Virtually all workers in this country will take home less of their paycheque next year, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s latest calculations. [...]
Courtesy Stephen Harper and his CPoC gov.
By the way, I am including a shot of Derek Fildebrandt, who I have had the pleasure of debating on the Michael Coren show, because as far as I'm concerned he has world class hair. Up there with the hair of Gerard Kennedy and Pablo Rodriguez (but of the short spiky rather than long and ample variety). You can't really see it in the picture, but the tips of his hair are a different colour from the parts further back. Very sexxxy. I don't know how you get your hair that way. Its as though a man was crossed with some sexxxy wild beast.
Ah! If only I was younger and somewhat less straight.
Interesting analysis, as 40 Liberal MP joined with the Bloc and NDP in trying to raise Payroll taxes much higher.
ReplyDeleteThis is a modest increase much smaller than recommended by the board. EI fund will take longer to be self-sufficient.
You do remember the E.I. fund and the $ 56 billion taken from it to balance those books by your team?
How many more jobs would have been lost if NDP Bill C 311 sponsored by Liberals in the Senate was given Royal Assent?
Liberals going to freeze corporate tax rates against recommendations of many senior Liberals including Manley.
What is Dalton joining the Conservatives in lowering their Provincial corporate tax rates?
"Other programs, however, appear less beneficial to the average Canadian, according to Fildebrandt. Two years ago, $246 million in EI funds were set aside for special fishing benefits.
ReplyDelete"Rather than reform EI into an actual insurance program, workers are being stuck with the bill for new social programs,” he said."
hmmm
Sounds to me that CPC supporters better stop whining about that whole using the EI surplus to pay down the debt thing. It seems the current government has embraced the SCC decision and has decided to use EI to support a lot more than just EI payments.
By the way, whatever did the Harper government do with the whole setting the rate thing anyway? The SCC told them they either had to pay the money back to taxpayers or retroactively approve the rate set by the Chretien cabinet in the House of Commons. Something tells me they did the latter. Or perhaps my cheque is in the mail???
Gayle lets start with the forty million first.
ReplyDeleteI remember a door knob wielding MP in the cheap seats demanding money for the Lobster industry do you?
It appears the CPC are not as mean or nasty when it comes to cutting off benefits to the most vulnerable. Where is the Jean/Paul compassion?
EI rates during boom times 7.7% in 2002. Look at CMA's with Others suggest that programs such as Employment Insurance may be discouraging the migration of some unemployed from under performing areas to 'hot' labour markets, thereby accentuating the dispersion.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/10107/4096782-eng.htm
The cons decided to under fund EI when they set up the new regime, repaying much less than was recommended, thus ensure rates had to rise.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that there wasn't enough in the cupboard to properly fund the program simply doesn't hold water, a few billion less spent on war, shiny new planes, new prisons and of course corporate welfare and voila more than enough to replenish the EI fund without making the choice to raise the rates.
In the end it is about priorities and choices, and the Cons stink to high heaven.
I am surprised that this is almost under the radar on most news. It is usually just mentioned briefly. I think EI should be made such that the funds cannot be used somewhere else and are strictly for EI only.
ReplyDeleteKev,
ReplyDeleteBCL used CTF and they are complaining about the smaller tax increase?
Check with them on your idea (Lib-NDP-Bloc motion) to increase costs from employers and employees into the EI fund by over 35%
Michael had several MPs skip the vote to allow Conservatives to kill it. Ignatieff is killing many of his own bills on 2nd reading by having 10-20 MPs not vote.
The EI fund can not be used in General revenues anymore unless the Liberals win a majority and divert those funds again.
CanadianSense, You keep ignoring two facts, firstly the Conservatives are the government the opposition are not, secondly as I said earlier it comes down to priorities and EI is not one of the cons.
ReplyDeleteYes tax revenues are finite as is my income. Now I could choose to fix the roof, or replace the 12yr old clunker in the driveway.or help our daughter pay for her education or perhaps go south for the winter.
