This is getting stupid. The cost of a tax credit is no different than spending the same amount of money.
Thanks again Mr. Harper...........................
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
This is getting stupid. The cost of a tax credit is no different than spending the same amount of money.
So what? wealthy people also pay more personal tax than the poorest. And I am sure that the poor people would like to see ANYthing that benefits them regardless of what it does to the wealthy.
Again, so what? I am pretty sure that the poor benefit from the basic personal exemption more than the rich would. I doubt the rich would even notice it.
Why does everything have to be in terms of rich vs. poor? We're not rich either but does that mean we have to gauge everything we have against whatever someone like Jim Treloving or Warren Buffett has? If you think so, I am sorry, but we won't do that. We couldn't care less how their taxes turn out.
.....backpeddalling.....
Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are not squabbling over the so-called Family Tax Cut, as the opposition would have you believe.
On the contrary, they are of the same mind — income splitting is dead and the $2.5-billion earmarked for the tax cut would be better spent extending the universal child care benefit that gives $100 a month to families with children under six.
John Ivison: Flaherty and Harper agree child care benefit a better policy than income splitting
Harper.
Flaherty.
Socialists.
Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are not squabbling over the so-called Family Tax Cut, as the opposition would have you believe.
On the contrary, they are of the same mind — income splitting is dead and the $2.5-billion earmarked for the tax cut would be better spent extending the universal child care benefit that gives $100 a month to families with children under six.
John Ivison: Flaherty and Harper agree child care benefit a better policy than income splitting
Harper.
Flaherty.
Socialists.
Good point. There's a difference between being of benefit and being a benefit in this issue.Perhaps the argument hinges on the definition of benefitting. Some may argue that getting your own money back is not a benefit & they may be right as getting your own money back might be regarded as "neutral". -
--
I agree with them, too.
You agree with this statement from Flaherty?
"It's an interesting idea. I'm just one voice. It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot. And other parts of the Canadian population virtually not at all," Flaherty told reporters following an event in Ottawa.
"And I like to think I'm analytical as finance minister, so I will, when we discuss it eventually in cabinet, in caucus, I will present my analysis to my colleagues."
Earlier, Flaherty said the measure needs "a long, hard, analytical look" by experts "to see who it affects in this society and to what degree. Because I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society."
Jim Flaherty backs away from income-splitting promise
"It's an interesting idea. I'm just one voice. It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot. And other parts of the Canadian population virtually not at all," Flaherty told reporters following an event in Ottawa.
"And I like to think I'm analytical as finance minister, so I will, when we discuss it eventually in cabinet, in caucus, I will present my analysis to my colleagues."
Earlier, Flaherty said the measure needs "a long, hard, analytical look" by experts "to see who it affects in this society and to what degree. Because I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society."
Jim Flaherty backs away from income-splitting promise
Which one? You asked if I agreed to one statement and then you quote 7 statements.
What I agreed with was that the child care tax credit would be of benefit.
Do you agree with the notion that it is questionable that this policy (income splitting) benefits society?
I'm not saying firefighters don't benefit. I'm saying that society doesn't benefit, unless somebody can show me that retention or recruitment has increased because of the credit.
Off the top of my head, we have paid to train at least 5 members to full 1001 standards and have a few others one their way. We sprent 20k on new BAs, 30k on new bunker gear, 15k on a TIC, 20k on a new pump for our tanker among other things. We also donated 15k toward a new playground in town. Those are just some of the big ticket items we have done. All told we probably averaged close to 20k per year on donations of some kind.
I agree. It's just less easy to track
It is actually very easy to track how much any tax credit costs since in order to claim it you have to file something called a tax return.
You file it with these people from an organization called the CRA, who are kind of sticklers for detail.
It was in the Flaherty quote. It's not word for word but he did admit his uncertainty about the policy.
Pretty much. The first paragraph for sure. Every part of the tax code benefits some people more than others.
Most of the tax code really benefits the poor the most since they wind up paying no tax while the rest of us end up donating some portion of our hard earned $$$$ to the government.
I don't think they are going to follow through on it, and that is probably for the best.
It is not a very efficient policy. It costs a lot of money but only impacts a relatively small group of people. Most of the money will go to the people who need it the least.
I think they are interested in something that has broader impacts.
I think it is too early yet to say whether the tax credit is helping with retention or recruiting. Need a couple of more years. The flipside is that taxpayers could easily end up on the hook for paid staff if volunteers give up. In many areas around here they are having trouble getting volunteers of any use because the brightlights decided to eliminate as much industry as possible in favor of tourism and retirees. Neither of which is conducive to having able bodied people around.
That is not normally association money but operation budget.