Job creation via tax cuts - fact or fallacy?

[GWiz]

Canadians need to have a hard look at themselves and decide what is best for them going forward...

If, as many predict, including me, a second, even more devastating economic downturn in the world economies, including Canada's, is just around the corner, which political party and it's policies will be the best one to cope with it?

We've seen tremendous changes in weather patterns throughout the world often resulting in record flooding, severe droughts, massive and more frequent storms, rising temperatures in the world's oceans, all resulting in sever pressures on the world's economies, how and who (politically speaking) would be best suited to address these issues in Canada?

With devastating earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, forest fires and other "natural disasters" becoming more and more frequent who, what and how (politically speaking) will and/or should Canada be involved, including should this type of disaster hit somewhere in Canada?

Major changes are coming to the "status quo" in world politics and many countries' demographics... How should Canada via it's Government react to these changes?

Of course these are but a few examples of what Canada's Government (and any other countries' Government) will face in the future feel free to add YOUR favorite issue if not among them...

Edited February 28, 2011 by GWiz

[GWiz]

Re: My answer regarding Party is the Liberals because of their historic sound fiscal policies and their "centrist" party position...

With an uncertain and very difficult future before Canada and Canadians, Canada's policies and Government leadership as it relates to the US and to the rest of the "world view" will matter more than ever before...

[GWiz]

What, nobody interested in a little TRUTH today?

Or just SCARED of it?

[pinko]

Which truths are you wishing a response to? My generation (babyboomers) will be gone within the next few decades. The issues you describe in your preamble are there for the subsequent generations to resolve.

[Topaz]

IF corporate tax cuts really worked, why is there a high number of unemployed Canadians? Where is all these companies racing to come to Canada? They aren't coming, unless its American and they are only coming until their country economy straightens around then they will leave and the unemployment will raise again. Thosr 400,000 jobs that the Tories talk about, back in 2006-7 we lost 400,000 and they managed to get back most of them in 2008-9. They aren't new jobs and any new job is part time, no pensions, no EI,.

[pinko]

The jobs are in third world countries as well as corporate funds deposited offshore.

[GWiz]

It's a poll, it's to express a variety of opinions, it seems no one right of center is interested enough to do so...

At least not yet, then again I did ask tough questions, so if someone doesn't really believe in something they won't answer them I guess...

[Smallc]

IF corporate tax cuts really worked, why is there a high number of unemployed Canadians? Where is all these companies racing to come to Canada?

So you missed today's GDP number then?

[GWiz]

So you missed today's GDP number then?

The things I see is that most of Canada pretty much missed the '07/'08 recession all together with the exception of some layoffs in the automotive and related sectors in the southern Ontario region...

How that turned into a $67 BILLION dollar deficit still escapes me... Where did Harper & Co spend that money and why? Where's the accounting for it?

Here in Winnipeg the shopping malls were full throughout the so called recession...

Major building projects from the mega floodway expansion to new airport and centerport building to new PUBLICLY funded football stadium to a new Ikea based shopping mall to new Manitoba Hydro Building to The Human Rights Museum to new mega northern Hydro Projects and transmission line and so on, and so on, Manitoba has been booming throughout the so called recession and post recession...

Saskatchewan too is booming in both potash and new Oil finds... Building a new Domed Stadium in Regina and Saskatoon is expanding into a major city...

Where was all that money spent? I'd really like to know without the BS and meaningless rhetoric please...

[GWiz]

Follow the money, I can't, can YOU?

- It seems like only yesterday Canada was running surpluses and was led by a fiscally conservative government. Now both seem distant memories, as recently confirmed by the latest news that the Harper government will run deficits even larger than planned and for even longer than planned. Over at least seven years Mr. Harper plans to add no less than $170.3 billion more to the federal debt. It is time for Canada talk about the costs of this spending problem.

Good governments make tough choices. The Harper government has chosen to overreact to Canada's recession choosing spending over restraint. They keep saying it is the worst recession since the dirty thirties. Despite this being untrue for Canada, they use this claim to bolster their interest in big spending. Unemployment was a lot higher during the recession of the 1980s and '90s than it is today and was similar during the '70s. When one factors in another relevant economic indicator -- inflation -- Canada's is much better off during this recession than during any of the last three.

