What political issue can swing your vote?

[transplant99]

OK...again I am more talking towards PERSONAL income tax.

The total amount of income taxes collected have doubled, including personal income taxes, which are up by 82%.

Now, with this...

Afterall, isn't that the wet-dream of Reagenomics -- by lowering tax rates, businesses will perform better, thus strenghting the economy and ultimately generating more tax revenue

Are you suggesting that the Liberals instituted Reaganomics?

Or did they merely earn more revenue after the Conservatives instituted it?

I dont recall EITHER party laying that out as a platform, but clearly it must of worked, and credited towards Conservatist fiscal policy....right?

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

When the Liberals (Trudeau) put Canada in debt, it's the Liberal's fault. When Conservatives put Canada into further debt, it's the Liberal's fault. When the Liberals (Chretien, Martin) start to pay down that debt and see surpluses, it's not the Liberals fault.Is that about it?

Those are your words not mine. This is the third thread in a row were you've responded to one of my post, totally mis-representing what I said. For the record, I voted for Cretin liberals in his first term in office. Unlike Trudeau, who tried to spend his way out of debt/inflation/unemployment or Mulroney who pretty much held the status quo on spending, Cretin had the guts to make major spending cuts in health, education etc across the board. He had very sound fiscal policy, in no small part due to Paul Martin. I actually thought Martin might make a good PM, cause his work as finance minister was more right wing than Michael Wilson ever was - guess he is a better follower than a leader

[MarchHare]

Are you suggesting that the Liberals instituted Reaganomics?

Or did they merely earn more revenue after the Conservatives instituted it?

I dont recall EITHER party laying that out as a platform, but clearly it must of worked, and credited towards Conservatist fiscal policy....right?

No, I'm not suggesting either party instituted Reaganomics, just that the principle behind it applies here. In a stronger economy, government tax revenues will rise. Reaganomics tries to stimulate the economy by lowering corporate tax rates, with the ultimate goal of eventually increasing tax revenues if the economy starts to boom.

The Canadian economy was stronger in 2002 than it was in 1993, ergo tax revenues were up. There was no malicious action on the part of the Liberals to cause that increase.

As for personal income tax revenues going up, the same thing applies. In 2002, unemployment rates were about half of what they were in 1993. The average Canadian was also earning a larger wage than they were at the time the Liberals came to power. Again, it shouldn't be any surprise that the total amount of income tax revenue collected was higher than it was in 1993, solely because economic forces dictated that's the way it should be.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Those are your words not mine. This is the third thread in a row were you've responded to one of my post, totally mis-representing what I said. For the record, I voted for Cretin liberals in his first term in office. Unlike Trudeau, who tried to spend his way out of debt/inflation/unemployment or Mulroney who pretty much held the status quo on spending, Cretin had the guts to make major spending cuts in health, education etc across the board. He had very sound fiscal policy, in no small part due to Paul Martin. I actually thought Martin might make a good PM, cause his work as finance minister was more right wing than Michael Wilson ever was - guess he is a better follower than a leader

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I asked "is this what you are trying to say" pretty clearly. If it's not what you are trying to say, then it's a yes or no question.

I got the impression that you felt that Trudeau dug the hole, Mulroney kept on digging because Trudeau forced him, and the Liberals after that deserve no credit for at least starting to dig out of it. Maybe I got the "Liberals don't deserve any credit" from somewhere else. If so then I tearfully apologize.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No, I'm not suggesting either party instituted Reaganomics, just that the principle behind it applies here. In a stronger economy, government tax revenues will rise. Reaganomics tries to stimulate the economy by lowering corporate tax rates, with the ultimate goal of eventually increasing tax revenues if the economy starts to boom.

The Canadian economy was stronger in 2002 than it was in 1993, ergo tax revenues were up. There was no malicious action on the part of the Liberals to cause that increase.

As for personal income tax revenues going up, the same thing applies. In 2002, unemployment rates were about half of what they were in 1993. The average Canadian was also earning a larger wage than they were at the time the Liberals came to power. Again, it shouldn't be any surprise that the total amount of income tax revenue collected was higher than it was in 1993, solely because economic forces dictated that's the way it should be.

So if that's the case....tax rates would be DOWN from where they were 12 years ago because the economy is stronger right?

Is that the case?

Absolutely and completely NOT. Its one of the main reasons I left the country. The *******s were stealing then and they are stealing even more now.

So...now how do you explain it?

Here is my "take"...the tax and spend liberals taxed and spent then taxed some more and then taxed some more. When the TAXES they collected continued to pour in, they then applied that to debt, but not all of it so they could claim SURPLUS.

That's really not THEIR money to do that with, but I digress. Im certainly no economist becuase i hate mmath with a passion, but the real numbers are pretty clear. The average Canadian has LESS money by % coming home with them than even 12 years ago when the Liberals promised to abolish the GST to provide just that scenario. Since then, there have been a MULTITUDE of additional taxes applied to the average Canadian. Ther is NO getting away from that dude.

