Tories turning attacks toward Layton, NDP

[RNG]

I would add to that list our commodities. In comparision to the other G-8 nations, the majority of our (non-subsidized and profitable) exports come from our natural resource sector. Well on the other hand, our manufacturing base suffered, just like everyone elses. This has little to do with Tory or Liberal governments.

With that said, I fear a Liberal and/or NDP government will bring in Cap-Trade, this will make PET's NEP look like a blip.......As for raising Corprate taxes, all that will do is be passed onto the consumer.....if they want that, why not just increase income tax rates?

I'd like to ask the NDPers here, to name a country/time period that experinced high rates of growth in the private sector (outside of wartime) that resulted in low unemployment and stable tax revenue? Without sounding crass, I've yet worked for a poor person, nor have I borrowed a signifcant amount money from a "cheque cashing store".

You get it. And not a socialist in the world does. Tax the corporations. What does that do? Raise prices. Low corp tax rates brings more business, brings more jobs, increases the good for all. How simple is that.

[cybercoma]

Which is why I said the most he did was avoid making it worse...

What you write here is very much different than what you said here:

He gets credit for not making it worse which something the libs/ndp likely would have done by spending even more.

I don't disagree that he didn't f*** things up, but the conditions for success were put in place well before him.

[Guest Derek L]

This is not necessarily true because it depends entirely on flexibility.

How so? What responsable corporation will:

A. Not have their investors and shareholders best intrests in mind?

B. And have their board of directors last more then a few extremly negative quarterly reports?

Cybercoma, do you invest in RRSPs, mutual funds, stocks, bonds etc? Key word being invest....do you know where that money goes? Are you willing to take a bath on any money you've contributed?

[Guest Derek L]

You get it. And not a socialist in the world does. Tax the corporations. What does that do? Raise prices. Low corp tax rates brings more business, brings more jobs, increases the good for all. How simple is that.

Yeah, I've stayed in a Hoilday Inn and read Capitalism and Freedom on the toilet

[TimG]

I don't disagree that he didn't f*** things up, but the conditions for success were put in place well before him.

Agreed. But not f** things up is a good thing. It is not a given that any government would have done the same.

[Bryan]

The government does make a difference, but it wasn't Harper's government that made the difference. He takes credit for the country not falling like others during the recession. The policies that got us through it were not his.

And yet those other governments fared far worse whenever we've had recessions. When the US gets a cold, we get pneumonia was how it always went. Recessions that were far milder than this last one hit us especially hard before. This was one of the worst ever worldwide, and we were barely touched compared not only to other countries, but to how we were hit in the 1980's and 1990's.

[cybercoma]

It's really quite simple, Derek. Companies don't set prices. For all other concerns look up price elasticity of demand.

[TimG]

It's really quite simple, Derek. Companies don't set prices. For all other concerns look up price elasticity of demand.

Many companies have been raising prices because of higher input costs. A tax increase would the silently added to these increases.

[Guest Derek L]

And yet those other governments fared far worse whenever we've had recessions. When the US gets a cold, we get pneumonia was how it always went. Recessions that were far milder than this last one hit us especially hard before. This was one of the worst ever worldwide, and we were barely touched compared not only to other countries, but to how we were hit in the 1980's and 1990's.

That is true, but some credit should be given to former finance minister (Not PM) Paul Martin, whom was forced to make cuts so deep he hit bone.....granted Michael Wilson, Paul Martin, and now Jim Flaherty have been saddled with Trudeau's 200 billion dollar debt. Chicken and the egg?

[cybercoma]

Many companies have been raising prices because of higher input costs. A tax increase would the silently added to these increases.

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

That should be simple enough for you to understand. It's true in some cases that the tax is passed on, but not in others. That's all I'm saying. It's false to say that ALL corporate tax increases are passed on to consumers. Some yes. All no.

[TimG]

It's false to say that ALL corporate tax increases are passed on to consumers. Some yes. All no.

Agreed.

[Guest Derek L]

It's really quite simple, Derek. Companies don't set prices. For all other concerns look up price elasticity of demand.

Did you ever trade hockey/baseball cards with friends when you where younger? Who set the "worth" of a card that you preceived as a good trade?

[August1991]

Crazy election thread.

It was only a matter of time before this happened... but it is clear that nationally, the NDP is not only hammering at the Liberals and Bloc, but they are also bleeding support away from the Tories!

Uh, no. If someone switches from being an NDP voter to being a Conservative voter, or vice versa, it is usually the process of reflection - and not subject to an ad in the midst of a campaign.

Rather, I think Harper knows that it is to his advantage to split the anti-Harper vote. And he also knows that if he criticizes the NDP, he raises their profile. These are divide and conquer tactics. Harper may fear that the NDP is peaking too soon.

What saved Canada during the economic "downturn" was the regulated banking industry. If Stephen Harper regulated the industry, then I could see patting him on the back for navigating us through it. I'm pretty sure he inherited that banking system though, so he doesn't deserve the credit.

Cybercoma, you're just plain wrong on this. No regulation can protect against euphoria, or irrational exuberance. As to Harper, he can take credit for not doing anything stupid.

It is the nature of Canadians, not government regulation, that protected us against a housing bubble.

Going back almost 200 years, our banking system has avoided the innumerable panics, bubbles and crashes of the American financial system. Why? It wasn't government regulation. The Bank of Canada dates from the 1930s. The CDIC from 1967. On closer examination, even our peculiar banking system doesn't explain its stability.

