The Shotgun Blog
« Family fare | Main | Al-Jazeera's Back-Door: CBC Newsworld »
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Toronto Star Doesn’t Understand (but that really isn’t news)!
Hearts over at the Toronto Star are bleeding so badly, not enough blood is available for the organs that provide common sense and intelligent thought. Always out on a socialist crusade, today they editorialize that “Tax cuts carry too high a price”.
Can’t you just hear the violins playing? Give me a break!
First, the socialist editorial board at the Star must get over their misguided notion that the poor pay the price for the tax cuts. The Star complains “tax cuts go disproportionately to middle- and upper-income groups”. However, did they ever once consider that taxes are paid disproportionately by middle- and upper-income groups? Tax cuts should benefit those who pay the tax!
Second, a tax cut is not a government expense–there is no price associated with it. A tax cut simply means the government takes less hard earned money away from an already overtaxed people.
Finally, just because a government is collecting more money than it expected doesn’t mean the excess should be spent on social programs. Current government revenues are high, in part because tax rates that are too high, and in part because we have a booming economy. When the economy slows, so will the taxes collected. Social spending should be set at a level that is sustainable over the long term.
Mr. Flaherty, ignore the crazy editors at the Star and bring on the tax cuts! This is one taxpayer who has paid more than his share, and I’d really like a break.
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on October 30, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f3f5d8d8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Toronto Star Doesn’t Understand (but that really isn’t news)!:
Comments
Leftoids are always prepared for class warfare. Actual warfare to free enslaved people is another matter in their eyes.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 8:17:21 AM
Never underestimate just how little the left knows about the economy--which is zip, zilch, nada, rien!
And people read the Toronto Star? You have got to be kidding, right? The only purpose anyone ought to have for that miserable piece of yellow journalism, is just-in-case linning at the bottom on one's kitty litter box. And may the almighty forgive us should kitty catch a whiff of anything less than pussy-like.
Tax cuts benefit the poor--because if anyone cannot afford to pay taxes, it is the poor. If anyone should feel anything for anyone poor--it would be the working poor--because at least they are working.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 8:25:30 AM
The poorest who work pay NO income taxes. But hey do purchase things - so the 1% GST cut WILL benefit them.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 8:31:07 AM
Lady that was brilliant!
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-30 8:39:07 AM
Lady - And people read the Toronto Star? You have got to be kidding, right?
The Toronto Star averages about 400,000 copies sold daily (Monday-Friday)and around 600,000 on Saturday, so there are a few people that read it.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-30 8:40:24 AM
Tax cuts would be nice, but did everybody conveniently forget that we're in debt? One absolute sure way to have more disposable income is to have less debt. Way back when I was a kid, middle aged people would have mortgage burning parties. Once that payment was done with, it meant financial freedom.
I noticed that 40 year mortgages are making a comeback. They were popular in the late seventies just before interest rates hit the roof. I'm in my fifties, and I'll bet you that I could qualify for a 40 year mortgage. That's sick.
Pay the debt, please. And do something constructive with the extra cash. For starters quit sending it to Africa for some dictator to buy guns with.
Posted by: dph | 2007-10-30 8:40:59 AM
"The Toronto Star averages about 400,000 copies sold daily (Monday-Friday)and around 600,000 on Saturday, so there. are a few people that read it."
These figures are not accurate. They include free newspapers distributed by the Red Star to many hotels, whether the guests want them or not. This is done to fool advertisers as to how many people actually look at this crapola.
In the US, most Leftists newspapers have been sued for damages from the advertisers for inflating their actual amount of subscribers. NEWSDAY in New York is a prime example of these liars - but not the only one.
And in Toronto, a city of over 4 million, even these fake numbers are nothing to boast about.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 8:49:37 AM
O'Reilly,
People read in Toronto? They have time to read--after their three our round trip daily commutes?
I bet 10 out of 10 cat owners--who are stupid enough to be conned into purchasing the Toronto Star, line their kitty-litter boxes with that rag.
OK, a few people read it--let's say taliban jack and his twit-wife for two, and counting. Who else do you think reads that junk-food-for-the-brain-garbage?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 8:59:15 AM
Actually I'd like to know the number of bird cages in Toronto.
I'll bet that there are at least 400,000.
Posted by: rockyt | 2007-10-30 8:59:59 AM
dph, you'll get no argument from me on your suggestion to pay down more debt.
My personal preference is a mix of tax cuts and debt reduction. We absolutely need to take care of the debt, but I also believe taxes are too high. Lower taxes can also encourage more economic growth, which can circle around into more tax revenue to put against the debt.
