Talk:Federal political financing in Canada

The entire article, but particularly the section on the elimination of the per vote subsidy, is excessively negative towards the Conservatives and seems to be more concerned with discrediting Stephen Harper rather than pronouncing a fair and balanced viewpoint of the issue. In fact almost the entire section on the per vote subsidy is a series of criticism with an excessive number of citations relative to normal Wikipedia articles that gives me the impression at least of someone who has gone to pains to paint their particular partisan viewpoint. There is also no quote from a Conservative or a sympathetic non-Conservative outlining their motives for eliminating the subsidy.

Whether or not this viewpoint is correct or not, there should be a more equal content percentage for each side of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.232.224 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not only is the article far from neutral in what it presents, with phrases like "the corrupting influence" presented as facts; it also tells only half of the story about the debate surrounding the per-vote subsidies. It gives none of the history of the controversy when former PM Chretien brought in the subsidies, which is essential context in understanding the controversy around removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoog (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think the graphs need to be significantly reduced in size; they are overbearing the text as the article is currently laid out. VQuakr (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Definitely agree, came to say the same thing; also, 3D graphs are not required in this case; these are bar graphs, they should be simple 2D; the 3D graphs are actually harder to read and are quite distracting. Jhaagsma (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I agree it needs to be shorted. It reads like a book on campaign finance in Canada.

Alternatively, a summary could be provided at the top. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have taken out this statement:

"For political contributions up to $400, the tax credit is a very generous 75% - more than twice the tax credit given to donations to charitable organizations"

because it is basically wrong, and because it implies that the subsidy for charitable donations should be the same or better than the subsidy for political contributions. Otherwise, the comparison is not relevant.

• It is wrong because charitable donations are eligible for both federal and provincial tax credits, whereas contributions to federal parties are eligible only for federal tax credits (contributions to provincial parties are likewise eligible for only provincial tax credits).
  • In Ontario, donations to charities over $200 are eligible for federal and provincial tax relief of up to 46.41%, -- the 75% federal political credit on the first $400 is not more than twice that.
• It is not a valid comparison because the two credits have different aims. The charitable credit aims to encourage more generous giving, so the federal credit is set at 15% of the first $200 and 29% of everything over that (up to, generally, 3/4 of the person's income). Most provincial credits follow this two-tier approach. Political credits, on the other hand, are designed to encourage small contributions by lots of people. That's why the credit becomes smaller and an individual's contribution gets bigger, and why they are capped at a relatively low maximum Different policy goals, different credit design. I think I've demonstrated why the comparison is not valid. If you believe that it is still valid, then you have to present both sides of the argument. Presenting only one side, as the quoted sentence above does, violates WP:NPOV.

Ground Zero | t 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The statement is cited in the source article and is a valid comparison. In Ontario, a charitable donation of $400 gets a combined federal and provincial tax credit of $120 (by Mackenzie Financial's online calculator) or $136 (by another online calculator). That's 30-34%, either way meaning the 75% federal political tax credit is more than twice as much, exactly as stated and well-cited. Justinform (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, the person who has taken out the statement is wrong. I feel that the comparison is relevant although the point to be made is: The tax credit for political donations should be higher than tax credits for all other purposes because the viability of modern democracy is at stake! Democracy cannot work without parties. Parties cannot work without funds. And, finally, the small donor is the most valuable source of political money. Khnassmacher (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Khnassmacher, thank you for agreeing that the comparison is a valid and relevant one. (Aside: Agree with you that funding of democracy is important. Political donations, however, are only one possible form of funding, not a necessarily required one. This is really not the subject of the discussion here, though.) Regards, Justinform (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Justinform, please don't make the mistake of drawing your conclusions from one example. Using the Mackenzie Financial calculator for a $2500 donation shows that the federal/provincial tax credits for a charitable donation would be $963 in Ontario, or 38.5% of the gift. For a $2500 political contribution, you'd get the maximum $592 credit, which is 23.7%. For higher amounts, the charitable credit keeps going up, as the percentage of the gifts keeps rising, while the political credit is capped, so the percentage of the gift keeps falling. If you want to keep the cited reference, then for balance we would have to add a cited reference that shows that the statement is wrong because it ignores the provincial charitable credit. I think it is confusing to readers to provide incorrect statements and then the corrections. Ground Zero | t 09:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ground Zero,

I wonder if you mix up two kinds of tax benefit. With the tax credit the amount donated is credited against tax liability. The other option (called tax deduction) is to reduce taxable income by the amount donated. Usually a tax deduction esults in less benefit to the taxpayer than a tax credit. Khnassmacher (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

For personal income tax purposes, charitable donations are eligible for the Charitable Donations Tax Credit, and political contributions are eligible for the Political Contributions Tax Credit. Corporations get a 'deduction for charitable donations. And whether a tax deductions is of more benefit or less depends on the tax status of the individual and the tax credit rate. A 15% federal refundable tax credit is worth less than a deduction for someone paying federal tax at the 29% rate, but the refundable tax credit is worth more for someone who is not paying income tax at all, because the deduction is worth nothing to them. Regards, Ground Zero | t 08:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero, your first set of comments didn't hold any water at all and your second set doesn't either, but they both demonstrate that you are reaching for any argument, however wrong or irrelevant, to support a preconceived point of view or misconception that you seem to hold.

