Who really isn't "paying their fair share"?

[CPCFTW]

I have read constant posts from the left about how the corporations aren't "paying their fair share", but I don't think that could be further from the truth. The only people who aren't "paying their fair share" are public servants.

Corporations run a business that generates revenues. Lets do a simple breakdown what they do with these revenues:

1. These revenues are used to employ people to run and grow the business. These people then pay taxes on their personal income.

2. Other than labour costs, revenues are used to cover the cost of the goods or services the corporation produces. This can create jobs domestically for the extraction/production of the inputs to the final product, or foreign jobs through outsourcing. In turn, this gives developing countries a chance to build their own economies and eventually increase demand for Canadian goods and services.

3. Corporations then pay taxes on the earnings they have left over after deducting costs.

4. Corporations also distribute earnings as dividends, or invest in growth opportunities which lead to capital gains. Investors in these corporations are taxed on their dividends or capital gains.

Furthermore, the existence of these corporations creates additional jobs within other businesses who provide inputs to their production, or to businesses who sell their products. The employees of these corporations also pay taxes on their personal income. The employees of corporations invest or spend their disposable income on goods and services which also create additional jobs. Competition between corporations reduces prices for consumers and allows them to enjoy a better life.

The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else. The larger the public sector grows, the more the private sector has to be encumbered with paying for the salaries of public servants.

I'm not an anarchist, I'm not advocating eliminating government. But I do think the private sector and corporations are unfairly demonized. The private sector is the one paying for the public sector to exist. Wherever the private sector can provide a good or service profitably, they should be allowed to do so (yes I am advocating two-tier health care). Corporations are not evil. They are the reason for our prosperity. Corporations will not be going anywhere, so it's time to move on from the 70s and stop with the hippy anti-corporate movement. We should be thanking corporations.

With 8% of 18.5million Canadians in the labour force being unemployed, that is about 1.5 million Canadians who are also being supported by the private sector. Imagine if we were able to reduce that figure to 4% by creating 750k private sector jobs with an average salary of 40k and lets say they pay about 25% in taxes on average.

750,000 jobs x $40,000 income = 30 billion in income = $7.5 billion in tax revenue to spend health care, day care, etc. This doesn't even account for the fact that these 750k people will no longer be collecting welfare or EI cheques or need subsidized housing, etc. This will increase the pot of government funds to spend on social programs even more.

We need to work within the framework of a globalization and the corporate form of organization to invite more business and private enterprise into our country to support our social wants. Enough with the demonization of corporations. Canada is a nation that is blessed with vast and diverse natural resources, we could be economic superpowers. Corporations are the true key to the utopian society we all dream of.

Discuss.

Edited May 4, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Michael Hardner]

The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else. The larger the public sector grows, the more the private sector has to be encumbered with paying for the salaries of public servants.

Why call them a burden on society because they're funded by taxes ? Bank employees are funded by bank fees, which you have to pay in order to have a bank account - so are they a burden ?

Everybody has to pay for things. Some things make more sense as public services, some make more sense as private. Everybody pays, everybody gets paid.

[CPCFTW]

Why call them a burden on society because they're funded by taxes ? Bank employees are funded by bank fees, which you have to pay in order to have a bank account - so are they a burden ?

Everybody has to pay for things. Some things make more sense as public services, some make more sense as private. Everybody pays, everybody gets paid.

People wouldn't use banks if they didn't value their services over stashing their cash under their mattress. You aren't forced to pay bank fees. Everyone is forced to pay taxes for public services. Public servants are the true "tyrants".

The public sector is like if I kept my money in a personal vault but was paying for a public banking system where everyone got free bank accounts and bank services.

Edited May 4, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Michael Hardner]

People wouldn't use banks if they didn't value their services over stashing their cash under their mattress. You aren't forced to pay bank fees. Everyone is forced to pay taxes for public services. Public servants are the true "tyrants".

I see. Well, in that sense I guess it's a burden but there is value given for the taxes paid and we haven't been able to come up with a better system.

[CPCFTW]

I see. Well, in that sense I guess it's a burden but there is value given for the taxes paid and we haven't been able to come up with a better system.

