Lamestream media reports that some 'economists' say a 1% cut in the GST only amounts to an extra 13 bucks in people's pockets, and that the vast majority of 'economists' are against tax cuts anyway.
But, if $13 is one percent of what people spend on GST a year - how do they get away with only purchasing $1300 worth of goods and services a year?
What do they do with all the rest of their money? How do they live?
If an average family spends $10,000 a year on goods & services, they probably spend more, but even if that's all they spend - that's a hundred bucks in their pocket.
Are 'economists' morons? Or just the ones quoted by lamestream media?
We have a nice little fixer upper bungalow for sale in Edmonton for 315,000. The market is glutted at the moment with too many homes on the market and we have not had many bites. The price is in a starter home budget for someone who wants to do as little work. An extra 1% savings on purchasing this will save a young family more than $3,000. Nice savings - enough to cover the costs of lawyers, etc. It is all good when ANY taxes come down.
I think everyone can find something in there they like, if they really try.
In any case, Stephane Dion will have to walk a fine line between registering his disdain for the GST cuts, for example, and still presenting a credible argument that it's not worth an election.
That will be very enjoyable entertainment.
Also watch for the PST to increase in Quebec and Ontario.
Lamestream media reports that some 'economists' say a 1% cut in the GST only amounts to an extra 13 bucks in people's pockets, and that the vast majority of 'economists' are against tax cuts anyway.
But, if $13 is one percent of what people spend on GST a year - how do they get away with only purchasing $1300 worth of goods and services a year?
If you read this, it says $13 a month, which would work out to spending $15600 a year.
You get a pizza a month. Unless you're rich, then you get more.
L.S. - If it's such a sham, why not vote against it?
Harper will be allowed to tinker all he wants, while providing "liberal lite" government. People wonder, if all his bills get passed, why is he so anxious for a majority? What would he do with a majority that he won't do in a situation where all his bills get passed? Must be a hidden agenda!
Majority government by default.
Time is on our side. Harper will get cocky, slip and reveal his true colours. Dion is unflappable, Harper is not. Harper will blink first.
L.S. Comparing my household (income >$200K - no kids) and my inlaws (income <100K 2 kids) they benefit a lot more from the GST cut than we do simply because we buy a lot less that is subject to GST in a year. If there was GST on income tax then of course we'd be screwed.
LS, your reaching, I think what you see is what your going to get from PMSH, I think he likes living at 24 Sussex and I really do not believe your going to see any radical changes in social policy. He might get a little crazy with law and order but most Canadians support that, your hopes of some all out assault on abortion, women rights, etc is not going to happen. I do not think there is the "hidden agenda" your hoping for, and besides what are the LPC member bitching about if he is running Liberal lite so did PMPM and PMJC and the LPC members loved them.
Is it time once again to provide the short sighted this little story? Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
if all his bills get passed, why is he so anxious for a majority? What would he do with a majority that he won't do in a situation where all his bills get passed?
The LP seems to think he's anxious for a majority. What politician wouldn't want one? Did any Lib leader run for a minority? Well...maybe Paul Martin. :)
I suspect he's happy to run on the de facto majority the LP has already given him.
LS, it's not fair. Harper is at a disadvantage in a staring contest because he's got his eyes open.
And Greg should look up what happened to Ireland when they cut corporate taxes to 11%. It was a disaster for the people. They have gone from being one of the poorest countries in western Europe to the fourth richest in the world. It would be a terrible fate to impose something like that on the 20th place Canadians, so we really should make the corporations pay.
Liberal supporter go back to your cocoon at Red Tory. The Liberals didn't want an election in 2005 and they don't want now in 2007. They knew in 2005 that the jig was up and they know in 2007 that it's just gonna get worse.
Dion is all talk no action. His credibility, already suspect, is shot since the throne speech. Nobody much cares what he says these days.
You best be getting back to moonbat centra, a.k.a. Red Tory so you can feed off each other's delusional analysis.
