

1. The rich actually might pay more than they would with a progressive tax system, provided the the tax rates aren't too low (25%-40% usually suggested as the minimum rates)! The flat tax rate is supposed to simplify the system and eliminate tax shelters, write-offs, and rebates.

 

2. People would spend less money on services like accountants and lawyers as well as reduce government costs on administrative overhead. The Frasier Institute (a right-leaning think tank) estimates Canada spends around $30 billion yearly on those kinds of services.

 

The first reason is also why people with the "It's my money!" ideological leanings reject flat tax rates; they might have to pay more!

 

Increasing the income inequality gulf is of course the main reason economists generally shoot the idea down.

 

Paul Krugman (as well as others such as the Tax Policy Center and John Weeks), Nobel-prize winning economist and guy who's accurately predicted everything that's happened in basically the last ten years, partially attributes the growing income inequality gulf in the States to the Bush tax-cuts (which lowered income tax rates overall, but moved the percentage paid by highest tier earners closer to the percentage paid by lowest tier earners; the rates were partially flattened).

[blind_synergy]

I've heard of Krugman too. The thing is that there are more than a few who've accurately predicted what's happened. Even Ron Paul, an obstetrician, predicted what would happen and it had nothing to do with the tax cuts.

 

Ah... I now see the similarities between your dream platform and Ron Paul's.

 

Anyways, I'm at work now; I'll have to address this later. Save me the research and tell me what the inimitable Dr. Paul suggests as a driving forces for income inequality.

[Wayward son]

And for my tax proposal, I think its completely fair. Obviously for those making next to nothing, they should be exempt from such a flat rate but I think its bordering on the line of socialism when we specfically target the rich. In addition, what drive is there to pursue a work harder if you have to give more to the gov't? I know you guys say it now, but wait until you become doctors and how many of you try to find loopholes and what-not to keep what you earned. Don't get me wrong, I don't care about money but its called fairness. There is a duty to give a certain amount for services but not to the point where you are chosen out of line and asked more a bigger portion of your pie.

 

I have long been amused by people saying that if you had to give more of your money to the government if you make more then there would be no incentive to work harder/make more. And I say that as one of the few people on this board (I would assume) who before going back to school to get to a degree and attempt to get into medical school was making well into the 6 figures. Nor do I think that a flat tax could in anyway be considered fair.

 

Now I have met several people who thought that if they worked overtime it would push them into a higher income tax bracket and they would actually make less overall money than before. They thought as an example that if they made $69,000 in a 25% percent bracket they would pay $17,250 in taxes but if they made a thousand dollars more and entered a 30% bracket they would pay $21,000 so would pay almost $4000 more for making a $1000 more money and would actually lose money for working overtime. These people were discouraged from making more because they were completely ignorant as to how a progressive tax system worked. That is not the fault of the tax system - but, I guess, a failure of the education system.

 

However, let me give you an example where if I make 100 grand I pay 30 grand in taxes and am left with 70 grand. Should I therefore have no incentive to make another 50 grand on top of that if I am going to be taxed at 50% and only take home another 25 grand? Absolutely not! Because even though I am taxed at a higher rate for the additional money that money is actually far more valuable to me. It is worth more because my basic expenses don't go up. That extra 25 grand is all money that I can just spend on whatever I want. My mortgage payments are already made. My other expenses like heat, hydro, water, food, car payments, etc are all already covered. I can do things with that money to make it even more valuable (something that would be harder, if not impossible, to do with the lower taxed first 100 grand). I can invest it and make even more money. I can pay off my mortgage faster and save a ton of interest payments in the long run. That 25 grand is really worth as much - if not more - to me and my enjoyment of life as the first 70 grand was. I know - I have been there. Paying less in taxes wouldn't have caused me to work more, but probably less in the long run. In my 20's had my plan outlined for what I was going to do before I retired (which obviously I have ditched now, but followed it to the letter for several years) and the faster my house was paid off and the faster I could put away money the less (not more) I had to work.

 

Of course the other question is SHOULD I have been required to pay a higher percentage of my earnings to the government because I made more money than most other people. My answer is yes. There are many countries in the world where I could have been born and raised and not had the opportunity to achieve what I achieved here - despite having the same intelligence, work ethic, parents etc. The difference was the opportunities that Canadian society granted me. I owe that society for those opportunities - opportunities that were not available to my grandparents and great grandparents etc but who did what they could to ensure that the next generation of Canadians would have better opportunities than they had. That doesn't mean that I would happy if the government started blowing money left, right and center. But it does mean that those who have benefitted the most from being born into a society that rewards those born with the certain set of attributes we happen to have should pay the most to ensure that those born in the future don't lack the opportunities that we have been given.

[Der Kaiser]

There are two main reasons why economists occassionally toy with the idea of flat tax rates.

 

1. The rich actually might pay more than they would with a progressive tax system, provided the the tax rates aren't too low (25%-40% usually suggested as the minimum rates)! The flat tax rate is supposed to simplify the system and eliminate tax shelters, write-offs, and rebates.

 

2. People would spend less money on services like accountants and lawyers as well as reduce government costs on administrative overhead. The Frasier Institute (a right-leaning think tank) estimates Canada spends around $30 billion yearly on those kinds of services.

 

.

 

Good points. The tax rate should be flat with no means of evading paying it. All these loopholes just favour the elites, who have the knowledge and resources to exploit them.

 

Another solid reason for a flat tax rate is that it would force governments to spend within a budget (assuming it was fixed). This might help avoid different parties (*cough* conservatives and liberals) trying to win votes by giving money to certain ridings/voter blocs.

 

And fyi, I am not saying a flat rate is fair (most fair might be a better way of putting it), but I do feel it is the most pragmatic means for a government to generate revenue without negatively affecting economic activity.

[Wayward son]

Good points. The tax rate should be flat with no means of evading paying it. All these loopholes just favour the elites, who have the knowledge and resources to exploit them.

 

Why not remove the loopholes instead? And treat rich people who are guilty of tax evasion the same way we treat poor people who steal?

 

Another solid reason for a flat tax rate is that it would force governments to spend within a budget (assuming it was fixed).

 

This statement makes no sense to me. The only thing that would force a government to spend within a budget is legislation specific to that demand. It would come with both positives and negatives. For instance if there was an economic downturn and they had to stay within a budget (by which I assume you mean not run an deficit) then they would have to cut program spending such as health care.

 

And fyi, I am not saying a flat rate is fair (most fair might be a better way of putting it), but I do feel it is the most pragmatic means for a government to generate revenue without negatively affecting economic activity.

 

Based on what evidence do you conclude that a flat tax would affect economic activity less negatively (or more positively) than a progressive tax system? Canada had a far more progressive taxation system in the past at a time when GDP growth was much higher than it is now with our more flattened tax brackets. Yes average annual growth GDP was higher in the 60s and 70s than it has been since. It fell in the 80s further in the 90s and further still in 00s. And somehow the economy managed to grow much faster in the 60s and 70s despite having a corporate tax rate as high as 41% (where was the incentive for companies to do anything???) which fell to 29% by 2000 and 15.5% now. I suspect that by 2020 it will 0% and by 2030 we will be paying corporations a reverse tax of 15%.....

 

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." --Quote by that ardent communist Adam Smith...who the right ignore while pretending to follow.

[larva]

First off: I love this thread.

 

The differing views on taxation are very interesting. As a federal employee, I feel like I can't complain too much about taxes since I'm getting some of them. But, look at everyone on this forum. We are all either benefiting from, or fighting for, a seat in a highly subsidized medical education program. After that, we are planning to work and bill our respective provinces for the services we provide - and yet somehow they should pay for it all with lower taxes? Health care is always by far the biggest government expenditure.

 

I suppose one way that the government could make up for an income tax cut would be to tax discretionary spending, such as with a goods and service tax that would...oh wait, I believe the government left income taxes where they were and then cut the GST so poor people would be happy that they saved $0.25 on their new toy, while rich people could be really happy that they saved $ 10 000 on their new investment property

 

No matter who you support in this election, I hope you can see the humour in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGXGwr3nr7g

[igeorgex]

that video was friggin hilarious!

 

if any PM101ers are from McMaster (or live in the Hamilton area) then I really encourage you to take a few hours on Thursday and join the VOTE MOB!!!

 

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=216054998408611

 

this seems like a really great initiative to show the Feds that students do care about politics and that you can't just ignore us when it comes to the decisions that are made. I'll be going and I hope to see some of you there

[NLengr]

No matter who you support in this election, I hope you can see the humour in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGXGwr3nr7g

 

Hardly surprising, the Conservatives have been using the US Republican/Tea Party play book step by step for the past 5 or 6 years now.

 

Watching the Cons campaign is like watching the Bush campaign of 2004 or the McCain campaign of 2008.