Harper's Immediate Plans - Interview

[FireFly]

Love that Layton has to think about the GST cut.... way to garner support from the working man Layton.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Love that Layton has to think about the GST cut.... way to garner support from the working man Layton.

If you want to talk about tax cuts then cutting the GST is the worst form of tax cut for Canadians because it is a taxation based on consumption. You spend more then you pay more.

If you want a meaningful tax cut for "the working man" then a cut in personal income taxes for lower and middle class Canadians is the correct way to do it.

Cutting the GST is simply some election flash for uninformed voters.

[FireFly]

And yet a middle class person paying $125,000 for a new home will save $1250 on their mortgage at just a 1% tax reduction, not to mention the interest on that 1% of their mortgage over a 25 year period. And that's an awfully small home.

So you see, it gives the lower and middle class more buying options for the necessary things like shelter and such.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And yet a middle class person paying $125,000 for a new home will save $1250 on their mortgage at just a 1% tax reduction, not to mention the interest on that 1% of their mortgage over a 25 year period. And that's an awfully small home.

So you see, it gives the lower and middle class more buying options for the necessary things like shelter and such.

I would have to say that the exception certainly does not prove the rule in that case.

If you are lower or middle class and not in the market for a new home then a personal tax cut would be better than cutting the GST.

Cutting the GST cuts taxation revenue from all taxpayers rather than targetting a specific income bracket as what "the working man" would be looking for.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And yet a middle class person paying $125,000 for a new home will save $1250 on their mortgage at just a 1% tax reduction, not to mention the interest on that 1% of their mortgage over a 25 year period. And that's an awfully small home.

So you see, it gives the lower and middle class more buying options for the necessary things like shelter and such.

Are they going to lower the GST percentage on new homes? That was 4% so will it go down to 3% or 2% as the 7% GST is subsequently lowered?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I would have to say that the exception certainly does not prove the rule in that case.

If you are lower or middle class and not in the market for a new home then a personal tax cut would be better than cutting the GST.

Cutting the GST cuts taxation revenue from all taxpayers rather than targetting a specific income bracket as what "the working man" would be looking for.

But the lower classes don't pay income tax, and don't pay as much income tax when they get out of the lowest bracket.

Besides, the NDP weren't proposing any tax cuts as their spending habits wouldn't agree with lowering taxes anyways.

My point is that it's a stupid PR move. Which won't matter anyways, as the Liberals can't afford to block the lowering of the GST. So to be the only party that tries to stop the lowering of the GST will not look good for them.

And Marc, I guess it was a bad example, as I've never purchased a new home, so I didn't realize the tax on one was lower. How about a car then?

[Bobblehead]

Actually, the GST on a new home is 7%, however new homes (and substantial renovations) qualify for a GST rebate. Standard practice is to sign this rebate over to the builder and you only pay the net GST.

[4X4]

Don't really get the same sex marriage debate. I understand why gays want equal rights (taxation, pension, other benefits), but I scratch my head on why they want to change the word 'marriage'. Seems that historically, gay people spend much time and effort clarifying and underscoring the differences between themselves and the hetero community.
PArades, stickers, flags, words... Seems to me that they prefer being noted as 'different' from the hetero community.
So why wouldn't they want their marriages to be called something else? Just a question that I ask and alot of Canadians ask.

Sure, there are different portions f society that vehemently oppose any form of gay union, and there are those that have no problem/fully support changing the definition of marriage.
IMO, that is not really where the debate lies.

Mike F, I think that equating the chinese head tax to gay 'marriage' is way off. I think that most people in Canada realize that gay marriage was inevitable. It really was just a matter of definition.

I am personally opposed to changing the definition of the word, but that's probably because I'm one of those people that prefers descriptive accuracy. Why be vague? Why take a perfectly accurate word and change it to become ambiguous?

So why not re-open the debate to let Canada decide what marriage is? There is no real risk of gays losing their right to become unified under the law. It would really just settle what it would be called.

For the sake of clarity, why not?

[Canada 02]

Stephen Harper's plan to cut the GST would be more beneficial to lower-income Canadians than the Liberal cuts to personal income tax rates, a new analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute shows.

It is the last story in this google search : GST plan proves better for the poor

http://news.google.ca/news?sourceid=...T+McFARLAND%22

[ernie]

the GST cut is pretty good for anybody that buys big ticket items quite often or for example leases a car every coupel of years. It is also the ONLY tax cut that can hit the lower class...the 31 % that do not pay income tax (or pay very very little). There is a reason why the left wing think tanks liked that part of the Tory platform even if they didn't like the bulk of it.

It's more of a symbolic gesture than anything but atleast it's something that you can tangibly see every time I go out to eat or buy something.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by FireFly

My point is that it's a stupid PR move. Which won't matter anyways, as the Liberals can't afford to block the lowering of the GST. So to be the only party that tries to stop the lowering of the GST will not look good for them.

I agree with this. Especially when a move to the centre would help their prospects in the next election. Blocking the GST reduction would not be a popular move for anyone outside of staunch NDP/Green supporters.

Originally Posted by FireFly

And Marc, I guess it was a bad example, as I've never purchased a new home, so I didn't realize the tax on one was lower. How about a car then?

I was just posting because I wasn't sure if they were planning on lowering GST on new homes. That might be in the cards, who knows.

[Bobblehead]

Consumption taxes are generally considered more economically efficient than income taxes, simply because income taxes penalize you for working more(earning more money).

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Marc Ciampa

I was just posting because I wasn't sure if they were planning on lowering GST on new homes. That might be in the cards, who knows.

I found this article from just before the election. link

Geez. If he starts indexing the GST on new homes, it could get very complicated.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Stephen Harper's plan to cut the GST would be more beneficial to lower-income Canadians than the Liberal cuts to personal income tax rates, a new analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute shows.

It is the last story in this google search : GST plan proves better for the poor

http://news.google.ca/news?sourceid=...T+McFARLAND%22

Any chance of quoting the article for non-subscribers?

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Any chance of quoting the article for non-subscribers?

Click on the google link; it is the last article on the first page of the google search

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Click on the google link; it is the last article on the first page of the google search

Thanks, I didn't try the google link; only the direct link.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Don't really get the same sex marriage debate. I understand why gays want equal rights (taxation, pension, other benefits), but I scratch my head on why they want to change the word 'marriage'. Seems that historically, gay people spend much time and effort clarifying and underscoring the differences between themselves and the hetero community.
PArades, stickers, flags, words... Seems to me that they prefer being noted as 'different' from the hetero community.
So why wouldn't they want their marriages to be called something else? Just a question that I ask and alot of Canadians ask.

Sure, there are different portions f society that vehemently oppose any form of gay union, and there are those that have no problem/fully support changing the definition of marriage.
IMO, that is not really where the debate lies.

Mike F, I think that equating the chinese head tax to gay 'marriage' is way off. I think that most people in Canada realize that gay marriage was inevitable. It really was just a matter of definition.

I am personally opposed to changing the definition of the word, but that's probably because I'm one of those people that prefers descriptive accuracy. Why be vague? Why take a perfectly accurate word and change it to become ambiguous?

So why not re-open the debate to let Canada decide what marriage is? There is no real risk of gays losing their right to become unified under the law. It would really just settle what it would be called.

For the sake of clarity, why not?

Wow. I registered on this forum just to tell you how great of a post this was. You are correct. 1) Marriage isn't a right. 2) Harper's free vote won't affect any benefits at all. If it passes, it will merely be called something different than marriage, which it obviously is.

Learn to read beyond the headlines people.

[Hack&Lube]

Most likely scenario, like Bobby Clarke said when Iggy was first mentioned for Team Canada: "He doesn't initiate anything."

But Sakic will set him up for some nice goals just like in 2000.