Terra Firma
Banned
No, he simply doesn't want others to get help from the government using HIS tax money.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian General Election (OT) - #elxn42: October 19, 2015
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
No, he simply doesn't want others to get help from the government using HIS tax money.
It costs me 15k$ to put my 2 kids in childcare while my wife and I work.
Sure, Harper just gave us a nice big taxable chunk of change - while removing the actual not taxed rebate. Still less than what Trudeau has promised (and to be paid for by taxing the rich).
30$/day for childcare means more to me than a taxable income that I will use to help pay off other debts.
Put the tax burden on the Rich and the Corporations - give relief to the middle class, help lift the working poor out of poverty.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Depends what you call "middle class." I'd probably consider myself middle class but I make a good salary. I'd be fine with being taxed more, if it means better social safety net and more public transit transfers to cities/provinces.
Other kids don't get from his tax dollars.
Simon Belmont
Banned
I'm newly in the second highest tax bracket. I was actually pretty surprised at how little we pay.
Edit: not the second, high up anyways. Point being taxes are not killing the well off.
Second edit: never mind, highest tax bracket federally.
Edit: not the second, high up anyways. Point being taxes are not killing the well off.
Second edit: never mind, highest tax bracket federally.
That's the definition of selfish, you need to get off your high horse and admit that you're selfish, just like almost every other Conservative voter.
Also, Harper personifies "over promise and under deliver". I'm still waiting for my fitness credit.
Somehow he's promising more tax cuts and credits, as if he's shitting money out. It's not as if he just ran eight straight deficits with absolutely nothing to show for it. If you're going to run a deficit, atleast grow the economy with the deficit, instead we get the worst case scenario which is running deficits despite cutting social programs and then we have a shrinking economy on top of that.
How anyone still believes that the Conservatives can manage an economy just beats me. They've shown themselves to be more incompetent at running the economy than any of the past few governments.
indigo lily
Member
How can we get the long form census back? It makes me sad when I see statscan data quoted now from 2011Middle is subjective - but Macleans proposes this:
I have a family too. And you know what I worry about more than an extra 20 dolla in my bank account per month (which is what tax cuts usually end up working out to)? Maintaining the good public schools that my kid is going to go to. Hoping that we can arrest runaway tuition so he doesn't have to pay 6 figures for a decent post secondary education. Starting to build up infrastructure so at least he can take advantage of new transit that we start building now and take care of the backlog of repair so we don't kick the can down the road and leave his generation to deal with the consequences of ruptured lines and crumbling bridges.
I'm sorry man but you've got a short sighted and myopic view when it comes to taking care of your family.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
I think successive governments have run on "lowering taxes" as an appeal for votes in swing ridings, which almost always happen to be in that annoying suburban belt.
It'd be great to see a party run on increasing taxes and using it for something great, but I don't know if it would ever happen.
Middle is subjective - but Macleans proposes this:
This might be accurate. I'd be fine seeing individual incomes around 50k and up being taxed higher. That was around the when I stopped feeling like money was tight. That's of course assuming someone doesn't have kids, but I think if you're going to go that route there should be far better support for those with kids anyway.
gutter_trash
Banned
Harper has never ever cut income taxes without strings attached.
the guy is the king of pretending to cut taxes but only for a certain clientel
if you are single without kids, you are screwed under Harper
the guy is the king of pretending to cut taxes but only for a certain clientel
if you are single without kids, you are screwed under Harper
pr0cs
Member
That's a perfectly acceptable way to vote,on topics that are the most important to you.
Really? His promises about health care are all nice except so much of it falls under different jurisdiction. You can promise the world but if you don't deliver them what is the point other than vote buying
You're a government employee?
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Health coverage is weird in this country since, while it's technically a provincial responsibility, a large portion of the bill is handled by the feds. Their portion of funding always comes with strings attached, and as such the federal government usually can dictate new health policy, even if it's via negotiations with provinces.
Can we get real here? Health should always have been a federal responsibility. It would mean less overhead, less duplication of effort, less edge cases where people lose coverage when moving between provinces (as my wife did), and there would be actual sufficient money to cover the costs.
One of the more bizarre reactions to this election campaign is the automatic dismissal of anything that requires federal/provincial co-operation as 'impossible'. Have you guys internatlized Harper's approach to Canadian governance so completely that no federal premier can work with the provinces on anything ever again?
I expect Trudeau or Muclair to engage with the premiers and advocate and push for their Pan Canadian Vision. I expect them to, you know, act like Canadian Prime Ministers should.
And the Canada Health Act is federal legislation.
I expect Trudeau or Muclair to engage with the premiers and advocate and push for their Pan Canadian Vision. I expect them to, you know, act like Canadian Prime Ministers should.
And the Canada Health Act is federal legislation.
I once was - until Stephen Harper decided it was in the oil industries best interest to "sell" off the crown corporation I worked for to a private company. And by sell off I mean pay to take.
pr0cs
Member
People are just looking at history and it hasn't worked out well,for health care anyway.
People are being realistic.
If you aren't then that $30 isn't for you
Source please.
Canadian Health Care is great. It's not as good as it could be. But I'm thankful for it every day and the way it was created and the way it works is through federal-provincial cooperation.
I think he's talking about 15 dollar child care there. Which is for everyone.
Are you getting confused with 15 dollar minimum wage for federal employees?
matthewwhatever
Member
Amen to that. I'm not saying we should go back to the days of 50+% personal income taxes, but if we want a solid social safety net, we need to be willing to pay for it -- and the people who make a little more should be on the hook to pay a little more.
Voting reform?
Some interesting data in Abacus' polling...
First, Harper isn't even that inspiring to his own partisans:
Second, it's crazy how evenly split the anti-CPC vote is between the Liberals and the NDP:
That likely explains his thinking. If he is mistaken about the 15$/day child care - what else is he mistaken about?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Again, I know I'm the only one who cares about Australian politics, but someone told me about this three part documentary that goes into depth about the Rudd/Gillard years and it's crazy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/killing-season/
I really wish someone had the access to do this for Canadian politics. Something about the rise and fall of the Liberals (from Chretien all the way to Ignatieff) would be cool, or Peter McKay's betrayal leading to the ascendance of Harper.
Either way, it's gripping stuff if you want to see how these people act behind closed doors.
(Yeah, it's hard to care about polling numbers at this point lol)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/killing-season/
I really wish someone had the access to do this for Canadian politics. Something about the rise and fall of the Liberals (from Chretien all the way to Ignatieff) would be cool, or Peter McKay's betrayal leading to the ascendance of Harper.
Either way, it's gripping stuff if you want to see how these people act behind closed doors.
(Yeah, it's hard to care about polling numbers at this point lol)
Amen to that. I'm not saying we should go back to the days of 50+% personal income taxes, but if we want a solid social safety net, we need to be willing to pay for it -- and the people who make a little more should be on the hook to pay a little more.
Voting reform?
Some interesting data in Abacus' polling...
First, Harper isn't even that inspiring to his own partisans:
Second, it's crazy how evenly split the anti-CPC vote is between the Liberals and the NDP:
That pie chart makes me twitch. I put the numbers into a calculator and... Did Abacus really do a straight-up average of all those percentages and presented them as a pie chart?
Don't say you're not selfish then.
Because if you were actually struggling putting your kids through school or food on your table - then the NDP and Green platforms would benefit you more as they propose things like Universal Education (Green) and Cheap Daycare (as well as a plethora of other platform items for the family that's struggling).
So you're obviously not struggling for this. But others are. And you rather have some extra money then support the people who can't send their kids to school or have issues getting food for their kids.
That's selfish, there's no if and or buts about it.
Not to mention that policies Universal Education and Cheap Daycare makes life easier for pretty much everyone with a family except for the ultra rich who send their kids to high end private schools anyway. He's voting against his own best interests in exchange for what... maybe 30 bucks a month?
gutter_trash
Banned
education, health, daycare, nurses. That is nice but
Provinces will tell him to just send the money and leave the legislation up to them.
Abacus, Ipsos, Nanos balbalbal
another day, another poll. NDP, PLC an CPC continue to trade places daily with the same numbers within the 32 - 29 range
Provinces will tell him to just send the money and leave the legislation up to them.
Abacus, Ipsos, Nanos balbalbal
another day, another poll. NDP, PLC an CPC continue to trade places daily with the same numbers within the 32 - 29 range
Yeah but think of how bad it will feel to give those lazy poors a free ride while you can't even get each of your kids a PlayStation.
matthewwhatever
Member
No regional breakdowns in the methodology -- just the overall numbers. Though is that an issue? If the overall breakdown was 51-49, then wouldn't the bigger problem be if the breakdowns didn't support that?
Also, I'd have thought you'd latch on to those internal supporter numbers. They basically support your idea that there's appetite for change inside the CPC!
Which is where good leaders come in. Pierre Trudeau showed it by implementing the CHA, you seem to be saying that Justin has no hope of displaying the same kind of leadership skill.
Personally I'd like to elect someone who at least commits to trying and doing the hard work of Canadian governance that Harper abandoned.
Easy choice for a gun owner, Conservative is the only party that is neutral on this issue right now.
