[Concerned Citizen]

I think we should make it part of our platform to introduce a constitutional amendment that would restrict the government's ability institute new taxes, charges, fees, etc... and require the government get approval from the citizenry in the form of a referendum.

I dont know what it takes to make an amendment but I'm guessing its more than a simple majority. Thus it would be equally difficult to remove as well in theory.  However, proposing it as a change to the constitution would mean we are serious about restricting the government's ability to jack taxes up at will. They will have to make a case for it to the people being taxed.

[Sean Hunt]

Oh, please no.

Rule #1: People hate referenda, particularly on minor issues.

Rule #2: See Rule #1.

This would have a truly disastrous effect if any government wanted to, say, readjust the progressive income tax so that it's even more top-heavy. That would mean that tax is going up for some people, so the government would have to call a referendum, and might not even be in charge by the time the referendum is finished (referenda are held in conjunction with general elections; any more frequently would cost enough to justify a tax hike on its own). Trying to write exceptions as to sorts of tax readjustments and whatnot that do not require referenda, particularly into the Constitution, is a very bad idea.

The other, possibly more-significant concern is that governments would just turn to alternate sources of funding, which are really bad. At best, they'll start borrowing money, and if the government gets a good deal on funds then it may have to give things like our freedoms up in our return...

[Concerned Citizen]

The idea is to stop slathering on taxes onto the citizens like a dagwood sandwich.

Perhaps we should include in the constitution that the government can only spend what it makes perhaps then they'll start shopping around for good deals rather than buying $1000 toilets and stuff.

[Sean Hunt]

Which do you think is more likely: that the current government would cut a Canada Research Chair appointment or would have decided the toilet wasn't worth it?

There are already mechanisms in place (read: the Auditor General's office) in order to ensure that the government is generally making a good deal of its money. The fact that governments do spend money on less-than-useful things is something that will happen to some extent or another, as has been shown around the world time and time again.

[Yehoshua]

While I personally support the idea in principle, I think we should stick solely to those issues around our mandate of transparency and digital freedoms. Otherwise we'll start having fights over abortion, income tax and capital punishment.

[Mikkel Paulson]

I couldn't disagree more. By tying the government's hands in increasing revenue while leaving it to spend as it sees fit, you're just asking for massive American-style deficits. That's not responsible money management. If you don't like the way your government is collecting and spending your money, elect a party that will do a better job of it.

[zenwick]

I couldn't disagree more. By tying the government's hands in increasing revenue while leaving it to spend as it sees fit, you're just asking for massive American-style deficits. That's not responsible money management. If you don't like the way your government is collecting and spending your money, elect a party that will do a better job of it.

And what party that might be since the top four spend money like the United States.  CC is right. It is not just "open" governments since governments flaunt wasteful spending.  See the fake lake in this last summit.  While organizations do get audited.  What we are asking as a people is that we should NOT have the HST for example.  Nor should there be a fee for service in hospitals or how about fees on preventative health care.  This could account for gym member ships etc that gouge the public.  Fees on necessary surgery that the government or people who have lack of knowledge think should not be used like gastric bypass etc.  As for abortion it is always the same type of people opposing it.  Those that oppose it see as "birth control" and believe that it is against their "moral values."   That is not good enough on any level.  When crafting policy and or laws it must always be based on actual fact that is there.

A good example is ethanol.  A lot of people just do not understand it and why would they when people use emotion instead of fact.  Emotions are easier, they do not require critical thought and its easy to justify.  Using this people can justify something like ethanol threatens food supply when in fact it does not.  It is a very viable source of alternative energy etc.

Or electricity.  We can use the alternatives to make production and thus the cost of electricity free and even a human right. Combining this with the above method makes the able generative wattage to be compatible with no shortage thus sustainable and doable for better growth and maintenance.  If we play our cards right imagine a country where instead of these ridiculous fees, laws and taxes we have a free society that makes every other country look like their living in the dark agaes. 

You have to keep these things in mind.  The current governments have failed because those in society are stuck on a certain view and hence the evolution of taxes and wasteful spending.

In order to move forward we need to craft a logical strategy that can be moved forward and this includes looking at all angles on a broad based platform.

Looking at our core platform which is information sharing actually benefits the total economy as it gives people choice and freedoms that never have existed before in our time.  By using the core polices here we can effectively reduce and or eliminate some taxes and fees.  This in turn helps grow the economy and makes us far more aggressive over the global spear.  Use what is available to our advantage to the betterment of society.  That should be key.

[Concerned Citizen]

I know that they flaunt wasteful spending. I will admit that it was a half-assed idea to begin with. However, it could only be made a reality by including in the same amendment limitations on spending as well.

1) The government SHOULD NOT spend more than it makes
2) The government SHOULD NOT be able to create or modify taxes or 'fees' without the consent of the citizens.

As someone said 'There is nothing more permanent than a temporary tax'. Thus we should give the citizens the right to reject new taxation schemes because they will ultimately be made permanent. Income Tax was introduced as a 'temporary' tax to support WWI or was it WWII. The GST was touted as a temporary tax when it was implemented I believe. The ultimate goal of such an amendment would be to FORCE ourselves (since I don't think we'd have a snowballs chance in hell of passing this unless we get a big majority someday) and future governments to 'live within their means'.

Ultimately there needs to be some leeway for genuine natural disasters and what not... But hopefully by the time such things happen it would be that the government has a surplus saved to deal with such eventualities rather than working on deficit spending.

A good example is ethanol.  A lot of people just do not understand it and why would they when people use emotion instead of fact.  Emotions are easier, they do not require critical thought and its easy to justify.  Using this people can justify something like ethanol threatens food supply when in fact it does not.  It is a very viable source of alternative energy etc.

Or electricity.  We can use the alternatives to make production and thus the cost of electricity free and even a human right. Combining this with the above method makes the able generative wattage to be compatible with no shortage thus sustainable and doable for better growth and maintenance.  If we play our cards right imagine a country where instead of these ridiculous fees, laws and taxes we have a free society that makes every other country look like their living in the dark agaes.

I am not 100% certain that Ethanol is the future fuel that we are looking for as a suitable replacement for gasoline. I think that we should be looking at Hydrogen and Hydrogen Fuel Cells as the alternative to petroleum based hydrocarbons for long-haul trips and commercial/industraial traffic. While hydrogen creation by electrolysis of water takes more energy than you get out of it. Storing hydrogen is easier, simpler and results in less loss of energy than trying to store electricity in batteries.

I also agree that emotion is part of the problem sometimes. It is a big part of the problem too. A great deal of those in the 'green movement' have problems reconciling the fact that we need electricity and that nuclear power plants that we could build today are much more efficient have almost no pollution and the fuel that is expended can be reconstituted and brought back to a useful level for further use as fuel. With nuclear power we could easily supply humanity at it's current level plus expansion for approximately 100,000+ years. Even if we work towards much more widespread use of distributed power generation and green energy sources (such as Solar and Wind) we still need a stepping stone between today's coal/gas powered plants and the distributed power generation of the future.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Zenwick, no offense, but I have no idea what you're talking about. CCitizen I understand, although I still think that restricting the ability of government to do its job will end poorly. If you don't like the way your judges are sentencing, appoint new judges rather than implementing stricter minimum sentences. If you don't like the way your government is spending money, vote for a different party rather than implementing a constitutional amendment to keep it in line.

[Concerned Citizen]

Zenwick, no offense, but I have no idea what you're talking about. CCitizen I understand, although I still think that restricting the ability of government to do its job will end poorly. If you don't like the way your judges are sentencing, appoint new judges rather than implementing stricter minimum sentences. If you don't like the way your government is spending money, vote for a different party rather than implementing a constitutional amendment to keep it in line.

