geoffrey
-
Posts
9,251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by geoffrey
-
-
Salaries are an expense. The amount of profit left to be taxed is calculated after salaries are paid. The same should be true for dividends. And then those dividends should be taxed at the marginal rates of the individuals receiving them. Problem solved.
So you believe in the elimination of corporate tax?
-
In general, if government wants more of something...tax it less. If you want less....tax it more.
It goes beyond that. The money you or I invest has already been taxed when we earned it. Then we put it to work for the broader economy in exchange for a return. You should also note that this return is taxed already at the corporate level... Then its taxed again. The combined tax rate on corporate earnings once they flow back to the taxpayer (in the U.S.... less so in Canada) is actually HIGHER than what any common wage earner pays. Why should wage slaves be taxed less than those that create the jobs for the wage slaves? It makes no sense. You talk about disincentives, which are important, but it's already a very unjust system.
Those that tend to suggest higher capital gains or dividend tax rates (or claiming that they should be taxed at marginal rates) are those with a defined benefit pension or haven't put their personal capital at risk in a substantial way. It's not the same as employment income at all. You can LOSE. You take risk. You create jobs and wealth. It's not like cashing your biweekly stipend. And it shouldn't be taxed as such.
-
Oh sure, now that Ontario has gone from having to support the nation through its manufacturing base, to becoming a have-not province itself (thanks in some part to other provinces using 'oil' to inflate the value of the Canadian Dollar), now all of a sudden, it's time to end the Equalization Program!
High dollar hurts Alberta companies exporting oil as much as it hurts Ontario. In fact, it can make energy relatively cheaper for Ontario and Eastern companies that import oil from the Middle East. Ontario needs to stop blaming others and start looking at their recent track record of public policy.
-
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, this isn't a real fix... this is a delay until the debt ceiling debate. The GOP didn't have a great deal of leverage here, Obama knew the fiscal cliff wasn't the 'end of the world.' He could have delayed, and then played it as though the GOP was responsible for the tax increases.
Now, this all comes back in a few weeks, and in this case, the GOP has the bargaining chips to extract their pound of flesh. Does Obama want to be the first President to default on debt? Nope. Way more power rests with the Tea Party/right wing of the GOP than did just a few days ago. They'll get what they want now.
-
Just to clarify under the Constitution all trade in resources outside of the province is regulated by the FEDERAL government. I am not sure who you are going to sell it to if the Feds say it can't leave Alberta.
That would certainly be quite the constitutional crisis. Anyway, this was tried before. Lougheed turned off the taps and the rest of Canada quickly bowed to the reality that they need Alberta's energy exports.
In either case, I'm advocating more provincial input into the decisions around natural resource ownership (though Nexen - nor China - owns any resources... they have leases and pay royalties to the people of Alberta).
-
True, although we all benefit.
Of course, the economic impacts are substantial across Canada.
-
Sure, but, to clarify again, foreign affairs is a federal responsibility, and so is a concern of all Canadians.
That, I give you. The point I was addressing, however, was the selling out of "our" resources. They don't belong to Canadians in general, just Albertans.
-
It's interesting to note that Ben Bernnake coined the phrase "fiscal cliff". It would appear that whatever it is, he doesn't care for it. What I wonder is underneath all of the politicking and spinning, what does Obama think of it? You can't go by what he says.
Ben is walking a tightrope of confidence right now. The U.S. hitting a major economic recession right now could really hurt his monetary policy strategy, no confidence in the U.S. economy = mighty hard to keep bond yields from rising. Anything to prolong the time until a recession is critical to the Fed right now.
-
Harper and their ilk are traitors selling the rights to Canada's resources off to the highest bidder for the advantage of a small group of investors and right wing ideologues.
Just to clarify, the resources (oilsands) belong to Alberta, not Canada, under the constitution. Maybe Albertans should have more influence in the process surrounding the ownership of their resources, rather than allowing those in Ontario or Quebec set the agenda?
-
The US will not likely have fiscal surpluses for quite some time. The conditions for Clinton's success with a Republican House won't happen anytime soon because of demographics and government/state social programs. So the idea in Washington is to get chronic deficits down to "sustainable" levels, while monetizing the debt with a weak dollar policy, just as you stated.
