Thursday, April 23, 2009

Taxe sur toutes les choses

A shocking new poll out today:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicates that 30 per cent of respondents nationwide are less likely to vote Liberal in the next election as a result of the party leader's reflections on taxes last week; only 16 per cent are more likely to support the Grits.

The damage was most pronounced in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, where 44 per cent and 40 per cent respectively were less likely to vote Liberal.

However, the poll suggests Ignatieff's tax talk went down well in Quebec, where 29 per cent of respondents were more likely to vote Liberal and only 10 per cent less likely.

Yes, who would have thought when you asked people if Ignatieff raising their taxes would make them more likely to vote for Liberal, they'd say "".Well, except in Quebec where by a 3 to 1 ratio they said it made them more likely to vote for Ignatieff.

There's only one conclusion to be reached from this: it is imperative that the Liberal Party promise to tax Quebecers in the next election. I would suggest a 2% sales tax to be applied only in La Belle Province.

Hell, use the money to bail out the oil sands and this could prove to be a vote winner in both Quebec and the West...



  • Funniest post evah!

    By Anonymous James, at 7:44 p.m.  

  • Considering the excessive tax burden already resting on the shoulders of ordinary Canadians, you'd think that people in this country were finally growing a spine and standing up to the Big Government monster that keeps wasting their hard-earned cash on frivolities. As I noted recently, Canadians have accepted this pillaging by government for far too long like silly sheep.

    This poll, however, gives hope for all common-sense thinkers in this country, as it shows that Canadians are finally showing signs that they've had it with working for the taxman, instead of themselves and their families.

    Québec, of course, doesn't mind the tax burden, according to this poll. But that's par for the course, isn't it? When a province has built its very existence on sucking tax dollars from other Canadians to fund generous government programs that aren't available in other provinces, it will always side with the idea of raising (other people's) taxes. No wonder, then, that Québec is also the one place in Canada where corruption in government occurs on a daily basis and is considered routine. Naturally, one of Canada's biggest scandals, Adscam, which continues to be in the news to this day, also originated in that province.

    Let's hope this poll isn't just a blip and that Canadians are, indeed, finally becoming fed up with having their hard-earned money stolen, and then wasted, by government.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:46 p.m.  

  • "Québec is also the one place in Canada where corruption in government occurs on a daily basis and is considered routine."

    That's a pretty ballsy claim, do you have ANY evidence to back it up (and please don't say sponsorship bc that's hardly consitutes routine or a daily basis especially since it happened over 10 years ago).

    And I hardly think it's all that groundbreaking to find that a whopping 30% (which could be ENTIRELY ALL Conservative supporters anyway) are less likely to vote Liberal bc of Ignatieff's comments on taxes. The major finding that most people don't care and that very same poll had the Libs leading 32-29 anyway.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:54 p.m.  

  • Yes, I do. Look at the latest scandal at Montréal City Hall; the most recent revelations of collusion between organized crime and construction sector labour unions; Adscam; the Caisse fiasco; Charest's own government;.... and on and on ....

    And even in Ottawa, most scandals or corruption would involve at least one key person who just so happens to be from Québec.

    Coincidence? I think not. And my wife, who is a francophone Québécoise, agrees with this view 150%.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:56 p.m.  

  • We are going to pay 'taxes' (or tax equivalents) one way or another ... as the taxpayer (at any / all three levels of government), as the shareholder or as the consumer.

    At least Ignatieff was being honest. I know, I know ... we demand honesty from our politicians but we don't want to see it put in practice.

    Doesn't anyone remember the Cons raised personal IT to 15.5% after they were originally elected and then dropped it back to 15% to back up their claim they were the party of tax cuts.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:49 p.m.  

  • You seem to have all the benefits Canadian education: poor math skills. (I've said many times that poor math skills tend to define what makes one a Liberal, but we'll set that aside.)

    More likely to vote Liberal because Ig wants to raise their taxes: 29.
    Less likely: 10.
    Neutral/other: 61.

    Ratio you cite? 29:71, or about 3:1 not in favour of higher taxes.

    You can't simply wipe out those who claim to be neither more likely nor less likely to vote Liberal as a result of the current tax increase policy of your soon-to-be-anointed Leader in order to make the opposite claim.

    By Blogger Paul, at 11:03 p.m.  

  • There's a simpler explanation.

    How many Canadians pay taxes? At most it would be half, I would think.

    Therefore half of Canadians lose nothing when you increase taxes.

    And since the money goes towards more programs, or reducing what we shovel onto our shared debt every year, why wouldn't 50% (or more) of Canadians be happy with a tax increase?

    Seriously, I'm surprised Quebec is the only place where they've figured that out.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 11:14 p.m.  

  • By all means, let's just let the country sink into oblivion. Cancel all police, fire, ambulance, teachers, etc., etc. That sure as hell would lower our taxes.

    Some people don't think it through. Mention taxes and they go crazy, and yet, what the hell else can be done?

    Besides, Ignatieff said it may be an option - when times are better.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:41 a.m.  

  • paul.obeda - Crap, I knew that math degree was a waste of money!

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 9:26 a.m.  

  • So what about the financial scandals in B.C. provincial government and in the city of Vancouver? Did they involve Québecers too?

    By Blogger toujoursdan, at 10:25 a.m.  

  • paul.obeda:

    Your point about Dan's choice of wording not counting the neutrals is a fair one, but as long as we're being nitpicky about math, 71:29 is pretty far from 3:1. It's not even 2.5:1.

    By Blogger saphorr, at 10:54 a.m.  

  • ''How many Canadians pay taxes? At most it would be half, I would think.
    Therefore half of Canadians lose nothing when you increase taxes.''

    Everybody pays the GST.
    Everybody, 100% of Canadians take a tax hit if the GST is raised.

    Add carbon tax to the list.

    By Blogger wilson, at 11:15 a.m.  

  • Or, you could look at it as 90:10, with only 1 in 10 giving a rats ass about tax musings (probably non-Liberals in the first place).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:58 p.m.  

  • A 2% tax on Quebeckers, but not anyone else? Where do I sign up for that?

    By Anonymous herringchoker, at 1:46 p.m.  

  • "You seem to have all the benefits Canadian education: poor math skills. (I've said many times that poor math skills tend to define what makes one a Liberal, but we'll set that aside.)"

    Does bad grammar define Conservatives? I am not asking this facetiously, by the way (though I am making fun of your ironic slip). I have generally encountered more eloquent lefties than righties. Moreover, you do tend to see a lot more photo ops and props on the right.

    Are conservatives more likely to be visual learners, while liberals are more likely to be auditory learners? Does this help explain the political gender gap (women are more likely to be auditory learners, which is why they are always looking for "funny" men that are good conversationalists, while men are visual learners, which is why they like breasts).

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 6:59 p.m.  

  • Just 'cuz someone says they're less likely to do something doesn't mean they're not going to do it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:31 p.m.  

  • Very nice article!

    By Anonymous Data recovery software, at 4:34 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home