|
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
its not dumb. Everyone can spend more which means that tax income may actually go up due to the cut (although not likely).
In martins plan the rich get tax cuts too. And there is nothing wrong with that.
If you are really concerned about tax paying and the rich saving money you should ask Paul Martin why his billion dollar company is registered in barbados so he can avoid paying canadian taxes. |
"Belinda Bounce" topic thread notwithstanding, how about we stick to the topic we are debating? The topic is a 2% GST reduction vs. income tax cuts. I don't give a fuck about Martin's personal financial situation and I don't give a fuck about the budget surplus (in relation to this debate, anyway).
I'm suggesting that it may be better to focus on income tax reductions and targeted spending instead of implementing a widespread, uniform cut to GST for the following reasons:
1. you can target income tax cuts to those who need them most. larger cuts to the lower and middle class and more moderate cuts to the upper class. you can also raise the income threshold where people are required to pay tax, benefitting those in low income, part-time and seasonal positions.
2. instead of losing 2% tax revenue on a consumption based tax (which, by definition, means that those who consume the most save the most), why not keep that revenue flowing and earmark an equivalent amount to directly benefit those who need it (i.e. the disabled, those on EI, welfare, etc)? I suspect that 2% is a LOT of money and could be a signifant benefit to job training, education, etc. for those groups.
3. an income tax cut *immediately* puts money directly back into the pocket of the people and allows them to do with it as they please. They can spend that money or they can save/invest it. Why tie tax savings into spending? well, I suspect that is precisely one reason why an administration would see a GST cut as beneficial, as it theoretically fosters spending (which in turn fosters tax revenue). If anything, I see a GST cut as more beneficial from a gov't standpoint, but not from an individual's standpoint. If you tie savings to spending, people can't "save" the money, right?
Last edited by MarkT on Dec-19-2005 at 22:27
|