CPCFTW

I think people also hate them for the 4 months vacation and 15+ bankable sick days.. Not just because they have a pension (although I will note the taxpayer, as the employer of teachers, makes significant contributions to the plan as well).

Yes and maybe they don't want to give Wynne another $100 a month to save for retirement at 3% return buying Ontario green bonds. People are struggling to pay their student and credit card debts and Wynne wants to force them to invest at 3% for 40 years instead of letting them pay off higher interest debts.

Yes jobs are created naturally by the economy. The government isn't needed to make jobs. Do you know anything about economics?

Flaherty said corporations were sitting on hordes of money, not that it has "been proven MANY MANY times that corporate tax cuts without any conditions do not result in job creation", which is what you alleged. Again, corporate tax cuts have been proven MANY MANY times to have a positive impact on growth. Go read some studies on the effect of taxes on gdp growth. They almost all unanimously agree that corporate taxes have the worst effect on gdp growth. In most cases gdp growth leads to job creation. Here's a study for you: http://www.ecn.ulaval.ca/~sgor/cit/arnold_oecd_2008/arnold_oecd_2008.pdf This paper examines the relationship between tax structures and economic growth by entering indicators of the tax structure into a set of panel growth regressions for 21 OECD countries, in which both the accumulation of physical and human capital are accounted for. The results of the analysis suggest that income taxes are generally associated with lower economic growth than taxes on consumption and property. More precisely, the findings allow the establishment of a ranking of tax instruments with respect to their relationship to economic growth. Property taxes, and particularly recurrent taxes on immovable property, seem to be the most growth-friendly, followed by consumption taxes and then by personal income taxes. Corporate income taxes appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita. These findings suggest that a revenue-neutral growth-oriented tax reform would be to shift part of the revenue base towards recurrent property and consumption taxes and away from income taxes, especially corporate taxes. I don't know how to make things any clearer.

Yes prices could be lower if there were lower costs (such as taxes and labour) .. Chinese workers make far less than Rogers employees so they can provide cable service for far less. That is reality. Thank you for espousing conservative values.

Good point.. The article says non-financial companies are hoarding cash... Canada's economy is primarily financial companies and resource companies. Enbridge and TransCanada alone are waiting to invest $12B in pipelines. Suncor is sitting on $5B of cash... Companies are trying to invest and create jobs with their cash reserves but the "progressives" won't let them.

See above

Again you didn't say anything about corporate tax cuts being proven to not create jobs... Which was your original argument. Try reading again. It's not that complicated. Corporate tax cuts would increase cash stockpiles which may or may not be used for direct employment, or which may be saved for acquisitions creating jobs for lawyers and investment bankers, or which may be distributed to shareholders who may then use the process to create jobs through increased consumption.

No but I know how to read. Nothing you quoted says anything about corporate tax cuts not creating jobs.

Yes we've been saying this for years to lefties espousing Obama's job creation record (which is truly abysmal). I don't have the numbers handy because I'm on my phone but last I checked, the participation rate in the US is 5-10% lower than Canada's and they don't include 15 yr olds in their labour force.

Why not? They already spend $1.9B on employment. It all comes down to npv of a project. If rogers could double their customer service levels by hiring a bunch of minimum wage csrs then it would likely be a high npv project and create employment. But with the ever-increasing costs of labour (such as Wynne's 2% tax hike on employment and minimum wage increases), job creation is less likely to have an acceptable npv and a soundly managed company should redistribute profits to shareholders who may have higher npv projects themselves. The reason companies are hoarding cash is because it isn't economical to spend that cash on employment.

No it hasn't. It has been proven that corporate tax cuts create economic growth though... And economic growth frequently leads to job creation.

This is slippery slope nonsense. Cutting public sector jobs and reducing the debt and deficit will have a positive effect on the economy by increasing the future disposable income of the middle class (when budgets are balanced and the debt burden is reduced, conservative policies would be to reduce taxes on the middle class and job creators [corporations]).

