Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 1963
Reputation: 93Reputation: 93
votes: 2
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:55 pm    Post subject: liberal leadership candidate Findlay calls for GST increase Reply with quote

( i wonder how the other liberals stand on this ? i can't see the whole idea being too popular however the left is not one to say what they would actually do if they were ever to get power back )

Canadian Politics
‘I’m not afraid of Stephen Harper’: Findlay calls for GST hike, undaunted by relentless Tory spin machine

Joan Bryden, Canadian Press | Jan 11, 2013 9:42 AM ET
More from Canadian Press


Larry MacDougal / The Canadian Press
Liberals need to have the courage of their convictions, said leadership hopeful Martha Hall Findlay, and must stand up to the relentless Tory spin machine, which eviscerated the last two Liberal leaders.


Liberal leadership hopeful Martha Hall Findlay called Thursday for an eventual increase in the GST, warning against letting her party’s policies be dictated by fear of the Conservative attack machine.

Findlay said she knows her stand risks giving ammunition to the Tories, who love nothing better than to accuse opposition parties of being reckless tax-and-spenders.

But Liberals need to have the courage of their convictions, she said, and must stand up to the relentless Tory spin machine, which eviscerated the last two Liberal leaders.

The former Toronto MP pointed out Thursday that Liberals — and most economists — opposed Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to cut the seven per cent goods and services tax — first to six per cent, then to five.

The right policies are the right policies
“You can’t say that it was a bad idea to drop it and not have the guts to say that, when the economic circumstances are right, that you would consider raising it back up. It’s inconsistent,” Hall Findlay said in an interview.

She added that Liberals have “run away” from the issue over the past few years because they were afraid of Tory reprisals.

“Well, I’m not afraid of Stephen Harper. The right policies are the right policies.”

Not all Canadians will like the idea of paying more GST, Hall Findlay acknowledged. But the third-place Liberal party won’t win back support until it starts showing some conviction on difficult issues, she said.

Related
NDP riding high but could be knocked off course by Trudeau: poll
Michael Den Tandt: Findlay brings a dose of substance to Liberal beauty pageant
‘Not just going to vote for flash’: Justin Trudeau says only substance will win Liberal leadership
Justin Trudeau-led Liberals would win strong minority, poll says, while Marc Garneau-led Liberals would finish third

“Not everybody in this country is going to agree with everything, but they’re certainly not going to support a party that doesn’t have the courage to stand up for what it believes. And if we don’t feel we can stand up for what we believe because we’re somehow afraid of Stephen Harper’s attack ads, then we have a way bigger problem.”

Michael Ignatieff, the Liberals’ last permanent leader, ran into trouble on the GST just days after taking the party’s helm in 2008 when he refused to take a possible increase off the table. He was pounded by the Tories and eventually backtracked.

Nevertheless, his initial openness to a GST hike became fodder for one of the Tories’ subsequent attack ads, which ominously dubbed Ignatieff a “Tax Hiker.”

These guys have absolutely no credibility when it comes to fiscal prudence
Hall Findlay argued that Harper’s GST cut pushed Canada into a structural deficit even before the 2008 recession hit. She stressed she wouldn’t raise it again now, when the economy is still sluggish, but she would “absolutely” consider doing so once the economy rebounds.

As for the inevitable Conservative charge that she’s a tax-and-spend Liberal, Hall Findlay said she wouldn’t use the additional billions in revenue a GST hike would produce to increase government spending. She’d use it to eliminate the deficit racked up by the Harper government and start paying down the national debt.

In any event, she said the Conservatives have some nerve accusing other parties of being reckless spenders given their own record of “borrow and spend.”

“Harper, in the first two years of coming into government, had the largest spending budgets in Canadian history — before the crisis ever hit,” she said.

“These guys have absolutely no credibility when it comes to fiscal prudence.”

Hall Findlay is one of seven officially registered candidates vying to become the next Liberal leader. An eighth candidate — Ottawa lawyer David Bertschi — submitted his nomination papers Thursday and a ninth — former cabinet minister Martin Cauchon — is poised to get his papers in by Sunday’s deadline.

Registration includes payment of a stiff $75,000 entry fee.

Would-be contender David Merner, former president of the party’s British Columbia wing, has announced he’s withdrawing from the contest. He’s expected to throw his support to Vancouver MP Joyce Murray, who shares his belief that Liberals need to co-operate with New Democrats and Greens in the next election to ensure defeat of Harper’s Conservatives.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2.....n-machine/
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 726
Reputation: 59.1
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm all for consumption taxes over income taxes, though I don't know what her income tax ideas are. I don't think MHF will be able to mount much of a campaign now.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't imagine she sees any linkage. Even if she does, she can't expect the general public to see one, so we have to see the change in different terms. In the Kubuki theatre of leadership politics, she isn't putting a serious tax proposal forward so much as upgrading her image.

