Canadian Politics Redux

dignin

lukin2006 said:

The budget...isn't this the budget promises that got him elected. Yes he left a few things out, but for the most part this is what they ran on. They overshot their deficit targets by a little...hehehehe.

The previous government wasn't serious about balancing the budget either...

I do however approve of keeping OAS at 65...because the most vulnerable, those working at labour intensive jobs are the most effected by this.

Glad to see you back here lukin.

polaris_x

they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...

lukin2006

polaris_x said:

they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...

Agreed...dropping the GST by 2 percent cost around 14 billion, is that correct?

lukin2006

dignin said:

lukin2006 said:

The budget...isn't this the budget promises that got him elected. Yes he left a few things out, but for the most part this is what they ran on. They overshot their deficit targets by a little...hehehehe.

The previous government wasn't serious about balancing the budget either...

I do however approve of keeping OAS at 65...because the most vulnerable, those working at labour intensive jobs are the most effected by this.

Glad to see you back here lukin.

Thank you, glad to be back.

polaris_x

lukin2006 said:

polaris_x said:

they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...

Agreed...dropping the GST by 2 percent cost around 14 billion, is that correct?

Ya ... i've heard a percentage point on gst is worth $7 billion a year ... I'm not sure I know of anyone who has benefited so greatly from these tax cuts ... meanwhile, our country is going to shit ...

lukin2006

polaris_x said:

lukin2006 said:

polaris_x said:

they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...

Agreed...dropping the GST by 2 percent cost around 14 billion, is that correct?

Ya ... i've heard a percentage point on gst is worth $7 billion a year ... I'm not sure I know of anyone who has benefited so greatly from these tax cuts ... meanwhile, our country is going to shit ...

Harper’s GST legacy leaves the fiscal ship at the mercy of the world economy: Hébert

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/24/harpers-gst-legacy-leaves-the-fiscal-ship-at-the-mercy-of-the-world-economy-hbert.html

Even if that 14 billion just went into health care, that would be just what health care needs. That was my biggest takeaway from the budget, health care was not front and centre.

polaris_x

lukin2006 said:

polaris_x said:

lukin2006 said:

polaris_x said:

they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...

Agreed...dropping the GST by 2 percent cost around 14 billion, is that correct?

Ya ... i've heard a percentage point on gst is worth $7 billion a year ... I'm not sure I know of anyone who has benefited so greatly from these tax cuts ... meanwhile, our country is going to shit ...

Harper’s GST legacy leaves the fiscal ship at the mercy of the world economy: Hébert

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/24/harpers-gst-legacy-leaves-the-fiscal-ship-at-the-mercy-of-the-world-economy-hbert.html

Even if that 14 billion just went into health care, that would be just what health care needs. That was my biggest takeaway from the budget, health care was not front and centre.

we have to rethink health care in this country ... it can't continue to be reactive solution focused on drugs and expensive treatments ... how long are we going to let various lobbies dictate the health of our population ...

HughFreakingDillon

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

PJfanwillneverleave1

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

I realize that.
On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

I completely agree with this. Child care reform is desperately needed, and sending paltry amounts with cheques is absolutely not the way to do it. Wtf is $150/month going to do for families when child care costs are as much as $1000+ per child?? Something needs to be done about this. It is not only for the sake of family economics. It's for the sake of gender equality as well. Right now, child care costs are effectively holding women back from being able to reach the same goals as men generally can professionally. If Trudeau really cares about that he'd come up with a good child care plan that ends that cycle.

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

I completely agree with this. Child care reform is desperately needed, and sending paltry amounts with cheques is absolutely not the way to do it. Wtf is $150/month going to do for families when child care costs are as much as $1000+ per child?? Something needs to be done about this. It is not only for the sake of family economics. It's for the sake of gender equality as well. Right now, child care costs are effectively holding women back from being able to reach the same goals as men generally can professionally. If Trudeau really cares about that he'd come up with a good child care plan that ends that cycle.

You're not listening to one point. $150 was meant to cover one cost for a child in a bad financial household. Get the kid out on the field while mommy and daddy work things out.