As far as corporate taxes go, our businesses could use the tax cuts to improve their competitiveness, which is certainly needed given our higher dollar.
Debt repayment, personal tax cuts, corporate tax cuts--they're all good!
I absolutely disagree with putting another cent into social programs, which is what the Star is calling for.
Posted by: Dave Hodson | 2007-10-30 9:18:08 AM
obc - These figures are not accurate.They include free newspapers distributed by the Red Star to many hotels
Most hotels in Toronto give their guests the Globe and Mail not the Star. I'll believe the numbers of ABC who have a legal obligation to get them as accurate as possible, rather than from someone who dismisses the numbers with no facts to back it up
View all stories from Apr 16, 2007
News Briefs
ABC reports latest in Toronto newspaper race
In Toronto - battle central for the newspaper wars - the Toronto Star continues to rule the market with the highest circulation, according to a report released last week by the Toronto-HQ'd Audit Bureau of Circulation. For the 12 months that ended last September 30, total average Monday to Friday circulation of both the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star slipped slightly from the previous year. The Star was down 0.3% from 443,024 to 441,879 while the Sun declined 0.6% from 191,824 to 190,593.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-30 9:19:19 AM
In the US, most Leftists newspapers have been sued for damages from the advertisers for inflating their actual amount of subscribers. NEWSDAY in New York is a prime example of these liars - but not the only one.
Newsday did indeed lie about their circulation numbers though to characterize them as "leftists" would be a stretch. How do you explain The Dallas Morning News faking its circulation numbers? The Dallas Morning News is one of GWB largest supporters giving him the first Annual Texan of the Year Award in 2004.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-30 9:28:38 AM
Lady - I bet 10 out of 10 cat owners--who are stupid enough to be conned into purchasing the Toronto Star, line their kitty-litter boxes with that rag.
Regardless of what you use the Star for, if you have a paid subscription you at least do get a copy of the paper, which is a lot more than subscribers to the Western Standard can say.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-30 9:44:38 AM
Back on topic.
Not only would I like to see the GST cut to 5%.
How about raising personal exemptions instead of tinkering with percentages?
Just raise the exemption, say 5000, and nobody can whine that it's only the rich and middle class since it will be lower income-earners who pay less tax.
Of course, he best way would be Alberta's way.
Just raise the exemption to a level that roughly the cost of food, clothing and shelter.
Then slash much of the redistribution bureaucracy.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-30 9:45:16 AM
Regardless of the numbers, the Red Star obviously has many true believers and adherents to the
the strongest, leftist, socialist news disseminator for decades in the city and surrounding areas.
No none should discount the leftist influence they still wield in the province.
For those of us who see no essential difference between the Globe & Mail ideologically and the Red Star, this just crowns reason Ontario is fertile ground politically for Libs,ND's and now Greenies.
Ah, but take heart "Lady" the internet is beginning to make a difference, and when the Red Star editorials weep that tax cuts hurt, working folks on the blogs respond- "BULLSHIT Toronto Star" we want to keep the money that governments overtax us, to spend on ourselves and our families!!
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2007-10-30 9:48:08 AM
Toronto Star known in the trade as the Red Star should not be taken seriously. Globe and Mail known as the Gay Times in the Trade has an agenda,Asper
Papers lack journalistic talent -Canadian newspapers are not worth buying except perhaps a few locals,like the Irving newspapers in Irving owned
New Brunswick, Hill Times, Frank Magazine Halifax NS
feature some of the best writing and real journalists in Canada -Daily News in Halifax known as the Daily Snooze in the trade can be outstanding on occasion -Print edition of the Western Standard is sorely missed -I read many real newspapers daily but they ain't Canadian. Most US Daily's are in fact advertising vehicles and quickly loosing street sales as "paper" editions
experience drastic drops in circulation. We see it quickly and first hand here when Bowaters Mersey Brooklyn NS which produces all the newsprint for the vastly over rated NY Times has a massive drop in production - this electronic media is killing the "paper" newspapers -how sad. Macleod Moncton NB
Posted by: Jasck Macleod | 2007-10-30 10:04:10 AM
I read 3 newspapers per day. None of them are print editions.
* Print editions are full of ads.
* Flyers fall out and make a mess.
* Fingers discolour.
* They don't refold properly.
* Too awkward to clip and file.
* Can't email to a friend.
* They pile up and look awful
* They are heavy.
* They are a pain to recycle.
* They are expensive to produce.
* They are bad for the environment.
At one time I liked to read a paper over breakfast but now I have a kitchen table monitor for that.
Other than lining birdcages and catching paint drops, I can think of no other redeeming value for a print edition newspaper. They are history.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-30 10:41:02 AM
rocky,
I stand corrected.