The first three choices will benefit my family for yrs to come and contribute to the local economy. The fourth will take care of an item on my wish list but will only contribute to someone elses economy.
The Cons connsistantly choose to go south for the winter.
It is long past time to blame everything on the LIbs since the cons have been in office for six years now without an effective opposition. In fact they have enjoyed the benefit of an opposition that has acquiesced to virtually everything the cons have done.
Kev,
ReplyDeleteI am not blaming Ignatieff for his climb down on four ultimatums at the press conference. His acceptance to a Blue Ribbon Panel May 2009.
I am not blaming the Liberal cabinet that were found guilty by the Supreme Court for raising the contribution rate without a vote in parliament 7-0.
I am not blaming the Liberals who made EI more difficult to qualify when they were in power.
I simply disagree with Liberals applying nasty and mean about Conservatives for not repeating those same cuts under the Liberal majority.
Kev you guys can't have it both ways. The CPC have been a 'do nothing' ineffective government since 2006 or they have made some changes good or bad.
Election results since CPC were formed including by elections: voters are sending more Conservatives to Ottawa.
Liberals have lost 62 seats in Ontario to CPC-NDP since 2000.
Actually CanadianSense, I do blame the Libs for failing to stand up to the cons and I most definitely blame them for making EI nearly impossible to qualify for, but just as I blame McGuinty for not reversing Harris's policies, I also blame Harper for continuing Chretien's.
ReplyDeleteHarper has been in power for sometime now so he wears this.
Besides the Cons have been extremely hypocritical on the issue of taxes. One of their first acts in government was to cancel a tax break for the poorest of taxpayers,they also contrary to their promise taxed income trusts. EI and CPP premiums have also risen on their watch and will continue to do so.
While I happen to agree with their decision on income trusts and the need for CPP premiums to rise, what galls me is their hypocrisy and as well as their supporters refusal to hold them to account.
One particular area of concern is that you all seem perfectly okay with Harper gifting several billions of our tax dollars to foreign national corps that are actively engaged in activities that are harmful to our economic and social well being. One would think that you would be up in arms about this, but apparently you aren't
Kev,
ReplyDeleteI don't subscribe to your Chavez-Castro economic model.I also don't expect the Government to create jobs out of thin air.
Hint China and Cuba are walking away from Marxist state ownership model.
You seem to be a fan of blaming corporations for everything. Your pension CPP look into what stocks are being held. Hint it is not a small corner store.
My expectations are much more realistic from all political parties. Take as little as possible from those who earn money and with what you take from us don't waste it on ineffective policies.
Do you think a tunnel for Senators was necessary use of tax dollars?
Rob Ford is correct income for government is NOT the problem. It is the spending and the culture.
Time to fix the culture and redirect the spending. Cuts in all levels to give us a break is necessary.
"...I also blame Harper for continuing Chretien's.
ReplyDeleteHarper has been in power for sometime now so he wears this."
True words, and something that CanadianSense will never admit to. The Libs did what they needed to do in the 1990's to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging. Regardless of her blaming the Chretien government for all the changes to EI and the use of it to pay down the deficit ...we hear nothing from the New Right about what Preston Manning and the Reform Party were suggesting the Liberals do back then to be even more aggressive with deficit reduction.
You attack the Liberals now for this, and I won't say that you're wrong CS ...but the people you now support wanted to go a lot further back in the 90's.
So likewise, you can't have it both ways either. You can't attack the Chretien Liberals now when the Reform-Conservatives including Harper wanted even stronger remedies.
---
BTW CanadianSense, I am impressed that you are staying on topic and debating well, and not attacking personally. Please keep this up.
"Rob Ford is correct income for government is NOT the problem. It is the spending and the culture."
ReplyDeleteI agree. First thing the Harper government can do is cut down on his own caucus - he's running the largest government in Canadian history, and with the largest budgets. Second is stop the $16 billion (most likely higher) F-35 purchase, and go with an open bid purchase of Super Hornets from Boeing. Try to secure as many Canadian jobs with this one. Next is stopping the superjails - the US has proven this does nothing to lower crime rates, but it sure blows your law & order budget.
If the Harper government would start acting like conservatives instead of like the US Republicans, they could get my grudging support.
Kev,
ReplyDeleteYou should be supporting the Conservatives as their track record since winning in 2006 is much more compassionate. Here is an example of the rhetoric vs reality.
These are not the Reform party led my Manning that gave Jean-Martin a blank cheque to gut spending in the 1990's.
Our new PM and party are not the same. Just ask the old reform, fiscal conservatives. Purists are not happy on either end of the spectrum ask Obama about those in the left.
======================
On September 14, 1999, Parliament passed the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act (Bill C-78), which introduced amendments to the laws covering the three pension plans, allowing the federal government to grab the $30.2-billion surplus. The federal government is exempted from the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which limits employer access to any surplus in federally registered pension plans. -Pension Surplus Grab
If we had low inflation, good growth projections, improving job numbers (7.8%) and a balanced budget why did the Liberal majority government enact and pass Bill C-78, was it mean-spirited or just ideological?
Anyone remember the outrage over Nortel on the Hill the last few months?
I did a blog post on the subject October 17, 2010 Union Leadership and Liberals strange bedfellows.
This is why the Liberals are in a tailspin. Our PM is not a hard right fiscal purist. He is a moderate that has firmly taken up centrist policies.
The danger is the public are starting to realize the framing of Liberals by the CPC is working.
The Liberals will sell out to the NDP-Bloc again to regain 24 Sussex.
I am honored to have my hair complemented in such an eloquent post Mr. BigLib. I never thought the day would come when it would mentioned in the same sentence as the fabled hair of Gerard Kennedy and Pablo Rodríguez.
ReplyDeleteYou are resorting to figures not supported by actual facts.
ReplyDeleteEstimates for purchase of 65 planes is $ 9 billion. Repairs $ 7 billion. Ammortized over forty years this is not a big ticket item. The experts and senior Liberals agree with this decision. Ignatieff is repeating the mistakes of Chretien-Donolo with helicopter.
You can all the Liberals on board, the military and other experts. Your talking points could be from Boeing directly. We are six years away from delivery of F35.
"Super prison" again political war room rhetoric that does not withstand scrutiny.
Reports and actual budget allocation of under $ 4 billion. Kevin Page did a report and did an estimate of how much would be spent as a result of changes in 2 for 1.
Care to check Kevin Page on his other reports on revenue, employment, GDP projections?
I applaud revisionist history as parliament passed and ending 2 for 1 has Royal Assent.
I am told by the left crime is going down, our streets are safe and we don't need extra spaces, upgrades in our prison system. The public are being scared by the federal government with fake stats. I am told by the left the long gun registry save lives.
Great news, that 3.5 Billon will be returned in NO new spaces are needed in the next few years.
This government will cut spending if a willing partner shows up.
It is a pity all three want the Federal government to dump 200 million for an NHL arena in QC.
Oops Canadiansense you found me out, I am indeed a Keynesian at heart. I have examined our economic and social well being during the Keynesian period versus the current Chicago School neo-liberal era, and it is no contest as far as I am concerned. Keynes wins hands down.
ReplyDeleteLarge multi-national corporations are not creating jobs in this country, in fact they are shedding them at an alarming rate. It is the small business sector that is creating employment for Canadians and this tax increase will hurt them the most.
As to your contention that I hate corporations, actually I don't.In fact I don't hate at all, it just wastes too much energy. What I do not like however is the inordinate amount of influence that they have over our governments of all stripes. Plus the fact that you and I are subsidizing these highly profitable entities to the tune of billions a year.
Kev,
ReplyDeleteYou should be voting for the CPC than as they spent "like drunken sailors" ask the Liberals.
Kevin Page is worried about transfers to provinces above inflation. Sheila Fraser report on EAP/Afghanistan. AG gave praise to Civil serv/Gov/NGO.
