What's in store for Canadians with a Harper Government in place? Good honest decent Government that pays attention to the interests of the average Canadian. Let there be no doubt, the best is yet to come.

Lower taxes, real accountability, choice in childcare, a helpful relationship with the provincial governments, and much much more. As Harper himself noted in a recent speech, the people are on our side, always keep that in mind as we pursue our objectives, don't let the 'noise' from the sidelines and the peanut gallery distract us from the work we must do.

Let the p.r. wars begin.

And it already has with this conservative talking point memo.

Harper and co. are already taking lessons on bullshitting the Canadian population from their good friend Karl Rove looks like. Mike Harris did it time and again in Ontario.

It's called the Creepy Neo Con Double Talk that Bush does all the time as well.

"Hey Canadian population ... look Stephen Harper is the MESSIAH going to clean up Canadian politics."

Yeah like some cheap tele-evangelist they are lining their own pockets and their allies as history has proven time and time again in Canadian politics.

Conservative governments are the most corrupt of all as time and history has shown from all over the world.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]

God please get these conservtaive losers out of office.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
Stephen, we're up to the job!

---

And no need to make the journalists too comfortable, maybe you can find them a nice cell here.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: V. Jara ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
I don't need talking points, Mary Mary quite contrary, I've got truth and honour on my side.

---

Well then how about lending them to your fearless leader, since he's utterly unfamiliar with either concept?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
Lower taxes, real accountability, choice in childcare, a helpful relationship with the provincial governments, and much much more. As Harper himself noted in a recent speech, the people are on our side, always keep that in mind as we pursue our objectives, don't let the 'noise' from the sidelines and the peanut gallery distract us from the work we must do.

Stephen, we're up to the job!

---

Lower taxes ? yeah right. If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you. It's still unclear how the cons plan to pay for thier promises.

Accountability ? Uh huh. Secret cabinet meetings go a long way towards improving government acountability don't they ? Unelected cabinet ministers ? Election night floor crossers ? what say you to that ?

Choice in child care ? You mean a choice in child care for people who can afford it. For many that $1200 won't cut it.

Relationship with provincial governments ? I'd say the only real winner in this arena will be Alberta.

"The People are on our side" ? Well, approximately one third of the people to be exact.

As far as a "good cabinet" is concerned, All I have to say is Vic Towes, Rona Ambrose, Stockwell Day. Quite an embarassment if you ask me.

That "noise from the sidelines" is the sound of progressive Canadians standing up for Canadian values.

*edited to expand rant*

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: CWW ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reality. Bites.:
I'd say you're a lot like Monica Lewinsky, only with worse taste in men.

---

If you have positions that you're comfortable with that you support, you should have no problem defending your points of view.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
We seem to have a troll who uses British spelling. That's gotta be a first.

---

Would that be the lack of "r" in "Paliament" in the thread title? Or is that just British pronunciation?

(I know spelling flames are generally frowned upon, but oooh, temptation cannot be resisted! I'm so weak, I know ... must be those mushy lefty values)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
What we have here is someone who feels it is his honour bound duty to defend progressive boards from open free and fair debate. What are you afraid of Mr. Bites?

---

The big deal is you have no interest in "free and fair debate." Your posting history demonstrates you to be nothing but a ra-ra cheerleader for the Reform Party, coupled with being a snarky asshole when referring to the NDP and Liberal parties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nister:
I hope Lider's not bummed out..I wanted to hear about his whiny childhood.

---

quote:

---

Re the comment that non-progressives should not post to this board, I'm not sure I agree with that in principle. I believe it would be a very good thing for those on the conservative side of the fence to have their chance to air their views and explain why they think the way they do. I'm always wondering how in hell they come to hold the ridiculous beliefs they espouse, and would be sincerely interested to read an explanation that made sense and revealed some kind of internal logic.

