Throne Speech & Paul Chretien

[Rasputin]

What do people think of the throne speech given by happy traveler Mme Clarkson ?

It confirms to me that Paul Chretien will not enact any meaningful reform in the coming year at least and most likely beyond. No program reforms, no spending efficiencies, no tax cuts, no military spend, no real deal for cities [especially Toronto]. The Council of Chief Executives states, "the lengthy agenda will drive further rapid and unsustainable growth in Federal spending.'

But not on the military of course.

[Rob1963]

He has totally ignored rural Canada, the food basket for the cities.

[Rasputin]

The NP says Paul Chretien is running to the left to ward off the charging, snarling, demagogic and all powerful rabble rouser Jack Layton. Give me a break. The NDP has a whopping 15 % of voters according to polls, which should be taken anyway with aspirin and a glass of water. Lots will change between now and a vote.

Basically in reading the speech on the web i read a whole lot of typical Liberal platitudes but nothing fundamentally different than what Jean Martin did in the 90s. More money exists for just about everybody and everything - except business, taxpayers and the military. I don't see how Paul Chretien can keep his 1 million promises given that our economy was stagnant last month and our tax burdens are already amongst the highest in the West.

Kyoto is even apparently going to still go through - this will be fascinating to see what Paul Chretien does if Russia says Nyet. How will he buy the Green vote then ?? Maybe buy David Suzuki and his eco-fascist friends tickets to the next UNO jamboree on climate nonsense.

In general the spending and tax burdens will only rise not fall given the tenor of this budget and Toronto which gives Ottawa almost $20 billion per annum will receive a whopping $50-100 mn back from Gas Taxes and GST relief. Wow !! Thanks for the rebate.

Obviously Paul Chretien is going to utterly transform Canada from a country of rhetoric to a country of compassionate rhetoric.

Big deal.

[theWatcher]

Make no pre election promises and you don't have to worry about breaking them after you win <grin>.

Martin got tired of having the Red Book thrown back at him time and time again. So they just recycled the old throne speeches and removed anything that they actually promised.

[Michael Hardner]

our tax burdens are already amongst the highest in the West

Yet another unsupported falsehood from Rasputin. We are below the OECD and EU averages for taxation. Read and learn...

OECD Tax Burdens

The most recent complete figures for tax revenue as a & of GDP show the following percentages.

54.2 Sweden

48.8 Denmark

46.9 Finland

45.6 Belgium

45.3 France

43.7 Austria

42.0 Italy

41.7 Luxembourg

41.4 Netherlands

40.3 Norway

39.4 Czech

39.1 Hungary

37.9 Germany

37.8 Greece

37.4 UK

37.3 Iceland

35.8 Canada

35.7 Switzerland

35.2 Spain

35.1 NZ

34.5 Portugal

34.1 Poland

33.4 Turkey

31.8 Australia

31.1 Ireland

29.6 USA

27.1 Japan

26.1 Korea

18.5 Mexico

OECD Average - 37.4

EU Average - 41.6

[Rasputin]

Hardner you really are a blowhard. Nice selective use of numbers.

Tax burden is defined by gov't tax revenues plus spending. In this case Cdn gov'ts collect 43 % of the GDP not the number you quoted. As well according to the Fraser Inst. CD Howe Inst. and others another 12 % is collected in regulatory fees. So in effect Canada has gov'ts controlling 55 % of GDP.

In Economic Freedom we are 16th in the World - this was posted on this site as well. Behind such luminaries as Estonia and Ireland.

From the CTF for instance:

No matter how you slice it, taxes in Canada are much higher than in the United States. One of the best measures of a country’s overall tax burden is to look at the percentage of tax revenue compared to a country’s economic output. For instance, the total tax burden in Canada represents 43.5% of our economic output. In the United States, the tax burden is only 31.6% of their economic output – an 11.9 point difference.

According to your #'s that puts Canada in 7th overall of 23 OECD countries. Congrats on having your own inanity used against you.

And health care is not to blame for the spending of Cdn govts. Spending is simply out of control:

From Cdn Council of Chief Executives:

Canada's overall tax burden, however, remains considerably higher than in the United States, our major competitor for people and investment. And Canada's tax mix is skewed toward taxation of income rather than consumption, which has a greater impact in reducing economic growth for each dollar of revenue raised. Canada therefore should consider changes to its tax mix while continuing to reduce its overall tax rate.

As its fiscal balance moved into surplus, the federal government began to raise spending at an unsustainable rate. In just four years, from fiscal 1999/2000 to 2003/2004, the budget for direct program spending by federal departments has grown 36 percent. Sustaining vital public programs such as health care and education will require both taxes low enough to ensure solid and consistent growth in the economy and concerted efforts to review existing government programs and reallocate money from those that have proven less effective or outlived their usefulness.

But of course these people quoted above are not nearly as smart as Hardner and his blow hard friends who have not seen a tax hike that they haven't embraced - all the while misquoting sources and numbers to justify more gov't control.

Lots of other posts here provide source material on Cdn taxation. I suggest you read something on the topic before posting your usual nonsense and piffle.

[maplesyrup]

Bill Blaikie's (NDP) response to throne speech:

good fake left

[Michael Hardner]

Hardner you really are a blowhard. Nice selective use of numbers.

The fact that you continually resort to insults shows that you have no confidence in your arguments.

Tax burden is defined by gov't tax revenues plus spending. In this case Cdn gov'ts collect 43 % of the GDP not the number you quoted. As well according to the Fraser Inst. CD Howe Inst. and others another 12 % is collected in regulatory fees. So in effect Canada has gov'ts controlling 55 % of GDP.

Tax revenues plus spending ? Since we still have a balanced budget, and are one of the only nations that does so that would only improve our standing.

Also, you're running away from your original statement by bringing up regulatory fees on top of taxes. Every government collects regulatory fees.

In Economic Freedom we are 16th in the World - this was posted on this site as well. Behind such luminaries as Estonia and Ireland.

From the CTF for instance:

QUOTE 

No matter how you slice it, taxes in Canada are much higher than in the United States. One of the best measures of a country’s overall tax burden is to look at the percentage of tax revenue compared to a country’s economic output. For instance, the total tax burden in Canada represents 43.5% of our economic output. In the United States, the tax burden is only 31.6% of their economic output – an 11.9 point difference.

My figures are official figures from the OECD, not made up numbers from a politically-based tax advocacy group.

"Economic Freedom" is a loosey goosey term. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is not.

According to your #'s that puts Canada in 7th overall of 23 OECD countries. Congrats on having your own inanity used against you.

Actually, it puts us 17th out of 29th and below average if you read the post.

And health care is not to blame for the spending of Cdn govts. Spending is simply out of control:

From Cdn Council of Chief Executives:

QUOTE 

Canada's overall tax burden, however, remains considerably higher than in the United States, our major competitor for people and investment. And Canada's tax mix is skewed toward taxation of income rather than consumption, which has a greater impact in reducing economic growth for each dollar of revenue raised. Canada therefore should consider changes to its tax mix while continuing to reduce its overall tax rate.

As its fiscal balance moved into surplus, the federal government began to raise spending at an unsustainable rate. In just four years, from fiscal 1999/2000 to 2003/2004, the budget for direct program spending by federal departments has grown 36 percent. Sustaining vital public programs such as health care and education will require both taxes low enough to ensure solid and consistent growth in the economy and concerted efforts to review existing government programs and reallocate money from those that have proven less effective or outlived their usefulness.

Low taxes will not fix the natural cycles of the economy. When the economy is at an ebb, who will fund the programs we need ?

But of course these people quoted above are not nearly as smart as Hardner and his blow hard friends who have not seen a tax hike that they haven't embraced - all the while misquoting sources and numbers to justify more gov't control.

More insults...

Lots of other posts here provide source material on Cdn taxation. I suggest you read something on the topic before posting your usual nonsense and piffle.

And some more to finish off...

I posted hard numbers, showing your facts to be incorrect (not that you explained where they came from anyway) and you respond with quotes from individuals, tax pressure groups and talk about the "Economic Freedom" index.

At least have the grace to concede when your falsehoods have been laid bare.

[Rasputin]

Look it the OECD numbers do not account for any gov't owned group, corp, agency or board that spends tax dollars.

This is called public spending.

In other words the myriad of crown corps, marketing boards, TVO's, CBC's, RDI's, and so on are not accounted for - these are clearly entities that SPEND TAXPAYER money funded by Presto !! yes tax dollars. So of course they need to be factored into any analysis of what gov't takes from the GDP.

The OECD looks only at tax receipts and excludes spending by gov't owned corps and groups. This is ridiculous of course. It also disregards 12 % or of the GDP that gov't takes through user fees, regulatory fees and regulatory costs. Also specious - far better analysis exists of gov't control over our economy at various think tanks including the Montreal and Atlantic Insitutes as well as Fraser and CD Howe.

Jack Mintz of the CD Howe Inst. has done much analysis on the tax burden in Canada and what he calls the 'tax misery index'. In any tax regime the mix of taxes is important, not only do Govts in Canada eat up 43.% of the GDP through taxes but they tax investment, profits and income far more than consumption, hurting domestic investment, capital creation and foreign direct investment.

According to Mintz - June 19 2002 in Cdn Business - Canada's total tax burden including all taxes and payments is the 8th worst in the OECD 23 countries and deteriorating not improving. Considering that we are far behind the US in any tax category save Corp tax rates, this is a great cause for concern.

Creating an EU ninny state with vast schemes of welfare, redistribution and protectionism of politically important sectors is a sur-tax on hardworking consumers and citizens, that is unneeded and immoral.

But don't let that reality intrude on your little thesis that Canada is under taxed and has great economic freedom. This is the message of the Liberals - tax and spend. It is an immoral and corrupt message and uses incorrect numbers to justify further gov't tax and spend schemes.

Just ask the people who compiled the World Economic Freedom Report in which Canada has gone from 8th to 16th place in the past 3 years, if your idea that gov't is small and taxation a moot point are true. If you bother to read their methodology it includes of course the burden of gov't on society which would include taxes. You claim that the Freedom Index is incorrect is as usual, totally unsupported - i want proof that its methodology and construction are invalid and that its output is false. You can post their methodology and then deconstruct it with intelligent criticisms instead of your usual sweeping b.s.

"Economic Freedom" is a loosey goosey term. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is not.

Yes loosey goosey is a great and penetrating analysis. Thanks for sharing that.

You numbers and analysis are wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

Look it the OECD numbers do not account for any gov't owned group, corp, agency or board that spends tax dollars.

Nor do they account for the revenues from said agencies. If you want to change what we're discussing (we're discussing your original post about our tax burden being among the highest) then let's say so and continue.

This is called public spending.

In other words the myriad of crown corps, marketing boards, TVO's, CBC's, RDI's, and so on are not accounted for - these are clearly entities that SPEND TAXPAYER money funded by Presto !! yes tax dollars. So of course they need to be factored into any analysis of what gov't takes from the GDP.

But any money that they soak up is already accounted for in the tax numbers. Are you going to include VIA rail train fares, CBC advertising revenue, liquor sales in Ontario ?

If that's the discussion, then ok. But I think you'll find Europe with even more state control.

The OECD looks only at tax receipts and excludes spending by gov't owned corps and groups. This is ridiculous of course. It also disregards 12 % or of the GDP that gov't takes through user fees, regulatory fees and regulatory costs. Also specious - far better analysis exists of gov't control over our economy at various think tanks including the Montreal and Atlantic Insitutes as well as Fraser and CD Howe.

These are special interest groups that lobby for tax breaks. I don't accept these figures as biased. You wouldn't expect me to use figures from the Ontario Federaion of Labour, either.

Jack Mintz of the CD Howe Inst. has done much analysis on the tax burden in Canada and what he calls the 'tax misery index'.

Another unscentific, uneconomic, emotionally-based index with a spiffy catch-phrase.

Real economists don't talk about "misery indexes" and "economic freedom points" they talk about GDP, debt, tax revenues etc.

These groups that you quote from are lobby groups that pitch easy arguments to the lowest common denominator.

In any tax regime the mix of taxes is important, not only do Govts in Canada eat up 43.% of the GDP through taxes but they tax investment, profits and income far more than consumption, hurting domestic investment, capital creation and foreign direct investment.

The 43% figure is made up. Please use a real number.

According to Mintz - June 19 2002 in Cdn Business - Canada's total tax burden including all taxes and payments is the 8th worst in the OECD 23 countries and deteriorating not improving. Considering that we are far behind the US in any tax category save Corp tax rates, this is a great cause for concern.

I suspect that this is a manufactured emergency, as you have consistently failed to provide any real support.

Creating an EU ninny state with vast schemes of welfare, redistribution and protectionism of politically important sectors is a sur-tax on hardworking consumers and citizens, that is unneeded and immoral.

Why is a tax system considered immoral ? That is absolutely ridiculous. Every major religion preaches helping the poor. We've seen others on this board parade on and on about "immorality".

Paris Hilton is the heiress to a vast fortune created by the hotel empire. Thousands of people worked millions of hours and the fortune is now hers. She is arguably the poster girl for the ultimate result of capitalism.

There's your morality.

But don't let that reality intrude on your little thesis that Canada is under taxed and has great economic freedom. This is the message of the Liberals - tax and spend. It is an immoral and corrupt message and uses incorrect numbers to justify further gov't tax and spend schemes.

I never said that Canada was under taxed, nor did I enter into debate about your ridiculous indexes.

And again, explain the immorality about a system that brought us to prosperity through the 20th century.

Just ask the people who compiled the World Economic Freedom Report in which Canada has gone from 8th to 16th place in the past 3 years, if your idea that gov't is small and taxation a moot point are true. If you bother to read their methodology it includes of course the burden of gov't on society which would include taxes. You claim that the Freedom Index is incorrect is as usual, totally unsupported - i want proof that its methodology and construction are invalid and that its output is false.

Sorry. You're the one who produces these fantasy indexes, so the onus is on you to prove their validity.

The "tax freedom" index, the "misery" index. etc. These are numbers made up and cooked to make Canada look bad. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is a real number used by real economists.

When Canada came up high on the "quality of living" index by the UN, there was much criticism from the right that it was a loosey-goosey index, and I agreed.

