Has Layton sacrified the NDP chances in Alberta for Quebec?

[ToadBrother]

Research by the International Institute of Sustainable Development has pegged the value of federal and provincial government subsidies for fossil fuels at $2 billion a year. The subsidies mostly come in the form of tax measures and investment incentives.

Accepting that the number is true, so what? As was pointed out, the Federal Government has underwritten in different ways a number of industries over the history of Confederation, and damned good thing too.

As much as I don't like fossil fuels, in part because of climate change, in part because oil in particular is, possibly within our lifetimes, going to become scarce enough to mean that a whole bunch of industrial and agricultural processes are going to become much more expensive, at the end of the day energy independence and being able to be a net exporter are huge things for Canada, one that is going to become increasingly clear as an issue of national security.

The problem, to my mind, isn't subsidies to oil companies, but rather the uneven application that many fiscal conservatives, particularly of the Libertarian variety, tend to defend.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

[fellowtraveller]

I agree with wyly and Rovik that these interprovincial/federal subsidies have to end.

The feds have to pull the financial pin on Syncrude and Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin right now!

Speaking of interprovincial subsidies, they should also halt all that subsidy going east from Alberta, in fairness. I think the amount is now up to $14 Billion per annum now. Too bad for Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and the Maritimes.

It is great to see such solidarity among the disparate political opinions here!

[fellowtraveller]

How is realizing that certain industries have cashflow issues, or very large capital outlay issues and therefore decreasing the amount of their money the government takes a subsidy? How did our railroads get built?

And how do Quebecs exported light rail cars and jet aircraft get built?

[RNG]

- "I will immediately eliminate all of Stephen Harper's subsidies to fossil-fuel producers. We'll stop the flow to the tarsands, every single penny," Layton said at a campaign stop at a company that recycles computer equipment.

"And I'll redirect the savings into Canada's most promising clean energy."

Research by the International Institute of Sustainable Development has pegged the value of federal and provincial government subsidies for fossil fuels at $2 billion a year. The subsidies mostly come in the form of tax measures and investment incentives.

The federal share amounts to about $1.4 billion a year, according to the institute. -

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110331/ndp-layton-110331/

Still, show me a cancelled cheque or a payment. Taking less is not a subsidy.

And quoting Layton on a subject like this is a total joke.

Edited April 6, 2011 by RNG

[Smallc]

I think the amount is now up to $14 Billion per annum now. Too bad for Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and the Maritimes.

There is no subsidy going to Ontario. Ontario is a net contributor despite its current have not status.

[Smallc]

Still, show me a cancelled cheque or a payment. Taking less is not a subsidy.

What a bunch of ideological drivel. Taking less while still taking more from others is a clear tax subsidy.

[RNG]

What a bunch of ideological drivel. Taking less while still taking more from others is a clear tax subsidy.

Wrong.

[punked]

Just thought I would pop into this thread, as the only who read the budget on the forums, and point out that the Conservatives had the eliminate of the oil sands subsidies in their budget. Just saying another great NDP idea stolen by another party.

[Jack Weber]

Just thought I would pop into this thread, as the only who read the budget on the forums, and point out that the Conservatives had the eliminate of the oil sands subsidies in their budget. Just saying another great NDP idea stolen by another party.

"Those damned Conservatives!!!

They're going to cripple the oil industry with that!!

It's just like the NEP!!!

THE NEP!!THE NEP!!!THE NEP!!!!

Somehow this ties back into Pierre Trudeau...

I JUST KNOW IT!!!!

Damned Eastern Bastards!!!

:angry: :angry: "

[punked]

"Those damned Conservatives!!!

They're going to cripple the oil industry with that!!

It's just like the NEP!!!

THE NEP!!THE NEP!!!THE NEP!!!!

Somehow this ties back into Pierre Trudeau...

I JUST KNOW IT!!!!

Damned Eastern Bastards!!!

:angry: :angry: "

I laughed

[Smallc]

Wrong.

Prove it wrong then.

[RNG]

Prove it wrong then.

You really have a comprehension problem here. I think there are therapy's for you, but am not sure, you may be too far gone. They are not subsidising, ie. giving anything. They are just stealing less. For good reason.