---

Actually I do believe that there are some conservatives around that are respected babblers.

quote:

---

choice in childcare

---

Of course there will be choice now. One choice you can make is cash, cheque, or credit. The second choice would be Visa, Mastercard, or AMEX. "Do you have an airmiles card"

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: JPG ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
I just went out and bought masa harina. I'm going to make tacos for the first time in decades. As some of you may remember, my sweetie had a heart-health surprise, so I'm replacing the sour cream with yogurt, but does anyone have a low-fat suggestion for the cheese?

---

Depending on the filling you'll use, I believe feta is low-fat and a little goes a long way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Disgusted:
Re the comment that non-progressives should not post to this board, I'm not sure I agree with that in principle. I believe it would be a very good thing for those on the conservative side of the fence to have their chance to air their views and explain why they think the way they do. I'm always wondering how in hell they come to hold the ridiculous beliefs they espouse, and would be sincerely interested to read an explanation that made sense and revealed some kind of internal logic.

I guess I better not hold my breath.

---

Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the Laffer curve, 'supply side' economicss, and keynesian stimulation of the economy?

If you beleive we're on one side of the Laffer curve, cutting taxes actually tranlates into more government revenue.

I have some very good right-winger friends, who are also vastly more intelligent than the trolls who show up here, who do quite a good job of defending their positions with logic. In fact, almost the sole reason I'm friends with them is because we're Debating Union members who love to crack our heads against each others arguments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
If you have positions that you're comfortable with that you support, you should have no problem defending your points of view.

---

So I looked it up, and here's what I found:

"Invented by Arthur Laffer, this curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue collected by governments. The chart below shows the Laffer Curve:

The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government.

Investopedia Says... Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard."

OK, now here's what grabbed me by the throat right off the bat:

"It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue."

Do you not agree that that statement is a bit sweeping? Has the writer actually taken a valid (note the caveat "valid") survey of all taxpayers and found his assertion to be "true"? Has he taken into consideration the fact that many people feel government wastes their hard-earned taxes, and that is the real reason why they are opposed to higher taxes? I suspect not.

I think I also detect a bit of contempt for the lowly working class here - the assumption that the common slob only works because he has to, not because he wants to. Sure, many jobs suck and people hate them, but I don't believe most people would really want to stay home and lay around all day doing nothing. Most people want to work at something they enjoy and are good at, and they want to contribute to society in a positive way, even though it's tougher to do that nowadays that it used to be. And if they have any social awareness at all, they also realize that their taxes do serve a useful function by providing for our common needs, e.g. medicare, education, and a good standard of living for all (even though all of those things could use some improvement in how they're carried out). Does the writer of that statement, or do you, really not understand that those are the most basic, critical necessities for any decent modern society???

This is just one of the many reasons I distrust much right-wing "thinking". It is generally shallow, superficial, unscientific, unrealistic, inadequate, biassed, rigid, heartless, and generally worthless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by V. Jara:
Will Emperor Harper's plans allow for freedom of the press?

---

Yeah, we tried that soy cheese. Yucky stuff.

Look, it's about time we had some real conservative government in this country. We can certainly count on Harper to do the job, get it done right and make it look easy.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
It's not like these guys have much to offer in the way of alternatives.

---

On the other hand, Harper's selling a shit sandwich--his program is one which the majority of Canadians DON'T want.

His only mandate is to not be Paul Martin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
How about a little more accountability than we've been getting.

---

That's a slogan, not a policy. Harper's reforms will have exactly zero effect, by design.

~~

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
Was I mistaken in saying the ndp is on board with a large portion of the conservatives plan to make politics more accountable?

---

Who'd be (publicly) against accountability? Isn't that like being against motherhood?

Like I said, this plank is a slogan, not a policy.

~~

The question isn't who's in favour, but whether the plan has anything substance to offer, and the answer to that will be a firm "NO"--the federal government was already the most accountable bureaucratic organization in Canada, so what we actually have is the perception of a problem, not an actual problem.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
Are you jealous Contrarian? Want a piece of the man?

---

Until they got in office. Harper's been back peddling since the election. He's on board with Bob Rae, Thomas D'Aquino and the big insurance companies on repudiating yer man Gomery's recomendations too.