There are conventional figures that professionals use to discuss these things. GDP, Tax Rates, Debt, Deficit. etc.

Use these in your arguments.

[SirRiff]

if everyone hate the liberals why do they keep getting elected?

simple: canadians must want that

till they want the conservatives more, thats the way it stands

stop bitching about it as if the will of canadians is something that you're qualified to judge.

[Ronda]

Why is a tax system considered immoral ? That is absolutely ridiculous. Every major religion preaches helping the poor. We've seen others on this board parade on and on about "immorality".

Every major religion preaches a lot of things. Most of which are voluntary.

A tax system such as ours is considered immoral because the government spends as it likes and just takes your money to cover whatever it has decided to spend at whatever percentage it wants. It's obscene.

I single-handedly support a family of five (barely) yet the government still manages to take a good chunk of my money every time I turn around. The municipal government hikes my property taxes up in the second half of the year after they've thought up a bunch of good ways to spend my money. Hey, next time I go shopping, I'll load the cart up and then when it comes time to pay, I'll just tell them to take the money from my boss.

The government is the single most wasteful "organisation" on the face of the planet and furthermore, "helping the poor" is one thing... theft is another. Charity is voluntary - having your money taken from you and handed back out to whomever (including overpaid civil servants and corrupt government "workers") is something else altogether.

Ronda

[Michael Hardner]

A tax system such as ours is considered immoral because the government spends as it likes and just takes your money to cover whatever it has decided to spend at whatever percentage it wants. It's obscene.

That's a cynical thing to say. The government, love it or hate it, ultimately has to answer to the electorate. If there isn't support for their management, then the government will be unseated.

I single-handedly support a family of five (barely) yet the government still manages to take a good chunk of my money every time I turn around. The municipal government hikes my property taxes up in the second half of the year after they've thought up a bunch of good ways to spend my money. Hey, next time I go shopping, I'll load the cart up and then when it comes time to pay, I'll just tell them to take the money from my boss.

Where do you live ?

The government is the single most wasteful "organisation" on the face of the planet and furthermore, "helping the poor" is one thing... theft is another. Charity is voluntary - having your money taken from you and handed back out to whomever (including overpaid civil servants and corrupt government "workers") is something else altogether.

But charity doesn't help the poor do much better than starve. There was charity in Biblical times too.

Luckily, our society has evolved beyond that.

[Rasputin]

Hardner you are ridiculous. The Tax grab by Cdn govts IS 43.5 % i have listed numerous sources and even the Dept of Finance numbers confirm that the total take is 43.5 %. OECD numbers do not account for the list i posted nor for deficit spending [ie. in Toronto we run deficits contrary to Municipal law], nor on gov't agency spending - all of which are paid for by taxpayers. Add in indirect revenues from regulatory costs and the total take is over 50 %. You ignore facts, quotes and figures.

Currently , we pay an amount equal to approximately 43% of GDP in federal , provincial and local taxes. That is significantly higher than in the US and Japan , where taxes are the equivalent of 32% of GDP , and in the UK , where they represent slightly less than 38% of GDP. Taxes here aren't as high as they are in Germany (45%) , Italy (46%) or France

sce; Take a load off. (tax reduction) : Myers, Jayson using Stas Can and OECD data.

Other posts list lots of detail on Cdn tax levels. Do some reading.

You said:

These are special interest groups that lobby for tax breaks. I don't accept these figures as biased. You wouldn't expect me to use figures from the Ontario Federaion of Labour, either.

Incredible. All of the stats i quoted are from public records - not made up in your fantasy land. If you disagree with the CTF, Fraser Inst., CD Howe, Montreal Institute, Atlantic Institute, GTA Task Force, Council of CEOs, Heritage Org, Stats Canada and others, than list where they are wrong. List where the 43 % figure is wrong and why. Maybe you can write these institutes and tell them how stupid they are.

As well i have not even mentioned the 2x GDP of unfunded ie. future taxable, liabilities we have, nor of the 47.5% of taxes to income cash ratio that exists in Canada. [see p. 71 of the Fraser Report on Taxes 2003].

Our tax burden and misery is very high compared to our trading partners - especially the US and our overall burden of taxes as a % of cash income is close to 50 % - that is the average Cdn family pays out 1/2 their incomes in taxes, fees and gov't costs. This is one of the highest levels in the OECD.

One only has to look at Ireland as a case example of a good tax strategy - it has leap frogged Canada on GDP per capita and take home cash income. 20 years ago it was a basketcase.

You are in general a bore.

[Rasputin]

Ronda, you stated and i agree with

I single-handedly support a family of five (barely) yet the government still manages to take a good chunk of my money every time I turn around. The municipal government hikes my property taxes up in the second half of the year after they've thought up a bunch of good ways to spend my money. Hey, next time I go shopping, I'll load the cart up and then when it comes time to pay, I'll just tell them to take the money from my boss.

