April 02, 2015

Question of the Day: Do you believe Joe Oliver's balanced budget promise?

Emily PrattRebel Correspondent

The Conservative government will table the budget on April 21. We hit the streets to see what you think about Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s balanced budget promise.

What do you think?

Do you think Oliver will be able to deliver on that promise?


JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-04-04 16:10:33 -0400
Bob, check out Brian’s, “Why is the NDP obsessed with universal childcare when Canadians don’t want it?”, it might clear up a few things. And go to cpac and listen to a House or senate committee debate on the issue.
commented 2015-04-04 13:57:59 -0400
I’m done Bob,every one else knows how to insert a link into a thread. I don’t know why you can’t. I can’t find your numbers so how can I debate you about them. Thanks for the advice on broadening my info sources. If I limited my sources to ctv, and cbc I may be as confused as you are. Hey its been nice.
commented 2015-04-04 12:46:21 -0400
Liza, I believe I’ve figured out why we are going in two different directions. You and others only spend time on sights like this, which is fine ; I also enjoy it. The fact is that the politician speak to the mainstream media like CTV and CBC which is where I get these numbers. I don’t tape these interviews and speeches as politicans might change their minds the next day. My numbers are straight from the Newsperson or Politicans mouth. You will see this on budget day unless they anounce a change.
I only mentioned the BC $53 gift for people with small children because you seemed to feel sorry for single mothers and this money may help them.
You are correct in saying that Income Splitting has nothing to do with single mothers, however the numbers that I provided are the 2nd part of the child care plan as given by Joe Oliver.

commented 2015-04-03 22:36:10 -0400
I don’t know where you got that from my post, don’t know if you are an empathetic person or not.
You might want to provide a link for those numbers.
I’m not sure what you are referring to because you don’t actually say or provide any place to look.
All I can tell you is that single mothers are NOT and cannot be included in the fed. income splitting tax break, because they are single, as in they have no one to split their income with!!
You are showing numbers for another program.
Just post a link to an article so i know what you are talking about.
You do know Christie Clark is a Liberal premier, and I thought we were talking federal tax breaks?
I really can’t keep up.
commented 2015-04-03 21:54:00 -0400
Lisa, you guessed it, I am not a good person regarding empathy, especially in cases where the problems were brought on by their own choice. The 2nd half of the new program gives $65. a month to everyone with a teenager. I’m sure single mothers are included. The last part gives another $65. to parents with kids that already receive $100. I don’t know why that wouldn’t include single moms also. B.C.’s Christie Clark announced yesterday everyone with a child under 6 will receive $53. a month. She obviously does not understand that Federal and Provincial Taxpaers are the same people.
commented 2015-04-03 20:10:46 -0400
I’m sure the budget will be balanced or a reasonable reason why not.
Businesses and consumers are in for a period of hard times as food has been steadily rising and the quality has not gotten better.
Time some people got the message. Alberta included.
cc. to Ontariowe
commented 2015-04-03 12:51:57 -0400
Bob therein lies the difference between the left and the right. The left has to make someone suffer to make someone else happy. The right budgets so that programs can be implemented, without too much upheaval. Your taxes won’t go up to make the income splitting program viable.
Conservatives budget and grow the pie. Socialists are too lazy to grow the pie, and try to convince us that there are only so many pieces of the pie to go around. You just have to bake more pie! And budget for when ingredients are hard to get. Simple. Bob, single mothers can’t income split, they are single. But there are programs in place for them already.
commented 2015-04-03 12:07:10 -0400
In other words Bob, you have no evidence to back up your claims. Just as I expected.
commented 2015-04-03 11:01:44 -0400
Lisa, I realize you don’t receive a cheque for $2,000 re Income Splitting; this is what you save in your taxes. However when you don’t pay this to the Gov., the rest of us have to. The Gov. can’t do the same things as last year with less money.
Peter, I got my info. from Joe Oliver on both National News networks in his Dec. 2014 speech. How can I give you confirmation of this as it is in the Apr. 21,5015 Budget which hasn’t come out yet. Lisa I like kids also, only I believe Parents or Single Mothers should have at least 2 nickels to rub together before multiplying their poverty.
commented 2015-04-03 09:40:51 -0400
@ Liza (and Bob pay attention) – “Show me that Harper spent 4.3 billion on rich families. Post it here for me to see.”

I already asked Bob to explain that with facts … heck I would even be happy with a solid logical argument, but nope. Nothing. Just talk.

Bob, read my post just before this one. Evidence Bob, evidence. A sound logical argument? Anything to support your claims that Harper over taxes us and that income splitting helps only the upper middle class and rich people.
commented 2015-04-03 01:46:36 -0400
Ron , Alberta does not count. Redford, now Prentice are very far removed from anything Conservative, They are liberals in Conservative clothing, not even. Forget about Albeta and conservatives in the same sentence until there is a huge shift there. Not the same as the federal conservatives at all at all. Alberta gives respectable conservatives a bloody bad name. Forget Alberta and conservative in the same sentence.

Bob, income splitting is tax relief. No dollars are expended in its implementation. Families don’t need it? You got kids? Harper has implemented a whole lot more tax cuts and tax free incentives to save than the liberals could ever dream of. The surplus wasn’t given to a small group. It wasn’t given.
You do the homework, post here the stats. Show me that Harper spent 4.3 billion on rich families. Post it here for me to see.
commented 2015-04-03 01:12:26 -0400
Have you two been out of the country; everyone has been going through these numbers for a year? Liza, of course surplus is great, (I only wish the Provinces knew that) but the PM took the 4.3 billion surplus and gave it to a certain group instead of reducing taxes for all of us taxpayers. If JT becomes PM , he is going to reverse Income Splitting because it mostly goes to families like his and Harpers, that do not need it. I am a fiscal Conservative but definately not a Social Conservative.
commented 2015-04-03 01:02:17 -0400
Liza I think the PC’s forgot to do that in Alberta. That is another reason why I don’t think there is any difference between any of the parties. They just want power and our money. Too simplistic?
commented 2015-04-03 00:56:17 -0400
To put it another way: If you were a betting person , how would you place your money – for or against balanced budget. I would place mine for balanced budget.
commented 2015-04-03 00:36:41 -0400
Bob. You will have to prove that the surplus you are referring to was taken by over taxing. What tax? GST? Income Tax? Did Harper increase the GST to get that surplus? Did Harper increase the personal income tax to get that surplus? Please provide evidence, not just blanket statement with no basis. And while you at it explain how income splitting only benefits the upper middle class.
commented 2015-04-03 00:30:26 -0400
“Every newspaper and Financial Professor in the country”, bob?
Surplus is good, and means something was done right with your tax money.
Liberals live paycheck to paycheck, or more like from advance to advance. Conservatives try to keep a surplus, you know for those rainy days, when oil prices fall for example ,so you can still deliver a balanced budget.
Supporting families is good. Weren’t there other perks , I forget what, I’d have to check. Flaherty didn’t think it was broad enough, I remember that. It seemed to me a good break for those with many mouths to feed, clothe, etc.
Take it away Peter.
commented 2015-04-03 00:10:32 -0400
I don’t know a lot about that Ron. It seems to me that from what I’ve read, that Flaherty was trying to find a balance between fair corporate taxation and investor. The investor got caught out. I think I can understand your consternation, but I don’t know all the facts.
commented 2015-04-02 23:54:30 -0400
Peter, There was a surplus of over 4 billion. That means we all paid more than we should of in taxes, but Harper dispite Jim Flatery telling him not to, gave it away in Income Splitting and more money for the 12% with children. Every newspaper and Financial Professer in the country agrees this was a bad decision.
commented 2015-04-02 22:52:04 -0400
To answer Liza I would say yes especially since the minister had said previously he would not change the tax regimen for income trusts. Many investors were caught by surprise at this sudden reversal. Elderly folk had invested heavily in the trusts for the income and saw their valuations killed overnight.
commented 2015-04-02 22:12:35 -0400
“I’m waiting with Peter to hear what Bob’s misconception is all about.”

Liza, I doubt either one of them will post a reply. This is the tactic of so many like Bob Egli & Ron Zager do. They post a lie or some other inflammatory comment and when are asked to explain themselves, all you get is silence. Then they go to another article and do the same.

It’s a game to them as they could not respond with an intelligent answer in any case. This tactic is done all the time on places like the CBC where the left wingers love those types of drive-by jabs. It really is too bad as I would like to have an intelligent fact based debate with some of the left wingers who do this. Ask them to explain themselves and they run away like scared little children.
commented 2015-04-02 22:08:13 -0400
Not sure what you mean Ron. Z. By previous guy, you mean Flarerty? He did impose a tax on income trusts, did you think it was a bad thing?
commented 2015-04-02 21:31:48 -0400
Ron, you a corporation?
A type of corporate structure as designated by the Canada Revenue Agency that operates as a profit-seeking corporation. This type of company pays out all earnings to unit holders before paying taxes, and is usually traded publicly on a securities exchange. In 2011 all Canadian income trusts lost their special corporate tax privileges, and were required to be converted into traditional corporate structures.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/canadianincometrust.asp#ixzz3WCnjQrJu
Follow us: @investopedia on Twitter
I’m waiting with Peter to hear what Bob’s misconception is all about.
commented 2015-04-02 21:18:45 -0400
Okay Bob Egli, I will bite. Please explain how Harper has given all our tax dollars to 12% of the upper middle class couples with two kids.
commented 2015-04-02 21:01:20 -0400
I hope he is better than the previous guy who said he would never tax income trusts.
commented 2015-04-02 20:48:03 -0400
It doesn’t matter as Harper has already given all our tax dollars away to 12% of the upper middle class couples with 2 kids. We don’t count as we just pay their bills.
commented 2015-04-02 20:39:33 -0400
Certainly hope so! Every govt from municipal to the federal should have to run either a balanced or a surplus budget every year!
commented 2015-04-02 20:21:54 -0400
Why don’t we wait and see.
commented 2015-04-02 19:48:38 -0400
Oliver and Harper will deliver. Something most provincial gov’ts won’t or can’t do.
commented 2015-04-02 18:03:44 -0400
If Trudeau gets into office, then he will do as his dad did:
1) try to find a way to rape Alberta even more than now … “The New and Improved National Energy Program” … targeted specifically at Alberta’s oilsands. “National” my -.
2) spend, spend, spend and get Canada into massive debt, just like Pierre Idiot Trudeau.
3) talk “sweet nothings” to communist regimes and dictatorships.
4) and finger the West both literally and figuratively.
I am sure I am missing some points.
commented 2015-04-02 17:54:14 -0400
Lets see all the government workers are keeping there jobs and benefit.But all funding that private sector workers depend on to keep there jobs will be slashed. Bet the dead wood Cbc will keep there money while the private Sun was tossed to the curb. Same will happen all over Ontario. All tax dollars shoveled into the public sector jobs while all of us will have to bite the bullet.