Tell you what:

Why don't you go over and debate this thread.

And if you aren't much into reading a ton of stuff, then why don't you check out this website.

Make sure you have your talking points ready when you come back, k?

Edited to add: Harper Cons suck.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Tiger ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
Let me be more clear. My understanding is the ndp is in support of large portions of the conservative plan to make government more accountable. If you go through the plan point by point the new democrats would have no problem signing off on more than half the points. Of course there are some they may not like, and there may be extra accountability measures they would like but that are not there. But the fact remains they are in strong agreement with much of the Harper plan.

---

Dude, there's nothing there. Who cares which parties are in favour of that plan? The parts which are enacted will either be without effect, or they won't be enacted, or work-arounds will be found.

You're talking like "accountability" is a substance you can have more or less of, and that having as much as possible is the best possible state.

That's not correct. In government (as in anything) "accountability" and "effectiveness" are nearly in inverse relation to each other*.

The more accountable a government becomes, the less effective it will be at carrying out it's ordinary functions.

~~

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
But go ahead. Exactly how is, say, David Emerson being accountable, and to whom?

---

When I described Harper's policies as a shit sandwich, these are what I was talking abou, not the platform. He knows they're shit as well as you or I, or else he'd allow his MPs to talk about them. The platform was the bait in a bait and switch sales operation.

If Harper makes a step towards any of these, THAT's when he runs the risk of a snap election, and that's where the opposition have their strength--for all their disarray, they know that Canada doesn't want Steve Harper to do what Steve Harper wants to do.

All Canada wanted from Harper was what they've already achieved--a way to punish the Liberals for going overboard.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

So he's into slogans. He thinks Canadians will believe his stinking propoganda slogans.

Canadians will be kicking the bums out real soon especially if the Liberals elect a good leader. And hopefully the NDP will pump things up a notch to make a difference in the next soon to be election.

*Forgot to add this from the CBC

U.S. criticizes Canada and 61 other countries over trade policies
13:07:31 EST Mar 31, 2006
WASHINGTON (CP) - Canada is among 62 countries criticized for what the United States regards as unfair trade practices involving a host of products and services, including softwood lumber.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: eau ]

quote:

---

"It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue."

Do you not agree that that statement is a bit sweeping? Has the writer actually taken a valid (note the caveat "valid") survey of all taxpayers and found his assertion to be "true"? Has he taken into consideration the fact that many people feel government wastes their hard-earned taxes, and that is the real reason why they are opposed to higher taxes? I suspect not.

(...)
Does the writer of that statement, or do you, really not understand that those are the most basic, critical necessities for any decent modern society???

This is just one of the many reasons I distrust much right-wing "thinking". It is generally shallow, superficial, unscientific, unrealistic, inadequate, biassed, rigid, heartless, and generally worthless.

But go ahead, counter that. I'm listening.[/QB]

---

Hi,

First of all, I should say that I'm extremely skeptical that any gov't, especially the Canadian gov't, is on the right side of the Laffer curve. By right side, I mean to the right of the max.

Secondly, I should say that I certainly wouldn't label myself as a right-winger- I want to make it clear that I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm doing this cause some of the rightwing args do actually have quite good logic to them, and I think its impportant not to ignore them.

So now to the actual reply:

firstly, I think you have to recognize that the incentive structure of an extremely high tax rate doesn't work very well. The completely centrally planned economy that is the necessary counterpart has also been shown to not work all that great. Authoritarian communist regiems have proved this point over and over again. I'm makingthis point because I think that we can come to a consensus that at any given time period, there is a tax rate above which we should not go, as the benifits just aren't worth it.

now some more direct refutation; you mention how taxes are necessary to make our lives decent- I completely agree. You also mention that people work, in part, because they recognize that some of their money goes to taxes, funding the common good. But surely you're not saying that a person would be perfectly willing to work at the same level if a very large percentage of their income was turned over? Just for reference, I personally would be wary of levels of taxation signifcantly higher than say France, Germany, Scandinivia et al.

now here is the interesting thing, and it has to do with supply-side econ, and most importantly, the value of 'stimulatin' and economy which Keynes popularized. I should point out that the value of stimulating an economy is generally agreed upon by economists of all political stripes, and keynes would probably be considered 'left' of the spectrum, not right.