The government is the single most wasteful "organisation" on the face of the planet and furthermore, "helping the poor" is one thing... theft is another.

Poverty is the casus belli of demagogues - only about 10 % of money targeted at the poor actually gets there - why ? Every level of gov't strips off their take and then allocates the money for non poor programs. Most of the Cdn entitlement programs are targeted at the middle class not the poor. One of the great fallacies in Canada is the compassionate society. Most tax money is earmarked for decidedly uncompassionate reasons. As well keep in mind that there is NO agreement on how many poor we have. I cited elsewhere on here a study from the US quoting that 2/3 of the 'poor' owned their own home. What is true in Canada is that spreading income around and up and down the income ladder has equalised incomes across regions.

But to your point over taxation IS immoral. Gov't waste, corruption and white elephants abound. So many interest groups and do gooders are bought off by the largesse it makes reform very difficult. Martin is no tax cutter - he played a shell game in the 90s by reducing personal but increasing business taxes. Canada heavily taxes income and investment - not smart policy to attract FDI or generate high wage jobs.

[Ronda]

That's a cynical thing to say. The government, love it or hate it, ultimately has to answer to the electorate. If there isn't support for their management, then the government will be unseated.

Great. Except for the fact that many people do not vote and furthermore, a large percentage of those who do refuse to try to educate themselves about what they are voting for. Add that to the fact that once in power, gov't's do things that take forever to UNdo... and even though they get elected promising to "undo" something (eg. GST), they frequently do nothing.

Your statement could also be used to justify a complete removal of all laws and regulations that apply to corporations. I mean, if you don't like the way so and so dumps toxic waste in your backyard, don't buy their products. Sound good?

Ronda

[Michael Hardner]

Hardner you are ridiculous.

Why are you still starting out your arguments with insults ?

The Tax grab by Cdn govts IS 43.5 % i have listed numerous sources and even the Dept of Finance numbers confirm that the total take is 43.5 %.

Dept of Finance ? Do you mean Revenue Canada ?

Are you talking about the US or Canada now ?

Again, you quote made-up numbers without reference.

OECD numbers do not account for the list i posted nor for deficit spending [ie. in Toronto we run deficits contrary to Municipal law], nor on gov't agency spending - all of which are paid for by taxpayers. Add in indirect revenues from regulatory costs and the total take is over 50 %. You ignore facts, quotes and figures.

I already addressed this above. Please address my points.

QUOTE 

Currently , we pay an amount equal to approximately 43% of GDP in federal , provincial and local taxes. That is significantly higher than in the US and Japan , where taxes are the equivalent of 32% of GDP , and in the UK , where they represent slightly less than 38% of GDP. Taxes here aren't as high as they are in Germany (45%) , Italy (46%) or France

sce; Take a load off. (tax reduction) : Myers, Jayson using Stas Can and OECD data.

"Jayson Myers using Stas Can and OECD data". What is this ?

Other posts list lots of detail on Cdn tax levels. Do some reading.

I posted the list, which you ignore and try to supplant with "misery" lists and "tax shame" lists from groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation...

Incredible. All of the stats i quoted are from public records - not made up in your fantasy land. If you disagree with the CTF, Fraser Inst., CD Howe, Montreal Institute, Atlantic Institute, GTA Task Force, Council of CEOs, Heritage Org, Stats Canada and others, than list where they are wrong. List where the 43 % figure is wrong and why. Maybe you can write these institutes and tell them how stupid they are.

I'm not saying they're stupid, Rasputin, but an advocacy group and its "indexes" cannot be taken seriously as a basis for discussion on its own. They exist to persuade.

As well i have not even mentioned the 2x GDP of unfunded ie. future taxable, liabilities we have, nor of the 47.5% of taxes to income cash ratio that exists in Canada. [see p. 71 of the Fraser Report on Taxes 2003].

Our tax burden and misery is very high compared to our trading partners - especially the US and our overall burden of taxes as a % of cash income is close to 50 % - that is the average Cdn family pays out 1/2 their incomes in taxes, fees and gov't costs. This is one of the highest levels in the OECD.

One only has to look at Ireland as a case example of a good tax strategy - it has leap frogged Canada on GDP per capita and take home cash income. 20 years ago it was a basketcase.

You are in general a bore.

And end with an insult....

Well, Rasputin. I've heard your argument before. It's the same oversimplified argument that you hear in every bar and donut shop... the government is corrupt, immoral ( I notice you didn't follow that up ) and taxes are too high etc. etc.

Unfortunately, we can never progress to a real discussion of issues. This situation arises because you refuse to acknowledge accepted numbers, and instead want to introduce indexes that you've undoubtedly read about in some newspaper column, reprinted from a press package produced by a tax advocacy group.

