Site Search

Custom Search

Friday, February 19, 2010

Jack Layton wants more tax and spend

The country is swimming in debt and troubling jobless numbers, but the leader of the New Democrats, Jack Layton, wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to cancel planned corporate tax cuts and use the savings to spend more to alleviate poverty. How typically socialist.

layton081204 Former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Liberal government introduced scheduled corporate tax cuts back in the 2005, and the Harper government adopted and extended the cuts in 2006. For fiscal year 2010/11, the corporate income tax rate is to drop from 18 per cent to 16.5 per cent and then to 15 per cent by 2012.

Jack Layton, however, would like the prime minister to cancel this long-planned tax reduction geared to make Canada more business-friendly and to stimulate job creation. And he suggests we not use that money to reduce the deficit and, by extension, the national debt, but spend it on aboriginals and seniors. Great idea. How could the PM have failed to see such an attractive opportunity? Perhaps he was too busy piloting the country through the troubled waters of the most serious economic and financial crisis of the past half-century.

“The banks and oil companies don’t need the help. They’re not contributing to more innovation in our economy … or employment in our economy,” Mr. Layton said. An economist Mr. Layton is not.

Mr. Layton said seniors could be helped out with “a modest investment.” No doubt they could, but how can helping seniors with taxpayer money be called “an investment”?

It’s so common for left-wing politicians to use positive-sounding pseudonyms to hide unattractive proposals. Thus we have “gays” instead of homosexuals, “climate change” replaces global warming when the planet ceases to heat up and “pro-choice” is used instead of pro-abortion. Now government spending is referred to as “investments.”

Additional financial support for seniors may be an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money, but it certainly is not an investment.

As for more spending (AKA investment) on aboriginals? Good grief, the Government of Canada already spends over $10-billion each year in Aboriginal priorities. And one way or another, our provincial governments spend millions more on aboriginals, not to mention the millions in taxes they don’t have to pay. And how much tax do they contribute? Those “investments” aren’t giving much of a return, are they? At least seniors pay taxes at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, including sales taxes and income taxes.

Someone needs to explain to Jack Layton that “investment” means the use money in the hope of making more money. And that our priorities should be jobs, jobs, jobs and reduce the deficit. His priorities are tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

5 comments — This is a moderated blog and comments will appear when approved. Please don’t resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately, and please do not post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable.

  1. Yeah Jack, we all know that Oil Companies and Banks are the only ones in Canada who pay Corporate Taxes and they don't provide any jobs whatsoever.

    If they were the only ones who did, then I might agree. However, the corporate world (small and large) provide the economic engine of our nation with it's power and it's people with jobs. Assisting them assists in job creation and giving more Canadians disposable income.

  2. That's odd, because the other day Jack wanted that tax money to go to seniors. Perhaps what he meant to say were homeless seniors. Any seniors living in a home needs to lose it before qualifying for Jack's proposed handout...

  3. Jack Layton will never change.

    Silly is as silly does.

    Funny how him and his wife are collecting 2 pay cheques from us

    He does all right for himself.

    I'm tired of NDP nonsense

  4. You one day are going to be one of those burdensome seniors and assuming there will still be an old age pension by then, you would appreciate it.

    Seniors worked hard and paid taxes all their lives; why shouldn't they recuperate something for their trouble?

    Also, explain how banks and oil companies getting tax breaks at the expense of the working class with no job creation or contributions to the community so the executive fat cats can continue earning 6 - 7 figure salaries without sacrifice?

    I would really love to hear a con explain this one.

  5. Ck, what the heck are you trying to say with, "You one day are going to be one of those burdensome seniors and assuming there will still be an old age pension by then, you would appreciate it."?

    Have you been so busy trying to criticize my post and all conservatives everywhere, you've missed the fact that I am a senior.

    As to you comment, "… banks and oil companies getting tax breaks at the expense of the working class with no job creation or contributions to the community."

    Toronto would not be anything like the prosperous city it is if it were not for the jobs banks and the broader financial services sector provide. And ditto to Calgary regarding the oil companies. You comment is, well, silly.

    How old are you? Twelve?