So now we cometo the crux of the matter: would a lower tax rate encourage more labour, and more capital investment to such an extent that gov't revenues would increase more than the loss from taxation? Again, for the record, I don't think that any national ecnomy bears this out, though I'm not exactly sure about France. Personally, I'm pretty certain its a dumb idea in Canada. However, this is based on some loose personal convictions, and some econ evidence which is weak on both sides of the argument.
I do think though, that your analysis of Cons as simply not caring about the benifits of gov't spending is completely missing the point. If you follow their argument, their logic is that a lower tax rate would result in MORE gov't revenue (cause you'd have a wider tax base), so that there would in fact be more money to spend on social programs. So I don't know why you're talking as if cons who support that idea have no heart- they want the same thing, but disagree about whether lower or higher tax rates will get us there.

Before I wrap up, i'd like to speak a little moe about 'scientific' evidence. I think it is important to note that we have a pretty big dearth of info- you're right in saying that there isn't super-strong evidence for the low taxes=higher revenue model, but there is also no good evidence against the model either. Both sides of the political spectrum pick certain tools of analysis from economy, draw tenuous conclusions, and then pay/coerce certain economists to make it seem as if their conclusions must be truth. In reality, economists almost always agree with the basic principals, but as far I know, there is no consensus onour relative position on the laffer curve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
Are you thinking of like lowering the gst immediately to 6%, and soon to 5%. I believe that's popular with a whole lots of people.

---

You see, its tidbit like this that indicate that if you're a Harper lackey, you're not one of the smart ones.
The smart ones know that the GST cut shouldn't be trumpeted, cause its a dumb idea. In an economy where the savings rate of north americans is dangerously low and the personal debt rate is disturbingly high, more consumption is not what we need.
In fact, as almost any economist will tell you, an income tax cut is a much better idea, cause it will be a balanced stimulation which both encourages savings and spending.

Canadians need to see how dumb and backwards Harper is. The upcoming Parliament should provide a truckload (maybe a shovelful is a better term, for obvious reasons. Ha ha!) of examples. Make notes, good people of babble.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Conservatives are such an embarrassment to humanity.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Look at Harper with that dumb look on his face lapping up every monosyllable that comes out of that illiterate Bush's mouth.

Conservatives are such an embarrassment to humanity.

---

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Joe ]

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Joe ]

No they are not my heroes and Joe does not speak for me.

Speak for yourself bubba instead.

Stop fantasizing about who I like or don't like.
Don't worry I'll let you know soon enough.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Are those Mary's heros Joe? Did she tell you that?

Funny, I thought Mary was an Ndper. But I'm sure she'll correct me or you when she returns.

---

quote:

---

Let me be more clear. My understanding is the ndp is in support of large portions of the conservative plan to make government more accountable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe:

She's a Liberal shill who made it clear during the election that she didn't care how many hundreds of millions her Liberals stole because she still thought they were entitled to their entitlements. The Liberals' recent decision to hire Americans to run their election campaign may finally have made Mary reconsider her loyalty to the natural governing party.

---

Notice how corpulent Harper is getting, like the Kurtz character in Apocalypse Now.

Geez why don't you just jail me for daring to sneer at the great fraudster that is Harper as your local genius conservative MP Colin Mayes suggested.

Colin Mayes, Tory MP suggests jailing bad journalists

Harper's MP's aren't even allowed to talk to the press without Daddy's approval. Hey why not just hide all the crazy MP's in the attic instead.

Be scared be very scared of these idiots running the government who aren't even allowed to freely speak themselves.

Joseph Stalin would be very proud of the Steven Harper fascist tactics in modern day Canadian conservatism.

And I only shill for the NDP sucker. Get your facts straight buddy.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

B!B!: Quebec will be key.