I'm sure that's good enough for you, but it isn't for me. Furthermore, you never respond to my points but, instead, come back with insults and name calling.

It's bad arguing, it's bad thinking and it's against board policy, IMO.

[Michael Hardner]

Your statement could also be used to justify a complete removal of all laws and regulations that apply to corporations.

I don't see how.

It sounds like you have a bigger problem with the voters than the government.

[Rasputin]

Hardner - Your comments add zero value. You do not argue with facts or with figures but with little sweeping comments that do nothing to advance debate.

Jack Mintz who is of course not as smart as you are, had a series of articles published in the NP [but of course that is part of the vast right wing conspiracy!]. He compared using OECD numbers total Gov't receipts between Australia and Canada.

Canadian governments tend to pretty large -- almost 44 % of GDP.....compared with Australia (33.3%)...Ireland (34.5%)....Japan (31.6%)...UK  (39.3%)....US (32%)...

His sources are the OECD.

As I said before your original data was wrong. You excluded Gov't receipts and spend from Gov't owned groups. This is clearly incorrect and nonsensical. Mintz makes the important point that in Aust. Federal public debt is only 5 % of GDP vs. over 55 % in Canada. 40 cents of every tax dollar in Canada pays interest only.

As i already and correctly stated, the tax burden, tax as a % of net income, tax as a % of cash income, debt as a % of GDP and unfunded liaiblities as a % of GDP are higher in Canada than in the US and higher than countries experiencing economic growth and job creation ie. like Ireland or even Australia. I have already posted the numbers so will not bother to do so again.

My point - which your ranting has failed to comprehend - is that spending in Canada must be curtailed, taxes reduced especially on income and investment and our debt retired. Nothing in Manley's budget last year [biggest spending increases in 20 years] nor in the Throne speech this week, addresses these issues.

If you want jobs and good jobs, certain economic principles must be applied.

Your inane comments such as:

Dept of Finance ? Do you mean Revenue Canada ?

Yeah no kidding one and the same. Look it up. These numbers are used by the sources and Institutes i mentioned. Dept of Finance [verbatim] sources can be found in July 2002 Cdn Business for instance which back my quoted the 43.5 % Taxes/GDP number. This is only one of many sources given.

Again, you quote made-up numbers without reference.

Really by my count I quoted and listen about a dozen.

Since you don't understand the numbers don't argue about them.

Source and provide proof why the numbers, institutes and studies i mentioned are 'made up'.

Jayson Myers using Stas Can and OECD data". What is this ?

Read the entire sentence - I posted; "sce; Take a load off. (tax reduction) : Myers, Jayson using Stas Can and OECD data." It is a white paper that appeared in various media sources - oh sorry ! not the CBC or Toronto Star where you get your news. I could list other sources as well, and did but what is the point, you don't read them.

You said in your usual arrogant manner;

I posted the list, which you ignore and try to supplant with "misery" lists and "tax shame" lists from groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation...

The Misery list has nothing to do with the CTF - i clearly said the CD Howe Institute and Jack Mintz. And the misery list is a valid economic calculation that weights and calculates ALL taxes and payments to Gov'ts not using selective data which you and your fellow travellers love to do.

As well, as I already said if you want to refute the 43.5 % taxes/GDP number, the misery index number and the Economic Freedom number Post why they are wrong.

Your comments clearly show you don't know the topic well.

[Michael Hardner]

Hardner - Your comments add zero value. You do not argue with facts or with figures but with little sweeping comments that do nothing to advance debate.

Jack Mintz who is of course not as smart as you are, had a series of articles published in the NP [but of course that is part of the vast right wing conspiracy!]. He compared using OECD numbers total Gov't receipts between Australia and Canada.

You really don't grasp the fundamentals of debating. It's about having a well-supported argument, not about who has the best credentials.

Please note that I haven't asked you about your credentials, your educational background, your job etc. It's not relevant.

QUOTE 

Canadian governments tend to pretty large -- almost 44 % of GDP.....compared with Australia (33.3%)...Ireland (34.5%)....Japan (31.6%)...UK  (39.3%)....US (32%)...

His sources are the OECD.

As I said before your original data was wrong. You excluded Gov't receipts and spend from Gov't owned groups. This is clearly incorrect and nonsensical. Mintz makes the important point that in Aust. Federal public debt is only 5 % of GDP vs. over 55 % in Canada. 40 cents of every tax dollar in Canada pays interest only.

As i already and correctly stated, the tax burden, tax as a % of net income, tax as a % of cash income, debt as a % of GDP and unfunded liaiblities as a % of GDP are higher in Canada than in the US and higher than countries experiencing economic growth and job creation ie. like Ireland or even Australia. I have already posted the numbers so will not bother to do so again.

Actually, I was the one who posted the numbers. You introduced the "misery index", pronounced it valid then told ME to prove it was invalid.

