Tories turning attacks toward Layton, NDP

[punked]

Its been shown though that dropping corporate taxes is a good thing. In canada it would be really good as far as attracting foreign capital to develop our resources. The income taxes from employees and the shareholders from t.o. Would make up for it, not to mention the growth.

We are enjoying the benefits of being the most competitive tax rates in the g8. It would be unwise to give other countries a competitive advantage.

Who showed you this. Please if it has been shown then tell me who showed you?

[blueblood]

Who showed you this. Please if it has been shown then tell me who showed you?

Well we have ireland before the banking crisis. And the reason they got into hot water was bailing out the banks. Interesting to note they are keeping their corporate tax rate at 12.5 percent.

Then there is singapore with a max tax of 20%. Also with other emerging markets with no capital gains tax.

And there is canada. Since 2000 canada's economy has done very well and the gdp numbers and other metrics of growth back it up. Coincidentally corporate tax rates since that time has fallen allowing for a more friendly environment to invest and get returns from.

Fareed zakaria suggests that the us should not attempt to copy the nordic countries as a social democracy tends to put the kibosh on the entrepreneurial spirit.

[blueblood]

A

Edited April 25, 2011 by blueblood

[punked]

Well we have ireland before the banking crisis. And the reason they got into hot water was bailing out the banks. Interesting to note they are keeping their corporate tax rate at 12.5 percent.

Then there is singapore with a max tax of 20%. Also with other emerging markets with no capital gains tax.

And there is canada. Since 2000 canada's economy has done very well and the gdp numbers and other metrics of growth back it up. Coincidentally corporate tax rates since that time has fallen allowing for a more friendly environment to invest and get returns from.

Fareed zakaria suggests that the us should not attempt to copy the nordic countries as a social democracy tends to put the kibosh on the entrepreneurial spirit.

So you just named 2 countries, one of which is failure. Plan and simple the only way to describe Ireland is a failure. The other is "emerging markets" where tax isn't the driver labour costs are. So you have nothing.

[blueblood]

So you just named 2 countries, one of which is failure. Plan and simple the only way to describe Ireland is a failure. The other is "emerging markets" where tax isn't the driver labour costs are. So you have nothing.

Ireland was poor before the low corporate tax regime, became rich, then got itself into a banking crisis. How do low corporate taxes cause irresponsible lending? How come ireland is keeping those corporate taxes at 12.5% while enacting drastic austerity measures?

Simgapore is also a rapidly growing emerging market country. Then we have canada which is growing while cutting corporate taxes and will grow itself out of the deficit providing economic conditions in emerging markets continue on their growth path.

Why is unemployment and the deficit shrinking while gdp is rising in canada even though corporate taxes are falling? The numbers don't lie, falling and low corporate taxes is the most efficient way to grow an economy.

I think I have something.

[Guest Derek L]

Ireland was poor before the low corporate tax regime, became rich, then got itself into a banking crisis. How do low corporate taxes cause irresponsible lending? How come ireland is keeping those corporate taxes at 12.5% while enacting drastic austerity measures?

Simgapore is also a rapidly growing emerging market country. Then we have canada which is growing while cutting corporate taxes and will grow itself out of the deficit providing economic conditions in emerging markets continue on their growth path.

Why is unemployment and the deficit shrinking while gdp is rising in canada even though corporate taxes are falling? The numbers don't lie, falling and low corporate taxes is the most efficient way to grow an economy.

I think I have something.

You could also add to that list of emerging nations, many of the former Soviet republics that started using flat tax and low corprate taxes. Georgia, for example was (prior to the world downturn and Russian invasion) one of the fastest growing economies in eastern Europe.

[punked]

Ireland was poor before the low corporate tax regime, became rich, then got itself into a banking crisis. How do low corporate taxes cause irresponsible lending? How come ireland is keeping those corporate taxes at 12.5% while enacting drastic austerity measures?

Simgapore is also a rapidly growing emerging market country. Then we have canada which is growing while cutting corporate taxes and will grow itself out of the deficit providing economic conditions in emerging markets continue on their growth path.

Why is unemployment and the deficit shrinking while gdp is rising in canada even though corporate taxes are falling? The numbers don't lie, falling and low corporate taxes is the most efficient way to grow an economy.

I think I have something.

Ireland financed a short boom and bust on the backs of public debt, deregulation and tax cuts. I don't see it as a very example for you sorry.

Canada's success has everything to do with having raw materials whose price continues to rise and nothing to do with tax cuts. Well I will agree if we up corporate taxes by 10% or more we would feel it. I don't think 2-3% is a big deal though.

