News   May 09, 2024
 141     0 
News   May 09, 2024
 374     0 
News   May 09, 2024
 641     1 

2005-6 Federal Election: Liberals cut taxes as election looms

A

Antiloop33rpm

Guest
Ahhh election time politics. If there is one thing The Liberals have become masters of it seems to the art of the perfectly timed tax cut or funding announcement. And I have to say, reading through, some parts even caught my eye (such as the increased funding for post-secondary institutions). But it faded. Silly Liberals, have you not learned anything.

www.cbc.ca/story/canada/n...51114.html

Liberals cut taxes as election looms
Last Updated Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:55:07 EST
CBC News
With Paul Martin's minority government facing the threat of defeat within days, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale has unveiled a package that combines voter-friendly income and corporate tax cuts with new spending on education, immigration and trade.

Appearing in front of the House of Commons finance committee Monday, Goodale presented what the government insists on calling an "economic and fiscal update," though it contains the kind of spending commitments traditionally seen only in budgets.

They include:


An immediate $500 increase in the basic personal exemption, which leaves more money in the pocket of every Canadian taxpayer.
An immediate drop of one percentage point in the lowest personal income tax rate, from 16 per cent to 15 per cent.
A plan to restore corporate tax cuts dropped last spring as the price of NDP support in the House of Commons.
A $2.75-billion boost in post-secondary education aid over the next five years, as well as a $1-billion higher education innovation fund and $2.1 billion more for university research funding.
$3.5 billion more for workplace training programs.
A promise of $1.3 billion more over five years to help immigrants settle in Canada.
Just over $1 billion over five years for trade supports.
An extra $100 million over five years to help bring broadband internet service to remote communities across Canada.
The finance minister also promised to work with provincial and territorial governments to draft a new tax benefit to help the working poor, who often lose more in welfare benefits than they gain in pay when they take minimum-wage jobs.

Changes depend on politics

Finance Department officials say all the changes, even those labelled as "immediate," must be approved by parliamentary vote.

That means none will take effect without the good will of opposition party leaders who on Sunday pledged unanimously to bring down Martin's minority government as soon as possible.

A no-confidence motion could come as early as this week, triggering an election in late December or early January.

Given the political climate, the Conservatives and NDP were calling Goodale's package nothing more than a Liberal campaign plank even before he delivered it Monday.

The finance minister acknowledged none of this uncertainty in his speech, however.

He boasted of the fact that individual Canadians will save up to $325 on their income taxes in the first year covered by the changes, seeing bigger refunds as early as next spring.

Goodale's package will give $30 billion in tax relief while costing a total of $49.8 billion over the next five years. Of that, $39 billion is new spending that had not been previously announced.

But there should be plenty of money to pay for it, according to his documents.

Surplus forecasts turn rosier

Monday's update differed from past updates in relying on 16 private sector assessments to come up with much more optimistic forecasts of future budget surpluses.

One year ago, for example, Goodale's last economic and fiscal update projected that the surplus for 2005-06 would be $500 million, followed by $900 million in 2006-07. Monday's document revised those figures to $8.2 billion and $9.2 billion respectively.

Goodale attributed the rise in the 2005-06 numbers to "higher projected corporate and personal income tax receipts and lower public debt charges."

In the past, the Liberals have come under attack from opposition politicians and lobby groups for underestimating their budget surpluses. Critics have accused Martin's government of doing so in order to dampen calls for more spending or quicker tax cuts.

A bill introduced in the House of Commons last month spells out how future surpluses must be spent, if they come in higher than the annual contingency reserve of $3 billion. The money will be split among tax relief, new program spending and reducing the national debt, which now stands at just under $500 billion.

In another announcement, Goodale said the government now aims to have a debt-to-GDP ratio of 20 per cent by 2020.

Goodale refers to 'red-ink' history

Goodale's speech began by reminding his listeners what "an economic basket case" Canada was before Martin became finance minister when Jean Chretien's government took over from the Conservatives in 1993.

"The federal budget had been in deficit for more than a quarter of a century, with red ink as far as the eye could see," Goodale's presentation said.

He contrasted that with the situation today. Canada has recorded eight straight surpluses, unique among Group of Seven nations, and is enjoying its lowest unemployment rate in 30 years.

The Canadian economy is projected to grow by 2.8 per cent this year, Goodale said, rising to 3.1 per cent in 2007.
 
Goody. More tax cuts. Too bad infrastructure in cities and in native reserves continues to crumble in the name of debt repayment and tax cuts.

Goodale's speech began by reminding his listeners what "an economic basket case" Canada was before Martin became finance minister when Jean Chretien's government took over from the Conservatives in 1993.

That sounds nothing like a election speech - All hail the genius Paul Martin. I wonder if the "Team Martin" signs are going out again.

Let's get the election over with.
 
Talks of tax cuts lower the credibility of the Liberals and Conservatives in my mind. If everything was fixed and properly funded then tax cuts would make sense but they aren't. It is basically a buy selfish voters votes measure and I wish people would wake up to that. We don't need tax cuts, we need our tax dollars to go further... we need efficiency.
 
