Who TF was asking for them:
No one I know.
Mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What a shmuk
No tax hikes needed: Harper | Sympatico.ca Finance
No one I know.
Mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What a shmuk
No tax hikes needed: Harper | Sympatico.ca Finance
Harpo says no tax hikes needed!!!!
- Thread starter Nuggler
- Start date
So what the Cons are doing will eventually balance the budget and get rid of the national debt? Why can't I seem to swallow that?
They’re not going to cut programs, and they’re not going to raise taxes!
But hey, Her Majesty’s Government for Canada has the budget books under control!
But hey, Her Majesty’s Government for Canada has the budget books under control!
That is the conservative philosophy these days, FP. Is it any wonder that conservatism these days is synonymous with ‘borrow and spend’?
Say it isn’t so, SirJosephPorter!
But isn’t what what the conservatives accuse of the Liberal Party of Canada?!
Politicians are hypocrites. You're surprised? As far as governing Canada goes, it looks to me like both parties aren't worth goose shyte.
These days? Wasn't Reagan the one who went all out nuts on the whole 'cut taxes and increase spending and let the chips fall where they may' phylosophy?
Now as far as fiscal conservatism goes, yes, I'd rather an MP who will try to use money wisely and reduce spending if possible. But even more importantly, I want one who won't be afraid to stand up for tax increases when necessary to pay off the debt. We've seen what Reaganomics has done to the economy to our South. We needn't repeat their mistakes.
Now I hope I have such an MP to vote for come next election in my riding.
Really? I thought they accuse the left of 'tax and spend'. Strange that; are the Conservatives trying to win fiscal-conservative votes for the opposition? Because quite honestly, tax and spend has a much more fiscally conservative ring to it than borrow and spend.
Were also in a recession still,raising taxes should be the last thing they do.
Let the peeps recover,lots of folks still arent working and wont even show up on the unemployment stats for a month yet.
The stimulus package in itself was a shift of tax dollars for votes and a waste of money IMO.
Let the peeps recover,lots of folks still arent working and wont even show up on the unemployment stats for a month yet.
The stimulus package in itself was a shift of tax dollars for votes and a waste of money IMO.
If the recession is that bad, then the Bank of Canada can lower the Bank rate down to 0% if it wants to. If we're so concerned about unemployment, why are we not asking the government to lower the Bank rate?
I understand that raising taxes is usually not a good idea in a recession, but that doesn't mean we ignore balanced budgets; but as mentioned above, simply lowering the Bank rate could help to counter deflation too. In fact, we should have lowered the Bank rate down to 0% before considering any 'stimulous package', and any stimulous package should have been done on revenue (tax increase) or, better yet, on savings from previous budget surpluses accumulated in good economic times, saving for a rainy day (like the ants did rather than just sing all summer like the grasshopper).
Worse case scenario, if lowering the Bank rate right down to 0% should still not put an end to a deflationary spiral, then and only then might I support printing money, with that money going first and foremost towards the debt or, once the debt is paid off if the problem persists, professional or trade training for the unemployed along with ministries of education negotiating compatible standards for various trades and professions across provinces and maybe even countries.
I agree we need to help the unemployed, and one way could be education in a trade or profession, and another could be through negotiations between ministries of education to recognize various professional and trade qualifications between provinces, territories and countries. But a recession is still not an excuse for borrowing and spending. Had the government accumulated a surplus in good times, we wouldn't need to tax now. Since we don't have that though, the result is that we really have no choice but to either reduce spending, raise taxes or both. But no, I don't buy the idea that a recession is an excuse to borrow and spend.
Agreed for the most part, except maybe for the money gone into education, and even that has likely been mismanaged for political buyouts with some private colleges somewhere.
Quite so, Machjo. At least tax and spend does not build up the budget deficit (though excessive taxation cannot be good for the economy in the long run). If the spending absolutely cannot be cut, I would much rather taxes are raised, than borrowing the money.
Sure they accuse the left of tax and spend, and with justification. However, conservatives are great believers in borrow and spend, at least since the days of Reagan.
When it comes to economics, it is the centre that is the sensible one, not left or right. The philosophy of centre can be described as: cut spending when you can, raise taxes when you must, and above all, balance the budget.
And this is different from Trudeau's spend now and let our grandchildren pay exactly how? He is responsible for the huge debt Canadians collectively owe on. But then he was fairly far left even for a Liberal. Probably should have been a dipper but that would have never gotten him the job of PM.
I must disagree here. No taxation would be disastrous in the long run. Any country that has survived in the long run would have had taxes the whole time of its existence. So clearly, taxes per se are not bad. What is bad is for taxes to be too low or too high in the long run. The ideal is for taxes to be just high enough to generate enough revenue to cover its expenses and perhaps to couner inflation too. Only a fiscal liberal would think of taxes as being harmful in and of themselves.
I don't think this is necessarily a right or left issue. You could have a right of centre party that reduces spending as a matter of policy but is more cautious about reducing taxes, always waiting to ensure sufficient revenue before proceeding with any moderate and gradual tax reductions. Likewise, you could have a left of centre party increase taxes to generate more revenue but wait to ensure sufficient revenue and eliminate the debt before increasing spending.
In principle, both the left and right could be fiscally conservative if they wanted to. This is not a centrist monoply.
Yes, both Trudeau and Harper have proven to be fiscal liberals, perfect proof of how fiscal conservatism, or alternatively fiscal liberalism, is neither a right nor left issue. The CPC could be just as fiscally liberal or conservative as the NDp or any other party for that matter, depending on the composition of Parliament. This is why in the end, it makes more sense to pick your MP on his own personal merits as opposed to his party affiliation.
But isn’t that what I said in effect, Machjo? I said that excessive taxation cannot be good for the economy, I didn’t say that taxation isn’t good for the economy. On the contrary, taxation is essential; there cannot be a civilization without taxation.
Trudeau’s strong point was not the economy, taxslave. Trudeau is well liked, well loved in Canada (last poll put his approval above 60%) because of the stellar work he did regarding the constitution and the Charter.
His name will be remembered as long as Canada endures, mainly because of the Charter. He was not good at economic management. Mulroney on the other hand, just was terrible at economic management, without any other redeeming qualities.
My apologies there. I overlooked that important word 'excessive'. Though the term is very subjective, I do agree with you in principle.
What I don't get though is how so-called conservatives will actually defend tax cuts at all costs, even if it means going into debt. I can certainly understand their desire to reduce spending, but failing that, then taxation must cover the costs. I've actually read so-called conservatives, when the question is put to them, defend borrow-and-spend measures and then have the audacity to equate that with fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, I believe Harper and many members of the CPC fall into that false-conservative category too. That's not any kind of principled conservatism, but rather ignorant populism, not related to any particular ideology other than a 'keep my money in my pockets and fight the evildoers abroad' mentality.
These days conservatism can be simply described as no taxes, period. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are. The other side of the coin is of course, to reduce spending so that taxes can be cut. But that is very difficult to do in practice, that will mean conservatives losing elections. We can’t have that.
So conservatives are satisfied with half of their agenda (no taxes), rather than the full agenda (no taxes, cut spending). The fact that half the agenda has disastrous consequences (huge deficits, huge debt) matters to them, not at all.
And borrow and spend plays well with people. After all, if the government borrows billions (or even trillions) of dollars, it does not affect the population directly, the adverse effects won’t be manifest for perhaps a generation, the children will have to foot the bill. Tax increase on the other hand, means money out of peoples’ pockets right away, and we can’t have that.
That is why when Bush got rid of all the Clinton surplus, borrowed money and declared huge tax cuts, his move was wildly popular with the people at large. Indeed, that is why people keep electing borrow and spend conservatives again and again, it sounds very good in the short term.
So conservatives are satisfied with half of their agenda (no taxes), rather than the full agenda (no taxes, cut spending). The fact that half the agenda has disastrous consequences (huge deficits, huge debt) matters to them, not at all.
And borrow and spend plays well with people. After all, if the government borrows billions (or even trillions) of dollars, it does not affect the population directly, the adverse effects won’t be manifest for perhaps a generation, the children will have to foot the bill. Tax increase on the other hand, means money out of peoples’ pockets right away, and we can’t have that.
That is why when Bush got rid of all the Clinton surplus, borrowed money and declared huge tax cuts, his move was wildly popular with the people at large. Indeed, that is why people keep electing borrow and spend conservatives again and again, it sounds very good in the short term.