^^^ opposition leaders pointed that out in the debate, to underscore their arguments against his economic policies...I think one said "you're an economist, you should know...".

you'd think an economist could have put the 12 billion in GST revenue to better use (e.g. infrastructure, cities, etc), rather than handing it back to those who spend money. Tying tax savings to consumption is not sound economic policy, IMHO, and certainly doesn't help those who need it most...but hey, he's the brilliant economist.

So what are you doing with the $25-30/mth you *may* be saving? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Isn't that what they got with Dion?

kind of.

Ignatieff seems stronger, more confident, more able to express his views and positions. Any time I've heard him speak or read something by him, I'm impressed. Agree or disagree with what he says, there is thought behind it...an arguement rather than 'politician speak' or hype.

I think he would be a refreshing change to the standard politician. Dion would be as well...and I don't personally have a problem with him or with my voting for him...but he clearly hasn't been able to sway the public and effectively lead the party (whether that's his fault or the fault of a public who needs to be "sold" with frilly Obama-esque speeches and charisma).

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT you'd think an economist could have put the 12 billion in GST revenue to better use (e.g. infrastructure, cities, etc)

A "pure" economist would probably cut income taxes and not consumption tax, so you're right in one sense. But this is not just economics, it's also politics, and a GST cut is better perceived as benefiting the "poor".

No free-market economist would consider handing it over to municipal governments to be "better" use. Infrastructure isn't really supposed to be the government's job at all.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Socialists!

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

Harper harping! lol!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Infrastructure isn't really supposed to be the government's job at all.

do you mean govt in general or the federal???

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek My question is, 5-10 years down the road, if pollution is significantly reduced, thus taxation coming from that source, reduced. How will the government make up for those losses? Hike taxes back to their original levels?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT Have you read the 60+ page PDF of the Liberal platform that's on their site?

I read as much as I could, but I did not find a provision for rolling back taxes. It seems to be permanent.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko I read as much as I could, but I did not find a provision for rolling back taxes. It seems to be permanent.

but how will the govt make up for the lost taxes once pollution is reduced???

This is the question I want someone to answer.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

I posted that in response to Aaron, not Malek...but I too did not see a "what happens next" on the carbon tax plan.

absolutely it's a valid question. I haven't really had a chance to dig for info on the European countries who have had a tax in place for some time (10+ years, no?) to see how it was handled there.

did they implement income tax cuts or just tax industry? if they did implement cuts, how did they fund them as companies complied? did companies not comply? did they implement no cuts to offset the higher cost of goods that would allegedly occur as industry at least partially downloaded the cost to consumers?


If I had to hazzard a guess:

the presumption is that companies will comply and reduce emissions, thereby reducing their tax payable...but that process could take long enough (obviously companies don't retool overnight) for the gov't to gradually factor in the income tax cuts into the overall budget over time?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT If I had to hazzard a guess: the presumption is that companies will comply and reduce emissions, thereby reducing their tax payable...but that process could take long enough (obviously companies don't retool overnight) for the gov't to gradually factor in the income tax cuts into the overall budget over time?

Here's my guess, the govt will raise and raise the tax on pollution to make up for the loss of revenues.

Some products or services that can't be produced in a clean(er) manner, will become more and more expensive which will erase the advantage of the (meager) tax breaks for many and especially those who use those products or services.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Last edited by malek on Oct-07-2008 at 21:13

Harper announced more money for Ontario manufacturers as part of his platform today.
If I wanted my tax dollars to subsidize the auto industry, I'd vote liberal FFS. I wish politicians made a point of taking drastically opposite stands, so at least I can park my vote somewhere and know what I'm getting. This conservative pitch to win over manufacturing votes is just going to piss off people like me who liked him because he WASNT going to subsidize industry.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Harper announced more money for Ontario manufacturers as part of his platform today. If I wanted my tax dollars to subsidize the auto industry, I'd vote liberal FFS. I wish politicians made a point of taking drastically opposite stands, so at least I can park my vote somewhere and know what I'm getting. This conservative pitch to win over manufacturing votes is just going to piss off people like me who liked him because he WASNT going to subsidize industry.

this happens when politicians try to please everyone.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by malek Some products or services that can't be produced in a clean(er) manner, will become more and more expensive which will erase the advantage of the (meager) tax breaks for many and especially those who use those products or services.

And that is the problem right there. You cannot just magically make every process more efficient by throwing money at it .

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Harper announced more money for Ontario manufacturers as part of his platform today. If I wanted my tax dollars to subsidize the auto industry, I'd vote liberal FFS. I wish politicians made a point of taking drastically opposite stands, so at least I can park my vote somewhere and know what I'm getting. This conservative pitch to win over manufacturing votes is just going to piss off people like me who liked him because he WASNT going to subsidize industry.

Agreed. How much longer are we going to prop up manufacturers (domestic auto) that just don't change their habits and respond to market forces? Ford, GM, Chrysler are all suffering because of a poor product line and a lack of foresight, but not because of a lack of handouts or higher taxes.

In the 90's they saw a huge boom in SUV sales and thought it was never ending money pit. Sure the Japanese started making larger cars to meet demand, but they kept their smaller more efficient cars as well. 'Not everybody wants to spend like drunken sailor on gas'. Yes, they also just have a better product half the time, but they made sure to keep their asses covered. Now they have stolen truck sales and kept compact sales.

If anything, I would appreciate some money to help older workers learn new skills, trades or anything for that matter. We just cannot try and hold on to jobs that the market does not want here. Help train them for jobs that Canada can do. But I guess the problem there is that older workers do not want to go back to school, they want to stay put in their current jobs. Sorry folks, new world, new career markets. Economies change, and so must your job title.