Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Tories expected to give investors a tax break

STEVEN CHASE

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 1:32 AM EDT 25/02/08

Seen as way to make up for the fact government has not delivered on campaign pledge for capital gains relief ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: For the past decade we had surpluses and now after 2 years in power the coffers are empty?
    Are these the fiscal managers we want?
  2. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: ABOUT TIME!! This is best for the country as it'll stimulate more investments which in turn will help productivity. In fact, we should reverse the GST 1% cut and cut investment & capital gains more so. Follow Ireland's example (high GST, low corporate, investment & capital gains taxes).

    This is what's good for long term growth of this country. I just hope the average voter understands this...
  3. bob london from Canada writes: Suddenly people won't be looking for stupid investments like income trusts to squeeze out a few points to pay the taxes. People will now buy and sell to stimulate the economy, and create benefit for Canada. Liberals would rather tax and grant to their favorites but the Economist will fix the country.
  4. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> due to the softening economy.

    I believe the writer meant to say, 'owing to' the softening economy.
  5. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Total BS. The Capital Gains Tax should be increased and and the working man's tax burden should be decreased to zero.
  6. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: Good news indeed. 2008 promises to be a bear as far as investments are concerned. Thank fully the Conservatives understand that you have to cut taxes in preparation for harder times. Kevin: It is simply media-speak you are parroting when you say the coffers are bare. Actually, it is our money that has been taken from us, belongs to us, and not the government. We are far past the time when the paternalistic government has to look after us. We are responsible; it is our money and we should be able to keep it. Now talk to a Liberal and you will get a different story. Under Trudeau and his massive increase in federal programs, he was able to justify, in his own mind and those of Liberals, that it was necessary to tax the average Canadian into penury. It was also a convenient means of generating so many cash transactions that it became easier for scandals to develop such as Sponsorship, HRDC etc. It was also easier for the Liberals to skim funds from the taxpayers through kickbacks and brown envelopes. Today, we are seeing a return to fiscal normality. What the Liberals and media would have you believe is that it is normal for Canadians to be over taxed. I say it is high time we return to a state where the government takes in only what it needs to operate in a prudent and fiscally sound manner. To heck with large surpluses as happened under Mr. Martin when he balanced his budgets on the backs of the provinces and the average taxpayer. May the Conservatives enjoy a long and profitable time in government.
  7. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: Kevin... Did you not notice 2 GST cuts to the tune of 6 billion each? I trust you prefer 'papa' Jean distributing your tax $ to his favourite Liberal charity, or perhaps Dion to his favourite Chinese coal powered powerplant.

    'But this pledge turned out to be too expensive and unwieldy to enact. Critics estimate it would cost the federal government up to $1-billion a year or more.'

    Interesting, the 1 billion is the same amount of welfare given to the CBC, as well as to the gun registry fiasco. Nuke one, or, better yet, nuke them both.
  8. Steve Mack from Winnipeg, Canada writes: This is Great news!

    'Steal from the middle class and give to the filthy rich'

    Gotta love Harper's war on equality!

    Show your face in Saint-Boniface again Harpler, we'll protest with 10 times the amount of people we had out last time.
  9. CD W from Canada writes: It is simple, just move the cap gain rate from 50% to 33%. No fancy spread sheet needed, no high level accounting. Let me take my profits and go and but a new car and create jobs.
  10. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: Hello Steve Mack: Missing the good old days of brown envelopes and patronage are we? Those days are gone for good…the Liberals are in no shape to take on the Conservatives and they know it: see how they run. I am afraid you will just have to get used to prudent financial management and balance budgets in times of good and bad.
  11. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: I am sorry you guys, but I am not parroting any one, We had surpluses, Now it looks like we do not, So You guys think that it is ok? After years of surpluses, the coffers are almost empty.
    Tell me what would happen if the economy totally bottoms out. We go in debt with no surplus to weather that storm.
    Sounds to me, it would be better to have some surpluses to weather that possible storm.
    What was that figure again 12 billion to GST tax cuts.
    Woot quite the way to blow all of our savings. Lets leave nothing in the bank in case of emergency
  12. F. Wm. Woodward from Canada writes: This Govt /Mr Harper gave safe harbour to over 2mm retirees to invest in the Trust sector. Unfortunately Mr Harper changed his mind after effective lobbys from the Lifecos; Gwyn Morgan; Michael Sabia and DOF /Mr Carney. They did do a flip flop on REITs but are unrelenting on their broken promise for Income Trusts. We are now going to be bought off with a concession for tax relief on investments only because they cannot deliever on promised capital gains deferral. The DOF and its Minister are becoming something akin to amateur hour by the minute....oops sorry its tax leakage stupid...
  13. Alias No Name from Vanuatu writes: The Tories freed 30 B into the economy and out of overtaxing Canadians...Great!!!!!!!!!!!!
  14. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: Hi Kevin: Not to begin an economics lesson here suffice to say there is no equivalence between an individuals personal finances and savings plan, which everyone should have for emergencies, and that of government or public financing. Governments, to start with, do not have savings accounts. They have assets and in Canada’s case, our assets are north of six trillion dollars against a debt of approximately 432 billion. We are a very wealth country and there is not need under any conceivable set of circumstances that our government needs to over charge the taxpayers to the tune of 60 billion, which is what the Conservatives have returned to Canadian and corporations. The operating function of our government, the money needed for day to day operations is more than sufficient to cover our outlays. It does not matter to the government if times are good or bad, it will still have more than enough funds to cover operations. What does matter to you and me and to local businesses is how much the government takes from us in taxes in time when they are tight. The more left in our hands means that we can save for bad times and we do need that savings. The conservatives understand this, the media and liberals choose not too because they cannot acknowledge the conservatives are right…that is just not politic. PS There should be a rule to never mix partisan politics with hard finance. What do you think are the odds we can get that done?
  15. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Too late Flaherty Harper... distrust!
  16. J Kay from Canada writes: Just a few thoughts to add to the discussion. First the partisan garbage, the ad homina, the references to 'brown envelopes' etc. is childish, unbecoming and really should be stopped. It makes one think you're simply lacking the requisite mental capacity to form even the slightest argument in favour of your position on the merits or lack thereof of public policy and thus you resort to petulant childishness. It's quite unbecoming.

