Conservatives To Slash Federal Funding of Political Parties [Update-CPC backs down]

[peter12]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

That is ridiculous, do you even know how a tax credit works?

1) A person has 400 dollars to use
2)Person A give 400 dollars to the Conservative Party
3) Person A gets a subsidy from the government for 300 dollars in the form of a tax credit.
4) The person pays 300 dollars less in tax to the government.
5) The Conservative Party effectively takes 300 dollars from the tax revenue of the government and puts it in their pocket.

When it should be
1) Person has 400 dollars to give
2) They pay 300 dollars they are suppose to pay in taxes
3) They give the Conservative Party 100 bucks.

Why should a political party need government funds to encourage donating. If an individual wants to donate 400 dollars, fine, I could careless. But that person should still have to pay 300 dollars after that in taxes. If they only have 400 dollars, then the political party only gets 100 bucks. But I am unsure why I have to pay more taxes so that a political party can get more donations?

100,000 people give 400 dollars to various political parties, and that is a 30 million dollar loss of revenue for the government. It basically means that I have to pay 2 dollars more a year in tax for these tax credit subsidies. In these tight economic times, we all need to tighten our belts, Flaherty should have got rid of the tax credit subsidy for political parties.

I guess we disagree on the nature of taxation. You assume that it is government's right to tax and thus, that government has a right to all property. I don't. I see a tax credit as merely putting money back in people's pocket.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

1) the Libs and NDP are suggesting a coalition government, not an election, so there would not be an election "forced" on anybody.
2) Better a 25 million dollar budget item than nothing, which is what we had in September

How long do you honestly think a coalition government would last, especially if they don't give into the Bloc on every single policy decision. The Libs and the NDP don't have near enough votes to hold off the Conservatives without the Bloc. One of the first things that the Bloc and Layton would do is turn tail on Afghanistan, the budget would be changed to go after business to keep Layton happy, then this coalition would go after Alberta's energy sector because those are key points to both Layton and Duceppe.

Whether they call the election now, or form a coalition, we go to the polls in early spring at the latest.

Coalition governments are inherantly unstable, in this instance especially with Jack Layton as a key member, and the Bloc as a policy driver.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Coalition governments are inherantly unstable, in this instance especially with Jack Layton as a key member, and the Bloc as a policy driver.

Truthfully do we even know the answer to this question? The last time a coalition government was in power was in 1917 and the uniting factor was the support for a conscription policy.

We really do not know what would happen in a coalition government, but in this time of economic uncertainty, I do not think it is the best time to experiment.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Truthfully do we even know the answer to this question? The last time a coalition government was in power was in 1917 and the uniting factor was the support for a conscription policy.

We really do not know what would happen in a coalition government, but in this time of economic uncertainty, I do not think it is the best time to experiment.

If you look internationally, we see Coalition governments have a short shelf life. It would be especially more painfull in getting a consensus for something like a new budget given the opposing viewpoints of all the parties involved.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by peter12

I guess we disagree on the nature of taxation. You assume that it is government's right to tax and thus, that government has a right to all property. I don't. I see a tax credit as merely putting money back in people's pocket.

A tax credit is a subsidy, it is the government saying that if you donate to this cause or that cause, you will not have to pay taxes for the amount that you gave them or a portion thereof.

By giving a tax credit for political parties, the government is saying that if you give money to a political party, the government will pay you money back. What I stated has nothing to do with a "right to all property", but thanks for putting words in my mouth. To illustate my case, I will give you two examples:

1) I want to give money to my local AJHL franchise, let us say the Canmore Eagles for example and
2) I want to give money to a political party.

Under situation one, I give 400 dollars to the junior hockey team, I then pay 300 dollars in taxes to the government. The government does not give me a subsidy to support local junior hockey, it is not a priority of the government. The government also does not give the Eagles a subsidy, any individual donations to the Eagles is pure charity.

Under a political party, I give 400 dollars, but the government is willing to give me back 300 bucks since I gave my money to an apporpriate entity. The government has decided that political parties are worthy of a government subsidy for each individual who gives them money. In an effort to encourage individuals to give 400 dollars, the government will pay those individuals 300 dollars to encourage them to give the political party 400 bucks.

In a world where there is only 400 dollars, under the junior hockey scenario, 300 would go to the government and 100 would go to the hockey team.

In a world where there is only 400 dollars, under the political scenario, 100 goes to the political party, 300 goes to the government, and then the government gives the political party 300 bucks through the form of a tax credit to the original donor.

A tax credit is merely a more acceptable form of a subsidy for conservatives. You are still picking winners and losers.

[Frequitude]

The fact that the Liberals/NDP/Bloc comprise a majority of seats (and popular vote) does not mean that a majority of Canadians want a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition.

The Ronald Pagans of today's discussion belief that this is true astounds me.

[octothorp]

Just three months ago, our government was rolling along as arguably one of the most successful minority governments in Canadian history. It was the longest ever, and while there were rumblings of discontent on a committee level, it was essentially an effective government. And with the opposition showing no interest in forcing an election and the Conservatives giving all indications of following their own legislation that would see them call an election for autumn of 2009, things looked pretty smooth.

