HT to Cameron Holmstrom:
How else to explain their threat to kill C-253, the proposal to make Registered Education Savings Plans tax deductible, by fillibustering it in the Senate? Their claim is that the plan would put the government into deficit. Imagine that: The Conservatives actually oppose a tax cut and one that makes perfect sense.
Of course, the Con Artists would not have had this problem if they stopped corporate welfare to energy companies, delayed the GST cuts until it was more fiscally prudent to do so, or enacted revenue neutral income tax reductions.
We're talking $900 million per year. Here's an idea: How about hiring just a few more investigators to go after renovation companies and automobile garages that operate in the black market -- oh, sorry, underground economy. The cheaters cheat Canada out of $10 billion in revenue every year, and that's just at the federal level.
Of course, those fraud artists probably contribute to ... wait, what am I saying???? That's never been proven. Besides, a donation generates a tax receipt and the whole point is to EVADE taxes, not just reduce them.
Need any more proof Harper doesn't have his priorities straight?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
4 comments:
Well, lemme see, I would oppose it becuase it is a money bill passed under the guise of a private members bill with a questionable ruling from the speaker. Any more questions?
If I remember my reading of the BNA Act correctly, the Cabinet has a monopoly only on the introduction of appropriations bills. Tax measures can be introduced by any member in the lower house, Cabinet or not.
If this bill had been introduced in the Senate, it would have been a different story -- the House Speaker would have killed it on the spot.
How is a bill that widens the divide between rich and poor,
a good policy?
-Low income families, still have one option, student loans, going into debt.
-Above average incomes would get a cash reward for doing something they already can afford.
-Middle income families are squeezed out completely.
They earn too much money for their kids to be eligible for student loans,
and their disposible income doesn't allow for a $5000 per kid per year education savings, even with the tax deduction.
Secondly, Canada has an urgent need for workers, trades, tec, medical assistants, lab tecs, nursing aides, framers, masons, etc.
Do we have a lawyer shortage?
IMO, government assistance into education should be directed where the country's present and future needs are.
Institutions like NAIT, where trades and tec courses are offered.
Where students are up and running in 2 years, in good paying jobs.
Making RESPs tax deductible is just one step in making post-secondary education affordable. In the long run, it should be free as it is in Scotland, France and some other countries.
I would be in favour, in the short and medium term, of gearing tuition to a family's income; with wealthy families bearing the real cost of tuition while lower income families would have little or none to pay at all and also no student loans.
But every journey has to begin with a step. Bear in mind, this measure would not be a permanent tax write off; it would be a tax deferral. The government would get the money back at a later date.
Post a Comment