    With regard to the cupboards being bare, it's not entirely true, however it's also not entirely false either. Yes there will be somewhere on the order of a $8 billion surplus this year but it's unlikely such a surplus, given the economic conditions on the horizon, that such a surplus will materialise this year or next and thus the cupboards have much less in them that the current surplus might suggest.

    The GST tax cut did not remove $6 billion for each 1% tax cut, nor $12 billion total. In fact the first 1% GST cut resulted in $1.724 billion dollars less GST revenue for the federal government compared to the year before. This however is in nominal terms. In real terms the difference is around $3.8 - $4 billion assuming GST revenues grew at inflation rates, which isn't always the case. The total impact of both GST cuts is around $8 - $8.5 billion in forgone revenue by the government in real terms.
  17. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: Hi Bill Thax, I understand I just think it be better for government to have some surplus. I also think most of the surpluses should go to infrastructure bc we am going to need it.
    Time will tell what is what
    As you can probably tell I do not trust these conservatives, they certainly weren't not very conservative with the surplus Canada had.

    Your last question, I would say that the odds are not very good, I vote green and actually consider myself very open to what ever works and do not really care who came up with it. Just as long as their is benefits for all canadians and no one gets hurt.
  18. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: Steve Mack from Winnipeg, Canada writes: This is Great news!

    'Steal from the middle class and give to the filthy rich'

    Gotta love Harper's war on equality!

    Show your face in Saint-Boniface again Harpler, we'll protest with 10 times the amount of people we had out last time.

    ten times what? lets have some context. how many out of 600,000 are we talking about?
  19. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: Kevin...they do have a surplus. Both Liberals and Tories have used about 3 billion or more to pay down debt. They plan on 3, but it can be 10 billion or more left over. Too often, however, end of year spending artifically reduced this surplus, sometimes for nefarious purposes. This was like a rainy day fund which, if not used (never was), went to debt reduction. That aside, the current govt has continued to spend like, well, Liberals. I would not be disappointed to see spending reduced to the inflation rate. As I said, I would target the gun registry first, CBC funding next. The civil service has really grown since Martin initially cut it. It needs to be trimmed again. No need to ever run a deficit again.
  20. Mark Orr from toronto, Canada writes: After obliterating investors with their ill conceived income trust lie, and allowing so many top Canadian companies to become branch offices...whatever they come up with will just be window dressing.
  21. The true Neil-conservative from The West, Canada writes: Good, the Tories gave us big tax relief in the mini-budget, but only after they taxed income trusts, which was a bad move both economically and politically. I'm glad Flaherty is reducing corporate taxes and reducing the amount of money to be sloshed around to provinces to buy votes by reducing the GST.
    Eliminate capital gains taxation, or at least reduce the taxable amount from 50% to 25% of total gain
    Eliminate one of the 4 income tax brackets and increase the personal exemption
    Reduce the size of the federal government, please, perhaps by privatizing crown corporations like the CBC and Canada Post and AECL.
    Give us MORE of our money back. Let's reduce the size of the welfare state after years of having the government weighing down on people's backs. Let's NOT go back to the 1970s.
  22. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: Hi Kevin: I agree with your conclusion; it is not likely that politics will ever be separated from finance and with all due respect to J Kay, the Liberals simply cannot seem to keep their hands off the public purse; and that is according to the Gomery Commission, not my personal opinion. Just one additional piece of info Kevin; the Conservatives have implemented the largest infrastructure program since WW II to not only maintain existing infrastructure but also for new projects. This is fixed financing over many years and far out weighs the Liberals paltry 3 billion a year if there is a surplus over and above five billion. A pathetic attempt to confuse Canadians who are not aware of the massive program underway as we speak. For that we can only fault the Conservative’s miserable communications plan…clearly the one weakness of this government and one I am not sure they can overcome given the hostility of the media in this country. At any rate, we are seeing good governance…it is frustrating that the Conservatives do not get more credit for it.
  23. siren call from Canada writes: “Three budgets without delivering would be a blow to an otherwise strong record of delivering on campaign promises,” a Bay Street source said.