Here's another one. Rogers communications. They spend $1.9B on employing 28k Canadians. The corporate tax cut would have saved Rogers approximately $68M in 2013. That's enough to hire about 1000 more employees without affecting the bottom line.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0c6e9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2yz1aCVku Yet the book also has clear weaknesses. The most important is that it does not deal with why soaring inequality – while more than adequately demonstrated – matters. Essentially, Piketty simply assumes that it does. One argument for inequality is that it is a spur to (or product of) innovation. The contrary evidence is clear: contemporary inequality and, above all, inherited wealth are unnecessary for this purpose. Another argument is that the product of just processes must be just. Yet even if the processes driving inequality were themselves just (which is doubtful), this is not the only principle of distributive justice. Another – to me more plausible – argument against Piketty’s is that inequality is less important in an economy that is now 20 times as productive as those of two centuries ago: even the poor enjoy goods and services unavailable to the richest a few decades ago.

Here's some sweet liberal job creation: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/15/toronto-star-layoffs-job-cuts_n_4280396.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/torstar-to-offer-buyouts-to-1-050-star-employees-1.1058692 Torstar just released its consolidated annual financial statements about a week ago. They lost 27M on 1.3B in revenue so unfortunately Hudak's tax cut won't change their tune since they don't pay any taxes. Their salaries and benefits cost is 480M (37% of revenues), so Wynne's 1.9% tax hike will cost them another $7M-8M (unless the torstar employee union already has a comparable pension). You'd think that a company that keeps laying off employees due to excessive labour and operating costs would understand the value of reducing labour and energy costs for job creation. Anyone else care to look up some other Ontario based corporations that will save jobs if Hudak wins over Wynne? There are thousands of them!

There's nothing wrong with inequality if everyone's purchasing power continues to rise, which it has in Canada. Piketty's whole book is based on the flawed assumption that inequality is inherently bad.

Many, if not most, SMEs are corporations. Ontario only gets $10B in revenue from corporate taxes, so a 30% cut is only $3B less revenue. Since Hudak is eliminating the $1.5B of liberal corporate handouts, it's really only a -$1.5B impact to revenues and that's only if you assume cutting corporate taxes will have no positive effect to the gross tax base.

Watching and grading 30 kids takes more work than 16 kids. I don't see why they'd be any more stupid. University lectures have hundreds of students and we seem pretty capable of churning out 30 year old unemployed arts grads who can chant "occupy!!"

It's mostly teachers.. There are over 120k teachers in Ontario for 2mil students. That's 1 per 16.6 students. There are also over 7k principals and vice principals.. Classes will get bigger and teachers will have to work harder for the 8 months that they actually work. Boohoo.

Conservative policies are working fine. Why are we including retirees in any assessment of job creation? There are plenty of boomer generation public servants who are part of the WAP but who have retired with a healthy pension. Also if you break down the employment numbers by private vs public, you'll find that public employment has remained essentially flat for the past 5-6 years while private sector employment is booming. Yes we could follow leftist economic policies by creating a million public sector jobs digging holes and filling them in if we want to artificially inflate our employment situation, but that is unproductive and destroys our long-term growth prospects.

Scotty was discussing the top base salary for the OPP so I'm not sure why you would assume he was referring to median salaries for firefighters.

Increased spending caused the majority of the deficit. So either the opposition saved the economy by forcing Canada into a deficit or they just forced Canada into a deficit and Canada's economy performed well in spite of the opposition's spending demands. I personally think the economy would have done well without the forced stimulus spending and we'd be in an even better budgetary position if it weren't for the opposition's political games.

You're right much of the recent performance of Canada's economy is based on the efforts of previous governments. We won't really be able to truly appreciate what Harper has done for us until years from now when the Canadian economy is growing strong while France and most of the EU follow in Greece and Italy's footsteps. Let's hope he gets another term with a majority government to truly position Canada as an economic powerhouse.

The article does show how poorly Obama has managed the us recovery though. Those employment numbers are abysmal... He's turning USA into France..