Despite this fact, the Harper government has chosen to go on a giant spending spree. Last fall the prime minister promised a balanced budget, as did all federal party leaders. Much has changed since then. The January budget projected a deficit of $34 billion. In May it was increased to $50 billion. Now the deficit figure has been upped to almost $56 billion. Since revenue has only fallen by $17 billion, this giant deficit figure reveals how massive overspending is the key deficit culprit. In fact, from fiscal year 2005-06 through 2009-10 the Harper government will have increased program spending by $66.7 billion -- a 38% increase in only four years.

Much of the so-called "stimulus spending" allegedly was "temporary." It's turning out to be as temporary as income taxes, when they were "temporarily" introduced in 1917.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty keeps suggesting there is $29 billion in stimulus spending in 2009-10 and another $17 billion in 2010-11. If this is the case, and it is temporary, then spending should decline substantially in 2011-12. Instead, the fall economic update reveals a planned one-time meagre spending reduction of $3.9 billion -- 1.6% of program spending in 2010-11. Simply put, the spending is not temporary.

The government argues that the strength of Canada's economic position means it can afford to shoulder this added economic burden. While this may be true, it is bad fiscal policy. Canada's debt peaked at just under $563 billion in 1996-97. In the subsequent 10 years, it had been whittled down to just under $458 billion. The Harper spending spree will have wiped out in only three years all that was paid back over the last 10. A look at the debt clock hosted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation at www.debtclock.ca shows Canada's debt at almost $490 billion, climbing at a rate of $1,772.57 per second! -

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1761269

[blueblood]

Follow the money, I can't, can YOU?

- It seems like only yesterday Canada was running surpluses and was led by a fiscally conservative government. Now both seem distant memories, as recently confirmed by the latest news that the Harper government will run deficits even larger than planned and for even longer than planned. Over at least seven years Mr. Harper plans to add no less than $170.3 billion more to the federal debt. It is time for Canada talk about the costs of this spending problem.

Good governments make tough choices. The Harper government has chosen to overreact to Canada's recession choosing spending over restraint. They keep saying it is the worst recession since the dirty thirties. Despite this being untrue for Canada, they use this claim to bolster their interest in big spending. Unemployment was a lot higher during the recession of the 1980s and '90s than it is today and was similar during the '70s. When one factors in another relevant economic indicator -- inflation -- Canada's is much better off during this recession than during any of the last three.

Despite this fact, the Harper government has chosen to go on a giant spending spree. Last fall the prime minister promised a balanced budget, as did all federal party leaders. Much has changed since then. The January budget projected a deficit of $34 billion. In May it was increased to $50 billion. Now the deficit figure has been upped to almost $56 billion. Since revenue has only fallen by $17 billion, this giant deficit figure reveals how massive overspending is the key deficit culprit. In fact, from fiscal year 2005-06 through 2009-10 the Harper government will have increased program spending by $66.7 billion -- a 38% increase in only four years.

Much of the so-called "stimulus spending" allegedly was "temporary." It's turning out to be as temporary as income taxes, when they were "temporarily" introduced in 1917.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty keeps suggesting there is $29 billion in stimulus spending in 2009-10 and another $17 billion in 2010-11. If this is the case, and it is temporary, then spending should decline substantially in 2011-12. Instead, the fall economic update reveals a planned one-time meagre spending reduction of $3.9 billion -- 1.6% of program spending in 2010-11. Simply put, the spending is not temporary.

The government argues that the strength of Canada's economic position means it can afford to shoulder this added economic burden. While this may be true, it is bad fiscal policy. Canada's debt peaked at just under $563 billion in 1996-97. In the subsequent 10 years, it had been whittled down to just under $458 billion. The Harper spending spree will have wiped out in only three years all that was paid back over the last 10. A look at the debt clock hosted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation at www.debtclock.ca shows Canada's debt at almost $490 billion, climbing at a rate of $1,772.57 per second! -

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1761269

Ask the liberals and ndp why we are in a deficit. You do remember the coalition? The libs wanted stimulus, they got it in spades!

[GWiz]

Which truths are you wishing a response to? My generation (babyboomers) will be gone within the next few decades. The issues you describe in your preamble are there for the subsequent generations to resolve.

No kids or grandkids I take it... Or at least none you particularly care about... So be it...

[GWiz]

Ask the liberals and ndp why we are in a deficit. You do remember the coalition? The libs wanted stimulus, they got it in spades!

