69cat

Lets get back to some basics, this discussion pertains to "corporate taxes" and, as i mentioned a long way back, Canada has only "small" and "large" definitions with regards to Canadian owned companies with "large" defined as retained earnings of $50M or more. I do not insist what i say above is true as i am just a farmer but i at least looked into the definitions to form an understanding (though i do stand to be corrected if wrong). Some places define a large corp as employing 100 or more people but i am talking as per Canadian tax code. So, we are not talking about meg companies in any way. You all have to keep in mind that there are a lot of companies employing 200 people within a short drive of your area that are directed by federal (and provincial) tax policy. So when you talk of raising taxes as these "big" companies should pay more, you are also impacting that company that you dont even notice tucked away in the background. And so, how do people start talking about private sector cant be trusted, they are inefficient, dont pay their way? All these negatives? When you talk of negatives first think of your own business (is it simply inconceivable you would own and operate your own business - i sure hope not). So why are you and 10 friends part of some evil empire, would you not run it best you can with tight margins to keep efficient and working? And you grow into a 200 employee "large" corp, at what point during this process did you become corrupt, inefficient, needing the gov to provide oversight because you deemed that it is best for your company to pursue an avenue of corruption. Corporations are not "things", they are people. And it may be your corporation, so why is it your goal in life to run it corruptly, inefficiently, or not in a way to provide a good work environment for your employees or the area you work in.

WIP, i understand the ideology you wish for is something i wish could happen too, but to do so you would be one of those people protesting against a dictatorship saying "give me freedom or give me death". Ultimately i beleive this would be true. Why cant a dictatorship or govrrnment rule 100% for the good of the citizens, the reason is everyone is an individual. For additional thought (again, i am simply here to point out things to ponder), you dont have to cite example from books or places on the other side of the world. Go visit a Hutterite colony or at least about them and then you can cite data from within Canada. They are doing great financially, always growing, none of the members suffering, great people to chat with. When i am out at a colony doing some electrical troubleshooting and a fellow walks up while a couple of us are discussing something and there is a short exchange and that fellow moves on i say "he seems grumpy", and a discussion follows on why that is. I dont refer to a book that tells me what i should have heard, i think "hmmmmm" and carry on. Great model for a society but still not 100%. Ultimately nothing is 100% so maybe they have the best model, without me actively living there for say 5 or more years i wont know. Fundamentally i think we agree that the bigger the "collective" the least it can respond to needs. So my opposition to full government regulation of everything. Perhaps a Hutterite colony is the best. However they are spread out and if each one bordered the next i will bet there will be another, not positive, dimension added. This brings me to the CWB as a collective. 70 years ago i could see it benefit but more so as a means to market grain, but technology has solved that aspect. So something else to ponder when question "if a hate Harper". You are likely trying to reconcile, why, after i wrote how the CWB works, the vote was like 60% in favor of keeping it. This brings me to three things when people present data 1. The numbers dont lie 2. People lie with numbers 3. The numbers dont tell the whole truth I dont remember the exact wording on th vote but it was manipulative to aid in triggering a desired out come, and in favor of the CWB and not the farmer. All permit book holders were given a chance to vote and lots were retired ideology driven guys who havent sold a dollars worth in years. And it is one vote per farmer so i guy that sell $20,0000 in a year has same vote as one who sells $2,000,000. I say Harper did the most democratic thing by eliminating an undemocratic entity. So regarding the three things i mentioned about numbers, you should look at the info on the CWB vote and see if you can understand that, even the data and articles you read say one thing, when i say "look at it from this angle" do you change to "i love Harper" on this one topic. Sorry for long winded posts, but it is necessary to flesh out where views originate.

Tim, true enough regarding infancy, i was thinking along the lines of it just starting to become viable without massive government manipulation of the market and we have a ways to go before it becomes mainstream. I also include things like fuel cells (alternative energy) and batteries to round out solar in my thought process when making such statements. Simply put, we have a ways to go and the solution will be figured out without government. I actually beleive that solar will be obsolete in maybe 30 years, but i havent kept up to speed on fuel cell technology, as with other techs, it may not be viable now but maybe viable in the future. I dont know, but if it becomes viable, solar will replace the 10 ft satellite dish in the front yard that was nice to have for a while but is never coming back no matter what. And if not fuel cells then something else will be on the horizon. You either beleive people are stupid or they are smart.

Icebound, i see where you are coming from and you want the government to control everything. I just posted on the exact same thing in thread "why i wont be voting harper - economic record. I will simply say i am not on board with that.

