 |
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:22
|
|
I was suprised to not see anything on this
quote:
Goodale budget delivers billions in new spending and tax cuts
Last Updated Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:06:28 EST
CBC News
OTTAWA - Finance Minister Ralph Goodale delivered a broad-ranging and balanced budget Wednesday, including almost $13 billion for the military, $5 billion for a national child-care program and another $5 billion for the country's cities.
Ralph Goodale and Paul Martin make their way to present the federal budget.
INDEPTH: Budget 2005
The budget also accounts for billions of dollars promised to the provinces and territories in two agreements signed in the fall: the $41.3-billion health care deal, and the $33.4-billion agreement on equalization payments.
With all the money going to those two programs this year and next, the government is still predicting surpluses for those years, but it says those surpluses will be modest.
And given an ambitious social agenda, Goodale has turned to a five-year framework, something Paul Martin avoided when he was finance minister, because there is so much uncertainty in forecasting so far ahead, said TD Bank economist Don Drummond.
RELATED STORY: Harper pleased by budget, won't bring down government
While the five-year approach provides an amount of certainty to Canadians, Drummond said it "ups the risk quotient" politically if the government isn't able to deliver.
Political scientist Antonia Maioni sees the budget as moving ahead on Liberal promises – the budget is sub-titled "Delivering on Commitments" – and reaches out to the constituencies of the opposition parties.
"It's not an arrogant budget. It's a minority government budget," she said.
Goodale threw out a few surprises aimed at taking the wind out of opposition criticisms.
Chief among them, a number of tax measures for both personal and corporate income.
Businesses in Canada received notice that their taxes would be cut, although not for another three years. The finance minister pledged to reduce the general corporate tax rate from the current 21 per cent to 20.5 per cent in 2008, 20 per cent in 2009 and 19 per cent by 2010.
Goodale's plan also calls for the basic personal exemption on income to rise to $10,000 by 2009. The deduction level for 2004 is $8,012.
Ralph Goodale presents the federal budget.
"When fully implemented, this measure will remove from the tax rolls more than 860,000 of Canada's lowest-income taxpayers," Goodale said in his budget address.
Goodale also delivered on a promise to bolster Canada's military with 5,000 regular troops and 3,000 reservists. In all, the budget outlines $12.8 billion for the military over five years, including $2.76 billion for equipment such as helicopters, trucks and utility aircraft.
And a week after the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, Goodale promised $5 billion over five years, $3 billion of which is new, and $1 billion is directed at projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
YOUR SPACE: Send us your thoughts
The Liberals present the 2005 budget as a balanced one, but built into it is something they call an underlying surplus – made up of a $3-billion contingency fund and $1 billion for "economic prudence."
If the $3 billion contingency reserve remains unspent, it automatically goes toward paying down the national debt, which stands at just over $501 billion.
TYPICAL TAX SAVINGS 2006 2007 2008 2009
Single income earner $16 $32 $96 $192*
Family: One income earner, one dependent spouse $29.60 $59.20 $177.60 $355.20*
Family: Two income earners $32 $64 $192 $384*
*at least
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:22
|
|
My feeling is that the Liberals did what they felt thay needed to do in taking most of the more palatable and popular parts of the Conservative agenda. With the Conservatives saying they will not topple the government and nobody screaming too loud, the budget probably achieved its goals.
My fear though in a minority situation is that the constant need not to do the unpopular may mean that hard decisions don't get made
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
I'll save $16 next year in taxes?
Praise the lord... |
While I agree that a 16 dollar saving is a "so what", it was better than the tax INCREASES I experienced not so many years ago
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
I'll save $16 next year in taxes?
Praise the lord... |
You could save more, though, since they're upping the RRSP contribution limit. And thankfully they're also doing away with the rediculous foreign content restrictions in RRSPs.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dejon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by St Leo
Summary:
- Conservatives content
- NDP pissed
- Ontario Liberals pissed
- Bloc pissed
Synopsis:
A Liberal-Conservative coalition of DOOM that will kill us all. |
Makes sense though, doesn't it? This will likely return Liberal voters who went Conservative last time. The "pissed" parties aren't really as much a concern, I think.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by St Leo
Summary:
- Conservatives content
- NDP pissed
- Ontario Liberals pissed
- Bloc pissed
Synopsis:
A Liberal-Conservative coalition of DOOM that will kill us all. |
I don't know about "doom"-- The Libs just seem to be going middle of the road with "lets not offend anyone with the budget attitude"-- If policies leaning toward the right wing of the Liberal party are your idea of doom -- well so be it .
There's a lot in this budget I like ( this admitted very grudgingly). I would have liked to see a more solid commitment to debt reduction but the reality there is that growth and balanced budgets would reduce the debt as a proportion of GDP anyway.
I like the additional military spending. I hate the use of force but if Canada is going to have a military we need to spend enough to equip and train them properly.
I love tax cuts-- wish they were bigger but understand the prudence of staged cuts
Interesting that both the Conservatives and NDP singled out student assistance as needing more money-- This could be a likely area for an amendment.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
I think it's a pretty solid buget, all things considered. There's no way they could possibly please everyone, but I think it hits on the major points.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by optimus2861
About the only thing in the budget I find praise-worthy is the military funding increase, and even that has to be regarded as just a beginning. We've got a long way to go to put our armed forces back in order, and a lot of the blame for their sorry condition lies squarely at the Liberals' feet for starving them of funding over the past decade. |
Just curious but what would YOUR "dream budget " look like. This one looks middle of the road with a sprikle of everything. Where would you focus??
Oh and I remember that Mulroney election-- wow the country had a hate-on for him-- The funny thing is that the things he was so hated for-- NAFTA and the GST stand out -- are still in place even after a decade of Liberal rule.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Garth Vader
I thought the big thing people hated Mulroney for was the out of control deficits.
That's why I don't have any major complaints about the Liberals. I don't like the sleaze, but at least they are doing it within budget. |
True-- The PCS would say a balanced budget and then when the dust settled it would be a 10 billion deficet. If they budgeted 20 billion in the red, it was 30.
Now its the opposite. heck they project a suplus even with a contingency fund in place and then exceed expectations.
My question is whther that has much to do with the Liberals or has more to do with changing world circumstances that have led to major growth for Canadian industries EDIT-- obviously the better forecasts are government but do you think they are the cause of the surpluses ( would not much of say the energy development have occurred e regardless of the government ( with the possible exception of the NDP who might shut it down))
|
|
|  |
 |
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000 time: 01:22
|
|
I didn't say it was a bad budget, just that I didn't find anything really praise-worthy aside from the military funding. Mostly I'm just indifferent to it.
Spending cuts to federal bureaucracies and crap like the gun registry would be my first order of business. Liberals will never kill that boondoggle, though, since Toronto seems to like it or something.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000 time: 01:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Garth Vader
I thought the big thing people hated Mulroney for was the out of control deficits. |
Bah -- the Liberals before him were running ever-increasing deficits themselves. Nobody seems to remember that Trudeau never balanced the books.
It was the constitution that finished him. If he'd let it go after Meech Lake he might've fared better, but Charlottetown just became an opportunity for all of Canada to tell him to get bent in that referendum.
Although, we're still left with a constitution that Quebec hasn't signed, and the Liberals don't seem to care about that detail.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002 time: 05:22
|
|
I was surprised at this budget. I expected it to be far more lef-wing to cater to the NDP and Bloc, but it was surprisingly centrist... even right wing (ish) at times.
Martin is a great example of talk one thing, do another.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by St Leo
quote: Originally posted by optimus2861
Spending cuts to federal bureaucracies and crap like the gun registry would be my first order of business. Liberals will never kill that boondoggle, though, since Toronto seems to like it or something. |
It's not really worth killing. The billion that was spent was all up front. The actual maintenance cost is low, and killing it would make the billion dollar investment a write-off. |
In addition, killing it highlights the issue once again. While it still smolders, I can't see the Liberals wanting to bring any attention back on the gun registry.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Flubber
To me its a simple question of adequately training and equipping your military if you plan to have a military. I do see some value in having a skilled if small military force.
Invasion is not likely but no navy for instance would mean that foreign fishing boats could rape our waters even more than they do now. |
I think beyond that part of being a peaceful and well respected nation is having the capability to initiate and maintain peacekeeping operations. We should have both a larger and better equipped armed forces to do this. For example, I'd love to see Canada take the reigns on the whole Darfur crisis and be able to drop 1000-2000 troops over there and be able to sustain them for a while, obviously in conjunction with other countries. And if we're going to send our troops into a potentially dangerous situation, I'd like to see them have top-notch equipment, like good trucks, APCs, transport planes and communication equipment.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|