"For political contributions up to $400, the tax credit is a very generous 75% - more than twice the tax credit given to donations to charitable organizations"

The statement is entirely accurate, informative, and educational, and the "up to $400" range it compares is highly representative of the political contributions made. It does not, as you claimed again despite the evidence, ignore the provincial tax credit. Nor is it just "one example": it is an entire range, and a highly representative one at that (which you seemed to recognize when you wrote "small contributions by lots of people").

On the other hand, in order to support your point of view you cherry-picked a figure that is not evenly remotely representative (and drew your preconceived conclusions from that one non-representative example). $2,500 is, for starters, well over the contribution limit of $1,100 - in fact, it's over twice the maximum allowed. You even went on to argue on the basis of still higher amounts, as if that has any bearing whatsoever. Hope this helps. Justinform (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Justin, no, these comments do not help. Personal attacks never help in a discussion: "your first set of comments didn't hold any water", "you are reaching for any argument, however wrong or irrelevant, to support a preconceived point of view or misconception that you seem to hold". Please be civil in addressing the arguments of others on Wikipedia.

I concede the point that for a $400 contribution, the federal political credit is twice the federal-provincial charitable credit - I did not read the sentence correctly. Thank you for clarifying it for me.

I still argue, though, that is is presenting selective facts in order to imply that the tax system provides more support for political activity than for charitable activity. while the $400 amount may or may not be a representative range (I would be interested in seeing the source) for political contributions, it is not representative for charitable contributions. One can give thousands or millions and still get charitable tax credits. For anyone donating larger amounts, the tax relief for charitable giving is greater than for political contributions because of the cap on political contributions. (According to Elections Canada, you can contribute more than $1,100 in a year, since you can give that amount to a party, and that amount to a riding association, and that amount to a leadership candidate and that amount to an election candidate - I don't think you can claim more than$11000 for the credit, though.) Since the two tax credits have different policy objectives (the political to encourage lots of small contributions and the charitable to encourage all giving), it is entirely appropriate. Ground Zero | t 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero, thank you for conceding that the statement is accurate and that you had not read it correctly. No personal attack on you was intended. To say that your previous arguments didn't hold up (as you graciously conceded) is not an attack on you but a comment about your arguments. My comments addressed your arguments and the edit that you desired and still desire.

(If I may add, throwing around comments like "violates WP:NPOV", which you initiated this with, and "Justinform, please don't make the mistake of drawing your conclusions from one example", which you then proceeded to do, also are not helpful.)

I will have to, with all due respect, maintain that you are still reaching for arguments: you are starting from a position or point of view that you hold, and searching, on the basis of that preconceived opinion, for some way to contest an accurate, representative, well-cited statement that you don't like.

Yes you can give thousands or millions and get charitable tax credits, but again, that is simply not at all relevant here. We are comparing donations of up to $400. It's as if there was a statement like "For a Canadian family of up to four children, ..." that you didn't like, and you came up with the argument "But for a family of 16 children, ..." The family of up to four children is highly representative, the family of 16 children - while there possibly might be a few around still - is really an outlier data point.

You now write "presenting selective facts in order to imply", but are you not doing just that by writing "One can give thousands or millions and still get charitable tax credits"? How many people do you know that give thousands, or millions, to charities, and do you think that's representative of Canadians? What percentage of Canadians would you say give thousands, or millions, to charities? (let alone give that much to political parties or candidates)

You also claimed that up to $400 "is not representative for charitable contributions". So do most Canadians donate more than $400? Could you back that assertion up?

You again referred to "lots of small contributions" yet you still called the up-to-$400 range a selective fact. I respectfully wonder if there is a case of confirmation bias at work here? Justinform (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I propose that rather than arguing over the original biased version of the statement, we work together to come up with something that is balanced and factual. Here is a first go. Comments are welcome:

"For political contributions up to $400, a tax credit of 75% of the contribution is available. The tax credit rate is lower for larger donations, and no tax credit is provided for contributions over $1,100. Tax credits for charitable donations, by contrast, are smaller for annual donations under $200 range from a low of 19% (in Nunavut) to a high of 35% (in Quebec), while annual donations over $200 are eligible for a tax credit ranging from a low of 40.5% (in Nunavut) to 53% (in Quebec)."^[1]

This is wordier, but provides a factual comparison that allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Ground Zero | t 18:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero, you wrote above "I think it is confusing to readers to provide incorrect statements and then the corrections." Your new proposal, motivated by your disagreement with the cited source, does just that - it turns a concise, accurate, representative statement into something completely confusing and unhelpful.

