Friday, June 30, 2006

Gone Shopping

I don't know about you, but I'm hitting the stores today to save my 1%!!!

With Stampede around the corner, I need a new outfit and the prospect of saving 1.64$ on it is too much to pass up!

37 Comments:

  • And for those folks who will sign on the dotted line tomorrow for a $45,000 new car or a $750,000 house (or a Vancouver condo !) . . . do you think they will appreciate the 1% saving ??

    I suspect they will.
    I supect they will remember who did it.
    I supect they will vote that way next time.

    By Blogger Fred :), at 2:15 PM  

  • I'd sumbit that someone buying a $45,000 new car or a $750,000 house will not care one iota, since obviously they had enough money in the first place. (Never mind that most people are not buying such big ticket items without substantial financing, lease, or mortgage, in which case things like rising interest rates are of far greater significance.)

    By Blogger Josh Gould, at 3:07 PM  

  • I wonder if they'll get complaints from restaurant servers. For people who are bad at math, the easiest way to calculate a roughly 15% tip is to double the GST. I imagine lots of people will keep doing this, cutting wait staff tip incomes by about 14%. So those are a few votes that they'll lose.

    Yes, I'm kidding.

    By Blogger Dale, at 3:27 PM  

  • And for those folks who will sign on the dotted line tomorrow for a $45,000 new car or a $750,000 house (or a Vancouver condo !) . . . do you think they will appreciate the 1% saving ??

    Luckily the number of people buying $750,000 houses is low enough that we can afford to risk losing their vote. And if the CPC thinks it can buy peoples votes with $450 with the purchase of a new care, more power to them.

    By Blogger Kyle Carruthers, at 4:31 PM  

  • Oh Liberal ilk, where is thy shame?

    You were elevated to power oh so many years ago with a ringing promise that this GST would not stand. Now that another government has finally started to make good on your broken promise you mock them?!

    By Blogger Scott in Ottawa, at 5:17 PM  

  • Gents, do get a grip.

    I was embarrassed over the Liberal Party's lies in 1993. This time, the winning party is keeping it's GST promise. No Liberals should be caught mocking, it reflects quite badly.

    By Blogger Lois, at 6:03 PM  

  • First, anyone who has had to pay tax on a car in the last year is a sucker.

    Second, How many elections were there between 1993 and 2005? Enough to vindicate the Liberals for the change of tune on the GST cut. Hell, Sheila Copps even resigned her seat and ran in a by-election over the issue, and still won. It became obvious that the GST was a "good" tax.

    The 1% cut to the GST is the same as doling out $1200 a year to everyone with a child under 6... a shameless and cynical purchase of votes.

    By Blogger Robert, at 6:37 PM  

  • Careful CG.

    There is a party that speaks for the poor and the poor only. They're called the NDP, and in case you haven't noticed, they never have been able to elcted more that 45 MPs. The fact of the matter is that the average house price in this country is 300,000 and while average incomes are very skewed by the Mcjobs our economy seems to be creating, there are a large number of people in the country who make 70-120 k per year for being good at what they do. When did the Liberals become the party that mocked them, as JOhn MacAullum's release did today? Are we into mocking success here? I thought liberals were for success, but we for sharing fairly that success. Some would argue that smal tax cuts like this are poor policy, but to the thousands of families buying houses this month at 300-500 K, that 3-5 K rebate is looing like a rrsp contibution or a family vacation. To mock it is stupid politics and you should know it. The liberal majorities of the 90s were built on a centre left coalition that appealed to the better angels of the succesful. Turning away from that with sarcasm isn't wise.

    By Blogger Proud to be a lefty, at 7:21 PM  

  • Careful CG.

    There is a party that speaks for the poor and the poor only. They're called the NDP, and in case you haven't noticed, they never have been able to elcted more that 45 MPs. The fact of the matter is that the average house price in this country is 300,000 and while average incomes are very skewed by the Mcjobs our economy seems to be creating, there are a large number of people in the country who make 70-120 k per year for being good at what they do. When did the Liberals become the party that mocked them, as JOhn MacAullum's release did today? Are we into mocking success here? I thought liberals were for success, but we for sharing fairly that success. Some would argue that smal tax cuts like this are poor policy, but to the thousands of families buying houses this month at 300-500 K, that 3-5 K rebate is looing like a rrsp contibution or a family vacation. To mock it is stupid politics and you should know it. The liberal majorities of the 90s were built on a centre left coalition that appealed to the better angels of the succesful. Turning away from that with sarcasm isn't wise.

