Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes

[Spade]

Wow, the Reform Party forced Brian to retire, elected Kim Campbell as his replacement, and defeated her in the Liberal landslide of 1993.
Powerfull! My heart's a flutter!

 

[Liberalman]

Look at federal gov't income during the Chretien years.

Mulrooney's GST is the biggest factor that allowed Chretien/Martin to balance the budget and pay off debt. And Mulrooney's free trade deals were the engine of Canada's booming economy.

Chretien et al reaped the benefits. Of course, being Liberals, they promised to scrap the GST and "renegotiate" free trade.........and did neither.

Now, before you accuse me of excessive lyin' Brian love, remember I was a REFORMER. We killed Brian, not the Liberals.

Yeah you have to remember that Harper never killed the whole GST just two percent of it but then he tricked some of the provinces help the feds to bring in more taxes like the HST

 

[JLM]

Yeah you have to remember that Harper never killed the whole GST just two percent of it but then he tricked some of the provinces help the feds to bring in more taxes like the HST

Just two percent? I thought it was more like 15%.

 

[mentalfloss]

Less McParland armchair shenanigans and more MacLean's critical analysis, thanks. As you can see, many Canadians recognize that higher taxes on the wealthy is not wealth redistribution, but instead, a means of creating equal opportunity - a concept that neocon tunnel vision cannot permeate.

Taxes, equality and what we’re prepared to do

You can quibble with what these numbers really indicate, but the findings roughly match what Innovative Research found on a couple of questions last month.

The federal government must take action to close the gap between rich and poor in Canada.
Strongly agree 40%
Somewhat agree 29%
Neither agree nor disagree 13%
Somewhat disagree 8%
Strongly disagree 8%

We need to raise taxes on the rich and big business to ensure they pay their fair share.
Strongly agree 42%
Somewhat agree 24%
Neither agree nor disagree 12%
Somewhat agree 9%
Strongly disagree 11%
​

At the same time, Innovative Research also asked a series of philosophical questions about economics and the role of government.

Is the main role of government to create equal opportunity so that everyone can compete on their own to be the best they can be; OR to redistribute wealth so that the poor and disadvantaged have more than they would if left on their own?
Create opportunity 62%
Redistribute wealth 28%
Don’t know 10%

Generally, do you think people who don’t get ahead in life should blame themselves or the system?
Themselves 50%
The system 19%
Don’t know 32%

​

Taxes, equality and what we’re prepared to do - Beyond The Commons, Capital Read - Macleans.ca

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Wow, the Reform Party forced Brian to retire, elected Kim Campbell as his replacement, and defeated her in the Liberal landslide of 1993.
Powerfull! My heart's a flutter!

Most of the Liberal wins were not from superior Liberal policy but by right and right-centre vote splitting between the Reform/Alliance and the Conservative Party. Once the parties united a minority is all they could muster. Once the NDP moved toward the centre, they killed the Liberals and now the tables are turned.

Yeah you have to remember that Harper never killed the whole GST just two percent of it but then he tricked some of the provinces help the feds to bring in more taxes like the HST

Just two percent? I thought it was more like 15%.

The HST adds tax to stuff that wasn't taxable under old rules. But for something that was taxable by the GST & the PST before, the percentage remains the same (13% in Ontario). Ontario benifited more from the HST than the feds particularly on gas.

 

[Machjo]

Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes

OTTAWA—A new poll challenges conventional political wisdom by showing a majority of Canadians — including most Conservative voters and wealthy individuals — would support higher taxes to fight income inequality.

A telephone survey of 2,000 Canadians by Environics Research asked about attitudes toward growing income inequality and the role of government and individuals in addressing it.

After canvassing whether respondents see inequality as a real problem, and whether the rich should pay more, it asked directly if people would “personally be very, somewhat, not very or not at all willing to pay slightly higher taxes if that’s what it would take to protect our social programs like health care, pensions and access to post-secondary education.”

In all, 64 per cent said they would be willing to pay “slightly higher taxes,” although what exactly “slightly” higher meant was not specified. Of the 64 per cent, 41 per cent were “somewhat” open and 23 per cent were “very” willing to pay more.

Surprisingly, it found a majority of support across gender, ages, education levels, family income and employment levels, and in most regions. Only in Quebec, the highest-taxed province, the survey found slightly less than majority support — 49 per cent — for higher taxes.

It said even a majority of Conservative voters (58 per cent) are somewhat willing to pay higher taxes to protect social programs, while Liberal and NDP voters are more supportive (72 per cent would pay more.)

“This attitude toward paying slightly higher taxes is reflected equally in high income and middle income Canadian households. It’s only their governments who are offside,” said a release that accompanies the poll to be published Tuesday. “These numbers prove that concern about income inequality cuts across partisan lines.”

Overall, 14 per cent said they were “not very willing” to pay more, 19 per cent were flatly “not willing,” while 3 per cent didn’t know or didn’t answer.

