New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Why should stay at home parents or family caregivers be punished? Tax credits for children makes much more sense than forcing people to choose day care in order to receive financial rewards.

How is not receiving a tax credit for not enrolling their children in daycare punishing stay-at-home parent families?

That's no different than saying homeowners who didn't receive the home renovation tax credit because they didn't perform any renovations to their property were being "punished".

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

"Beer and popcorn" liberalTM

Wow. Someone besides me remembers that.

As much as the Liberals took a LOT of heat for that, it is true that there are some parents out there that would take any moneys supposed to be used for their children's benefit and waste it on their own needs. Obviously not all, not most, but some. And there has to be a way to ensure that it is going towards the childs needs.

The issue with giving "daycare money" to parents is that it HAS TO BE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR DAYCARE. The paltry sum parents are getting right now wouldn't play for 1 day per week in Toronto. Single moms STILL have no choice but to stay on welfare and stay home with the child.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Wow. Someone besides me remembers that.

As much as the Liberals took a LOT of heat for that, it is true that there are some parents out there that would take any moneys supposed to be used for their children's benefit and waste it on their own needs. Obviously not all, not most, but some. And there has to be a way to ensure that it is going towards the childs needs.

And it's not even necessarily bad parents who would waste the HarperBucks(TM) on their own frivolous needs. My father is very good friends with a doctor. At the time that The Harper Government introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit ($1200 per child per year), he was making >$350k, way more than enough to provide for all his children's needs and then some. They had it better than virtually every other family in the country. But because he had two kids under the age of 6, they were getting $2400 each year courtesy of taxpayers like you and me to blow on any frivolous thing they wanted.

[prime333]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Wow. Someone besides me remembers that.

As much as the Liberals took a LOT of heat for that, it is true that there are some parents out there that would take any moneys supposed to be used for their children's benefit and waste it on their own needs. Obviously not all, not most, but some. And there has to be a way to ensure that it is going towards the childs needs.

The issue with giving "daycare money" to parents is that it HAS TO BE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR DAYCARE. The paltry sum parents are getting right now wouldn't play for 1 day per week in Toronto. Single moms STILL have no choice but to stay on welfare and stay home with the child.

And? I'm sure there is a reason for that. There is a reason they are single.

[evman150]

Oops wrong account. Meant to thank that post with my "nobody" username.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How is not receiving a tax credit for not enrolling their children in daycare punishing stay-at-home parent families?

That's no different than saying homeowners who didn't receive the home renovation tax credit because they didn't perform any renovations to their property were being "punished".

... which they were, because if they paid enough taxes they subsidized other people's renovations. That is exactly the type of boutique tax credit that is complete and utter garbage.

The problem with tax credits (if I understand them correctly) is they don't help the people who need them the most - those people don't pay taxes anyways.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by prime333

And? I'm sure there is a reason for that. There is a reason they are single.

By all means, please do elaborate. Don't leave us guessing.

[Red John]

Originally Posted by evman150

Just want to thank psycnet and jammies and others for their thoughtful posts against libertarianism.

Libertarians exemplify the sentiment that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[kn]

Originally Posted by Thor

For me its easy, I cannot in good conscience vote for Harper's conservatives for their policies that have gutted Science in Canada, this is the key to future success for Canada investing and putting more money into research and development.

This is it for me, in a nutshell. Because of the Harper government's attack on science, I cannot, in good conscience, vote Conservative in the next election.

I was really impressed with what Martha Hall-Findlay had to say in her stop in Calgary and wished she had been elected leader of the Liberals. Trudeau... well... I'll have to hear more come election time.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How is not receiving a tax credit for not enrolling their children in daycare punishing stay-at-home parent families?

That's no different than saying homeowners who didn't receive the home renovation tax credit because they didn't perform any renovations to their property were being "punished".

Feeding, housing and clothing a child is not the same thing as deciding that a new toilet might be nice.

[PeteMoss]

According to this (from 2012) - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-mo....html?page=all

Canada is the most educated country in the world (highest percentage of college graduates). Sure it is getting more expensive, but more and more people are going so I don't see why you need to blast up everyone's taxes, particularly the HST which hurts the poor more than anyone.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Certainly neither the current provincial government or national government have shown that they should be trusted with that high of a tax increase, but I still think it has value as a realistic concept.

Personally, I think (in Alberta specifically) the tax rate is criminally low. Even a PST of 5% would be valuable. The amount of cuts that happen in this province of social programs is concerning considering the wealth we have. Part of that is mismanaging the money we have. Another smaller part is the lack of proper taxation I think.

Well, Alberta's primary problem is more likely wasteful spending rather than lack of revenue, but the question of whether the province utilizes appropriate taxation levels is valid. However, you completely ignored my objection to your ludicrous tax scheme. What on earth would lend anyone to support the idea that they should give up such a ludicrous percentage of their income, on top of what they already give up, because the government says that it is better able to spend that money on other people? Any government that suggested something so stupid would lose every seat it held in the following election, and rightly so.

A tax that high isn't simply funding a social safety net. It's funding outright socialism. It is also rather ironic given you want jack the hell out of a consumption tax to relieve pet favourite groups of the need to pay for services they consume.

[GP_Matt]

Instead of making new taxes we should just start eliminating tax breaks.
There is such a ridiculous amount of niche tax breaks.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

According to this (from 2012) - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-mo....html?page=all

Canada is the most educated country in the world (highest percentage of college graduates). Sure it is getting more expensive, but more and more people are going so I don't see why you need to blast up everyone's taxes, particularly the HST which hurts the poor more than anyone.

The HST hasn't been "blasted up". HST combines the GST and provincial sales tax and from what I have read is a better/fairer tax than what it replaced.

I don't think the HST hurts the poor at all... the HST isn't charged on essentials like groceries or rent, and low income taxpayers get an HST rebate to offset the HST they pay on other items.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How is not receiving a tax credit for not enrolling their children in daycare punishing stay-at-home parent families?

That's no different than saying homeowners who didn't receive the home renovation tax credit because they didn't perform any renovations to their property were being "punished".

It's the same. The home renovation tax credit punished those who didn't own homes or perform renovations.

Selected tax credits are a dumb strategy. Lower taxes for everyone or if you want to help families with children then give them a break directly.

Somehow saying daycare families are better than other families who have relatives as care givers or one parent at home so only those who use day cares deserve a break is ridiculous.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, Alberta's primary problem is more likely wasteful spending rather than lack of revenue, but the question of whether the province utilizes appropriate taxation levels is valid. However, you completely ignored my objection to your ludicrous tax scheme. What on earth would lend anyone to support the idea that they should give up such a ludicrous percentage of their income, on top of what they already give up, because the government says that it is better able to spend that money on other people? Any government that suggested something so stupid would lose every seat it held in the following election, and rightly so.

A tax that high isn't simply funding a social safety net. It's funding outright socialism. It is also rather ironic given you want jack the hell out of a consumption tax to relieve pet favourite groups of the need to pay for services they consume.

My apologies, wasn't my intention to ignore anything at all, I just took on a lot to respond to at that moment

Obviously it's a fairly substantial and likely indigestible increase for most people, and I didn't mean for it to come across as "Hey what if a government did that tomorrow?" but rather, "What if Canada slowly built itself toward that?"

I'm not at all denying it would fund a more socialist state, but to me that isn't a bad word. While the idea of daycare or children attending school for free obviously doesn't appeal to you, what about a free, expansive health care? What if you didn't have to worry about what job you had because healthcare was already covered? What about higher pensions and an earlier retirement age? I'd like to retire before 67, personally. Early retirement creates more opportunities for a young, educated workforce to find employment, so it does have a greater benefit than just supporting those of retirement age.

Consumption taxes are a very small drop in the pond compared to income tax (which should also be raised). I understand that it may be of no direct benefit to yourself right now, but high taxes do inevitably benefit everyone. Granted, I'm bias, but it is partially because of that bias that perhaps I don't see the problem you're getting at fully. In scenarios common to this, as tax goes up on items, so too does minimum wage. As I said, it's not as though this is an immediate, feasible solution, but one that Canada could be benefitted by building towards.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, Alberta's primary problem is more likely wasteful spending rather than lack of revenue, but the question of whether the province utilizes appropriate taxation levels is valid. However, you completely ignored my objection to your ludicrous tax scheme. What on earth would lend anyone to support the idea that they should give up such a ludicrous percentage of their income, on top of what they already give up, because the government says that it is better able to spend that money on other people? Any government that suggested something so stupid would lose every seat it held in the following election, and rightly so.

A tax that high isn't simply funding a social safety net. It's funding outright socialism. It is also rather ironic given you want jack the hell out of a consumption tax to relieve pet favourite groups of the need to pay for services they consume.

Talking about "pet favourite groups that need to pay for the services they consume"...