Now we've got a new government that's off to one of the most chaotic starts in Canadian history. The seats are shuffled around but the balance of power is unchanged and most of the major figures are still there. But we've already had the Conservatives putting forward and later withdrawing what can only be called surprise legislation that's aimed directly at cutting off funds from the other parties, and now the opposition parties, not satisfied with simply forcing the Conservatives to step back on their legislation, and now talking seriously about a non-confidence vote.

Seriously, regardless of political affiliation, this cannot be what any Canadian wants. Both sides are yelling overtop of one another about the economic crisis, but are simply paying lip-service to it in their lust for power. I hear some people pointing fingers at the conservatives and others at the opposition, but I don't know, I think there's a big blame pie in the oven right now and everybody gets a piece.

To Stephen Harper: Seriously, what were you thinking in tabling something that you had to know that the opposition would stand up to you on, but which would also force them to work together? You understand parliamentary procedure better than anyone else, but man, you can make a mess sometimes. You've got a minority government, which means you have a mandate to pass elements of your election platform. Not to make up new ways to torment the other parties. I didn't vote for you, but I fully support your right to govern on your election platform. But don't antagonize the opposition. Be a grown-up about it.

To Layton and Dion: You have to be kidding me. You actually think that you can form a coalition, snap a quick non-confidence vote, and get into government without ever winning an election? The link to the Byng-King affair is tenuous at best, since Meighen wasn't actively seeking to get into power without winning an election; he was just the guy in the right place when King's coalition fell apart (not to mention that his party had more seats than any other single party). It is possible that your power grab will get you into power, but Canadians will, by and large, never forgive you for it. You were elected as the opposition. Tell us what's wrong with the government's policies, tell us what you'd do differently. That's your job. It's not your job to lie in wait for the first chance to get into power at any cost.

Michaelle Jean: If the office of the Governor General has absolutely any relevance left to this country, you need to step in now, before this gets to a confidence vote. If, by next week, you're presented with a ruined government and a choice between another election or an unelected coalition, there's no way you can resolve it to the satisfaction of Canadians. Send them to their corners, bring them all over to Rideau Hall for dinner, hold a benefit concert. I don't really care. Just get this thing back on track.

[JiriHrdina]

So in exchange for co-operating the NDP want to have both the Finance Minister and Economic Minister positions
What a potential disaster.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you look internationally, we see Coalition governments have a short shelf life. It would be especially more painfull in getting a consensus for something like a new budget given the opposing viewpoints of all the parties involved.

Pretty much... we do not want to go down the road of the "government of the month" with radically different viewpoints. Political Instability is a sure fire way to devastate the economy. The Liberals should know better than to get in bed with these buffoons... but, if the Liberals in the last 30 years have taught us anything... they'll do anything to get and keep power.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So in exchange for co-operating the NDP want to have both the Finance Minister and Economic Minister positions
What a potential disaster.

Oh my god. Can you say DEPRESSION? Dippers with their hands on the chequebook? This is a nightmare. The Liberals can't be this desperate, can they?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by peter12

You do know what a government surplus is... right? Overtaxation. So we should be happy that the Conservative government gave us enough money BACK so that they now have to struggle with balancing the books instead of manufacturing surpluses through taxation. That's how a government makes its money.

They've only been constrained by the stupid attitude in Canada that it is not okay to roll back the size of our massive government. They should continue cutting the fat off of our already bloated government programs.

On the basis of your argument:

1) If it's never okay to run a surplus, then it's never okay to run a deficit because to do so would imply that debt only accumulates and is never paid down, which would eventually result in unmanageable debt.

2) If you can't run surpluses or deficits then you either need to cut taxes or increase services when times are good, and raise taxes or cut services when times are bad.

The results of such a policy would be:

1) Amplification of the business cycle, with higher highs but lower lows, creating even bigger volatility in the government's tax base.

2) Wildly fluctating tax and service levels increase frictional costs and destabilize the economy further. hurting business and consumer confidence levels at all points in the business cycle.

3) High taxes / low service levels at the times when people and businesses need low taxes and high service levels the most.

4) Low taxes and high service levels when people and businesses need them the least.

5) Government spending occurs when costs are the highest, therefore reducing the overall bang for it's buck that the government gets.

Harper's biggest error so far is that he "reigned in the surplus" just as the boom was coming to an end. He's created a structural deficit. You say the conservatives should "continue" trimming the fat off the budget? I suggest you take a look at their spending record... But anyways, if he knows better but ignores that knowledge and actually spends far more than the liberals did, once again that tells me that he is not a man of principle. He places more value on getting a mandate than on using what mandate he has been given to apply his values. Either he doesn't know better or he does but he ignores it. Take your pick.