I definitely agree that there is value in what the public sector provides... I just think that the value is outweighed by the cost. Non-essential public services are wealth destroyers... I do think universal health care is essential, but I think that a two tiered system could reduce the costs of the public system. In addition to decreasing the burden on the public system, the taxes from the private system could go towards subsidizing health education so that we have more doctors and nurses, and increasing the salaries for those in the public system.

[CPCFTW]

A two tier health system is like our postal system. If you want faster and more reliable service, you can pay extra for Fedex or UPS. Our health care system would be like banning UPS and Fedex and forcing everyone to wait 10 days to mail anything.

[Shwa]

I have read constant posts from the left about how the corporations aren't "paying their fair share", but I don't think that could be further from the truth. The only people who aren't "paying their fair share" are public servants.

I think the mail complaint of "the left" is the gross disparity of top salaries of corporations - that of the CEO and the base workers in the same corporation. Then there is the issue of profits and how those profits can be equitably shared. You are thinking that corporations somehow exist in a vacuum and this isn't so. They use public infrastructure, public resources, exist on public land. Etc. So an equitable share COULD mean a percentage point or two increase in taxes.

Corporations run a business that generates revenues. Lets do a simple breakdown what they do with these revenues:

Fair enough.

1. These revenues are used to employ people to run and grow the business. These people then pay taxes on their personal income.

But is the pay for these employees of a fair value in ratio to what the corporation earns in profit?

2. Other than labour costs, revenues are used to cover the cost of the goods or services the corporation produces. This can create jobs domestically for the extraction/production of the inputs to the final product, or foreign jobs through outsourcing. In turn, this gives developing countries a chance to build their own economies and eventually increase demand for Canadian goods and services.

They are also used to pay interest on loans to banks and investors.

3. Corporations then pay taxes on the earnings they have left over after deducting costs.

And after qualifying for special tax exemptions not available the general public.

4. Corporations also distribute earnings as dividends, or invest in growth opportunities which lead to capital gains. Investors in these corporations are taxed on their dividends or capital gains.

And they are forced to pay interest on loans to banks and investors, property taxes, etc.

Furthermore, the existence of these corporations creates additional jobs within other businesses who provide inputs to their production, or to businesses who sell their products. The employees of these corporations also pay taxes on their personal income. The employees of corporations invest or spend their disposable income on goods and services which also create additional jobs. Competition between corporations reduces prices for consumers and allows them to enjoy a better life.

Collusion between corporations also inflates prices which infringe on the earning power of their employees and everyone else and degrades the standard of living. Oil and gas corporations are one example. Don't get me started on Microsoft...

The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else. The larger the public sector grows, the more the private sector has to be encumbered with paying for the salaries of public servants.

This has been put to rest. You cannot prove that public employees are 100% tax funded. If you think you can, cite your source.

I'm not an anarchist, I'm not advocating eliminating government. But I do think the private sector and corporations are unfairly demonized. The private sector is the one paying for the public sector to exist. Wherever the private sector can provide a good or service profitably, they should be allowed to do so (yes I am advocating two-tier health care). Corporations are not evil. They are the reason for our prosperity. Corporations will not be going anywhere, so it's time to move on from the 70s and stop with the hippy anti-corporate movement. We should be thanking corporations.

We should be thanking corporations that have CEO's making thousands the times of money that their employees make? We should thank them for their pollution that has to be dealt with by public sector employees? Etc. You are thinking that corporations somehow exist separately from the public sphere and this is - and never will be - the case.

With 8% of 18.5million Canadians in the labour force being unemployed, that is about 1.5 million Canadians who are also being supported by the private sector. Imagine if we were able to reduce that figure to 4% by creating 750k private sector jobs with an average salary of 40k and lets say they pay about 25% in taxes on average.

750,000 jobs x $40,000 income = 30 billion in income = $7.5 billion in tax revenue to spend health care, day care, etc. This doesn't even account for the fact that these 750k people will no longer be collecting welfare or EI cheques or need subsidized housing, etc. This will increase the pot of government funds to spend on social programs even more.

Where do the corporations get the money for all these new 40k per year hires? And where do the people come from?

We need to work within the framework of a globalization and the corporate form of organization to invite more business and private enterprise into our country to support our social wants. Enough with the demonization of corporations. Canada is a nation that is blessed with vast and diverse natural resources, we could be economic superpowers. Corporations are the true key to the utopian society we all dream of.

