Author
|
Topic: McQuaig - Harper will cater to the whims of the wealthy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 05 February 2006 03:30 PM
Oh please.The Conservatives want to give by far the largest tax cuts to the wealthy. The most conspicuous example is their policy towards capital gains. When one sells a stock or other asset, income can be generated. The Conservatives want to exempt much or all of this gain from taxation. Basically, they'll give the poor $1.00 so that they can hand the rich $500.00. Then they hope morons will fixate on the former.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183
|
posted 05 February 2006 03:37 PM
Rick Bell, columnist for the Calgary Sun, explains: quote: Taxing issue Prepare paycheques for a cut, after Harper grabs the reins By Rick BellSo now let's get ready for the Stephen Harper tax hike. Yes, after tomorrow's swearing-in of the PM and his inner circle, it will only be a matter of weeks before the first Tory budget when the ever-present taxman will come to call. But there is one consolation. Behind the scenes, opposition from all sides, including some of the ideological buddies of Harper the PM, are reported to be imploring the new federal government to abandon its crazy notion of putting up our personal income taxes. What? Put up our taxes? Conservatives? Now, now. You could not have forgotten the Harper pledge to raise your taxes. Let us look back in the recent rear view.
Continued here...
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664
|
posted 11 February 2006 06:47 PM
Linda McQuaig may be "right" about the right but she could be wrong. There are just not enough potential or existing redknecks in Canada to support a "Republican" ethos. Now Harper is either smart or stupid. He is either lining up his feet in the crosshairs OR he has orchestrated a minority government that would give the Conservatives, with the NDP accomodating, a majority.What would be his purpose in this if he intended to drive the agenda rightward? No, I say what he has developed now is the perfect political mechanism to foil social conservatives in the party. Perhaps I am giving too much credit to him. On the other hand perhaps not. Now why is it necessarily wrong to cater to the rich? What does McQuaig mean? It was the rich in the form of the earls and knights of yore that wrested the Magna Carta from wicked old King John wasn't it?. Isn't Prince Charles sponsoring environmentally responsible cities in China? Are we automatically supposed to find teh rich "immoral" and then eat them for breakfast? The reality is the wealthy are the backbone of the welfare state. Their good will and cooperation is, in the absence of a social revolution to replace them, essential to the very notion of things like universal healthcare and education. I assume that McQuaig knows her history and knows that there are virtually no examples in modern times in modern societies where progressive movements succeed without the cooperation of the enlightened bourgoise. So I think she is playing the old Liberal media game and not really looking at the situation with any kind of "objectivity".
From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|