The NDP are going to have a field day, campaigning against Bob Rae in the Toronto Centre by-election.
What is Bob going to do inside the H of C that he isn't already doing in the lobby ? It's not like the Libs need him inside to vote, or anything like that.
Things are looking pretty good for the Tories today. Sure the chattering classes are up in arms about cutting the GST (and, yes, mobius, they did once upon a time pledge to scrap it...it briefly cost Sheila Copps a job), but the regular Joe who lines up for his double-double and has to file his income taxes is going to be in for two pleasant treats early next year. The people who don't have the time or insight to debate which is better--consumption tax cuts or personal income tax cuts--will be all too happy to see both.
So there's no problem then, is there? Call it de facto majority if you like, I call it a long leash.
No problem with me. I really don't care whether he has a majority or a minority, as long as he enacts fiscally conservative policies. I was disappointed last year with the spending budget, because of the threat of an election, but that threat is now gone.
What I don't see is what benefit the LP gets from abstaining from a vote they (mostly) agree with.
26 comments:
Lamestream media reports that some 'economists' say a 1% cut in the GST only amounts to an extra 13 bucks in people's pockets, and that the vast majority of 'economists' are against tax cuts anyway.
But, if $13 is one percent of what people spend on GST a year - how do they get away with only purchasing $1300 worth of goods and services a year?
What do they do with all the rest of their money? How do they live?
If an average family spends $10,000 a year on goods & services, they probably spend more, but even if that's all they spend - that's a hundred bucks in their pocket.
Are 'economists' morons? Or just the ones quoted by lamestream media?
We have a nice little fixer upper bungalow for sale in Edmonton for 315,000. The market is glutted at the moment with too many homes on the market and we have not had many bites. The price is in a starter home budget for someone who wants to do as little work.
An extra 1% savings on purchasing this will save a young family more than $3,000. Nice savings - enough to cover the costs of lawyers, etc.
It is all good when ANY taxes come down.
I think everyone can find something in there they like, if they really try.
In any case, Stephane Dion will have to walk a fine line between registering his disdain for the GST cuts, for example, and still presenting a credible argument that it's not worth an election.
That will be very enjoyable entertainment.
Also watch for the PST to increase in Quebec and Ontario.
Lamestream media reports that some 'economists' say a 1% cut in the GST only amounts to an extra 13 bucks in people's pockets, and that the vast majority of 'economists' are against tax cuts anyway.
But, if $13 is one percent of what people spend on GST a year - how do they get away with only purchasing $1300 worth of goods and services a year?
If you read this, it says $13 a month, which would work out to spending $15600 a year.
You get a pizza a month. Unless you're rich, then you get more.
L.S. - If it's such a sham, why not vote against it?
You could write the headline before any of these government policy announcements:
"We, the Liberal Party hate this, but we won't bring the government down, because Canadians don't want an election."
Majority government by default.
I'm hoping they'll run on a GST increase. We'll increase the GST back to 7%, because it's a good tax!
Didn't they originally promise to "scrap the GST"?
L.S. - If it's such a sham, why not vote against it?
Harper will be allowed to tinker all he wants, while providing "liberal lite" government. People wonder, if all his bills get passed, why is he so anxious for a majority? What would he do with a majority that he won't do in a situation where all his bills get passed? Must be a hidden agenda!
Majority government by default.
Time is on our side.
Harper will get cocky, slip and reveal his true colours. Dion is unflappable, Harper is not. Harper will blink first.
L.S.
Comparing my household (income >$200K - no kids) and my inlaws (income <100K 2 kids) they benefit a lot more from the GST cut than we do simply because we buy a lot less that is subject to GST in a year. If there was GST on income tax then of course we'd be screwed.