Provinces/Cities/Ottawa met in Dec 2008 and nearly 70-90% will be done in June 2011. An extension for remaining projects already started has been granted.
Are we in a much stronger position exiting this fragile recovery than the last time we had a downturn.
Look at our unemployment and dollar vs the US. Look at our bankruptcy and housing market.
We are close to a deal with Europe ($ 10-12 billion annual)
We have been busy with improving trade in ASIA (Korea, China, India).
Business are using tariff breaks on buying new equipment in Canada. We are going to shine again in 2011. We did in 2010 vs many OECD.
The opposition parties spent the last five years criticizing EVERYTHING and why this government is wrong.
It is NOT working. Check the donors and grassroots. The public is tuning out.
"It appears the CPC are not as mean or nasty when it comes to cutting off benefits to the most vulnerable. Where is the Jean/Paul compassion?"
ReplyDeleteI have never ever said EI premiums should not be used for other things. That would be you guys, who often say things like this:
"You do remember the E.I. fund and the $ 56 billion taken from it to balance those books by your team?"
As for raising the rate in Cabinet thing, are you aware of whether Harper gave that money back? Or did he retroactively OK the rate.
Gayle,
ReplyDeleteAre you asking the Federal Government to cook the books and produce $ 56 billion?
That money is GONE. I am told it was used to balance the books by Liberals on this blog. I provided a link with Bill 78 that did another $ 30 billion in sticking it the middle class.
I could go on with specific examples Gayle but you seem convinced Conservatives are nasty and mean spirited for not repeating the Liberal way.
Clearly the 2008 general election results refudiate that claim. (Yes I used a Sara Palin word!)
It represents the level of truthfulness in your debating of facts.
The spending "drunken sailors" are not acting like fiscal conservatives and as a result in 2010 the Liberals hit 30% only 1x in Angus Reid Polls.
It will be interesting to see the CPC win a majority without big gains in QC. Can the CPC go from 51 in 2008 to 75 seats in Ontario?
What on earth are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteHere is the thing:
The LPC used the EI surplus to pay down the deficit. The SCC said that was perfectly OK. Some CPC types suggested, and are still suggesting, there was something wrong with what the LPC did, notwithstanding the fact that the SCC said it was perfectly legitimate.
It seems the CPC think it is OK too, what with the fact they are doing the SAME THING!
Everything you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with my post - which is pretty much par for the course with you.
The SCC ruled 7-0 against the Liberals raising the rates by the cabinet without a vote in Parliament Gayle. (The whole democracy vs dictatorship thing you raise frequently)
ReplyDeleteCanadians, NDP, Bloc including many labour unions found it offensive for the Liberals to divert the premiums from employers and employees to general revenue.
If that money was left alone the current government would have not needed to move it away from the federal government to an outside body. They are putting distance between it and the Liberal party for the future. (smart move)
EI is an insurance program and it must be sustainable from the perspective of the employer and the employee. The Liberals broke it like so many programs and the CPC have been cleaning up so many messes since winning in 2006.
"The SCC ruled 7-0 against the Liberals raising the rates by the cabinet without a vote in Parliament Gayle."
ReplyDeleteWell duh. That is why I pointed out that Harper had the choice of retroactively approving the rate or giving the money back, and since I have not receieved a cheque I am assuming he retroactively approved the rate set by the Chretien cabinet, thereby legitimizing that rate. In other words - nothing has changed.
That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the SCC also said it was perfectly legitimate for Chretien to use that surplus to pay down the deficit.
And now Harper is using EI premiums for non EI matters.
Again. I have no idea what you are trying to say, but whatever it is it has nothing to do with what I am saying.
Though I love that whole "cleaning up the mess" thing you desperately cling to. Biggest deficit in history - brought about from a recession he did not even see coming. A recession we were largely saved from due to the prudent fiscal management of Harper's predeceasors.
ha ha ha ha ha!