[afransen]

Whatever the merits, you can't argue that it didn't save money for individuals.

Spurious reasoning. I expect you supported Adscam because some crooked advertising execs got some money?

 

[kEiThZ]

Spurious reasoning. I expect you supported Adscam because some crooked advertising execs got some money?

Are you serious? There's a big difference between a misappropriation of government funds and a tax policy which rewards people who take transit with a refund. I have friends who now take transit because the math works in their favour for a bus pass. You've talked about rewarding fitness with a tax rebate in another thread, but here you are against rewarding transit use? Are you that partisan that you can see no good in a policy unless it comes on Liberal stationery? Tell me, were you against the GST when Chretien was railing against it or did you think it was a good tax back then too?

I don't deny that money should be spent improving transit. And if that money had gone towards that goal it might well have made transit more accessible. But I doubt it could motivate people to commit to transit beyond their daily commutes the way the tax credit has. I am all for setting price signals that reward good behaviour (transit tax credit) and reward bad ones (sin taxes + gas tax).

 

[afransen]

Are you serious? There's a big difference between a misappropriation of government funds and a tax policy which rewards people who take transit with a refund. I have friends who now take transit because the math works in their favour for a bus pass. You've talked about rewarding fitness with a tax rebate in another thread, but here you are against rewarding transit use? Are you that partisan that you can see no good in a policy unless it comes on Liberal stationery? Tell me, were you against the GST when Chretien was railing against it or did you think it was a good tax back then too?

I don't deny that money should be spent improving transit. And if that money had gone towards that goal it might well have made transit more accessible. But I doubt it could motivate people to commit to transit beyond their daily commutes the way the tax credit has. I am all for setting price signals that reward good behaviour (transit tax credit) and reward bad ones (sin taxes + gas tax).

It's a silly credit that refunds 15% of transit use given proof of purchase. The vast majority of the funds that are spent through this program go to people who already use transit. The government's own analysis of the program has shown that it has had no measurable impact (except to the balance sheet). As a public policy tool, it is an abject failure. Direct subsidies to transit agencies would be more appropriate in my book. Ideally, rather than subsidize, we'd increase the cost of less sustainable forms of transportation so that they bear the full cost of the infrastructure they use and negative externalities.

 

[lordmandeep]

So our choice is we either have a Caesar like dictatorship or be a banana republic???


Nice...



Lol being proud of having 4 election in 5 years. !!!

 

[afransen]

Once we laughed at Italy for its frequent elections. We can't do that any more. At least their politicians are entertaining. I enjoyed the anonymous drug testing of their legislators that revealed a decent percentage we using cocaine.

 

[jade_lee]

I am starting to wonder if Ignatieff was threatened by the bankers as Raitt suggested in her taped conversation.

 

[unimaginative2]

It's important to remember that this string of elections really isn't that unusual. We had elections in 1957, 1958, 1962, and 1963. Then, we had another string in the 70s of 1972, 1974, 1979, and 1980.

 

[unimaginative2]

The biggest problem I find with the transit tax credit (and pretty much all of these credits), aside from the added complexity and distortion to the tax code, is that they don't do a thing for you if your income isn't high enough to pay taxes. Of course those are the people who would benefit most from the credit.

 

[lordmandeep]

those elections were entertaining...



You had the characteristic Trudeau who was interesting and polarizing man saying funny things like Fuddle Duddle.

Then you Robert Stanfield with the epic football fumble that cost him the election of 1972. Then he had the Freeze policy stolen from him in 1974.


Then you Have JOE CLARK!!!!


Interesting Triva!!!


The election of 1979 was the only time a party won more seats with fewer votes the other party.

The Tories won 136 seats with 4.1M votes and the Liberals won 114 seats with 4.5 million votes. I think its because Trudeau got 62% of the vote in Quebec.


Amazing how the Liberals use to go 60-70% of the total votes in Quebec in the 1979 and 1980 election

 

[unimaginative2]

Until Mulroney brought the separatists to Ottawa.

 

[toraerach]

As an aside, is it just me or do the NDP look absolutely ridiculous in all this? Their position, frequently repeated, is "We don't want an election. We will be voting against the government on this confidence motion." If that contradiction isn't a crystal clear illustration of why they can't seem to ever become a governing party, I don't know what is.

I usually support the NDP and I have to say I'm not at all pleased with them at the moment. I can appreciate their situation though. Party members and supporters can't stand Harper at all. His policies and behaviour are far too out of line with Dipper values for sitting NDP MPs to vote for them without alienating their base. However, Ignatieff's popularity is costing the NDP and that cannot be ignored. They want to postpone an election in order to rebuild support, which would pretty much mean getting into bed with the devil and losing their base's support.

