Conservatives would cut GST: Harper

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

well, my point is this... I would think it would be an educated assumption to think that many immigrants come to Canada to escape situations...

thus, my point is maybe, a country that provides/ promotes acceptance of other cultures, and thus provides a comfortable adjustment for people from other cultures, a place that promotes multiculturalism--I can't help but think that maybe this idealism could be expanded beyond our borders... If people can be accepted within our borders, than why can we not accept/support those that need assistance outside of our borders?

What I was suggesting, is that possibly, the majority of Canadians could perhaps support such a notion, especially when war, persecution and suffering has been one of the motivating factors for many people to make Canada their home.

[SmoothedShredder]

That sounds like a job for a Federal, Federal Government... some Uniting of Nations perhaps... I heard of some opperation run out of New York... hows that working out?

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

why shouldn't we pay a tax that benefits people outside of our borders?

[Diggzz]

And where did those tax cuts go might I ask? Defence - No

Health Care - No

Environment - No

This is as far as I can see' date=' I may be wrong (gawd knows I have been before) but from where I'm sitting, tax cuts are great and all but the proceeds from these cuts should actually fund something besides pre-election buy-offs.

[/quote']

Ummm....Tax cuts means we pay less tax and the government gets LESS money, right? Meaning there can be no proceeds from tax cuts.

Perhaps my mind is elsewhere.

Nope I'm an idiot, I guess the point of that post was supposed to be that the Tax dollars they collect are not put to good use. So yeah a tax cut would be good because the aren't using it properly anyways.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

From the Simpsons this afternoon -

Sideshow Bob: Because you need me, Springfield. Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king. That's why I did this: to protect you from yourselves. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a city to run.

Judge: Bailiffs, place the mayor under arrest.

Sideshow Bob: What? Oh yes, all that stuff I did.

[d_rawk]

Hahaha. Excellent.

Sort of glad that this thread has been revisited, 'cause ...

Self-confession which I would be remiss to not mention: in my previous posts in this thread, it never occured to me to take into account the GST rebate that is given to those below the poverty line, which does go some extent towards redressing the GST-as-excessive-tax-on-the-poor element.

But today, my major ulcer contribution is this ...

[Birdy]

And where did those tax cuts go might I ask? Defence - No

Health Care - No

Environment - No

This is as far as I can see' date=' I may be wrong (gawd knows I have been before) but from where I'm sitting, tax cuts are great and all but the proceeds from these cuts should actually fund something besides pre-election buy-offs.

[/quote']

Ummm....Tax cuts means we pay less tax and the government gets LESS money, right? Meaning there can be no proceeds from tax cuts.

Perhaps my mind is elsewhere.

Nope I'm an idiot, I guess the point of that post was supposed to be that the Tax dollars they collect are not put to good use. So yeah a tax cut would be good because the aren't using it properly anyways.

i agree wholeheartedly. seeing government funded programs such as 1-800-O-CANADA and HRDC pop up by no means makes me a happy tax payer. HRDC insures that tax payers pay half of a wage that any capable company would pay irregardless, as they are in need of hiring. proper not-for-profit agencies could accomplish the exact same thing for the unemployed that HRDC does, but the liberal government wants to take credit for the ever important party platform of "job creation".

of course taxes put more money in the government's purse, but if they're not spending the money properly and are effortlessly squandering it away on useless crap, then there can be no argument.

tax cuts on the other hand put money back into the hands of the people, the same people who could use that money appropriately as they see fit, as to the necessities that directly apply to them and their situations. Not only that, but money in the pocket, unfortunately, really does make the world go round.

it's these reasons, and these reasons alone that i'm casting a vote the tory way come election time.

[d_rawk]

the same people who could use that money appropriately as they see fit, as to the necessities that directly apply to them and their situations.

Is this the best way? For people to vote or put money only where it is directly beneficial to themselves?

(not disputing that the Liberals waste money as though it were self-generating, just the notion that acting solely in one's self-interest is necessarily of benefit to the community at large)

[Birdy]

i think so d-rawk. i'm a big supporter of people doing it "on their own" so to speak. of course, considering that Canada is one of the highest taxed countries in the entire world, noone would be acting solely in one's self-interest.. there's still a lot of tax money to go around.. but people should be able to act in their own self-interest.. the very lack of that dampens individualism and takes away the very essence of what it is to be human. why does the left have such a negative view of human nature where they feel that if people do act in their own self interest that it would turn out to be negative. why is that?