Enviro: I totally agree. No doubt, this is going to work to get a few votes away from Conservatives who enjoy tax cuts and some of the business class. But other than that, I cant see it being all that effective. Lets also keep in mind The Liberals have been busy, recently announcing the might hand VIA (back) additional funding, and there are a few others which I just cant remember off the top of my head. Its shameful politiking.

Im really hoping that the NDP keep urban issues on top of their election agenda. Given that another Liberal minority with NDP holding the balance of power is likely, this could be a really good opportunity to finally get the Federal government to invest much needed capital into some of the larger, long overdue projects that cities and regions need (ie, subways, light rail, rebuilding the Quebec-Windsor corridor). Its that time to start emailing your NDP candidate or local representative and put some of the fire back into this issue (and it doesnt hurt to email local council members as well, after all, it was in large part due to the work of Municipal Mayors across Canada that brought this issue forward in the first place).
 
If everything was fixed and properly funded then tax cuts would make sense but they aren't.

Money is there for both. Infrastucture and tax cuts are not mutually exclusive.
 
So where's the money for infrastructure or anything else? I see little more than tax cuts (just a bit of money for training and student grants) in this election gimmie giveaway.
 
Money is there for both. Infrastucture and tax cuts are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe you can use that fancy math and give me a few thousand dollars of your money... of course you will somehow magically have enough money for all the things you need to buy as well and won't even notice the missing cash.
 
www.cbc.ca/story/canada/n...51114.html

Martin rejects opposition offer of Feb. election
Last Updated Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:51:01 EST
CBC News
Prime Minister Paul Martin flatly rejected an opposition ultimatum to hold an election in mid-February, increasing the likelihood of a January vote.

"There's no provision in either our parliamentary tradition or in common sense to the kind of plan that the opposition seeks to concoct," Martin said in a statement.

Leaders of the three opposition parties demanded on Sunday that Martin agree to call an election in January or face a no-confidence motion that could bring down his government in November.

The Tories and the Bloc agreed to support an NDP motion – which could be introduced as early as Tuesday – that will ask Martin to launch a campaign in the first week of January, with an election in February.

"The opposition leaders are proposing in effect to remove the government from office but without triggering an election," Martin said. "In our system of Parliament you don't get to vote no but yes for now. There is no such thing as non-confidence-lite."

Martin has said he will call an election within 30 days of the release of Justice John Gomery's final report on the sponsorship scandal, slated for Feb. 1.

The prime minister said a number of programs important to Canadians would be at stake if the opposition decided to end the life of this Parliament.

Following Martin's statement, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the prime minister "should face up to the parliamentary realities" and work with the opposition parties.

"What the prime minister doesn't seem to face is the election is either going to occur now or it's going to occur in January," said Harper. "We're not going to wait another four months."

---------------------------------------------------------

Its getting interesting. Martin seems to enjoy throwing out a whole bunch of wonderful tax cuts and funding boosts when appropriate, and when his future is in doubt, and then trying to lay blame on the opposition, making it seem as though it will be the oppositions fault if these dont go through. Of course he forgets the opposition can just include these same tax cuts and budget funding plans in their own re-election platforms, or alter their platforms to something that might be more appealing. I do wonder if the opposition will actually force a holiday election?
 
^ What it does do though is it forces reporters to indicate whether or not they will spend money on individual projects the Liberals have identified. For example if the Liberals announced funding for transit expansion in Calgary and Edmonton then the Conservatives would need to answer the question if they would spend money on it... they don't like spending on transit much but might be forced to in order to keep votes on their side.
 
Maybe you can use that fancy math and give me a few thousand dollars of your money... of course you will somehow magically have enough money for all the things you need to buy as well and won't even notice the missing cash.

Take a look at Adscam for example. $300 million was spent without the Finance minister knowing about it. Eliminate corporate welfare, of which about 80% goes directly to Liberal's Quebec cronies. There's billions & billions of dollars wasted on dubious initiatives every year that could be better spent on infrastructure and lower tax rates. BTW, lower tax rates do not necessarily mean lower revenues for the government.
 
Eliminate corporate welfare, of which about 80% goes directly to Liberal's Quebec cronies.

As I said efficiency is more important than tax cuts. I would never suggest raising taxes as long as there is inefficiency in government services and pocket padding, but until the efficiencies are found and the services and infrastructure requiring funding is funded I don't think there should be money available for tax cuts.

BTW, lower tax rates do not necessarily mean lower revenues for the government.

True, if the tax cuts are in the right place. If the tax cuts are focused on reducing corporate taxes and on Canadian investment capital gains then they could see economic growth resulting in greater tax collection. If they focus tax cuts on personal taxes which allows Canadians to buy more foreign made and foreign headquartered products or dump their money more easily into foreign investments then it could simply increase the decline of the Canadian tax base. If the money lands in individual Canadian pockets and they don't spend it on something that increases jobs in Canada then it is simply lost money.
 

Back
Top