[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

What is the Wildrose fiscal platform exactly? I've read basically everything they've put out and I don't think that I could tell. Danielle Smith was on QR 77 yesterday talking about how regressive consumption taxes are as well...so apparently there is a rather significant issue right there.

I find it confusing you claim to have such trouble understanding the Wildrose platform but so easily mischaracterise what they say? Succinctly, the Wildrose fiscal platform focuses on balanced budgets through reduced spending and no new taxation, and saving a large portion of royalty revenue for future generations.

In terms of whatever Danielle Smith was discussing (I didnt hear any of it) consumption taxes are regressive by nature, anyone would admit that simple truth. You need to provide rebates in order to combat the regressive nature. It's done with the GST and would hopefully be done with any new provincial tax. But they are undoubtedly regressive.

I can't define moderate for you, sorry we won't be able to argue semantics (one of my least favorite things to do!). I can say without question that "moderate" wouldn't be 25-30% of a budget though, at least in my world.

So you are arguing semantics? Or not? Confusing.

Regardless, you made the assertion Jack Mintz (and all the economists at the Budget discussion) supported only "moderate" spending cuts. So I'm asking you to clarify that either your initial statement was wrong, or you didn't understand what Mintz was actually talking about,or if Mintz has changed his opinion from his past years of work and publications.

I have to say that if you think that magnitude of cut is moderate than I'm terrified at what you would consider to be deep cuts!

I would definately support Mintz' reccommendations, which you have called 'moderate' spending reductions. Hence the confusion.

The thing is that most people, just talking average people here, agree that we should have some areas where spending can and should be reduced. When I went through the budget exercise on the website I found what I would consider to be a lot of areas to cut where the government shouldn't be involved (in my personal opinion). I just think that along with cuts there has to be a change to the structure of the revenues in this province so that it is more stable.

I can see how in the opinion of the Wildrose that makes me a demon who doesn't agree that the budget can be fixed with cuts alone. I also think that the Wildrose is opposing a consumption tax based solely on the political view as opposed to what actually makes sense for the province. I get that it has the word tax in it and that sounds bad! I just think that for real "fiscal conservatives" they should climb on board with the idea and try to "conserve" some of the non-renewable resource revenue for our future.

What 'political view' are you referring to? The Wildrose is opposing the creation of increased taxes. This is exactly on side with Jack Mintz, who supports only a revenue shift not increased taxation. The Wildrose are simply more forceful in the statement that they expect the PC's to create new taxes. The Liberals and NDP both would increase taxes as well. Jack Mintz would oppose this because he knows that the negative effects on the economy would be terrible. The Liberal Party platform totally ignored the negative effects of increased taxation that's why their platform budgeting was such a joke.

Also, the Wildrose was the only party with a plan to save resource revenues in their last platform. One might think you'd remember that?