|
it "sounds good" to you? It "sounds good" to a lot of people. others are actually looking at the numbers (instead of what "sounds good") and are trying to show that it's really not that significant at all...and perhaps the money could possibly be put to better use.
maybe instead of saying it "sounds good" you can explain to me why a GST cut is BETTER than further paying down the national debt, or investing in R&D, or investing in our infrastructure or even more aggressive income tax cuts which don't require one to "spend" in order to "save"?
I still have yet to see a decent argument here to that effect. because you think that some debt repayment + GST cuts "sounds good" is a rather poor answer.
and it's irrelevant why the debt came from...it's here. just as it's irrelevant (though ironic) that the Tories are partially repealing the tax they introduced in the first place. (insert remark about the Liberals failing to remove it...as if that excuses Mulroney from introducing it in the first place).
the CPC has been in power for less than one year, so referring to debt reduction before then is to compliment the Liberals (and the Liberals were paying off more per year than the current CPC gov't has or intends to do, AFAI can tell from previous figures).
an interesting, though dated (2002), read:
http://www.ppforum.ca/common/assets...ederal_debt.pdf
| quote: | "One of the least noticed actions of the current federal government during the past five years has been its decision to use some of the surplus revenue to pay down the national debt. In fact, over the last five years, the federal government has reduced the national debt by $46.7 billion from a high of over $580 billion to the current level of approximately $536 billion. (See Table 1.) This is a significant action that deserves more public scrutiny and debate. Paying down debt is a relatively invisible policy decision, and identifiable winners and loser are hard to find. As a result, the media has shown little interest - there was almost no media coverage of the federal government's debt management policies that John Manley described in the economic statement that he delivered in Halifax on October 30th.
The cumulative impact of these pay-downs will have dramatic implications for all taxpayers, but particularly for future generations of Canadians. For example, the pay-downs have already resulted in a saving of more than $3 billion a year in debt interest costs. As a consequence, the debt to GDP ratio has dropped from 71% to 49%, which represents the best decline among G-7 countries. Canada's credit rating has been boosted to Triple-A status by Moody's Investor Service and Standard and Poor's. |
which is exactly my point. debt reduction provides very tangible benefits...some right away, but especially in the future. yet it's not perceived as a big deal to the average person because they can't perceive a personal and immediate benefit to themselves. GST cut = vote grab.
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpa2e.html
this provides more up to date info from Flaherty last year. It's good...and admittedly the Tories have historically been fiscally good...but I'd be happy to see them accelerate that schedule to eliminate the annual debt. the more that is paid off sooner, the more money the country saves in interest payments...money that can then be "given back" to us in income tax cuts or used for the other initiatives I mentioned.
I just think the GST cut is more vote grab than sensible policy when we have other pressing issues. It allows the CPC to "keep a promise" and it "sounds good" to people who don't care to give fiscal policy more thought beyond what it does for themselves as individuals, no matter how insignificant that GST cut proves to be.
anway...I'm repeating myself and don't really care to debate it further. I simply see better options for that money. If people choose to think that a combined 2% GST cut is the way to go...good for them, I guess.
I just wish that people would put more thought into the matter by *at least* taking the time to figure out what those cuts *really* mean for them and the country as a whole. Then consider what the alternatives are...then form an opinion.
|