    ..............................

    Really?

    How's the campaing promise on hosptial wait times being resolved?
  24. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes:

    * Posted 24/02/08 at 11:58 PM EST

    If what you say is true, why was the government involved in Income Trusts in the first place?

    If what you say is true, why didn't Harper keep his promise?

    If what you say is true, the average Canadian gets it in the ear any way.

    If what you say is true, Government and its taxation of every working Canadian should only benefit business.

    If what you say is true, I better not hear about your business falling into hard times and coming whingeing to the government for concessions or breaks. Those tax breaks come on the blood, sweat and tears plus buying power of the very taxpayers and Canadians you denigrated to begin your slide into money-brokering and power-mongering. Without a consumer, you're a loser. When Canadians wake up and quit feeding big business, who are you going to come crying to?

    Considering who you're backing or fronting for I doubt what you say is true.

    Got links? Some blacked-out documents? What have you got that can show the average Canadian that their tax dollars are going to bolster Canadians, not business?

    You've got nothing. You're like a barnacle on the hull of the ship BS Harper et Flaherty. Sooner or later the business people like you will wake up and wonder where all the people have gone... Not buying your brand of BS is where.

    Happy trails.
  25. siren call from Canada writes: 'The original 2006 Tory election platform vowed to eliminate taxes on capital gains reinvested within six months, an open-ended promise that was so poorly drafted, tax experts said, it would cost the treasury dearly. '

    Oh yes, Steve Harper, the Economist!

    Steve Harper, the Chess Player!

    Steve Harper the man who raided the fiscal cupboard and has nada to show for it.
  26. Trans canada from Canada writes: Note to Harper and Flaherty:

    I will not be bribed by bad fiscal managers.

    You deserve to be thrown into the dustbin of history for the damage you have done to Canadian small investors.

    You lied and millions you've financially damaged will never forget.

    You did not understand that Income Trusts actually brought in higher tax revenues than corporations, refused to fix the mistake despite the evidence presented to you.

    Goodbye CONs! The sooner you are gone the better!
  27. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggens: Wow. I am not sure what prompted your flame, but with all due respect, it is an interesting study in anger, frustration and total ignorance in matters of public and corporate finance, economics, banking or how the political system works in this country. You ask for sources, which I confess, I am unable to provide as I speak from years of study as an economist and as a practising commercial banker; not from some shallow source such as an internet link. It is simply not possible to link to years of education and banking experience. Could you please state your objections into something a little more coherent and I will attempt to clarify any issues you may have. Let us try them one at a time.
  28. J Kay from Canada writes: Bill Thompson: with all due respect I hope you are not suggesting the Conservatives are somehow differnet with regard to the public purse, I assure you they are not. Also the Gomery inquiry hardly said most of what you imply, so while the gomery commission did find some members of the Liberal party at fault, they did not find the Liberal party itself at fault. Such an assertion is a gross misinterpretation of the inquiries conclusions. Moreover Mr Gomery himself has recently been critical of the Conservative government for not enacting much of what he proposed in his findings.

    Also it has been recently reported that the current Conservatives have broken some rules with regard to tendered contracts like giving out $200K contracts for writing a budget speech. This is nothing but brown bag politics as you put it, since there is simply no justification whatsoever for paying that much for a speech.

    As I've mentioned before I'm friends with someone who worked for the Cons, incuding the current ones for more than 20 years, had an inside view and was unabashadly unashamed with regard to the actions of the party which stretched ethical guidelines beyond existence. Indeed his one comment about the sponsorship scandal was that he couldn't believe the Liberals thought of it first. So don't pretend the Cons are any different. They too play the same politics game which is why the Accountability Act is such a watered down joke.
  29. talk to the hand from Canada writes: tory mismanagement
  30. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Frankly Bill Thompson, you and Harper have about the same creds as economists. Slim to none.

    The talking points are there Bill, all it takes is some addressing with facts, like you have any. If you feel more accountable numbering them 1, 2, 3, etc., hit it!

    Real economists do and say what they do. You and Harper say, then do nothing or the opposite. Can't provide sources you say? Sad.

    Not buying your BS.
  31. J Birch from Hamilton, Canada writes:

    Oye veh.

    Nice job Stevie and yer Dwarf - in times of plenty emptying the tax coffers. So what happens if Unemployment rises, or revenue falls ever so slightly, or this war costs more than projected or or or ?