---

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

the GST cut shouldn't be trumpeted, cause its a dumb idea. In an economy where the savings rate of north americans is dangerously low and the personal debt rate is disturbingly high, more consumption is not what we need.
In fact, as almost any economist will tell you, an income tax cut is a much better idea, cause it will be a balanced stimulation which both encourages savings and spending.

---

It's not that simple kylebailey.

Canadians want tax cuts. They've wanted them for some time now, but the Liberals were only too happy to continue gouging Canadians. Now that Harper's in charge, he will cut the gst because a cut in the gst will lower taxes for all Canadians and once he lowers it, future politicians with an appetite for generating more revenue would have great difficulty raising that revenue with an increase in the gst because it's not a tax you can increase without everyone being aware that it's going up. A cut in the gst has key advantages that cutting income taxes do not.

The Liberals used increases in the cost of living to allow the income tax system to generate more money for them for years in a row which meant that taxes even on the poorest Canadians would be increasing. Harper gst cut is superior to an income tax cut because it is very difficult to reverse.

But don't worry. There will be plenty of room in the future to not only eliminate the gst outright but to also dramatically reduce income taxes. Esp with all the cutting Harper's got in mind.

$20 dollars a year!!!!

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Briguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:

It's not that simple kylebailey.

---

You seem to have a lock on over-simplification.

The 5-year childcare plan amounts to about $1 billion a year (2005 budget). Harper promised to give away the money saved.

The historic high for the cost of *running* the gun reg. amounts to a whopping $48 million ($1.5/person/year), according to a National Post article. Harper promised to spend that money on more police.

The Kelowna agreement costs about $1 billion a year. The Conservatives said they'll have their own plan to replace that.

Other than those, I'm not aware of anything they want to cut. But of the other things they want to do,

-order a handful of strategic airlifts (according to USAF, those things come at $200 million + a piece).

-build an Arctic base--from scratch.

-another $100-200 million on roads.

-another 20,000 or so CF members (even assuming a ridiculously low salary of $20,000/yr, and the cost of benefits at $0/yr, would cost $400 million).

I'm certainly not aware of any great spending room they have to give any real tax cuts you seem to dream up, when all is done. The majority of their promises seem to be trading one spending for another--they've actually stated explicitly in their platform that government spending will increase.

Flaherty has already downplayed the expectations of having your mommy and daddy's capital gains tax cut.

It seems the tax cutters can't even keep the promises on the tax cuts they've promised.

Harper ran on having government spending increased. Read the platform you supposedly supported, and I'm supposed to oppose.

Last time I checked, he's not making Canadian Tire "Money" legal tender. Either he goes into debt, or he'll break his promises on tax cuts, or he'll break his promises on spending items those extra few Atlantic Canadian seats.

The economic pie of Canada is not only so big, and then that's all there is to cut up and divide among the people. There's something called growth.

The poor are not some monolitic group that is relegated to be so their entire life.

People who are 'poor' today can be the middle class tomorrow or even members of the higher income earners tomorrow.

Stronach came to Canada with 35 bucks in his pocket and is a billionaire today.

Nobody handed that to him. He worked for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
Those people earning $20,000 a year, spending 80% of their money on rent and food, should be overjoyed that they'll save $20 a year on their taxes.

---

Instead of lowering the GST, Harper should just get every Canadian a Canadian Tire Mastercard. I have one and it gives me 1% back for every dollar I spend. And unlike the GST reduction, you get that 1% on everything, whether it's subject to GST or not, even if you purchase it in another country! That's right folks, you get 1% back on your Internet porn purchases. Match THAT, Steverino. Best of all, you get that money back in a stable currency - Canadian Tire money, so all of it goes right back into the Canadian economy. I've had it less than a month and I've already earned $23.30.

There are other cards offering similar rebates.

(This really isn't intended as a plug for the card. It's to mock Harper's GST plan as being inferior to a credit card feature!)

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Reality. Bites. ]

quote:

---

The economic pie of Canada is not only so big ... There's something called growth.

