If there truly is going to be a surprise tax-relief and the next 1% off the GST is not affordable at this moment might I suggest income splitting.
...Finally, Woolley said, the Tory budget can be expected to include at least one major surprise.
"There will also be something we aren't expecting. There always is."
What the budget almost undoubtedly won't include, she said, is another cut to the GST.
The Tories' election platform included a promise to slash the GST to 6 per cent, then to 5 per cent. It cost roughly $6 billion to carry out the first half of the promise, and there simply isn't room in this budget, nor the will, to complete the promise in the next fiscal plan, Woolley said.
If I remember correctly income-splitting for taxpayers with children under 18 would cost (I mean give back) $1.5-$1.8 Billion. This would certainly be affordable at this point than another point off the GST. Not that I holding my breath though.
Comments (14)
$1.5-$1.8 Billion
Of course they could also buy carbon credits with that money. Just sayin is all. ;)
Posted by Greg | February 25, 2007 12:38 PM
Posted on February 25, 2007 12:38
“If I remember correctly income-splitting for taxpayers with children under 18 would cost (I mean give back) $1.5-$1.8 Billion.”
Thank-you for the clarification. The left doesn’t seem to be able to understand that taxes concern what the government takes in. Thus, a cut to taxes does not mean the government is spending more, it means the government is taking in less. The socialists still don’t seem to able to understand that.
Posted by anon | February 25, 2007 1:18 PM
Posted on February 25, 2007 13:18
“Of course they could also buy carbon credits with that money” And it will do as much to lower Canada’s CO2 emissions as income-splitting as well.
Posted by Greg Staples | February 25, 2007 1:59 PM
Posted on February 25, 2007 13:59
“Of course they could also buy carbon credits with that money” And it will do as much to lower Canada’s CO2 emissions as income-splitting as well.
Sweeeeet! Churchillian wit.
Posted by Andrew Mason | February 25, 2007 2:18 PM
Posted on February 25, 2007 14:18
“Of course they could also buy carbon credits with that money. Just sayin is all. ;)”
So you’re admitting you’d rather have at least $1.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer’s money going to some foreign country in a wealth transfer scheme, rather than having the cash stay right here in the hands of Canadians.
Posted by TorontoCrawler | February 25, 2007 8:47 PM
Posted on February 25, 2007 20:47
Tax cuts without spending cuts … must be devaluing the dollar even faster than the entitlement groups can clamour for more. Nothing succeeds better in Canadian politics than making everyone think they’re getting something for nothing, while screwing them in a way which is beyond their ken (praise be to public education!) Can any of you connect what I just typed to the fact that retired politicians and senior bureaucrats always double-dip and triple dip?
Posted by Anonymous | February 26, 2007 12:57 AM
Posted on February 26, 2007 00:57
“Of course they could also buy carbon credits with that money” And it will do as much to lower Canada’s CO2 emissions as income-splitting as well.
That’s what I love about conservatives, their quaint notion that the world’s atmosphere ends at the Canadian border.
Posted by Greg | February 26, 2007 6:50 AM
Posted on February 26, 2007 06:50
That’s what I love about progressives, their quaint notion that buying carbon credits from countries whose economies collapsed fifteen years ago will lower CO2 emissions.
Posted by Greg Staples | February 26, 2007 8:21 AM
Posted on February 26, 2007 08:21
Greg, sorry but you are talking complete and utter nonsense. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/185197
Posted by Greg | February 26, 2007 8:54 AM
Posted on February 26, 2007 08:54
Socialist Greg attempts to correct the utterance of “nonsense” by citing an article in the Toronto Star. Now that’s irony.
Jutta Brunnee: Member, Committee on Transnational Enforcement of Environmental Law, International Law Association; Member, Executive Committee, Sierra Legal Defence Fund; 1998-99 & 2000 Member, Board of Directors, Sierra Legal Defence Fund; 1998-99 & 2000 Member, Litigation Committee, Sierra Legal Defence Fund
http://www.sierralegal.org/aboutsierralegal.html
The only sentence in that article that anyone needs to take away? -
“If the government is convinced our Kyoto targets cannot be met and it is not in our interest to make even a good-faith effort, then it should withdraw Canada from the treaty.”
Hear, hear.
Posted by Alan | February 26, 2007 10:03 AM
Posted on February 26, 2007 10:03
income splitting is not a tax cut, it is a wrong made right. We are being over taxed right now, other families pay less than we do. Why?
Posted by Sara | February 26, 2007 4:31 PM
Posted on February 26, 2007 16:31
Just because I’m single without children does not mean I don’t deserve a tax cut. If you want children, fine, but I don’t want to disproportionaly pay for your social services.
Posted by Ken | February 26, 2007 5:33 PM
Posted on February 26, 2007 17:33
bqzul hqgcjwily dwioplkra cruw txog gpwkdmv rlcw
Posted by vwqh epsxiwatl | March 4, 2007 7:36 PM
Posted on March 4, 2007 19:36
zcdq woarpukf yflkdxwip prozascn owtcf mzfyoc fptnr http://www.viejc.lumcwbzhs.com
Posted by xoekvcwga gmkl | March 4, 2007 7:36 PM
Posted on March 4, 2007 19:36