|
A 2.3 Billion dollar boondoggle in the making --- energy relief for canadians (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
^^^ oh come on...because none of the other parties do things to "buy votes"?
if that high moral ground is going to be taken, then shouldn't the other parties publicly call them up on it?
Obviously no one is going to vote against it, because taxpayers have that greedy "me me me" mentality and will almost always support the gov't putting money back in their pocket, no matter how misguided...but couldn't the other parties vote for it, while loudly criticizing the apparent "vote buying"? If they don't, aren't they doing something almost as bad? i.e. being silent so as not to LOSE votes? buying votes, shutting up to not lose votes. it's almost the same thing...an act of omission is not necessarily any less damning than a negligent act itself.
again...I don't support this. I would like to see greater incentives for conservation instead of some stupid band-aid solution that does nothing to address the underlying issues.
Right now, there is little to persuade people to conserve if they know they're getting a rebate. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
they should put that money directly into the big 3 canadian cities. We need transit, not boondoggles.
Stupid liberals...
seriously. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
^^^ oh come on...because none of the other parties do things to "buy votes"?
if that high moral ground is going to be taken, then shouldn't the other parties publicly call them up on it?
Obviously no one is going to vote against it, because taxpayers have that greedy "me me me" mentality and will almost always support the gov't putting money back in their pocket, no matter how misguided...but couldn't the other parties vote for it, while loudly criticizing the apparent "vote buying"? If they don't, aren't they doing something almost as bad? i.e. being silent so as not to LOSE votes? buying votes, shutting up to not lose votes. it's almost the same thing...an act of omission is not necessarily any less damning than a negligent act itself.
again...I don't support this. I would like to see greater incentives for conservation instead of some stupid band-aid solution that does nothing to address the underlying issues.
Right now, there is little to persuade people to conserve if they know they're getting a rebate. |
Because we've had the Fiberal regime since 1994 and it's about the only regime a lot of us remember. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
they should put that money directly into the big 3 canadian cities. We need transit, not boondoggles.
Stupid liberals...
seriously. |
Spending money on transit will not be money well spent. There is still no incentive for people to use public transit. Someone like myself needs a vehicle for work and therefore public transit does nothing for me and the many like me. Those that work downtown and live downtown are already taking public transit. The bigger problem is people commute.....so unless you give an incentive for people to live within the city they work they are going to need their vehicles....some may only need it to get to a go train station but they are still going to need it.
Money would be better spent on developing new fuel sources. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Because we've had the Fiberal regime since 1994 and it's about the only regime a lot of us remember. |
Trust me....the last regime wasn't any better.....it doesn't matter who is in power....they are all going to look out for number one....themselves and the ones that give them money. It is choosing the lesser of the evils. |
|
|
| tamk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
because that wouldnt buy votes...
obviously you dont think like a liberal politician |
i don't think most people want to vote liberal its more like most ppl REALLY DON'T want the conservatives getting power. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tamk
i don't think most people want to vote liberal its more like most ppl REALLY DON'T want the conservatives getting power. |
many people dont want them for all the wrong reasons i might add...
so theyd rather elect those who have a proven track record of stealing and lying.
I dont get it. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
This is particularly irritating to me since I work in the utilities business. So far we've had a great success rate in getting people to conserve energy, by turning that into measurable cost savings.
Handouts will accomplish nothing. It's the low-income families that already waste energy, work the system, and try any way they can think of to get out of paying their bills. The last thing we want to do is subsidize their efforts so they can be even more wasteful. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
It's crystal clear that the Lieberals are trying to buy the electorate (with their own money!) ahead of an election.
First the useless energy rebate, and now this:
| quote: |
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/...1249916-cp.html
Surpluses to trigger annual cheques to taxpayers
By ALEXANDER PANETTA
OTTAWA (CP) - Every taxpayer in the country will get a cheque from the federal government each year that it posts larger-than-expected surpluses, sources say.
The Liberals' Surplus Allocation Act will promise taxpayers a slice of the surplus along with their income-tax return, federal officials told The Canadian Press.
"Canadians would be getting a dividend on the performance of the economy," said one official.
The legislation, to be tabled Friday, sets out a broader spending plan for the unplanned surpluses that Ottawa frequently racks up.
One-third of all unexpected surpluses will go to debt relief, one-third to program spending and one-third to taxpayers.
The government has drastically underestimated its surpluses since balancing the budget in 1997-98. In one of the most dramatic examples - 2002-03 - Ottawa estimated a $3-billion surplus that ended up at $9.1 billion. Under the proposed formula, the extra $6.1 billion would have been divided three ways, with $2 billion going to taxpayers.
That would have provided cheques averaging $133 each for Canada's 15 million taxpayers, depending on their tax brackets.
Under the plan, taxpayers who owe the government at year's end will see the bonus deducted from what they owe. For those slated to get money back, the bonus would be added to their tax cheques.
It is unclear whether the legislation will get through Parliament before an election expected within several months.
The opposition ridiculed the plan.
"It looks like peanuts," NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis told CTV.
"It's not even enough to buy a cup of coffee every week. I think we've got to look at the real motive of the Liberals - which is a pretty transparent way of buying Canadians' loyalty back and get ready for the next election."
The opposition has been demanding for years a more democratic way to allocate surpluses.
They accuse the Liberals of short-circuiting democratic debate by racking up giant surpluses and then automatically allocating all the extra money to debt relief at year's end.
One high-ranking government source said the Liberals will continue paying down the debt - which stands at almost $500 billion.
He said the current debt-to-GDP ratio of 38.7 per cent will continue falling and will meet the 25 per cent target by 2015.
"We are in no way detracting from our commitment to debt relief," he said.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation was unimpressed with the plan, calling it a gimmick leading up to the next election.
"Smells fishy to me - smells like election herring," said John Williamson, head of the federation.
"I think Canadian taxpayers would welcome any kind of rebate cheque from the federal government. But . . . it's not a real tax cut." He said the more transparent way to proceed would be guaranteeing tax cuts that Canadians could count on every year.
Williamson cited an example from 2004-05, where private-sector forecasters predicted a $7 billion surplus as late as this summer.
But the government went on an end-of-year spending spree and wound up with a rare smaller-than-expected surplus of $1.6 billion.
That means taxpayers would have received nothing this year - and would get nothing whenever the government chose to go on a late-year spending spree, Williamson said.
But a federal official defended the so-called formula of thirds.
"That equal distribution between debt relief, tax relief and program spending just strikes Canadians as a reasonable thing to do," he said.
"This legislation reflects the wishes of Canadians." |
Instead of the occasional small cheque from the feds, we need major structural and constitutional reform. The fiscal imbalance needs to be fixed if this country is going to stay together. The feds have too much money and the provinces too little.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertic...lance_in_Canada |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ ok...but people complain about paying too much tax...so now some is returned to you, and you complain? It will also shut up the critics of paying down debt, but not reducing taxes...servicing our debt is one of largest expenditures we have, is it not?
I also think it's not a great idea...but more because of the enormous cost that must come with processing those stupid cheques...and the energy cheques...and the GST cheques...and...
how about we just collect less and therefore pay out less, lol...for 's sake...how many millions are going to be pissed away just processing all of these silly rebates?
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Because we've had the Fiberal regime since 1994 and it's about the only regime a lot of us remember. |
um...so because YOU are too young to know previous "regimes", and because the Liberals have been in power for a long time, it's ok to take that position? :rolleyes:
lol...come on now. |
|
|
| malek |
^^ how about the federal transfering only 1 point of revenue taxes to the provinces and let them do whatever the hell they want with them.
an easier way of transfering power from the federal to the provinces...
let say the federal takes 17% of your revenue and Ontario takes 17%, it would become 16% to the federal and 18% for Ontario... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
^^^ ok...but people complain about paying too much tax...so now some is returned to you, and you complain? |
YES! What I don't understand is why you wrote this, and then wrote the quote below:
| quote: | | how about we just collect less and therefore pay out less, lol...for 's sake...how many millions are going to be pissed away just processing all of these silly rebates? |
I think that's the point several of us have been trying to make... I don't want handouts when the government takes too much in taxes, I want lower taxes to begin with. Those two things are not even CLOSE to being equal. Handouts means the government can piss away half the money and return whatever happens to be left over; lower taxes means the government is more accountable for the money they spend (in theory). |
|
|
|
|
