Which party leader is most fit to run Canada's economy?

It really comes down to who you think can spend your money better. You or the government. If you believe that a government body is better at allocating your funds that you vote NDP or Liberal. If you think you are the best judge of your money then you vote conservative.

On the economy right now Canada is doing extremely well compared to other industrialized nations. Some of this relates to banking regulations set up in the Paul Martin era that have carried forward. Some of this is also due to Haper's government enacting quick measures to stave off a PIGS style crash. So on looking after the economy Harper has to get the nod as the other two are unproven quantities and its fairly obvious that Harper hasn't done to badly. The current course is obviously working so why would we switch?

I also find the Liberal decision to spend spend spend very disconcerting. From everyting I have read Canada is recovering nicely. This doesn't mean people aren't suffering but it is getting better for everybody everyday. It wouldn't matter if I was a student, a parent or an elderly person I just don't believe in having my vote bought for a small chunk of $$$ now when I know it will cost me in the future.

So I guess its go Conservatives for me.

Conservative govt of Stephen harper has given a lot of tax cuts to big businesses and the richest strarta of the canadian people. On one hand, billions of dollars of tax cuts but on the other hand the top or near top executives of these big corporations got millons of salaries and benefits. The result is, the common people are struggling for survival but big corporations are making record profits.So for as the spending of public money is concerned, the conservatives spend on giving benefits to the rich, Jets, foreign military interventions, etc whereas the NDP and to some extent Liberal, want to spend that money for the benefit of the common and struggling people of Canada.
Hence, I would suggest the vote for NDP in this election.

Chanan

You do realize that most of the big businesses are owned by middle class investors right? Also businesses both big and small are getting the tax break and pretty much the entire population is employed by a business.

Also the Conservatives cut GST from 7% to 5%. That helped the middle class mostly and had little effect on wealthier individuals. Also they reduced the $17,000 to $40,000 federal tax rate from 16% to 15%. The top marginal rate (income taxes on income over $125,000) stayed the same at 29%. This hardly looks like a tax cut for the rich at the expense of the rest. Please tell me the specific tax cuts that saved the rich "billions"?

Lastly the wealthy already pay a large amount of tax (in Ontairo the top income rate (federal and provincial is 44%). Somebody earning $30,000 a year pays around 13-14%. It seems strange that somebody that is probably paying around 13-14% of their income to tax would complain that the people paying 40%+ aren't paying enough.

Yes there are people out there making millions. They also pay millions in tax. I agree with you I struggle with the purchase of military jets but it does seem that Canada is doing some good in Libya.

A vote for the NDP is a vote for Canada to be debt ridden and uncompetitive in the modern world due to overtaxation.

It is important to remember that from the mid 90s onward, Canada not only ran a budget surplus every year, but it used the surplus to pay down its debt faster. No other G8 country did that for even a year, let alone more than a decade. The money to pay off the debt came predominantly from the much-maligned Liberal GST.

see http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/numbers-canadas-national-debt/ (although the scale is skewed!)

Harper's ability to quickly and effectively act during the recession is a direct result of banking regulations and the LIBERAL HISTORY OF PAYING OFF OUR DEBT. Harper has been a good steward of the Liberal Canadian economy, but it is time to slowly increase taxes to once again pay off our debt.

Vote Green for the environment, vote NDP for your conscious, vote Liberal to take care of the economy, vote Conservatives for more prisons

Well said in both comments Albertan! I definitely agree that PM Harper is the way to go again, and hopefully with a majority this time, so he can actually do alot of good, like he has stated he will do. And yes, since he has already done so far, what he said he will do, I believe in him now. Also, well done Mr. Harper on making history with keeping a 5 year minority gov't going!
"Colour of Money" it appears you just want more taxes. My question to the liberals, like yourself, aren't we already taxed enough? My family can't afford to do much of anything in entertainment anymore because of our very high taxes in this country. Don't you want to have a chance to enjoy life (lower taxes so we can afford to do things) while we're living? I know I do. I also know I take care of my family and therefore do not need all the social services out there.
Personally, I"m fine with the money put into the jets, simply because I strongly believe our country needs a good army. In the future, I could see another WW coming between all the different religions. I'm also happy with the gov't cutbacks within the gov't, itself and I can't wait to see the long gun registry abolished.
I"m definitely for the Conservatives putting my hard earned dollar back in my pocket so I can start enjoying life again.

Tax me now to have my kids free of debt, and to have my kids and their kids enjoy quality education and healthcare.
I'll gladly sacrifice my entertainment budget in order to live in a country whose fiscal acumen remains the envy of the world.
Long-term economic growth depends upon the industriousness and innovation of a people, not tax cuts. I'd support any government that acknowledges that by prudently investing in education, health, and entrepreneurship, in that order.
Yes, tax me now for a brighter future.
That's political bravery!