    By Blogger Proud to be a lefty, at 7:22 PM  

  • "I'd sumbit that someone buying a $45,000 new car or a $750,000 house will not care one iota, since obviously they had enough money in the first place."

    Have you purchased a new car or new house in the last few years? I suspect not. Saving 1% on a new car or new house means you can go for that extra upgrade or 2 you would of otherwise been unable to afford.

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 7:32 PM  

  • It doesn't matter how many elections there have been since 1993 - we can't cry out, "cynical buy of votes!" when we didn't keep our original word.

    We really need a new direction rather than these simple childish potshots across the floor. We've broken faith with Canadians on many issues, and sniping won't fix that anytime soon.

    By Blogger Lois, at 7:56 PM  

  • "The 1% cut to the GST is the same as doling out $1200 a year to everyone with a child under 6... a shameless and cynical purchase of votes."

    The $1200 is a targetted tax credit, that could be considered "buying votes", although I consider it to be a pro-family policy, but whatever.

    The 1% cut to the GST is not the same in that it is basically the government saying, "please keep your money, you've earned it." Explain how it is vote buying when the government is simply not taking the money in the first place. Only those on the left would think that the government taking less of the taxpayer's money is a bad thing. Are Liberals so far to the left now that any time a taxpayer gets to keep a little bit of their hard earned money it's considered vote buying? (beer & popcorn anyone?)

    I'd consider that shameful.

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 8:05 PM  

  • The GST applied to financial services cost retired Canadians about one billion dollars a year. Lowering the GST from 7 to eventually 5 per cent will save them a few hundred million. Great for people on fixed incomes-and a good political move as seniors vote!

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 8:38 PM  

  • What the Puck: You must remember that Liberals had cut the income tax, which the Conservatives reversed to pay for the GST tax cut, and the 100 billion dollar tax cut made in the year 2000.

    Liberals just hate bad policy. As an economist, the GST cut before Income Tax, disrupting the tax balance in the wrong direction, must make Harper cringe.

    An income tax cut is always better, since the cut isn't regressive, and is equally applied to all earners, instead of favoring the rich as the GST cut does.

    By Blogger Lookout Mountain, at 8:43 PM  

  • Everyone knows the GST cut is good politics and bad policy. Including Harper.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 12:58 AM  

  • Have you purchased a new car or new house in the last few years? I suspect not. Saving 1% on a new car or new house means you can go for that extra upgrade or 2 you would of otherwise been unable to afford.

    No, being a graduate student I am generally not in the market for new cars or houses. And how do you think most people pay for these things? Cash? The savings for the $45,000 car amount to a whopping $450, so if you're leasing or financing, then it may make only a marginal difference - interest rates will still be the most important factor, as they will be for mortgages.

    As for those who can buy big ticket items in cash, well, either they're already voting Conservative or they aren't for reasons unrelated to their pocketbook, which, it seems, is pretty full.

    By Blogger Josh Gould, at 1:15 AM  

  • I'm buying a condo this summer. I'm going to save more than $2000 thanks to this cut.

    That 1% adds up, and I'll take it. I can use that $2000 to get a bigger TV or a sweet iMac setup. I'll save some money there, which I can use to buy a coffee or go see a movie.

    At least when the Tories promise to cut the GST, they keep it. And I think that's why Liberals are so mad about this. It has nothing to do with policy, it's just now everyone's remember how the Grits broke their promise to get rid of it.

    By Blogger Sean, at 3:04 AM  

  • "Luckily the number of people buying $750,000 houses is low enough that we can afford to risk losing their vote."

    Wow Kyle. One day someone will have to introduce you to that thing called "the middle class." Or else you can come to Vancouver. Either or.

    By Blogger Peter Rempel, at 3:52 AM  

  • "No, being a graduate student I am generally not in the market for new cars or houses. And how do you think most people pay for these things? Cash? The savings for the $45,000 car amount to a whopping $450, so if you're leasing or financing, then it may make only a marginal difference - interest rates will still be the most important factor, as they will be for mortgages."