[d_rawk]

So, the guy down the street with AIDS who is stuck in that common limbo between social assistance and disability, and who spends whatever pittance he can eke out on the pharmeceuticals he can afford (which don't account for nearly as much as his doctor insists that he needs) ....

When he is collapsing from hunger, I'm wrong to take him to Hartmans and buy him a sandwhich? Because it does me not a lick of good to do so, not even in the way of making me 'feel good about myself'. Fuck, I've got substance abuse problems. I can't even make it paycheck to paycheck myself. So I shouldn't do it?

And we should cut the taxes and civil service back so that when someone finally *does* get around to reviewing his disability claim, there won't be any money there to make a difference, anyways?

I don't know that it is the case that the left has such a negative view of human nature. I think it is more likely the case that there is an understanding that sometimes we don't have the information to make entirely informed decisions or to see realities outside of our own immediate exposure, and therefore can't be expected to make informed decisions based on information that we don't have.

For example, would it be sensible to put minority rights to the vote (ie. referenda) of the majority? If we were to do so with something like slavery, or equality rights for homosexuals, or any other minority issue, if people acted solely on the basis of self-interest, such issues would never be rectified. It requires an understanding of the other as being morally relevant. Acting entirely in accordance with one's self-interest brackets morally relevant considerations from view.

I think.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

it's these reasons, and these reasons alone that i'm casting a vote the tory way come election time.

Can't... move... nervous...system... collapsing....

Yes, the Liberals have been a pack of rampaging, cash-flinging goofs, but the Tories will tear what's worth keeping of this culture apart before people have time to blink (ok, that's a bit hyperbolic, but I'm trying to make a point), plus make off like bandits on the part of rich fuckers whose names most of us have yet to learn.

I don't think I'd have what it took to vote Tory unless someone like David Orchard was the guy in my riding.

What's he up to this time around, anyway?

[d_rawk]

Well, I keep linking to my own stuff, but that is only because I think that my opinion is so excessively valuable

Orchard was rumoured to be up to this

(Though I think it rather unlikely)

[Birdy]

So, the guy down the street with AIDS who is stuck in that common limbo between social assistance and disability, and who spends whatever pittance he can eke out on the pharmeceuticals he can afford (which don't account for nearly as much as his doctor insists that he needs) ....

When he is collapsing from hunger, I'm wrong to take him to Hartmans and buy him a sandwhich? Because it does me not a lick of good to do so, not even in the way of making me 'feel good about myself'. Fuck, I've got substance abuse problems. I can't even make it paycheck to paycheck myself. So I shouldn't do it?

do whatever you want to do d_rawk. i'm not telling you what to do. act in your own self-interest. obviously by the way you described this poor man you have the ability to "feel" for him, perhaps even maybe empathize for him.. even if you can't do something for him, maybe the person walking right behind you can. i'm not voting to pull out all social assistance, i'm voting in hopes that we can make give people the chance to be socially responsible, not just the government. you may live paycheck to paycheck with a substance abuse problem, but thankfully i don't and thankfully i am socially responsible. i give what i can and encourage others who can give, to do the same.

And we should cut the taxes and civil service back so that when someone finally *does* get around to reviewing his disability claim, there won't be any money there to make a difference, anyways?.

well with or without disability insurance, unemployment insurance, and old age pensions are all headed down the same self-destructing path. with the current state of affairs projections are out there that when i hit the age of eligibility for the old age pension there will be nothing left. i hadn't brought up cutting back civil service, but cutting taxes back (not completely) would put money back into the hands of people who could ensure that they themselves are taken care of. a sort of voluntary pension plan if you will.. one that employers could match and with the government contributing of course by way of tax relief. this would free up the burden on the existing structure of the old age pension plan and ensure there will be funds around for those who truly do need assistance. the same ideas could be applied to disability and unemployment insurance. of course, the government would need to be more fiscally responsible to ensure any of this could be a success.

I don't know that it is the case that the left has such a negative view of human nature. I think it is more likely the case that there is an understanding that sometimes we don't have the information to make entirely informed decisions or to see realities outside of our own immediate exposure, and therefore can't be expected to make informed decisions based on information that we don't have.