My point - which your ranting has failed to comprehend - is that spending in Canada must be curtailed, taxes reduced especially on income and investment and our debt retired. Nothing in Manley's budget last year [biggest spending increases in 20 years] nor in the Throne speech this week, addresses these issues.

I'm no fan of the Liberals, but I guess you're trying to say that you are because this is exactly what the Liberals have done since they came into office.

If you want jobs and good jobs, certain economic principles must be applied.

Your inane comments such as:

QUOTE 

Dept of Finance ? Do you mean Revenue Canada ?

Yeah no kidding one and the same. Look it up

. These numbers are used by the sources and Institutes i mentioned. Dept of Finance [verbatim] sources can be found in July 2002 Cdn Business for instance which back my quoted the 43.5 % Taxes/GDP number. This is only one of many sources given.

QUOTE 

Again, you quote made-up numbers without reference.

Really by my count I quoted and listen about a dozen.

Since you don't understand the numbers don't argue about them.

Source and provide proof why the numbers, institutes and studies i mentioned are 'made up'.

QUOTE 

Jayson Myers using Stas Can and OECD data". What is this ?

Read the entire sentence - I posted; "sce; Take a load off. (tax reduction) : Myers, Jayson using Stas Can and OECD data." It is a white paper that appeared in various media sources - oh sorry ! not the CBC or Toronto Star where you get your news. I could list other sources as well, and did but what is the point, you don't read them.

You said in your usual arrogant manner;

QUOTE 

I posted the list, which you ignore and try to supplant with "misery" lists and "tax shame" lists from groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation...

The Misery list has nothing to do with the CTF - i clearly said the CD Howe Institute and Jack Mintz. And the misery list is a valid economic calculation that weights and calculates ALL taxes and payments to Gov'ts not using selective data which you and your fellow travellers love to do.

As well, as I already said if you want to refute the 43.5 % taxes/GDP number, the misery index number and the Economic Freedom number Post why they are wrong.

Your comments clearly show you don't know the topic well.

I understand the topic very well. But, if you go back to how this debate began...

You stated that Canada has among the highest debt burden. I found proof, through OECD figures, that this was not true.

You came back with a florid rush of indexes manufactured by the CD Howe inst., and a number of columnists and tax cut advocates. You stated that state owned corporations needed to be included in the figure, but didn't provide any such country by country breakdown.

So you abandoned your original assertion, and didn't provide any real evidence for your new one.

Furthermore, you continue to flout the guidelines for posting on this board by adding insults to your posts.

[Rasputin]

Look it, this is getting pointless. I challenged you to provide sources, proof and rationale and you provide none. This is not helpful.

I don't understand your emotional rejection of what most experts who have spent a lot of time and energy are saying; Canadian govts eat up 43 % of GDP. I have already told you your selective use of OECD data is wrong. You forget; deficits, transfers to gov't controlled groups and indirect revenues captured by gov't crown corps and municipal taxation not captured by the OECD which only acesses prov/federal numbers provide by Stats Can.

OECD numbers DO NOT capture those items. The 43.5 % can also be counted up by reading Dept of Finance websites and adding to that Municipal transfers across the country direct to municipal offices [ie. not via provincial transfers]. Mintz, the CTF, the FI, and the other institutes i have used as sources do not make up their data- this is why these guys don't work for the Toronto Star or the CBC. They are not basing their discovery on prov/fed govt budgets only which the OECD erroneously does [it does this for comparative reasons to simplify its analysis and get around the great differences in tax gathering and accounting by country];

http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/econm_f.../pdf/CHAP13.PDF

Mintz states categorically in a speech using OECD numbers themselves that Govts take in 43 % of GDP - indeed that is his opening sentence:

http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/300/f...heLeastPain.pdf

But of course Jack is just bought off by special interest groups and is part of the right wing conspiracy.

As i stated compared to Aust., Ireland, the UK and the US our tax position is bad.

As i also stated, taxes as a % of cash income, unfunded liabilities as a % of GDP which are nothing more than future taxes and regulatory costs which are hard to measure but nonetheless according to the Fraser Inst. which has spent much energy on the issue account for 12 % more of GDP - are issues that Canadian govts are not addressing. This was and IS the main point.

You also stated incorrectly

So you abandoned your original assertion, and didn't provide any real evidence for your new one.

This is ridiculous. In every post i said the same thing, providing more backup and different backup to the same 3 themes i provided in post #1:

-Govts take of GDP is 43.5 % - i provide lots of proof, Govt ownership of the economy is taxes provided to Govt and Govt agencies - As I explained 10x the OECD you provided ignore all of the transfer to Govt. Jack Mintz whom i quoted uses OECD numbers which include all transfers not selectively ingoring certain transfers like you do.