True, I should have not said surplus budgets, but rather a country can build fiscal capacity by running deficits as a lower percent of GDP than the GDP growth rate. Doesn't need to necessarily be a surplus.
-
Agreed....recessions are normal and to be expected as part of economic cycles that redistribute and lean out markets / resources. The U.S. just "survived" one of the biggest recessions in its history.
True. However now the mentality in the U.S. is that future recessions must be prevented at all costs. You see that through monetary policy. You see that in the absolute all out effort to avoid a plunge off the cliff, even though the Dec 31 deadline wasn't that critical. Any effort is spared to avoid recession. That's foolish, especially when it costs you your long term viability.
You can postpone a recession for a long time by printing money and paying out thousands of dollars in cash per family (essentially what monetized deficits do). However, along the way you're building up a bigger and bigger problem. The recession, when it does happen, will be much worse and the U.S. will be much more fragile fiscally in dealing with it. I mean if you're burning a trillion a year at 2 percent economic growth, what is that going to look like in a recession? $2 trillion? $3 trillion a year?
During economic growth (which is occurring in Canada and the U.S.), governments should be focused on delivering surplus budgets and building fiscal capacity to handle the next recession. The LPC and CPC had a tradition of that here, a tradition I'd like to see restored. In the U.S., they are so far beyond returning to sound fiscal policy that I'm really concerned about how they will cope with the next recession, when it occurs.
-
Er, hum - didn't y'all just have a derecession? Rather bracing, wasn't it, and y'all are still feeling the effects? But you're right. Bring on the tax increases for the middle class and up, cut all the loopholes like the mortgage deduction, and you'll be good. Oh, just go to a single payer health system and you could almost wipe out your annual deficit in one fell swoop.
If the middle class wants a Northern European socialist state, then they're going to have to start paying Northern European type taxes. Obama's constituency is essentially looking for all he benefits of a welfare state, but having a few select rich guys pay for it. The reality is everyone is going to pay more. You can't fund extravagant benefits for all through the pockets of a couple guys.
But yes, recessions are concerning mostly due to media hype. 2 or 3 percent of the people lose their jobs, worst case. I know it sounds bad and its bad for the few that suffer, but the other 97 percent will be much better off long term. The 2 or 3 percent will eventually get their jobs back.
-
That he was probably looking at the short term, instead of the long term. The US needs a deficit fix. It's going to hurt when it comes. Now probably wasn't the right time to go over the cliff, but, at some point....
I honestly believe that the Democrats think they can postpone a recession forever. What's important to remember is that recessions are a normal, healthy part of economic progress. Creative destruction if you will. That reality seems to escape most politicians in the U.S. and around the world, and now we're on a perpetual course of additional debt and money printing to keep above that magical 0% economic growth.
For most people, they don't feel a 2% recession* over a quarter or two (likely the outcome of a plunge off the cliff). But for whatever reason, the politics of allowing a recession to happen have become bigger than the problem itself.
* refering to the slowdown, not the tax increases, which people do feel.
Why not?No one wants to wear a recession. It's more political than economic.
-
Northern Alberta has lots of Indians, and the Wildrose's chief backroom guy wrote a few books that probably aren't viewed so positively in those communities.
-
Hey guys, thought I'd drop in for my prediction. Loooooong time without a post, I know. How is everyone doing?
WRP - 51
PC - 29
NDP - 5
ABP - 2 (Glenora and West Yellowhead)
LPA - 0
-
Me thinks you're intentionally missing the point. The press's job is to report, even if its damning, not to cover things up for your favorite party.
The problem is the press just runs whatever is in front of them. They have a duty to research and ensure what they are publishing is factual, which apparently they jumped the gun on here.
The February draft is far less damning, in fact, it's harmless.
-
Ohhh, really SCARRRYY:
Conclusion2.22 - In our view, the manner in which the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund was presented did not make clear to Parliament the full nature of the request. By including the request under the item "Funding for the Border Infrastructure Fund relating to investments in infrastructure to reduce border congestion" government did not clearly or transparently identify the nature of the request for funding, that is, G8 infrastructure project spending.