For example, would it be sensible to put minority rights to the vote (ie. referenda) of the majority? If we were to do so with something like slavery, or equality rights for homosexuals, or any other minority issue, if people acted solely on the basis of self-interest, such issues would never be rectified. It requires an understanding of the other as being morally relevant. Acting entirely in accordance with one's self-interest brackets morally relevant considerations from view.

I think.

i fully agree with your example but i have to say, not being able to see the realities outside of your immediate exposure is a scary scary thing if you are a governing power. It's funny that you say that as I have always thought this about the left. Most left wing policies are like applying a bandaid to a wound- it might save it from infection, but the wound is still there. and the question that always comes to me is, why can't they see, what i see?

[Birdy]

it's these reasons' date=' and these reasons alone that i'm casting a vote the tory way come election time.[/quote']

Can't... move... nervous...system... collapsing....

Yes, the Liberals have been a pack of rampaging, cash-flinging goofs, but the Tories will tear what's worth keeping of this culture apart before people have time to blink (ok, that's a bit hyperbolic, but I'm trying to make a point), plus make off like bandits on the part of rich fuckers whose names most of us have yet to learn.

I don't think I'd have what it took to vote Tory unless someone like David Orchard was the guy in my riding.

What's he up to this time around, anyway?

lol.. i'm sorry to collapse your nervous system doc.

as much as i think harper is a nut, i don't think any of us will really see "too much" of a difference if the conservatives get elected, even with a majority government. harper is right of right, but the entire party is not. conservatives and liberals alike are pretty middle ground and the only "real" change i can see happening is a more fiscally responsible government- which I'm sure most of us want.

harper campaigns loud, as he has to, cuz it's literally a war between the tories and the libs.. but if he gets elected, the one most important thing he'll need to do is realize he's no longer in Alberta, but in Ottawa.

[d_rawk]

i'm not telling you what to do. act in your own self-interest.

I think that maybe you missed the point.

you may live paycheck to paycheck with a substance abuse problem, but thankfully i don't and thankfully i am socially responsible.

Oh, thank you. And fuck you too, I guess.

i give what i can and encourage others who can give, to do the same.

This sounds a lot like the new strategy by those organizations trying to raise money for the impoverished elsewhere in world. "Here's a catalogue! YOU get to choose what the money goes to! Isn't that swell?". Well, hell. No. How the fuck do I or anybody else here know what the money needs to go to? I don't have the information. A cow might sound nice to me. Or a sweater. But what do I know? You're on the ground. I'll give you money -- you have the knowledge to decide what is most beneficial.

If they want to spend a week with me discussing the minutia of the matter, fine. But they don't. It's bullshit to think that my catalogue finger-pointing is defacto superior to their organizational choice. But, oh. It feels. So. God. Damn. Good.

i hadn't brought up cutting back civil service

It was implicated in the rest.

and old age pensions are all headed down the same self-destructing path

Not arguing against this. Nor was I arguing against tax cuts in the general sense.

i fully agree with your example but i have to say, not being able to see the realities outside of your immediate exposure is a scary scary thing if you are a governing power.

I quite honestly don't see this how applies. My example entailed exactly that which the self-interested individual may not be in position to observe, but the representative would be more likely (though not guaranteed ... many an MP did vote against SSM in the house out of political opportunism) would be in a better position to observe. Precisely because they are charged with the responsibility of representing a wider array of interests than *self*.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Guest
quotes are being assholes. oh well.

[Birdy]

umm.. lets see... d-rawk i by no means meant to sound condescending towards your situation (paycheck-paycheck).. deepest apologies.. came out the wrong way. i just meant that i am thankful (truly as i've been there) that i'm not there today. sorry.

it seems to me that you think i'm in favour of getting rid of all "organized" assistance, when i'm truly not. this all stems from me being in favour of a 1% tax cut, putting money back in the hands of the individual and that individual, hopefully, doing the right thing with that money. i don't see how anything i have said has implicated that i am in in favour of cutting back on civil service. if that civil service is a telemarketer behind 1-800-o canada than maybe?

i'm not the raging conservative that i think you're painting me out to be.. it's not like i'm sitting at home picking cows out of a catalog to make myself "feel" better! ouch.. that almost hurts. i'm simply saying give people a chance to prove that they're able to form some kind of assistance for other people in need outside of government legislation. generally most not-for-profit agencies boom and grow due to tax relief, so i'm hoping more tax relief could spur others to act in the same interest. self-interest does not have to have a negative connotation if that person is truly good and decent with right intention and not just doing their "good deed of the day".

i'm sorry if i took your post the wrong way, the picture you painted of the guy with AIDS and the debate whether you buy him a sandwich or not, threw me off. i just took your question of to buy or not to buy in the literal sense.

in the end i'm just a fiscally aware liberal who is tired of a government that is the furthest thing from being fiscally aware.