Nice try... You do know how to read, right?

[Mr.Canada]

The corporations you hate so much create the largest number of jobs in Canada. How many jobs have you created?

[segnosaur]

With devastating earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, forest fires and other "natural disasters" becoming more and more frequent...

Umm... just out of curiosity, where exactly is your proof that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are "becoming more frequent"?

An argument could be made about weather issues becoming more common due to global warming, but earthquakes/volcanoes?

What, nobody interested in a little TRUTH today?

Or just SCARED of it?

Perhaps the problem is the opening post, the poll, and the thread title make no sense. You seem to be talking about so many different things that its hard to figure out what your point is or what topics you actually want discussed. Is this thread supposed to be about tax cuts? Unions? Responses to natural disasters? You probably need more focus.

Ask the liberals and ndp why we are in a deficit. You do remember the coalition? The libs wanted stimulus, they got it in spades!

Nice try... You do know how to read, right?

Yeah, many of us know how to read. For example, we can read this:

OTTAWA–NDP Leader Jack Layton and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion have signed an historic accord to form a coalition government to replace Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

...

Sources said the deal calls for the coalition government to deliver a federal budget immediately after taking office. The budget would include a major package of stimulus measures to shore up the troubled economy.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/546315

Edited March 4, 2011 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

IF corporate tax cuts really worked, why is there a high number of unemployed Canadians?

Ummm... how about the possibility that even if lowered tax rates are good for an economy, they aren't the only factor in economic performance. Its possible that whatever benefit they provide gets "overwhelmed" by the effects of geography, world events, and normal economic cycles. Still, its possible that having a lower tax rate will make the good times better, and the bad times just a little less sucky.

[segnosaur]

To answer your polling questions:

- Unions are a "bad thing" because they are a form of collusion/price fixing that would be considered illegal anywhere else.

Consider: If you found out that the only 2 grocery stores in Canada were secretly working together to keep prices high, people would likely be outraged... its illegal, and it distorts the concept of supply and demand. However, unions do just that... they involve multiple suppliers (i.e. the workers) conspiring together to keep their prices (i.e. wages) higher than they might be in other situations

Now, I'm sure many people might point to historic cases where "unions have eliminated injustices"... However, even if that was true in the past, our society has evolved and there are already plenty of protections

- Best way to create jobs is a combination of low taxes, enforced transparency, and government spending on advanced scientific research and education.

[pinko]

To answer your polling questions:

- Unions are a "bad thing" because they are a form of collusion/price fixing that would be considered illegal anywhere else.

Consider: If you found out that the only 2 grocery stores in Canada were secretly working together to keep prices high, people would likely be outraged... its illegal, and it distorts the concept of supply and demand. However, unions do just that... they involve multiple suppliers (i.e. the workers) conspiring together to keep their prices (i.e. wages) higher than they might be in other situations

Now, I'm sure many people might point to historic cases where "unions have eliminated injustices"... However, even if that was true in the past, our society has evolved and there are already plenty of protections

- Best way to create jobs is a combination of low taxes, enforced transparency, and government spending on advanced scientific research and education.

Yes those mcjobs at Tim Hortons, McDonalds, Taco Bell and other such entities are great for folks especially those with ownership interests.

[segnosaur]

Yes those mcjobs at Tim Hortons, McDonalds, Taco Bell and other such entities are great for folks especially those with ownership interests.

Not sure what exactly your point is. (Are you somehow trying to deal with my 'unions are bad' post?)

Yeah, McJobs are bad. What's your point? They're also jobs that take very little skill, and thus they can draw on a large pool of potential employees for their work force. That's why wages/benefits for those jobs suck (and they probably should). That's supply and demand... a large supply will result in a situation where prices (i.e. wages/benefits) are low.

On the other hand, skilled jobs (engineers, doctors, carpenters, etc.) require more skill/training. Not everyone can do those jobs, and the pool of potential employees is considerably smaller. As a result, they pay more.

If someone doesn't like their McJob, it should be up to them to develop the skills needed to find better employment. Oh, and those with "ownership interests"? Quite often restaurants are owned by shareholders, which include many retirement plans (so your grandparents might end up benefiting from your local fast food outlet. And in other cases, businesses may be individually owned/operated, but those people often took substantial risk in starting the business, and their risks should be suitably rewarded.