The expression “election promise” arouses a certain uneasiness in me. Faced with the crudeness of the political contest that characterizes the countryside, I feel each time a deep disappointment in noting that the first reflex of the parties is – again! — to propose short-term measures and, above all, individualistic measures. I understand the strategic objective that the parties are pursuing with this approach.
But it seems to me that not very many of us have this “promised check Teflon” capable of keeping us away from undue influence.
Tax-cut promises would apparently be the most effective electoral measure to capture the attention of voters, regardless of the party’s position on the political spectrum and regardless of who makes them.
The particularity this year seems to me to come from the fact that practically all the actors in the arena, although driven by very distinct motivations, venture far in their (desperate) attempt to get votes.
An in-depth tax debate
It would however be necessary that, all of us, collectively resist the intrusion.
hypothetical fluence of a promise of a tax cut on our vote. Firstly, because promising tax cuts in a context of inflation such as the one we are experiencing these days seems rather dangerous to me, especially since the pre-election report showed that the balance budget was achieved and that the financial framework presented by three of the five main parties shifts this balance to deficits. While it is true that Quebec’s finances are doing quite well, the economic indicators point to a probable recession in the next few months. If government revenues were to decline more than expected, we would have to
to face.
Three options are possible: either we collectively assume even larger projected deficits than expected, or we reduce public services, or we draw even more from the Generations Fund.
I believe that any promise of tax cuts should be accompanied by a deeper debate on our tax system and its long-term effects. Let us, as voters, demand total transparency regarding the social choices on which we will have to put a cross if we decide to prioritize savings of a few hundred dollars individually.
Should we really tax more “the richest” workers (I hate the negative connotation of this expression) of our society and our entrepreneurs? So why not tackle the real problems: like undeclared work in certain industries or the use of tax havens?
Given Quebec’s demographic challenges, is it really responsible to pay less taxes today, given the economic uncertainty that awaits our children and grandchildren?
Finally, it may be a question of professional distortion, but I believe that the sound management of public finances, the obligation to render accounts, the quality of public services and the evaluation of performance are subjects which should concern us all as taxpayers.
Do not promise an extra check!
I fully understand that, with the rising cost of living, voters will be sensitive to various promises, such as that of the CAQ to send a check for $600 to people with an annual income of less than $50,000 and a check for $400 to those earning $50,000 to $100,000. Or that of the Parti Québécois to set up a “purchasing power allowance” of $1,200 for people with an income of less than $50,000. These promises affecting a large part of the electorate, it is difficult not to see in them a very unsubtle way of buying votes! But we must keep in mind that the inflation we are currently experiencing is partly the result of too much interventionism on the part of the state.
The parties should rather question themselves on the relevance of adding liquidity to an already overheated system. I doubt, in fact, that the majority of households use this money to contribute to their children’s RESPs or to invest in anticipation of retirement. There is a strong probability that it will quickly be directed towards expenditure, which will in turn contribute to fueling the increase in costs.
If inflation is not controlled, there is no point in promising increases in the minimum wage to $18 an hour, as Québec solidaire and the PQ are doing, since in such an inflationary spiral, this increase would soon no longer be sufficient, and so right now. The purpose of the increase in key rates is to slow household consumption, let’s not forget that. All in all, the CAQ’s proposal to cap government rate increases at 3% can provide temporary support to consumers without “sending cheques”.
Even if it’s not a tax cut that will influence my vote, the economic vision of the various parties interests me more than ever. This subject is dry for many, but I would like it to continue to occupy a large place in this campaign, even if, like you, other subjects concern me personally, such as education and agriculture, for example. Just as I emphasize the importance of sound budgetary management to readers of the To have to and my clients, it seems obvious to me that I can legitimately expect, as a citizen, that the management of public finances be conducted with the same caution.
Other election promises could of course have repercussions on your personal finances. We will return to this subject in the next column.