NDP = total gun ban, start with handgun ban
Liberals = re-classifying all firearms to prohibited class.
And I don't want to give up lower taxes and no, I'm not a millionaire. My income is considered low for a family of four but enough to support them and I don't want to get robbed by so-called environmentalists and green politicians. And I don't support U.N.
I believe that I am responsible for myself and my family, and not the government. Conservatives want smaller government and I like that idea.
NDP = total gun ban, start with handgun ban
Liberals = re-classifying all firearms to prohibited class.
And I don't want to give up lower taxes and no, I'm not a millionaire. My income is considered low for a family of four but enough to support them and I don't want to get robbed by so-called environmentalists and green politicians. And I don't support U.N.
I believe that I am responsible for myself and my family, and not the government. Conservatives want smaller government and I like that idea.
If they want it so bad, why have they achieved the exact opposite?
windhys, I found a better country for you:
Can we not with the "if you don't like it leave" rhetoric from any side of things, please?
Do you have any sources for these gun claims? It seemed to me that no one was bringing up guns in this election at all. It's really not a major issue for Canadians.
You can pm me if you want the source. I'm not going to turn this into a gun debate thread.
matthewwhatever
Member
Mulcair's support for a long gun registry varies depending on where and when you ask him, though as of a few days before the writ drop, he was saying no gun registry.
Though I have to agree with Tiktaalik...I don't think it's a major issue for most people.
Though I have to agree with Tiktaalik...I don't think it's a major issue for most people.
Sounds legit.
That is not true... it was a proposal at their national policy convention back in early 2014, but the motion was defeated and is not part of Liberal policy. Naturally some Conservative MPs, again taking another page directly from the Republican playbook, used the opportunity of that motion being defeated to peddle a little fear that the Liberals are out to get your guns.
CitizenVectron
Member
windhys, I found a better country for you:
WWII-era USA? That flag only has 48 stars.
matthewwhatever
Member
Alternate suggestion: Tabris will be dead and cold in the ground before he accepts Missouri and South Dakota as states.
Interesting explanation of how, exactly, we're suddenly in surplus: not only did the federal government leave $8.7B of allocated funds unspent last year, it also left over $18B unspent over the two years before that.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
I have to assume both the NDP and Liberals have a laundry list of Harper fuckups to undo in their first couple years in office.
Too bad completely Repeal Bill C-51 wasn't on both of their agendas.
This is an election thread. If guns are important to you then you're free to turn this into a gun debate thread.
That assumption would be 100% correct.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
The problem is that there have been so many cuts, they really can't restore everything without it seeming like a spending spree.
Scrapping C-51 would probably save us some money
I don't know why people keep thinking Conservatives/GOP-type parties actually run smaller governance when they never do. They just funnel the money from education/healthcare to security/military departments. They still run deficits and then don't have enough tax revenue to cover those too. It's such a vicious cycle that just doesn't end. Eliminating C-51 would be a great start since we should be using money there to build education, healthcare, infrastructures, or heck... even some military equipments so we can actually save stranded Canadians in foreign soils if needed.
Also, I support both NDP/Liberals for reducing TFSA limit down to $5000. Even though I am fortunate enough to be able to save more than $5000 into TFSA every year, I don't believe this is good for the overall Canadian economy. Poor people... and heck even middle class people don't have enough disposable income to max out their RRSP and TFSA saving limit. So it's only the rich who can take advantage of this and give even less tax to the Canadian government.
Also, I support both NDP/Liberals for reducing TFSA limit down to $5000. Even though I am fortunate enough to be able to save more than $5000 into TFSA every year, I don't believe this is good for the overall Canadian economy. Poor people... and heck even middle class people don't have enough disposable income to max out their RRSP and TFSA saving limit. So it's only the rich who can take advantage of this and give even less tax to the Canadian government.
Sorry, but the CPC ≠ GOP. In fact, this thread demonstrates that the Conservatives have gutted our military to the point where we can barely properly defend our own shores without support from the US. Our Navy is in shambles and our Air Force is reduced to begging museums for parts to keep out planes functional.
No, what Harper has done with his cuts is used then to finance populist tax credits that have no economical benefit, but it plays well with the general population nonetheless, "Yay 8 can deduct the expenses for my kids' hockey equipment! Vote Conservative!"
PumpkinSpice
Banned
They're not even really populist tax credits, more just targeted specifically at swing voters/ridings. I'm sure TFSA limit increases play very well in Toronto suburb ridings.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
lol indeed.
I'm thinking about stuff like reintroducing the mandatory census. I can't imagine how much that would cost to start up again since the program was axed years ago.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked