Friday, June 30, 2006

Gone Shopping

I don't know about you, but I'm hitting the stores today to save my 1%!!!

With Stampede around the corner, I need a new outfit and the prospect of saving 1.64$ on it is too much to pass up!

posted by calgarygrit at 2:07 p.m.

19 Comments:

  • I'd sumbit that someone buying a $45,000 new car or a $750,000 house will not care one iota, since obviously they had enough money in the first place. (Never mind that most people are not buying such big ticket items without substantial financing, lease, or mortgage, in which case things like rising interest rates are of far greater significance.)

    By Blogger JG, at 3:07 p.m.  

  • I wonder if they'll get complaints from restaurant servers. For people who are bad at math, the easiest way to calculate a roughly 15% tip is to double the GST. I imagine lots of people will keep doing this, cutting wait staff tip incomes by about 14%. So those are a few votes that they'll lose.

    Yes, I'm kidding.

    By Blogger Dale, at 3:27 p.m.  

  • And for those folks who will sign on the dotted line tomorrow for a $45,000 new car or a $750,000 house (or a Vancouver condo !) . . . do you think they will appreciate the 1% saving ??

    Luckily the number of people buying $750,000 houses is low enough that we can afford to risk losing their vote. And if the CPC thinks it can buy peoples votes with $450 with the purchase of a new care, more power to them.

    By Blogger KC, at 4:31 p.m.  

  • First, anyone who has had to pay tax on a car in the last year is a sucker.

    Second, How many elections were there between 1993 and 2005? Enough to vindicate the Liberals for the change of tune on the GST cut. Hell, Sheila Copps even resigned her seat and ran in a by-election over the issue, and still won. It became obvious that the GST was a "good" tax.

    The 1% cut to the GST is the same as doling out $1200 a year to everyone with a child under 6... a shameless and cynical purchase of votes.

    By Blogger Robert, at 6:37 p.m.  

  • The GST applied to financial services cost retired Canadians about one billion dollars a year. Lowering the GST from 7 to eventually 5 per cent will save them a few hundred million. Great for people on fixed incomes-and a good political move as seniors vote!

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 8:38 p.m.  

  • What the Puck: You must remember that Liberals had cut the income tax, which the Conservatives reversed to pay for the GST tax cut, and the 100 billion dollar tax cut made in the year 2000.

    Liberals just hate bad policy. As an economist, the GST cut before Income Tax, disrupting the tax balance in the wrong direction, must make Harper cringe.

    An income tax cut is always better, since the cut isn't regressive, and is equally applied to all earners, instead of favoring the rich as the GST cut does.

    By Blogger Concerned Albertan, at 8:43 p.m.  

  • Everyone knows the GST cut is good politics and bad policy. Including Harper.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 12:58 a.m.  

  • Have you purchased a new car or new house in the last few years? I suspect not. Saving 1% on a new car or new house means you can go for that extra upgrade or 2 you would of otherwise been unable to afford.

    No, being a graduate student I am generally not in the market for new cars or houses. And how do you think most people pay for these things? Cash? The savings for the $45,000 car amount to a whopping $450, so if you're leasing or financing, then it may make only a marginal difference - interest rates will still be the most important factor, as they will be for mortgages.

    As for those who can buy big ticket items in cash, well, either they're already voting Conservative or they aren't for reasons unrelated to their pocketbook, which, it seems, is pretty full.

    By Blogger JG, at 1:15 a.m.  

  • "Luckily the number of people buying $750,000 houses is low enough that we can afford to risk losing their vote."

    Wow Kyle. One day someone will have to introduce you to that thing called "the middle class." Or else you can come to Vancouver. Either or.

    By Blogger Peter Rempel, at 3:52 a.m.  

  • Wouldn't housing prices and car prices just go up accordingly?

    The market for housing is so high right now that I assume people can just tack a little extra on to the asking price, since the demand hasn't been cut 1%. I guess that's still a plus if you're selling your house, but I have doubts how much it will really help people buying houses or cars.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 2:25 p.m.  

  • calgrit: precisely. There's some truly bad economics going on in here; the shift is simply going to mean that the price of big-ticket items will shift upwards (thanks to low price stickiness) in order to compensate.

    In the meantime, of course, that nudge upwards of income taxes from where the Liberals had set it will almost certainly ring alarm bells when the middle class do their taxes next year.

    (Hence the reason, I suppose, for all the rumors of a spring 2007 election. Having the election before people find out that their taxes went up is a very good idea. Kind of like how Dubya has ensured that the nasty economic effects of his policies are delayed until AFTER 2008.)

    By Blogger Demosthenes, at 3:18 p.m.  

  • That 1% adds up, and I'll take it. I can use that $2000 to get a bigger TV or a sweet iMac setup. I'll save some money there, which I can use to buy a coffee or go see a movie.

    Great, so you could get a bigscreen and a computer, while I get to pay more income tax. Not only will I pay a higher rate on any taxable income, my basic personal exemption will drop too. Or have none of you factored that into your GST "savings"?

    By Blogger JG, at 6:28 p.m.  

  • Are you sure about the personal exemption?

    Yes, unless the CBC is mistaken.

    By Blogger JG, at 11:06 p.m.  

  • Now, now, you're being awfully hard on feudal lords, who, much as they required the loyalty of their peasants, were also required to protect them.

    Anyway, Puck, I'm glad that you're happy benefiting from government largesse and redistributive policies. I don't have the least bit of trouble with them on principle, but some of your compatriots on the right do... still, a bad tax cut is still bad.

    By Blogger JG, at 1:22 p.m.  

  • I love seeing you guys squirm when another party keeps YOUR party's promises. But while we are being petty, Why not bring up this one.

    Iggy and his supporters relieved

    By Blogger trustonlymulder, at 3:06 p.m.  

  • Um... Puck? You're benefiting from said redistribution right now. That's what this child care benefit is. Redistribution. And you're against it? By all means, return the money to the government.

    Incidentally, redistribution means that, though we do not pay the same amount in taxes, we benefit (more or less) equally from government services and income transfers like the child care benefit. So either put your money where your mouth is, or stop claiming that you're opposed to redistribution.

    By Blogger JG, at 12:01 a.m.  

  • Well, since you're evidently in a lower tax bracket than my dad, I suppose he should be complaining about hypocrites like you who "oppose" redistribution rhetorically, while inventing specious reasons to justify your benefiting from government programs.

    We all have to pay taxes - your assessment of how much we should pay is irrelevant to whether you are benefiting from redistribution.

    By Blogger JG, at 12:14 p.m.  

  • Hey,

    I saved a few bucks this weekend.

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 11:30 a.m.  

  • Wow.

    You Liberals jut scream cognitive dissonance.

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 11:51 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home