Instead of conveying the information as intended by the cited source, you just obfuscated it and gave it a completely different meaning, adding all sorts of information not in the cited source. That breaks core editing policies WP:V/WP:NOR. "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source."

You admitted to not having any idea of what amount is representative or not for political contributions, yet you still wish to modify the statement on that very basis, calling it selective and biased. When your editing is based on an unsubstantiated opinion that you have, and not on any concrete knowledge or source, is that not POV editing?

The current statement is valid, informative, educational, and faithful to the source material. It should not be changed.

Since you still seem to refuse to believe that up-to-$400 is representative, try taking the total amount of contributions, some $46 million, and divide it by the total number of contributors, some 280,000 individuals. You get an average contribution size of $164. Does this help you accept that up-to-$400 is representative? In other words, for the vast majority of people making political contributions, the tax credit is indeed 75%. Justinform (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I just noticed that you modified one of my signed comments (diff). I've changed my comment back to the way it was. Justinform (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for changing one of your signed comments by mistake - I thought I was changing my own.

How is "very generous" anything but opinion? That is not factual. I am proposing to replace opinion by facts -- i.e., comparing the tax credit rates for political contributions to those for charitable donations and allowing the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. (I have revised the proposed text, and provided a better reference to the tax credit rates.)

I have provided a reference to a valid and impartial source (Canada Revenue Agency) so there is no original research here, and it is verifiable. This is not unsubstantiated opinion. In fact, there is no opinion whatsoever in my proposed alternative that I can see. If you can point it out, then we can work to remove the opinion and make the statement even more factual.

The original source is a news paper article. While the Globe is a good paper, it is clear that "very generous" is the reporter's opinion. The facts speak for themselves: it is true that the political credit is more generous than the charitable credit for small donations, and it is also true that the charitable credit is more generous for large donaitons. Why do you think that Wikipedia should only report the first fact and not the second fact? Ground Zero | t 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a text book for specialists. Some of the people reading this article will simply want to know what the rules are; they won't be interested in the detailed history or the reasoning behind the rules.

So a summary is needed at the top. I do not feel confident of having understood the facts from the existing article, so I'm going to have to leave writing the summary up to someone who knows them.

I'm hoping an person familiar with the facts, could update the article adding this summary with minimal effort. I would really appreciate that. The current full article could follow.

What follows is the form of a proposed summary, and the facts need to be checked and added in.

In 1997 the government of PM Jean Chretien introduced new rules on campaign financing for federal elections in Canada.

These rules apply only to federal elections in Canada. The provinces set their own rules for provincial and municipal elections. [I don't know what territories do, so that needs to be added.]

There are 4 campaign contribution limits in Canada.

1. Registered party -- annual limit.
2. Leadership contestant -- per contest limit.
3. Registered association, nomination contestant and candidate of a registered party -- per contest limit.
4. Non-affiliated candidate and independent candidate – per election.

Each of these limits is $1,200 in [1997?] dollars adjusted for inflation.

To qualify to make a donation you must be a citizen of Canada age 18 or older [and eligible to vote in the election/riding/contest concerned?].

In addition there is a "per vote subsidy" of [and whatever that is] funded from federal taxes based on the results of the previous national election. The per vote subsidy is $[?] and is allocated by [party or riding?].

Companies, unions, charities [and people living in other ridings?] cannot make contributions.

For the official version of the rules see the Elections Canada website[link].

• There should probably also be something about limits on third party advertising, if there are any.

• It might be an idea to replace "Each of these limits is $1,200 in [1997?] dollars adjusted for inflation" with "In 2013 each of these limits is $[?]".

• I think it is nice but not essential to mention Jean Chretien introduced these rules. (My partisan feeling: Chretien basically saved Canada from having US-style PACs at the federal level and relieved Canada from a century of the upper classes and unions having excessive unbalanced influence on elections. He has given us a system where eventually all three national parties will represent competing views of the majority of Canadians, rather than competing views of big labour and big business. As a person who generally supports the Conservative Party, I feel this is perhaps the greatest contribution any PM has made to Canada since Sir John A. McDonald started the coast-to-coast railway (unless you want to give Diefenbaker credit for national medicare). So my personal feeling is I'd like to see Chretien get a quick credit in the summary.)

If we put the corrected version of this at the top, then the people who want to simply know the current rules can get them quickly, and the people who want to read history and reasoning behind the rules are can read the full article. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply