Make way for readers | For or against tax cuts?

Many of you (more than 600) responded to our appeal to all this week, a large majority of you saying you disagree with lowering taxes when there is so much to do in health, education, in housing, etc. Here is an overview of the emails received.

Posted at 1:00 p.m.

Retrograde, reactionary and irresponsible

In the current state of public services and with the challenges of climate transition, this is the most retrograde, reactionary and irresponsible way of having government room for manoeuvre.

Jean-Philippe Delorme

A sick society

I am against these cuts. Let’s invest more in health, in the school environment, with people in need, the elderly, etc. Our society is sick, let’s take care of it.

Francine Cardinal

Living with the consequences

No one can be against lowering taxes, from the wealthiest to the least wealthy. But how to provide all the current services if there is less money going into the government’s consolidated fund? How to fulfill the promises of the 2022 election campaign with less money? I agree with the tax cut, but we will have to live with a reduction in services. We must say goodbye to the welfare state. You may have to accept user fees in health or other areas. I doubt we can do more with less!

Pierre Damico

Grotesque

We have the means to sprinkle millions on the right and on the left for electoral purposes while we crave the federal government for more generous transfers for the health care system. A grotesque situation.

Alain Flag

A priority, really?

It’s hard to be against a tax cut. But is it really a priority when it risks further fueling galloping inflation? When our health system is less and less accessible? When we are sorely lacking in manpower? When access to housing is difficult? When justice for the middle class is inaccessible? When our lakes, our forests and the environment are threatened? When the municipal and provincial road network is degraded? Is it really a priority now to buy votes with tax cuts? Or is it simply reimbursement for failure to deliver on promises?

Pierre Lemelin

common sense

The CAQ’s and the PLQ’s tax rate reduction promises are equivalent to amputating a foot the day before a marathon. Where is the common sense that should guide our elected officials in their decisions? How can they justify a permanent solution (tax reduction) to a temporary situation (the current inflation is by nature “temporary”). Are they not aware that they are reducing their room for maneuver for the future? Are the sirens of populism extinguishing any sense of responsibility among the leaders of the CAQ and the PLQ? Failing infrastructure? The services held at arm’s length in our hospitals and CHSLDs? The missing resources in our schools? To hell with the problems! Let’s promise voters gifts, they will thank us on October 3. What’s it going to take to bring all these beautiful people down to earth? It is urgent to denounce these promises, otherwise we are preparing for another period of austerity and permanent service cuts. Sorry!

Ronald Daignault, Montreal

Money in the right place

As a good Quebecer, I am tired of these numerous promises during an election period with the aim of making political profit. No to tax cuts… If there is a cushion of money, let them invest it in the right place: help the poorest.

Andre Lafleur

Electoral vision

The vast majority of our decisions in our lives, at least I hope, are aimed at improving our quality of life (employment, housing, health and safety, etc.). And this can only realistically be achieved by keeping a long-term horizon when making these decisions. Our collective future, in my view, is no exception to this implacable reality. Applying targeted measures to help those most in need is very commendable, but offering widespread and permanent reductions in a context of inflation that is likely to be temporary is totally irresponsible. Especially when you consider the current state of our services and infrastructure (health, education, public transit, services for seniors, environment, etc.). I find that our politicians are very short-sighted… and very electoral!

John Office, Montreal

Fuel the inflationary fire

It’s irresponsible. The surpluses that the government generates today are cyclical and directly linked to inflation, which has the effect of inflating government revenues. Any redistribution of money to help people affected by inflation should be directed to those who are hardest hit, otherwise we risk instead adding fuel to the inflationary fire.

Benoit Proulx

revolted

For my part, I am a little revolted by this rain of promises. While physical and psychological health, education, infrastructure, etc., are in dire need of money. I don’t agree with these tax cuts, even though I would benefit from them. Especially if you end up with cuts afterwards.

Joane Gendron, Lévis

Weigh the pros and cons

For or against tax cuts? The question seems ill-posed to me. It is not a question of being for or against tax cuts, but of being for and against the set of consequences of each of these options. Mr. Legault presents tax cuts as a tool to help Quebecers deal with the effects of inflation on their wallets. The intention is laudable, but is a tax cut permed is the best way to tackle a problem that is temporary (however urgent)? The goodness of the intention of an action in no way ensures its relevance or effectiveness.

Especially that such drops, although beneficial in the short term, also foreshadow a drop in the means we are giving to the Quebec government to deal with multiple structural challenges: the state of our infrastructures (schools, roads), the state of our health system, which should take care of a already (and increasingly) aging population, but also the state of our ability to deal with the climate crisis and its consequences – which we are only just beginning to discover. If inflation is an urgent problem, and if it is indeed necessary to attack it, the means that we give ourselves to do so must not, on the other hand, jeopardize our capacity (that is to say that of the Quebec state) to tackle a crisis whose urgency is not only circumstantial, since this crisis is truly existential.

Patrick Renaud, Montreal

Make way for readers | For or against tax cuts?