Bird owners may actually purchase that yellow rag for the same reason as cat owners. But do you think it is ethical to torture bird brains with the garbage they have in their print? At least the kitty-litter boxes cover the material with kitty-litter.
Granted, it could probably be shredded beforehand, and even used to layer in places where people keep their favorite pet rodents. Perhaps Toronto Star could do a Life Section Story on the subject?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 10:55:30 AM
My guess is that of the people who receive the Star, few of them actually read the editorials. Most look at ads, sports and perhaps the local interest stuff.
Plus, half of the population of Toronto can't read English anyway.
The Dead Tree Industry is dying. They know it.
I wonder how their advertisers (who are all tax paying businesses) like the idea that they are advertising in a paper that works to have them forced to pay even more tax. Is that not a lot like supporting the enemy?
Posted by: John | 2007-10-30 10:58:45 AM
O'Reilly,
Yes, it is madness--enough people subscribe to that yellow rag and not enough to the Western Standard.
Perhaps EZRA could do some rethinking. Sure, it is nice to have glossy paper--but when newsprint is still so much cheaper, perhaps a Western Standard Newspaper could revive the Standard in newsprint form? More room for more advertisers as well.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 10:58:51 AM
Some freinds of mine tell me they buy the Star on Saturday for the TV guide, but don't actually read the paper?
Posted by: Dave Hodson | 2007-10-30 11:02:41 AM
Anyone who tells you that your are not over taxed and that you don't deserve a tax break is encouraging you to adopt a philosophy of self loathing and self destructive altruism.
I say it again: The Tor Star has been the single most destructive force in Canadian society....if we read the past lists of invitees to Bilderberg meetings, we notice the Tor Star CEO is an entrenched propagandist for the global elite...a group of powerful oligarchs bent on disempowering and repressing North America's middle class and selling our nation out to UN global government hegemony.
It does not surprise me they propagate ideas which repress middle class economic power...particualrly this masochistic idea that we are not taxed enough and tax breaks are "evil".
GET STUFFED TOR-STAR COMMIES!! GIVE UP YOUR TAX BREAKS BEFORE YOU TELL ME TO GIVE UP MINE!
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-10-30 11:12:28 AM
It is interesting how you can be so right and wrong at the same time. Yes, The Star is worng in thinking of tax cuts as giving away money that is already in the possession of the government and yes, they are wrong to seem to forget that, even if that were true, the money would be just going back to those who paid it in the first place (as if the cuts were a rebate).
But then you talk about "overtaxed people" and claim "tax rates that are too high" and that you are "one taxpayer who has paid more than his share" as if that were obvious. What determines what your proper share is? How much you feel like giving? The libertarians might say so, but the are marginalized nutters (just as their counterparts, the communists are) so we don't need to worry about them. It seems to me that it is pretty unseemly to bitch about how you don't have enough money to buy the summer home or a newer luxury car when other people have no homes and no food. The idea that you are "overtaxed" because you pay taxes to help the worst off just shows you hate people and would rather they be homeless than you be deprived of luxuries. You're ENTITLED to hate people, but don't expect any sympathy.
But if you insist on being heartless and selfish, remember that help for the homeless and the poor is important for you too. Less poverty means less crime. So if you want crime reduction, support anti-poverty programs. Otherwise, your fancy home might be the next one invaded.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-10-30 11:19:35 AM
So I am heartless because I take care of myself, and my dependents and want accountability for how my tax dollars are spent.
Nice troll!
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-30 11:25:34 AM
It's not heartless to ask to keep more of my money. I work damn hard for it, and I'd like to spend it as I choose. You may argue that the best way to take care of the poor is to give them more money through social programs. I would prefer to lower taxes, make the economy better, and the poor will have a better chance at a job.
How much tax is the right amount to pay? Somewhere less than the 46% marginal rate that I'm currently paying in Ontario! And that's just the income tax...
I don't mind helping people when they're down and out, but that help should be no more than the basic necessities so they can get back to work ASAP. I'll help those who cannot help themselves, but I have no use for those who will not help themselves.
If anybody thinks that's heartless, then so be it!
Posted by: Dave Hodson | 2007-10-30 11:38:02 AM
Fact Check,
Fact is, the dollar is going so high, that our main exports are going to become too expensive to our main trading partner--and others as well. If more monies are not released into the canadian economy--and soon--we are going to have a recession, and one that will take a substantial time to climb out of.
There is no doubt that less poverty means less crime--as there is a correlation--not causation. The root of the matter is not in giving more welfare--but in actually keeping the economy strong enough--for long enough--so that people can pay their bills and have stability in their lives.
We are at risk of devalueing our dollar through inflation--then again, inflation can and has been controlled--an over dampening of the market could mean years to get over.
You lefties have to wake up and smell the roses, that money in the economy means more opportunities. More opportunities have to be taken advantage of by those who are ready and willing to work. Taxing more and building more welfare programs is not the solution--never has been--never will be. Work is the single most beneficial social program, and reducing taxes for the working poor, helps them the most.
Sure, the middle and upper will have more--but lets face it, the poor don't want to be poor, they want to be middle and upper income. And, when they get there--which some will eventually--if not most--they won't want to pay the kind of taxes that the middle and upper income earners are paying--you can count on it.
Now, I am all for you giving more to charity. Go ahead, sign off all your paychecks to the tune of what you are going to be save in taxes. I bet you will whine away right now, but when your paycheck comes along, and it is fatter, you will be no more generous than you ever have been.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 11:40:29 AM
You lefties have to wake up and smell the roses, that money in the economy means more opportunities. More opportunities have to be taken advantage of by those who are ready and willing to work. Taxing more and building more welfare programs is not the solution--never has been--never will be. Work is the single most beneficial social program, and reducing taxes for the working poor, helps them the most.
Posted by: Lady | 30-Oct-07 11:40:29 AM
Too MUCH money in the economy is poison too, it's a balancing act. And yes, cutting the GST by 1% point (or completely taking it out as it was originally supposed to happen) would be a step in the right direction.
Tax cuts though that only do affect the upper "crust" doesn't help the ones at the bottom.
My "preferred" choice would be to drop the GST completely and replace it with a luxury tax on homes worth more than 500K, cars more than 45K etc.(and yes, I do pull these numbers out of my ass right now).
This way the lower income classes keep more money in their pocket and the "well offs" won't really feel a difference. There are already a few countries who are doing it this way.
Tax breaks in general and across the board though I consider a mistake, assuming that the economy goes through a cycle sooner or later the Government will not produce anymore surpluses, raising taxes THEN will be way more painful than not touching them now. A responsible Government would put the excess money towards paydown of debt and long term (e.g. infrastructure) projects which the country (and economy) can still benefit when there is a downturn.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-30 12:52:58 PM
How on God's green earth can "too much money in the economy be poison"!?!
You naivists just aren't happy unless everyone is poor.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-30 12:58:18 PM
Epsilon - How on God's green earth can "too much money in the economy be poison"!?!
Ever heard of inflation
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-30 1:03:50 PM
As insane as it is I see the lefties are against tax cuts. Such people are ignorant of how economy works and worse their proposed solutions hurt the poor instead of helping them.
There was also a mention of preference for paying down the debt, but unfortunately it never works out that way. The GST was supposed to be for that purpose which is why I supported it at the time. The reality is that all money the government collects goes into a general pool and it is then too tempting not to use it for other purposes, such as more unnecessary and useless social programs.
Let us be clear that a government surplus means that we, the tax payers have paid too much. Return the money to those who paid it at least through real tax cuts. I also agree that we should be allowed a more reasonable amount on our income tax for dependants. Personally I would much prefer a flat tax which would be more fair and eliminate the need for a lot of tax accountants, but that is unlikely to happen.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-30 1:19:40 PM
Alain - Let us be clear that a government surplus means that we, the tax payers have paid too much.
Interesting point. Would you also argue that if the government runs a deficit taxpayers have paid too little?
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-30 1:25:38 PM
O'Reilly,
Interesting question about deficit meaning taxpayers paid too little.
My answer to that is... "it depends".
It depends upon whether the government spending was set correctly. If spending was over the moon at a level that is not sustainable, then no, taxpayers didn't pay to little, we just spent too much.
I believe that all social spending should be at a long-term sustainable level, and not ramped up and down with the swings in the economy. Doing this can even take some of the peaks and valleys out of the economy, as we may run small deficits during tough times, and pay down debts in good times. Of course, because we're digging out of a big hole of debt from the past, we don't currently have the luxury of being able to run temporary deficits in the bad times. We need to get the debt burden cleared up first.
Posted by: Dave Hodson | 2007-10-30 1:49:56 PM
Good one O'Reilly. It means that they spent more than their means. Any working person with a modicum of financial sense understands what happens when your spending exceeds your income.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-30 1:57:13 PM
Alain - Any working person with a modicum of financial sense understands what happens when your spending exceeds your income.
Yeah, they get their credit card limit increased.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-30 2:02:01 PM
"help for the homeless and the poor is important for you too. Less poverty means less crime. So if you want crime reduction, support anti-poverty programs. Otherwise, your fancy home might be the next one invaded."