Actually, alberta's primary problem is the woeful way they treat extraction of their natural resources and how they don't actually collect even the woeful percentage they are actually owed for that extraction.

50-60 billion dollars, outstanding, from historically low royalty rates.

Ef your taxes, just collect what's owed and start from there.

I think we might even agree about the taxes, I just think that revenue should come from, you know, the resources belonging to the citizens of Alberta.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

My apologies, wasn't my intention to ignore anything at all, I just took on a lot to respond to at that moment

Obviously it's a fairly substantial and likely indigestible increase for most people, and I didn't mean for it to come across as "Hey what if a government did that tomorrow?" but rather, "What if Canada slowly built itself toward that?"

I'm not at all denying it would fund a more socialist state, but to me that isn't a bad word. While the idea of daycare or children attending school for free obviously doesn't appeal to you, what about a free, expansive health care? What if you didn't have to worry about what job you had because healthcare was already covered? What about higher pensions and an earlier retirement age? I'd like to retire before 67, personally. Early retirement creates more opportunities for a young, educated workforce to find employment, so it does have a greater benefit than just supporting those of retirement age.

Consumption taxes are a very small drop in the pond compared to income tax (which should also be raised). I understand that it may be of no direct benefit to yourself right now, but high taxes do inevitably benefit everyone. Granted, I'm bias, but it is partially because of that bias that perhaps I don't see the problem you're getting at fully. In scenarios common to this, as tax goes up on items, so too does minimum wage. As I said, it's not as though this is an immediate, feasible solution, but one that Canada could be benefitted by building towards.

During Canada's most prosperous period, corporate and personal tax rates were significantly higher than they are now. Significantly.

There is ample evidence that it works and increasingly mounting evidence that lower rates do not.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Plett25

The HST hasn't been "blasted up". HST combines the GST and provincial sales tax and from what I have read is a better/fairer tax than what it replaced.

I don't think the HST hurts the poor at all... the HST isn't charged on essentials like groceries or rent, and low income taxpayers get an HST rebate to offset the HST they pay on other items.

My comment was in regard to the suggestion to put it up to 20-25% to give free daycare/university.

And yes - for the most part it is better because it eliminates double taxation on the same goods but that is another discussion (but as we saw in BC it typically doesn't go over well)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

My apologies, wasn't my intention to ignore anything at all, I just took on a lot to respond to at that moment

Obviously it's a fairly substantial and likely indigestible increase for most people, and I didn't mean for it to come across as "Hey what if a government did that tomorrow?" but rather, "What if Canada slowly built itself toward that?"

I'm not at all denying it would fund a more socialist state, but to me that isn't a bad word. While the idea of daycare or children attending school for free obviously doesn't appeal to you, what about a free, expansive health care? What if you didn't have to worry about what job you had because healthcare was already covered? What about higher pensions and an earlier retirement age? I'd like to retire before 67, personally. Early retirement creates more opportunities for a young, educated workforce to find employment, so it does have a greater benefit than just supporting those of retirement age.

Consumption taxes are a very small drop in the pond compared to income tax (which should also be raised). I understand that it may be of no direct benefit to yourself right now, but high taxes do inevitably benefit everyone. Granted, I'm bias, but it is partially because of that bias that perhaps I don't see the problem you're getting at fully. In scenarios common to this, as tax goes up on items, so too does minimum wage. As I said, it's not as though this is an immediate, feasible solution, but one that Canada could be benefitted by building towards.

It is funny you should mention retirement, because when I look at your plan, that is precisely what I would be losing out on under it. Your tax increases would severely degrade my ability to save for my own retirement, thus forcing me to rely on the welfare state. I would no longer be able to plan to live to a standard I determine and would instead be largely forced into the standard the government dictates, which all to often caters to the lowest common denominator.

Additionally, the idea of retiring earlier and making room for younger people in the workforce presupposes that the population trends support that. Canada is a country that has an aging population on average, meaning that allowing people to retire earlier under your welfare state philosophy only places an ever increasing burden on a shrinking working population. You could only pay to maintain your scheme with ever increasing taxes and an ever growing disincentivization for any individual to try and get ahead.

As far as "free healthcare" goes, nothing is ever free. And if there is one thing that Alberta well demonstrates, simply throwing more money at the system does not result in a better system.

tl;dr version: The problems with your system are that (1) it removes individual responsibility, (2) it forces everyone to live under government mandated standards of living and (3) removes incentives to try and improve one's position.

Or, simply, the government is not better suited to determine how I live my life than I am.