[DerbyX]

Proculation wrote:

It's not a subsidy. The tax rebate you get is money you earned, not money coming from another person's pocket.

Its a subsidy because the tax payer is still footing some 75% of the bill. In other words even if you don't donate to any party your taxes still go to support them.

[Proculation]

DerbyX wrote:

Proculation wrote:

It's not a subsidy. The tax rebate you get is money you earned, not money coming from another person's pocket.

Its a subsidy because the tax payer is still footing some 75% of the bill. In other words even if you don't donate to any party your taxes still go to support them.

Yes for the 1.95$ but not for the tax rebate for a donation. Parties should only get money from donations.

[DerbyX]

No. As long as you get a tax rebate it comes from the tax payers wallet. What don't you understand?

[bootlegga]

Chumley wrote:

Good point. I suppose a gong show system could be brought in.
If you last 5 minutes without getting gonged, you get to got the the next level of debate.

[Proculation]

DerbyX wrote:

No. As long as you get a tax rebate it comes from the tax payers wallet. What don't you understand?

Not at all. The person EARNED the money. It comes from HIS pocket.

[DerbyX]

Proculation wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

No. As long as you get a tax rebate it comes from the tax payers wallet. What don't you understand?

Not at all. The person EARNED the money. It comes from HIS pocket.

Only a portion of it comes from his pocket. The rest he gets back via a tax refund. It is that tax refund that makes it a subsidy. IN other words the tax payers are footing 75% of the donation. Thats a vote subsidy.

[ridenrain]

But none of that would have happened without the supporter freely giving his money to the party they support.

[DerbyX]

So what? They know full well they will be getting 75% of their donation back. Its still subsidized out of tax payer money.

[Proculation]

DerbyX wrote:

Proculation wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

No. As long as you get a tax rebate it comes from the tax payers wallet. What don't you understand?

Not at all. The person EARNED the money. It comes from HIS pocket.

Only a portion of it comes from his pocket. The rest he gets back via a tax refund. It is that tax refund that makes it a subsidy. IN other words the tax payers are footing 75% of the donation. Thats a vote subsidy.

Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. If I give 100$ to a party, yes I get a tax rebate of 75$. But that 75$ is taken from money I gave to the government. I earned that 75$ but it was taken from me in taxes. Nobody paid that 75$ but me. So if I paid 1000$ in taxes, I will get 75$ back from those taxes.

[DerbyX]

Your taxes are what you owed the government for services anyway.

Lets say you and I have the same job and make the same money and have the exact same deduction and we both owe the government $1000. Now you decide that you are going to support a political party to the tune of $100. You then use that contribution to get a tax deduction.

So what happens is that your party gets $100 in your name and you end up only owing the government $925. Since I didn't make a political contribution I still owe Ottawa the whole $1000. In the end your donation cost you $25 and the rest comes from the taxes you owe the government which means its coming out of tax-payer revenues.

The money isn't being taken from something you "gave" the goverment, its being taken from money you owe the government. Income tax monies go into general revenue and the refunds for political contributions comes right back out of that money. The government therefore has less money to use because they are sending a portion of the taxes owed to them over to the various political parties.

[Proculation]

It's the same thing for other donations like charities. Someone who gives $1M to a charity and gets a (let's say) 500,000$ tax rebate doesn't take money from taxpayers' pocket. He just pays less taxes which is very good for him and the charity.

[DerbyX]

Yes but it still counts as using tax payer monies. Its taking money you owe to the government and giving it to someone else.

[Pseudonym]

BartSimpson wrote:

My other idea is to draft people for public service the same way we get them for jury duty. Just pick people by lottery, have them serve their two years of legislative service, and then go back to their lives.

It would certainly make for shorter, simpler bills, but then you no longer have a representative republic and instead a set of appointed rulers. I don't like it. We could do better with just term limits.

[Pseudonym]

OnTheIce wrote:

I'm totally against this subsidy for any party. If people want to get the support and get more people involved, spend less money on TV ads and flyers and start hitting the streets and meet the people. Drum up support and donations the old fashioned way

Not only do you drum up more members, but you build public awareness that "hey, that guy actually does work for us". I've yet to see my MP or MPP anywhere close to my neighborhood in 5 years. The only candidate that visited my house was a guy running for the PC's provincially and it was nice to talk to someone about the issues that faced us at the time.

This sort of political plan makes sense to me. However, I would like total transparency in party funding. Where is the money coming from? I'm fine with corporations and unions making donations as long as they are a matter of public record so all biases may be evident.