The Conservative cut is phased in over several years (even though it wasn’t announced that way), which reduces the total cost over the period. But once fully implemented, it does cost 2.5x what the Liberal plan does.
I suspect once they realized they were going to have to actually release a costed platform that they panicked when they realized how much debt that was adding, so they changed it to a phased in cut so the total prepared by the PBO doesn’t look as bad.
Fiscal responsibility isn't on the menu this election in any capacity red or blue. It's reflective of the times we're in and ultimately the electorate's complete lack of accountability to understand they ultimately one way or another need to pay for the services they demand and/or demand less services. Alberta saw a decade ago what happens at the polls when a competent leader in the fiscal space promises to actually be fiscally responsible and actually try to sustainably underpin government spending - they get turfed from power.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Fiscal responsibility isn't on the menu this election in any capacity red or blue. It's reflective of the times we're in and ultimately the electorate's complete lack of accountability to understand they ultimately one way or another need to pay for the services they demand and/or demand less services. Alberta saw a decade ago what happens at the polls when a competent leader in the fiscal space promises to actually be fiscally responsible and actually try to sustainably underpin government spending - they get turfed from power.
Blue fiscal responsibility has been dead for over a decade, people keep using it as a weak excuse for voting in people who have unpopular policies, when the truth is those people just kind of have a sense they don't like the four eyed liberal weenie nerds.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
A new item in the Conservative platform: a ‘ban’ on new taxes
More specifically, the party proposes a Taxpayer Protection Act that would “ban new or higher federal taxes without asking taxpayers first in a referendum.”
This is something Poilievre had not talked about on the campaign so far.
Fiscal responsibility isn't on the menu this election in any capacity red or blue. It's reflective of the times we're in and ultimately the electorate's complete lack of accountability to understand they ultimately one way or another need to pay for the services they demand and/or demand less services. Alberta saw a decade ago what happens at the polls when a competent leader in the fiscal space promises to actually be fiscally responsible and actually try to sustainably underpin government spending - they get turfed from power.
I don't think I agree with what you're implying when it comes to the CPC. There's a wide gulf between accurately costing these things and whatever this is from the CPC. They've pretty clearly just thrown this together and made sure that it comes in cheaper than the Liberals with no actual thought given to how realistic it is. This platform only works if things like the $10bn per year is realized and they manage to increase the economy an enormous amount to realise the income gains from that.
I'm skeptical on the economic growth portion, not because I'm skeptical on Canada, though. I just think that this platform pre-supposes that the only reason that ene3rgy projects aren't being built is because the feds are saying no. That's just not the case. There are a lot of stakeholders, for one thing. For another, there doesn't seem to be a line-up of companies and projects ready to roll "if only the federal government would get out of the way!". I just feel like this budget falls apart and we would see bigger deficits than what's projected here.
A referendum everytime there's a proposal to change taxes is such a terrible idea.
Also I love the general garbage statements like "Fix the budget to kill inflation - For a change". Really? Fixing the budget is just going to completely do away with inflation?
"Ugh. As if!"
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
The Conservative cut is phased in over several years (even though it wasn’t announced that way), which reduces the total cost over the period. But once fully implemented, it does cost 2.5x what the Liberal plan does.
I suspect once they realized they were going to have to actually release a costed platform that they panicked when they realized how much debt that was adding, so they changed it to a phased in cut so the total prepared by the PBO doesn’t look as bad.
Well, PP did come out with this staged tax cut almost a month ago. They might have tweaked the rates a bit because it was originally supposed to cost $7B for the first two years and the final costed numbers are a bit different now.
Quote:
The Conservatives say that they will cut the rate of tax on the lowest tax bracket from 15 per cent to 12.75 per cent, which will cut taxes individuals pay by about $900 a year, or $1,800 per two-income family.
According to the party, the measure will cost $7 billion a year for the first two years. When the measure is fully implemented in 2027-28 the cut will cost $14 billion a year.
Blue fiscal responsibility has been dead for over a decade, people keep using it as a weak excuse for voting in people who have unpopular policies, when the truth is those people just kind of have a sense they don't like the four eyed liberal weenie nerds.
