[andyt]

Just as you support the various tax loopholes that benefit you. The Cons are experts at targeting various groups who's votes they want. Those little sports exemptions etc add up, cost the govt quite a bit of tax revenue without achieving the stated goals. You can only cut so much if you don't have sufficient revenue coming in. That's the other truth we can't handle.

[andyt]

$1:

There are three reasons political parties conjure up targeted tax breaks. The first is to address a pressing social concern. The second is to implement changes consistent with their philosophy. The third is to buy votes. And in our democratic system, far too often, parties choose Door Number Three.

Since 2006, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has become the king of credits, aiming them squarely at key voting blocks: families, business and the elderly. Some do address important concerns and are consistent with small-c conservative philosophy, such as income splitting for families with children. The policy goal, to enable one parent to stay home with the kids either full or part-time, is in keeping with the conservative vision of the traditional family. It is also in line with parents’ preferences; even in Quebec, home of $7-a-day daycare, most parents believe it is better for children under six to be raised at home rather than by an external caregiver.

But children’s fitness credits? I don’t recall Edmund Burke opining on the government’s role in whittling kids’ waistlines. The credit is also so small that for those pinching pennies, it has not made a difference. A 2010 study showed that the credit benefits chiefly middle- to high-income Canadians, who would likely have enrolled their kids in dance or sports regardless. Less than 16% of parents surveyed said the credit had increased their child’s participation in fitness activities — a very low return for as program that has cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars since being introduced in 2007.

As for adults, the notion that a fitness credit will get you off the couch is laughable. Legions of Canadians already buy gym memberships they stop using after two weeks, or fitness equipment that now serves as a clothes hanger. Only now, they would get money back for doing so — at everyone else’s expense.

But perhaps the crass use of credits just feels worse coming from the Tories, because they are supposed to stand for the direct opposite: freer markets and smaller government. Credits distort economic choices and produce unintended consequences. By making a good more “affordable” they increase demand, which can lead to shortages and higher prices. They also divert money from one use (consumption, investment) to another (accountants, tax lawyers), to navigate the increased complexity of the tax system. Credits require bureaucrats to administer them, which inevitably grows the size of government. And once a credit exists, it is all but impossible to roll back, as its newfound constituency fights ferociously for its continued existence.

A more equitable — and conservative — vision of tax relief would simply be lower rates for all, favouring no one and allowing freedom of choice in spending one’s money. But why be so pedestrian, when you can pay people to exercise?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... x-credits/

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Just as you support the various tax loopholes that benefit you. The Cons are experts at targeting various groups who's votes they want. Those little sports exemptions etc add up, cost the govt quite a bit of tax revenue without achieving the stated goals. You can only cut so much if you don't have sufficient revenue coming in. That's the other truth we can't handle.

Tax credits aren't loopholes, call them what they are. Second, who doesn't support tax changes that puts money in their pocket?

What political party doesn't target their policy to garner votes from certain people or the majority? That's how politics works in Canada...that doesn't mean it's good policy, however.

There's a lot of room for efficiencies in all levels of government regardless of the party who's in power...and your revenue-to-cuts theory is backwards.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

We can't really handle the truth, and don't want to hear it from them.

Exactly. This is just a simple case of NIMBYism.

We all know costs need to be cut, budgets needs to be balanced, but have no interest in making those cuts to our specific interest that we have in the Government. It's always "cut somewhere else".

It's a good fiscal move and a political move with only positive consequences.

Re-read my post - I have no problem with cutting defence spending (or anywhere else for that matter) to balance the budget.

The problem comes from the Conservatives promising one thing and then delivering NOTHING.

For a party that has been in office for EIGHT years now, you'd think a party that claims to support the military more than all the others would have gotten something started.

NOTHING, and I do mean NOTHING from the Conservative's own Canada First Defence Plan (2008) has even been ordered, much less built or started construction. Several items have actually been cancelled (trucks and CCVs)and the one project they have done any work on - the JSS - has been scaled back in both numbers (from three to two ships) and capabilities.

Say what you want, but the Conservatives have a dismal record on the defence file.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Re-read my post - I have no problem with cutting defence spending (or anywhere else for that matter) to balance the budget.

