WATERLOO, ONT. — Federal taxes will have to rise to pay off Canada's burgeoning deficit, but not at the expense of economic recovery, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Tuesday.That stimulus thingy is sure costly. You just can't tax hard-working Canadians and successful businesses enough. Plus such Liberal priorities as McDaycare, foreign aid, Kyoto - those are all cash-guzzling programs... So, if this guy wins - expect more tax grab. And we can almost pinpoint - what kind:
The Conservative Party quickly jumped on Mr. Ignatieff's comments, highlighting them at the top of their website.
“We will have to raise taxes,” but not at the expense of hurting the recovery from this recession, Mr. Ignatieff, on a four-day tour of Southwestern Ontario, told a meeting of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce.
“An honest politician” cannot exclude a tax hike as an option, Mr. Ignatieff said in response to a question from Cambridge, Ont., business leader John Bell, who wanted to known when the federal debt will be paid back.
Stéphane Dion may be gone but his much-maligned carbon tax proposal lingers on among Liberals.So, carbon tax won't be "revenue neutral" any more. It will be a deficit cutting measure. Sooner or later, the deficit will be gone, but the tax will remain, because, as I stated above, Liberal priorities are quite expensive...
The idea was a flop with voters during last fall's federal election but it has popped up again in priority policy resolutions to be debated later this month at a Liberal convention that will officially crown Michael Ignatieff as Mr. Dion's successor.
One resolution, proposed by the Quebec wing of the party, calls on a Liberal government to unconditionally commit to meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets, enacting legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that would include "establishing a carbon tax, a cap and trade system or a combination of both."
Another, proposed by the British Columbia wing of the party, calls on a Liberal government to consider "all mechanisms of investment, incentive and taxation" to combat global warming and stimulate sustainable economic growth.
But how about a spending cut? Back in 2003/04 (just 6 years ago,) program spending stood at $153.6B. Now, with all the "stimulus spending", it has skyrocketed to $229.1B. That's a 50% increase in just 6 years. How about trimming program spending to $200B a year and keeping it there until inflation and population growth catch up?