Or perhaps orienting her candidacy to a different faction of the Liberal Party.

She's saying a few things here:
(1) That she's willing to take serious steps to solve serious problems. She isn't specific, so much as using the increase in the GST to demonstrate her toughness. She's telling us that if it ever comes a time when the population needs a taste of the lash, she's there for us. (lol)
(2) She's staking out the right wing of the Liberal Party, the part that nobody else seems to want. This is a smart move if she can pull it off.
(3) She's flaunting her contempt for the Conservative Party leadership before the rank and file She declares that the devil himself (Harper) doesn't frighten her, no siree! That's both a challenge, and not-a-challenge, at the same time. She doesn't take issue with Harper on any issue! (She doesn't even propose a hidden agenda.) That's important. It means that it's only a performance, a demonstration. (Otherwise, if we had a single political journalist in the country right now, (s)he'd be drilling down on exactly what Martha would improve on.)

I would say that Martha Hall Findlay is orienting herself to be the leader, next time, and this time, she would be happy to come out of this race as the leader of the right-wing of the Liberals.

Her long-term bet is that present economic and political conditions will change for the worse, in sequence, and when they do, the Liberal Party will have to turn to the 'right'. And then, she will be sitting pretty.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6333
Reputation: 236.4
votes: 20
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
I'm all for consumption taxes over income taxes, though I don't know what her income tax ideas are. I don't think MHF will be able to mount much of a campaign now.


I would gladly take an increase in the HST in exchange for a 2% reduction in EVERY tax bracket.

However an increase in consumption tax with no offset would be the death knell for the Federal Liberals in Ontario, another increase in gas and power...yikes.

A taxes on necessities is not what's needed.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is needed is a to start balancing the budget by reducing the size of government, that is, by cutting spending. Just rearranging taxes would be a mistake.

Ask yourself -- how many more transactions would we engage in if we didn't have to pay something like a 15% tax? How many fewer would there be if the rate were 18%?

Politicians tend to avoid prickly problems like going to war with the civil service unions. And reducing the size of government would necessarily entail that.

This is where I have sympathy for Machiavelli's view, by which I mean it is time to start to dismantle the worst parts of the welfare state. Think about it -- why can't the very worst programmes be cut, root and branch?

I accept that the main parts of the safety net have to be maintained, simply because present beneficiaries, and soon-to-be beneficiaries organized their lives around the asusmption that they would be cared for in their old age, etc.

Even so, there are a bunch of areas that could be seriously pruned back, on the scale that the military has been pruned back since the Korean war days.

A lot of things are better handled locally, so there needn't always be a loss. Most of the public would hardly notice most of the cuts if they were managed well.

Not only that, but some of our best talent are civil servants. Given the right conditions, these people could be far more valuable to society if they worked in the private sector. Our private sector would be strengthened more than the state would be weakened. That's my view.

It would be a real test of leadership, but managed well, a more entrepreneurial Canada could go into the 21st century in a position to continue to prosper. Not every country can say that. More taxes stand in the way, but less government helps pave the way.
reidjr





Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
What is needed is a to start balancing the budget by reducing the size of government, that is, by cutting spending. Just rearranging taxes would be a mistake.

Ask yourself -- how many more transactions would we engage in if we didn't have to pay something like a 15% tax? How many fewer would there be if the rate were 18%?

Politicians tend to avoid prickly problems like going to war with the civil service unions. And reducing the size of government would necessarily entail that.

This is where I have sympathy for Machiavelli's view, by which I mean it is time to start to dismantle the worst parts of the welfare state. Think about it -- why can't the very worst programmes be cut, root and branch?

I accept that the main parts of the safety net have to be maintained, simply because present beneficiaries, and soon-to-be beneficiaries organized their lives around the asusmption that they would be cared for in their old age, etc.

Even so, there are a bunch of areas that could be seriously pruned back, on the scale that the military has been pruned back since the Korean war days.

A lot of things are better handled locally, so there needn't always be a loss. Most of the public would hardly notice most of the cuts if they were managed well.

Not only that, but some of our best talent are civil servants. Given the right conditions, these people could be far more valuable to society if they worked in the private sector. Our private sector would be strengthened more than the state would be weakened. That's my view.

It would be a real test of leadership, but managed well, a more entrepreneurial Canada could go into the 21st century in a position to continue to prosper. Not every country can say that. More taxes stand in the way, but less government helps pave the way.