2.23 - We could not conclude on project selection because documentation was not available to show how projects were chosen. We found that, once presented with the final list of projects to fund, Infrastructure Canada set up mechanisms to administer the contribution agreements. The Department examined the 32 projects to ensure they met the terms and conditions of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund and that agreements were made in accordance with government policy. Infrastructure Canada maintained project records 'and established project management frameworks.
Sounds like another Bev Oda wanna-be scandal. They had a bad title on the proposal. Whoop-de-do. All projects met the terms and conditions of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund per the AG, in accordance with government policy.
What's the problem here again?
-
Oh quit whining. The press is doing its job. I'll wager you weren't crying foul as the Sponsorship Scandal was unfolding.
People were criminally convicted for that. No one is going to be convicted for this, there are no legal issues identified by the AG apparently. Shoveling envelopes full of cash for party fundraisers under the table is a bit different then blowing a budget.
-
Well if Fife is correct and there is no mention of this in later drafts, someone could be facing some very serious consequences for this leak. I can't imagine leaking a document from the Auditor General's office is exactly a minor thing. Nor do I think libel and slander should be taken lightly, accusing a party of criminal offenses is a pretty big step outside the house of commons.
Now if only CBC and others had journalists with the balls to investigate things before they get published rather than just being the mouthpeices of paristan hacks, we might actually have a democracy here.
The reality is we see all this nonsense because the journalists are too clueless to actually think about something before its published.
-
Do people generally vote against surplus funds going to their community?
That's like Quebec condemning Chretien when all that money was mispent and loaned under questionable pretense in Shawinigan.
People know where their bread is buttered. I don't agree with it. But it's hard to really create anger amongst the beneficiaries.
-
Try taking away something that they care about and they will scream murder.
So true. Alberta should pay but we should not. Why? Well, they don't really know.
The reality is that in an international marketplace, if you were to impose a tax on oil sands oil, companies cannot pass it through to consumers (as consumers will just buy dirty or bloody oil cheaper from someone else) so it erodes Canadian output in favour of foreign markets (which are mostly Islamic extremists). This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
A real impact on climate change (if it indeed is caused by GHG) would be a tax on gasoline, especially for transportation industry. Reducing consumption of fuel is the way to reduce emissions, not just buying oil from a bloody dictator instead of Suncor because it makes Suzuki smile in the morning.
No economic sense, no rational sense. Just bad policy.
-
I agree blueblood, so you require oil. Now does that oil come from Alberta or Libya? And at what price?
Your (intelligent) relucance to be self-reliant just shows that you are the user of that oil, and should be responsible for the costs associated with producing it. In a global marketplace, that means placing any carbon tax squarely on the end user of a resource.
-
Where is Fraser saying anything like that? The only public statement I've heard is that the AG won't comment during the campaign and urging caution.
And the Speaker has no role in this. Parliament isn't sitting, so releasing the report is likely pretty much impossible. So this little "He's a Liberal" line is nothing more than a red herring.
My God man, you're just making this up. I cannot believe the lengths partisan supporters go to to try to turn a bad story good.
Per MotherCorp:
"Fraser said in a statement on Monday afternoon the final report cannot be released until Parliament returns, despite all four parties calling for the final document to be made public before the first televised leaders' debate on Tuesday."
What does Oda have to do with this?Is it really your defence of all of this that voters are semi-retarded amnesiacs? Is that what it amounts to?
No, it's just that these micro-scandals are actually much-ado about nothing and it's completely turned a large segment of voters off the Liberal message. You keep crying wolf and people will stop caring. Even if this turns out to be a big enough issue to consider, people won't care because of all the other non-scandals that Iggy and co. have raised hell over.
Voters are in general idiots though. That is true. Most people don't have the level of understanding necessary to really understand the implications of various proposed policies.
Just wait...the big one hasn't broken in the news yet...PM Harper was seen drinking milk from a carton after the expiration date!
Show that he is, in fact, a robot?
-
It seems that it was an error made by a staffer.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-day17.html#
He did vote in U.K. elections, as he legally was able to.
Fiscal Cliff
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted · Edited by geoffrey
Nor does Boehner apparently.