Ahhh... nooowwww I get it. Utopian. Utopian for top 15%; not-so-Utopian for the remaining 85%?

Break out the soma...

[Dave_ON]

I have read constant posts from the left about how the corporations aren't "paying their fair share", but I don't think that could be further from the truth. The only people who aren't "paying their fair share" are public servants.

Corporations run a business that generates revenues. Lets do a simple breakdown what they do with these revenues:

1. These revenues are used to employ people to run and grow the business. These people then pay taxes on their personal income.

2. Other than labour costs, revenues are used to cover the cost of the goods or services the corporation produces. This can create jobs domestically for the extraction/production of the inputs to the final product, or foreign jobs through outsourcing. In turn, this gives developing countries a chance to build their own economies and eventually increase demand for Canadian goods and services.

3. Corporations then pay taxes on the earnings they have left over after deducting costs.

4. Corporations also distribute earnings as dividends, or invest in growth opportunities which lead to capital gains. Investors in these corporations are taxed on their dividends or capital gains.

First of all I can't believe I'm agreeing with someone who's tag is CPCFTW that's (CPC For The Win) for those of you who aren't familiar with FTW. I feel I should disagree with you on this principle alone, but I suppose if you keep your "woots" and "pwns" to a minimum we'll get along just fine

I actually agree with most of your points. I have felt for far too long that it is far too easy to paint corporation as the bad guy, this is especially true of banks. This is not peculiar to the "left" however. Much of it comes from lack of understanding I suppose. I happen to be employed by a very large corporation and I'm quite happy with taxes approximately where they are right now. As the corporation does well I also reap the benefits, in the form of a bonus and a raise. I'm certainly no advocate of raising corporate taxes at this point, but neither am I convinced that lowering corporate taxes will have the desired effect at this juncture. I'm more of a fan of the status quo, there are many services that we still need to provide and we are already in a deficit situation. Lowering revenue is likely not the smartest idea, considering we are looking to pony up some pretty hefty cash for military and prison spending. I still haven't figured out how we're going to tax less and spend more. I suppose the easy, and most likely answer, is there will be cuts elsewhere.

One thing you listed as a plus I have to disagree with, I don't think outsourcing is at all a positive, at least not for the country the corporation exists in. This drives dollars away from our economy in that we no longer have those wages cycling directly back into our economy. Yes they may cycle by proxy, but that assumes that the outsourced areas have the same standard of living that we do and can demand foreign products. The truth is they generally do not, and much of that income is put into their local economy to cover their basic needs, food, shelter, clothing etc. I personally feel that outsourcing really only serves to increase profit margins, while this is good for the company and their share and bond holders, there is precious little net benefit to the domestic employees, or the local economy. It also creates the danger of increased outsourcing and reduced local employment which then creates the opposite effect. The company than continues to funnel dollars in increased numbers out of our economy to the outsourced locations.

As for public servants, they are necessary no matter how you slice it. They do curtain some of their own expense in the form of their own taxes, however its far from a wash. Where I take issue, is what I feel is the often unwarranted level of compensation that government workers are apparently entitled to. I specifically am thinking of the strike in Ottawa a few years back by the Transit commission. There is no way a publicly funded bus driver should be making anywhere near 6 figures, yet there were a few on the payroll that were.

[Dave_ON]

I think the mail complaint of "the left" is the gross disparity of top salaries of corporations - that of the CEO and the base workers in the same corporation. Then there is the issue of profits and how those profits can be equitably shared. You are thinking that corporations somehow exist in a vacuum and this isn't so. They use public infrastructure, public resources, exist on public land. Etc. So an equitable share COULD mean a percentage point or two increase in taxes.

Are you suggesting direct government management of profit distribution? Employees are paid what the market will bare. If you have skills that are commonly available in the general public you shouldn't expect to paid more than a common wage. IF your skills are more rare, require additional training, experience and are harder to find you can expect a wage that reflects that. CEO's are not stupid people, or even average joes that were in the right place at the right time. It takes a certain type of drive, and personality and a great deal of brains to run a successful and profitable business, as a result they can demand a very high compensation package.

