[Zipperfish]

Maybe the facts changed. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Maybe the facts changed. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

Oil was $80 in January. It was $60 in April and now it's $40.

Seems pretty straight forward why everyone has been revising budget numbers over the last 6 months. Anyone who hasn't, has checked out and left the lights on.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Maybe the facts changed. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

Oil was $80 in January. It was $60 in April and now it's $40.

Seems pretty straight forward why everyone has been revising budget numbers over the last 6 months. Anyone who hasn't, has checked out and left the lights on.

Oil was ~$55 in January, ~$60 in April, ~$53 in July, and today, it's sitting at $50.

Oil prices have been low all year.

With oil prices being pretty much on part with where they were 6 weeks ago, why the shift?

While I agree that you need to change with the times and the situation,the oil situation has been this way all year and can't be used as a reason now.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But you’re going to force people to take vaccinations that other countries like Japan have banned as a threat to public health.

And 94 people have died as a result.

/hijacked

[Winnipegger]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Why the flip-flop?

I'm concerned about this too. The deficit is my issue. The left wing faction of the Liberal party has been pushing for increased spending, and frankly don't concern themselves how the bills will be paid. If you push the left wingers hard enough, they'll just say "increase taxes". Trudeau has been trying to appease both the left wing faction, and fiscally responsible Liberals. During the party leadership race, he often dodged questions that would require him to take sides. At one "Wonderful Wednesday" meeting at Manitoba Liberal HQ, I met someone new. I noticed some people cringe and lean away when I started to talk to her. I told her there are people here who don't like me. She asked why, so I told her my fiscal plan. She responded that is fiscal restraint and lowering taxes, something that Liberals support. A couple days later Justin Trudeau appeared on national TV to firmly say the infighting within the party is over. So I surmise she was one of Justin's people. I appreciate that support, so hoped for support for fiscally responsible policies from Justin.

During the election campaign, Justin has been making statements of balanced budgets. However, he also made announcements of this spending initiative, that spending program. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been calling for greater funding for infrastructure for a long time. However, notice they want more funding for municipal projects and things under municipal responsibility, but don't want to raise municipal taxes. They want someone else to pay the bills, so they don't have to be accountable to municipal voters. But Justin announced they would get more funding. After all his spending initiatives, he met with fiscal members of caucus. I wasn't there but I suspect Justin's fiscal caucus pointed out he already made so many spending promises that a balanced budget was no longer possible. It was too late, so he gave up.

I messaged through Facebook the former Liberal candidate for the riding beside mine. I wanted to meet with him last year to ask why he wasn't running this election. After campaigning for years between elections, why quit last fall? We didn't meet, my employer asked me to work late so couldn't make the meeting. My employer was not politically active, it was that a co-worker called in sick. But since then I asked him through Facebook. He said he quit the Liberal party over bill C-51.

Justin's decisions are having dire consequences. I joined the Liberal party because of Paul Martin. He cut spending, eliminated the deficit, balanced the budget, and reduced taxes. All this while the party retained policies that support civil liberties, and a social conscience. Between voting for C-51 and now promising to spend us into deficit, I don't know what to do. The other parties don't support my values. If Tom Mulcair was serious about balancing the budget I might consider jumping to the NDP, like Victor Andres. But both the Liberals and Conservatives added up NDP campaign promises and pointed out the NDP have a $28 billion hole in their budget. They can't fulfill all their promises and deliver a balanced budget.

There is the Green party. Since Paul Martin left, while campaigning for Liberals I've encountered voters that are so disheartened by the Liberal party that they chose to leave. They parked their vote with the Green party. The Green party is generally Liberal, but their policies on environment are not balanced, they're extreme. Environment is important, but you can't drastically increase what average working Canadians pay. I attended a rally with Elizabeth May in Winnipeg a few years ago. She complained that people consume too much water, so she demanded water prices drastically increase. Water. Just water. And Winnipeg has already seen water prices triple. And the Green party doesn't want any economic development in areas of Manitoba that aren't currently developed. They want to reserve everything for wildlife. Can't support that.

[Winnipegger]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Oil was $80 in January. It was $60 in April and now it's $40.

Oil was ~$55 in January, ~$60 in April, ~$53 in July, and today, it's sitting at $50.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

However, I do take issue with the other $50 billion or so, because they were caused by boutique tax cuts aimed at buying votes - GST cuts, corporate tax rate cuts, income splitting, TFSAs and all the rest.

A couple points on this...why do you assume the economy would have been exactly the same without these tax cuts & programs?

People who don't support these tax cuts would like us to believe they have zero effect besides adding debt. That's just not true.

I wasn't talking about economic activity, I was talking about debt.

I don't doubt that his tax cuts generated economic activity, but the $50 billion he spent on boutique cuts will cost us literally billions of dollars in interest payments going forward (simnply because debt never seems to get paid off by future governments), so long term, it probably cancels the short term gains it may have generated.

Add that to the fact that he has virtually created a structural deficit and the cost to future generations is even higher, as recessions like this will tip him back into recession, adding even more debt.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Now, I'm all for cutting taxes when it's possible, but the fact is our debt was still at $400+ billion, even after a decade of surpluses under the Liberals. He should have staggered out those tax cuts, to further reduce debt and keep his deficits.

But why? Interest rates were low. Isn't that the time to borrow to put more money in the pockets of Canadians?

Sure, if you have a balanced budget (or surplus). He had neither and still went ahead with his tax cuts, piling on more and more debt when we should have been paying it off instead.

That's the thing, when times are good, you pay off debt and institute tax cuts and when times are bad, you take out debt and stimulate the economy. Like politicians of all stripes, Harper has got the take out debt part down pat, but not the pay it off part down.

The only difference between Harper and the left is that he goes into debt for tax cuts while they do it for social programs.

He's hardly the financial steward hs ads make him out to be...

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Instead he opted for vote buying and ran deficits even the economy was strong and oil was $100/barrel. It's very hypocritical that he is critical of JT doing the same thing, even more so as it looks like Canada will go into a recession (if it isn't already in one).

The economy hasn't been "strong" during Harper's tenure. Our economy is fragile, Global and unpredictable.

You might want to check with Harper's PR department before you make statements like that - here's just two from the PMO website (I'm sure if I used Google I could find many more)...

2012

$1:

As you know, Canada has economically outperformed most industrialized countries during these recent difficult years for the global economy.

“Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the best place on the planet for businesses to grow and create jobs. The OECD and the IMF predict our economy will again be among the leaders of the industrialized world over the next two years.

“And, one more cherished accolade, of course, is that for the fourth year in a row, this body, the World Economic Forum, says our banks are the soundest in the world.

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2012/01/26/sta ... omic-forum

2014

$1:

Prime Minister Harper spoke about Canada’s robust economic fundamentals, our proactive jobs and trade agenda, and actions being taken to ensure that Canada continues to occupy a strong global economic position.

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/09/24 ... -york-city

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It probably won't be as bad as the subprime fiasco was, but we're almost certainly headed fora few quarters of recession, and as such, we should invest in infrastructure while interest rates are low and labour is plentiful (as I said in the other infra thread).

The fact that Harper and his party couldn't balance the books when the economy was strong and oil was $100 a barrel really says more about his economic record than it does anyone elses.

You can't have it both ways.

In the same post, your criticize Harper for going into debt because you don't agree with his methods of stimulating the economy but you praise Trudeau because you support his method of stimulus.

No, I'm criticizing him because he chose to run a deficit when by his own accounts the economy was in good shape. I fully supported his stimulus spending and only wished he has spent some of it on the military, but that wasn't a huge deal. It was a "wouldnt it have been nice if..." kind of thing.

I'm only critical of handing out tax cuts that added $50 billion in debt - which myself, my children and probably my grandchildren will wind up paying interest on.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I wasn't talking about economic activity, I was talking about debt.

I don't doubt that his tax cuts generated economic activity, but the $50 billion he spent on boutique cuts will cost us literally billions of dollars in interest payments going forward (simnply because debt never seems to get paid off by future governments), so long term, it probably cancels the short term gains it may have generated.

Again, you're back to the same thing. Debt is debt. Regardless of what it's spent on.

You can't say that it had an economic effect and then say the only effect it had was adding 50 billion to the debt.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure, if you have a balanced budget (or surplus). He had neither and still went ahead with his tax cuts, piling on more and more debt when we should have been paying it off instead.

That's the thing, when times are good, you pay off debt and institute tax cuts and when times are bad, you take out debt and stimulate the economy. Like politicians of all stripes, Harper has got the take out debt part down pat, but not the pay it off part down.