WIP, i understand where you are coming from now. I was still talking about the economics of today and you have been talking about a different ideal completely. Try to take not too much offense to what i write next, but i can only say what i beleive. If i say i hit my hand with a hammer and it hurts, it is just my opinion. I dont have proof, i dont have charts or studies, i simply say consider that it may be a bad idea. In Saskatchewan what you speak of is the No Damn Progress party. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I am sure someone will argue that our parents were idiots and next time around smarter people will be there but, as i have said numerous times, i have more faith in people. How was this model working in Sask, well it should be all about quality of life for the citizens. I would say look at data of people leaving Sask during that period for your answer. Sure, it could be argued they left because we dont change our clocks, but my opinion is different. May as well bring back the CWB but this time put ALL grains under its mandate so the entire farm sector can be controlled for the colective good. I got that t-shirt too. That comes back here and there will be a for sale sign and i am off to Thailand, i brother lives there and its nice. Add me to the stat of people who left Sask because i we dont change our clocks. The theory of government controlling all facets that you suggest i understand. What happens is, in the BIG picture, the gov must control everything, not just some. If only some then some people do well and others suffer. This model requires equal sufferring for all. I mentioned this in a post along time back, it is great if the gov controls everything and you are happy with the decisions and choices made, what if you start to have different opinions or think a different action should be taken? You are screwed. So yes, i understand what you say, i understand the worthiness, i understand the morality, i understand the utopian idea. But i understand that when things are not moving in the direction of the ideals that drive yourself, then your utopia is your prison. As i say, dont mean to offend, i am simply saying that when i hit my hand with a hammer there are some consequences to consider. You may try anyway, heck things may even work out ok, but with what you speak of i have seen a glimpse and i see some flaws. Not saying the track we are on wont lead to our doom but as i always keep saying, people are smart and will find a solution, it does not require government to solve everything.

Sorry but dams for power are another issue i have, cant build them because they disrupt the ecosystem too much. Bob, the poster was referencing dams in Mb and Qu i beleive. Regarding solar, reefer you understand they are not free either as Tim says. You dont just build a panel without exploiting somebodies resources and pumping a bunch of oil from the ground. And they take up alot of space, if i do 10 kw to supply less than 1/2 my homes peak needs in winter needs and that is only during daylight, i need 8ftx60ft roughly. So full requirements are about 8 x 180ft plus i need batteries and they come with an environmental cost. Talk about urban sprawl for each home owner to be independent. And to think utilities are worried about green energy is absurb. What ever website you got that from you need to delete it and deprogram yourself. A utility does not care what its energy source is, it makes a profit to cover risk and investment - end of paranoid thinking. And the utility will make profit for distribution to cover its risk and investment, and again does not care if electrons come from a gas fired turbine or a solar cell. The system will find solutions, it does not stop simply because someone thinks government is not applying pressure to solve problems. I have nothing against renewables but the technology is still in its infancy and no amount of government involvement is going to move anything as fast as some are claiming it should.

Thanks WIP, i am not saying i agree with the conclusions but was questioning why the data ends there. Read some more articles and more technical papers and none of them made any reference at all why the data stops there. Your response sounds reasonable to me so i am good with that for now. I was wondering if they were running out of ice as none of the research explains what the future looks like for more drilling. That ice core chart without this kind off background leaves a lot of questions but what you say helps.

Icebound, you are right in your analogy, not arguing that. The argument remains that you need business (wealth generators) for the government to obtain money to provide services. If you have one farmer and 10 inspectors you have a bunch of government wealth generators but you will not have enough wealth created to support government. If you have 10 farmers and one inspector then life is better for everyone including the taxpayer. I am saying that it is better to have a potash mine employing people rather than the government employing people through EI. The worker may still get the same take home pay and so spend it in the ecomomy, but the government will soon be out of money. Is this not correct?

Argus, my thinking is that the rise in interest rates will cause the devaluation in property, for my farmland reference anyway, so you and dre are both correct. If i stick to my farmland example, it will take probably 20 years to pay it off at typical profit per acre in my area. Better off putting money elsewhere. But guys have the opinion that "it will always be worth more than i paid" and that seems to drive the housing market thinking too. So people borrow beyond what would be reasonable because of that beleif. Once interest rates rise, cost of borrowed money is more and my farmland is a longer payback. Guys may need to sell to pay for borrowing, land prices drop because more is available and costs more to finance. Those who bought with cash or borrowed less are less troubled but still have less equity to borrow against as needed. So there will be a correction when interest rates rise. What i dont know is what causes an interest rate rise. But the guy maxed out on credit will be hurting more than the guy with some savings. May not be doomsday material but also the wrong guy at the helm can cost the average joe $1000s of dollars in equity with a few bad policies. And as dre says, i would fault Harper for not getting interest rates up more but i have no idea what that would entail or what other circumstances may prevent it so best i should say on that is 'i think higher is better'.