    Smart move - on the edge of a deficit and now we'll go into IT.

    These birds have to go.

    We really can't afford Harper

    .
  32. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggens: Given your continuing flame, it is clear to me that you are being nothing more than obtuse and provocative. Have a nice life…I hear anger management courses are helpful to one in your condition.
  33. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Bill Thompson, perhaps a remedial course in English comprehension may help you: the name is Whiggins.

    Still not buying your BS, and wishing YOU too a nice life if you can get it,

    Sincerely,

    Mrs. Whiggins
  34. Grant Bowen from Canada writes: The highest spending finance minister in history finally wakes up to find he spent it all and discovers the meaning of the word prudence? I hope the election comes later when the economy is in tatters due tio his incompetence and he and harper get punted good and hard.
  35. diane marie from Canada writes: The 'cost' to government revenues of the two GST cuts has been estimated at between $60 and 84 billion over 7 years. On this bit of stupidity alone, the CPC has demonstrated its fiscal incompetence.
  36. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: To J Kay: I submitted a reply to your post that has been censored by the G & M; it is not for language or slander but is usually because they are monitoring me for what they feel are unsubstantiated allegations. I will probably be getting another e-mail from the senior editor again taking umbrage with my comments. So be it; I have been able to substantiate all my statements to date. Regretfully you and the other readers will not see them and I cannot repeat them. Sadly, the conversation will have to end on that note.
  37. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: diane marie, good evening :) yes, the GST cuts. What a boon to certain business sectors who have not adjusted their pricing! Still costs the same for parking, a movie, theatre or sports tickets, train rides, bus rides etc., Oh, but no change in price for a 99 cent coffee!
    Just another instance where Harper and Flaherty have slid a benefit to business under the door, minus the envelope.
    The GST cuts have done nothing for the average Canadian except make their tax burden greater. Thanks Ottawa! WTG Harper! Just what we needed when we needed it Flaherty! Got papers to back that up?
  38. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Hopefully something can be done about capital gains tax.
    What is considered to be capital gains in many cases is mostly inflation which the government has seen fit to tax starting in 1971. By you know who Trudeau.
    Capital gains tax has a place for quick short term trading but long term held assets-no way no how.
  39. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: See ya later Bill! Awww, aren't you going to fight for your right to have freedom of speech? Are cutting and running? Or simply running before you get tarred and feathered?

    Unsubstantiated allegations? Kinda like what the last election hinged on...

    Good on the G&M. Who needs unsubstantiated allegations in the face of the nitty gritty facts?

    Have a nice day Bill.
  40. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: I forgot to mention that abortion of a tax idea the alternative minimum tax in my last post. Just replace it with a proper averaging mechanism.
  41. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: I agree with Chris Lalonde, there are far better ways to return $12 billion/yr in tax cuts that would be of significantly greater benefit. It is too bad that the GST is viewed so irrationally by a large number of Canadians. Increasing the GST and reducing the tax burden in other ways is not something that Canadians would be willing to accept in an election campaign. It is too bad that irrational attitudes prevent good policy in cases like this.
  42. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: The Harper Conservatives blew Canada's wad in Quebec last Fall when Harper was sure he was going into an election.

    No election. Hence no money.

    The mini-budget, trashcanning of much of Parliament's work, lots of spending before an election, much of it in Quebec. Another GST cut.

    No election. Hence even less money.

    Now, no money, shaky ground, lots of problems.

    No election.

    Harper the economist will get Canada out of this or die trying.

    Right.
  43. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Hey Bill, doesn't Harper have a friend in Pakistan? Why are you dissing Pakistan?

    Do go to bed.
  44. J Kay from Canada writes: Bill Thompson: Huh, I'm not quite sure what to say. I seriously doubt the G&M is 'monitoring' you and such beliefs are normally bordering on delusional paranoia. If your comments contain unsubstantiated claims, this does go against the G&M posting policy but I suspect given that this forum is semi-moderated, that in fact your post contains a no-no word or two and is being filtered for that reason, not due to some big brother-esqe oversight by the G&M.

    If you can substantiate your claims then I don't see the problem with them being viewed as unsubstantiated. This leads me to believe that in fact the latter is true and your basis for believing doesn't rest on solid footing, hence if you are making any claims which may border on slander the G&M may opt to filter them, though again, in this forum they are filtered by an editor after the fact not before.

    I sure though you could still post some sort of response to myself or others unless your responses involves direct accusations against members of the public which are not supported by the public record. As a result however your entire position if you cannot publically supported must thereby be ignored and invalidated, seeing as your only claim for being unable to respond is due to big brother-esqe monitoring.
  45. R L from Canada writes: The irresponsible GST cuts for purely political reasons, in full knowledge that it would be bad for Canada (per the unanimous advice of Canada's leading financial experts), among other irresponsible and incompetent actions, has robbed Canada of its financial security.