Underneath it all, I reckon the nature of Canadians explains why we have done so well now, and in the past.

IMV, this is an untold story in Canadian history.

Edited April 24, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

It is the nature of Canadians, not government regulation, that protected us against a housing bubble.

even worse for harper then

[Guest Derek L]

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

That should be simple enough for you to understand. It's true in some cases that the tax is passed on, but not in others. That's all I'm saying. It's false to say that ALL corporate tax increases are passed on to consumers. Some yes. All no.

Wouldn't it be better to have zero corporate tax, instead palce the tax on the shareholder?

[TimG]

Wouldn't it be better to have zero corporate tax, instead palce the tax on the shareholder?

Great in theory. Rotten in practice since a lot of companies operating in Canada are foreign and Canada has no ability to tax the shareholder or withhold taxes on dividend payments.

[August1991]

That is true, but some credit should be given to former finance minister (Not PM) Paul Martin, whom was forced to make cuts so deep he hit bone.....granted Michael Wilson, Paul Martin, and now Jim Flaherty have been saddled with Trudeau's 200 billion dollar debt.

You are right to credit both Wilson and Martin. You are partly wrong to blame Trudeau.

In the early 1980s, Canada faced a severe recession and falling government revenues. Under Trudeau, our federal government deficit ballooned. At the same time, real interest rates rose. The Mulroney government (Wilson) struggled with this for almost 10 years.

The Chretien government (Martin) inherited a difficult situation that quickly became easy when real interest rates fell and the economy grew (generating tax revenues).

[Guest Derek L]

Great in theory. Rotten in practice since a lot of companies operating in Canada are foreign and Canada has no ability to tax the shareholder or withhold taxes on dividend payments.

But thats the idea, attract foreign companies/investment into Canada....

[August1991]

even worse for harper then

And yet, Harper is a typical, WASP English-Canadian.

Great in theory. Rotten in practice since a lot of companies operating in Canada are foreign and Canada has no ability to tax the shareholder or withhold taxes on dividend payments.

If you think we can use Canadian corporate taxes to collect money from foreign shareholders, then you don't understand how modern investors think - and you don't understand basic microeconomics.

There are ways to achieve what you want, and our governments largely have the power to use them. Corporate taxes are a blunderbuss, only used because populists like the noise.

Edited April 24, 2011 by August1991

[Guest Derek L]

You are right to credit both Wilson and Martin. You are partly wrong to blame Trudeau.

In the early 1980s, Canada faced a severe recession and falling government revenues. Under Trudeau, our federal government deficit ballooned. At the same time, real interest rates rose. The Mulroney government (Wilson) struggled with this for almost 10 years.

The Chretien government (Martin) inherited a difficult situation that quickly became easy when real interest rates fell and the economy grew (generating tax revenues).

Wouldn't the blow of falling government revenues have been lessoned, had Trudeau incurred less debt in the 70s?

[TimG]

But thats the idea, attract foreign companies/investment into Canada....

What is the point if they simply suck money out the country. We need to tax the revenue of corporations if we can't tax the shareholders.

[mikedavid00]

yes corporate taxes should be eliminated. You would see so many companies over to Canada and maybe then there would finally be enough jobs for Canadians. Lord knows the immigrants coming in certainly aren't opening up jobs for Canadians. They have their hand out like everyone else looking for employment. People just want employment and to pay their mortgage and have a savings. That's all they want. They don't want contract work, to be sent home working 20 hours a week. Barely able to afford their cigarettes. Going into year long debt over some cheesy resort in Cuba.

we live like trash here in Canada and we desperately need to be a tax free zone for corporations.

[mikedavid00]

What is the point if they simply suck money out the country. We need to tax the revenue of corporations if we can't tax the shareholders.

we don't need tax revenue from them.

also, corporations employ you and me.

I can't believe you would even ask 'what use are they?'. ARE YOU SERIOUS??

Edited April 24, 2011 by mikedavid00

[Guest Derek L]

What is the point if they simply suck money out the country. We need to tax the revenue of corporations if we can't tax the shareholders.

In actual terms, a corporate tax is regressive and ultimately, not paid by the "fat cat" with bags full of money, but the worker who's entered into a profit sharing agreement, the middle income Canadians who's RRSP/mutual funds are invested in the company and the consumer.

A company can, through "creative accounting", actually show a loss in it's division that comes under Canadian tax jurisdiction, and only show profit to that "divison" that is a mail box in the Caymen Islands. Ask Paul Martin

Same with the "rich". There's a entire industry devoted to hiding money from the government.

Also, if you stop taxing corparations, they are no longer treated as "indivual taxpayers", thus reducing their rights in court, and also their influnce on government via lobbying.

We would still see a small revenue directly through property taxes, taxes on utilites etc, but where we would see the largest benifit, as mentioned above, is indirectly through income tax from employees.

[bloodyminded]

He gets credit for not making it worse which something the libs/ndp likely would have done by spending even more.

You think he deserves credit because of some unknowable speculation about what the others would have done?

Well, that certainly changes perspectives. I always despised our (NB's) previous Liberal government (the least popular in recent memory, incidentally); but now I know--somehow--that the Conservatives or NDP would have been worse, so I give Sean Graham credit.

??

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded