CANPOL: Today is election day

[Ben Kenobi]

NDP in London-Fanshawe

Yes, it is unfortunate. But the Conservatives did well there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mulroney was a Liberal?

He might as well have been, in the end.

While it is true he introduced the GST, it was always as a temporary measure for deficit fighting. I don't ever see the intention that they would continue with the GST.

Plus the Liberals chose not to kill it, so they must have liked that money once they got a taste of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

I was under the impression that they had to pay again on the whole amount once they sold their investment.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


He might as well have been, in the end.

While it is true he introduced the GST, it was always as a temporary measure for deficit fighting. I don't ever see the intention that they would continue with the GST.

Plus the Liberals chose not to kill it, so they must have liked that money once they got a taste of it.

Oh c'mon! Wake up and smell the moldy cheese! And the 'temporary' Income Tax created during WWI will be dropped any day now.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


He might as well have been, in the end.

While it is true he introduced the GST, it was always as a temporary measure for deficit fighting. I don't ever see the intention that they would continue with the GST.

Plus the Liberals chose not to kill it, so they must have liked that money once they got a taste of it.

That's some of the worst backpeddling and revisionism I've ever seen. Good job, Ben.

[CrONoS]

Deleted
Already posted

Originally posted by Flinx


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.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Question for our friends of the great white north,

Where do your liberals threaten to move if a conservative wins?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I was under the impression that they had to pay again on the whole amount once they sold their investment.

Nope. I can get into more complicated tax law with things like depreciation that gets expensed . .. but you only pay capital gains tax on your gain above and beyond your "cost" for the asset.

If you sell for less than cost, you make a capital "loss" which may be set off against future or past capital gains

[Flubber]

Originally posted by dejon


Oh c'mon! Wake up and smell the moldy cheese! And the 'temporary' Income Tax created during WWI will be dropped any day now.

Obviously

Wasn't it entitled something like the "War Measures Act?"

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


When it's a capital gains tax cut that's only going to affect the richest Canadians I think we'd rather just have the extra tax revenue.

It would effect people selling their homes when near retirement and the children are gone. It would allow them to keep a larger part of the payoff for the largest investment of their lives and put more dollars into their hands for spending into the economy after they retire.

Likewise small business owners who sell the business and retire.

The 'only the rich benefit' argument is simply wrong.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flinx

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.

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.

Quebecers weren't the only people pissed off, although the issue was a lot more complicated there.

I won't profess to speak for all. That would be silly given results in the major urban centres of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, but I will say that the idea of a government funnelling even $5 of public money into its own party warchests was a major scandal for a lot of Canadians.

It's the sort of thing that happens in banana republics, not Canada. The idea that some believe it is no big deal is equally maddening.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flinx
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.

The other three parties will have to grant a first budget... where things mentioned in the platform are enacted.

I think so.

Of course if Harper decided to put a 50% cut in corporate tax rates into the first budget it would go down, but do you really think that either the Liberals or the Bloc will want to trigger an election in the next three months because Harper delivers on a promised GST cut and grants to parents of small children?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

While it is true he introduced the GST, it was always as a temporary measure for deficit fighting. I don't ever see the intention that they would continue with the GST.

Wrong again.

The GST was never intended to be temporary. It replaced the Federal Manufacturers Sales Tax.

The FST was the Government of Canada's first domestic tax, and was a major source of revenue even after income taxes. It dates back to the late 19th century. Although it was still an important source of federal revenue, it was exceedingly antiquated.

It taxed various goods made in Canada at rates ranging from ~5 to 15 percent (IIRC). Determining what got taxed where was a bureacracy in itself.

It taxed goods bound for export. It did not tax imported goods. In short, it was a job killer in the modern context.

It was hidden. Electors were paying this tax as part of the price they paid for things they bought for their entire lives, but most were unaware that it existed because it was charged at the source of goods (the factory to the wholesaler, or the wholesaler to the retailer) and not where they were consumed (at the till).

It was a good idea in 1890. Tarrifs ensured that the government got significant revenues from imported goods. Domestic manufacturers enjoyed a protected market where the value of their goods was inflated by increased prices for the goods made by their international competitors. It was simply the GoC taking a cut of the windfall that our manufacturers enjoyed due to trade policy.

Fast forward to the late 1980's. Canada had just agreed to drop tariffs on anything made in the United States and was phasing in the Canada-US FTA. Keeping the FST (taxing our factories, but not imports) would have been economic suicide.

Add to that the budgetary situation. Interest rates had driven up the costs of servicing federal debt to murderous levels earlier in the Mulroney mandate. Equally damaging, Mulroney never had the stomach, or political capital, to force through large cuts to social programs. The two conditions combined to require more federal revenues to have a hope of bringing down record deficits.

The GST was the answer. It moved our tax policy into agreement with modern trade reality at the same time that a reduced rate (7% as opposed to 13 or 15%) but charged on all products regardless of place of origin, led to an increase in federal revenues. It also became a visible tax. Consumers would be reminded about the cost of government when they bought their coffee in the morning before going to vote.

The GST was a good idea, and it remains a good idea, unless you think there should be no break on consumption.

Chretien's pledge to 'axe da tax' should rank among the most cynical campaign manuevers of all time, but it has good company with Trudeau's 'no gas tax' campaign and Martin's 'soldiers and abortions' campaign.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by notyoueither


It would effect people selling their homes when near retirement and the children are gone. It would allow them to keep a larger part of the payoff for the largest investment of their lives and put more dollars into their hands for spending into the economy after they retire.

Likewise small business owners who sell the business and retire.

The 'only the rich benefit' argument is simply wrong.

Except that primary residences are exempt from capital gains taxes.

[notyoueither]

Oops.