The only difference between Harper and the left is that he goes into debt for tax cuts while they do it for social programs.

He's hardly the financial steward hs ads make him out to be...

Just as you said above, short term gain for long term pain. You can't say it's good for the Liberals and bad for the Conservatives just because you don't agree with the method of economic stimulation.

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, I'm criticizing him because he chose to run a deficit when by his own accounts the economy was in good shape. I fully supported his stimulus spending and only wished he has spent some of it on the military, but that wasn't a huge deal. It was a "wouldnt it have been nice if..." kind of thing.

I'm only critical of handing out tax cuts that added $50 billion in debt - which myself, my children and probably my grandchildren will wind up paying interest on.

Again, you just don't agree with the Conservative methods of government-based stiulation.

Governments don't run/manage/build the economy, unlike what most of you Liberals believe. That's just plain false.

They can only implement plans to stimulate but growth and prosperity goes well beyond just government handouts for tax cuts or projects.

Finally, the Country isn't in a recession. Two months of growth, waiting on August numbers as well. By your own terms, this is not the time to blow billions more on stimulus money; money that we'll never pay back.

[Winnipegger]

When I was a teenager in the late 1970s, and university in the early 1980s, people were concerned about the exponentially increasing deficit. And I don't mean debt, I said deficit. The deficit was $38 billion; the largest in Canadian history up to that point. In 1984 Mulroney campaigned on a platform to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and reduce taxes. This would be accomplished by reducing government spending, and reducing the number of individuals hired in the civil service. He did the opposite. On election day 1993 the deficit was $43 billion, setting a new Canadian record. And he more than tripled the debt. After 2 majority governments, voters reduced the Conservatives to 2 MPs.

Jim Flaherty's 2009 budget had $33.70 billion deficit, but the 2011 budget showed actual figures for 2009/10 was $55.6 billion deficit. That set a new all time deep deficit. How does he get away with it? And the 2010 budget announced a $49.2 billion deficit, although the 2012 budget showed actual figures for 2010/11 was $33.4 billion deficit. Deficit figures were wildly off, raising the question of Conservative competence, but bottom line is a new all time record deficit. On 17 March 2011 the parliamentary budget officer released a report that stated the debt equalled its previous all time high.

And never mind the US banking melt-down. Conservatives increased spending the first months they were elected. They shrank the surplus for 2005/06, shrank it further for each year. The budget for 2008 announced a surplus of only $2.3 billion, but actual for 2008/09 was a deficit of $5.8 billion.

And the US banking melt-down was due to American federal government deficits. They spent so much the US banking system ran out of money. They financed the deficit with foreign investment until people were worried foreign governments would own the US federal government. So Congress demanded domestic banks find a creative way to raise funds. They did: junk mortgages. And banks demanded all the restrictions put in place after the 1929 stock market crash be removed. They had slowly removed those restrictions starting 1930, but when Congress wanted a "creative" way to fund government deficits with domestic banks, the banks wanted more restrictions removed. The result was melt-down.

And Harper hasn't shrunk personal income tax. By voting down the November 2005 fiscal update (with help of the NDP), he cancelled the last Liberal cut to personal income tax. Then brought back that same cut a year later. Personal income tax hasn't been cut since. But corporate taxes have been cut drastically. Harper keeps talking about "low tax", but that's only for corporations.

So why does Harper get away with it?

[OnTheIce]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Jim Flaherty's 2009 budget had $33.70 billion deficit, but the 2011 budget showed actual figures for 2009/10 was $55.6 billion deficit. That set a new all time deep deficit. How does he get away with it?

And never mind the US banking melt-down. Conservatives increased spending the first months they were elected. They shrank the surplus for 2005/06, shrank it further for each year. The budget for 2008 announced a surplus of only $2.3 billion, but actual for 2008/09 was a deficit of $5.8 billion.

Never mind the US banking melt-down? The melt-down that caused a Global Recession?

Harper got "away with it" because it was a measure he had to take. A measure that some from the Liberal and NDP party said wasn't enough. We didn't go into enough debt during that period for some people.

Stimulus not enough: Liberals
http://www.thestar.com/business/2009/02 ... erals.html

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

And Harper hasn't shrunk personal income tax. By voting down the November 2005 fiscal update (with help of the NDP), he cancelled the last Liberal cut to personal income tax. Then brought back that same cut a year later. Personal income tax hasn't been cut since. But corporate taxes have been cut drastically. Harper keeps talking about "low tax", but that's only for corporations.

