: Paul Martin V 2.0


MacDoc
Aug 24th, 2007, 07:32 PM
after all that ragging on Martin...... Flaherty "guesses" $3 billion for the year and it's $6 billion and counting in the first half.....now where the hell is the cities funding :mad:

Federal budget surplus higher than projected
Updated Fri. Aug. 24 2007 3:37 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The federal government is once again awash in cash thanks to a much stronger than expected economy.

The budget surplus for fiscal 2007-08 will be much higher than projected, says the Finance Department. In March, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty estimated the surplus would reach $3 billion.

However, the surplus had already doubled that in the three-month period ending in June.

"For the first three months of the 2007-08 fiscal year, the budgetary surplus is estimated at $6.4 billion," the department said in a statement.

That's up $0.5 billion from the $5.9 billion surplus reported in the same period last year.

And it comes despite a 7.6 per cent jump in spending in the first quarter on defence, increased transfers to the provinces and territories, and government operating expenses.

The Finance Department has also dramatically revised upward its predictions for economic growth this year.

"Private sector forecasters have revised up their outlook for nominal gross domestic product (GDP) growth in 2007 to 5.2 per cent from 3.9 per cent at the time of Budget 2007," the department said.

"The year-to-date financial results also suggest that revenues will be higher than had been anticipated in March."

In June, there was a budgetary surplus of $2.8 billion, up $0.6 billion from the same month in 2006.

Budgetary revenues were up $1.5 billion, or 7.6 per cent. Program expenses were also up, by $0.9 billion, or 6.4 per cent.

The government cites transfers to other levels of government and increased departmental operating expenses for the increased spending.

Interest costs on the federal debt were lower by $47 million.

The Swiss have a better idea - let the Feds come cap in hand

I like the idea of a federal or regional gov having to come cap in hand to the city states - not vice versa.
Taxes also are collected in the cantons then dispersed to the federation. :fest:

THE SWISS CANTONAL SYSTEM
A Model Democracy
by Frances Kendall

In this, the first of the "ISIL Solutions" series, we examine the "Swiss model" of government a highly-decentralized system which Swiss economist Robert Nef more accurately describes as an "ongoing experiment" than a "model."

The concepts of devolution of power, local autonomy, and participatory democracy have produced the world's most peaceful and prosperous country. Of course, Switzerland, with its compulsory military service, state controlled monetary system, railroad and telephone services, and taxation, is not a pure libertarian society but for those interested in reining in out-of-control governments in other parts of the world, there are large parts of the Swiss cantonal system that are worthy of emulation.

The word "democracy" is derived from the Greek words for people (demos) and power (kratos). Inherent in the concept is the idea that ordinary people should keep control of the decisions that effect their lives. In an ideal democracy, the power of those who govern is limited by safeguards that ensure that citizens can prevent their elected leaders from abusing their powers.


Switzerland

Switzerland is considered by many to be the most democratic country in the world. It is also one of the world's most successful nations in economic terms. The Swiss people have the highest per-capita incomes in the world, and Switzerland is consistently rated among the top ten nations in terms of quality of life.

The key to Swiss success is not to be found in natural resources (which are in extremely short supply); nor does it lie in the temperament of its 6.4 million people, who are essentially no different from the Germans, Italians and French in the remainder of Europe. It lies rather in Switzerland's political institutions, which ensure that ordinary citizens are involved in political decision-making, and that no one interest group is able to benefit unduly at the expense of another.

there is more

ISIL -- The Swiss Cantonal System (http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/swiss-canton-system.html)

Now wouldn't it be interesting if say Toronto and Vancouver had a booming year , kept the taxes at home and the Feds needed money........ :D

We'd have a different breed of cat in Ottawa I do believe.

more like

http://www.thecatgallery.com/images/Scottish-fold-kitten.jpg

Vandave
Aug 24th, 2007, 08:03 PM
after all that ragging on Martin...... Flaherty "guesses" $3 billion for the year and it's $6 billion and counting in the first half.....now where the hell is the cities funding :mad:

Six months ago people were ragging on them for spending like drunken sailors.

MACSPECTRUM
Aug 24th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Six months ago people were ragging on them for spending like drunken sailors.

you mean when harpo RAISED the income tax rate on Canadians in the LOWEST tax bracket?

that kind of drunken sailor spending?

oye.

Macfury
Aug 24th, 2007, 08:36 PM
I hope they just give it back to me--screw "the cities."

Vandave
Aug 24th, 2007, 08:37 PM
you mean when harpo RAISED the income tax rate on Canadians in the LOWEST tax bracket?

that kind of drunken sailor spending?

oye.

You keep coming back to this issue. There was effectively no change in taxes for people within the lowest tax bracket. That's a fact.

MacDoc
Aug 24th, 2007, 09:06 PM
Hmmm strange that....

In their last budget before being defeated in January 2006, the Liberals cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15 per cent from 16 per cent. The first Conservative budget, while cutting taxes in a number of other ways, raised that lowest rate back to 15.5 per cent.

