BUSH tax cuts cost 2x health care reform

[Michael Hardner]

It is quite a shift for the NDP to be talking about Economics and adopting what is a right wing policy on Capital taxes. I don't mind the ploy. The more that the subject is brought up and discussed the more they will understand it's importance and relation to how they are governed. But I fear the more the NDP keep it in the forefront the less support they will have.

Can there be an extremist centre party?

Ploy ? So, you think they're not genuine in their plan to support lower corporate taxes ?

Anyway, the NDP's tactic is quite stupid: to actually move to the right, while appearing to be left. I don't think anybody knows that they're recommending such low taxes, and people who don't vote NDP do so because they think they're anti-business. If they painted themselves as centrist, they'd still get a lot of centre-left votes.

[blueblood]

Check your facts. Taxes have continually been rolled back for years now. The corporate tax rate in 1997 was 28%

The NDP is far more right-wing than they ever have been.

http://www.taxtips.ca/smallbusiness/corporatetax/corptaxrates2008.htm

http://www.ndp.ca/platform/jobsandaffordability/corporatetaxes

That's a load of bs if I ever heard it. Nowhere in their platform did I find anything about reducing taxes.

The base federal corporate tax is 19% and will be reduced to 15% by 2012, yet Layton wants to up that to 22%, stop the madness!!!

A lot of Canadians who's business's net income of 400-500K enjoy an approximate 15% corporate tax rate in Western Canada. The NDP wants to up that to 22% and screw over the little guy, why?

How does that relate to the OP, people like to keep the money they earn. Under Obama, and the NDP example that becomes less and less of a possibility.

Edited December 15, 2009 by blueblood

[Michael Hardner]

That's a load of bs if I ever heard it. Nowhere in their platform did I find anything about reducing taxes.

The base federal corporate tax is 19% and will be reduced to 15% by 2012, yet Layton wants to up that to 22%, stop the madness!!!

A lot of Canadians who's business's net income of 400-500K enjoy an approximate 15% corporate tax rate in Western Canada. The NDP wants to up that to 22% and screw over the little guy, why?

How does that relate to the OP, people like to keep the money they earn. Under Obama, and the NDP example that becomes less and less of a possibility.

Check my post - I was talking about 1997. That may be ancient history to you, but not to me. My point is, that if 5 years the corporate rate is 6%, will we be calling those who call for 8% communists ?

Once the tax rate goes to 0% for the rich, how much will you be asking the poor to pay to the rich to keep their money in Canada ?

[bloodyminded]

Check my post - I was talking about 1997. That may be ancient history to you, but not to me. My point is, that if 5 years the corporate rate is 6%, will we be calling those who call for 8% communists ?

Once the tax rate goes to 0% for the rich, how much will you be asking the poor to pay to the rich to keep their money in Canada ?

I suspect 0% would be viewed as mere socialism, rather than communism. Now, negative percentages....that's what they're hoping for.

[blueblood]

Check my post - I was talking about 1997. That may be ancient history to you, but not to me. My point is, that if 5 years the corporate rate is 6%, will we be calling those who call for 8% communists ?

Once the tax rate goes to 0% for the rich, how much will you be asking the poor to pay to the rich to keep their money in Canada ?

Yes I would be calling those who call for the 8% communists. Anyone who calls for a tax hike to burn through other people's money deserves that label.

Are you suggesting all of us small business owners are rich? Do you think small business's should not be allowed to incorporate and get soaked 44% come tax time?

The rich are already doing a service to society by creating and spending wealth, and by wanting to acquire more wealth, employ people to help make that happen. If the rich take their money out of Canada, then everybody is poor. Colonial US used to be a cash cow for Britain, then they got the idea to increase the taxes and soak the population, guess what happened? Bye bye revenue stream! Same goes for Russia, punish those for succeeding, guess what happened? Bye bye communist country! And for tax rates, increase taxes, and business reduces growth and in some cases either collapses or leaves.

I don't think you are seeing the forest through the trees.

[blueblood]

I suspect 0% would be viewed as mere socialism, rather than communism. Now, negative percentages....that's what they're hoping for.

Any rational person/business owner would hope for that.

[bloodyminded]

Any rational person/business owner would hope for that.

For socialism, government largesse? Yes, no doubt.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes I would be calling those who call for the 8% communists. Anyone who calls for a tax hike to burn through other people's money deserves that label.

There you have it. I think that speaks to the claims of Marxism in the Democratic party, Liberals and so forth.

When you hear accusations of 'Communism' from blueblood or other such posters, you can keep this admission in mind.

[bloodyminded]

There you have it. I think that speaks to the claims of Marxism in the Democratic party, Liberals and so forth.

When you hear accusations of 'Communism' from blueblood or other such posters, you can keep this admission in mind.

Correct. The rightest of the right-wing leaders have all been raving communists. Who knew?

[Shady]

Check my post - I was talking about 1997. That may be ancient history to you, but not to me. My point is, that if 5 years the corporate rate is 6%, will we be calling those who call for 8% communists ?

Once the tax rate goes to 0% for the rich, how much will you be asking the poor to pay to the rich to keep their money in Canada ?

Corporate tax rates are much different than income tax rates. The "rich" still pay income tax. But I'm not sure what you're talking about when you suggest that the poor pay for the rich to keep their money in Canada. By definition, if they're poor, they pay little to no income tax at all. At the same time recieving some type of government assistance, as well as free healthcare etc. They get MUCH more than they pay into the system. So your entire premise is false.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Shady

[blueblood]

There you have it. I think that speaks to the claims of Marxism in the Democratic party, Liberals and so forth.

When you hear accusations of 'Communism' from blueblood or other such posters, you can keep this admission in mind.

What are you talking about, what did I admit? That I want low taxes and as low as possible.

Anyone advocating a 2% tax hike (from 6% to 8%) is wanting me to keep less and less of my money, that person is on the fast track to communism, not to mention is evil.

You want higher taxes (I don't know why, maybe you think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do), and I want low taxes. I have no clue what your trying to spin.

[Michael Hardner]

What are you talking about, what did I admit? That I want low taxes and as low as possible.

Anyone advocating a 2% tax hike (from 6% to 8%) is wanting me to keep less and less of my money, that person is on the fast track to communism, not to mention is evil.

You want higher taxes (I don't know why, maybe you think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do), and I want low taxes. I have no clue what your trying to spin.

You admitted that you're not interested in relative fairness, but in getting a better deal for business no matter what.

[bloodyminded]

You admitted that you're not interested in relative fairness, but in getting a better deal for business no matter what.

Including tax-funded welfare.

[blueblood]

You admitted that you're not interested in relative fairness, but in getting a better deal for business no matter what.

So???

Once again your not seeing the forest through the trees. A better deal for business is a better deal all around for people in general. Shall we discuss Ireland pre-recession now?

The Venezuelans thought that by introducing anti-business reforms for their oil rich country would improve the lives of their citizens, well they still are poor.

Alberta has a pro-business attitude for their oil rich province and as a result a person working at timmies pre-recession was making over 15 bucks an hour.

You tell me what philosophy in these examples was more "fair" for their population?

Here's another example

The US wrote the book on capitalism and low taxes, and it is a worldwide superpower and with a population a third of that of China is still the most powerful economy. The Americans live in prosperity

The USSR wrote the book on socialism and punishing people for doing well, and it is only relevant when the price of oil is high, and nowhere near the economic powerhouse the states is. The communists lived like spartans.

Fairness must be subjective, you look at fairness as everybody living the same, I look at fairness as everybody having a shot at becoming better. Hell even using your definition of fairness, my low tax examples have made it more "fair" for people than your high tax fantasy!

Edited December 15, 2009 by blueblood

[blueblood]

Including tax-funded welfare.

What you wouldn't like free money too?

[Michael Hardner]

Fairness must be subjective, you look at fairness as everybody living the same, I look at fairness as everybody having a shot at becoming better. Hell even using your definition of fairness, my low tax examples have made it more "fair" for people than your high tax fantasy!

My "high taxes" are any taxes, though. That's a long way from everybody living the same. According to your logic, Reagan is an ultra-communist because tax rates were so much higher under his administration.

This is why right-wing screams of unfairness should only be half listened to.

[bloodyminded]

What you wouldn't like free money too?

But you write at one moment of "capitalism" and in the next you support socialism.

[Michael Hardner]

But you write at one moment of "capitalism" and in the next you support socialism.

You don't understand that terms like 'communism' and 'socialism' don't refer to a person's support or non-support of tax increases. They refer to systems of government, not relative change to today. As such, both of those systems are far from anything we have today.

[bloodyminded]

You don't understand that terms like 'communism' and 'socialism' don't refer to a person's support or non-support of tax increases. They refer to systems of government, not relative change to today. As such, both of those systems are far from anything we have today.

Sure, I understand. But when someone says socialism is bad, and then extolls the virtuers of capitalism, and then claims that the rich should be welfared by tax dollars, there's a dissonance to the argument.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, I understand. But when someone says socialism is bad, and then extolls the virtuers of capitalism, and then claims that the rich should be welfared by tax dollars, there's a dissonance to the argument.

I guess so.

[blueblood]

But you write at one moment of "capitalism" and in the next you support socialism.

If somebody gave you a check for 10,000 dollars, no strings attached would you take it yes or no?

This if anything shows a huge problem with socialism, people by nature will take free money or money that is perceived to be free. People will always take the money, any rational person would take it. That's not socialism, that's common sense.

[blueblood]

My "high taxes" are any taxes, though. That's a long way from everybody living the same. According to your logic, Reagan is an ultra-communist because tax rates were so much higher under his administration.

This is why right-wing screams of unfairness should only be half listened to.

Compared to the USSR, his taxes were low. Then he went and did this little thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981

Now your just flinging mud.

Reagan dropped taxes, Obama is planning on raising them. Big problem. Anything that results in taxes dropping is a good thing.

This is why when the left wing screams of unfairness, they should be ignored.

[bloodyminded]

If somebody gave you a check for 10,000 dollars, no strings attached would you take it yes or no?

This if anything shows a huge problem with socialism, people by nature will take free money or money that is perceived to be free. People will always take the money, any rational person would take it. That's not socialism, that's common sense.

I don't disagree with you. I'm only stating that most capitalists aren't really capitalists as the word is understood. I don't think that's a particularly controversial assertion.

But there's still another aspect to your argument I don't get. You disagree with corporate taxes; I understand. But you also called taxation "evil"...shortly before you embrace this "evil" by stating that you'd like to see a negative tax rate for Business.

I'm just wondering about your use of the word "evil," and what embracing it might say to us.

[blueblood]

Sure, I understand. But when someone says socialism is bad, and then extolls the virtuers of capitalism, and then claims that the rich should be welfared by tax dollars, there's a dissonance to the argument.

And where do a lot of those tax dollars come from, would it be rich people?

Anyone who accepts free money isn't a socialist, that's just human nature.

[Michael Hardner]

Compared to the USSR, his taxes were low. Then he went and did this little thing...

Now your just flinging mud.

Reagan dropped taxes, Obama is planning on raising them. Big problem. Anything that results in taxes dropping is a good thing.

This is why when the left wing screams of unfairness, they should be ignored.

Socialism isn't the relative movement of the tax rate, nor is Communism. Do you understand that ?

If you do, then favouring moving the tax rate from 1.1% to 1% isn't socialism.