---

Say it. You know you want to.

Grow the... what?

Harper's an economist. He's a smart guy. I give him credit for that.

He hired economists too. They too are smart guys. They helped to draft the platform he won with.

They projected growth too. Every major party's platform--even us looney socialists, threw in growth in it.

So when his accountants (yet another professional) sign off on it, the promises are, considering the huge error bars, more or less achievable.

In those achievable goals, they have pretty much went back on one of their "shock and awe" platform planks.

Considering you and I are both of an age, I can testify that the platforms aren't exactly taxing reads. Take some time to read it--every one who has ever been in power have trouble fulfilling the ones they've promised--don't read between the lines too much and look for things they don't state flat out.

Perhaps the above should read "they have pretty much 'throne away' one of their 'shock and awe'..."

quote:

---

Wake up briguy, the ultimate plan is to get rid of the gst completely. That'll save a lot more money.

---

As pointed out, the key contributers of GST are not average canadians... Really the only ones that will benefit from gst cuts will be people and corporations spending over 100k a year on GST taxable goods. How bout we save some time and just eliminate tax for high income earners and corporations instead? Funny that you'd be scared of American ownership of canada and at the same time support cuts that ultimately help the process along.

Harper does have a decent stance on some issues mind you... Although he's yet to prove any of it (though he hasn't had a chance) if anything I've seen a bit of the opposite as far as gov't transparency goes. My 2 huge issues with him are this GST cut and his Childcare plan.

quote:

---

Many rich and wealthy people are willing to help less fortunate people financially speaking but not by handing them cash, because that doesn't work. When are you guys going to get it?

---

Hehe, so I take it you don't support harpers plan of giving out 1200$ a year per child under the age of 6 then? I mean, giving cash so obviously doesn't work.

quote:

---

People who are 'poor' today can be the middle class tomorrow or even members of the higher income earners tomorrow.

---

And how do the poor of today become the wealthy of tomorrow? I can garentee you it's not further tax cuts on taxes that most 'poor' don't pay right now. Perhaps cutting back the childcare agreements with the provinces... That'll help them forsure. Really, the only olive branch extended to the impoverished of Canada by Harper is his 100$ a child per month. If you can pump em out at the rate of 2 per year, that could be a decent income.

quote:

---

As pointed out, the key contributers of GST are not average canadians... Really the only ones that will benefit from gst cuts will be people and corporations spending over 100k a year on GST taxable goods. How bout we save some time and just eliminate tax for high income earners and corporations instead?

---

This points to a problem in your thinking. How is it that a company that spends a 100k on gst taxable goods benefits.

First, a corporation that sells a gst taxable good or service collects 7% from the customer when they puchase the item or the service. The company is required to remit the amount they collect in gst to the government minus the amount of gst they spend on goods and services that can be considered inputs into the making of the product or service.

But let's assume that were not the case and that the gst cut for a corporation that spends 100k on gst taxable goods and services is 1000 dollars. When you are spending that much money the 1000 dollar saving is also not significant. The same way that when you spend 10k the 100 bucks you save is not significant. It's all relative. But if the company or the individual uses that money in the economy there can be a benefit. But that isn't even what actully happens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Lider:
Wake up briguy, the ultimate plan is to get rid of the gst completely. That'll save a lot more money.

Of course the amount saved for the lowest income earners is smaller, they make less, they pay less, so what's your point?

---

What makes you think the Cons want to eliminate the GST? They're the ones who introduced the damn thing. Anyway, in case you didn't hear, Harper's original tax platform included rescinding the income tax cuts from last year, which were (slightly) more progressive than a flat GST reduction. The basic personal exemption increased, and the rate for the lowest income bracket decreased.

I don't for a second think that the conservatives will completely eliminate a consumption tax. That's not what conservatives do, as a rule. This reduction was purely an election gimmick, nothing more, nothing less. I'll be interested to see if certain provinces actually reduce their HSTs when/if the feds reduce the GST, certain provincial politicians being the way they are...

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: Briguy ]