TheStar.com - News - Tories inflating tax cuts, taxpayers group says (http://www.thestar.com/article/248853)

Quite the Harper apologist you are......perhaps join the Con spin team.

MACSPECTRUM
Aug 24th, 2007, 10:12 PM
Quite the Harper apologist you are


that would make him an "Harpologist"
:D

Vandave
Aug 24th, 2007, 10:22 PM
Hmmm strange that....



TheStar.com - News - Tories inflating tax cuts, taxpayers group says (http://www.thestar.com/article/248853)

Quite the Harper apologist you are......perhaps join the Con spin team.

Taxes are taxes are taxes. You also have to consider the effect of other taxes that were cut. Overall, it was a wash.

MACSPECTRUM
Aug 24th, 2007, 10:45 PM
Taxes are taxes are taxes. You also have to consider the effect of other taxes that were cut. Overall, it was a wash.

tell it to those Canadians that got the increase
why then did richer Canadians get a decrease on top of the GST cut?
so richest, get richer and poor get poorer, but only "effectively" poorer

:mad:

Vandave
Aug 24th, 2007, 10:55 PM
tell it to those Canadians that got the increase
why then did richer Canadians get a decrease on top of the GST cut?
so richest, get richer and poor get poorer, but only "effectively" poorer

:mad:

0.5% of $40,000 is $200. The Conservatives cut all sorts of other taxes that make up the difference. Are you saying middle class people making over $40k are rich?

Beej
Aug 25th, 2007, 09:13 AM
There was effectively no change in taxes for people within the lowest tax bracket.

And the people below the minimum taxable income tax bracket got a tax cut. No mention of those poor because they don't matter to 'spec.

As for government surpluses and misleading sums of total cuts...same old. I think some governments still announce raising tax brackets in line with inflation as a tax "cut" instead of as "not an automatic tax increase".

ArtistSeries
Aug 25th, 2007, 10:49 AM
Six months ago people were ragging on them for spending like drunken sailors.
What does this have to do with a surplus.
I remember Connies crying that a surplus means that we are overtaxed - so where is your outrage?
BTW, they spend like drunken capitalists - they cut social programs but increase corporate welfare...

MACSPECTRUM
Aug 25th, 2007, 10:59 AM
And the people below the minimum taxable income tax bracket got a tax cut. No mention of those poor because they don't matter to 'spec.

As for government surpluses and misleading sums of total cuts...same old. I think some governments still announce raising tax brackets in line with inflation as a tax "cut" instead of as "not an automatic tax increase".

I was discussing the increase of income tax rate of the lowest income tax bracket.

and you bring in some nebulous mention of a "tax cut" for those that don't pay income tax (i.e. "below the min. taxable income tax bracket")

but that doesn't matter to BJ

can you be a bit more vague?
I'm sure you can. (with apologies to Mr. Rogers)

SINC
Aug 25th, 2007, 01:07 PM
I like the idea of a federal or regional gov having to come cap in hand to the city states - not vice versa.
Taxes also are collected in the cantons then dispersed to the federation. :fest:

Yeah, that would work real well for the folks who live in Cadillac, Saskatchewan, Pop. 95., and the thousands of small communities like it across this land.

Beej
Aug 25th, 2007, 01:46 PM
I was discussing the increase of income tax rate of the lowest income tax bracket.

and you bring in some nebulous mention of a "tax cut" for those that don't pay income tax (i.e. "below the min. taxable income tax bracket")

but that doesn't matter to BJ

can you be a bit more vague?
I'm sure you can. (with apologies to Mr. Rogers)

I'm guessing that if you really put your "mind" to it that you can figure it out.

You try to act like you are commenting on and care about the poor, but you ignore the poorest. Income tax cuts do not help them directly but you do not seem to care.

MACSPECTRUM
Aug 25th, 2007, 01:51 PM
I'm guessing that if you really put your "mind" to it that you can figure it out.

You try to act like you are commenting on and care about the poor, but you ignore the poorest. Income tax cuts do not help them directly but you do not seem to care.

raising tax rates on the lowest bracket while lowering tax rates on higher income brackets doesn't help much either

like i said, harpo doesn't care because poor people don't vote for PC/Reform/Alliance/Con

i'm tired today and my Kreskin thinking cap is at the cleaners so i don't time to figure out the musings of a neo con in sheep;s clothing who sucks at the teat of big oil, yet lectures others on the plight of the poor and poorest

Beej
Aug 25th, 2007, 02:28 PM
raising tax rates on the lowest bracket while lowering tax rates on higher income brackets doesn't help much either

like i said, harpo doesn't care because poor people don't vote for PC/Reform/Alliance/Con


It does not directly affect the poorest and you keep avoiding that because, clearly, you do not care. Of course, the standard "neo con" comments etc. are tossed out and you still completely ignore the poorest in your faux crusade. 'Spec cares about the poor, unless they're very poor, in which case they are beneath his consideration.