    Well, I purchased a new home last year. Saving 1% on tax would have saved me $2,000. I could have used that $2,000 on my approved mortgage to upgrade the carpet, upgraded to a 2-car garage, etc. I guess someone "not in the market for new cars or houses" would have a better idea of how taxpayers are affected by the savings though, my bad.

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 8:12 AM  

  • Wouldn't housing prices and car prices just go up accordingly?

    The market for housing is so high right now that I assume people can just tack a little extra on to the asking price, since the demand hasn't been cut 1%. I guess that's still a plus if you're selling your house, but I have doubts how much it will really help people buying houses or cars.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 2:25 PM  

  • calgrit: precisely. There's some truly bad economics going on in here; the shift is simply going to mean that the price of big-ticket items will shift upwards (thanks to low price stickiness) in order to compensate.

    In the meantime, of course, that nudge upwards of income taxes from where the Liberals had set it will almost certainly ring alarm bells when the middle class do their taxes next year.

    (Hence the reason, I suppose, for all the rumors of a spring 2007 election. Having the election before people find out that their taxes went up is a very good idea. Kind of like how Dubya has ensured that the nasty economic effects of his policies are delayed until AFTER 2008.)

    By Blogger Demosthenes, at 3:18 PM  

  • I applaud the Prime Minister and his heroic caucus for pushing for real progressive reform of our country's tax system! They are to be commended for heroically and bravely leading the charge for progress, peace, and reform. Stephen Harper is a breath of fresh air, and perhaps will be known in 100 years as the Greatest Canadian of this century. Our century. Our Conservative Party. Our Canada.


    P.S.--Yes, I'm drunk off my ass and I don't believe a word of what I just said.

    By Blogger Jim, at 5:45 PM  

  • That 1% adds up, and I'll take it. I can use that $2000 to get a bigger TV or a sweet iMac setup. I'll save some money there, which I can use to buy a coffee or go see a movie.

    Great, so you could get a bigscreen and a computer, while I get to pay more income tax. Not only will I pay a higher rate on any taxable income, my basic personal exemption will drop too. Or have none of you factored that into your GST "savings"?

    By Blogger Josh Gould, at 6:28 PM  

  • Not only will I pay a higher rate on any taxable income, my basic personal exemption will drop too.

    Are you sure about the personal exemption?

    For me personally I would rather see GST & PST completely abolished than income tax abolished. The government should abolish one or the other. At least with income tax the government steals your money before you put it in the bank. I find it offensive the government steals your money before your employer pays you and then steals more of what's left of your money when you go to buy something. If Liberals are in power there is even an extension on that, then the government steals your stolen money for personal use ($1 gum to $400 pizza to $200,000,000 donations). The Conservatives aren't fully reversing the income tax cut anyway. In my case the income tax cut the Liberals proposed and the GST tax cut the Conservatvies proposed will result in the same amount of savings for me. Fortunately for Conservatives the GST cut plays better with voters because voters can actually see & feel the government stealing less of your money.

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 8:24 PM  

  • Are you sure about the personal exemption?

    Yes, unless the CBC is mistaken.

    By Blogger Josh Gould, at 11:06 PM  

  • "And the basic personal exemption — the amount Canadians can earn before paying income tax — will be cut. It rose from $8,648 in 2005 to $9,039 for the first six months of 2006. After July 1, it is cut by $400 to make for a one-year average of $8,839. "

    That's really lame, it's way too low. I've never really understood why those things are set #'s and not adjusted for inflation. It should be $15,000 for yourself & $10,000 for each dependent.
    Since I have am the only provider of a family of 4 (soon to be 5!) the Tories' policies significantly help out my family more.
    They put more of my money back into my pocket.
    As far as I am concerned the less of my money that is stolen from me by the state the better.


    "The Tories' child-care program gives 12 monthly instalments of $100 for each preschool-age child in every family, regardless of income, to spend as they wish. It will be taxable at the rate applied to whichever spouse earns the lower income. Cheques are expected to be sent out after July 1."

    Yeehaw, 2 kids and expecting a third this month! Soon my wife will be making more money from the state than I make at my job!