[Smallc]

They are not subsidising, ie. giving anything. They are just stealing less.

You are the one with the comprehension problem. First, taxes aren't theft, and to argue otherwise is completely moronic. Secondly, giving a selective tax break to one industry costs the treasury. The government still has to pay for its programs, and so someone else has to make up for the loss in revenue, i.e, you and I.

[kimmy]

Pretty much everybody agrees that there's no need for subsidies right now. But only the NDP seem to be in favor of a moratorium on development. That's the real danger that people seem to be missing.

-k

[Smallc]

But only the NDP seem to be in favor of a moratorium on development.

Well that's an easy one to explain...they're idiots.

[RNG]

You are the one with the comprehension problem. First, taxes aren't theft, and to argue otherwise is completely moronic. Secondly, giving a selective tax break to one industry costs the treasury. The government still has to pay for its programs, and so someone else has to make up for the loss in revenue, i.e, you and I.

And herein lies the great socialist fallacy. Companies need to make a profit. successful companies make a large profit. If you don't like it, buy their shares rather than take their money. Because when you in fact take their money, they just charge more for their products. The consumer always ends up paying anyway. I don't like the government and their boutique tax credit stuff, and tax breaks for certain industries and on and on. It gets complicated and unfair. I know a whole herd of you strongly disagree with me on this, but I think that taxes are only for government revenue. Social engineering should not be being done. An elimination of all other taxes and the implementation of a modified GST type of system is the answer. Google FairTax sometimes. But, with the system we currently have, I will not allow people to call a tax break a subsidy without battling back.

Edited April 8, 2011 by RNG

[Smallc]

And herein lies the great socialist fallacy.

You think I'm a socialist?

But, with the system we currently have, I will not allow people to call a tax break a subsidy without battling back.

Except that you're wrong. With the system we currently have, a selective tax break for one industry very much is a subsidy. How you can see it any other way is beyond me. Company A is benefiting at the cost of Company B, just as if Company A were getting money being taken from Company B.

[RNG]

You think I'm a socialist?

Except that you're wrong. With the system we currently have, a selective tax break for one industry very much is a subsidy. How you can see it any other way is beyond me. Company A is benefiting at the cost of Company B, just as if Company A were getting money being taken from Company B.

I wasn't labeling you a socialist, I was labeling those policies. And I still disagree. Taking less isn't giving.

[Smallc]

Taking less isn't giving.

Taking less in such a selective way very much is.

[WIP]

And herein lies the great socialist fallacy. Companies need to make a profit. successful companies make a large profit. If you don't like it, buy their shares rather than take their money. Because when you in fact take their money, they just charge more for their products. The consumer always ends up paying anyway. I don't like the government and their boutique tax credit stuff, and tax breaks for certain industries and on and on. It gets complicated and unfair. I know a whole herd of you strongly disagree with me on this, but I think that taxes are only for government revenue. Social engineering should not be being done. An elimination of all other taxes and the implementation of a modified GST type of system is the answer. Google FairTax sometimes. But, with the system we currently have, I will not allow people to call a tax break a subsidy without battling back.

Your free market fundamentalism is as much a fantasy as the 6000 year old universe of the fundamentalist creationists. According to this religious fantasy, companies need to make a profit...so if we cut their taxes and they make huge profits, that money is going to trickle down and benefit the rest of us.........so why the hell isn't it happening? It was one thing to believe this bullshit when Ronald Reagan brought Milton Friedman's Chile Experiment to Washington; but to still believe it today, when Canada is following in America's footsteps of seeing wealth decline at every income level except for the top 1%, is a refusal to admit the truth -- that the rightwing economic agenda was only intended to benefit those with wealth and power.

[Bonam]

Your free market fundamentalism is as much a fantasy as the 6000 year old universe of the fundamentalist creationists. According to this religious fantasy, companies need to make a profit...so if we cut their taxes and they make huge profits, that money is going to trickle down and benefit the rest of us.........so why the hell isn't it happening?

It is happening. It is happening on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented pace. The wealth is trickling down rapidly and lifting tens of millions of Chinese and Indian and other developing world workers out of poverty every year.

[Wild Bill]

Your free market fundamentalism is as much a fantasy as the 6000 year old universe of the fundamentalist creationists. According to this religious fantasy, companies need to make a profit...so if we cut their taxes and they make huge profits, that money is going to trickle down and benefit the rest of us.........so why the hell isn't it happening? It was one thing to believe this bullshit when Ronald Reagan brought Milton Friedman's Chile Experiment to Washington; but to still believe it today, when Canada is following in America's footsteps of seeing wealth decline at every income level except for the top 1%, is a refusal to admit the truth -- that the rightwing economic agenda was only intended to benefit those with wealth and power.

Bonam's post is quite correct. The benefits do trickle down. They just don't trickle down to us! Other countries are benefiting from what we've paid.

The problem with metaphors like "trickle down economics" is that they are usually quite true when they are first born. However, people tend to swallow the metaphor without really understanding all the factors that are associated with it.

When we first started hearing "trickle down" it was a much more local world. If the government gave a company or more likely a particular industry a tax break, that company would spend the benefits here in Canada. After all, the company was likely based here, operated here and sold to the Canadian market. Today, that company may simply use that money to finance a relocation of its manufacturing plants to China or India!

Meanwhile, the government keeps giving the breaks! Why? Because governments are notoriously short-sighted and slow to react to change. Following outdated policies still gives the impression that they are doing their jobs. Neither the government nor the people tend to look deeply at how well things are working. Their thinking is just too shallow, like a chess player who can't see more than the one immediate move in front of his face.

Here in Hamilton we have a conspicuous example of that kind of old-fashioned inertia with the sale of Stelco to U.S. Steel. The Feds gave lots of tax breaks, grants and concessions to the American company in order to swing the deal, wanting to preserve the industry and its jobs. The problem was, U.S.Steel didn't look at its Stelco plant as a separate, Canadian operation. Rather, it was to be just a part of its global organization. It shut the plant down in order to favour its American based plants. It did keep a coke producing operation going but not to use it for steelmaking here in Hamilton but to supply its American plants.

This of course was a breach of their agreement with the Feds but it was understandable why U.S. Steel ignored its commitments. For years now governments anywhere have never gone back to audit such agreements. Companies broke them all the time, after receiving the benefits, of course.

Things have finally changed somewhat. Harper's government is in the process of suing them for what amounts to breach of contract, or whatever the proper legal term would be. This is a first and hopefully will become common practice. Sadly, in itself it's not enough. The legal channels to sue U.S. Steel are so crude and inefficient that it's going to take several YEARS to complete things! We desperately need legislation to improve the ability to sue these bandit companies.

So the idea of "trickle down" is not necessarily wrong. We're just using 1960 approaches with 21st century situations. Governments should be tying strings to the money and tax breaks to ensure that the benefits will be used at home and not abroad.

Otherwise, we will keep repeating the Chretien years, where breaks for Northern Telecom became the best thing that ever happened to China!

[blueblood]

Bonam's post is quite correct. The benefits do trickle down. They just don't trickle down to us! Other countries are benefiting from what we've paid.

The problem with metaphors like "trickle down economics" is that they are usually quite true when they are first born. However, people tend to swallow the metaphor without really understanding all the factors that are associated with it.

When we first started hearing "trickle down" it was a much more local world. If the government gave a company or more likely a particular industry a tax break, that company would spend the benefits here in Canada. After all, the company was likely based here, operated here and sold to the Canadian market. Today, that company may simply use that money to finance a relocation of its manufacturing plants to China or India!

Meanwhile, the government keeps giving the breaks! Why? Because governments are notoriously short-sighted and slow to react to change. Following outdated policies still gives the impression that they are doing their jobs. Neither the government nor the people tend to look deeply at how well things are working. Their thinking is just too shallow, like a chess player who can't see more than the one immediate move in front of his face.

Here in Hamilton we have a conspicuous example of that kind of old-fashioned inertia with the sale of Stelco to U.S. Steel. The Feds gave lots of tax breaks, grants and concessions to the American company in order to swing the deal, wanting to preserve the industry and its jobs. The problem was, U.S.Steel didn't look at its Stelco plant as a separate, Canadian operation. Rather, it was to be just a part of its global organization. It shut the plant down in order to favour its American based plants. It did keep a coke producing operation going but not to use it for steelmaking here in Hamilton but to supply its American plants.

