Canadian Labour Congress on corporate tax cuts

[Topaz]

More nonsense. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I have friends and family members that work for companies that match dollar for dollar their employees retirement savings, and pension plans. Mine does as well.

Shady, would you mind telling us if you work for a Canadians owned company or a foreign? There is a difference. So far in the manufacturing section some foreign, mostly US, try to skip out without of the country, without trying to do the right thing for the workers and you know it because it been in the news in the last couple years. What CAT is trying to do is the same thing Navistar did to the Chatham On plant the main difference is Navistar reduced the workers so it would be impossible to produce trucks and CAT is taking away benfits and pensions. A Canadian owned company couldn't and wouldn't try that.

[CPCFTW]

So in order to get the economy going again, the government wants to create incentives for people to hang on to their money?

Surely you can't be serious.

As the opening article said... it depends on the investments. And it's not the ones that are being made.

Yup. You see when people save and invest, they start to accumulate investment income which can be used for consumption. On the other hand, when people are encouraged to borrow and consume what they can't afford, short term bubbles are created, and people go into debt. When the bubble pops, people spend most of their income on servicing debt.

Let's not forget that most consumption is imported, whereas most investment is domestic. It really is a no-brainer... Too bad there are so few brains on this forum!

Edited January 26, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Michael Hardner]

Another "Complete Nonsense"...

Spectacular,Professor!!!

And they seem quite content to starve out their employees to prove that "point"!

Jack - this is an insult. Calling somebody a name (such as ironically calling someone "Professor") turns the thread into a pile of school yard taunts. Why don't you cut it out ?

[jacee]

That's a pretty stupid idea. How about they just pay their taxes like everyone else, instead of expecting the taxpayers to pay them for jobs.

If we taxpayers were actually subsidizing jobs, that would be at least worthy of discussion.

However, what we're subsidizing is PROFITS paid out to shareholders.

There is absolutely no justification for that!

Here's a scenario: "Donate to my election campaign and when I win I'll see to a government subsidy that will fatten your shareholder profits by more than your donation."

Quite the scam ... and a misappropriation of public funds ... taxpayer dollars ... for political gain.

[jacee]

If the shareholders receive more in dividends or income, then I would say that the cuts were a success.

Unhhh ... NO!

Taxpayers do not contribute their hard earned money to provide payouts to wealthy shareholders.

And it definitely is time to tie tax 'incentives' directly to job creation, with a full public accounting for the use of every taxpayer dollar.

I can guarantee you that no company in its right mind would try to justify to the public that they scooped their money as profits and gave it to shareholders. No matter how you try to spinmeister it, the optics are just plain bad ... because the concept truly sucks lemons.

In fact, by the end of January, corporations will have fully paid their share of taxes.

When is our 'tax freedom' day ... June or is it July now?

There is just no way to make this look good to the public.

And if the tax cuts were in any way creating jobs, the CLC wouldn't be writing this report.

Edited January 26, 2012 by jacee

[Smallc]

When is our 'tax freedom' day ... June or is it July now?

That's what the Fraser institute says....but, that's absolute bull. The average Canadian makes about 45k a year, and at that, they are paying less than a quarter of their income to taxes, EI premiums, and CPP contributions combined. Assuming they're counting all that as tax (they shouldn't be) You can't tell me that the bit of sales tax people pay (since food doesn't have any) makes up the rest of that 45% they claim.

Anyway, corporations just pass on the cost of taxes to customers. Better they have lower costs so customers can have lower prices.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Smallc

[fellowtraveller]

Nothing exists between communism and neoliberalism. Thanks for your input traveller.

If you can tell me your birthday, I'll ship you a sense of humour starter kit. Please specify a unionized shipper.

[fellowtraveller]

Complete nonsense. Companies are, and continue to be responsible for defined contribution pension plans. They're just not eager to get involved in the defined benefit pyramid schemes.

Yes and no. Many if not most defined contribution plans are self directed RRSPs, and employees are free to invest in anything allowed within them. When I was employed by others, the company would match my contributions (if I chose to make any)once annually to a predefined maximum %.

One caveat: they would only match if the company as profitable. The same(plus some other) criteria applied to salary increase and annual bonus.