[d_rawk]

i just meant that i am thankful (truly as i've been there) that i'm not there today. sorry.

It's cool. I got my back up. Sore spot, etc..

i don't see how anything i have said has implicated that i am in in favour of cutting back on civil service.

I was extrapolating from the tax cuts / individuals deciding what to do with the money angle. But you're right, you were talking about a 1% (2% over so many years) cut, which doesn't exactly amount to a decimation of the civil service. I extrapolated too far. The focus was on the other comments, regarding self-interested investment.

i'm simply saying give people a chance to prove that they're able to form some kind of assistance for other people in need outside of government legislation. generally most not-for-profit agencies boom and grow due to tax relief, so i'm hoping more tax relief could spur others to act in the same interest. self-interest does not have to have a negative connotation if that person is truly good and decent with right intention and not just doing their "good deed of the day".

This still concerns me, although I think I have a better sense of where you are coming from, now.

My worry is that a lot of worthwhile endeavors would go underfunded, and a lot individuals would be left to suffer the more decisions about what/who to fund are left to individuals without the time or inclination to investigate such things deeply. The 'sexy' issues would get overfunded, and the messier, darker issues would go left unaddressed.

It really isn't that I think that human nature is excessively negative. In fact, normally, I'm accused of exactly the opposite. It is just that there is a *lot* to weigh, and it is all constantly in flux, and I don't think it fair to expect most people to spend all their time making such decisions in isolation.

But I do get that you aren't advocating exactly that. You weren't advocating an elimination, just a reduction. I took issue with a particular statement and we started playing in black & white, when our positions are more likely subtle shades of grey.

i'm sorry if i took your post the wrong way, the picture you painted of the guy with AIDS and the debate whether you buy him a sandwich or not, threw me off. i just took your question of to buy or not to buy in the literal sense.

It is literal. His name is Jay. I haven't seen him around in awhile, and I worry about him.

All the best. I've been under a lot of stress lately, tremendously under-slept, and have been feeling under the weather to put it mildly. Those factors an unusually snarky d_rawk make.

[Birdy]

right on.. your post makes me breathe easier. i just came back from the caddy downtown blenheim and felt compelled to log on and see if everything was cool scary! hehee

you know what, i do understand why you would worry about people acting on their own will, and whether or not certain issues would go unrecognized, and i worry too. it requires a lot of reliance and faith in people. but i'm all for putting out that faith.. gradually and slowly and cautiously, but most importantly properly. if succesful the money saved could be put towards education, which in my mind, should be the single greatest concern of all governments. i don't know.. maybe i have too much faith and should uncross my fingers once in a while.. who knows.

thanks for the good wishes and right back at ya. i hope you pull through the rough times with shining colours!

Edited December 3, 2005 by Guest

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

i think so d-rawk. i'm a big supporter of people doing it "on their own" so to speak. of course, considering that Canada is one of the highest taxed countries in the entire world, noone would be acting solely in one's self-interest.. there's still a lot of tax money to go around.. but people should be able to act in their own self-interest.. the very lack of that dampens individualism and takes away the very essence of what it is to be human. why does the left have such a negative view of human nature where they feel that if people do act in their own self interest that it would turn out to be negative. why is that?

sorry to pick on you, but I what comment about your question at the bottom of your quote---"why does the left have such a negative view of human nature where they feel that if people do act in their own self interest that it would turn out to be negative. why is that?"

Have you ever heard of the United States?? Seriously, take a look at their record of social programs, look at how they treat the poor and disadvantaged in their country...

The money that tax collects is put towards the greater good---it is spent on benefiting all of our lives---

[SmoothedShredder]

Tax in the States goes towards making bombs... quit focusing on money, focus more on what to do (with it). Specious reasoning suggest less tax means less bombs, but my point is, it's not about how big it is(account), its how effectively you use it. It's just time to fix the books (the right way) in Ottawa. I mean, how does the Finance Minister not know what's going on with ADSCAM? He's playing coy, and the last thing I want from my leader is a liar... and he know's it. You can see it in his eyes. Ok... 5am watering eyes, I can only imagine how bad the grammer/reasoning is... see you's today.

[hamilton]

I don't think Birdy is a conservative, I think Birdy is a libertarian.

[Birdy]

ugh.. you guys are sitting here discussing what you think my political philosophies are? seriously?

for the record i am a libertarian not a conservative.. if you want to take what i've said specifically relating to a tax cut, a safe injection site and darwinism and turn me into harper's biggest advocate, i'm not going to sit here and debate this shit with you guys. it's futile and honestly just upsets me. don't generalize and peg me down as the right simply because i believe in free will. who would have ever thought believing in free will would be such a bad thing!

sugarmegs- even on the Canadian political spectrum, i have ALWAYS voted Liberal.. this will be my first vote not. but more so its because Dave Van Kesteren will do his damn hardest to stop the government from ripping down every ash tree within a 100 km radius of me. i know that there won't be a majority government.. we'll be having this exact same conversation somewhere down the road in the very near future, but maybe that time i'll be casting my vote to the liberals. I dunno. just don't paint me as a harper lover. i'm not.

[SmoothedShredder]

He's playing coy' date=' and the last thing I want from my leader is a liar... and he know's it. You can see it in his eyes[/quote']

[color:purple]Wow that's very good proof you have there to counteract the ACTUAL findings of the Gomery report. Which by the way Paul Martin set up himself.

How conveniant

[d_rawk]

Off topic:

Don't take this as me picking on you Birdy ... this is mostly me thinking about what Hamilton said, 'cause I'm nerdy that way.

FWIW Stephen Harper has self-indentified in the past as a libertarian (as do many in his Alberta base), and Mike Harris is often taken as a model libertarian (many an Ontario libertarian was hungry to see him elevated to the office of Prime Minister).

Canadian conservativism, classical liberalism (because the classical liberal philosophy is what Canadian conservatives are trying to 'conserve') and economic libertarianism are all roughly synonymous in this context.

More on topic:

If anyone's interested, the Green Party just announced its position on the GST cut debate.

"In the dying days of Parliament, MPs were able to find the time to fast-track a bill to scrap the 8 per cent luxury tax on Canadian-made jewelry, but couldn't find time to reform the GST system to better reflect the needs of ordinary Canadians."

The Green Party would reduce the GST on products that cut pollution and improve the health of Canadians, while comparably raising it on products that do the opposite. As part of its overall strategy to reduce poverty, the GST would also be gradually eliminated on education supplies, books and children's clothing. GST rebates would be more accurately indexed to reflect the buying patterns of low-income Canadians.

[...]

"When one-third of Canadian female single-parent families report worrying about not having enough to eat or eating the quality of food desired, it's a bit rich of the Conservative party to call a news conference in front of plasma TVs to promise a GST cut on SUVs," said Harris.

Press Release

Edited December 4, 2005 by Guest
to add press release

[Birdy]

Off topic:

Don't take this as me picking on you Birdy ... this is mostly me thinking about what Hamilton said, 'cause I'm nerdy that way.

FWIW Stephen Harper has self-indentified in the past as a libertarian (as do many in his Alberta base), and Mike Harris is often taken as a model libertarian (many an Ontario libertarian was hungry to see him elevated to the office of Prime Minister).

stephen harper does definitely have some libertarian views.. the deregulation of the cbc, the right to bear arms, and more.

but then some of his views are so far off from being libertarian.

ie, libertarians are for the full legalisation of all drugs, the complete separation of church and state, respecting individual freedoms within the institution of marriage, the abolition of any legislation that keeps information secret from the citizens of Canada, the abolition of all laws surrounding victimless crime. They advocate open borders for COMPLETELY free trade and immigration, and are vehemently opposed to participating in wars for any purpose other than the act of defending Canada should she need defending- far cry from harper.

libertarianism pulls ideas from both the liberal camp and the conservative camp and as a result attracts followers from both sides. its greatest tenet would be minimizing the roll of government, which most Conservatives tend to agree with, albeit for a different outcome. i would be interested to know when stephen harper did admit to being a libertarian and if polled today, would admit the same.