    How long before we start paying for those massive Boeing military contracts signed by the Harper government.... or, let's make the tax act even more of a costly administrative mess by adding more pointless 'bread crumb' tax credits such as for 'textbooks' and 'exercise'. Oh, is Ottawa mailing out those $1,000 - $4,000 cheques for efficient cars yet? Another colossal drain on the nation's coffers. Yet, standards for auto manufacturers have not been revised; California did it, why can't we?

    The Conservative Party was handed the most secure fiscal situation of any government, and they have managed to throw it into the gutter in a span of 2 years. I don't want to see what the end of a potential 3rd year might look like. In any case, it will take many more years to fix this mess (breaking things is a lot easier than fixing them).
  46. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Another wrinkle on capital gains tax is the forced tax capital gains tax payable on a trust every 15 years. So you have a disabled child and leave some property in trust for the child, every 15 years the tax man wants a tax return accounting for capital gains. Even in a conditional will the estate may become taxable before settlement under this rule.

    If the property was held directly no review.

    The issue is one for really wealthy families who want perpetual trusts for many millions of dollars ie Irvings et al.

    The government could put a reasonable limit on these large trusts of say $10 million or so and then they became taxable every 25 years.

    Not that much tax leakage and lots more incentive for stable long term wealth creation instead of wealth destruction.
  47. diane marie from Canada writes: There are two viewpoints on display here. The 'taxes are bad' crowd see their glass as half-empty, the other half having been stolen from them by society at large, the government, etc. They resent the perceived lack of full control and the leaking of value. The 'taxes are a necessary evil' crowd see their glass as half-full, the missing half having gone to the provision of a stable society within which they have the potential to flourish. They perceive that a degree of control and value accrues from a secure and somewhat predictable collective environment (assuming competent governance).

    Alistair McLaughlin:-- The CPC is still sitting on $54 billion of EI surplus, which they complained bitterly about while in opposition (it was then about $51 billion). The CPC has not done a better job of budgeting, only a better 'job' of spending well above the inflation rate.
  48. diane marie from Canada writes: The truth is out there if only Bill Thompson were permitted to speak it ;-).
  49. J Kay from Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin: Evening sir. That post was a bit below you wasn't it? It's a touch unreasonable to attack Kevin with ad homina simply because he believe the government should run surpluses. You may disagree but that hardly make Kevin and idiot does it?

    In response to the details of your comment, you're incorrect about a few things. One surpluses have continued to be large since the Conservatives have been in power. Moreover the Liberals also reduced taxes and by a much larger margin during their time in power, with perhaps the most long lasting impact being the re-indexing of tax brackets to inflation which has benefits for Canadian in perpetuity, not just over some fixed 5 year time horizon. The benefit of that tax policy change is greater than all others.

    Also while the Conservatives did impart a minor increase in transfers to the provinces, transfers to the provinces where corrected prior to the Conservatives being in power by the Liberals in 2004-05 fiscal year, with transfers back above the inflation adjusted implied values that would have occurred prior to the cuts imposed in 1996. The reamin at those levels in the last Liberal budget of 2005-06, prior to Stephen Harper taking power in Feb 2006, in the last 2 months of that fiscal year.

    Regarding surpluses or deficits, while one can argue that surpluses give the government the opportunity to increase spending, governments don't need that excuse alone seeing as they can always increase spending and raise revenues in some way. Given that surpluses are netted against the debt, it isn't as if the money just sits around afterard to be spent. Tax revenues increased not due to rising tax rates but a bouyant economy and should that economy slide, it's entirely possible that reduced tax rates could result in deficits again barring further spending cuts, which may or may not be desirable, but some spending increases will be unavoidable in that situation.
  50. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: No doubt, diane marie. Bill's likely champing at the bit and raring to go, but Harper the jockey hasn't quite got himself horsed...

    Sad.

    Go for it Bill, leave Harper in the dust in your quest for truth and righteousness! Why do you need him on your back anyway? The truth IS out there. Go, go, go!
  51. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: To RYan
    You too can have all the money you can carry.

    Go down to the bank and borrow some money and buy some dividend paying bank stock in sufficient quantity so the dividends pay your smallest monthly bill. Deduct the interest from your income(it will about offset the interest). Repeat as often as you can and take care of your other bills, even your term life insurance. The government is HELPING you do this, they WANT you to because they allow you to deduct the interest paid from your income tax to acquire the stock.

    Having taken care of your self over a long period of time and accumulated a large capital gain(based mainly on inflation) be happy to hand a good portion of it over with very little way to carry it forward or backward.
    That's the real issue- not should I or anybody else want you to FO anywhere- we have our own families to take care of as not all of them have been blessed with health.
  52. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Curiously, the National Post had an article which stated that Dion's idea of anything over 3 billion was good for infrastructure.

    Why?

    Because our national productivity is so much higher than our debt than it used to be.

    We have excellent credit.

    It actually makes sense to run a deficit now.