The survey tested three other scenarios: increasing the personal income tax rate on the rich with incomes above $250,000 and above $500,000; gradually increasing the corporate tax rates back to what they were in 2008 (19.5 per cent compared to 15 per cent now, though that wasn’t specified) and reinstating a 35 per cent inheritance tax on wealthy estates above $5 million, with spouses exempt.

All three options found a majority support across all groups, although Alberta’s support for increasing corporate tax rates was more tepid than other regions at 67 per cent, as was Conservative voters, although 62 per cent of Tories still supported raising corporate tax rates.

Broadbent, the former NDP leader, said the results went well beyond the “hunch” he’d had that Canadians would support not just higher taxes on the rich — “that’s not surprising,” — but would also tolerate paying more themselves. “That’s the tougher question: ‘what about your own taxes,’ ” he said in an interview.

The results also directly challenged a picture painted by the conservative Manning Centre’s recent polling which suggested Canadians want a reduced role for government in their lives, and are unlikely to believe government is able to solve the big problems of the day.

The Broadbent Institute’s survey found most Canadians (77 per cent) believe the growing gap between the rich and “everyone else” has long-term negative consequences, and want the government to make reducing the gap a high priority.

The survey, conducted between March 6 and 18, can be considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes

Perhaps. Just remember though that support for higher taxes does not automatically translate into support for higher spending. Just be careful not to read too much into it.

It's vague. Where in the article does it say why and what extra taxation would be used for?

Good point. Support for higher taxes might not be so hot depending on the details. Income tax, resource tax, wealth tax, other tax?

 

[petros]

It's a tax just to heap cash in a pile and torch.

 

[Machjo]

Or to pay down the debt.

 

[JLM]

Or to pay down the debt.

THAT might be acceptable, but politicians don't think that way, you can't bribe people by paying down debt! :lol:

 

[Machjo]

THAT might be acceptable, but politicians don't think that way, you can't bribe people by paying down debt! :lol:

Hmmm... is that why not a single candidate I've ever yet voted for has ever won a seat? I tend to vote "tax-'n-axe" for the most part.

 

[Tonington]

Not to diss Ed Broadbent or his Institute,

But that's exactly what McParland-more like McDoublebogeyland- will do...without even touching on the actual topics addressed by the poll.

but there might just be some credibility issues involved in a brand new left-wing organization that conveniently discovers Canadians are actually mad keen on big government.

Ahh, pay no attention to what they found, we should ignore it because of where the organization is on the political spectrum. I somehow doubt the writer would say the same thing about The Frasier Institute, just because it produces publications that lean conservative.

An ad hominem-are you paying attention Walt?- not a good start.

Especially one that has somehow found that almost 60% of Conservatives are on board with tax hikes.

Ask Conservatives if they would pay more taxes for the F-35, or for all those new prisons, or for any other big spending promise that Conservatives voted for with Harper's platform.

If I recall correctly, there was a Liberal premier in B.C. who had to quit his job after he dumped a surprise HST program on the electorate just after getting elected with no mention of said program. What was his name … Campbell something? The program itself was subject to a successful recall vote, which forced Campbell’s successor (who isn’t much more popular) to repay $1.6 billion to Ottawa. Funny way to signal an openness to new taxes.

Ahh, now it's red herrings. The poll asked specific questions. Does the HST have a mandate to protect social programs? The poll finding was that Canadians were willing to pay more taxes to protect social programs. The goal of HST is to harmonize the tax code and make business more efficient. Like I said, red herring.

The obvious problem with the Broadbent poll is …

Come now, it's obvious that the problem from this authors perspective is cognitive dissonance. Not a single valid, much less a substantive criticism yet.

According to Mr. Broadbent, Canadians are open to higher taxes “if that’s what it would take” to protect social programs. But run for office on that premise, and he might just discover that most Canadians don’t really think “that’s what it would take.”

Ahh, a now it's Affirming a disjunct. Three logical fallacies now!

One should wonder how much the poll would change if it included partisan messaging to frame those new taxes? That would be a distinct no-no in survey methodology. Obviously any new tax will be re-framed by those with opposing political views.

Of course the views of Canadians will change with time, as policies become more discussed. The Broadbent Institute is only suggesting that Canadians are not as opposed to new taxes as some would like to think. The reality is far more nuanced than the simple sound bites on the "news".

They’d more likely think improved efficiency, less bureaucracy, and more control on costs and salaries would do the trick.

Another red herring.

It’s also evident, from the questions relating to an inheritance tax and corporate taxes, that Canadians are in favour of higher taxes when they only apply to other people.

Well this is simply a lie. How could this be true if the great majority are willing to pay more taxes to protect social programs? If 58% of self-identifying Conservatives say they are willing to pay more in taxes to protect social programs, if 71% of self-identifying NDP are willing to pay more in taxes to protect social programs, if 72% of self-identifying Liberals are willing to pay more in taxes to protect social programs, then how could anyone come to the conclusion that Canadians are only in favour of paying more taxes when it applies to other people?

Wishful thinking I suppose.

Durp.

The Liberal party tried a similar strategy when it concluded, thanks in part to polls, that Canadians overwhelmingly favoured much greater efforts to protect the environment. Stephane Dion bundled it into a national strategy called the Green Shift, bet his leadership on it, and got walloped. Because Canadians really do favour more environmental protection. They just aren’t willing to pay for it with taxes, lost jobs or serious inconvenience.

Speculative. Funny thing, BC did the same thing and the province pays out more in tax rebates then they take in with the carbon tax. Stephane Dion lost, not just on that idea, because simply the Conservatives are better at messaging, and because Stephane Dion had his own problems, namely his overall scores as a leader.

I invite the Broadbent Institute to sell its higher-tax strategy to the new NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, and convince him to make it the basis of his next federal campaign. I suspect he won’t get far. Maybe that’s why Mr. Broadbent worked so hard to prevent Mr. Mulcair from winning the leadership.

Yes, and the result will be the same demonizing, lying, and logical fallacies employed by this trash NP comment.

There are legitimate beefs, funny this writer didn't pick up on even one of them.

Four logical fallacies, one lie, some speculation, and all in a days work for another blowhard with an opinion. :lol:

 

[JLM]

How could this be true if the great majority are willing to pay more taxes to protect social programs? If 58% of self-identifying Conservatives say they are willing to pay more in taxes to protect social programs, if 71% of self-identifying NDP are willing to pay more in taxes to protect social programs, if 72% of self-identifying Liberals are willing to pay more in taxes to protect social programs[/B], then how could anyone come to the conclusion that Canadians are only in favour of paying more taxes when it applies to other people?

Is there a political party that believes people should get off their asses and do things for themselves? Politicians aren't supposed to be there to provide services for a profit- that should be left to the mongers down town. Politicians should stick to enacting, enforcing legislation and acting as a "watchdog" for the disadvantaged. :smile:

 

[Tonington]

Is there a political party that believes people should get off their asses and do things for themselves?

No. Not in Canada anyways. Maybe the Anarchists.

 

[JLM]

No. Not in Canada anyways. Maybe the Anarchists.

As I suspected! :lol:

 

[L Gilbert]

Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes
Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-view-that-canadians-oppose-higher-taxes?bn=1

Not this dude. Those pinheads in Ottawa can't apply the money they get properly now. Giving them more just means giving them more money to waste.

 

[taxslave]

Well I most certainly do NOT want to pay higher taxes. Course people in my part of the world never seem to get asked their opinion.

 

[Machjo]

Not this dude. Those pinheads in Ottawa can't apply the money they get properly now. Giving them more just means giving them more money to waste.

Good point. Even those who do agree in principle with tax increases to pay down the debt for example might not necessarily vote that way if they don't trust that the tax hike will actually go to paying down the debt. I'd be a prime example of that. I do support tax hikes in principle to pay down the debt, which on the surface would suggest I'd vote NDP. But since I don't trust the NDP to pay down the debt, I'm therefore more likely to vote for a candidate that won't raise taxes.

 

[mentalfloss]

Not this dude. Those pinheads in Ottawa can't apply the money they get properly now. Giving them more just means giving them more money to waste.

The pinheads in Ottawa are there because of us so we reap what we sow.

We didn't have to elect the pinheads.

Good point. Even those who do agree in principle with tax increases to pay down the debt for example might not necessarily vote that way if they don't trust that the tax hike will actually go to paying down the debt. I'd be a prime example of that. I do support tax hikes in principle to pay down the debt, which on the surface would suggest I'd vote NDP. But since I don't trust the NDP to pay down the debt, I'm therefore more likely to vote for a candidate that won't raise taxes.

This is a problem with communication and accountability in our current system.

We need to be able to send a message to government, and government needs to be held accountable for its mistakes.

The trick that Conservatives use to delude others in this respect is to "reduce the size of government". That only reduces accountability and puts it on to the backs of private enterprise - who then screw over people unless they get a profit.

No, the solution is an accountability measure that ensures government acts in the best interests of the country. Two-way communication is a necessary first step to enact that accountability.

 

[Machjo]

The pinheads in Ottawa are there because of us so we reap what we sow.

We didn't have to elect the pinheads.



This is a problem with communication and accountability in our current system.

We need to be able to send a message to government, and government needs to be held accountable for its mistakes.

The trick that Conservatives use to delude others in this respect is to "reduce the size of government". That only reduces accountability and puts it on to the backs of private enterprise - who then screw over people unless they get a profit.

No, the solution is an accountability measure that ensures government acts in the best interests of the country. Two-way communication is a necessary first step to enact that accountability.

Don't get me wrong. The Conservatives are not necessarily any better. Thaty's why I'm not loyal to any party and grill the local candidates each election, and have even handed in blank ballots on occasion.

 

[mentalfloss]

Don't get me wrong. The Conservatives are not necessarily any better. Thaty's why I'm not loyal to any party and grill the local candidates each election, and have even handed in blank ballots on occasion.

If a politician does something that is either unparliamentary, grossly misrepresented their constituents or caused considerable harm to people (fiscal or otherwise), that politician's future employment should be under some scrutiny. Unfortunately, we're not getting any of that, especially when a supposedly "fiscally prudent" government hides at least $10 Billion in expenses from us.