Great Topic. Albertan once again has it correctly. Well defined how the parties work. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get that ideal politician that we could all like. I have stated many times, as long as Canadians like to vote most PM's or parties out after 2 terms, you won't get an ideal Prime Minister.
I have voted Liberal until Harper came along. I simply despised parties that felt they needed to spend foolishly on new programs in order to secure votes. The Conservatives promised tax cuts and fiscal prudence. I wish I could take great ideas from various parties and enact them. A minority Government is supposed to actually do that but it hasn't happened. The liberals & Consevatives want a majority and don't want to align any ideas with other political parties. I am hoping for a Minority again and hope a Coalition between the NDP/Liberals will be possible (wishful thinking & virtually impossble). What I suggest is for the Corporate Tax Rate to go back up to recoup the $5 Billion. They are not creating jobs anyways. Cancel the Jet contract - pay the penalty. Start reviewing every Dept. expenses to find 5-8% savings. Finally, allocate the majority of this money toward the debt. We don't need new programs.

The Liberals built up a large surplus up until the Harper Govt took over. Harper gave it away in large tax breaks to Corporation as he says to create more jobs. This strategy has not worked in the US and it did not work here. You need a balanced approach. Even Paul Ryan of the Tea Party in the US only wants to cut their Corporate Tax rate from 35 to 25 percent. Harper is going to lower ours to 15 percent. If we want to get rid of the huge deficit that once again the Conservatives have built up we need everyone to pay their fair share including the rich and large multi-national corporations. I would say our best chance to do this is with a Liberal Govt. that have a proven track record of fighting deficits effectively.

Here's a little story to pnder next time you want to gripe about tax cuts for the "big businesses and the richest strarta of the canadian people"...
I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's tax cuts.
'"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'"
"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."
I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand."
"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."
The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!
"And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."

Nice, albeit long, parable. The problem is that the rich man can't make as much money in the Caribbean, and won't stay rich long. A slightly amended parable would still have the rich man pay most of the bill, but would employ the other nine, and so would directly benefit from having well-fed employees. The rich man pays more, yes, but he benefits more too.

If anyone complains about tax cuts, go live tax- and benefit-free in the mountains.
Tax money spent is not charity (mostly), it is investment in people, in infrastructure, in the future.
Tax cuts are money not spent investing in people, in infrastructure, in the future.
Come on guys, do Canadians think that going to a restaurant an extra time a month is what life is really about?

What IS life about for you "colour of money??" I'd like to figure out how a liberal thinks.
For my family of 4 that is living off a combined income of under 75,000, YES going out to a restaurant that extra time a month is a load off of my back and my husband's back. We don't have the luxury of travelling alot because we simply don't have the money, so our money IS spent in nice restaurants sometimes. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to tax the rich too much. Why you ask? Well, if those innovative, ambitious people lose alot of the money they are making, why make it anymore? What is the point of all your hard work if your money is getting taken away in taxes constantly? And, why won't the rich guy STAY rich in the Caribbean or Switzerland? As far as I know, from what I read of celebrities, living in Switzerland doesn't mean they are poor instantly.
I don't understand what you are trying to say there.
Here's my thoughts for liberals. Since you want to give away all your responsibility to the gov't to make your decisions for you (social services), why don't we also take away your rights?? You can't vote. You can't drink. You can't smoke, etc. because you are not an adult and cannot handle your own responsibilities.

Colour of money, why do you need the government to take your entertainment dollars (through taxes) to provide for the future of your children when you can do that now by investing on your own? What you really mean to say is take MY entertainment dollars to provide for YOUR children, isn't that right?

Contrary to what you believe, most wealth is accumulated through voluntary transactions (something that can't be said about government taxes. How do you think corporations make billions of dollars by robbing and stealing or by providing products that consumers wanted and willingly paid for? Which organization really has incentive to be innovative with their investment and truly provide what people want, the corporation that competes for your voluntary spending dollars or the government that can simply decide it wants more of your tax dollars?

The rich don't just have money, they make money, and they can't make nearly as much money in poor uneducated parts of the world. If the rich just looked for lower tax zones, there are plenty in the world that they really don't want to live in and definitely don't want to work in. The rich, people or corporations, will not move to low-tax zones for an extra point or two.

What do I think is important? Living in and contributing to a strong country (militarily, economically, and politically) that is a world leader in science and the arts.

By the way, I am in a family of four that lives on a single salary of $42,000 while my wife studies full-time for the next 4 years. We are currently benefiting from lower university costs, and child tax credits, all supported by tax dollars. Soon my wife will have her MSc and make $70,000 and I can go back to school, still benefiting from lower university costs, so that I too can make $70,000. In less than 10 years we will be paying loads more taxes; paying back what we took out. Without the taxes in the first place, we would be less likely to have the opportunity to work damn hard to have a proper education. Once we "pay back" what we took from the general tax coffers, we will be happy to pay it forward to my children and your children too. As I said, the mountains have no taxes, nor do they have any roads.

I am not a died in the wool Liberal, I just think that the Liberals are the only party that has a good track record of making hard decisions and paying off the debt. We all should know the crippling effects of debt.

Just putting it out there: I have a BA in Political Science and Economics. Not amazing, but not nothing. I'm still young.

That's a nice anology with the whole dinner table theory. But let's not forget that the top money earner at that table makes more then the whole meal is worth in an hour where as the bottom 8 individuals would have to work all day to pay for that dinner sitting. Face it, it's an unfair capital.

What's your point, showmethemoney? As long as the top money earner actually EARNED the money (as opposed to stealing it), why shouldn't they be entitled to that money? Bill Gates has enough money to buy me steak dinners for the rest of my life, but not for a single second do I think he has any obligation to do so. Replace steak dinner with anything you choose, like a university education, and please help me understand the mindset that just because he could afford it, he has some moral obligation to do so? If I really want (and value) something, like say a university education, why shouldn't I borrow money to pay for it?

I suppose that is where our vision of the world differs.
You feel that everyone struggles to the top, where I feel that we help each other to the top.
I won't hold my breath waiting for others to help me, however. Instead I'll gather together many people, rich and poor, and force everyone to help everyone else.
There is another name for that system, it's called having a government.
Go ahead, borrow money for your education. Which government protected financial institution will you borrow the money from? At which government regulated interest rate will you repay the bank? Maybe you can go to Microsoft school and work for Microsoft. That ends in indentured servitude.
I like my tax and spend country thank you very much. Work now, steak and the opera later.

Finally, the rich pay the most, but benefit the most. Stop crying for them.

Actually "Colour of Money," some rich have money because their families before them made money and the money sits in banks and collects interest. Therefore, you are not entirely right there. Also, since when CAN'T you make money in poor countries? If you sell a product at a reasonable price that is wanted by the consumer, you just made money. This is simple economics "Mr. Professor." I agree with Scott's statement very much so. "You want to take MY entertainment dollar to provide for YOUR children." I have two children of my own and I expect NOONE but myself and my husband, the two people who decided to bring these humans into the world to pay for them. Then, eventually, as they are raised, THEY will pay for THEMSELVES. NOONE owes ANYONE. If an individual wants to be rich, then YOU get ambitious and creative and work hard and make money.

OK OK OK
No tax for current or future benefits.
Are you willing to pay the tax for the benefits you and your parents received?
How much of the current deficit is interest on the current debt?

The debt is money borrowed in the past to pay for the roads that you use, and the education of the engineer that designed the roads, and the financial system that allowed money to be pooled to build the roads and and and...
Current tax dollars are going to the retirement of the workers that built the roads by the way.

Are you anti-tax folk that are so against pooling resources for everyone's benefit also against paying a debt owed?

I didn't realize that cooperation wasn't a Conservative value, I thought it was a value shared by all Canadians. 40% of the country is Conservative and 60% is anything but Conservative. You guys are not the Canada I believe I know.

It is a double dip recession only this time Canadians access to credit will be limited as interest rates climb. But the dollar is doing so good because of the price of a barrel of oil. Canadians oil that is before Harper gives away the farm with the barn and Canadians got to buckle under with 11 billion dollars of cuts. While giving big corporations the farm because aren't they nice, the greedy lot as only paying less than 20% while the US pays 35%. This is while Canadians pick up the slack with 11 billion dollars in cuts to services. Government is going to reduce big business taxes and then fire hundreds and thousands of public servants and reduce services so big business can get tax breaks so they may or may not create jobs with your tax dollars already in their banks.
I read today on the MSN about the banks move to raise interest rates despite the high dollar which keeps down inflation being a real mystery. Not so much! With Canadians squeezed to the limit with credit and business isn't looking to good, unless it is oil that is. No benefit to Canadians Harper sold energy interests to industry so big oil could have a monopoly. Now Canadians have to pay the price because their credit is no longer good. It is little wonder with USA also reducing vital services so big corporations can get all the breaks. Those cuts are going to hurt Canadians along with the high Lonnie and the increased cost of food and fuel and stuff.
That is why interest rates are going up, credit is going to be harder to find along with a job.
It is what you get when you have a con man on the job, as prime minister that is.

And all of this is off topic, by the way.

Views on tax aside, the Liberals know how to pay off a debt and shape the economy so that anyone, even Harper, can work magic and fend off a recession.

If Harper wins again, it will just mean that there will be even more debt for the Liberals to pay off when the government comes back to them in the next election, or, heaven forbid, the election after that.

And enough with the extra prisons. We don't live in a fear-based state. If you build them, it will come.