But hey...they did start that fabulously incompetant gun registry, stold money for party purposes, leaked info to insiders about trading, etc etc etc....so i guess its not so bad.

[MarchHare]

Tax rates are not higher now than they were in 1993.

From a Globe and Mail editorial (an editorial where they endorsed the Conservatives in this election, no less):

Ask yourself a simple multiple of Ronald Reagan's famous electoral question: Are you better off today than you were 12 years ago? Unemployment then stood at 11.2 per cent. Today, it is 6.5 per cent. An average mortgage rate was 8.78 per cent. Now it is 5.99 per cent, making home ownership affordable for hundreds of thousands more Canadians. The national debt has fallen from 66.5 per cent of gross domestic product to 38.7 per cent. Taxes are down; our standard of living is up.

Emphasis mine.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...lDecision2006/

[The Goon]

Back to the original question, I suppose it may be a little "pie-in-the-sky", but the issue of democratic reform could influence my vote. Back when the Reform Party emerged, I was a Poli Sci student and I couldn't support the Reformers one iota. I really did hate them. Then I read Preston Manning's idea of a EEE Senate, and thought, "Hey, good idea."

So I hope in the event of a Conservative government, there are plans set in motion to create a EEE senate, as well as set terms for the government.

[EddyBeers]

haha, globe and mail, every good neo-con knows that that is a communist rag. In any event, I am sure that neo-cons realize that tax revenue is the result of a basic forumula tax rate X tax base. If your tax base (amount of income that is taxable) increases it is only natural that the amount of tax revenue also increases

For example, if you have a 50% tax rate on 1000 dollars you get 500 dollars in tax revenue.

But if you have a 25% tax rate on 3000 dollars you get 750 dollars for revenue

That is basically what happened under the Liberals and anybody with a basic level of tax knowledge would realize this.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Tax rates are not higher now than they were in 1993.

From a Globe and Mail editorial (an editorial where they endorsed the Conservatives in this election, no less):



Emphasis mine.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...lDecision2006/

That's nice. A G&M liberal paper quoting #'s in an editorial. Too bad they are so badly incorrect.

Here...from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Structural over-taxation occurs when a government consistently collects more revenues than it needs to meet its annual funding commitments. As Canadians have suffered from high taxes and income stagnation, government coffers have overflowed. Ottawa is running multi-year and multi-billion dollar surpluses. Studies have shown that after-tax household incomes have increased only 3.8 per cent in the last twenty five years while federal government revenues increased 372 per cent over the same period.

This article was written in May of 05....

The personal income tax – federal and provincial – that you paid in 2004 was only a fraction of your total tax bill. According to the Fraser Institute, the average Canadian family (two or more people) earned about $75,000 in 2004, and paid $12,300 in income taxes.

But on top of that $12,300 the average family paid an additional $7,800 in health care premiums, CPP and EI taxes.

That brings the total bill to $20,100.

But it doesn’t end there. In addition to income tax, the health care premium tax, CPP tax and EI tax, the average Canadian family paid about $2,800 in property taxes in 2004. Not just homeowners, but renters also pay property tax, hidden in cost of rent each month. That brings the total bill to $22,900.

The Fraser Institute further calculates that the average Canadian family also pays about $6,000 a year in federal and provincial sales taxes. Here in Alberta the total bill would be closer to $3,000, because there is no provincial sales tax. But we do pay a 3% hidden sales tax on insurance as well as a 4% sales tax when staying in hotels and motels.

Adding $6,000 brings the total tax bill to $28,900 for the average Canadian family.

Canadians also pay business taxes, which are included in the price of every product and service that is sold. At the end of the day, taxes are always paid by people, even if the tax is initially paid by a corporation

Now, I havent the exact numbers for 1993 nor what the adjusted inflation rate is.

I have an email in to Scott Hennig who is the director of the Alberta chapter to send me a copy comparing 93 to 05. It likely wont be available until the 24th or so, but will certainly post it when it arrives.

[Shazam]

WTF? Those numbers are totally out of whack.

I'll use 2006 rates because I'm too lazy to find the 2004 numbers. Nevertheless they're very similar.

MAX CPP for one person is $1,910.70, up to $42,100 of taxable earnings.
MAX EI for one person is $729.30, up to $39000 of taxable earnings.

So 1910.70 + 729.30 = $2640 for one person. Times two = $5280.

But the only way to reach these maximums is to actually make at least $42,100 of pensionable income in one year. So $42,100 * 2 = $84,200, which is actually quite a bit more than the "average" $75,000 they state.

I'm not sure where they're getting the other $2520 in health care premiums. Only three provinces charge them.