My comment wasn't partisan. A big reason why we're reaching the end of democracy / capitalism is because we're at the stage where the electorate basically just chooses which brand of fiscal ruin for the country best suits their own individual interests: lower taxes or more goodies or some combination of both - all options end up stacking debt.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
A new item in the Conservative platform: a ‘ban’ on new taxes
More specifically, the party proposes a Taxpayer Protection Act that would “ban new or higher federal taxes without asking taxpayers first in a referendum.”
This is something Poilievre had not talked about on the campaign so far.
So ####ing dumb and just performative bull ####. If a new Government wants to bring in a new tax they're just going to axe the law, not call a referendum.
A proper platform should bring proper planning and ideas on weaknesses and ways to improve on it. Carney / LPC's platform has a large section on food sovereignty which I think is very important considering the current Trump situation.
Strengthen Canada’s food security by investing in greenhouses, hydroponics, and other controlled environment agriculture that allow us to grow more types of food, here at home. We will work with the private sector to protect Canadian food security.
Invest an additional $250 million in the repair and maintenance of small craft harbours. These harbours are the backbone of the fishing industry, especially in Atlantic Canada, and are the homebase for many of Canada's fisheries. Tackling much needed repairs and improvements will protect livelihoods, and help these small fisheries grow.
These are real focused plans into long term infrastructure, and part of a large section specific to fishing, farming and food. Meanwhile, Poilievre also has food as part of the platform.
• Axe the planned food packaging tax on fresh produce that could drive up grocery costs by up to 30%.
• Scrap the Liberal plastics ban, including the ban on straws, grocery bags, food containers, cutlery, and other single-use plastics, letting consumers and businesses choose what works for them.
Those...aren't priority items...and the "food packaging tax" isn't a tax.
Pass a Farmland Protection Act to stop foreign governments and corporations from buying up Canadian farmland, and report on how much farmland is already owned by foreign governments and foreign corporations.
This is the only meaningful action in the platform but was in the very anti-China section and doesn't improve a situation, it targets the negative aspect.
Poilievre felt like Trudeau / Singh's disaster of a coalition government and extreme unpopularity on their own gave him a mandate to go populist on policies before he got elected, and he certainly would have, three word slogans work when everyone is upset. But things have changed both in leadership and in the threat to sovereignty while he hasn't and he's doubled down.
I think the CPC will split from this election result and there may be MPs crossing the floor to join Carney / Liberals if Poilievre stays onboard as leader after what should have been a gimme election win for him.
Last edited by Firebot; 04-22-2025 at 11:43 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
The CPC had a great chance to moderate their policies and establish some good faith with groups they have had historically poor relations with, instead they stuck with “Trudeau! Trudeau! Trudeau!” and it’s blowing up in their faces.
The leaders in that party need to explain to their donors why this all or nothing approach isn’t going to get them a majority anytime in the near future.
Oh man, this ad (that doesn't feature PP at all, must have realized how unpopular he is) is so cringe. Poor Sarah's doing soo poorly, her white boomer dad had to buy her a house! Better vote for PP!
Should be done in these voices.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Don't the Liberals have the same $20B tariff revenue in their costed platform?
Yes, but they are not claiming affected workers would benefit from some general tax cuts as a result of the tariffs. Because workers who are laid off won't be paying taxes on income they are no longer getting.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Like I say, it's hard to take this seriously. Like this is a party that was effectively destined for government and running the country, and they've put out what reminds me of someone running for Student Council president as a document for their election. How much credibility can I give someone who wants to cut university education as a requirement for government employees? Are they suggesting that the issue is that we have a public service that is too well-educated?
Like I say, it's hard to take this seriously. Like this is a party that was effectively destined for government and running the country, and they've put out what reminds me of someone running for Student Council president as a document for their election. How much credibility can I give someone who wants to cut university education as a requirement for government employees? Are they suggesting that the issue is that we have a public service that is too well-educated?
Cronyism is just too hard to pull off when your peer group isn't qualified to flip burgers. Much easier to just lower the standards of government positions!
What fantastic policies. You can see why so many people are excited for "Change" - the lowering of standards and expectations throughout our entire system can only lead us all to being more successful! Combine that with all the money Canada will make from reducing taxes (which totally makes sense) and you can really see the winning formula. I think the most important thing is to leave the line items as vague as possible, lest people think there is actually a plan, or any thought whatsoever behind any of them! Pierre, I don't know how you did it you sonofabitch but you solved everything! Let's unbreak Canada!
