TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians

[atlanticaparty]

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

Join Us.

TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians

Taxed Enough Nova Scotians! | Facebook

 

[JLM]

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

Join Us.

TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians

Taxed Enough Nova Scotians! | Facebook

Good luck on your endeavour, you have a guargantuan chore ahead, just the start of which is getting 306 snouts out of the trough in Ottawa. Not only that but there are idiots among us who think we can tax our way back to prosperity. On average the individual spends money a lot more sensibly than the Gov't.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

Join Us.

TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians

Taxed Enough Nova Scotians! | Facebook

I suggest you join the Tea Party in USA. You will get a favorable reception there. In Canada, we just don’t go for that far right philosophy, cut taxes at any cost, and hang the deficit and the debt.

When we come out of the economic hole, I personally would support tax increase if it goes straight to reducing the budget deficit. (and is not squandered away on new programs) and provided it is also accompanied with spending cuts.

But that kind of extreme philosophy, proposing simple solutions to complex problems (cut taxes, that will fix everything) just doesn’t go down well in Canada. In Ontario, McGuinty raised taxes (by breaking an election pledge); he is as popular as ever. He used the tax increase to balance the budget and run a surplus.

 

[TenPenny]

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

Join Us.

TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians

Taxed Enough Nova Scotians! | Facebook

You cannot possibly expect anyone to believe that the 'Atlantica Party' is a grassroots organization.

 

[atlanticaparty]

I suggest you join the Tea Party in USA. You will get a favorable reception there. In Canada, we just don’t go for that far right philosophy, cut taxes at any cost, and hang the deficit and the debt.

But that kind of extreme philosophy, proposing simple solutions to complex problems (cut taxes, that will fix everything) just doesn’t go down well in Canada. In Ontario, McGuinty raised taxes (by breaking an election pledge); he is as popular as ever. He used the tax increase to balance the budget and run a surplus.

Who is saying anything about cutting taxes? We are opposing a proposed 2% HST hike to cover non-essential government spending that is out of control. That's far-right ???

 

[atlanticaparty]

You cannot possibly expect anyone to believe that the 'Atlantica Party' is a grassroots organization.

What else is it then?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Who is saying anything about cutting taxes? We are opposing a proposed 2% HST hike to cover non-essential government spending that is out of control. That's far-right ???

Well, when you said the following,

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

I got the impression that current government meant both the governments in Ottawa and in Halifax, and that your party would be opposed to any and all tax increases. If they are increasing HST by 2%, that is the matter for Nova Scotians to decide.

But as far as Ottawa is concerned, I think a policy that says that no tax increases under any circumstances (or even advocating tax cuts) is an extreme policy.

 

[ironsides]

I suggest you join the Tea Party in USA. You will get a favorable reception there. In Canada, we just don’t go for that far right philosophy, cut taxes at any cost, and hang the deficit and the debt.

When we come out of the economic hole, I personally would support tax increase if it goes straight to reducing the budget deficit. (and is not squandered away on new programs) and provided it is also accompanied with spending cuts.

But that kind of extreme philosophy, proposing simple solutions to complex problems (cut taxes, that will fix everything) just doesn’t go down well in Canada. In Ontario, McGuinty raised taxes (by breaking an election pledge); he is as popular as ever. He used the tax increase to balance the budget and run a surplus.

Nope, ya don't. Everyone does not thinks like the elitist class where you will pay anything for someone else to take care of you, make all the decisions for you. Sort of making the government your private butler. No, the Atlantica Party is showing that there is some life left up there that wants to take control of their own lives. Not even close to the Tea Party, but a good start. Solutions to our problems do not have to be complex, sometimes the simplest answers are best, and they do not have to cost more money.


"When we come out of the economic hole, I personally would support tax increase if it goes straight to reducing the budget deficit. (and is not squandered away on new programs) and provided it is also accompanied with spending cuts."

Seriously, when has either of our federal goverments ever done exactly what you said?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"When we come out of the economic hole, I personally would support tax increase if it goes straight to reducing the budget deficit. (and is not squandered away on new programs) and provided it is also accompanied with spending cuts."

Seriously, when has either of our federal goverments ever done exactly what you said?

Oh, I can think of a couple of examples, ironsides. Liberals here in Canada balanced the budget, they had to take many painful decisions, including spending cuts and tax increases. There were howls of protests, there was plenty of screaming by the Conservatives (of course), and also by special interest, advocacy groups.

However, it is the strength of our Parliamentary system that since Liberals had the majority, they could put through unpopular but necessary policies in spite of widespread opposition. They would never have been able to do it in USA.

Anyway, not only they balanced the budget as a result, they ran a healthy surplus for several years. When Bush was racking up huge deficits in USA, Liberals were running a healthy surplus here in Canada (one of the reasons why the current downturn has been a lot less severe in Canada compared to USA).

Another example was right here in Ontario. When Liberals (McGuinty) came to power, it came to light that Conservatives had heavily cooked the books, the budget deficit was 6 billion, and not 2 billion as they claimed during the campaign. It was much more difficult to balance the budget as a result. McGuinty promptly raised taxes (breaking the election pledge of not doing so), channeled all the tax increase to balancing the budget and was able to balance the budget in 2 or 3 years.

So it can be done, all it needs is the will to do it and to ignore the howls of outrage that inevitably will come from the opposition and special interest groups (and of course, having a political system which lets you do that, where there is no filibuster, helps).

 

[TenPenny]

What else is it then?

It's an organization of major businesses, and boards of trade, and the AIMS.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Oh, I can think of a couple of examples, ironsides. Liberals here in Canada balanced the budget, they had to take many painful decisions, including spending cuts and tax increases. There were howls of protests, there was plenty of screaming by the Conservatives (of course), and also by special interest, advocacy groups.

And just how do you think they balanced that budget? Gee, I dunno, I guess we take the usurious paroll taxes like UI, (euphemistically re named EI) and its surplus of $50,000,000,000 and apply it to the federal deficit of $50,000,000,000, and bingo, balanced budget. Sure, they finally knuckled under to pressure to raise the thresholds for marginal tax rates put in place by the Mulroney government that lead to bracket creep, but it took them 4 years to do that, long after the budget was balanced, but still didn't decrease payroll taxes. It is a shell game, the Liberals perfected it, (if they didn't themselves invent it). They weren't hard decisions, they had a majority, they ran the country like a dictatorship, the only effective opposition was within their own ranks. Don't you get it yet? We pay over half of our income to the government, if you don't think that is wrong there is just no hope for you.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

It's an organization of major businesses, and boards of trade, and the AIMS.

And this is bad because...?

 

[JLM]

And just how do you think they balanced that budget? Gee, I dunno, I guess we take the usurious paroll taxes like UI, (euphemistically re named EI) and its surplus of $50,000,000,000 and apply it to the federal deficit of $50,000,000,000, and bingo, balanced budget. Sure, they finally knuckled under to pressure to raise the thresholds for marginal tax rates put in place by the Mulroney government that lead to bracket creep, but it took them 4 years to do that, long after the budget was balanced, but still didn't decrease payroll taxes. It is a shell game, the Liberals perfected it, (if they didn't themselves invent it). They weren't hard decisions, they had a majority, they ran the country like a dictatorship, the only effective opposition was within their own ranks. Don't you get it yet? We pay over half of our income to the government, if you don't think that is wrong there is just no hope for you.

Bob- I think whether it is wrong or not depends on the financial situation of the guy deciding. I guess a person with an income of over $100, 000 can stand a little more tax. The rest of us are already taxed to the gills. If we have to cut back on our spending then I think the gov't should set an example. I'm not about to do it now but quite recently I checked M.P.'s travel allowance, actually in access of most Canadian's salary, it's obscene and I personally think it could be reduced by 60% before any taxes are increased one penny.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And just how do you think they balanced that budget? Gee, I dunno, I guess we take the usurious paroll taxes like UI, (euphemistically re named EI) and its surplus of $50,000,000,000 and apply it to the federal deficit of $50,000,000,000, and bingo, balanced budget.

I think you have a wrong concept of what a deficit is. The EI surplus, whatever it was, was a one time surplus only, the deficit occurs every year.

Even if liberals had used EI surplus to balance the budget, that would be only for one year, they still would have to balance the budget next year, after the surplus is gone. You cannot use the one time reserves to get rid of a recurring deficit.

Let me illustrate. Suppose a family earns 50,000 $ per year but spends 60,000. They have 20,000 $ in the bank. Do you think that using those 20,000 $ they can balance the budget? No way, they could do it for a couple of years, but the problem will still persist.

If balancing the budget was so easy, why didn’t Mulroney do it? Even the liberals took several years to do it. If it was just an accounting trick, using EI surplus to get rid of the deficit, they could have done it at a stroke of a pen, in one year (or less than a year). I remember when Liberals declared their objective of balancing the budget, most of the press was openly skeptical, they didn’t think Liberals could do it.

They had to take unpopular decisions, involving both spending cuts and tax increases. That I the only way to balance the budget.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

They weren't hard decisions, they had a majority, they ran the country like a dictatorship, the only effective opposition was within their own ranks. Don't you get it yet? We pay over half of our income to the government, if you don't think that is wrong there is just no hope for you.

They were hard decision, if it was easy, even Mulroney could have done it. As to them having a majority, that is the strength of our Parliamentary system. They had the majority, they could implement their agenda, then people can pass judgment on it in four years’ time.

They could never have balanced the budget in American style of democracy. If we had the same system as in USA, where party members can vote against their PM any time they wish, where there is a filibuster, Canada today would be drowning under a mountain of debt and deficit (with a deficit of perhaps more than 100 billion $), as they are doing in USA.

We still have a big deficit (34 billion $ in 2009), but that is much smaller than what they have in USA (1.4 trillion) even as a percentage of GDP. And it would have been even smaller if Harper had not blown away all the Liberal surplus into tax cuts, mainly benefiting the rich.

 

[atlanticaparty]

It's an organization of major businesses, and boards of trade, and the AIMS.

That's nonsense. We are a group of unaffiliated citizens. What leads you to say such a thing?

Which businesses?
Which boards of trade?
Who from AIMS is involved?
What other groups not mentioned?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Don't you get it yet? We pay over half of our income to the government, if you don't think that is wrong there is just no hope for you.

As to that, that is a myth propagated by conservatives, that we pay high taxes here in Canada. We may pay slightly higher taxes than in USA (even here, the difference is not huge, contrary to popular belief. And the comparison there is skewed, seeing that they pay separate social security tax, medical insurance etc.). However, our taxes are quite comparable with Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc, and indeed compare quite favorably with that in many developed countries.

Day 3

 

[TenPenny]

And this is bad because...?

I didn't say it was bad.

I said that it was not a grassroots oganization.

Because it isn't.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Bob- I think whether it is wrong or not depends on the financial situation of the guy deciding. I guess a person with an income of over $100, 000 can stand a little more tax. The rest of us are already taxed to the gills. If we have to cut back on our spending then I think the gov't should set an example. I'm not about to do it now but quite recently I checked M.P.'s travel allowance, actually in access of most Canadian's salary, it's obscene and I personally think it could be reduced by 60% before any taxes are increased one penny.

Quite so, JLM. One area where taxes could be increased would be in the RRSP allowance. During Liberal rule, maximum RRSP allowance was 12,500 $. Slowly it has been increasing every year, and now it stands at 21,000 $. That is a huge bonanza for the upper middle class and the rich, the two of us together can shelter 42,000 $ every year in a tax free account.

Compared to what we had during Liberal government, that represents a tax saving of about 7000 dollars per year, a huge gift to the upper classes. The maximum permissible RRSP allowance could easily be rolled back a bit to generate a bit more revenue.

Of course, that won’t generate much, as a rule, taxing upper middle class and the rich doesn’t generate much revenue (there just aren’t that many of them). Rich and upper middle classes must be taxed to achieve tax fairness, but it doesn’t generate much revenue. To raise any serious revenue, one must tax the middle class.

However, a prudent PM would go about balancing the budget as soon as the economy recovers (and that can only be done by tax increases and spending cuts) or we will go the way of USA.

 

[TenPenny]

That's nonsense. We are a group of unaffiliated citizens. What leads you to say such a thing?

Which businesses?
Which boards of trade?
Who from AIMS is involved?
What other groups not mentioned?

So, are you trying to pretend that the 'Atlantica Party' has nothing to do with the Atlantica concept that was being discussed at all the meetings last year and the year before?

That's a stretch.