    We're filthy rich.

    Thank harper or the LPC (heaven forbid) but thank Gawd.

    The world is Canada's oyster.
  53. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Oh lawdy lawdy! Michael Sharpe is first out of the gate riding talking point Deficit, and why that's a good thing in the race for Canada.

    You heard it here first folks!
  54. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: I see how many people were brainwashed, i wonder if they know the surpluses came from the backs of the men and women of the armed forces. Billions upon Billions a year for what 13 years? Theres your surplus.
  55. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Not far behind is Alyssa Watson riding talking point Our Troops hoping for the nose-stretcher finish, banking on Deficit losing because Our Troops will continue to bank.

    Your intrepid race-track reporter will report as the ponies jockey for position. Looks like a two-horse race at the moment... some flub-up at the gates...
  56. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Kevin Desmoulin, you're an idiot.

    You are the uncivil idiot Alistair, Tell me something? Why do you think you have to call me an name to get your point across?

    Just because I have a diferent viewpoint then, How mature and reasonable man you have shown yourself to be.

    Least I have just woken up and looking at this again, I think Ya the government should be taxing people too high, We should put most of the surplus to infrastructure and some to debt.

    See I say it again, I do not trust the conservatives, why? simple, This Fiscal manager was the same guy that left ontario in the red 6 billion in the red after they got booted out of office.

    My fellow posters, I really enjoyed and appreciate at most times these threads and most of the comments and the play between all.
    But What I do not like is when other call people names,
    We discussing stories, news, events. We may not agree with each other, but no reason to be mean.

    I am certainly not an idiot and certainly do not think anyone who posts here is idiot, I just think there are better ways of addressing someone then calling them a name.
  57. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: We have a third pony out of the gate, Civility, running a clean race and hoping for the best.
  58. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: The track is muddy, the ground slick. Three talking points errr ponies in the race so far: Deficit, Our Troops, and Civility. It's a real horse race people. Anything can happen folks, it's a steeplechase!
  59. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Civility is ably ridden by jockey Kevin Desmoulin, I forgot to mention.
  60. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: The ponies are stalled, bogged down in the mire of the first furlong, but it looks like Civility has the lead. Up ahead is the first jump: Election? It's a four-point jump and with only three ponies coming up on it, again folks it's anyone's race.
  61. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Well folks, this is historic: the race is called on account of mud, knee-deep and neck-high, horse and human respectively.

    The race for Canada has been called for another day.

    Civility had the lead, with Our Troops gamely following and Deficit bringing up the rear.

    Track management says it is looking into the problem with the gates, or will as soon as the rain stops.

    Hay! Things could be worse.
  62. pran manga from ottawa, Canada writes: Let us see tax changes that truly benefit the poor and especially the working poor.They usually get crumbs from the Tories. And can we think of what is best for the economy rather than only what is best for the next election for the Tories?And lets not forget that we still have a big debt to pay off eventually.
  63. Wayne Walker from Canada writes: Mrs Whiggins: You seem a bit confused by how the GST works. One of your posts claims the benefit of GST cuts went to corporations. That is simply wrong because the typical corporation just deducts any GST it pays from the GST it must add to the invoice for products and services we all buy from them. The only beneficiary of a GST cut is the end user. End users are primarily individuals but also include governments, hospitals, schools, charities, churches and property insurance companies ................... If your statement that corporations were the beneficiaries of the GST cut was true it would follow that they were somehow paying the GST tax for you. Do you really believe that?
  64. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: pran manga from ottawa, Canada writes 'Let us see tax changes that truly benefit the poor and especially the working poor.They usually get crumbs from the Tories. And can we think of what is best for the economy rather than only what is best for the next election for the Tories?And lets not forget that we still have a big debt to pay off eventually. ' pran manga...giving investors a tax break benefits the whole country including the poor. It promotes investment in Canada that later provide jobs and in turn tax dollars. It encourages highly paid executives and skilled high tech workers who get a large portion of their pay in stocks to stay in Canada? Why is that good for the poor? Because they stay in Canada to buy products & services and pay taxes. In the past, too many rich Canadians moved themselves and their investments elsewhere to tax havens (U.S., Carribean Islands, Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc, etc) to get away from the high taxes. Canada doesn't have enough of them! Let's get them back! Also, small investors like retirees benefit paying lower investment taxes. If you get a profit selling a house, you'll keep more of it! Please look at Ireland (very high consumer tax but low corporate & capital gains taxes) and see how well they are doing. This is what economists are recommending. Please do some research on this...
  65. John Connor from Canada writes: Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: I am sorry you guys, but I am not parroting any one, We had surpluses, Now it looks like we do not

    Surpluses are a result of overtaxation Kevin. Taxes come from...YOU and ME....unless of course YOU happen to be exempt through lack of income. Then it doesn't matter to YOU.

    The money is extra, and must be returned to its' owners. What part of that equation is too difficult for YOU?
  66. Stude Ham from Canada writes: 'The cash-strapped Tories have nearly emptied Ottawa's coffers of spare cash since 2006, taking about $30-billion worth of annual government revenue and doling it out in tax cuts and spending, including $12-billion in reductions to the goods and services tax.'*

    This comes as no surprise given the totally idiotic and incompetent Flaherty at the finance level. He first did this to On tario in the idiot mike harris days and now he is wrecking the entire country financially.

    Also this is beginning to demonstrate the horrible damage that our military adventurism in a'stan is costing us.

    In all the harper clownservatives are thoroughly mismanaging our national resources and must be removed from office.

    *DUMP HARPER!!
  67. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: The North Wing..........sounds like a neo con Republican tax play, same ode monkey see monkey do. Note the headline above, US wants Canada to................... and the beat goes on...........
  68. Fred Draper from Kingston, Canada writes: Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: I do not trust the conservatives, why? simple, This Fiscal manager was the same guy that left ontario in the red 6 billion in the red after they got booted out of office.

    Kevin, you're not an idiot and are entitled to your opinion. However, Janet Ecker left Ontario with a $5.6 billion deficit in fiscal 2003-04, ending Mar 31, 2004.

    Flaherty left office April 15, 2002.

    I've pointed this out MANY times because I like this Finance minster. I was talking with our CFIB representative on Friday and she really likes him too. He's been small business friendly.

    Flaherty gets it done. I look forward to some capital gains relief because, for the first time ever, I'll actually have a taxable capital gain! BRING IT ON! Even if its only a reduction in the inclusion rate from 50% to 45% or whatever.
  69. T. H. from Canada writes: Couldn't they just expand RRSP contribution room? Maybe if they promise to index it in the future (maybe it is already, but increase the pace), it would appease the wealthy, promote investment and cost little in the short term... And it would cost next to nothing to implement administratively (Revenue Canada, tax preparers).
  70. T. H. from Canada writes: Here's another vote getter - raise the mandator RRSP-RRIF rollover age, index it to life expectancy, or just ramp it to infinity. We all die eventually and it gets taxed then. This would also be cheap to implement administratively.
  71. J J from Canada writes: It looks like I will have to wait til next year for Income Splitting, I guess. That would be much more beneficial to the average middle class family.

    Oh well, we'll get it next time.
  72. A B from Calgary Area, Canada writes:

    NANOS tracking shows the Conservatives and the Liberals continue to be gripped in a deadlock. Support for the NDP has dropped 5 points nationally in the past 16 days while the Conservatives are up 3 points (within the Margin of Accuracy).

    In order to understand what was driving the vote every committed voter was asked why they had a particular vote preference.

    Conservatives were more likely to be driven by policies and job performance, the Liberals by a belief they were the best option and party policies/platform and the NDP by policies/platform and a belief they care for the average/working person.

    Support for the Bloc was based on their standing up for Quebec/French and the belief they are the best choice. Green Party support was driven by their environmental credentials and policies/platform.


    Methodology

    Polling between February 16th and February 20th, 2008. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,001 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). The Nanos Research Survey of 1,001 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. The subset of committed voters is accurate to within 3.3 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.


    Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed Voters Only - First Choice)

    The numbers in parenthesis denotes the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed on February 4th, 2008.

    Canada (N=878, MoE ± 3.3%, 19 times out of 20)
    Liberal Party 34% ( 1)
    Conservative Party 34% ( 3)
    NDP 14% (-5)
    BQ 10% (NC)
    Green Party 8% (NC)
  73. Fred Draper from Kingston, Canada writes: T. H. from Canada writes: Couldn't they just expand RRSP contribution room?

    I like the way you think, T.H. Instead of increasing the cap from $19,000 per year, why not increase the percentage of earned income allowed from 18% to say, 22%.

    Increasing the cap rewards high income earners, ie those making more than $105,500. Increasing the percentage rewards the good savers.

    These aren't necessarily the same people.
  74. Kenneth Yurchuk from Canada writes: Flaherty and Harper, the Boobsey Twins of Bay Street, have managed to blow the wad, just before the economic downturn. (Isn't Harper supposed to be the Great Strategist)

    Billions of dollars in Revenue which might have come in handy just about now, wasted on a GST cut that benefits the average tax payer in no noticable way, but hamstrings government from providing any palpable relief from recession in the manufacturing and forestry sector. Smooth move, ex-lax.
  75. Fred Draper from Kingston, Canada writes: Kenneth Yurchuk from Canada writes: Flaherty and Harper, the Boobsey Twins of Bay Street, have managed to blow the wad, just before the economic downturn
    ____________________________________________________

    1. The Wad will still be about $10 billion this year ending Mar 31, 2008
    2. The GST cuts have benefited car and new home buyers. Are these not ordinary Canadians? Good spinoffs too.
    3. You presuppose that big relief to manufacturing and forestry is the way to go. I'm not sure everyone agrees on that one.
  76. Jen Dobson from Canada writes: We better not go into deficit!! Our finances are practically ruined already, after only 2 years. I'm ok with these ONLY if we still have a balanced budget and ideally a small surplus to help pay off our debt.
  77. Malcolm Thistle from Canada writes: This should really tick off the lefties. Imagine, doing something to help the middle class! What a radical that Harper is! I wonder what their attacks will be, hmmm....a Bush clone maybe, a vote getting scheme, blowing the surplus, another tax shelter for the rich - maybe all the above. I think it's all petty partisanship and jealousy.
  78. W. Mayne from Canada writes: Don't forget where Harper has been spending our money!