Once again, "giving you back your money" when the economy is coming of a massive boom (caused in part by insufficient taxation and surpluses that were still smaller than they should have been ) may have been good optics (at least to people like you) but it's terrible policy. Harper's government severely shrunk the surplus before the stock markets fell off the cliff, and if you can barely run a surplus when times are good, how the heck are you supposed to avoid massive deficits when times are bad without cutting essential services or applying further crippling the economy by raising taxes? Furthermore, taxation does more than just raise money for the government: it's also a tool that can and should be used to prevent huge bubbles that aren't supported at all by economic fundamentals, and by extension the busts that result, like the one we're experiencing today. Because of that, Harper is now forced to look at selling government assets (at a time when their values are low) to reduce the magnitude of the deficit he's going to run. That's a move that has big opportunity costs for the government (i.e. the opportunity to sell them when their values will be high), and whilst it provides a one-time boost to cash flow it has no impact on the governments net income (shows up on both sides of the balance sheet) and does nothing to address the structural deficit he's created. Again, smaller cash flow deficit is good optics for him, but doing so by dumping government assets for cheap is brutal policy.

What I will give you is that there are external forces that would make implemeting good Keynesian economic policy challenging for Harper (or anybody), but that's certainly not the case here. His results are of his own doing. That said, the difficulty is that you need the rest of the world onside. You can't put the brakes on your own economy unless others are doing the same thing. Otherwise, you'll just lose businesses to the rest of the world... you'll miss the booms, but you'll still have the busts. The degree to which you implement dampening of the business cycle has to be based on how easily your industries can pack up and leave.

For the record, yes I favour the Liberal party, but at the moment I'm rather disenchanted with them. Their problems are also of their own doing. Campaigning on the Green Shift was a brutal idea, moving them out of the middle (and thus shifting it towards Harper) and making them split votes with the Greens. They need to go back to the middle, where they can run as a viable alternative to the Conservatives without the social conservative agenda but with a better record in managing the country's finances. Force Harper to differientiate himself with social policy, which will in turn alienate mainstream Canadians. I'm more of a social liberal (which is why I'd never vote for a non-"progressive" conservative party ) than a fiscal one. Fiscally, I'm on the right side of the liberal party, which should make me a potential swing voter for a moderate conservative party. However, Harper's conservatives spend like the NDP. I can therefore only assume that it is his social agenda which is driving his quest for a majority, because even if he thinks he's a fiscal conservative, he sure doesn't act like one.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Oh my god. Can you say DEPRESSION? Dippers with their hands on the chequebook? This is a nightmare. The Liberals can't be this desperate, can they?

I would hope they wouldn't let that happen. It would sicken me and be offensive to anyone that voted.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I would hope they wouldn't let that happen. It would sicken me and be offensive to anyone that voted.

Don't worry it won't. If the Liberals actually had a leader that was not going to resign, that would be a different story. Under the current situation, there would be too much internal opposition (at least I hope).

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I would hope they wouldn't let that happen. It would sicken me and be offensive to anyone that voted.

I agree. The Liberals may be crooks and powermongers, but they traditionally haven't been stupid. This would be the single most incompetent act they could commit.

I highly, highly doubt they could even convince the GG that the three leftist parties could work together.

The likeliest thing is a January Election.

[JiriHrdina]

^which is also sickening. If that were to happen all parties should be held to the fire. This is not time to go back to the polls. The job of ALL parties is to find a way to work together and govern our f'n nation.

Get to work.

Or as that guy on SNL says.

FIX IT

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I agree. The Liberals may be crooks and powermongers, but they traditionally haven't been stupid. This would be the single most incompetent act they could commit.

I highly, highly doubt they could even convince the GG that the three leftist parties could work together.

The likeliest thing is a January Election.

How could the other parties afford to fight another election? This whole thing is absolutely insane.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Don't worry it won't. If the Liberals actually had a leader that was not going to resign, that would be a different story. Under the current situation, there would be too much internal opposition (at least I hope).

Tough to say for sure. With the party elders in play, there could be enough support for an "Anyone But Harper" movement. Trouble for them is, they might be too caught up in making "political history" that they forget the next move, lose confidence and get trounced in early 2009.

[EddyBeers]

The Tories are already operating under a coalition government. Unless someone can show me how they get to 154 votes to support their policies without the support of another party, they would be in a coalition government.

If the Liberals vote against the economic update, and the NDP vote against the economic update, and the Bloc votes against the economic update, the government falls, plain and simple. It is only responsible to have a contingency plan.

If the Bloc supports it, then the government does not fall and they are the coalition partners for the Tories on the economic update. But for every confidence matter before the House, the Tories have to create a coalition with another party, such is the nature of a minority government.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

How could the other parties afford to fight another election? This whole thing is absolutely insane.

Totally insane and counterproductive.

However, it may the risk Harper is willing to take. The other parties will be too poor to mount a real campaign, and he can villainize them for not playing ball in a gloomy global situation.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

^which is also sickening. If that were to happen all parties should be held to the fire. This is not time to go back to the polls. The job of ALL parties is to find a way to work together and govern our f'n nation.

Get to work.

Or as that guy on SNL says.

FIX IT

I agree, the Tories better put something in the economic stimulus another party can support and quick. They need to rebuild their coalition government.