Harper's Best Fiscal Stimulus Package: Cut Taxes

Jack Weber · January 2, 2009

Touche!!!!!! :lol:

Toro · January 2, 2009

pretty sure almost all of those come from right wing think tanks

The National Bureau of Economic Research is not a "right-wing think tank." Almost all of those links come from the NBER.

Founded in 1920, the National Bureau of Economic Research is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.

http://www.nber.org/info.html

bush_cheney2004 · January 2, 2009

The National Bureau of Economic Research is not a "right-wing think tank."

Right....and Cato is a libertarian source. The trick is to make these international references relevant to Canada.

Another member has championed the NBER in other recession threads, but in an American context.

The only Canuck reference that I am familiar with would be the Fraser Institute.

punked · January 2, 2009

Pretty sure The National Bureau of Economic Research lead the charge in the 80s for trickle down economics but they are not right wing at all.

bush_cheney2004 · January 2, 2009

Pretty sure The National Bureau of Economic Research lead the charge in the 80s for trickle down economics but they are not right wing at all.

Pretty sure that you are making things up.

Jack Weber · January 2, 2009

Right....and Cato is a libertarian source. The trick is to make these international references relevant to Canada.
Another member has championed the NBER in other recession threads, but in an American context.

The only Canuck reference that I am familiar with would be the Fraser Institute.

There is this kook outfit,as well...

http://nationalcitizens.ca/index.html

Ol' Sweatervest Stevie was the head of this outfit for a while.These folks look to the left and see The Fraser Institute in the distance...

Toro · January 2, 2009

Right....and Cato is a libertarian source. The trick is to make these international references relevant to Canada.
Another member has championed the NBER in other recession threads, but in an American context.

The only Canuck reference that I am familiar with would be the Fraser Institute.

The NBER is perhaps the pre-eminent research organization for economics in the United States. I was merely presenting the evidence against the poster who said that tax cuts do not effect the economy. Of course they do.

Tax cuts do not balance the government's budget, like some of the supply-siders argue. Nor are they a cure-all for everything. But to dismiss tax cuts out of hand as not effecting the economy is simply flat-out wrong.

The single best policy that the Canadian government can do right here right now to provide stimulus is to cut the payroll tax. It lowers that cost of employing people, keeping people at their jobs, and puts more money in people's pockets. The former is more important as a stimulus effect because individuals are likely to save their portion of the tax cut.

bush_cheney2004 · January 2, 2009

The NBER is perhaps the pre-eminent research organization for economics in the United States. I was merely presenting the evidence against the poster who said that tax cuts do not effect the economy. Of course they do.

Of course....and you succeeded.

The single best policy that the Canadian government can do right here right now to provide stimulus is to cut the payroll tax. It lowers that cost of employing people, keeping people at their jobs, and puts more money in people's pockets. The former is more important as a stimulus effect because individuals are likely to save their portion of the tax cut.

Right....if we are to rejuvenate a decidedly consumer based economy, then the base has to be primed to resume its role of consumption. As for the end of America (in this context), some folks should be careful what they wish for.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 2, 2009

Then the consumer needs to realize an increase in disposable income. The easy way to do that s with targeted tax breaks, and government can do that very easily.

Topaz · January 2, 2009

Did someone say cut taxes? Yeah, for the corporations but the taxPAYERS will see an increase in the EI and CPP. Why? They need the surpluses to pay off the debt and with the corporate tax going down that could only mean higher taxes the greater % of taxpayers.

msj · January 3, 2009

Did someone say cut taxes? Yeah, for the corporations but the taxPAYERS will see an increase in the EI and CPP. Why? They need the surpluses to pay off the debt and with the corporate tax going down that could only mean higher taxes the greater % of taxpayers.

Would you stop this nonsense.

Who pays the wages for which the corporations then turn around and match the CPP and pay 1.4 times the EI that the employee had deducted from his/her cheque?

Oh, right, business.

The maximum contribution limits are going up a little bit and the EI rate isn't going down as in prior years (vote Liberal next time and at least the rate is likely to go down).

I employ 9 people.

When my top four employees are having $731.79 deducted from their individual earnings for 2009 I will be adding $1,024.51 to the EI pot for each employee.

That is a tax increase for business as much as it is for employees. No, wait, that is a tax increase that is greater for business than it is for the employee.

Not to mention that as a self-employed person I have to pay the CPP for myself and my corporation (i.e. I deduct it from my paycheque and my company matches that amount - so I pay $4,237.20 for 2009 rather than being a regular employee who pays $2,118.60 but does not see the company pay the other $2,118.60).

Granted, I do have the choice to pay dividends and not pay into CPP. Thankfully, I don't have to pay into EI since self-employed don't get anything out of it, anyway.

Pat Coghlan · January 3, 2009

Then the consumer needs to realize an increase in disposable income. The easy way to do that s with targeted tax breaks, and government can do that very easily.

Starting with a joint tax return, to enable families with one spouse earning most or all of the family income to pay the same taxes as all other families.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 3, 2009

Starting with a joint tax return, to enable families with one spouse earning most or all of the family income to pay the same taxes as all other families.

