[大选感想]：HARPER重提取消对政党的经费补贴

[cfz]

Wow, what a wonderful example. 说的太好了。拿了人家的钱就要替人办事。捐款不是那那么好拿的。

加拿大联邦预算每年大约是3000亿加元，该怎么花由联邦议会决定，联邦预算案里面加一行减一行就会影响十亿八亿是很常见的。同时每年联邦对政党的补助金大约是3000万。

假如你每年有3000亿交给一个基金投资，请问你是愿意自己付该基金管理层的工资福利，还是愿意由他们向其他人要求捐款来负担他们的工资福利？

如果这3000亿是我的话，我绝对不会允许替我投资这3000亿的人从其他人那里拿钱，因为他们每得到一元，我的投资说不定就得损失十元百元。

 

[ccc]

Is "help sustain a democratic society" not good enough to justify spending these tax dollars? Unless the election rules are changed, I can't imagine how a party other than PC can win an election if the subsidy is canceled. Can you dig out when the $2/vote was introduced and why? Maybe these information can help us understand the matter better. Please ignore my request if you are not interested.

No, not only this.

To be honest with you, I don't have a comprehensive answer to your question. What I thought is that these tax dollars help sustain a democratic society, which is a basis of our country. Compared with countless examples of tax dollars wasted, this is an example of tax dollar well spent.

It cannot be justified as tax dollars well spent because there are "countless examples of tax dollars wasted". This could also be an example of tax dollalrs wasted.

 

[ccc]

It is about $2/vote. I watched CBC "the National" last night. They had a poll on this issue. The result of the poll was a surprise to me too. >70% "support the subsidy", ~20% "oppose the subsidy" and the rest "not sure", so it is difficult to say "另外，PC提出取消补贴，会赢得一些选票".

See this:

Should the taxpayer subsidy to political parties of $2 per vote be scrapped?

<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label>Yes 51.92% (487 votes) </LABEL>


<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label>No 47.23% (443 votes) </LABEL>


<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label>I'm not sure 0.85% (8 votes) </LABEL>


Total Votes: 938

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/04/election-should-tax-money-go-to-political-parties.html

 

[cfz]

Good. This aligns very well with popular voters, and I am not surprised.

See this:

Should the taxpayer subsidy to political parties of $2 per vote be scrapped?

<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label>Yes 51.92% (487 votes) </LABEL>


<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label>No 47.23% (443 votes) </LABEL>


<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label>I'm not sure 0.85% (8 votes) </LABEL>


Total Votes: 938

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/04/election-should-tax-money-go-to-political-parties.html

 

[ccc]

Is "help sustain a democratic society" not good enough to justify spending these tax dollars? Unless the election rules are changed, I can't imagine how a party other than PC can win an election if the subsidy is canceled. Can you dig out when the $2/vote was introduced and why? Maybe these information can help us understand the matter better. Please ignore my request if you are not interested.

这个补贴只不过七年的历史。加拿大在那之前的130多年也是自由党执政年限长啊。到目前为止，自由党执政83年;保守党执政60年。

Some background information:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...11/04/01/cv-election-harper-economy-1029.html

The Chrétien government created the per-vote direct subsidy in 2004, when it banned corporate donations to parties and limited contributions to ridings or candidates to $1,000 per year. Individual donations were capped at $5,000, down from $10,000.

In 2006, the new Harper government dropped the individual limit to $1,000 (adjusted to inflation; it was $1,100 in 2010 and 2011) and imposed a complete ban on donations from corporations, unions and organizations.

See also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_subsidies

Party subsidies are subsidies paid by the government directly to a political party, for example in proportion to the number of seats in the parliament, or in proportion to the number of votes each party got. Often this system is combined with a prohibition of private funding of parties.

It is used in Austria, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Supporters argue that directly providing the campaign funds reduces political corruption, as parties do not need to get "money with an opinion".

Opponents argue that it locks the democratic process and makes the foundation and participation of new parties practically impossible, because of the lack of public funding and the prohibition of private funding.

 

[cfz]

I guess another reason to get tax dollar instead of donation is to reduce the possible corruption as "gocanoeing" pointed out in #43.

No, not only this.



It cannot be justified as tax dollars well spent because there are "countless examples of tax dollars wasted". This could also be an example of tax dollalrs wasted.

 

[ccc]

Good. This aligns very well with popular voters, and I am not surprised.

那么，“PC提出取消补贴，会赢得一些选票"的说法还是成立的。

 

[SuanNiHen]

初步的感觉，是不应该取消对政党的经费补贴。

一个社会里面有各个不同的利益集团。如果政府放任不管，那么有钱人的集团一定在各种竞争中居优势地位，穷人在各方面都处弱势。所以，政府介入各个利益集团之间的一个目标，就是保护竞争中居弱势的集团，努力(不可能完全)使弱势集团有能力和富豪集团竞争。政党经费补贴的宗旨，就是让代表各个利益集团的政党都有基本的运作经费，是这种保护弱势集团的一个必要政府干预。

中国共产党经常拿西方的竞选都是有钱人支持、为有钱人说话，来否定竞选的意义。如果加拿大政府真的完全取消了政党经费补贴，正是向有钱人政府的方向靠近了一大步，落实了中国共产党的指责，更是促使社会不公平的扩大。

这段话读着怎么逻辑不通呢？

中共把老百姓的钱与税拿去，从来不给老百姓报账，任由它花，由不得你穷还是富都得支持，不支持就要你小样的。。。结果反而是民选的西方政府要来落实中共的这什么鸟指责？！要落实也得落实西方百姓的指责才是啊!

 

[没事聊聊]

。。中共。。从来不给老百姓报账，。。。

“从来”？

什么事情都别走极端为好。

 

[cfz]

Many thanks for the info.

这个补贴只不过七年的历史。加拿大在那之前的130多年也是自由党执政年限长啊。到目前为止，自由党执政83年;保守党执政60年。

Some background information:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...11/04/01/cv-election-harper-economy-1029.html

The Chrétien government created the per-vote direct subsidy in 2004, when it banned corporate donations to parties and limited contributions to ridings or candidates to $1,000 per year. Individual donations were capped at $5,000, down from $10,000.

In 2006, the new Harper government dropped the individual limit to $1,000 (adjusted to inflation; it was $1,100 in 2010 and 2011) and imposed a complete ban on donations from corporations, unions and organizations.

See also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_subsidies

Party subsidies are subsidies paid by the government directly to a political party, for example in proportion to the number of seats in the parliament, or in proportion to the number of votes each party got. Often this system is combined with a prohibition of private funding of parties.

It is used in Austria, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Supporters argue that directly providing the campaign funds reduces political corruption, as parties do not need to get "money with an opinion".

Opponents argue that it locks the democratic process and makes the foundation and participation of new parties practically impossible, because of the lack of public funding and the prohibition of private funding.

 

[老闹子]

这段话读着怎么逻辑不通呢？

中共把老百姓的钱与税拿去，从来不给老百姓报账，任由它花，由不得你穷还是富都得支持，不支持就要你小样的。。。结果反而是民选的西方政府要来落实中共的这什么鸟指责？！要落实也得落实西方百姓的指责才是啊!

你说得对。不需要理他专政中共的什么指责。

 

[o&o]

“从来”？

什么事情都别走极端为好。

说说不极端的听听？

 

[cfz]

较个真。这件事上同意PC并不一定选PC，就象我，实际上是很支持PC的＂INCOME－SPLITTING＂的，不过如果我现在投票，我会投LIB。不过广义上说你的分析是对的，如果我们相信这个POLL。看了你的贴子，好象你还没决定投谁的票。在网上讨论会影响你的投票决定吗？好像对我有些影响，有时会被某些支持PC的人PUSH CLOSER TO LIB AND FURTHER AWAY FROM PC。

那么，“PC提出取消补贴，会赢得一些选票"的说法还是成立的。

 

[第N个马甲]

I agree with your opinion "人们支持继续补贴，可能是出于“公平”。因为PC是想从经济上卡死其他的政党", but I also believe this is an excellent example of "Tax dollars well spent".

most well spent indeed!

 

[ccc]

较个真。这件事上同意PC并不一定选PC，就象我，实际上是很支持PC的＂INCOME－SPLITTING＂的，不过如果我现在投票，我会投LIB。不过广义上说你的分析是对的，如果我们相信这个POLL。看了你的贴子，好象你还没决定投谁的票。在网上讨论会影响你的投票决定吗？好像对我有些影响，有时会被某些支持PC的人PUSH CLOSER TO LIB AND FURTHER AWAY FROM PC。

讨论问题就影响你的投票倾向？

只能说明你政治上的不成熟。你看看Election2011！

我投谁的票，不看一件、二件事情、不看一句、两句话。我绝对不受影响。