madmax

Therein lies the problem.

There is nothing in tax policy that would encourage more employees, nor is there really a need for a "tax policy" to be created around employing more employees. Often companies are lean, want to remain lean, and there is no need for 1 xtra body. Nor should there be. Tax policy is about taxes. Industrial policy is about Industry. Its just one small variable in the big picture. For some people they believe it is the only policy. It has been a failed policy for quite some time. Its good for the company while the company is here, but tax policy is not about retaining the company. Look..... Reduce corporate taxes and say it saves my company $200,000 per year. However, the cost of my deregulated hydro just went up $150,000 per month. You purchase in packets with overlap and bring those costs down to $75,000/ month. That is called competition. Prior to this the cost of hydro was $75000/month lower, but you have managed to keep your cost increases down 100%. Say I run a company and I source my parts locally and that my company employees 1200 people in 3 cities. I source hydraulic valves. The company I purchase from also supplies my competitor also located in the province. One company is American, the other is Canadian. The American Company with 1800 employees just got back $80,000 Extra in tax break this year, $400000 over the past 6 years, and is relocating their operations to Mexico. This company also got a $250,000 technology grant. Canadian company has received nothing. The Canadian company that sells the Hydralic valves is going to lose 55% of the business from the US operation. The Canadian Competitor company is going to face HIGHER PRICES because of decreased volume of the said hydraulic part. The Canadian Valve company announces months later it will be relocating operations to Mexico. Canadian company was PROFITABLE and Received a tax break. Explain to me how this tax break could possibly keep this company in Canada, let alone, as you suggest employ more people? Its not possible. It makes no business sense. 80 People of valving company are told they will be unemployed by year end. Canadian rival company, loses valve supply, and pays higher costs during transistion. Canadian Company struggles to maintain operations in Canada. New Mexican Valves are cheaper and but defect rate significantly higher. Industrial Teams are sent across the world to replace failing valves. Canadian Company 18 months later announce closure and relocation plans. 1200 people out of work. Canadian Company made profits of 22 Million on$600 million of business. Net loss 3,750 jobs between three companies. All these companies made money, showed profit, but this is the domino effect. Lower taxes are not going to change the fundamentals or global business decisions. Ok scenario #3 Company has operations in Canada with 65 Employees. This company makes 4 Million in profit on 65 million in business. Not bad. Sister plants in various locations make .... Net loss of 12 Million on 60 million in business, as well as net gain of $1.1 Million on 72 million in business. However, the two plants have 250 employees and 280 employees respectively. If you lay off 16 people in Canada, then reduce operation capacity and volume, you can avoid all severance pay legally. Or if you divert the work to the other operations, you can eliminate the Canada jobs and slide the company into bankruptcy and not pay. Or you can payout the 65 employees and move the profitable work elsewhere and close down one operation with little cost in comparision of the other two. Its not about how much they make, its about how much it costs to close the operations. How about this scenario. Its just fresh too. I have a company that was slovenly and poorly run. It is American branch plant in Canada. It has 500 employees and makes 60cents/unit. Joint Japanese partner comes in with 5S vision and lean production. Staff now down to 180 people and operation makes $1.00/ unit. Partner is 49% japanese, 51% US. After 2 years, American plant in US is about to close. It has a staff of 300 people and no future orders. Corporate Decision says to move work to empty plant from Canadian operations. Work is relocated and Canadian Operation is liquidated. Corporate operations make .60/ unit. That is 9 cents/unit more then corporate receives via sharing with Japanese. Sorry, but there is no "tax solution" to this and to think that cutting taxes creates work hasn't proven true for over a decade. Of course these are the simple ones, I could get further into details with regards to various groups with no industrial backgrounds buying and liquidating or flipping companies like stocks, with no intention to run a business or use sound manufacturing practices. But certainly happy to take any money the government gives them, via grants, or non repayable loans, and tax cuts. In the meantime, that Canadian Companies have not been able to receive loans from the banks. A tax cut does not help this company out. It requires the same cash flow or liquidity as the Bank. We gave the banks money and they held onto it. The are so many problems and such a total disconnect from the real world that most people believe in the myths and by believing these myths companies have decided to leave this country for good.

There are a few people on this forum who do not see it this way. But the fact is we have been reducing corporate taxes year after year after year, and it has been a failed policy for retention. It may be a good tax policy, but it isn't keeping anyone here. I still recall being in a meeting with a corporation that paid $35,000/year in taxes on their $86 million business. They had a meeting with the government that I attended and wanted that monies forgiven. It wasn't possible. They had to pay. I couldn't believe they were squabbling over such a petty amount of tax. They drove to the meeting in Lincoln Navigators, Hummers, One Viper, and a nice BMW convertable. Times were tough indeed. That evening they blew $2700 in a fine dining venue with only 4 people in attendance.

What is happening is that the the Joblosses started in 2005 and began to pick up momentum. By 2007 the economy of Ontario was in serious trouble and was masked by the increase of part time jobs. THerefore the job loss rate never looked as bad as it was. By 2008 many people were enrolled in retraining or obtaining employment in companies who ramped up production in order to build hedges before leaving for good. There was alot of short term decent paying work available. As these winddowns continued, those who fell through the cracks started showing up on the church suppers and foodbanks. Assets were liquidated and these people became either working poor or maintained their interest in the job market. In about two years the welfare ranks started to swell as many people found themselves facing the unthinkable. Also to be taken into account. If you enroll in retraining, you are out of the job market, even if collecting EI. Retraining swelled to such a degree that the PRovince of Ontario was unable to fullfill its skills development and 2nd Career solution. There were more takers then money and space available. This alone took 20,000 people out of the labour market for 2nd career and roughly 50,000 in skills development. That adjusts the numbers by 70,000. Self employment masked the numbers over the summer. The rate of failure is very high. New jobs with sustainable incomes are few and far between compared to the demand. Many people off EI and without a job do not state they are still in the labour market seeking work. Many people who are in and out of the labour market because work is precarious, are not listed in the Unemployment stats as their is a significant population that does not qualify for EI. 8.4% sounds about right with another 4% lost between the cracks of the system. It is just a statistic. Thus they have always been a ballpark figure, but it is a steady measure of unemployment and job creation in the past 13 years. I do not put alot of value in comparing the loss of a full time job and replacing it with a part time job as job creation or job surplus. But it is a job nonetheless. How should it be measured?

BTW, this poll suggests the NDP went up a point and the LPC down 4 points.

There is a POLLING THREAD already for this purpose. NUFF SAID!

I'd like to stir the pot on this, but my worthy adversary, GUYSER, has been MIA for a few months now. If your lurking Guyser, jump in and give us the insurance perspective.

Care to comment on the banking institutions lending practices beyond mortgages? Shall I book you in as a guest speaker to the industrial community. If you believe that loans of $50,000 to business generating $20 million to $250 Million is loosening up, I'm sure you will receive some colourful commentary.

All data suggests that the only party losing ground is the LPC. All commentary likes to suggest that the NDP polling is down. The NDP polling #s would have fallen like a rock, like the LPC had they turned their backs on the Unemployed for political gain. The very mistake Ignatieff made. NDP numbers are stagnate, and yet, they are in contention in at least 1 of the 4 by elections. The LPC are not in contention according to the punters. The CPC have one in the bag and a 2 in contention. The BQ have 1 in the bag and one in contention. The LPC are unlikely to win a single seat in the byelection. If by chance the NDP win 2 of these seats, polling numbers will mean little, as a party that is dropping in polls has little meaning as long as the NDP win the seats. The CPC will gain some credibility if they come out with 3 of the 4 seats. The BQ will maintain their solidarity if they win 2 of the seats. Of these parties, the NDP may end up empty handed. If the LPC win a seat it will be a victory. If they fail to win a seat, the LPC risks becoming irrellevant in Quebec, BC, and Nova Scotia. .

Clarified and understood.

Well said.

Banks were not in jeapardy and were and are able to loan money. Regardles of the efforts of the Federal governments, perhaps you missed it, but the Banks are tight and not loaning out money, or loaning more money or changing anything in their risk portfolio. Its a free lunch, and easy easy money in a protected market. If you believe that the banks are keeping the economy moving, that I will leave you with such delusions. The only thing the banks didn't do was collapse because ........ the Liberals did resist many of the banks greedy and stupid business lobbies during the Chretian and Martin years. If left to their own excesses, our banks would have followed the American Gamble. We have the safest banks, and the most protected banks in the G8. But we have given them billions while they continued to maintain Billions in profits during one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. Ditto and Agreed. Would make for an interesting thread of its own.

Holy crap. The banks profits were affected .007% by the US subprime debacle. The Canadian banks maintain profitabiliy throughout this.

One $54 Billion was taken from the fund. $46 Billion by the Liberals, and $8 Billion by the Conservatives. Yes I know the Legal Ruling .... The government used the loophole to steal/take/diverty from the EI contributions of the EMPLOYEE and the EMPLOYER. There is NOTHING erroneous in my statements. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it wasn't stolen. The EI SURPLUS, were diverted by the LPC to their own pet projects. The LPC burned the monies and balanced the budgets on the back of EI contributions. EI MONEY that is NOT there today because the LIBERALS used government moneys for things like ADSCAM and STEALING from EI. LPC THIEVES with endless entitlements and a deep desire to help their corporate friends to the EI slushfund. Those same corporate friends enjoying a nice fat tax cut, while exiting the country. All Courtesy of the EI surplus. Nothing like taking from the Employee, denying them benefits and giving out Tax Breaks that would be impossible without stealing from the EI fund. In legal terms, its called conversion. The UFCW who took the government to court for Diverting the funds, lost the ruling because there was no safeguard to prevent the government from stealing from the fund. That law has been changed. Regardless, the LPC balanced the books on the back of EI surpluses. By collecting large sums in EI, and by dening EI benefits to the majority of those who pay into it. Don't worry though, between the two parties the EI surplus no longer exists. The LPC and CPC bled it dry.

No reason why I should pay more or pay GST on something that is GST free now. I have been doing the rounds with many small business operators. I have yet to find one that complains and mentions as many difficulties as you. Infact, I am having difficulty finding one that is jumping up and down on the merger.

Why are you defending priests that touch children?

Dewees, 32, who taught Latin and English at Jarvis since 2003, was charged Thursday with Internet luring and invitation to sexual touching at the Christian-based Ontario Pioneer Camp near Huntsville between July 2008 and July 2009.

Please don't start so many threads on the same subject.

I am not certain how Stealing $46 BILLION from EI puts the country in a good position when facing massive and soon to be chronic unemployment and under employment. I suggest that Canada has not yet felt the full pain of this downturn. Most of Canadas problems are structural, systemic and will continue even with a pickup in the global economy. Canada handed over billions to the banks for no good reason. Canada's economic crises was not a banking crises as in the US. Regardless Canada propped up the banks who continue to roll in Billions in profits. There is more to the economy then just pushing some figures around. Canada is facing some deep shit.

Experience working in freefall may come in handy

It was a heavy, heavy tax. Best thing ever done was to wipe that crooked party off the political landscape. The Liberals opposed free trade so much they expanded it to Mexico Hearing you tell it, its clear that the CPC/PCs are as lying and corrupt as the LPC. CPC/LPC Phoney Balanced budgets, LPC/CPC Stealing BILLIONS from EI. CPC/LPC Surpluses that don't exist.

.......those visions can never work together..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_C...Party_of_Canada The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (PC) (French: Parti progressiste-conservateur du Canada) (1942–2003) was a Canadian political party with a centre-right stance on economic issues and a centrist stance on social issues. The party began as the Conservative Party in 1867, became Canada's first governing party under Sir John A. Macdonald, and for years was either the governing party or the largest opposition party. The party changed its name to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in late 1942.

If you cut off all forms of Welfare to the political parties even the CPC are DEAD! If you want to pick and choose which form of Political Welfare you dislike, then the $1.95 loss would wipe out the Green Party.If you get rid of the kickbacks to Donors, then many CPC and LPC donations would disappear as the contributor isn't getting their money back in Public Tax benefits. I am in favour of killing it all. No tax credits because you donate to a political party. This is wrong!!! Its a political party it's not a charity.

OH? I believe the Whole LEFT moved behind the Liberals to be rid of the CPC as the governing body and the Liberals under Ignatieff Reneged. So, instead, the Centre Left should choose to give blind support to someone that has reneged on a deal, turned their back on the unemployed, supported the war in Iraq, is willing to extend the war in Afghanistan, is an apologist for degrees of torture. In fact, the Centre Left under the Liberals did their best to get through the Centre Right & Right Agenda and turned their back on the Centre. With the CPC I know exactly what I am getting. I know what I like and what I dislike. With the LPC, we have a party that has yet to determine which way the wind blows. Some nonsense about a HARPER SALES TAX only to discover that if the Centre Left Elected the LPC, that the Harper Sales Tax would be fixed by renaming it the Ignatieff Sales Tax. abcdefgH then I. Makes perfect sense for a tax name if we are using the next letter of the alpha bet. And since the LPC has no policy, this is as good as any. Never much paid attention to your political stripes. I normally read your posts with interest but never noticed your colours. However, Ignorance and arrogance support the position that the 14% of people who vote NDP would vote Liberal if denied the choice. In the meantime. Its dissapointing that the LPC leader and various candidates for leadership along with pretenders and benchwarmers all suck.