This of course was a breach of their agreement with the Feds but it was understandable why U.S. Steel ignored its commitments. For years now governments anywhere have never gone back to audit such agreements. Companies broke them all the time, after receiving the benefits, of course.

Things have finally changed somewhat. Harper's government is in the process of suing them for what amounts to breach of contract, or whatever the proper legal term would be. This is a first and hopefully will become common practice. Sadly, in itself it's not enough. The legal channels to sue U.S. Steel are so crude and inefficient that it's going to take several YEARS to complete things! We desperately need legislation to improve the ability to sue these bandit companies.

So the idea of "trickle down" is not necessarily wrong. We're just using 1960 approaches with 21st century situations. Governments should be tying strings to the money and tax breaks to ensure that the benefits will be used at home and not abroad.

Otherwise, we will keep repeating the Chretien years, where breaks for Northern Telecom became the best thing that ever happened to China!

C'mon man!!!

What does it matter if the trickle down affects third world countries? That means they have money to buy our stuff. The days of working as a factory worker being the ticket to prosperity are over. There is lots of work out west, thus being a choice; do you want money or don't you? The only way manufacturing will occur in canada on a 1990s scale is when the cost of production out in china exceeds it in canada, and that won't happen for quite sometime. Its simple economics, it doesn't make sense when a country is efficient at resource production and trying to do manufacturing, while another country is efficient at manufacturing and inefficient at resource production. Why not trade? There is a world outside of ontario, and we here in the west had to quickly realize that or we'd be in the poorhouse!

The trickle down effect is making the world and canada a richer place. It just isn't at the pace that some people want.

[ToadBrother]

C'mon man!!!

What does it matter if the trickle down affects third world countries? That means they have money to buy our stuff. The days of working as a factory worker being the ticket to prosperity are over. There is lots of work out west, thus being a choice; do you want money or don't you? The only way manufacturing will occur in canada on a 1990s scale is when the cost of production out in china exceeds it in canada, and that won't happen for quite sometime. Its simple economics, it doesn't make sense when a country is efficient at resource production and trying to do manufacturing, while another country is efficient at manufacturing and inefficient at resource production. Why not trade? There is a world outside of ontario, and we here in the west had to quickly realize that or we'd be in the poorhouse!

The trickle down effect is making the world and canada a richer place. It just isn't at the pace that some people want.

Your corporate tax cut claim is BS. The evidence is in, corporations aren't using the savings from tax cuts to hire people, they're using it to build up their cash reserves. It's a rather good idea in uncertain times; put the money in a chest, don't create more financial obligations by hiring employees.

[Wild Bill]

C'mon man!!!

What does it matter if the trickle down affects third world countries? That means they have money to buy our stuff. The days of working as a factory worker being the ticket to prosperity are over. There is lots of work out west, thus being a choice; do you want money or don't you? The only way manufacturing will occur in canada on a 1990s scale is when the cost of production out in china exceeds it in canada, and that won't happen for quite sometime. Its simple economics, it doesn't make sense when a country is efficient at resource production and trying to do manufacturing, while another country is efficient at manufacturing and inefficient at resource production. Why not trade? There is a world outside of ontario, and we here in the west had to quickly realize that or we'd be in the poorhouse!

The trickle down effect is making the world and canada a richer place. It just isn't at the pace that some people want.

Move out West? Maybe if you're single and 23! What do you do if you're 50? You've just lost your good paying manufacturing job. You've still got a mortgage and a couple of kids in University. The wife however has a job of her own and doesn't want to give it up.

Do you abandon your family and go out West by yourself? Are there any well paying jobs for 50 year olds out there? Even if there are, at 50 are you still in shape for that kind of life? Do you want to lose that time with your family? Odds are you will die without having spent much time with your kids.

Perhaps the choice isn't that stark. I don't know if jobs are easy for old guys out West. Maybe an older guy could land a great job, even with no experience and the age factor. Perhaps he'd make so much money his wife could quit her job and follow you out with the kids.

Would his chances really be that great? Is the job market THAT fantastic even for old guys?