Dre, excellent post. I think there is a world of hurt coming and it is going to get ugly. People can blame our gov for everything but i think there has been some encouragement to save. Though i mention and defend the TFSA everytime i can, it is because i think it is important. This "credit is cheap, spend, spend" is going to hurt a lot of people. I am pro-Harper and your post is exactly why. Years ago i voted Liberal and i may again someday. But you look at the big picture and you have said what i see. People can attack Harper all they want but i really thinkhe has done the best he can for the country, cut excessive spending, and encouraged people to save. I am no economist so i dont have all the answers but the government is going to have 8ts hands full pretty soon and i am picking my horse who i think will cause the least damage. I had a chance to buy more farmland a few years ago but i expect it to be worth 1/3 of what it is now before i retire. Only question is how bad things get, and if Harper is out no one can blame him, but the crap will hit the fan regardless.

WIP, can you say why the ice core record goes back only 800,000 years? Just curious as i have seen this before but never had a chance to ask anyone. You made a good post that i need to read again but wondering if you know the answer.

Icebound, yes getting into more detailed topics we can talk about that government employee contributing to the economy but i can still stick to generalizations. If the government worker shows those people how to till the land and generate wealth, the government will get a return. However the worker is still trading his labor for a form of return and the government is still collecting taxation so as to pay other government employees elsewhere to do something similar and currency works easier than figuring out how to trade labor. This should all be correct with your analogy. But if the guy tilling the soil says there is not anything in this for me because the government takes all my earnings and so they all stop doing it, where is the return from the government workers involvement, what happens now the tax dollar has stopped flowing to the gov, and now how does the gov finance its next endeavor such as clearing up the rotting bodies. A government paying a policeman, to protect a fireman who has a nurse to take care of his injuries does not create any revenue for the government to pay these people, the money can circulate within but no new wealth flows in to allow the gov to build a new school. Though they have traded their labor for pay. The money comes in when the above people are also providing service for the guy who wrote a book and sold it to the farmer who produces for the guy swinging a pick in a mine taking a worthless piece of ore and bringing it to someone who needs it. I see a partnership where both business and government work together. No doubt economics can be like a form of witch craft, i prefer the analogy "the numbers dont lie but people lie with numbers". So you see why i stick with generalizations and basic concepts. If i start posting lots of charts and graphs then i am falling into that trap. Thus i try to keep to what i experience, i have been involved in a few businesses that were not influenced at all by economists, just people trading labor for pay and paying taxes. And inturn the government provides basic services, law and order and security. To go deeper than this is beyond my experience so i stick with basics and hold to what i say is true, but your mileage may vary.

Yes michael, but government does not necessarily do what the loudest squawker says, to hold to that would imply your government is not smart enough to make the right decision on any topic. Not a good feeling. Sometimes it simply boils down to which idea works best 'at that time'. I am not of the thinking that privatized health care cant work. I work at times on equipment at, and even compete against SaskPower and will be hardpressed to say they will do anything better than private business. The big difference is SaskPower will always serve all customers equally where as private business would target the larger centers. However rules could be written for that and City of Saskatoon and Swift Current are privatized and doing very well so maybe one could argue that SaskPower should go as there exists a precedent to compare to.

Msj, re potash agreement i found reference to it but did not say what pcs paid to mosaic. It ended dec 2012 though. Reading your link sure brought back memories of being in post secondary when the potash corp was privatized as well as the Prince Albert pulp mill. Being young and not involved in the economy i was against it and caught in the NDP ideas at the time. But looking back now, i take the right wing view that private business will do things better than government run. No doubt one can find examples to the opposite but from my Saskatchewan experience this is my beleif. I would say SaskPower is likely better as a public corp for example. No doubt things are good now and potash will oversupply and price will drop and our economy will suffer but i would also say that we will still be in the game and be there for the next cycle. If potash stayed on the sidelines those mines would be built in another country. But our business environment brought them here instead, and for the better without having a crystal ball handy.

Michael, regarding the $45,000, i use it for generalizing as yes, money goes back in the economy. I could argue i make a couple of bad investments in the stock market and it truely is gone. So just speaking generally. And now you get into ideologies, does a government run market out perform the free market in regards to the benefit of its citizens? I guess you need to look at other countries for those examples. Something that is beyond my knowledge so will take a pass on.