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 8:25 AM  

  • Puck, please choose:
    1) Pay protection money to the government which provides you with services and is kept accountable through the democratic process

    2) Pay protection money to a feudal lord who is the Law and can kill, rape, and maim at will

    3) Pay protection money to the mafia which wants to squeeze as much money out of you as possible and murders those who don't pay

    4) Kill off all humans besides you and your family and figure out how to gather enough food and supplies to survive to the ripe age of 40

    Those are your only four choices. Taxes aren't theft -- they are inevitable, and they will always be here. The only argument is about where the sweet spot is.

    By Blogger LeoPetr, at 12:47 PM  

  • Now, now, you're being awfully hard on feudal lords, who, much as they required the loyalty of their peasants, were also required to protect them.

    Anyway, Puck, I'm glad that you're happy benefiting from government largesse and redistributive policies. I don't have the least bit of trouble with them on principle, but some of your compatriots on the right do... still, a bad tax cut is still bad.

    By Blogger Josh Gould, at 1:22 PM  

  • I love seeing you guys squirm when another party keeps YOUR party's promises. But while we are being petty, Why not bring up this one.

    Iggy and his supporters relieved

    By Blogger TrustOnlyMulder, at 3:06 PM  

  • I choose door #1.
    Right now the government takes about 3 to 4 times more than it should.
    I do not think the government's should be able to steal my money and give it to someone else (especially political parties).
    The different levels of government should provide services (fire,health,law enforcement,roads,parks,water,sewer,national defense,international affairs, etc) and then send me a bill outlining what I'm paying for.
    The problem with our government is it is bloated there is too much money going in every direction.
    It's big and inefficient and that's why we pay the amount of taxes we do.

    Taxes aren't always theft. Taxes at the rate we pay them (50% +/- of our income) is theft in my opinion.

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 5:55 PM  

  • Anyway, Puck, I'm glad that you're happy benefiting from government largesse and redistributive policies.


    I don't think government should be redistributing any money.
    If they want to do me a favour just up the amount of tax deductions I can claim per child.
    You have to wonder how much government waste there is taking my money and then giving it back.

    It still beats the hell out of a multi kabillion dollar bureaucracy that the Liberals/NDP & those other socialists wanted to create.
    The last thing I wanted to see is the government show up at my door step and ask me to hand over my toddlers.
    The government should not be in the business of changing diapers.

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 6:12 PM  

  • Um... Puck? You're benefiting from said redistribution right now. That's what this child care benefit is. Redistribution. And you're against it? By all means, return the money to the government.

    Incidentally, redistribution means that, though we do not pay the same amount in taxes, we benefit (more or less) equally from government services and income transfers like the child care benefit. So either put your money where your mouth is, or stop claiming that you're opposed to redistribution.

    By Blogger Josh Gould, at 12:01 AM  

  • Josh... If the government is going to return any stolen money I am going to keep it. I don't think redistribution of income is fair to anyone. The government should instead just lower taxes if it wants to help my family out. Taking my money and then returning it is not right. If the government had it's way with it would take $25,000 from my family every year. If it's going to give us back some of our money I'm going to keep it. With RRSP deductions and CCTB I pay a lot less than $25,000. Until all levels of government starts charging us more reasonable user fees I will continue to take advantage of tax breaks and tax credits so I can feel comfortable with the amount of tax I pay.

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 9:47 AM  

  • Well, since you're evidently in a lower tax bracket than my dad, I suppose he should be complaining about hypocrites like you who "oppose" redistribution rhetorically, while inventing specious reasons to justify your benefiting from government programs.

    We all have to pay taxes - your assessment of how much we should pay is irrelevant to whether you are benefiting from redistribution.

    By Blogger Josh Gould, at 12:14 PM  

  • Hey,

    I saved a few bucks this weekend.

    By Blogger Toronto Tory, at 11:30 AM  

  • Wow.

    You Liberals jut scream cognitive dissonance.

    By Blogger Toronto Tory, at 11:51 AM  

  • We all need to realize it's about time to put google,yahoo and msn in their place.Paying for targeted traffic is way to exensive for the little people on the internet.

    So why not show them where to get cheap advertising when they ask for it.It make sense to help our affiliate's in creating Wealth from Scratch as New cheap advertising techniques arive.
    http://www.mybusinessmarketingcenter.com

    By Blogger Robert, at 1:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home