CANPOL: Today is election day

[Seeker]

"Yeah, introduced by the Liberal party, and promised to be slashed by the Conservative party."




It was the other way around....remember that the GST is a 'consumption tax', which conservatives like, vs a 'progressive tax' like income tax, which they hate.

Maybe what you were trying to express was anger at Chretien campaigning on the basis of 'eliminating' the GST and renegotiating nafta, and then simply baldfacedly not doing once in power? That was the first Liberal 'Red book'.

But originally it was a Mulroney Conservative idea, I even got to see the White Paper for it, they originally wanted a 9% GST if you can believe that....(so they could reduce corporate and personal income taxes somewhat proportionally and shift some of the tax burden from rich to poor).

The 'original sin' was Conservative in creating a regressive tax...but it was compounded by the Liberal sin of not being able to deprive themselves of such a sweet source of revenue without any powerful interest group to punish them (except those pesky Canadian people...who kept re-electing them until the 'lesser of evils' became 'the greater of evils')

[Wezil]

It actually 'replaced' a tax.

[Seeker]

The Manufacturing tax is what you mean? I don't remember it's exact name but the Canadian Manufacturers Association was a big proponent. (of gst)

[Flinx]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Millions stolen is not as important as a change in policies. Hate to tell you that, nye. At worst the sponsorship scandal works out to 5 or 10 bucks for each Canadian. That's pretty small fish.

The good news about this is that maybe it will force the Libs to shake up their leadership (far beyond changing just the number 1)

The Federal Government spends on average $150 Billion a year. The Sponsorship program ran for about 5 years so during that time the Federal Government spent B$750. Less than $100 Million went 'missing' over 5 years. That is about one hundredth of one percent (0.01%) of the money the federal government spent. That is like a person who makes $50,000 a year losing a $5 dollar bill.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Only a moron of massive proportions would dare maintain that Sponsorship was not one of the two greatest scandals to ever rock a government in this country. Simply look at the results in Quebec if you think this is wrong.

If it was good enough for MacDonald to go down, it sure as hell is good enough for the Liberals to sink for a few years.

The scandal in the ‘Sponsorship Scandal’ was never the money. The scandal was the corruption and arrogance of some (you determine how big or small that some is) members of the Liberal Party of Canada. The insult to Quebecers intelligence and the belittling of the sovereignty discussion that the nefarious activities implied is what pissed Quebeckers off.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by RedFred
Anybody know anything about this Independent? Is he potential Speaker material?

Think a French Speaking Howard Stern.

Do you remember about a year or so ago the CRTC took the broadcast licence away from a Quebec City radio station? That was all about André Arthur.

Peter Milliken (the current speaker) will be elected speaker again by a majority vote of the 308 members of the house.

[Fake Boris]

Flinx, this one didn't involve André Arthur, though he had pretty much the same style as the guy who lost his licence (Fillion).

[Flinx]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The other three parties will have to grant a first budget (within 3 months) where things mentioned in the platform are enacted, or they risk getting a Conservative majority that is not honed by compromise in response to a premature election trigger.

They'll also get support from the Bloc and NDP for Parliamentary reform.

If the Liberals can't **** up the works, the Tories will enact their major planks before the next vote. Then they'll run on 'we said it, we did it'. and then you can flush the Liberal strategies of the last two campaigns ('ahhh, the barbarians are at the gates') and then you can throw open the doors of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver and see a majority if the issues are right.

The other three parties will have to grant a first budget

The requirement to compromise applies to the Conservatives as well as the other parties, if not more so. If they try to force through their economic platform (that 63.7% of voters rejected) unchanged it will be the Conservatives who would pay in a snap election.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Flinx, this one didn't involve André Arthur, though he had pretty much the same style as the guy who lost his licence (Fillion).

I lived in Quebec city for 3 years back in the mid 80's and he was already the talk of the town. Think Bill O'Reilly more than Howard Stern, since his shows have always been politically oriented.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Flinx, this one didn't involve André Arthur, though he had pretty much the same style as the guy who lost his licence (Fillion).

My friend from Montreal gave me the wrong info then. Anyway he is definitely a 'Shock Jock'

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It makes sense to me. You pay taxes on the money that you earn from work. Why should you have to pay an additional tax on that money that you have left over, just because you chose to invest the money, rather then spend it?

You obviously either don't understand or are being intentionally obtuse . . .

You do not pay ANY additional tax on money you choose to invest. The investment is never taxed and if you sell the investment for no gain, you will pay no tax. BUt if you invest 100,000 and later sell the investment for 120,000, you pay tax on the 20,000 since that is NEW money to you. Tax is on the gain only.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


But taxation is indexed in the form of revenue increments. Surely, if inflation was at 10% for ten years, the amount of your personal exemption should incidentally triple.

true but

1. personal exemptions are pretty low to begin with

2. That doesn't change the fact that I still have 100,000 additional money subject to "tax" even though I really have not GAINED anything


Note that this is also true if you earner interest at exactly the rate of inflation. You would pay tax on your "earnings" even though in "real" terms you had no additional money

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Ben, you're pwn3d

I thought he was trying to be sarcastic/ ironic

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Seeker
The Manufacturing tax is what you mean? I don't remember it's exact name but the Canadian Manufacturers Association was a big proponent. (of gst)

It had some name like that and was a hidden tax. The idea of GST was to expand what was taxed , make it visible and reduce the rate IIRC.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Flubber


It had some name like that and was a hidden tax. The idea of GST was to expand what was taxed , make it visible and reduce the rate IIRC.

You remember correctly.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber


2. That doesn't change the fact that I still have 100,000 additional money subject to "tax" even though I really have not GAINED anything


Note that this is also true if you earner interest at exactly the rate of inflation. You would pay tax on your "earnings" even though in "real" terms you had no additional money

Well, yes and no.

You could say that your net position hasn't improved, but you've come out much further ahead than if you didn't invest at all. If you just sat on your $100,000, it would be worth much less than that due to the inflation. So you have earned, but it was just a bad investment given the rate of inflation.