The government would ultimately only be restricted IF the people decide it should be restricted. The judge example is analogous but not exactly right. As I understand it there is no means to 'unappoint' judges except maybe if a judge gets accused/convicted of a crime. Thus a judge who is consistently light on certain crimes in sentencing does not stop the light sentencing from happening.

I will agree an amendment would probably be a bad idea. But then any mere law can be overturned by the next party in power. I was hoping to make something lasting so that future parties couldn't just throw away things like they have done with existing and previous 'balanced budget' laws when it became inconvenient. The only way to bind the government is with the constitution.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Forcing a referendum every time the government wants to introduce a new revenue stream most definitely restricts the government's ability to fulfil the purpose for which it's elected because it can't do its job until the next election is called and the question can be put in the form of a referendum.

Once again: if your government does something you don't like, there's already a process in place for referenda. It's called an election. Vote for a different candidate/party.

[hoaxrunner]

A simple solution to decreasing the tax load on Canadians would be forcing the government to borrow from the Bank of Canada, and since the BoC is a crown corp the govt' can give itself the best interest rate it want at or near 0%. This seemed to work for Canada till it became part of the G7 and was forced by the IMF or world Bank, to borrow from private institutions. This is why the national debt increased from $18 Billion in 1974 to the approx. $500 Billion there now, and most of that is interest. The banks wont be pulling in multi billion dollar profits anymore, and we might rub some international bodies the wrong way, but governments main priority should be to the good of its citizens and not the lobbyists who are paid to make the most noise in the ears of MP's.

[Rintaran]

Opening up the Constitution for any reason, is a really dangerous thing to do. To start, Quebec isn't even a signatory to our current constitution, and a lot of provinces have grumbled about the special rights that are alloted to the people of Quebec. We may say we want to open it up to put in a requirement for referendum on tax increases, but then you need to be prepared for numerous rounds of constitution consultations and every province is going to want its say. Modifying the constitution requires the heads of province to approve it, at a very high ratio. It's not something that the federal parliament controls, and although there's a lot of stuff I wish was in there, it would be very difficult to get passed. So, no. I don't think opening the constitution would be particularly good for anyone, even if it would limit tax grabs.

That being said, there are many different ways to do taxes. Generally the most profitable is through "Value Added Taxes" (VATs), like the GST. That's a part of the reason why even though the Cons increased the income tax to "make up for" the decrease in GST, they actually brought in less money. That's a part of the reason why we're running a deficit again, as opposed to having a yearly surplus and actually paying down our debt as we were at the end of Liberal rule. Interestingly enough, the myth of the financially sound conservative is better applied to the Chretien Liberals than to Harper's Conservatives. Weird as that may seem.

Placing restrictions on the ability to raise or lower taxes won't work. Much as Concerned Citizen said:

The government SHOULD NOT spend more than it makes

Expanded, NO ONE SHOULD spend more than they make. How many people here have debt? Even the younger members of this board are probably thinking about college/university and know that debt is about to become a reality for them. Debt is created by spending more than you make, under the rational that some day, we will be able to pay it off. The reality is, with our current systems in place, the government, like the people of Canada, spend more than they make.

By putting in place a law stating that no government can create, alter, or remove taxes without a referendum, we're crippling the ability for things to happen. We would actually be crippling our own platform, namely the guarantee of broadband internet, and the net neutrality platforms. Both of these will in-turn require substantial government spending. The money has to come from somewhere. Cutting program spending, or moving it to different programs is difficult, and sometimes impossible for a government to accomplish. Ask any committee/department what they can cut to save money, and the list is tiny, if at all existent. It's all "essential". A shot in the arm of fresh tax money, like the "minor" increase caused by it becoming HST for Ontario and BC recently, can often give that wiggle room.

If we want to stand by our platform, we're going to have to start to cost our platform. And we'll have to come to terms with the fact that this cost, is in addition to the current budget that the PMO can't currently afford.