So why does Harper get away with it?

Tax rates have remained static but the exemption levels at each range have changed allowing more people to pay less tax on their money.

Corporations/Business provide jobs & run the economy. Jobs provide tax income. Since the lowering of the corporate tax rate, revenue from corporate taxes has increases year after year.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2014/docs/plan/ch3-2-eng.html

[Winnipegger]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Never mind the US banking melt-down? The melt-down that caused a Global Recession?

So doing more of what caused it all is Ok?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Corporations/Business provide jobs & run the economy. Jobs provide tax income.

Trickle down? Cut taxes for the rich, it'll trickle down? When did that ever work?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Since the lowering of the corporate tax rate, revenue from corporate taxes has increases year after year.

Lowering tax rates increases government revenue. Reganomics.

[OnTheIce]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

So doing more of what caused it all is Ok?

Stimulus money caused the crash?

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Trickle down? Cut taxes for the rich, it'll trickle down? When did that ever work?

First, not all business owners are "rich". Not all business are big corporations. Second, I provided you with a link to a site with respect to corporate taxes and the increased revenue.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Lowering tax rates increases government revenue. Reganomics.

Again, a link was provided. If you opt not to look at it, that's your problem.

[Winnipegger]

Budget 2014. I wade through these every year. Contains a lot of spin. For example, most corporations with taxable income above half a million now pay 15%. In 2006 it was 21%, plus corporate surtax to make the effective rate 22.12%. That chart says total of federal and provincial actions have reduced it from 33.0% to 17.5%. So that means provincial corporate income tax was 10.88% in 2006, 2.5% in 2014. Which province? In 2006 provincial corporate income tax was 5% for Newfoundland and Labrador, 9.9% for Quebec, 10% for Alberta & Saskatchewan, 12% for BC & Ontario, 13% NB, 14.5% MB, 16% NS & PEI.
http://www.bdo.ca/en/Library/Services/Tax/Documents/Tax-Facts/Tax-Facts-2006.pdf
In 2014 provincial corporate tax rates dropped a bit, but not that much. Alberta is 10%, Ontario 11.5%.
http://www.taxtips.ca/smallbusiness/corporatetax/corporate-tax-rates-2014.htm

Notice corporate income tax revenue goes to 2018-2019. That's the future. Below it says "Sources: Public Accounts of Canada; Department of Finance projection for 2013–14 to 2018–19." The 2014 budget has actual figures for fiscal year 2012-2013. So anything beyond that is a guess. Based on what we're hearing now, those future revenue projections highly optimistic to be polite.

The figure that keeps irking me is corporate income tax rate for corporations with taxable income over half a million (not small business) is 15%. The lowest income bracket for personal income tax is 15%. That means multi-million dollar and multi-billion dollar corporations pay the same rate as an individual who's income is above the basic personal exemption (aka basic personal amount) but below the poverty line.

Corporations with taxable income below half a million can declare the Small Business Deduction. This reduces effective corporate income tax to 11%. This is what Harper calls "Small Business Tax". In 2006 it was 12% plus the surtax for a total of 13.12%. Harper announced he will cut that by a further 2% (actually that means increase the deduction by 2% points), to 9%. Trudeau and Mulcair said they would do the same thing. Notice this includes corporations with 6-figure incomes, up to a maximum taxable income of $500,000. Again, someone below the poverty line pays 15%.

[OnTheIce]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The figure that keeps irking me is corporate income tax rate for corporations with taxable income over half a million (not small business) is 15%. The lowest income bracket for personal income tax is 15%. That means multi-million dollar and multi-billion dollar corporations pay the same rate as an individual who's income is above the basic personal exemption (aka basic personal amount) but below the poverty line.

That's not true. You're being disingenuous.

Corporations also pay payroll taxes. CPP, EI, etc, etc, etc. They also pay the Federal corporate tax rate AND the Provincial tax rate. In Ontario, that's an additional 11.5%

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

That's not true. You're being disingenuous.

Corporations also pay payroll taxes. CPP, EI, etc, etc, etc. They also pay the Federal corporate tax rate AND the Provincial tax rate. In Ontario, that's an additional 11.5%

He's not being disingenuous. Everyone pays CPP, EI and provincial taxes. Straw man.