Harper did get income splitting for pensioners, I agree that it would be a great start to make it apply to everyone. I would suggest tax deductible mortgages as well, and after we end up buying out one of the big three auto manufacturers making a car purchase tax deductible as well.

Sort of like leveling the playing field and making personal taxes as deductible as business taxes.

Topaz · January 3, 2009

Would you stop this nonsense.
Who pays the wages for which the corporations then turn around and match the CPP and pay 1.4 times the EI that the employee had deducted from his/her cheque?

Oh, right, business.

The maximum contribution limits are going up a little bit and the EI rate isn't going down as in prior years (vote Liberal next time and at least the rate is likely to go down).

I employ 9 people.

When my top four employees are having $731.79 deducted from their individual earnings for 2009 I will be adding $1,024.51 to the EI pot for each employee.

That is a tax increase for business as much as it is for employees. No, wait, that is a tax increase that is greater for business than it is for the employee.

Not to mention that as a self-employed person I have to pay the CPP for myself and my corporation (i.e. I deduct it from my paycheque and my company matches that amount - so I pay $4,237.20 for 2009 rather than being a regular employee who pays $2,118.60 but does not see the company pay the other $2,118.60).

Granted, I do have the choice to pay dividends and not pay into CPP. Thankfully, I don't have to pay into EI since self-employed don't get anything out of it, anyway.

WHO gets more tax write-offs, business or average taxpayer? and IF you aren't making any profits why are these business people who complain so much still in business?

ToadBrother · January 3, 2009

Then the consumer needs to realize an increase in disposable income. The easy way to do that s with targeted tax breaks, and government can do that very easily.

Let's be realistic here. The most that government can deliver the average Canadian right now is a few bucks per paycheque. That is not going to instill consumer confidence. Maybe if the government sent me a thousand bucks every quarter I might feel more inclined to spend, but right now, if I can an extra 10 bucks every payday, what is that, a couple of movie rentals, maybe another channel package on my Starchoice (until those thieving bastards magically up the rates again). Tax cuts are not going to stimulate the economy, unless they are so deep that they see government revenues collapse, in which case, we're in a whole new kind of hell.

capricorn · January 4, 2009

The most that government can deliver the average Canadian right now is a few bucks per paycheque.

That won't cut it with most Canadians. They are seeing billions going to help the banks, the auto sector and other industrial sectors. This has whetted their appetites and they want in on the bucks which, of course, they contribute to the treasury. They will not settle for crumbs, and frankly neither would I.

Maybe if the government sent me a thousand bucks every quarter I might feel more inclined to spend, but right now, if I can an extra 10 bucks every payday, what is that, a couple of movie rentals, maybe another channel package on my Starchoice (until those thieving bastards magically up the rates again).

If the government goes with targeted tax cuts, you may see nothing depending on whether you are part of the targeted groups. Using your example of $10. and instead of each Canadian receiving that money it went to every five Canadians, they would receive $50. Just saying, you know?

Personally, I would prefer across the board income tax cuts to benefit as many taxpayers as possible. Hey, we're gonna run a deficit anyway. Let's bring as many on board as possible to increase spending and hope for the best.

Tax cuts are not going to stimulate the economy, unless they are so deep that they see government revenues collapse, in which case, we're in a whole new kind of hell.

Personal and corporate tax cuts (supposedly) equal increased spending and increased jobs creation, consequently more taxes collected by the feds. Everything at this point seems to be a shot in the dark, so to speak.

I get dizzy just thinking about it so the whole thing is probably busting out Harper's and Flaherty's brains right now.

ToadBrother · January 4, 2009

That won't cut it with most Canadians. They are seeing billions going to help the banks, the auto sector and other industrial sectors. This has whetted their appetites and they want in on the bucks which, of course, they contribute to the treasury. They will not settle for crumbs, and frankly neither would I

But that's all we're going to get. The inept bastards who created this will get the lion's share of the money. We'll get some pathetic attempt at a buy-off with a few bucks on each paycheque and maybe some supplement for low-income families, while the bastards who should have been put in jail and forbidden to ever be involved in corporate governance again will see our money flow into their pockets.

If the government goes with targeted tax cuts, you may see nothing depending on whether you are part of the targeted groups. Using your example of $10. and instead of each Canadian receiving that money it went to every five Canadians, they would receive $50. Just saying, you know?

Which, I'm sure will be swallowed up in short order by either higher prices (milk now costs, curiously enough, $4.50 at my local Walmart for 4 liters) or by slashed government programs, meaning more user fees. Tax cuts are a scam, pure and simple.

Personally, I would prefer across the board income tax cuts to benefit as many taxpayers as possible. Hey, we're gonna run a deficit anyway. Let's bring as many on board as possible to increase spending and hope for the best.
Personal and corporate tax cuts (supposedly) equal increased spending and increased jobs creation, consequently more taxes collected by the feds. Everything at this point seems to be a shot in the dark, so to speak.

I get dizzy just thinking about it so the whole thing is probably busting out Harper's and Flaherty's brains right now.

I just don't buy that they will work, and if I end up having to pay more in other departments, then it is a scam.

msj · January 4, 2009

WHO gets more tax write-offs, business or average taxpayer? and IF you aren't making any profits why are these business people who complain so much still in business?

Oh, this again.

You do realize that spending $1 to save 13.5 cents isn't a very good deal?

I'm still out 86.5 cents after the tax savings.

Also, I'm not complaining about the profits. I'm complaining about the increase in cost which is 1.4 times what it is for an employee.

I see employees complaining about paying more in EI premiums increasing (due to the increase in the maximum earnings level - not due to any increase in premiums).

Well, I pay that increase plus 40%.

CPP? Well, at least I only have to match that at a 1:1 ratio.

Still, whatever increase the employee pays (once again, due to an increase in the maximum earnings, the rate has been 4.95% for 5 years or so now) the employer has to also chip in.

Sure, there are tax savings since we get to deduct this. For 2009, that will mean 13.5 cents on the dollar (small business tax rate in BC is now 13.5%).

I note that employees get to claim EI and CPP amounts as tax credits on their tax returns. In most provinces this is a tax savings of at least 20 cents on the dollar.

Using your logic above, employees shouldn't complain about these increases since they are getting a tax credit that gets them tax savings of 20 cents on the dollar - how can they complain when they are "only" paying 80% of the increase in EI/CPP premiums? :rolleyes:

Edited January 4, 2009 by msj

Jerry J. Fortin · January 4, 2009

Oh, this again.
You do realize that spending $1 to save 13.5 cents isn't a very good deal?

I'm still out 86.5 cents after the tax savings.

Also, I'm not complaining about the profits. I'm complaining about the increase in cost which is 1.4 times what it is for an employee.

I see employees complaining about paying more in EI premiums increasing (due to the increase in the maximum earnings level - not due to any increase in premiums).

Well, I pay that increase plus 40%.

CPP? Well, at least I only have to match that at a 1:1 ratio.

Still, whatever increase the employee pays (once again, due to an increase in the maximum earnings, the rate has been 4.95% for 5 years or so now) the employer has to also chip in.

Sure, there are tax savings since we get to deduct this. For 2009, that will mean 13.5 cents on the dollar (small business tax rate in BC is now 13.5%).

I note that employees get to claim EI and CPP amounts as tax credits on their tax returns. In most provinces this is a tax savings of at least 20 cents on the dollar.

Using your logic above, employees shouldn't complain about these increases since they are getting a tax credit that gets them tax savings of 20 cents on the dollar - how can they complain when they are "only" paying 80% of the increase in EI/CPP premiums?

You are anti-employee, so I must ask why you have any of them?

msj · January 4, 2009

You are anti-employee, so I must ask why you have any of them?

So now I'm "anti-employee" because I point out that I, as an employer, will be paying more of the increase in CPP/EI than employees will?

Logic is taking a beating in this thread.

Edited January 4, 2009 by msj

Jerry J. Fortin · January 4, 2009

So now I'm "anti-employee" because I point out that I, as an employer, will be paying more of the increase in CPP/EI than employees will?
Logic is taking a beating in this thread.

I have not seen you come out in favour of labour, so I thought perhaps you were of that ilk. Was I wrong?

msj · January 4, 2009

I have not seen you come out in favour of labour, so I thought perhaps you were of that ilk. Was I wrong?

I don't see how any of this is relevant.

The facts are Topaz was complaining about the increase in CPP/EI for employees while conveniently ignoring (or, more likely, being ignorant of) the increases for employers.

All fine and good - until one realizes that employers (business) pay the increases too (plus 40% for the EI).

In what way should I come out in favour of labour that is relevant to this thread?

Jerry J. Fortin · January 4, 2009

Simply. You are a corporate elitist who thinks that you have all the weight of the world on your shoulders, and whle you are in that frame of mind the little guys that actually do the work are mere pond scum. Business gets more tax breaks than individuals, and even so you complain that your burden is greater than theirs.

ToadBrother · January 4, 2009

Simply. You are a corporate elitist who thinks that you have all the weight of the world on your shoulders, and whle you are in that frame of mind the little guys that actually do the work are mere pond scum. Business gets more tax breaks than individuals, and even so you complain that your burden is greater than theirs.

Wow! You read all of that out of a guy bitching about the employer's share of EI and CPP? You'll generally find businesspeople are not impressed, particularly during hard economics times, with anything that affects fixed costs. I'm not saying that he shouldn't pay it (as an employee, I think it's only fair, considering the value my employer gets out of me), but to say something as outrageous as you did is bizarre.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 4, 2009

The comment was based on previous posting that culminated in the response I made. MSJ is an accountant, who employs people to do work for them. The complaint that was made was that the costs were higher for the employer than for the employee, it was suggested that this was unfair. I suggest that the profit margin of the employer is realized through an unfair application of taxes and benefits that is biased toward business.