$2800 in property taxes is incredibly high. I only pay $2000 a year. Not sure how the average family making only $75K can afford a house that requires $2800 in property taxes.

I'm not sure I'm spending $3000 on GST. That requires me to purchase about $42800 in GST eligible purchases in a year. I wish I was spending that kind of dough...

And of course, only companies that make money actually pay business income taxes.

Yeah, I believe Canadians are overtaxed. The CTF's crazy numbers don't actually help the situation though.

[HOZ]

1) Reform the "Worlds Greatest" waiting line..ie Our HealthCare. By doing something more than throwing money at it. As it stands we pay 400 dollars plus per month on it just to wait and die!

400 dollars would get you some of the very best health insurance in the US!!!

2) Nuke the CBC. I will go Green if they do this!

3) An End to Mediocricy...actually have a plan for Canada other than looking at the latest opinion polls and making a platform that way. Example is Kyoto. We signed up to hobknob with the Euroelite and thumb our noses at the US or destroying the Earth. Low and behold we are nowhere near our "goals" and neither are all those great European countries. Yet the US has reduced it's emmissions...hmmmmmm

Have a plan. Have goals. Look at consequences. Don't sign things just because it feels good.

[FlamesAddiction]

No single issue could sway me.

In fact, one of the things that really annoys me about politics is the number of people who change their mind so easily. People who ignore politics every single day of the year, but then vote only on 3 weeks of campaigning and on issues that are "campaign" friendly.

[Winsor_Pilates]

The closest thing to being able to sway me is a party's stance on crime.

Although I'm a person who is fairly left on most issues, I get really frustrated with our legal system. I'm really sick of hearing about shootings/stabings etc. and never hearing of people getting charged. I've had 2 friends stabbed in the last 4 years and no one has seen a day of jail in relation to either event.

The guy wanted by the US for traficing guns that was released today is a perfect example. Really ****es me off to see someone like that released because of loopholes in our justice system.
Based on crime alone, I would vote Conservative, but since I don't like just about anything else they stand for I can't do that.

If the Conservatives do win, I hope they can prove to do a better job of treating criminals like criminals.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The closest thing to being able to sway me is a party's stance on crime.

The thing that bothers me about the issue of crime is how it has become such an "either-or" issue.

The Liberals say that focusing on prevention is the best way to handle crime. Tackle poverty, inequity, have more rehabilitation programs, weapon bans,and counciling options.

The Conservatives like to focus on deterence to try and prevent crime. They want tougher sentences, real punishment, and more police powers.

Why can't we have both?

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

No single issue could sway me.

In fact, one of the things that really annoys me about politics is the number of people who change their mind so easily.

An open mind is a bad thing? To me, there is nothing more disgusting than someone who votes for a doucebag such as Rob Anders, just because the candidate is Conservative. The same could be said for political candidates on the other end of the spectrum. Scumbags like Anders should never hold any power in a country such as Canada.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

An open mind is a bad thing? To me, there is nothing more disgusting than someone who votes for a doucebag such as Rob Anders, just because the candidate is Conservative. The same could be said for political candidates on the other end of the spectrum. Scumbags like Anders should never hold any power in a country such as Canada.

I didn't say having an open mind is a bad thing, but people who cave because some campaign ad or spin doctor are a bad thing. There are usually years between elections, yet most people base their opinion in 3 weeks of campaigning. That is bothersome to me.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I didn't say having an open mind is a bad thing, but people who cave because some campaign ad or spin doctor are a bad thing.

Sure, voting for a certain party because you are scared because of political ads is unfortunate. On the flip side, sticking with a party for life and not addressing any opposing views is also unfortunate. I am really disgusted that an MP like Mr. Anders has been elected, what, 3 times now?

[Resolute 14]

I certantly cannot think of anything that could sway my vote today. It certantly is possible, but it would take something right out of left field for it to happen. The only absolute that I am willing to go with is that I would never vote NDP. Not even if I walked into the voting booth with a gun to my head.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Sure, voting for a certain party because you are scared because of political ads is unfortunate. On the flip side, sticking with a party for life and not addressing any opposing views is also unfortunate. I am really disgusted that an MP like Mr. Anders has been elected, what, 3 times now?

I agree that people should not vote unconditionally for party, but they should take more than 3 weeks to form an opinion on who they should vote for. The way the polls have changed in the past 2 weeks since the campaigns began, really shows how susceptible to advertising they are. If it were really just the issues that swayed people, they would have been swayed earlier. So many bandwagoners.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree that people should not vote unconditionally for party, but they should take more than 3 weeks to form an opinion on who they should vote for. The way the polls have changed in the past 2 weeks since the campaigns began, really shows how susceptible to advertising they are. If it were really just the issues that swayed people, they would have been swayed earlier. So many bandwagoners.

True. Those political ads really do have quite the influence on the general public.