No profit, no gravy for anybody. If we did well, we were quite well rewarded with extra.

The whiners here that complain about the loss of defined benefit plans better get used to it, they are increasinglt rare because nobody except govt can afford them, and it is obvious that even the bottomless pit of govt revenue cannot keep up.

This introduces the shocking concept of taking personal repsonsibility for your financial security in retirement, as humans have done for 99.9999% of our existence.

[eyeball]

This introduces the shocking concept of taking personal repsonsibility for your financial security in retirement, as humans have done for 99.9999% of our existence.

The difference being that for 99 percent of that period humans had a planet for the easy taking. It's resources weren't off limits behind a wall of red-tape, private ownership, corporate ownership, quotas, rights, entitlement, sovereignty, protectionism and so on and so forth. You could also count on not bumping into a billion other humans every direction you turned.

Surviving in a biological or ecological state of every-man-for-himself in a world of plenty is one thing but doing so under and according to the seemingly polite, orderly moral imperative you imply is another. As the water-hole gets smaller the animals will only get meaner so good luck with that.

Edited January 26, 2012 by eyeball

[Topaz]

Many things have change since 2008 and there are more Canadians than ever before out of work. We have the lucky full timers, the part timers, the under employed and the unemployed. Only full timers can even think about a pension and their future while the rest of the list are just trying to live from day to day. The food banks are doing more business than ever and of course, it also depends were you live. Right now Alberta and Saskatchewan is the best provinces to live in and I wouldn't be surprised if many people move there, especially seniors for health care after 2017. No matter what anyone says, corp tax cuts are NOT helping create the good full time job we once had.

[Evening Star]

Anyway, corporations just pass on the cost of taxes to customers. Better they have lower costs so customers can have lower prices.

Have we seen lower prices as a result of lower corporate taxes? Not denying, just asking. I guess it might be hard to say since there are so many factors involved with pricing.

[fellowtraveller]

The difference being that for 99 percent of that period humans had a planet for the easy taking. It's resources weren't off limits behind a wall of red-tape, private ownership, corporate ownership, quotas, rights, entitlement, sovereignty, protectionism and so on and so forth. You could also count on not bumping into a billion other humans every direction you turned.

Surviving in a biological or ecological state of every-man-for-himself in a world of plenty is one thing but doing so under and according to the seemingly polite, orderly moral imperative you imply is another. As the water-hole gets smaller the animals will only get meaner so good luck with that.

Romantic rubbish that the planet was easy takings. Previious generations worked much harder for far less than what we enjoy today.

Every generation for the last few has had it easier and easier to fill our faces. If your scenario were true, our liefspans would have dropped, not increased dramatically in a short period.

Those persons that actually got to old age in the past relied on themselves first, their families second, their community last. The govt had no charity to give.

Widespread corporate and govt involvment in pensions is a very new phenomenen and it looks like that fad is fading fast, because it just is not sustainable except as a true pension, as in you get out what you put in. Defined benefit pensions only work when everybody pays into them for 40 years, then drops dead at age 70 after 5 years of benefits- which was the norm not so long ago.. The only reason public sector pensions work at all is that there is an inexhaustible supply of money. Oh, maybe it isn't inexhaustible.

[msj]

That's what the Fraser institute says....but, that's absolute bull. The average Canadian makes about 45k a year, and at that, they are paying less than a quarter of their income to taxes, EI premiums, and CPP contributions combined. Assuming they're counting all that as tax (they shouldn't be) You can't tell me that the bit of sales tax people pay (since food doesn't have any) makes up the rest of that 45% they claim.

I agree with you that the Fraser Institute's tax freedom day is rubbish.

Anyway, corporations just pass on the cost of taxes to customers. Better they have lower costs so customers can have lower prices.

This is simply untrue.

The best example I can think of is here in BC now that we are going back to the awful PST.

Part of the reason that HST was good for, say, the forest industry is because revenues are set (or heavily influenced by) world prices.

As such, a forestry company can not simply just bump up its revenue for the increase in costs that will occur when we go back to the PST.

Revenues are influenced by supply/demand and alternative services/goods.

