- The budget did not deliver meaningful tax relief. "Tax relief for hard-working Canadians is a paltry $80 per tax-payer" (no word on what relief less industrious Canadians were given). In fact, the Conservatives have been raising taxes since they took power. In 2005 the lowest income tax rate was 15%. Today, it is 15.5%.
- The budget did not deliver on promoting environmental sustainability. The Conservatives cut our commitment to renewable energy by 1500 megawatts. They maintained tax breaks for the expansion of the (very dirty) oil sands projects (Harper helping out his Albertan allies). They reduced funding for environmental issues to the provinces by half. Finally, they replaced rewards for those who make energy saving changes with costly gimmicks.
- The budget did not deliver help to working families, students and Aboriginal Canadians. In 2006 the Conservatives promised 125,000 new childcare spaces over 5 years. They have delivered precisely zero in the past year. The so-called Universal Child Care benefit is fully taxable and the government will pull in an average of $400 per family thanks to this. The only money delivered to students will be given to the top 4000 graduate students (you included Pat?) while the rest of us get nothing. The Conservatives dropped the Kelowna Accord and replaced it with funding that is, comparatively, a "drop in the bucket."
This all coming courtesy the Honourable John McCallum (Markham-Unionville).
So what is my take on the Conservative budget? I don't know. I'm no economist. Ask Pat what he thinks and you'll have the precise opposite of what I think. Okay, not really, but from what Mr McCallum (former Minister of National Revenue and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance) tells me, it sounds bad. What else would you expect from a righty like Stephen Harper?
Here's my half-assed assessment:
- No help to those who need it, only to those who don't. Case and point: the Tories are giving money to the top 4000 grad students, all of whom are almost certainly getting other bursaries and being given various jobs by their schools to help them earn money to pay for tuition/living expenses/beer (I know WLU does that).
- The Tories raised taxes for those in the lowest tax bracket. That means the second poorest class of Canadians are bearing a larger percentage of the tax burden.
- As for his 1% decrease in GST, well, same thing. That reduction becomes more meaningful as you spend more money. If you spend $5000 (before taxes) a year on goods and services that are subject to the GST, you will have saved (roughly) $50 (wooohooo) thanks to this decrease. If you spend $15,000 (before taxes) a year on goods and services that are subject to the GST, you will have saved (roughly) $150. So the more you spend the more you save. Who do you think spends more: someone making $20,ooo per annum or someone making $200,000 per annum? I would assume the latter. If I'm correct, that means Harper's GST cut benefits the rich much more than the average Canadian.
- The budget maintained tax breaks for oil sands expansion. Why? Let's (for now) forget that the oil sands are killing our environment. If the oil sands are really worth expanding (i.e. they are financial viable; profitable), why do they need/deserve tax breaks? Take a look at all the most profitable companies in the world and I bet you find a whole lot of big oil companies that are conducting business in the oil sands region. But, hey, who cares if they're killing Earth and raking in dough like Daniel Negreanu at a Texas Hold'em tournament? Give them tax breaks anyway. It's not like those breaks are coming out of the average Canadian's pocket right? It is? Shitty.
- The Tories are giving money to families for child care. That's nice of them. But you say the money they hand over is taxable? That means whatever they give Canadians, they get a certain percentage of it back. Meaning what they promise is a lot more than what they're actually giving. Dirty.
- Ever wonder why the Canadian government isn't trusted by its negotiating partners? First we sign the Kyoto Accord, then Harper comes in and scraps it. "I know we promised we'd do this, but I'm not really keen on that anymore, so we're not going to do this instead." Then we sign the Kelowna Accord only to have Harper come in and scrap it. "I know we promised we'd do this..." you know the rest. It is a fundamental principle of international politics, of politics plain and simple, that agreements are binding on the state, not the government, meaning a change in government does NOT void those agreements. You simply cannot have agreements being signed then scrapped everytime a government changes. For you business types (here's looking at you Pat) consider what happens when a business changes ownership. Is that business still bound by contracts entered into by the previous owners? I don't know about all contracts, but any collective agreement (i.e. unionized businesses) remains in force, as do all employment contracts (i.e. non-unionized businesses). The same for government agreements like the Kyoto and Kelowna Accords. Unless you're the Harper government, then you don't care. Because you're stupid. That's right, the Tory government is stupid. Morons.
Bonne nuit.
At the risk of saying the obvious, here I go: you can hardly count on Mr. McCallum to say the truth and not say it in the context of a blatant partisan rambling. Sounds pretty bad, right? Well, this coming from a man who heavily criticize the government for taxing income trusts, but was the Minister responsible for leading the Liberals down the same path when they were in government. I'd say that's pretty dirty as well. However, if that's not bad, it's kinda pathetic that he badmouth's the government over your party's own position on it, but can't even come to terms with it by saying that they agree. All he'll say is the government broke their promise (which they did), but avoids saying that the Liberals are also in favour of taxing trusts (It's hard to pin down an exact position with you guys)....
ReplyDeleteIn any event, for every one of your criticisms against the budget, I can point to 1) a positive or 2) a position that you're party once had. So, in the end, I think it'll be a draw.
Last, you mention that the government rose the tax rate on the lowest income bracket. True. But I'm surprised you're not also saying that the Conservatives broke their promise but not raising it by the full 1% (like they said). It's kinda pathetic when you think about it. The only thing you have on the government is they rose taxes by 0.25% then 0.5% over the course of a year -- while at the same time lowering the GST by 1%. I know on my tax return, I actually paid less in taxes despite the increase (due to the employment tax credit that was there). So, really, it is misleading to say that the Conservatives raised taxes, because it was more than offset by the additional NRTC (non-refundable tax credits). Dirty. Simply dirty.
(Of course, you would have to have employment income to notice that --I don't hold it against you for not working and thereby not noticing it, since you are in school).
I would like to request that in the future you refrain from hitting bellow the belt. My current employment situation notwithstanding, I'm a very productive member of society. Take this blog for instance. It clearly enriches the lives of many Canadians - I even have an international readership (as noted in my post about Rolling Stone magazine being a fan of mine).
ReplyDeleteAs for you having paid less taxes despite the Tory increase, I ask Pat, are you even in the lowest tax bracket?
I think you might have read too much into my ending comments. That was not a criticism against your lack of employment (and therefore, lack of contribution to society); it was merely a factual statement that unless you had employment income (when you do not), you would not have seen or noticed the change in tax rates and NRTCs. I was not hitting below the belt, just stating the factually obvious.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not in the lowest tax bracket (the lowest bracket having an income ceiling of $36,000), changing the rate affects everybody. Therefore, an increase/decrease in that bracket will change the amount of taxes for everybody, even the guy making $200k/year. For example, if somebody makes $50,000/year, $36K of that will be taxed at 15.5% while the remaining $14K will be taxed at 22% (federal taxes, of course). Therefore, regardless of what bracket I am in, I will still benefit from that increase, which is not really an increase given the additional NRTCs that were introduced. It is *politically* easier to say "Tories raise taxes" (if your definition of "taxes" is a small increase in the base tax rate) than to explain that while "taxes" have gone up, "NRTCs" have gone up more (therefore, the net result is a factual tax decrease). Perhaps this is why Liberals can only say "taxes went up" -- the rest of the details confuse them.
I shall not speak for other Liberals, but the rest of the details do confuse me.
ReplyDeletebtw - if I send you all my tax stuff...nevermind.
Let's just hope, for Canadian's sake, that you 1) never become a MP who 2) becomes Finance Minister.
ReplyDeleteCan we agree on that?
Amen Pat. But not just for Canadians' sake, for my sake as well. My last phone bill had big enough numbers to make my head hurt!
ReplyDelete