Evening Star

We already tax the crap out of alcohol and tobacco. How would a national severance tax apply in Canada, where resources are mostly publicly owned and under provincial jurisdiction? Provincial governments already seem to charge royalties.

I don't really see how those taxes could replace income taxes altogether unless they were oppressively steep. Taxing sugar seems insane to me: it is a nutrient that our bodies need (in moderation) and is present in all sorts of healthy fruits and vegetables, for starters.

Unless you're talking about the Green Party or maybe Stéphane Dion, neither of whom I've ever considered poverty activists, I'm not sure who you could be referring to here. Cite? [Edited for grammar]

I dunno, I didn't see anything in the article that said that the CAODC was attributing this predicted downturn to the prospective policies of a brand new government. If this were in fact the case, that they were calculating projected unemployment rates based on policies that had not been announced yet, I would have to assume that the calculations were pretty rough. [Edited a typo]

OK, that seems straightforward enough. It would seem that the variables would include: what the optimal level of savings actually is, the extent to which an x% increase in different tax rates would impact the levels of savings and consumption, and perhaps the extent to which economic growth and a "richer society" should be prioritized above other considerations. It's still not clear to me from this explanation why corporate income taxes would necessarily discourage savings more than other non-consumption taxes, e.g. your example of capital gains taxes. Paul Krugman, who is also a Nobel-winning Ivy League economist, advocates raising both income taxes and consumption taxes, so I still wonder if there is consensus among economists on these points. Has Solow expressed a view on this (on the specific question of how people should be taxed in the present day)? I ask because I thought he was considered a fairly left-leaning economist. If it is true, as you mentioned earlier, that consumption taxes are progressive, why is it that I never heard social activists who advocate for low-income communities advocate in favour of consumption taxes? It seems unlikely that it is purely out of economic ignorance? (My own untrained intuition, fwiw, would be to favour lower business taxes and higher personal income taxes, which I gather is how it is done in Nordic countries. Also to scrap most of the vote-buying tax credit schemes the Cons have come up with.)

This announcement came the day before the Alberta NDP tabled their bill that includes the income tax changes. As far as I know, they have not made changes to royalties yet. How could they have already been impacting these predicted unemployment figures?

I'll admit that I skipped around in this and looked for explanations of this model that were even more dumbed down but I did not see anything that explicitly discussed the merits of corporate income taxes vs personal income taxes vs consumption taxes. Could you explain how it applies?

Sure; also, the economic impacts of policies might not be seen immediately. I guess I feel like while these are all good reasons to question the idea that the NDP are the best fiscal managers, they are equally good reasons to be sceptical that they have done nothing but "[run] various provinces into the ground", especially considering that NDP governments have been re-elected numerous times in SK and MB.

This basically means that they're keeping their promises, right?

Do you have a link (or citation for a print source) to something written by Solow or other Keynesians on the merits of corporate (or personal) income taxes vs consumption taxes? I would like to read more.

Ha, since 2007, the right-wing Saskatchewan Party has actually been in power, but yes, your point is taken: when making these sorts of comparisons, the accounting should be consistent. There are other factors to consider, too: for instance, I think it can be inappropriate for a government to run a surplus (or even a balanced budget) during a major recession. Looking just at a chart of surpluses and deficits gives pretty limited information.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if there were really a consensus amongst economists that "corporate taxes are the worst way to support a government" (let alone if there were a consensus that e.g. 15% corporate tax is great but 18% is disastrous). I'm not even sure that investment should always be encouraged rather than spending. I can imagine situations where spending should be encouraged.

Here's one fwiw: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/04/29/fiscal-record-of-canadian-political-parties/. (I feel that it would be much stronger if the author gave a chart that looked at provincial governments only. Still, NDP governments in SK and MB have been widely known to have regularly turned balanced budgets.)

I just want to note this statement from John Abbott: http://www.johnabbott.qc.ca/welcome which the Post has appended to the Kay piece linked above: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/29/jonathan-kay-david-suzuki-is-poster-boy-for-why-canada-needs-suns-hater-brand-of-journalism/

I'm no expert in this area and don't have a hard-set position. So far I've leaned towards the prevailing opinion here as concerns Attawapiskat. I'm interested, though, in what you guys think of this: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2013/01/true-scandal-first-nations-funding-not-deloitte-and-touche-ver It's actually possible to believe that there likely was mismanagement but also that the problems Fraser mentioned may have been real.

I see that it can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/embed/1ynaC8f5ues The whole clip is recommended.

Yeah, the whole time, I suspected that it was wise for Mulcair to lay a little low on this one, and it seems that this was in fact the case.

Is there a cite for this? It's pretty distressing if it's true. I donated some money at the time even though I didn't have a tonne of it.

Those redefinitions were agreed on by both sides, though, right? Ideally, the idea of just having one multicultural country where everyone is an equal citizen sounds good to me but I'd be concerned about the idea of unilaterally doing something when there are treaties that have been signed by two parties.

I guess another question worth asking is how many Canadians are willing to pay higher prices for goods produced by Canadian citizens at Canadian wages.

Oh come on, state-owned Chinese corporations appear to be deriving some benefit too.

The link you provide states that it is very difficult for temporary workers to even achieve permanent residence, let alone citizenship, and is impossible for some (agricultural or low-skilled workers).

I mean "fair" in the sense that when two parties have, for better or worse, signed a treaty, it does seem unfair for one party to unilaterally scrap or redefine that treaty. Perhaps a question worth asking is why so many still choose to live on reserves even when conditions are abysmal.

Is there a fair and constitutional way to do this (honest question)?

By most accounts, the world is overpopulated as it is.