Friday, June 08, 2007

Taxes as an insturment to control wealth?

One of the biggest misconceptions in this Canadian age of liberal propaganda and socialist spin is that liberals and dippers are the party that supports the working family, the little guy. Well if that’s true why is the tax exemption set at $8000 dollars? This means for every dollar an individual earns over $8000, the liberal begin reaching into his pockets and start by taking nearly a 1/3--not to mention the GST he pay on top of his or her purchases.

Is this fair by Tuedapian standards? Should massive companies, like Bombardier and Air Canada require assistance from somebody only pulling in $12,000 a year? Should someone making minimum wage be required to contribute to a senator’s $80,000 annual pension fund? Should a Wal-Mart greeter be forced to contributing to liberal friendly company’s profit margin?

It is an all out lie to claim liberal policies are friendly to the little guy. You want to help young families and people living near the poverty line, well then raise the exemption. The Taxpayer Federation demonstrates that nearly doubling the exemption to $15,000 (meaning that nobody making under this pays federal or provincial taxes) would exempt 1.8 million people from paying taxes that they cannot afford. The liberal elite in Ottawa collect 2.8 billion in taxes from people that earn under $15,000 per year. Let me state that again: Ottawa collects 2.8 billion from Canadians making under $15,000 a year to spend on social engineering, Governor General wardrobes, slush funds for party faithful, and corrupt business owners. This would be roughly a $160 per month increase in take home pay for people living below the poverty line.

And in comparison if the dippers or corrupt liberal came out with a policy awarding each person earning under $15,000 a year, a $100 grant they would be lauded for their compassion and understanding. So why are conservatives vilified as a robber barons, for a policy that would neatly double an imaginary grant? And now I know $160 a month isn’t much for a liberal elite ivory tower philosopher, but it’s an extra load of groceries for the single mother or a trip to the dentist for the uninsured. Personally I’d like to the see the exemption set a $20,000, but that would cost too many liberal too many Armani suits and I’m a realist!


At 10:01 PM, Blogger Raphael Alexander said...

You're right. The Liberals and NDP aren't the champions of the working man. But they have limitless means to pry into his pockets. A $20,000 tax exemption would, actually make a lot of sense. The ONLY meaningful changes a political party can make to the working man is to cut taxes. Full stop.

At 8:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would be dead set against raising the exemption to 15,000 or 20,000. That is all we need is a whole lot more people in Canadian society that have a huge incentive to vote for more government programs. If you don't pay any tax why not vote for something for nothing? The problem is that everyone pays too much tax. The size of Government needs to be reduced and taxes lowered for everyone.

At 12:02 PM, Blogger Ryan said...

Unfortunately, I disagree. Both Liberals (party) and Conservatives (party) have little interest in the common person. The Conservative Party is just as out of touch with your needs as the rest of them. Tax cuts by either party tend to favour the upper class and corporations (who could blame them, they are in the upper class and usually deeply connected to corporations). Conservative media darling Ralph Klein's (and his successor Stelmach's) government has and continues to give out breaks and incentives for corporations (8 million dollars for the Balzac race track?), which I believe was your concern with Bombardier, and the upper class tax rate in Canada is nearly 10% less than the middle class (from Canadian Taxpayers Federation). Notice all of the wealth and rich people in Alberta? Notice how many more of them are sprouting up, while the rest of us spend most of our paycheque on rent? I may be mistaken, but Conservatives are probably just as fond of "Armani suits" as the "liberal elite," and that Harper actually has someone on staff (probably at least at $40 000 a year plus benefits) as an "image consultant." Both parties play the game, make over 100k a year each, and will do whatever it takes to keep in that position. In addition to that, I agree that more money would help a single mother pay for groceries, and that it would help a trip to the dentist for the uninsured. However, would that be the fault of the government neccessarily? The cost of living for the single mother would surely be a factor, which would be related to "market" factors. Why are some people without dental insurance? Simply because their employers refuse to insure them, which, if they work, why shouldn't they be insured? Usually in those cases, however, people don't make enough money to have to pay significant taxes. I agree that people that don't make enough to pay taxes shouldn't. I would say that there should be no reason why someone who works can not make ends meet, and that they should be paid fairly by their employers. One would argue that if wealth was spread around fairly, we wouldn't need as much government spending. However, a lot of CEOS make more money half way through January than most people will make in a year. Unfortunately, the vast majority of politicians care about little less than power. Harper talks the conservative "accountability" talk, but would rather give chunks of cash to Quebec to buy votes than adhere to principles. The Liberals play social democrat because, I suppose unfortunately for you, most Canadians prefer social programs and spending, (which the Liberals say in order to buy votes.) Yet, they cut social programs and taxes for the wealthiest and corporations. I agree with the points you have made, as well as your concerns. However, I think that you should consider the Conservatives in this light as well. I am an avid social democrat whose father is a mechanic and mother is a hairdresser, that has little interest in "socialism" in the bureaucratic, government owns everything use of the word, and I have no problem with small business, entrepeneurial capitalism along the lines of "thousands of small shopkeepers" of Adam Smith. However, the scales are tipped in favour of those with money and power (Liberal party & Conservative party, corporations and the upper class, not "liberals" and "conservatives), and that those two particular things are concentrated in the hands of too few. Surprising that you and I share the same basic concerns, no? I think most people do.

At 3:51 PM, Anonymous Poker Site said...

To me it is not clear.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home