LS, your reaching, I think what you see is what your going to get from PMSH, I think he likes living at 24 Sussex and I really do not believe your going to see any radical changes in social policy. He might get a little crazy with law and order but most Canadians support that, your hopes of some all out assault on abortion, women rights, etc is not going to happen. I do not think there is the "hidden agenda" your hoping for, and besides what are the LPC member bitching about if he is running Liberal lite so did PMPM and PMJC and the LPC members loved them.
your hopes of some all out assault on abortion, women rights, etc is not going to happen
I am not "hoping" for such a thing. But I believe a CPC majority would try.
I think he likes living at 24 Sussex and I really do not believe your going to see any radical changes in social policy.
Good! Then there's no problem. We'll just keep him contained and everything will be fine.
People wonder, if all his bills get passed, why is he so anxious for a majority?
L.S. - He doesn't need an election. He already has his majority government!
Is it time once again to provide the short sighted this little story?
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
if all his bills get passed, why is he so anxious for a majority? What would he do with a majority that he won't do in a situation where all his bills get passed?
The LP seems to think he's anxious for a majority. What politician wouldn't want one? Did any Lib leader run for a minority? Well...maybe Paul Martin. :)
I suspect he's happy to run on the de facto majority the LP has already given him.
I suspect he's happy to run on the de facto majority the LP has already given him.
So there's no problem then, is there? Call it de facto majority if you like, I call it a long leash.
All I can say is this "mini-budget" could have been written by Paul Martin. Zillions for corporations, pennies for people.
LS, it's not fair. Harper is at a disadvantage in a staring contest because he's got his eyes open.
And Greg should look up what happened to Ireland when they cut corporate taxes to 11%. It was a disaster for the people. They have gone from being one of the poorest countries in western Europe to the fourth richest in the world. It would be a terrible fate to impose something like that on the 20th place Canadians, so we really should make the corporations pay.
Liberal supporter go back to your cocoon at Red Tory. The Liberals didn't want an election in 2005 and they don't want now in 2007. They knew in 2005 that the jig was up and they know in 2007 that it's just gonna get worse.
Dion is all talk no action. His credibility, already suspect, is shot since the throne speech. Nobody much cares what he says these days.
You best be getting back to moonbat centra, a.k.a. Red Tory so you can feed off each other's delusional analysis.
L.S. "time is on our side". I'd say it's time to buy a new watch.
"Dion is unflappable" so unflappable in fact that a carrot has a better shot at being the next liberal leader than mr. unflappable.
you don't know what you speak about.
Brought to you from Canada's lemming nation.
The NDP are going to have a field day, campaigning against Bob Rae in the Toronto Centre by-election.
What is Bob going to do inside the H of C that he isn't already doing in the lobby ? It's not like the Libs need him inside to vote, or anything like that.
How about the timing of this budget? It's no accident that Sheila Fraser released the Auditor General's report today.
Things are looking pretty good for the Tories today. Sure the chattering classes are up in arms about cutting the GST (and, yes, mobius, they did once upon a time pledge to scrap it...it briefly cost Sheila Copps a job), but the regular Joe who lines up for his double-double and has to file his income taxes is going to be in for two pleasant treats early next year. The people who don't have the time or insight to debate which is better--consumption tax cuts or personal income tax cuts--will be all too happy to see both.
Swift, your reply to Greg was excellent. Exactly what I was thinking, but yours was far more creative.
swift, how low should the taxes go? zero?
I think the last reported message from Osama bin Laden says under his government there would be a flat tax of 2.5%.
You're in good company!
Hahahaha! ©
Bin Laden?
I call Godwin by proxy!
So there's no problem then, is there? Call it de facto majority if you like, I call it a long leash.
No problem with me. I really don't care whether he has a majority or a minority, as long as he enacts fiscally conservative policies. I was disappointed last year with the spending budget, because of the threat of an election, but that threat is now gone.
What I don't see is what benefit the LP gets from abstaining from a vote they (mostly) agree with.
I suspect the leash is facing the other way.
Post a Comment