I kind of hope they lose some support in the next election and drop Layton. He was good at rebuilding the party, but to a point I suppose, it's almost become an obsession of his. More and more he is starting to come off to me at least as overly power hungry at the expense of the NDP's historic position as the conscience of Parliament. He's too much of a politician, I guess. Is there anyone else out there ready to take over though?

 

[kEiThZ]

It's a silly credit that refunds 15% of transit use given proof of purchase. The vast majority of the funds that are spent through this program go to people who already use transit.....Ideally, rather than subsidize, we'd increase the cost of less sustainable forms of transportation so that they bear the full cost of the infrastructure they use and negative externalities.

Would the same reasoning not apply towards your own proposal for a fitness tax credit? Would it not end up in pockets of regular gym goers and cost everyone else more? If that's the case, is it terrible policy? At it's core, I see nothing wrong with crafting tax policies to reward good behaviour. Perhaps the problem with the transit tax credit is that it's just not big enough to prompt people to switch from cars. That does not mean the idea is all that bad. I can easily see the Liberals expanding on this. I do agree with you, that it should have been coupled with some kind of tax on negative behaviour (increase gas tax maybe?).

The biggest problem I find with the transit tax credit (and pretty much all of these credits), aside from the added complexity and distortion to the tax code, is that they don't do a thing for you if your income isn't high enough to pay taxes. Of course those are the people who would benefit most from the credit.

Isn't this pretty much the problem with any tax credit that you engineer with rewarding good behaviour? People at the bottom of the income chain are likely to do anything and everything less than people further up. Now I don't mind all tax cuts going to the bottom of the ladder but then I don't want the charade of calling it tax cuts for the middle class. The Liberals did give tax cuts across the board (albeit less at the top). And those middle class cuts could have easily gone into promoting transit. If we are going to give cuts to the middle class, what's wrong with making it conditional on them actually doing something for it?

As for increasing the complexity of the tax code, can you imagine how much the Green Shift would have done? That does not mean the ideas don't sometimes have merit. As long as we don't up with a US style tax code that comes in phone book sized volumes, we'll be okay to tinker here and there.

 

[kEiThZ]

I usually support the NDP and I have to say I'm not at all pleased with them at the moment. I can appreciate their situation though. Party members and supporters can't stand Harper at all. His policies and behaviour are far too out of line with Dipper values for sitting NDP MPs to vote for them without alienating their base. However, Ignatieff's popularity is costing the NDP and that cannot be ignored. They want to postpone an election in order to rebuild support, which would pretty much mean getting into bed with the devil and losing their base's support.

I can appreciate that they have to vote against anything and everything Harper does, such is visceral nature of the hard leftist. However, could they not present alternate ideas? Other than a permanent change to EI, I haven't seen them propose many other ideas and I am on the party mailing list! It's a good thing they have the luxury of Liberal cover. I wonder what Layton's stance would have been, if it looked like an election would cause the Conservatives to gain ground on the Liberals.

 

[adma]

Then you Robert Stanfield with the epic football fumble that cost him the election of 1972. Then he had the Freeze policy stolen from him in 1974.

The football fumble was 1974.

 

[afransen]

Would the same reasoning not apply towards your own proposal for a fitness tax credit? Would it not end up in pockets of regular gym goers and cost everyone else more? If that's the case, is it terrible policy? At it's core, I see nothing wrong with crafting tax policies to reward good behaviour. Perhaps the problem with the transit tax credit is that it's just not big enough to prompt people to switch from cars. That does not mean the idea is all that bad. I can easily see the Liberals expanding on this. I do agree with you, that it should have been coupled with some kind of tax on negative behaviour (increase gas tax maybe?).

A tax credit isn't the simplest policy tool in this situation. In terms of health promotion, a tax credit could be simpler than penalizing a huge array of things that are bad for us.

If we are going to give cuts to the middle class, what's wrong with making it conditional on them actually doing something for it?

Needing proof of purchase is onerous, and I imagine the credit is expensive and time consuming for the bureaucracy to validate.

As for increasing the complexity of the tax code, can you imagine how much the Green Shift would have done?

Carbon taxes are vastly simpler than the mishmash of exemptions, credits, and transfers we'll see as part of cap and trade.

That does not mean the ideas don't sometimes have merit. As long as we don't up with a US style tax code that comes in phone book sized volumes, we'll be okay to tinker here and there.

I've seen the tax act. Too late.