    'The one 'black cloud' hovering over the Tories, said Gregg, is the attention drawn to the $2.3 billion the budget directs toward Quebec under the revamped equalization program.

    Harper on Wednesday took to the B.C. airwaves to defend allegations his government used billions in tax dollars to buy Quebec votes.

    The budget has been widely panned in B.C., with provincial ministers decrying the lack of funding for programs, including the battle against the pine-beetle infestation.

    But while poll numbers show the majority (55 per cent) of Canadians thought Quebec benefited most from the transfer of funds under equalization, a majority of Quebecers (51 per cent) believe they received less than their fair share.'
  79. John Connor from Around Town, Canada writes: J J from Canada writes: It looks like I will have to wait til next year for Income Splitting, I guess. That would be much more beneficial to the average middle class family.

    That's exactly why we don't have it yet. And presumably won't get it from the Tories or the Liberals. Don't hold your breath, the middle class pays the bills, and can't afford the legal teams to challenge unfair taxation.
  80. Brian Van Ezel from Ottawa, Canada writes: Way to go Harper and Flaherty....spend more money we don't have.

    Pay down our 400 Billion dollar debt!
  81. brokeback mountain from Canada writes: does it mean that buying and selling real estates will be tax free? just like your principle residence? they should make interest on mortgage tax deductible
  82. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: My apologies to all, and to Kevin Desmoulin in particular for my uncivil comment at 1:32 a.m. I was an idiot.
  83. John Connor from Around Town, Canada writes: diane marie from Canada writes: The CPC is still sitting on $54 billion of EI surplus, which they complained bitterly about while in opposition (it was then about $51 billion).

    Sorry diane, but that is a myth. It is a paper entry and has been for a great many years. The surplus is long gone, and is part of general government revenues.
  84. Bob Muirhead from Belle River, Canada writes: If we are to give tax breaks for capital gains, they should be for investments in Canadian companies ONLY.
  85. Ernest Stapleton from Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin. I think you are one of the few talented posters on this site that doesn’t just spew misinformation or downright false information. You usually attack the ideas and information contained in posts and for this I am grateful.

    If good posters like you, start discussing the individuals and not their ideas then I for one will stop reading the comments section. That will be a shame because I find the comments to a good laugh and informative especially due to your posts.
  86. East Coast Living from Halifax, Canada writes: Fred Draper, I do not believe contributions should be percentage based at all. If the low income earner wants to put aside a larger portion of their income for retirement then they should be allowed to do so. This would then allow anyone regardless of income to put aside the cap amount.
  87. Ernest Stapleton from Canada writes: The conservatives said they they would increase transfers to the provincial governments in thier platform. Other then the increased spending in these areas has spending gone up much?

    Now that all this new 'spending' has happened I think you will significant slowdown in spending and maybe even lower spending.

    GO cons GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  88. Sober Second Thought from Toronto, Canada writes: Watch Harper and Flarhety screw this one up too with some overly complicated scheme. Harper used to preach about tax reform (simplification) now he is probably about to announce something that only a few folks will understand - He should just lower the rate a bit, or better yet, just focus on paying down the debt to leave more fiscal room next fall. I am sure he would not want to raise income taxes again like they did in their first year.
  89. J Kay from Canada writes: Wayne Walker: While your comment is accurate regarding how the GST works structurally within Canada, and I'm sure Mrs Whiggins is aware of this as well, I believe her point and one that has been made here before by a number of posters is that companies spend quite a bit of money determining the price points of the good which they sell to consumers. That is they spend a lot of effort in trying to determine what the market can bare. When some room is freed up by the government in terms of vacating tax space within the total price point, often retailers and manufacturers will raise their prices to occupy the space vacated by the government. That is, if a customer is willing to spend $20, GST included on a good, they are still usually willing to spend $20 on said good even if the GST has fallen by 1%. Thus companies can simply adjust their prices up to occupy this space. This often occurs and there are a number of studies showing exactly this sort of behaviour.

    Does that mean that consumers see no benefit and business see all of the benefit, no, but consumers also don't see the full impact of the GST cut either. Prior to the last GST cut it was already reported that new home manufacturers were raising their prices to reflect the GST cut. While such actions are legally considered price fixing, it is extermely difficult to prove t