Friday, January 30, 2009

Okay. Here’s my amendment that will further stimulate the economy, protect the vulnerable AND cut the budget deficit in half

Photo: Harper implementing budget amendment to increase GST to 7% over two years.

Harper’s budget is being panned by Canadians across the political spectrum, and for good reason. It's a hodge-podge of superficial measures that will lead our country recklessly into debt. Canadians need this budget like they need a hole in the head.

Here is the amendment that I would make to this budget that would serve to further stimulate the economy, protect the vulnerable and reduce Harper’s reckless deficit by HALF:

(1) Stimulate consumer activity over the next two year period by implementing a phased increase the GST, to 6% effective the start of 2010 and 7% effective the start of 2011. This will reduces Harper’s $85 billion budget deficit by $47 billion (or 44%) to $45 billion. Out children and grandchildren will thank us profusely, as we will be living within our means, in the same manner as we expect of them.

(2) Protect Canadian seniors by eliminating Harper’s income trust tax that has resulted in $108 billion of trust tax related takeover activity over the last two years, resulting in over 2,500 job losses and the loss of $1.2 billion in ANNUAL tax revenue.

This measure would restore $35 billion in lost retirement savings by 2.5 million Canadians (including losses by CPP, Caisse, OMERs, Teachers’ and others), and would serve to protect the remaining tax stream paid to Ottawa of $6 billion a year, that along with jobs is, otherwise, very much at risk. Restoring this income stream to Canadian taxpayers and Canadian seniors would provide an immediate fiscal stimulus to the economy, as these people would resume their former consumption patterns and standard of living. Cat food sales would experience a significant decline, however sales of Canadian made automobiles and Alberta beef would improve by a significantly greater amount. Meanwhile pressures on Canada’s social security system by otherwise impoverished pensioners and seniors would abate.

The only downside to this budget is that it would be free of criticism from anyone across the entire political spectrum, except for those who deny empirical evidence (as it pertains to income trusts or the stimulate effects of consumption taxes) and those who deny that Canadians should ever be asked to live within their means.

Bottom line: This amendment would reduce the budget deficit by half, stimulate the economy, and protect the vulnerable. Meanwhile all the other superficial measures of Harper's hole in the head budget, would remain in place, pending his removal from office.


Dr Mike said...

But Brent , what would happen to my shiny coat without the Meow Mix--I hate hairballs.

Speaking of hairballs , I did not notice any of your fine suggestions coming forward from Flaherty`s self-serving panel of elitist advisors--could it be that there may just be a slight conflict of interest here.

Dumping the GST---hmmmm--might that just help sales at Home Depot??

Dumping income trusts---hmmmm--might that just help the sales of Income Plus??

Why are any panels related to these clowns never inclusive of anyone with the will to help the guy on the street??

How many times do we have to say "help us".

How much brain power does it take to figure out that we know what it takes to help us & not some big-assed CEOs from companies not necessarily even owned by Canadians.

I just realized something, our representatives in Ottawa are a bunch of useless bozos with not one independent thought.

Brain farts -- 1,436 , Independent thoughts ---0.

Dr Mike Popovich.

Anonymous said...

hip hip hooray....I 2nd this proposal BUT also want EI fixed so everyone who pays can claim & everyone gets the same amount & everyone can get it after same waiting period.......if the unemployment is not as high in certain provinces then there is a longer waiting period...BUT when someone is out of work they are out of work & they may not qualify for jobs that are available....are EI payments in Ontario really $4300 less than elsewhere ????? & if people cannot claim they shud not be obliged to pay & employers shud not contribute to them.....HEY it is time for a negative income tax that will wipe out EI & all those self sustaining bureaucracies that make things so complicated only to ensure their existence & are concerned for themselves & not those in need....have u seen the salaries of some of those there u b .......clem

CAITI said...


Totally agree with the EI. What could be more socially important than a robust EI system during a long and deep economic downturn. Waiting period should remain as is, however length of coverage and eligibility should be expanded.....and made more equitable province by province, as you point out.

Brent Fullard

Anonymous said...


Strange that according to our Finance Minister, Ontario is the last place to invest, and evidently the last place you’d want to be unemployed in....... are EI payments in Ontario really $4300 less than elsewhere ?????


Anonymous said...

I've alway's had a problem with the service tax charged on the GST. I hire someone to do a job and he includes this tax on his bill, but doesn't forward it to the government. This adds to my cost but there is no way for the government to know he did the job. Big contractors probably have to claim the tax, but thousands of small contractors get away with it. Some will even give a better price to do the job under the table, and don't charge the GST at all. I've often wondered if it wouldn't be better to add a percent or two to the Goods tax and drop the service tax. This would level the playing field. But I suppose this would make things too simple.