[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

172 billion over 5 years would be a lot less with our original 7% GST. An increase in personal tax, EI premiums, corporate tax. Anything is better then a massive deficit.

wow. are you saying that when the CPC cut the gstm they gave Canadians over $172 billion in tax breaks? That is "massive" tax breaks.

First off, there is a big difference between not running a deficit and not being as bad. It is entirely logical that if the Libs and/or NDP were going to raise taxes but spend the same amount they would be running less of a deficit.

For all we know the Liberals and NDP are demanding stimulus spending because they know it will bite Harper on the ass regardless. He spends big and he is in the red. He doesn't and he doesn't care about the people.

Its exactly the kind of politics Harper loves.

[DerbyX]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Or to say they would not have done the same is also idle speculation and hardly merits as a point of debate. It's a guess and nothing more.

True but again we can refer to the last election and the platforms as a rough guide. Since both platforms took at least a small recession into account and had tax measures to combat them we can at least be reasonable in assuming they we going to deal with it.

[ASLplease]

What proof do you have that the Liberals know how to manage the country's finances? Haven't you heard of their financial difficulties?

[Gunnair]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Or to say they would not have done the same is also idle speculation and hardly merits as a point of debate. It's a guess and nothing more.

True but again we can refer to the last election and the platforms as a rough guide. Since both platforms took at least a small recession into account and had tax measures to combat them we can at least be reasonable in assuming they we going to deal with it.

Not really. Things have shifted pretty radically since the last election. Though I agreee the Libs/NDP would have dealt with it, there is nothing out there that is factual on how they would have done it. Again, it's all speculation based on pre recession platforms and post recession politiking.

No facts.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

What proof do you have that the Liberals know how to manage the country's finances? Haven't you heard of their financial difficulties?

That would be all those years of surpluses and paying down the debt. Their financial difficulties are based around the very measures they brought in to minimize the impact of lobby groups on political donations and their failure to adjust properly.

They depended to much on corporate donations and not donations from the little guy but they are rapidly changing that. I represent the little guy donor they reached out to.

[DerbyX]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Not really. Things have shifted pretty radically since the last election. Though I agreee the Libs/NDP would have dealt with it, there is nothing out there that is factual on how they would have done it. Again, it's all speculation based on pre recession platforms and post recession politiking.

No facts.

I agree to the point that its not possible to have anything but a guess as to what they would have done. Since they did not win we can only guess what they would have.

[ASLplease]

the media tried to give Dion a chance to explain what he would have done, but Dion didn't understand the question.

[DerbyX]

That was crap. Not only did the news crew lie to him they shafted him on the question. It was easy to see he didn't understand the question and it meant nothing.

[Proculation]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Proculation Proculation:

DerbyX DerbyX:

We have Harper to prove it. He himself pointed out that both parties would have enacted various taxes, either carbon taxes, GST hikes, or corporate tax increases. In addition he says that under either government we would not have gotten the tax decreases he gave us.

Its simple logic that if both parties had measures to increase taxes then both parties would not be this deep in debt.

Laffer curve. You've read the explanation you know what it is. We are in recession. You don't higher taxes in a recession !

First off the laffer curve is simply a logical curve based on the law of diminishing returns. It doesn't set values because its a theoretical construct and it doesn't say anything about not raising taxes in a recession. It states that the amount of revenue generated vs the tax rate will follow a basic curve. Lots of other variables must be factored in. Its just as reasonable to state that our taxes were lower then the best rate of return and therefore needed to be raised.

Regardless, tax increases during recessions are not verboten nor economically a bad thing especially when you consider that all the leading economists considered Harpers tax cuts as ill-advised at best.

I think the problem that we have about that is that the word "taxes" in english means both income taxes and GST. In french, we say "impôts (income taxes)" and "taxes (GST/PST)". Taxes (GST) went down. That was a bad idea but we don't want to higher them now. The same for income taxes and corporates taxes. The incomes/corporates taxes need to go down for the recession. But the taxes on cusmptions need to stay the same for the moment. After that, maybe we can go back to 6 or 7%.

[Proculation]

And you also have to understand that any taxes (income taxes) break will help the economy. The people will: spend it and help the the demand. Or save it and help investement (which is better at the moment). Like I said earlier, the government can't handle the economy. They can only take from people and "share" to others. The wealth is create by individuals.

[DerbyX]

Proculation Proculation:

I think the problem that we have about that is that the word "taxes" in english means both income taxes and GST. In french, we say "impôts (income taxes)" and "taxes (GST/PST)". Taxes (GST) went down. That was a bad idea but we don't want to higher them now. The same for income taxes and corporates taxes. The incomes/corporates taxes need to go down for the recession. But the taxes on cusmptions need to stay the same for the moment. After that, maybe we can go back to 6 or 7%.

I have tried to explain that "taxes" may mean any number of specific taxes. You need to prove that raising or lowering taxes, specific ones, are good or bad. The laffer curve does no such thing and seeing as we made it out of the last recession with far higher taxes you need to establish proof.

If you can prove that any tax increase now would be catastrophic then I would agree with you. The fact is though that even in the short run higher taxes are preferable to a massive deficit.

[DerbyX]

Proculation Proculation:

And you also have to understand that any taxes (income taxes) break will help the economy. The people will: spend it and help the the demand. Or save it and help investement (which is better at the moment). Like I said earlier, the government can't handle the economy. They can only take from people and "share" to others. The wealth is create by individuals.

No. You are citing the laffer curve and depending on where we are on that curve dictates if a tax break will help.

If tax breaks were all that was needed then Harper would have simply gutted taxes to the bone and spent nothing on stimulus because a tax cut was all that was needed. Its more complicated then that.

[Proculation]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Proculation Proculation:

I think the problem that we have about that is that the word "taxes" in english means both income taxes and GST. In french, we say "impôts (income taxes)" and "taxes (GST/PST)". Taxes (GST) went down. That was a bad idea but we don't want to higher them now. The same for income taxes and corporates taxes. The incomes/corporates taxes need to go down for the recession. But the taxes on cusmptions need to stay the same for the moment. After that, maybe we can go back to 6 or 7%.

I have tried to explain that "taxes" may mean any number of specific taxes. You need to prove that raising or lowering taxes, specific ones, are good or bad. The laffer curve does no such thing and seeing as we made it out of the last recession with far higher taxes you need to establish proof.

If you can prove that any tax increase now would be catastrophic then I would agree with you. The fact is though that even in the short run higher taxes are preferable to a massive deficit.

The problem with the Laffer Curve is that it is real but it is hypothetical. In the sense that is it is always changing depending of the situation. But it is well known that the direction the "curve" moves depends of the economy strenght. Ie. when the economy is bad the curbe goes leftward.


edit: I mixed right and left....

[DerbyX]

Yes, its hypothetical but you used in specifically :The Liberals believe in a Keynesian doctrine (government spending in times of recession). Saying they would not have done the same is partisan BS. Look at the US right now with Obama. Keynesian economics is unsustainable but, it buys votes.

And taxing more in a recession is complete non-sense: the demand is already going down. You don't want it more than by taxing more. And even less by taxing more the corporations !! You will end up with less money (see, Laffer curve). You want them to invest, not taxing them more.

You can't state that the laffer curve supports your position that tax increases will result in less revenue when you post no supporting data. Agreed?

In addition the curve is similar to a physics question assuming a frictionless track. To many variables render it unable to dictate specific tax values unless you can produce enough real data points to verify the curve.

Its just as likely that tax increases wouldn't hurt the economy yet help the government avoid a hole of red ink.