HughFreakingDillon

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

I realize that.
On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.

that's not true at all. a lot, even most, people live within their means. they budget, if they budget, down to every dime they have. not many people have money floating around in their bank account unaccounted for. and if it is, it goes to things that may happen, like car or house repairs.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
And to the above I'm not saying that Fitness Credit defined Harpers legacy I simply am stating that it was a benefit that helped all families with children - regardless of what govt started it.
Now it is gone.

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

I completely agree with this. Child care reform is desperately needed, and sending paltry amounts with cheques is absolutely not the way to do it. Wtf is $150/month going to do for families when child care costs are as much as $1000+ per child?? Something needs to be done about this. It is not only for the sake of family economics. It's for the sake of gender equality as well. Right now, child care costs are effectively holding women back from being able to reach the same goals as men generally can professionally. If Trudeau really cares about that he'd come up with a good child care plan that ends that cycle.

You're not listening to one point. $150 was meant to cover one cost for a child in a bad financial household. Get the kid out on the field while mommy and daddy work things out.

I know you guys were talking about paying for sports. Yeah, bad segue, but I am talking about child care, because that is way more important when it comes to the point that HFD made about having to pay for shit.
Getting the kid on a field "while mommy and daddy work it out" isn't going to do shit when it comes to child care.

PJfanwillneverleave1

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

I realize that.
On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.

that's not true at all. a lot, even most, people live within their means. they budget, if they budget, down to every dime they have. not many people have money floating around in their bank account unaccounted for. and if it is, it goes to things that may happen, like car or house repairs.

If you did it once you would have the same $150 returning to you year after year. I don't know why you have an issue on this point. If you can't afford $150 once a year for your child there are plenty of ways to apply for assistance and receive immediate funds by way of direct enrollment and the tab being billed to the govt.

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

I completely agree with this. Child care reform is desperately needed, and sending paltry amounts with cheques is absolutely not the way to do it. Wtf is $150/month going to do for families when child care costs are as much as $1000+ per child?? Something needs to be done about this. It is not only for the sake of family economics. It's for the sake of gender equality as well. Right now, child care costs are effectively holding women back from being able to reach the same goals as men generally can professionally. If Trudeau really cares about that he'd come up with a good child care plan that ends that cycle.

You're not listening to one point. $150 was meant to cover one cost for a child in a bad financial household. Get the kid out on the field while mommy and daddy work things out.

I know you guys were talking about paying for sports. Yeah, bad segue, but I am talking about child care, because that is way more important when it comes to the point that HFD made about having to pay for shit.
Getting the kid on a field "while mommy and daddy work it out" isn't going to do shit when it comes to child care.

Stop adding on completely different talking points with your edits it is very confusing when someone wants to respond.
I am not talking about childcare at all whatsoever if you read anything at all.
There was $150 free a year to all that wanted to use it. Now its gone.

PJ_Soul

I'll do what i want - i couldn't care less if i confuse you. And you of all people should not be harping on anyone about not reading stuff. (I read everything, but you often do not).
I never said you mentioned child care and never thought you did. What you guys were talking about made me think of it.

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

I'll do what i want - i couldn't care less if i confuse you. And you of all people should not be harping on anyone about not reading stuff. (I read everything, but you often do not).
I never said you mentioned child care and never thought you did. What you guys were talking about made me think of it.

Ok. So what do you want to reform about child care?
The kids are on the field now so give us your ideas.

PJ_Soul

I am actually not interested in engaging with you atm, but in very brief terms, use a smart combination of several Western European models.

HughFreakingDillon

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.

giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.

I realize that.
On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.

that's not true at all. a lot, even most, people live within their means. they budget, if they budget, down to every dime they have. not many people have money floating around in their bank account unaccounted for. and if it is, it goes to things that may happen, like car or house repairs.

If you did it once you would have the same $150 returning to you year after year. I don't know why you have an issue on this point. If you can't afford $150 once a year for your child there are plenty of ways to apply for assistance and receive immediate funds by way of direct enrollment and the tab being billed to the govt.

because it's silly to think that if someone can't afford $150 up front for recreation "one time" they have "serious problems". that's just not reality for a good portion of the population.

there is a massive gap that doesn't cover those who are eligible for assistance with direct enrollment and those who are not eligible and still can't afford the up front cost. it's the single biggest reason so many people stay on welfare. if you take home more on welfare than you do working for minimum wage, what the hell is the point of working? it's the same idea here.