But is the pay for these employees of a fair value in ratio to what the corporation earns in profit?

Who determines what is fair? You are suggesting that all employees do an equal share of the work or are of equal importance in the corporation, this is not the case, the guy with higher skill/education/experience should not get an equal share to the new guy, or the fellow that works the mail room.

And after qualifying for special tax exemptions not available the general public.

There are special tax exemptions that are available to individuals only and not corporations also, what's your point?

Collusion between corporations also inflates prices which infringe on the earning power of their employees and everyone else and degrades the standard of living. Oil and gas corporations are one example. Don't get me started on Microsoft...

No argument there, monopolies are terrible for the consumer, and Microsoft is one of the worst, fortunately things are changing, and Apple is coming into their own, there are also corporations like RIM that have corned markets that Microsoft will never come even remotely close to touching.

This has been put to rest. You cannot prove that public employees are 100% tax funded. If you think you can, cite your source.

I don't quite understand this I suppose, could you elaborate? What specific public servants are you referring too? I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what you're referring to.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Dave_ON

[bud]

harper's sound fiscal management is a myth.

i'm for a smaller federal government and efficient spending, which harper hasn't been about since coming to power. in fact, harper has substantially increased federal government expenditures in every year of the last five years that he has been in office. in addition, he has added thousands of people to the federal public service. this despite his commitment to reduce government spending made while in opposition.

many of those who believe harper is fiscally conservative have failed to look at the real picture. taking money out of social programs and reducing corporate tax does not change the fact that harper has irresponsibly spent billions of our tax money.

now, with a majority, he will spend billions more on toys that don't seem to have a limit on costs. for a fiscally conservative prime minister, why has he given a no bid contract for jets that are not even finalized? jets that are going to end up costing billions more than what was told to us. why not spend 1/4 of that money on one of many other jets that are available and capable?

we have the bank bailouts which ended up being $75 billion dollars. there is also the billions of dollars given to auto makers. how do those who support conservative economic values justify these outrageous spendings?

lets look at our national debt? the 2 highest national debts have both been under conservative governments. $562.8 billion under mulroney and 562.9 billion under harper.

program spending has increased under harper, despite cuts in social programs. they increased by 25% during harper's time in power. however, the spending has not gone towards healthcare, education and other programs that most would consider important, but they've gone towards the RCMP and defense.

looking at the real picture, can someone tell me how harper is fiscally conservative and responsible?

Edited May 4, 2011 by bud

[nittanylionstorm07]

What is with conservatives in Canada and blaming public servants for being "tax burdens"!?

Okay, should they not get paid? Good luck getting decent police, fire, and military protection after that. Not to mention decent roads, healthcare, and education.

[Michael Hardner]

I definitely agree that there is value in what the public sector provides... I just think that the value is outweighed by the cost. Non-essential public services are wealth destroyers... I do think universal health care is essential, but I think that a two tiered system could reduce the costs of the public system. In addition to decreasing the burden on the public system, the taxes from the private system could go towards subsidizing health education so that we have more doctors and nurses, and increasing the salaries for those in the public system.

Given that we can't manage a one tiered system properly, a two tiered system would degenerate into a worst-of-breed solution unless management improved.

The value of government services is outweighed by the cost ? Are you trying to say that we pay too much for our services ? I would be more likely to agree to the latter statement.

[Sandy MacNab]

What is with conservatives in Canada and blaming public servants for being "tax burdens"!?

Okay, should they not get paid? Good luck getting decent police, fire, and military protection after that. Not to mention decent roads, healthcare, and education.

I object to public service unions and their feather-bedding. All those you mention are entitled to and generally speaking receive excellent remuneration and benefits. In Calgary, you don't have look very hard to find 6 men/women planting a tree or some other task that requires one or, at the most, two individuals to perform. Granted, the fault is with City Council but, union bullying and threats are often very hard to resist.

[punked]

I object to public service unions and their feather-bedding. All those you mention are entitled to and generally speaking receive excellent remuneration and benefits. In Calgary, you don't have look very hard to find 6 men/women planting a tree or some other task that requires one or, at the most, two individuals to perform. Granted, the fault is with City Council but, union bullying and threats are often very hard to resist.

But if you didn't have 5 guys planting a tree then what would the nephew of that high up Conservative do? How would he make his living?

[Sandy MacNab]

But if you didn't have 5 guys planting a tree then what would the nephew of that high up Conservative do? How would he make his living?

I really can't see any high up Conservative as a head poobah in a public service union.

[punked]

I really can't see any high up Conservative as a head poobah in a public service union.

Yah you are right their nephews just get the job of sitting at a desk somewhere pushing papers around taking our money. At those guys get a tree planted.

[nittanylionstorm07]

I object to public service unions and their feather-bedding. All those you mention are entitled to and generally speaking receive excellent remuneration and benefits. In Calgary, you don't have look very hard to find 6 men/women planting a tree or some other task that requires one or, at the most, two individuals to perform. Granted, the fault is with City Council but, union bullying and threats are often very hard to resist.

I didn't even say anything about unions... why even mention them?

I was responding to the OP (as well as numerous other Conservatives I've seen) blaming public servants for being tax burdens because their salaries come from taxes.

[RNG]

Why call them a burden on society because they're funded by taxes ? Bank employees are funded by bank fees, which you have to pay in order to have a bank account - so are they a burden ?

Everybody has to pay for things. Some things make more sense as public services, some make more sense as private. Everybody pays, everybody gets paid.

the bank fees you pay are insignificant. They are primarily funded by interest on loans and investment income and dividends on the bank's investments.

[RNG]

And the word fair keeps being bandied about in this and other threads. Define fair.

A fair salary is what the market will pay. Is it fair that some dingbat who can hit a baseball makes multi-millions per year? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that a movie star makes multi-millions for a few months, if that, of work? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that some long-haired freak who can beat on a guitar and shout makes billions? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that some guy or guyette is getting $8.00/hr for flipping burgers? Yes, because that's all that market is willing to pay.

[Sandy MacNab]

I didn't even say anything about unions... why even mention them?

I was responding to the OP (as well as numerous other Conservatives I've seen) blaming public servants for being tax burdens because their salaries come from taxes.

Public servants provide essential services. One of the reasons we pay taxes is to receive those services. I have no objection to paying taxes to provide good salaries and benefits for all NECESSARY public servants. The reason I mention unions is because their featherbedding kicks my taxes pay up and it ain't necessary.

[punked]

Public servants provide essential services. One of the reasons we pay taxes is to receive those services. I have no objection to paying taxes to provide good salaries and benefits for all NECESSARY public servants. The reason I mention unions is because their featherbedding kicks my taxes pay up and it ain't necessary.

Yah just like those Conservative supporters, and their relatives getting paper pushing jobs right? Dead beats.

[Sandy MacNab]

And the word fair keeps being bandied about in this and other threads. Define fair.

A fair salary is what the market will pay. Is it fair that some dingbat who can hit a baseball makes multi-millions per year? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that a movie star makes multi-millions for a few months, if that, of work? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that some long-haired freak who can beat on a guitar and shout makes billions? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that some guy or guyette is getting $8.00/hr for flipping burgers? Yes, because that's all that market is willing to pay.

Indeed! If a person isn't happy with his/her income and status in society there is an easy solution - go make yourself more valuable and saleable. I went back to school in my early 30s and eventually earned a degree and a professional designation. It's scary and difficult, but it can be done.

[Michael Hardner]

the bank fees you pay are insignificant. They are primarily funded by interest on loans and investment income and dividends on the bank's investments.

I don't think they're insignificant. Furthermore they're pretty much mandatory unless you want to live like the Unabomber.

[Michael Hardner]

And the word fair keeps being bandied about in this and other threads. Define fair.

A fair salary is what the market will pay. Is it fair that some dingbat who can hit a baseball makes multi-millions per year? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that a movie star makes multi-millions for a few months, if that, of work? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that some long-haired freak who can beat on a guitar and shout makes billions? Yes, because someone is willing to pay that. Is it fair that some guy or guyette is getting $8.00/hr for flipping burgers? Yes, because that's all that market is willing to pay.

I agree 100%, as long as you agree to a minimum wage and collective bargaining rights.

[RNG]

I agree 100%, as long as you agree to a minimum wage and collective bargaining rights.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .................. No.