But if that meant we would have to take on more debt in the short term would you support it?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6333
Reputation: 236.4
votes: 20
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
What is needed is a to start balancing the budget by reducing the size of government, that is, by cutting spending. Just rearranging taxes would be a mistake.


I agree;
I would prefer both, we have already seen in practical applications under Reagen in the States and Harris in Ontario that if you lower taxes and put more money into the pockets of your citizens they do more to drive up government revenue then any tax would.

The problem is that every government who has embraced an increase in revenue has used it to continue to fund a bloated public sector rather then cut along with the increase in revenue so you can actually start to see a reverse in the debt clock rather then an increase every second.

Spending needs to be cut; however so do taxes.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To reidjr ... I recognize that when the system goes into recession, we will go into deficit almost automatically because there will be more claims for EI, welfare, etc. I accept that.

I even accept that, at times, a government 'stimulus' works. The economy does actually kick-start itself with the new money, and begins creating jobs again, and a problem seems to have been avoided.

But when you have to stimulate an economy a second time, you are probably making a mistake.

The other choice, it seems to me, is to do what you can do to get it over with as fast as possible, and make sure nobody starves in the meantime.

And this is where we are now, at least in my mind. Most recoveries start within two years of the start of the recession, if you let the collapse proceed. In the American case, this would be to clear the housing market as soon the courts can do it. Let the banks go down. New banks, admittedly smaller but better managed, would emerge. Let GM get broken up and sold to the highest bidders. It would be freed of the unions and parts of it would become efficient again.

If that had been allowed to happen four years ago, the US would be in a genuine recovery now, and lots of people would have a cheap new home that they'd be renovating while they look for a job.

It's easier to see these things in hindsight, of course, but when you keep doing the same thing, hoping for a different result ... well, there's a name for that kind of behavior too. But, speaking just as a layman, it seems that the problem with the system is that there is too much debt in it ... so how do you fix that problem by adding to the debt?

For myself, if government stops doing the wrong thing with the economy, it's often enough ... and if they start doing the right thing, you will see the results within six months.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 726
Reputation: 59.1
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
What is needed is a to start balancing the budget by reducing the size of government, that is, by cutting spending. Just rearranging taxes would be a mistake.


Interestingly enough MHF is criticizing Harper for spending to much.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:

The problem is that every government who has embraced an increase in revenue has used it to continue to fund a bloated public sector rather then cut along with the increase in revenue so you can actually start to see a reverse in the debt clock rather then an increase every second.


Exactly right. Increasing tax revenues seems to only increase the size of government. Politicians have a hard time keeping commitments to lower the spending and decrease the size of government significantly.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6333
Reputation: 236.4
votes: 20
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
Bugs wrote:
What is needed is a to start balancing the budget by reducing the size of government, that is, by cutting spending. Just rearranging taxes would be a mistake.


Interestingly enough MHF is criticizing Harper for spending to much.


As did Layton during the 2011 election.
Crying about deficits and fiscal management is only worthwhile if you have a plan to cut spending,
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 726
Reputation: 59.1
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
Progressive Tory wrote:
Bugs wrote:
What is needed is a to start balancing the budget by reducing the size of government, that is, by cutting spending. Just rearranging taxes would be a mistake.


Interestingly enough MHF is criticizing Harper for spending to much.


As did Layton during the 2011 election.
Crying about deficits and fiscal management is only worthwhile if you have a plan to cut spending,


I don't think she's said what she'd cut but says that spending needs to be.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6333
Reputation: 236.4
votes: 20
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
Progressive Tory wrote:
Bugs wrote:
What is needed is a to start balancing the budget by reducing the size of government, that is, by cutting spending. Just rearranging taxes would be a mistake.


Interestingly enough MHF is criticizing Harper for spending to much.


As did Layton during the 2011 election.
Crying about deficits and fiscal management is only worthwhile if you have a plan to cut spending,


I don't think she's said what she'd cut but says that spending needs to be.


Which I appreciate coming from an LPC member, but without actually actioning where you plan to cut you really aren't doing anything that Layton, Duceppe, May and Iggy partook in during the 2011 campaign.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 726
Reputation: 59.1
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MHF now says she could support taxing the rich as well she said she may not run in 2015 if she loses the leadership.

A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal...
reidjr





Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
MHF now says she could support taxing the rich as well she said she may not run in 2015 if she loses the leadership.

A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal...


I think there are different levels of Liberals you have the likes of Justin who is more of a level headed Liberal then you have the MHF who would increase taxes and like to tax the rich lets keep in kind those as of now pay heavy taxes as it is.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


liberal leadership candidate Findlay calls for GST increase

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB