Tax cut timing

[Jo Canadian]

:roll: Boy, that was Unexpected. I mean really, who's suprised at all by this move?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo----------------------------

Liberals commit to tax cuts as election looms

With Paul Martin's minority government facing the threat of defeat within days, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale has introduced a package that combines voter-friendly income tax cuts along with corporate tax cuts and new spending on education, immigration and trade.

Appearing in front of the House of Commons finance committee Monday, Goodale presented what the government insists on calling an "economic and fiscal update," though it contains the kind of spending commitments traditionally seen only in budgets.

They include:

-An immediate $500 increase in the basic personal exemption, which leaves more money in the pocket of every Canadian taxpayer....More: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/14/goodale-eco051114.html

 

[missile]

Not me! I was shocked and astounded by these cuts. Aren't the liberals just the sweetest bunch ever? :lol:

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[MMMike]

Obviously its a stunt to buy your vote. These tax cuts are long overdue, and a good use of the surplus, much better than wasteful new social programs. I suspect that the provincial governments might raise taxes to eat up part of this 'tax cut' however.

What pisses me off is the Liberals use of the levers of government to support their own party agenda. There should be fixed periods for elections, budgets, 'financial updates' and the like.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It's no different than the CPC promise to do the same, MMMikey. Those social programs aren't wasteful either...people need them.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Tax cut timing

It's no different than the CPC promise to do the same, MMMikey. Those social programs aren't wasteful either...people need them.

Maybe they wouldn't need social programs if the government just kept their grubby inefficient hands off our money.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Maybe they wouldn't need tax cuts if the corporations that employ them paid a decent wage.

 

[Colpy]

As well, the minute this government falls, the tax cuts become no more than Liberal promises. And this government needs to fall.

Martin would do anything to stay in power.

My own personal priority for surplus cash would be the reduction of debt. Let's face it, interest rates are not going to stay low forever, and if they go up we could return to the situation where servicing the debt requires one third of all gov't income.

So, small corporate tax cuts, combined with a complete end to corporate welfare. Might even wind up in the black in that situation.

Money for the military. It needs it badly.

Money for post-secondary education, based on individual academic MERIT.

Dump the current child care idiocy, and give money to lower income families, especially those who have a parent at home.


Pay down debt. Big time.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Child care is necessary. Most low-wage workers can't stay at home. Programs targeted at the poor are the first thing that Conservatives chop when they get into power, and cost of living differences across the country make targeted programs difficult, so it has to be universal to be effective.

 

[MMMike]

Then look at bumping up minimum wage, or going to a guaranteed minimum income. Don't foist a bad program on the entire country to meet the needs of a few.

 

[Reverend Blair]

If we were start pushing a guaranteed minimum income of $25k a year, the Conservatives would be screaming bloody murder and saying that the world was about to end.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Tax cut timing

Child care is necessary. Most low-wage workers can't stay at home. Programs targeted at the poor are the first thing that Conservatives chop when they get into power, and cost of living differences across the country make targeted programs difficult, so it has to be universal to be effective.

Universal child care is just plain silly.

First of all, it is prohibitively expensive.

Secondly, it does not serve those who need it the most. The Quebec experience showed the most enthusiastic users of their generous scheme were upper middle class. In other words , this is a welfare program for those who don't need it.

When my kids were born, my wife stayed home for about 5 years. I worked 50 to 60 hours a week at night for $7.80 an hour, she worked some part-time while I baby sat. That was in the early 80s.

When she did go back to work, we had friends or relatives come in to help. We paid them, but not a lot. It came down to teaming up.....one stay at home Mom took care of both families' kids for some money.

I know a lot of people who were working poor. Most left their kids with relatives for some small renumeration, or they made the extra sacrifice and one partner stayed home.

Let's aim the resources at those who NEED it. Let's encourage families to care for their own kids, with help from the government.

I really don't want to pay for day care for my doctor's or my lawyer's kids, thank you very much.

 

[Jay]

It's just vote buying, Colpy. (not to mention provincial jurisdiction intrusion)

 

[TenPenny]

"When she did go back to work, we had friends or relatives come in to help. We paid them, but not a lot. It came down to teaming up.....one stay at home Mom took care of both families' kids for some money. "

And I bet she declared that income, too.

I like the unintended meaning of your wife "stayed home" to raise the kids, but when she worked, you "baby sat". Whether you intended to or not, that shows your basic understanding of child rearing: if a man does it, he's "baby sitting". It's NOT baby sitting if they're your OWN DAMN KIDS! It's called "being a parent"!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Tax cut timing

"When she did go back to work, we had friends or relatives come in to help. We paid them, but not a lot. It came down to teaming up.....one stay at home Mom took care of both families' kids for some money. "

And I bet she declared that income, too.

I like the unintended meaning of your wife "stayed home" to raise the kids, but when she worked, you "baby sat". Whether you intended to or not, that shows your basic understanding of child rearing: if a man does it, he's "baby sitting". It's NOT baby sitting if they're your OWN DAMN KIDS! It's called "being a parent"!!!!!!!!!!

Do me a favour, will ya?

Try to keep a civil tongue in your head.

If you had read the post without merely trying to find some minor semantic slip-up, you would have noticed I was working 50 or 60 hours a week. She worked 15 or 20. That makes HER the major care giver.

I was VERY involved in my kids' upbringing. I read to them, bathed them, changed their diapers, wiped their tears, fed them, and kicked their butts on occassion. (Oh, the HORROR)

Come tell me how to speak, or think about parenting when you've raised a couple of your own to be decent, thinking adults.

:evil: Then again, I suppose you'll find it impossible to raise kids without the help of "Big Brother".

 

[Colpy]

By the way, yes that money usually was declared. For this reason; the people paying could claim it as child care expenses, and it was not enough to put the recipients over their basic personal exemption.

 

[Reverend Blair]

At any rate, this isn't the 1980's anymore. Mulroney's policies, supported fully by the sexist and mornonic John Crosby, pretty much ensured that both parents would have to work to make ends meet in most households. Most of the parents I know would give an arm and a leg for one of them to be able to look after their own kids full-time. That's not the way world works anymore though.

We need childcare. Since Conservative governments hate poor people, we need it to be universal so that it doesn't just get scrapped the first time they find an excuse.

 

[Jay]

Sure child care is needed, and there is plenty of it around.

We don't need the feds running it. It isn't their jurisdiction, and they have enough problems running the things their supposed to run.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Tax cut timing

At any rate, this isn't the 1980's anymore. Mulroney's policies, supported fully by the sexist and mornonic John Crosby, pretty much ensured that both parents would have to work to make ends meet in most households. Most of the parents I know would give an arm and a leg for one of them to be able to look after their own kids full-time. That's not the way world works anymore though.

We need childcare. Since Conservative governments hate poor people, we need it to be universal so that it doesn't just get scrapped the first time they find an excuse.

I had this same argument with my work partner last night. I don't believe it is any harder now, or at least much harder, for one parent to stay home. I just think people are less willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

If you read the posts I wrote above, you will realize my family was far from rich, or even well off, but we managed. The sacrifices were things like small apartments, lousy furniture, few luxuries, and no vehicle. What we did have was a surprizingly happy household.

You seem like a reasonably bright individual, Rev. Why not drop the propagandist, fear mongering BS and try to deal with the Conservatives in a realistic manner? It would make your posts so much more a pleasure to read, and we might even take you seriously.

The fact I don't want to pay to raise some rich guy's kids doesn't mean I hate the poor.