Thanks Huxley, i didnt know about the other planned debates so you have a good point. I guess, to be fair (or a jerk) i would need more context on the issue of Harper and Mulcair choosing one vs the other. Is it common in 50 years of debates for one debate to be held while 3 are cancelled or only get to the proposal stage. This is where we are at correct? Is this the first time a proposed debate was not held for one reason or other?

Yes WIP, i agree 100% with you. But you have not presented an alternative or explained why, for reasons of known economic principles in play regardless of which government is in power, do you feel Harper has a bad economic record. Absolutely resources will be used up. You want your shelter, food and some sort of quality of life other than eat, sleep repeat. Its cold here so my shelter requires more than the guy in Cuba. To get totally away from inflation (things being always harder to develop) is impossible. Even on the farm, there is no way i am going to give away my grain for free and neither would you. So, even if someone invented a way to do away with any form of payment for services rendered i guess i may as well simply only produce for myself. And so everyone on the planet must do the same. I still fail to see how you have a solution in mind. You have laid out the basics of how anyone gets rewarded for their efforts and imply it is a bad thing. If your issue is simply with oil then fair enough. My opinion is that people are smart and, i for one will put up solar soon. Because oil will keep getting more expensive, this is no secret. And soon fuel cells will be available. Government can certainly aid in developing new technology and getting businesses off the ground and it has always been that way. But companies are more likely to do it faster and better. Do you think Tesla would exist if only because of government control? And who is most likely to develop the next break through in battery tech, a company specifically in r&d with gov backing or a free market company like Tesla that exists because it can make a profit and be rewarded for its efforts. The free market will solve a lot of things, the government controlled market has much less interest in doing anything other than existing for the sake of existing.

Very valid cyber, i would agree with you. Whether we are in a recession or not is not really the issue if it is that subtle. In my opinion it becomes an issue if it extends a few years because, if i am a business owner, i should have held back a few dollars to help me ride through a "short" recession. The year after year ones is when people are out of work.

Michael, where did the government get its money? You are a tax payer working as a policeman (gov service). They pay you $60,000 a year and you pay them $15,000. Government is now - $45,000 in this arrangement. Did the government generate $60,000 for the economy or is the economy now - $45,000. Since the correct answer is the economy is - $45,000, the government needs three guys working at the potash mine making $60,000 each and paying $15,000 each just to balance that policemans wage. Now start thinking what happens when either the potash industry adds workers or laysoff workers. The lay off of one worker actually impacts threefold (or more). One less guy paying taxes, same guy is now on EI increasing gov spending more, and as we have established, the potash mine is there to make a profit and therefore would only layoff if profit is not there, this means that the gov is getting less money through corp taxes. So, you can see that a healthy business environment is a BIG deal. There is talk of a knowledge based economy or green energy economy but all the same mechanisms apply. You will not create your knowledge based company if the government is going to tax the crap out of you and not make it worthwhile. And you cannot create "green energy solutions" indefinitely with gov subsidies. A subsidy is a gov expenditure and also means the company is not generating much of any money to return to the gov. And, if you invest all this money in theses subsidies and a company in Denmark comes out with something better a few years later then your Canadian venture is done gor without paying back the investment. Absolutely is gov needed to get a business started, but it must be seen as viable and able to stand on its own in the free market otherwise it will always be you, the taxpayer paying for it rather than it paying you back.

Moonlight Graham, what you are not including in your thoughts are how the guy going to Walmart to stimulate the economy got his money in the first place. In my Potash example, a healthy industry not cut down by high government tax policy (and other policies) will expand and grow and not layoff workers. A healthy industry wil put two guys on Walmarts doorstep. And industry needs other industry to support it, manufacturing for example is needed to support the needs of a large businesx. What you are looking at is the consumer economy for lack of better term. But how did he get his money in the first place? If you say government, then how did the government get its money? Yes, industry and the taxpayer working in industry. Remember a employee working for the government generates $0. And that employee has no significant impact on most industry unless it is supplying directly to the consumer. Regarding my potash model, it doesnt matter if the gov gives the citizen $10 or $10,000, the potash industry will not generate money to give to the worker or the gov in the first place therefore the gov cant give away that $10,000. So you need to understand were the guy gets his money from in the first place, it is certainly not from the government.

