This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Federal political financing in Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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)
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)
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)
I have taken out this statement:
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.
Ground Zero | t 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
many of the links/references are going to elections canada.. this links in no way support the conclusions of many of the statements in this wiki.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.250.1 ( talk) 15:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Federal political financing in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Federal political financing in Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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)
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)
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)
I have taken out this statement:
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.
Ground Zero | t 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
many of the links/references are going to elections canada.. this links in no way support the conclusions of many of the statements in this wiki.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.250.1 ( talk) 15:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Federal political financing in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)