Friday, February 19, 2010

Jack Layton Wants to Stifle the Economy


Jack Layton is making demands on the PM Harper to cancel the corporate tax cuts in the up coming budget to be brought down on March 4 when the House of Commons resumes sitting. Instead he wants the money to go towards more social welfare to help the poor. That's a socialist for you!

" OTTAWA -- NDP Leader Jack Layton asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper Thursday to cancel planned corporate tax cuts and use the savings to spend more to alleviate poverty, particularly among aboriginals and seniors

The two met privately for about half an hour Thursday afternoon in Mr. Harper's Parliament Hill office." (h/t) National Post


I think Mr. Layton is out to lunch here. With corporate tax cuts come expansion, hiring etc. That means more productivity, more employees, in turn more government revenues through income tax, gst etc. Better for the overall economy in the long run. I say to PM Harper and Minister Flaherty, bring on those corporate tax cuts but that's still not good enough for me. I want to see more broad based tax cuts along with spending cuts and for government to get out of the way. Let the free market work. It will help in the recovery and make us a more prosperous country.

If Mr. Layton has his way, it would have the opposite effect. It would actually mean more poverty. More government interference. More reliance on social programs and who would then pay for them?

Did Stephen Harper not once say that "the best social program is still a job?" I think he's right. If Mr. Layton really cares about those he talks about then, let's create the atmosphere for business and industry to create the jobs so that aboriginals and others can work.

As far as seniors goes, yes most need extra help but we can do that as well through our tax system.

BTW, despite that fact I disagree with Mr. Layton on this issue like most issues, I still wish him well in his battle with that dreaded cancer. Get well soon Mr. Layton!

7 comments:

  1. Jack has taken the position companies can afford to pay more without realizing our global trading system permits them to stay in low cost jursidictions.
    The difficulty for most socialists is they want taxes (wealth distribution) to fund social engineering programs they believe will make for a better society.
    Most of us outgrow this idealogy after our first cheque, major purchase,family realizing we are already over taxed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. why would layton carehe lived in subsadized housing and would not give itup for some low income person before he go into politics that tells me he don'treally care and this is all political.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Jack wants more money in the coffers how about the overpaid public sector unions doing their part in helping out with salary cuts or freezes like alot of the people I know in the private sector has taken

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The difficulty for most socialists is they want taxes (wealth distribution) to fund social engineering programs they believe will make for a better society.
    Most of us outgrow this idealogy after our first cheque, major purchase,family realizing we are already over taxed."

    CanadianSense, yes most of us do but Jack Layton seems not to have outgrown it. He's still thinks that's they way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Erick, that's exactly right. Unions are a BIG problem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous said...
    why would layton carehe lived in subsadized housing and would not give itup for some low income person before he go into politics that tells me he don'treally care and this is all political.


    I believe he and his wife were both city councilors in T.O. when they lived in subsadized housing maybe before to but definately during their municiple careers.
    Ottawacon

    ReplyDelete
  7. I prefer to use the term "business tax" than "corporate tax" because it is the same thing. The left has transformed the word corporate into a bogey man type word.

    ReplyDelete

This is my home. I hope you respect it. I will not tolerate profanity or anything that is not suitable for family consumption.