-Canada's tax misery index is higher than many trading partners and vastly higher than the US [the only meaningful comparison btw]

-Current Liberal policies address none of these economic factors

Your arguments are purely emotive. You are the type of guy who would defend Kyoto with no facts or state that what the Toronto Star or Paul Martin says on Tax and Govt collection is true.

[Ronda]

"Your statement could also be used to justify a complete removal of all laws and regulations that apply to corporations."

I don't see how.

It sounds like you have a bigger problem with the voters than the government.

Ummm.. no.

You said: " The government, love it or hate it, ultimately has to answer to the electorate. If there isn't support for their management, then the government will be unseated."

This leads me to believe that you think that the system as it stands and the result of said system ie. our government will essentially all come out fine in the wash because they have to "answer to the electorate".

I believe that statement/logic is flawed because of low voter turnout coupled with lack of political knowledge amongst voters as well as little to no government accountability. An example would be the gay marriage issue. Regardless of one's stance on this topic, I find it ludicrous that an overwhelming majority of MPs (representing the people that voted them in) voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage only to have Chretien and the Liberal government allow the Ontario courts to change that law only a few years later without appeal. They then decided to apply that new law to the entire country via "free" vote or should that fail, via Supreme Court or Senate. *IF* the MPs had voted against their constituents wishes in 1999, where was the outcry then? Where was the Supreme Court? This chain of events speaks directly to voter ignorance as well as little government accountability.

I also made reference to the fact that once a government in power has changed something or enacted a policy, it may be difficult or impossible to change. To carry the previous thread to illustrate this point... assume the Liberals do make it law of the land that gays can marry. Assume further that this angers enough Canadians to elect a "right" government. What could or would the new government be able to do about that situation? A government may also be elected on the promise of making a change that they never intend to eg. GST.

I then made an analogy linking your line of thinking to the idea that all corporate regulations should be removed because ultimately, they have to answer to consumers.

I don't understand where the confusion is... perhaps I did not explain well enough the first time, sorry.

[Michael Hardner]

Ummm.. no. 

You said: " The government, love it or hate it, ultimately has to answer to the electorate. If there isn't support for their management, then the government will be unseated."

This leads me to believe that you think that the system as it stands and the result of said system ie. our government will essentially all come out fine in the wash because they have to "answer to the electorate".

Well, not "fine" I suppose. Somewhere between "fine" and "doing whatever it pleases", I think.

I believe that statement/logic is flawed because of low voter turnout coupled with lack of political knowledge amongst voters as well as little to no government accountability.

I also made reference to the fact that once a government in power has changed something or enacted a policy, it may be difficult or impossible to change. Or, in the case of the GST, a government may be elected on the promise of making a change that they never intend to.

Yes, these are flaws with our system and I agree that people don't involve themselves enough in the affairs of our country. There are similar problems with alienation towards our government in Canada and the US. But I still think the situation is far from one where the government does as it pleases.

I then made an analogy linking your line of thinking to the idea that all corporate regulations should be removed because ultimately, they have to answer to consumers.

I don't understand where the confusion is... perhaps I did not explain well enough the first time, sorry.

Ok, I understand better now. I agree with you that all corporation regulations should not be removed. I also think that laws and institutions that keep our government in check ( the press, the courts, free speech guarantees, etc. ) should remain.

It seems that we're on the same side here.

[Ronda]

Whilst you were posting your (non-argumentative, thank you) reply, I was busily adding examples. What is your opinion on the modified post?

[Michael Hardner]

An example would be the gay marriage issue. Regardless of one's stance on this topic, I find it ludicrous that an overwhelming majority of MPs (representing the people that voted them in) voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage only to have Chretien and the Liberal government allow the Ontario courts to change that law only a few years later without appeal. They then decided to apply that new law to the entire country via "free" vote or should that fail, via Supreme Court or Senate. *IF* the MPs had voted against their constituents wishes in 1999, where was the outcry then? Where was the Supreme Court? This chain of events speaks directly to voter ignorance as well as little government accountability.

I'll grant you that Chretien was on thin ice with this issue, as evidenced by PM Martin's decision appeal the Supreme Court decision after all.

But support for gay marriage was a lot greater than support for the GST was when Brian Mulroney was hounded from office.

I also made reference to the fact that once a government in power has changed something or enacted a policy, it may be difficult or impossible to change. To carry the previous thread to illustrate this point... assume the Liberals do make it law of the land that gays can marry. Assume further that this angers enough Canadians to elect a "right" government. What could or would the new government be able to do about that situation? A government may also be elected on the promise of making a change that they never intend to eg. GST.

All you need to do is look at the actions of the Mike Harris government in Ontario. They did a lot of things that governments were told they "couldn't" do. They turned back tenant rent protection, but tenants still didn't come out to vote in elections.

The fact that people don't see our institutions as having any effect on their lives is both a success and a failure of our systems IMO.