[RNG]

Ireland financed a short boom and bust on the backs of public debt, deregulation and tax cuts. I don't see it as a very example for you sorry.

Canada's success has everything to do with having raw materials whose price continues to rise and nothing to do with tax cuts. Well I will agree if we up corporate taxes by 10% or more we would feel it. I don't think 2-3% is a big deal though.

Have any of you seen this video called Eat the Rich?

[punked]

Have any of you seen this video called Eat the Rich?

Is this a joke? It seems like a joke.

[RNG]

Is this a joke? It seems like a joke.

I have managed to fact check a couple of the numbers he spouts, and they check out.

[punked]

I have managed to fact check a couple of the numbers he spouts, and they check out.

Yah but it is what he says outside the numbers that worries me.

[RNG]

Yah but it is what he says outside the numbers that worries me.

Can you expand on that thought?

[punked]

Can you expand on that thought?

How about when he says people have no right to protest. Thought that was a little much.

[RNG]

How about when he says people have no right to protest. Thought that was a little much.

I've watched the video twice and didn't pick that one up. I guess to my mind that wasn't anywhere near as significant as the numbers. I'll go back and watch it again.

[punked]

I've watched the video twice and didn't pick that one up. I guess to my mind that wasn't anywhere near as significant as the numbers. I'll go back and watch it again.

Watch for when he talks about the WI union protests with detest.

[RNG]

Watch for when he talks about the WI union protests with detest.

I think you are picking at straws with that one. I just re-watched it. He wasn't objecting to the demonstrating, he was mocking the subject of their demonstration.

[RNG]

The point he and I try to make time and again is that it isn't so much a revenue problem the US and Canada have, it is a spending problem.

[Smallc]

The point he and I try to make time and again is that it isn't so much a revenue problem the US and Canada have, it is a spending problem.

Canada and the US don't have problems that should even be mentioned in the same sentence.

[punked]

I think you are picking at straws with that one. I just re-watched it. He wasn't objecting to the demonstrating, he was mocking the subject of their demonstration.

No he said they were "obstructing the legislative process" instead he should have said they were "participating in the legislative process". He clearly hates the right to protest unless someone is protesting how he believes.

[punked]

Canada and the US don't have problems that should even be mentioned in the same sentence.

Agreed!

[RNG]

No he said they were "obstructing the legislative process" instead he should have said they were "participating in the legislative process". He clearly hates the right to protest unless someone is protesting how he believes.

The protesters were obstructing the legislative process. As were the Democrat representatives.

[punked]

The protesters were obstructing the legislative process. As were the Democrat representatives.

No they were a part of Legislative process there is a reason the rules are written the way they are and why a judge ruled as much during this whole process.

[RNG]

No they were a part of Legislative process there is a reason the rules are written the way they are and why a judge ruled as much during this whole process.

So how come the Republicans won in the end?

[punked]

So how come the Republicans won in the end?

They didn't I know you aren't following this so I will forgive you but a judge ruled the way the legislation was passed wasn't in an "open" meeting. She said that she couldn't make her full decision until the republicans in that meeting testified, they used their legislation immunity to not testify so the judge put an injunction on the law until they testify. As of right now the protests are still going on, 8 legislatures with a possibility of 3 more are facing recall votes, AND the law has been suspended.

So if by win you mean pass a law which has never come into effect and may never will, while having to face recall elections a win then maybe you are right. Seems like a loss to me.

[bloodyminded]

My income comes from overseas and from the US in the form of royalty cheques. My taxes on that will probably be over $100,000 this year. I am putting up with it. Taxation is one of the things you need to accept to be part of society. However, if those taxes rise substantially, and is spent on things which I consider unnecessary or stupid, then I'm going to have to think of moving to somewhere cheaper. My income doesn't depend on my location, after all, and there are places in the world where I would pay virtually no taxes on that income.

This is one of the things the government has to bear in mind. If you make it too expensive then a number of people - and companies - will opt out and you will get nothing.

I understand all this, and even to a degree sympathize--but the very fact of my sympathy, ironically makes at least one of your points not quite relevant...and even faintly disturbing: that is, scarcely a single Canadian will not object to some use of his or her tax money, and Canadians are not in agreement about what these components are. What you consider "unneccessary or stupid" might be things others support; likewise, what you find supportable might seem to others to be a terrible and unreasonable waste.

Your scenario leads almost inevitably to the notion that what the wealthy consider "unnecessary or stupid" is in practical terms more important than what lower-income folks do, in a case where the two might disagree. And so the wealthier interests should be taken into account over the non-wealthy's interests. And that's inherently anti-democratic.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded