Tax cuts for the wealthy have not brought economic growth

[PlayItLoud]

Oh and to address the origin issue, that tax cuts don't grow the economy: it's completely wrong what you say about tax cuts.

When you raise taxes, collect taxes, you're taking money out of the private economy and putting into the public sector, which only holds back the private economy.

You can source your GDP statistics, but I've already talked about how GDP doesn't give accurate measurements about the economy.

[dre]

Well first, local services and welfare aren't the only things that tax money goes towards. Foreign aid, military spending, corporate bailouts, subsidies, etc., are also used for it. I'm not saying I disagree with those, though I do with most mentioned above, but I'm just saying there's more than just that done with tax dollars.

And to address the welfare state, I believe that we should have a society where charity is not enforced by the government but taken up by private citizens and private charities and churches.

I'm a not a conservative so I don't really care who started welfare.

I think the problem is you misunderstand the purpose of some of these programs. They arent really charity and they arent about being nice or altruistic, or helping the poor. They are there to maintain social order and political stability which are required to have a robust economy. They are there to protect private property rights and prevent a political shift towards REAL socialism.

[PlayItLoud]

I think the problem is you misunderstand the purpose of some of these programs. They arent really charity and they arent about being nice or altruistic, or helping the poor. They are there to maintain social order and political stability which are required to have a robust economy. They are there to protect private property rights and prevent a political shift towards REAL socialism.

Really. How much of the millions of dollars we send to Africa do you think have created social order there?

[dre]

Oh and to address the origin issue, that tax cuts don't grow the economy: it's completely wrong what you say about tax cuts.

When you raise taxes, collect taxes, you're taking money out of the private economy and putting into the public sector, which only holds back the private economy.

You can source your GDP statistics, but I've already talked about how GDP doesn't give accurate measurements about the economy.

When you raise taxes, collect taxes, you're taking money out of the private economy and putting into the public sector, which only holds back the private economy.

It really depends entirely on what that money gets spent on. Canada is one of the most attractive countries to do business in the world, and that is in part because we have a relatively high level of public services. We educate help workers, and help keep them healthy. We provide infrustrucure that businesses rely on, a police force, and a judiciary to punish criminals and enforce the rights of businesses, and settle disputes.

So its false to say that either "low" or "high" taxes are good for the economy. If you go to far in EITHER direction the economy will suffer.

[PlayItLoud]

It really depends entirely on what that money gets spent on. Canada is one of the most attractive countries to do business in the world, and that is in part because we have a relatively high level of public services. We educate help workers, and help keep them healthy. We provide infrustrucure that businesses rely on, a police force, and a judiciary to punish criminals and enforce the rights of businesses, and settle disputes.

So its false to say that either "low" or "high" taxes are good for the economy. If you go to far in EITHER direction the economy will suffer.

You're mentioning pretty small chunks of government spending. There's plenty of money wasted by the government on services that the private economy could easily and should be doing.

And also, there's a misconception that Canada's economy is good because we're a "socialist" state that has high taxes and high regulation. The people who usually say this say we're doing better than the US because we have more regulation and higher taxes. False and false.

Canada's tax plans will become the lowest in the G20, within a few years. And we're also one of the highest (I think 5th) of the countries with the most economic freedom. (The US is like 15th or something)

[CPCFTW]

It really depends entirely on what that money gets spent on. Canada is one of the most attractive countries to do business in the world, and that is in part because we have a relatively high level of public services. We educate help workers, and help keep them healthy. We provide infrustrucure that businesses rely on, a police force, and a judiciary to punish criminals and enforce the rights of businesses, and settle disputes.

So its false to say that either "low" or "high" taxes are good for the economy. If you go to far in EITHER direction the economy will suffer.

One of the most attractive countries to do business in, and the fastest growing developed country in the world is Singapore. The personal income tax rate is a progressive system with tax rates from 0-20% (if you make about 60k CAD, you are only taxed at an effective rate of about 5%). The corporate tax rate is 8.5-17%. There are no cap gains taxes. Singapore has a 2% unemployment rate.

A person in Singapore making 60k has about 57k take home pay. A person in Ontario making 60k is only taking home around 45k and consumption in most Canadian provinces is taxed at almost twice the rate (Canadians get less bang for their buck).

Here is an article from the Economist on Singapore's attitude towards welfare:

http://www.economist.com/node/15524092

The government does run a handful of schemes directed at some of the needy, from low-income students to the unassisted elderly. But these benefits are rigorously means-tested and granted only sparingly. The most destitute citizens’ families may apply for public assistance; only 3,000 currently qualify. Laid-off workers receive no automatic benefits. Instead they are sorted into “workfare” and training schemes.

