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.
Providing a benefit to one group is not "punishing" another group. If a family doesn't qualify for the Children't fitness tax credit because their kids are more interested in piano lessons and drama classes than they are in playing hockey and soccer, that's not a punishment. The purpose of that tax credit is to encourage increased physical activity among children. Do you think families whose kids choose non-physical extracurricular activities should also receive an equal tax credit?
Providing a benefit to one group is not "punishing" another group. If a family doesn't qualify for the Children't fitness tax credit because their kids are more interested in piano lessons and drama classes than they are in playing hockey and soccer, that's not a punishment. The purpose of that tax credit is to encourage increased physical activity among children. Do you think families whose kids choose non-physical extracurricular activities should also receive an equal tax credit?
I suppose it depends on the motivation behind the credit.
If it is done to increase enrollment then we can have a conversation about the most effective way to increase enrollment. Giving money directly to an organization like right to play might do a better job of making sports accessible.
If, on the other hand, the credit is there to provide a break to voters who are already enrolling their kids in sports I think it is more of a vote buying PR stunt. In this case, it is taking money from people without children in sports and giving it to parents with kids in sports.
Personally, I liked this thread better when it was about polls.
As for the poll in the OP, EKOS has a not insignificant liberal house effect, so my guess is there isn't any actual change here, but just a continuation of what we've been seeing for almost a year, which is still very bad news for Harper. I think he benefits somewhat from regional strength in the west, but his majority is built on a very thin foundation in Ontario, and I think he may be in real trouble in what will ultimately be the real battleground in this election, which is rural Ontario.
I do think the PCs are in trouble in Calgary Centre, but they should hold on to the rest of their seats in Alberta without too much difficulty.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Personally, I liked this thread better when it was about polls.
As for the poll in the OP, EKOS has a not insignificant liberal house effect, so my guess is there isn't any actual change here, but just a continuation of what we've been seeing for almost a year, which is still very bad news for Harper. I think he benefits somewhat from regional strength in the west, but his majority is built on a very thin foundation in Ontario, and I think he may be in real trouble in what will ultimately be the real battleground in this election, which is rural Ontario.
I do think the PCs are in trouble in Calgary Centre, but they should hold on to the rest of their seats in Alberta without too much difficulty.
Yeah, in past elections we've sometimes had one thread for discussion of political opinion, platforms, etc. And one thread for polls, predictions, etc. Maybe we should do the same in the run-up to the next Federal election.
House effects aside, this is a 3.8% jump for the Liberals from the previous EKOS poll, and follows a Forum Research poll that had a 5% jump from the previous FR poll. Hopefully we'll get new polls from Angus Reid and Ipsos Reid. The last Angus Reid poll (in June) had the CPC with high 30s numbers in Ontario, but even that was a decline from previous polls. If the next Angus Reid poll shows further decline of the CPC numbers in Ontario down toward 30%, then I think it'll be full-on panic from the Conservatives.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Or, simply, the government is not better suited to determine how I live my life than I am.
Yes, well, even if you're the rare paragon that always does the correct and optimally beneficial thing for himself and all those around you, the world is full of people who do all kinds of stupid, dangerous, selfish and short-sighted things, so for them we have government and its necessary taxes, and unfortunately you don't get to opt out.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
However, a very significant portion of those taxes were needed simply to cover the debt load.
It's not like 50% tax rates were required to cover the social services and government programs of the time.
How do you know that?
Canada's rapid expansion of infrastructure is directly related to operating income from taxes.
That there has been precious little relative investment in infrastructure, and ever increasing battles over where the more limited tax resources are spent, I think it's pretty difficult to say they weren't necessary to fund those projects and services initially.
Schools, Universities, Bridges, scientific and industrial infrastructure all boomed in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, and have all been crumbling and inadequate since. It's not just that there hasn't been new infrastructure built, either, it's that there is no longer the money to spend maintaining the existing infrastructure as well, causing it to age and degrade prematurely, shortening its lifespan and increasing the likelihood of failure, all of which cost more in the long run than adequate maintenance would cost.
It's not the case of some services drastically increasing in price, it's a case of a smaller pool of tax revenue to finance cost increases for all services across the board.
Canada's rapid expansion of infrastructure is directly related to operating income from taxes.
That there has been precious little relative investment in infrastructure, and ever increasing battles over where the more limited tax resources are spent, I think it's pretty difficult to say they weren't necessary to fund those projects and services initially.
Schools, Universities, Bridges, scientific and industrial infrastructure all boomed in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, and have all been crumbling and inadequate since. It's not just that there hasn't been new infrastructure built, either, it's that there is no longer the money to spend maintaining the existing infrastructure as well, causing it to age and degrade prematurely, shortening its lifespan and increasing the likelihood of failure, all of which cost more in the long run than adequate maintenance would cost.
It's not the case of some services drastically increasing in price, it's a case of a smaller pool of tax revenue to finance cost increases for all services across the board.
Actually figured you were referring to the 90s since there had been much discussion of debt reduction.
50s 60s and 70s are very different times.
The 70s saw massive deficits, which got us into the mess that Chretien is credited with cleaning up.
50s were a boom for a lot of reasons. I agree that infrastructure needs more resources, but to suggest the 50s were a boom time because taxes were higher is quite the reach.
With a massive baby boom (that one you seem so find of), there was a tremendous need for schools and other infrastructure. There was also a generally positive view of the future and thus an appetite to spend and build.
Lots and lots of dynamics that could be discussed.
Attempting to correlate a time of higher taxes with a more robust economy though, is a stretch. I can just as easily list times when the economy sucked and taxes were higher than they are now.
I agree that more investment in infrastructure is needed. It doesn't follow that higher taxes are needed or are beneficial. It could also be achieved with more efficient spending.
A reduced debt load allows for more allocation to things like infrastructure. But one somewhat necessarily comes before the other.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Yes, well, even if you're the rare paragon that always does the correct and optimally beneficial thing for himself and all those around you, the world is full of people who do all kinds of stupid, dangerous, selfish and short-sighted things, so for them we have government and its necessary taxes, and unfortunately you don't get to opt out.
Obviously you have not heard of the freemen-on-the-land.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Personally, I liked this thread better when it was about polls.
As for the poll in the OP, EKOS has a not insignificant liberal house effect, so my guess is there isn't any actual change here, but just a continuation of what we've been seeing for almost a year, which is still very bad news for Harper. I think he benefits somewhat from regional strength in the west, but his majority is built on a very thin foundation in Ontario, and I think he may be in real trouble in what will ultimately be the real battleground in this election, which is rural Ontario.
I do think the PCs are in trouble in Calgary Centre, but they should hold on to the rest of their seats in Alberta without too much difficulty.
Edmonton already has 1 seat NDP (Strathcona, a traditional NDP provincial seat). It would not surprise me to see the NDP take another in Edmonton, and the PC seat held by Laurie Hawn go back to the Libs (who used to have Anne McClellan in the riding).
PCs are not slam dunks in every riding.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
Providing a benefit to one group is not "punishing" another group. If a family doesn't qualify for the Children't fitness tax credit because their kids are more interested in piano lessons and drama classes than they are in playing hockey and soccer, that's not a punishment. The purpose of that tax credit is to encourage increased physical activity among children. Do you think families whose kids choose non-physical extracurricular activities should also receive an equal tax credit?
How does it not punish one group to take their tax dollars and allocate them to another group by excluding certain people? If the fed's instituted an Alberta Resident Tax Credit you don't think the rest of the country would be up in arms? Of COURSE they would, it's a fairly simple concept.
If the government wants to encourage certain behaviors (like physical fitness over non physical hobbies) perhaps there can be an argument made but I still am not in favour of such selected tax credits.
Telling parents that a day care provides better care than a friend or family member and thus families should all use day care just doesn't make sense at all.
Yes, well, even if you're the rare paragon that always does the correct and optimally beneficial thing for himself and all those around you, the world is full of people who do all kinds of stupid, dangerous, selfish and short-sighted things, so for them we have government and its necessary taxes, and unfortunately you don't get to opt out.
Agreed. But as I noted earlier, there is a difference between providing a social safety net and the sort of outright socialism Chill is proposing. I understand our social responsibility to help fund the former. I disagree with any proposal to force everyone to the lowest common denominator via the latter.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Agreed. But as I noted earlier, there is a difference between providing a social safety net and the sort of outright socialism Chill is proposing. I understand our social responsibility to help fund the former. I disagree with any proposal to force everyone to the lowest common denominator via the latter.
Wasn't he just proposing a 5% sales tax? Or am I crazy?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Telling parents that a day care provides better care than a friend or family member and thus families should all use day care just doesn't make sense at all.
It's a good thing that nobody is actually telling parents that!
Subsidized daycare is intended to encourage increased workforce participation which, in turn, leads to a stronger economy. There have even been studies that show that government-funded daycare programs pay for themselves through an increased amount of income and consumption taxes that would otherwise not have been collected from stay-at-home parents.
Quote:
After 12 years, the Quebec scheme more than pays for itself through mothers’ annual income and consumption taxes, says Pierre Fortin, an economics professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal.
For every dollar Quebec invests, it recoups $1.05 while Ottawa receives a 44-cent windfall, he says.
“The argument can no longer be that governments cannot afford it. This program is paying for itself. It is self-financing. That is the main finding,” says Fortin, who is in Toronto to attend an economic forum on child care at the Ontario Institute for Child Studies.
Quebec introduced publicly funded all-day kindergarten for 5-year-olds in 1997 with $5-a-day after-school care in every school where families requested it.
It began offering $5-a-day daycare for 4-year-olds in 1998. Each year another age was added and by 2000 all children from birth to age 5 were included. The daily parent fee rose to $7 in 2004. About 50 per cent of children under age 5 are enrolled in the program.
By 2008, about 70,000 more women with young children had entered the workforce who would not otherwise have been working, a 3.8 per cent increase, Fortin found. The ripple effect of their employment pumped an additional $5.2 billion into the Quebec economy, boosting the province’s Gross Domestic Product by 1.7 per cent.
The increased economic activity, which includes mothers’ income and consumption taxes, more than covered the province’s $1.6 billion annual child-care costs that year. (The province subsidizes each spot by about $10,000 annually.) And it poured more than $700 million in additional revenue into federal coffers.
How does it not punish one group to take their tax dollars and allocate them to another group by excluding certain people?
Isn't that the entire premise of taxation? No one receives services of the exact value as the taxes they pay. Some people receive more, some people receive less. Its the nature of the beast.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Isn't that the entire premise of taxation? No one receives services of the exact value as the taxes they pay. Some people receive more, some people receive less. Its the nature of the beast.
Well yes, but there's supposed to be good reasons behind it. Not just for the heck of it, and certainly not taxing the poor to subsidize the wealthy.