The problem comes from the Conservatives promising one thing and then delivering NOTHING.

I hear you. However, if you have no problem with cuts, you appreciate that things change. Policy, finances and direction change.

bootlegga bootlegga:

For a party that has been in office for EIGHT years now, you'd think a party that claims to support the military more than all the others would have gotten something started.

NOTHING, and I do mean NOTHING from the Conservative's own Canada First Defence Plan (2008) has even been ordered, much less built or started construction. Several items have actually been cancelled (trucks and CCVs)and the one project they have done any work on - the JSS - has been scaled back in both numbers (from three to two ships) and capabilities.

Say what you want, but the Conservatives have a dismal record on the defence file.

I agree.

Because it's low priority for our Government and for the majority of people in Canada and I'm fine with that.

[Jabberwalker]

Because it's low priority for our Government and for the majority of people in Canada and I'm fine with that.

It's so easy for the Canadian public to be fine with it being a low priority because other hidden, unknown people from another country defend them and keep them safe.

... child-like and irresponsible is what it is.

[andyt]

That would be true even if we spent as much on the military, per capita or GDP, as the US does. We're just not a big country, shouldn't pretend we are. If we weren't under the US' paternal arm, the big boys would make short work of us if they really wanted.

So we'd have to go nuclear. The only real deterrent. Then we wouldn't have to spend a lot on other parts of the military.

I don't think we should be equipping our military for foreign adventures. We should focus on keeping our shores safe, which means a navy with some capability (keeping in mind what I said above) and I suppose some air force. If we really then want to support the US/Nato in their adventures, we could lend naval support

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

That would be true even if we spent as much on the military, per capita or GDP, as the US does. We're just not a big country, shouldn't pretend we are. If we weren't under the US' paternal arm, the big boys would make short work of us if they really wanted.

So we'd have to go nuclear. The only real deterrent. Then we wouldn't have to spend a lot on other parts of the military.

I don't think we should be equipping our military for foreign adventures. We should focus on keeping our shores safe, which means a navy with some capability (keeping in mind what I said above) and I suppose some air force. If we really then want to support the US/Nato in their adventures, we could lend naval support

No, were are not a superpower but we don't even try at all. We gave it ALL up and a lucky thing that we have a friendly, compliant neighbour. Little countries like Latvia must wonder at our good luck.

No, we don't need to build a permanent expeditionary force but we can't even patrol our own borders or shorelines.

Nukes? We used to have them ... tactical nukes. We are comfy under the American strategic nuclear umbrella and, because of our geography, it would be pointless for us to have a separate strategic arsenal as there is no where that you can drop a nuke (that's a worthwhile target, anyway) in Canada that does not directly affect our neighbour. An attack on us is an attack on them. In the larger picture, though, other independent nuclear forces (France and Britain's come to mind) are also rather pointless because an attack on either one of those countries would bring other nuclear arsenals into play, anyway. Neither of them are going to use their nukes as a first strike weapon (in the current reality that we occupy), so they would be launching in reaction ... after they themselves are cooked, anyway. They are doomsday weapons, only. Those who created the French and British arsenals were thinking "WWII", "Battle of Britain" as they did it but really, they have created Maginot lines, instead. These are unusable weapons. They are a waste of money and resources and, except for a few "policing" stockpiles of nukes in the World for preventing a first strike by a megalomaniac somewhere, ... nukes are militarily obsolete.

[andyt]

It's exactly the argument that you are making - that we should stand on our own two feet. That's exactly what nukes are, doomsday weapons, a deterrent. I wasn't suggesting we have them for first strike but to deter attacks on us. Maybe better to have some under our own control, it would make us more independent of the US, which you seem to be advocating.

But we seem to agree that we should have some teeth at our own borders - not to deter a major invasion but for smaller incidents and just for a sense of sovereignty. So ships, even subs, sure. tanks, etc not so much. And patrol aircraft probably more than attack ones.

[Jabberwalker]

A Canadian deterrent nuclear force would be a colossal waste of both hard currency and soft power that has accumulated since WWII. A few deterrent nuclear forces in the world are quite enough and the outcomes wouldn't change if everybody had them.