Sounds a lot like conservatives doesn't it? What a horrible fate to live in a society with 2% unemployment and 98% with a much higher standard of living!!

Edited December 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

[dre]

One of the most attractive countries to do business in, and the fastest growing developed country in the world is Singapore. The personal income tax rate is a progressive system with tax rates from 0-20% (if you make about 60k CAD, you are only taxed at an effective rate of about 5%). The corporate tax rate is 8.5-17%. There are no cap gains taxes. Singapore has a 2% unemployment rate.

A person in Singapore making 60k has about 57k take home pay. A person in Ontario making 60k is only taking home around 45k and consumption in most Canadian provinces is taxed at almost twice the rate (Canadians get less bang for their buck).

Here is an article from the Economist on Singapore's attitude towards welfare:

http://www.economist.com/node/15524092

Sounds a lot like conservatives doesn't it? What a horrible fate to live in a society with 2% unemployment and 98% with a much higher standard of living!!

Theres a few things you didnt mention about Singapore. Their economy is heavily government directed, and there is an extremely high level of state ownership (socialistm). The state directly owns companies that account for about 60% of the GDP using vehicles like sovereign wealth funds.

So taxes may be low, but the state takes 60% of business profit through state ownership. Its really just a juggling act. The state still gets its pound of flesh. Where did the government/central bank get the money to buy up 60% of the economy? Schemes like the Central Provident Fund which is a mandatory savings plan that each person must pay into.

But hey... if you wanna socialize 60% of the economy you might qualify for an extra large tent at the next Ocuppy protest coming to a park near you!

Sounds a lot like conservatives doesn't it? What a horrible fate to live in a society with 2% unemployment and 98% with a much higher standard of living!!

Yeah! Because nothing says "conservative" like 60% state ownership of the means of production

Anyhow, putting aside the sarcasm I do think its an interesting example. The government of Signapore is basically a gigantic investment bank, that collects a lot of its revenue by directly owning shares in firms. One thing that IS very interesting is the huge investment by the government in the technology sector, and bio technology sectors and its emphasis on education. We could definately learn a few things there.

Edited December 31, 2011 by dre

[CPCFTW]

Theres a few things you didnt mention about Singapore. Their economy is heavily government directed, and there is an extremely high level of state ownership (socialistm). The state directly owns companies that account for about 60% of the GDP using vehicles like sovereign wealth funds.

So taxes may be low, but the state takes 60% of business profit through state ownership. Its really just a juggling act. The state still gets its pound of flesh. Where did the government/central bank get the money to buy up 60% of the economy? Schemes like the Central Provident Fund which is a mandatory savings plan that each person must pay into.

But hey... if you wanna socialize 60% of the economy you might qualify for an extra large tent at the next Ocuppy protest coming to a park near you!

Yeah! Because nothing says "conservative" like 60% state ownership of the means of production

Anyhow, putting aside the sarcasm I do think its an interesting example. The government of Signapore is basically a gigantic investment bank, that collects a lot of its revenue by directly owning shares in firms. One thing that IS very interesting is the huge investment by the government in the technology sector, and bio technology sectors and its emphasis on education. We could definately learn a few things there.

If you search through my posts you will find that I have several times argued that I wouldn't mind if our government borrowed to make investments in non-voting shares and bonds of corporations, rather than in welfare and EI. Governments can borrow at the lowest rates in the world because of their powers of taxation, so why not take advantage of that by borrowing to invest in financial assets (as corporations and individuals with good credit already do)? As a Canadian citizen I'd rather that government coerced taxes went towards investing in dividends for me and my progeny, rather than investing in a safe place for a heroine addict to shoot up.

And the state doesn't "take" 60% of profits... it invests in companies and earns profits. Instead of investing in handouts for the lazy and stupid, it invests in cash flow and dividends. Ignoring the fact that teachers are compensated completely by the taxpayer, would you say Ontario teachers "take" the profits from the Toronto Maple Leafs when the OTPP owns MLSE? You're either completely blinded by your own ideology or just an ideologue trying to obfuscate.

Edited December 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

[dre]

If you search through my posts you will find that I have several times argued that I wouldn't mind if our government borrowed to make investments in non-voting shares and bonds of corporations, rather than in welfare and EI. Governments can borrow at the lowest rates in the world because of their powers of taxation, so why not take advantage of that by borrowing to invest in financial assets (as corporations and individuals with good credit already do)? As a Canadian citizen I'd rather that government coerced taxes went towards investing in dividends for me and my progeny, rather than investing in a safe place for a heroine addict to shoot up.

And the state doesn't "take" 60% of profits... it invests in companies and earns profits. Instead of investing in handouts for the lazy and stupid, it invests in cash flow and dividends. Ignoring the fact that teachers are compensated completely by the taxpayer, would you say Ontario teachers "take" the profits from the Toronto Maple Leafs when the OTPP owns MLSE? You're either completely blinded by your own ideology or just an ideologue trying to obfuscate.

And the state doesn't "take" 60% of profits... it invests in companies and earns profits.

And how does the "state" marshal enough capital to buy up 60% of the means of production? Bake sales? They take it from people and businesses. Its an interesting concept but its still just a juggling act. The same people are still paying for the same stuff. Like I said... The best lesson we can learn from Singapore isnt an ideological one, its that we should take investing in education, infrastructure, and technology very seriously. The impact of having a smart and productive population transcends all of these other topics.

The idea that government should fund itself by directly owning a large portion of the means of production, and collecting dividends instead of taxes actually has some value in terms of interesting discussion. Certainly a step up from calling people commies and and socialists and such. I would be worried about how far this can go though... Allowing the state to marshal 60% of the profit would allow them to grow that to 65%, and then to 70%. How do you put limits around that? What prevents the state from monoplizing industries, and crowding out private investment?

As a Canadian citizen I'd rather that government coerced taxes went towards investing in dividends for me and my progeny, rather than investing in a safe place for a heroine addict to shoot up.

You need to look at the bigger picture. The "state" does not allocate money to accomodate herion addicts because anyone cares about their feelings or their plight. It does it because it has an interest in doing so.

Edited December 31, 2011 by dre

[Evening Star]

Theres a few things you didnt mention about Singapore. Their economy is heavily government directed, and there is an extremely high level of state ownership (socialistm). The state directly owns companies that account for about 60% of the GDP using vehicles like sovereign wealth funds.

I'm a little amazed when right-wingers mention Singapore and South Korea as models.

[Evening Star]

The best lesson we can learn from Singapore isnt an ideological one, its that we should take investing in education, infrastructure, and technology very seriously. The impact of having a smart and productive population transcends all of these other topics.

Agree strongly. Quebec has been at least making some good efforts in these directions imo.

[TimG]

The best lesson we can learn from Singapore isnt an ideological one, its that we should take investing in education, infrastructure, and technology very seriously. The impact of having a smart and productive population transcends all of these other topics.

Singapore government spending is less than half of what it is in Canada (measured as percentage of gdp). They are obviously doing something right if they can provide equivalent social services at half the cost, however, the message I get is that governments in Canada are woefully inefficient and need major reforms.

[PlayItLoud]

If you want to talk about examples of success of the Free Market, you need to look at Hong Kong.

[Tilter]

Tax cuts for the wealthy have not brought economic growth

It has for the wealthy :lol:

[punked]

Singapore government spending is less than half of what it is in Canada (measured as percentage of gdp). They are obviously doing something right if they can provide equivalent social services at half the cost, however, the message I get is that governments in Canada are woefully inefficient and need major reforms.

I am tired of these poorly researched arguments. These a a very simple answer to this question Singapore has close 80% of its population in the working age demographic 15-65, this means that have more workers who put more into the government and economy then those who are under 15 and have to be educated or over 65 who often have be taken care of. Canada's has only 70% of the population of this age and even worse we have twice amount of population who are over 65 then Singapore does. No wonder we spend more there buddy. Singapore will have the same costs as we do in about 30 years as their population ages, growth stops, and people live longer. By that time out population will have leveled and we wont be dealing with that problem.

Long story short we have boomers and they don't. So stop with the silly bad arguments.

Edited February 11, 2012 by punked

[Smallc]

Also, Singapore is only slightly aplargerthan the postageI used the other day to send a post card from the Grand Canyon.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Smallc

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Can we really get away with claiming to compare Singapore's economy, a single city state, with a nation the size of Canada. Singapore has what all of maybe 5 million people, packed into what we can say is less than 300 square miles. So we have a population density of about NINETEEN THOUSAND people per square mile in Singapore, and we have something like 9 people per square mile in Canada inside our nearly FOUR MILLION square miles.

A single city being compared to an entire nation?