Squid i have heard the two budgets are different but never heard why. The government collects money from the tax payer, gets it from business, and then purchases services. When less money comes in then they pay out, it is bad. Canadas combined public debt is $2.7T. With your personal budgets, when you die you dont have to worry about but you hope your affairs are in order so your kids are not burdened. with government the debt we have now is going to be paid on by my kids for sure and likely their kids. And if the interest rates rise, well i guess my kids will have to worry more about finding food when the country collapses. If it were me, i would run the country excatly like my household and pay down the debt i incur now so my kids dont have to. How does your budget plan go? Just curious and i sure hope it doesnt involve anything like "you can be assured that your kids will be paying more than you are now" because if i can get my hands on that financial genius it wont go well. So tell me and put my mind at ease.

WIP, the economics of most things in life are as you say. Whether you are digging for gold, building an apartment building or paying someone to clear snow. It usually gets harder and more expensive as you go farther. I also think of the old saying: the cure for high oil prices is high oil prices When the price goes up it becomes more profitable to develop other areas and supply increases, and price goes down. Supply and demand actually. And it is not a new phenomenon that some companies will still produce when price is low, there is no need to specify oil industry when discussing that principle. If grain prices are down i am not going to sit on my butt, i will, as you say, do what i do and see how things go. So with that all said, what is your proposal for the economy? I heard Alberta say they are going to produce a knowledge based economy and will be leaders in green tech. Hmmm, lets put that in practice, they will compete with the entire world as everyone is saying the same thing. Now, of say 300 companies, only say 30 will rise and survive and the others will be ashes. And if they are lucky enough to have 2 of the 30 located in Alberta they better be darn good because as soon as a competitor in the world comes up with a new idea (knowledge base economy and green tech is Alberta new economy) then their economy is done. So yes, they can follow that model, but if it falters it is game over. Or did you have some other vision if resources are off the table and manufacturing ceases to exist because you cant manufacture anything without a resource to put into it. So i am kind of curious what your economic plan looks like. I understand mining, farming, forestry, oil and gas and manufacturing, but all these sound bad in the "new economy". Power production is great but with no industry to sell to i dont know how joe gets his pay check to pay for his power.

Msj, not trying to be an asss, I did a quick search and without knowing what i am looking for, it is not easy to find a document. I can see where there could wording like that now that i think about it. Since a mine occupies a lot of space on Canadian soil and we have things like tailings piles that are an environmental concern it is very likely there is something written somewhere that allows a Canadian entity to take possession. Say for instance the American owner abandons the site and now we have an environmental issue with the tailings that needs to be addressed sooner than later. I would expect the legalese would be quite lengthy, but yes, i can see you coming across such a document. My thoughts would be the foreign owner is likely quite comfortable with the document and maybe it is standard practice? Dont know, way beyond anything i have rudimentary experience with. Regarding CIT, another thought i have is provincial government can change royalty structures also, so they can decide to vary cit to target all businesses, or various royalty structures depending on what industry is desired to be impacted. It gets pretty complex, suffice to say government can play a major role in whether a company like a potash mine can excel or simply plug along.

Huxley, i see what you mean by parliamentary representation but how do you link this to Harper and Mulcair in any form? I cant find any specific reference in an internet search regarding rules for inclusion. The only thing i find is a wiki article and back in 1988 the CRTC went after CBC, CTV and Global on behalf of the Green Party through the Ontario courts and even the Supreme Court was appealed to, but your issue makes it sound like something that originated in the last 3 years when it was actually challenged +25 years ago and thus begins with the first debate. In lack of finding any other info it seems the CBC, CTV and Global is who you need to go after as they are the parties named. And now the Globe and Mail would need to be filed suit against.

Yes, Huxley, a miss interpretted the quote that you commented on the page before, i can give you that if i read the wording differently then the Bloc would not be excluded - my bad. With your idea of 20 candidates it would give rise to very regional based parties. Fair enough for trying to win seats but in a debate format it could be quite unproductive for a voter trying to decide who to vote for as regional issues would conflict. Just musing here. Again, no snub against May and i have listened to her talk and make time to listen more, but i can understand an entity simply saying you must have official party status. Of course there is no reason at all why we can not have 10 leaders debates during an election, it just means there must be entities willing to present it and candidates willing to attend. Frankly, last nights debate was very good, and i could benefit from seeing another one but it is up to the people putting it on to set it up and provide the rules. For example another forum we discussed a cut off switch on microphone to prevent being interrupted, some were in favor but ultimately up to the one orchestrating the debate to decide. Simply one more of the rules and so i take exception to you saying there is anything undemocratic about it - as having the Bloc participate previously bears out. And i have no issue saying Gilles contributed immensely to that debate. May could too, it is what it is regarding last night and not foul play.