|
Canadian Federal Elections 2011 - Official Thread (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
I think one of the biggest problems that Harper faces is that more people are becoming skeptical of the claim that if corporations are happy, our economy will boom. We're waiting for any evidence of this claim.
Trickle-down economics isn't anything new, the idea was put forth by laissez-faire economists over 100 years ago. The problem with this idea is that it's based on a false assumption. Modern trickle-down theory claims that if corporate taxes are low, then companies will hire more people and the wealth that's generated will flow to the middle and working class. Sounds good, but here's the problem. Can anybody name ONE company that hires people just because they have the cash to do so? The only entity that does this is the public sector. It's wealth generation is neutral (at best) because it's taxpayer funded. It's mostly a redistribution of capital.
There are only two circumstances that create job growth. One, consumer demand puts pressure on production, necessitating job creation to keep up with demand. Secondly, jobs are created (as mentioned previously) by innovation which creates new companies and new sectors.
Due to Conservative corporate tax policy, our corporate taxes are nearly 10 percent lower than any other OECD nation. Raising corporate taxes 2-2.5 percent would have no impact on our competitiveness in relation to our current situation. Further lowering of corporate taxes will not create jobs because there is no stimulus on consumers to purchase more. Demand stays the same and companies pocket the profits.
Want to create jobs? Decrease personal income tax by 1.5-2 percent across the bottom three or four tax brackets. Give consumers more spending power and stimulate increased demand for consumer goods. The hit on government coffers is negligible because of the corresponding increase in corporate taxes. It becomes a revenue neutral tax break, while creating jobs that stimulate the economy and create more wealth overall.
While we're at it, it's also time to take a better look at free trade agreements, not just with the US, but with all of our global partners. Yes, the Harper government has created jobs; problem is, most of them are in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and India. From a manufacturing perspective, you can drop corporate taxes to near 0% and still not be able to compete with companies that only have to pay $1.00/hr in labour costs. It's time for a different approach. Global companies want access to the Canadian market? They'd better be prepared to contribute something to our economy, rather than offshoring capital. This is a case where planned redundancy is beneficial to our economy. It's where the middle class of the 50's and 60's came from.
One of Stephen Harper's promises when he first became Prime Minister was an end to corporate welfare. What happened? Even in a minority situation, he had plenty of ideological support for this concept from the opposition parties. Sorry, I know what happend. He looked to his right and saw his Big Oil buddies in Calgary. Then he looked to his left and saw his Bay Street buddies in Toronto. Guess what happened? Stephen Harper chose corporations over Canadians.
If harper wants to regain any credibility in this country, Canadians are going to have to come first for a change. |
good post and I agree with most of it.
problem is that economy just as much as it is about perception than hard facts. if the bankers and big companies create the perception that the economy will suck because NDP gets voted in, well guess what. TSX will lose a lot of points.
and it remains to be seen just how much corporate tax increase will the companies accept before they decide to move to another country with lower tax rates |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
I think one of the biggest problems that Harper faces is that more people are becoming skeptical of the claim that if corporations are happy, our economy will boom. We're waiting for any evidence of this claim.
Trickle-down economics isn't anything new, the idea was put forth by laissez-faire economists over 100 years ago. The problem with this idea is that it's based on a false assumption. Modern trickle-down theory claims that if corporate taxes are low, then companies will hire more people and the wealth that's generated will flow to the middle and working class. Sounds good, but here's the problem. Can anybody name ONE company that hires people just because they have the cash to do so? The only entity that does this is the public sector. It's wealth generation is neutral (at best) because it's taxpayer funded. It's mostly a redistribution of capital.
There are only two circumstances that create job growth. One, consumer demand puts pressure on production, necessitating job creation to keep up with demand. Secondly, jobs are created (as mentioned previously) by innovation which creates new companies and new sectors.
Due to Conservative corporate tax policy, our corporate taxes are nearly 10 percent lower than any other OECD nation. Raising corporate taxes 2-2.5 percent would have no impact on our competitiveness in relation to our current situation. Further lowering of corporate taxes will not create jobs because there is no stimulus on consumers to purchase more. Demand stays the same and companies pocket the profits.
Want to create jobs? Decrease personal income tax by 1.5-2 percent across the bottom three or four tax brackets. Give consumers more spending power and stimulate increased demand for consumer goods. The hit on government coffers is negligible because of the corresponding increase in corporate taxes. It becomes a revenue neutral tax break, while creating jobs that stimulate the economy and create more wealth overall.
While we're at it, it's also time to take a better look at free trade agreements, not just with the US, but with all of our global partners. Yes, the Harper government has created jobs; problem is, most of them are in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and India. From a manufacturing perspective, you can drop corporate taxes to near 0% and still not be able to compete with companies that only have to pay $1.00/hr in labour costs. It's time for a different approach. Global companies want access to the Canadian market? They'd better be prepared to contribute something to our economy, rather than offshoring capital. This is a case where planned redundancy is beneficial to our economy. It's where the middle class of the 50's and 60's came from.
One of Stephen Harper's promises when he first became Prime Minister was an end to corporate welfare. What happened? Even in a minority situation, he had plenty of ideological support for this concept from the opposition parties. Sorry, I know what happend. He looked to his right and saw his Big Oil buddies in Calgary. Then he looked to his left and saw his Bay Street buddies in Toronto. Guess what happened? Stephen Harper chose corporations over Canadians.
If harper wants to regain any credibility in this country, Canadians are going to have to come first for a change. |
Hear ing hear! |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
and it remains to be seen just how much corporate tax increase will the companies accept before they decide to move to another country with lower tax rates |
And only the companies with the integrity to handle the burden remain, leaving room for more of the same?
Sounds optimal to me. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
And only the companies with the integrity to handle the burden remain, leaving room for more of the same?
Sounds optimal to me. |
lol. integrity? your expectation of companies to have some altruistic sense is called integrity? |
|
|
| daves |
If companies are threatening to leave because of corporate income taxes not being slashed/maintained at unrealistic levels... let them leave! If capitalism works, others will pop up to fill the void they leave behind.
(realistically, which company is going to just walk away deciding "because of the taxes we're no longer willing to try and milk a potential 34 million people"?)
More realistically, the very companies looking for the lowered corporate taxes are NOT going to use those savings to bolster the economy - they will STILL lower their workforce at any reasonable opportunity in order to "maximize efficiencies"/ invest their earnings in the same ways they always have... it's amazing how so many people think the opposite; I have to imagine most people who do so do not really understand the corporate world. |
|
|
| nacarter |
| Where are tax-dodging companies going to go? Like I mentioned, our corp tax rate is 10% lower than the rest of the OECD. A 5% increase would still be competitive, let alone a 2-2.5% increase. Corp tax rate in the US is 30%. It's hard to describe the US as an uncompetitive global player. Tax rates aren't anything, but a convenient excuse. |
|
|
| GGM |
There's not really that much guess work even involved here. If our corporate tax rates are 10% lower than average, and Harper has lowered them another step recently, name some corporations that have moved to Canada as a result? That's going to be a slim if not non-existent list.
Reality: Corporate taxes go down, profits go up. This isn't going to make an American company move north of the border. It's going to make them say "Hey, profits are flowing free in Canada they lowered taxes even more!". So then they find the capital and they buy a Canadian equivalent of their company to either manage or merge with. The result is that American company is now taking that increased profit out of the Canadian economy. That profit ultimately ends up in the hands of stockholders which most likely also live south of the border. So not only is the money now out of the country, it's in the investment portfolio of someone who probly will hoard it on top of already accumulated savings instead of putting it back into circulation.
As nacarter said the key is giving the tax breaks to the right people strategically. You give the tax breaks to the lower income earners and instead of the above you:
-Give money to those who need it more and even the wealth distribution as a result.
-Give money to those who are guaranteed to spend 100% of their income, and thus put it back into the Canadian economy.
-You make the cost of hiring those employees less and therefor new jobs can theoretically be created in the same manner as lowering corporate taxes directly.
Bush/Harper types will always continue to spew the same old lowering corporate taxes has all these amazing results speeches but in reality it's almost impossible to see widespread trends that back up what they say. I'm fine with lowering taxes and minimizing government but you need to be sure you do it in appropriate places or it's more harm done than good. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
lol. integrity? your expectation of companies to have some altruistic sense is called integrity? |
Has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with corporations being beholden to government mandate, and not the other way around.
What a warped ing society we live in. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
Where are tax-dodging companies going to go? Like I mentioned, our corp tax rate is 10% lower than the rest of the OECD. A 5% increase would still be competitive, let alone a 2-2.5% increase. Corp tax rate in the US is 30%. It's hard to describe the US as an uncompetitive global player. Tax rates aren't anything, but a convenient excuse. |
China |
|
|
| 7-4-7 |
The conservatives are so incredibly blessed that the NDP and Liberal parties havent yet combined.
This is a reality that gives conservative minded inbreds just enough time to move to texas. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
Politicians talk about 'subsidies' to oil companies. The 'subsidies' are not subsidies at all, but common tax deductions exploration and production companies are allowed to expense to encourage natural resource exploration.
Every business is allowed to deduct the cost of doing business against the sales. Employee wages, office rent, research, interest expense, and capital expenditures that are depreciated over the life of the asset. These are not subsidies, but recognition of the costs to produce the gross profits of the company. Oil companies should not be treated any differently than any other company or individual.
- Source: John Dalt, April 28 2011 Email [talking about US Oil companies, but the same can be said for Canada] |
|
|
|
|