As such, the assumption that business just passes the cost along is erroneous.

The relationship is much more complex than that.

[cybercoma]

Anyway, corporations just pass on the cost of taxes to customers. Better they have lower costs so customers can have lower prices.

That's not entirely true. Consumers have a choice about whether they want to pay what is being asked. Taxes are only passed on to consumers if they're willing to pay it. Granted, this affects low-income households more because they buy mostly products that are necessities and those are the ones with the least flexibility of demand. Luxury items have more demand flexibility, so the taxes on those items would have to be paid by companies.

Having said that, what needs to end is this BS with companies holding the working-class and middle-income earners hostage for jobs. This threat of de-industrialisation has allowed them to extort all kinds of benefits and tax relief from governments here and in the US. The biggest joke is that de-industrialisation is still going ahead full-tilt even with these entitlements being paid out to companies. Something has to give. As I said in that other thread, it's a downward spiral of economic decay that has to end at some point. Chances are it will end violently.

[Smallc]

This is simply untrue.

Well, I didn't really think of examples like you're talking about. Generally though, if a business has increased costs, they have to do something to make up for that. That can mean anything from increasing prices to cutting the workforce.

[Smallc]

Have we seen lower prices as a result of lower corporate taxes? Not denying, just asking. I guess it might be hard to say since there are so many factors involved with pricing.

I honestly can't say.

[WWWTT]

Have we seen lower prices as a result of lower corporate taxes? Not denying, just asking. I guess it might be hard to say since there are so many factors involved with pricing.

Actually even with the high Canadian dollar,Canadians are still paying more than our American counterparts.

If I keep reading comments like the one you replied too,I'm going to start asking these people to back up their claim with actual links!

Otherwise these are just more fairy tails!

WWWTT

[Smallc]

Actually even with the high Canadian dollar,Canadians are still paying more than our American counterparts.

That's to be expected. This is not the same kind of a consumer market, and the logistics of it will always make it more expensive.

[fellowtraveller]

That's to be expected. This is not the same kind of a consumer market, and the logistics of it will always make it more expensive.

I agree to a certain extent, but some things have a much wider differential and it is not taxes that are to blame. Books, music, cars, steel/metal products, and many manufactured things like paint are quite a bit higher here.

[punked]

I agree to a certain extent, but some things have a much wider differential and it is not taxes that are to blame. Books, music, cars, steel/metal products, and many manufactured things like paint are quite a bit higher here.

Smaller market bigger country.

[Smallc]

I agree to a certain extent, but some things have a much wider differential and it is not taxes that are to blame. Books, music, cars, steel/metal products, and many manufactured things like paint are quite a bit higher here.

Yes and no. Cars for example - the Ford Focus starts lower here with similar equipment, but ends higher in price. It's strange, but I think it has a great deal to do with the competitiveness and the cost of the market. Taxes are only one part of that.

[cybercoma]

I agree to a certain extent, but some things have a much wider differential and it is not taxes that are to blame. Books, music, cars, steel/metal products, and many manufactured things like paint are quite a bit higher here.

I can speak to the book industry. Canada is much larger than the United States with 1/10 of the population. The book industry is different than others in the sense that the publishers set the prices. How can they do this? They actually take back books that aren't sold and mark them down as remainders, then send them back out to book sellers. Now go back to the second sentence. Shipping around all of those books in a country that's much larger than the US with a fraction of the customers is a huge additional cost of doing business.

[cybercoma]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, cars can be more expensive here because of differences in safety requirements. This goes beyond just changing the speedometer to kms from miles.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canada is much larger than the United States....

Size (km²)

Canada - 9,984,000

United States - 9,827,000

Edited January 27, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Evening Star]

I can speak to the book industry. Canada is much larger than the United States with 1/10 of the population. The book industry is different than others in the sense that the publishers set the prices. How can they do this? They actually take back books that aren't sold and mark them down as remainders, then send them back out to book sellers. Now go back to the second sentence. Shipping around all of those books in a country that's much larger than the US with a fraction of the customers is a huge additional cost of doing business.

I always wondered why books are so much more expensive. That makes sense, thanks.