Leftoidism 101. Help the poor or we'll invade your homes.
"if the government runs a deficit taxpayers have paid too little?"
Leftoidism 201. Deficits means not enough taxes have been collected.
MALARKEY! It means too many useless programmes have not been cut or eliminated - like spending 3/4 of a billion dollars to teach Albertans French.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 2:05:20 PM
When government runs a deficit--it is because they have not paid their loans--and have overspent. The one does not equal the other--as one is assets, and the other is liabilities.
The Gliberals got us to the point where we are--by spend, spend spend.
But from where I see, the point of lowering taxes at this point, may be because the government can and because they have our money and ought to not tax us to the hilt--but furthermore, because the dollar is getting a little too strong.
Sure, it is measured against the slidding American dollar--but there is a balancing act--and not enough dollars out there, high interest and too high government taxes, raises the anti on the economy, and therefore to remedy the matter, there is a need for government to lower taxes.
Interest rates should follow unless the Bank of Canada is going to commit suicide and take us with them.
Besides, any government that taxes any people more, as the sum of all governments, 20%, is in violation of one of the oldest laws known to humanity. Even in Ancient times, too heavy a tax burden was recognized as being wrong.
It was wrong way back when, and it is wrong now.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 2:28:01 PM
obc,
You know what pisses me off?
I am sure you can come up with a few things--but in particular reference this matter is the leaniency on drugs.
People need to be set straight!
The other day, I walked out of my sanctuary, and there on the sidewalk was a freaking needle, used by some junky, to relieve him or herself of what is the greatest gift of all--their own minds.
This is the product of Gliberal indifference.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 2:30:58 PM
"The Gliberals got us to the point where we are--by spend, spend spend."
. . . and steal, steal, steal didn't help any.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 2:36:03 PM
Yes, they stole what they could not make it appear as though it was legitimately spent.
And then they promised to spend, year after year, and do, year after year, what they never had any inteltion of doing.
So, to rewrite--they went lies, lies, lies, and more lies, spend, spend, spend and spend more, borrow, borrow, borrow, rack up more debt, steal, steal, steal, and steal some more! The, get all morally outraged when they get caught!
No wonder they elected a limp wristed imbecile! They got the kind of leader they deserve! Quick, someone help him raise his white flag!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 2:45:13 PM
And their pompous manner claiming that anyone who is unLiberal is unCanadian.
Treasonous. Hang them all!
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-30 2:46:51 PM
Lady - Besides, any government that taxes any people more, as the sum of all governments, 20%, is in violation of one of the oldest laws known to humanity.
What law does that happen to be?
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-30 2:59:51 PM
...out to dry Epsi, out to dry...
If they don't like it, they can collect welfare for a couple of years, until their ideology finally gets a grip, meets with reality, and they learn which side their bread is buttered...or is that cake?
Right! We're not in France! It's bread.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 3:01:10 PM
Torah, O'Reilly, from where I am coming from, Torah.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 3:02:34 PM
Steffi said today after the announcement by Flaherty,that the conservatives are STEALING 5 or 6 billion dollars from the people by cutting the GST again.That statement tells you all you need to know about how the liberals regard your earned wages.
Posted by: wallyj | 2007-10-30 4:01:32 PM
"But if you insist on being heartless and selfish, remember that help for the homeless and the poor is important for you too. Less poverty means less crime."
Spoken like a programmed matrix fuckhead.
You totally validated my observasion about collectivist statism...you use the fraudulent morality of the kleptocrat...telling me that rational self interest ot my wanting to opt out of the welfare state shake down altogether...is "mean" amd ?evil".
You liberal statist punks need a new pulpit to preach from...trying to sell welfare state self loathing and self destructive altruism to people with a scrap of self respect is a loser.
We are ALL taxed too damn mush...and for no other reason than to buy voter for kleptocrats so they can further degenerate public self respect and self reliance.
The so called "working Poor" wouldn't need your sanctimonious leftard help if they were not impoverished by excessive taxation and regulatory regimes to begin with.
If just 50% of our tax confiscated income remained in our pockets, instead of going to build a larger parasitic leviathan state, the economic benefits to all classes would rival the post WW2 productivity boom.
So take your "morally superior" tax and waste kleptocratic statism and stuff it up your sphincter next to your empty Liberal head.
BTW calling libertarians ( people who want civil/economic `freedom and less government) "nutters" speaks volumes about the degenerate statist cesspool from which your depraved Machiavellian ideas about governance emanate.
Posted by: Bill | 2007-10-30 5:12:31 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.