PM Harper supports small business owner in defending property!

[TimG]

Or our police, our courts, our fire services, our utilities, our EI insurance (so they don't get sued by employees), and on and on and on. They shouldn't have to pay taxes. We should be paying them jobs.

Your thinking is pretty muddled. Companies are constructs. When companies make a profit the profits must eventually be given to a person - whether they are owners, employees or suppliers. If that money is fully taxed when it leaves the company there is no need to tax the corporations themselves. Obviously tax breaks like the dividend tax credit would have to be eliminated if corporate taxes are eliminated and there would still need to be a withholding tax for transfers to foreign entities. Edited April 8, 2012 by TimG

[Argus]

Businesses contract work so-called offshore for a number of reasons. Usually because they either can't find enough skilled workers locally, or they need to to stay competetive. So you're arguing to make it more costly for them with taxes, so that they need to contract even more work offshore? That's brilliant.

To stay 'competitive'. Ah yes, that's an interesting term with many nuanced definitions. The fact is that what's good for GM is no longer good for the rest of us. There are tax measures which can be taken for the betterment of society as a whole which will discourage moving work offshore without adversely affecting the health of the business.

[Argus]

A simple, but flawed, argument.

Large businesses generally do one of the following with after tax income:

1. Re-invest it in growth/productivity

2. Distribute it to shareholders (ie. RRSPs, pensions, etc.)

The more after tax income you leave companies with, the more they are able to do one of the above.

Now let's say that you are an evil executive for ConocoPhillips.

Just as a point of inquiry here. When ConocoPhillips distributes that income to its shareholders, I would presume 98% of those shareholders live outside of Canada. In what way does this help Canada?

[punked]

So how does that make a businesses private property Jack's? You use our roads as well. Does that mean your money is mine too?

/facepalm

The part of my money that goes to taxes is your money as much as it is my money. It helps all of us stay competitive as a nation and that poll of money which is everyones is everyones to chose how to be spent. It is called democracy get over it Shady that is the country in which you live.

[Argus]

Exactly. Large businesses and large corporations employ lots of people. Small businesses don't.

Collectively they actually do. Quite a lot.

According to SEPH data, on average in 2010, just over 5.1 million employees on payroll, or

48 percent of the total private sector labour force,5 worked for small enterprises (those with

fewer than 100 employees) as shown in Table 5. More than 1.6 million, or 16 percent, worked

for medium-sized enterprises (those with 100 to 499 employees). In total, therefore, SMEs

employed almost 6.8 million, or 64 percent, of private sector employees covered by SEPH.

Industry Canada

And a large corporation which moves most of its production offshore probably isn't employing that many Canadians.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Argus

[punked]

Just as a point of inquiry here. When ConocoPhillips distributes that income to its shareholders, I would presume 98% of those shareholders live outside of Canada. In what way does this help Canada?

It doesn't that is the point. The only to make sure some part of profits companies make off Canada stay in Canada is to tax at the point where we know it is in Canada which is the company and its profits.

[cybercoma]

So how does that make a businesses private property Jack's? You use our roads as well. Does that mean your money is mine too?

/facepalm

The giant hole in your argument is that businesses aren't being taxed to give that money to some other individual. They're taxed so that money can be used to run a society that benefits everyone including the businesses.

Edited April 8, 2012 by cybercoma

[Shady]

The part of my money that goes to taxes is your money as much as it is my money. It helps all of us stay competitive as a nation and that poll of money which is everyones is everyones to chose how to be spent. It is called democracy get over it Shady that is the country in which you live.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. My response to Jack wasn't about taxes, because he wasn't talking about taxes.

The giant hole in your argument is that businesses aren't being taxed to give that money to some other individual. They're taxed so that money can be used to run a society that benefits everyone including the businesses.

Once again, I'm not referring to taxes. I was responding to Jack, who in turn, wasn't talking about taxes. It's not my argument you have the problem with.

[Shady]

To stay 'competitive'. Ah yes, that's an interesting term with many nuanced definitions.

Definitely. But unless you're going to micro-manage people's businesses, or send a government official to each one to find out why they're using outside labour, targeted tax policy is usually bad tax policy.

There are tax measures which can be taken for the betterment of society as a whole which will discourage moving work offshore without adversely affecting the health of the business.

Yes. Those are called low taxes.

[Jack Weber]

The giant hole in your argument is that businesses aren't being taxed to give that money to some other individual. They're taxed so that money can be used to run a society that benefits everyone including the businesses.

The theory...At least the specious theory put forward by the Friedmanites...That lower corporate taxes will equate into better employment through competativeness with lower standard of living jurisdictions...

This,of course,is a fallacy because these upstanding entities seem to love to get those tax breaks and then leave for those low standard of living jurisdictions anyway...

The point of it being our money is that those tax breaks were given,and many times, nothing was received...That was all of our potential money that could have gone into ...say...Health transfer payments....Infrastructure funding...Things we all could use,not solely to be thrown off to shareholders of a certain company...

Edited April 8, 2012 by Jack Weber

[TwoDucks]

A simple, but flawed, argument.

Large businesses generally do one of the following with after tax income:

1. Re-invest it in growth/productivity

2. Distribute it to shareholders (ie. RRSPs, pensions, etc.)

The more after tax income you leave companies with, the more they are able to do one of the above.

Now let's say that you are an evil executive for ConocoPhillips. You have billions of cash to spend on one of the above. You are presented with the following investment options:

1. Invest 5B in exploration/development in Country A. You expect this to generate a pre-tax return of $600M/yr.

2. Invest 5B in exploration/development in Country B. You expect this to generate a pre-tax return of $750M/yr.

3. Pay out 5B in dividends which shareholders can re-invest in the market for an estimated 10% return ($500M/yr).

Corporate tax rates in Country A are 0%, Country B are 30%. Your after tax profits will be $600M in country A, and $525M in Country B.

A good evil executive would choose to invest in the project in Country A. This will create oil and gas jobs in Country A which will generate employment income tax revenue. These jobs will also reduce the cost of social programs such as EI and Welfare as more people will be employed. More employment also means higher wages, as companies are forced to offer more lucrative compensation to attract labour. The employees will also generate consumption tax revenue, and their investments/consumption will further stimulate the economy. Country B will get nothing despite their 30% corporate tax rate.

When Canada is the only country with oil, minerals, and trees, or if companies had limitless resources to invest while shareholders had no profit/return expectations, then maybe your argument would have some merit. Unfortunately for you and the NDP, that is not the case.

Your example is great and all if the only two variables are corporate tax rate and pre-tax income. Here in the real world, there are a few more variables which come in to play. For example, the country with a 0% corporate tax sounds like it is a fairly low tax jurisdiction overall. As such, they likely have fewer social services. All of a sudden the company has extra costs to provide health insurance which is covered in Country B. Also, because they have less money to work with, maybe the transport network hasn't been subsidized as much in Country A, leaving the company having to cover costs related to that, or bite the bullet and accept a lower rate of productivity. Maybe the education system is poorly funded, meaning the workers would have to be trained more, resulting in higher costs.

So yeah, thanks for playing.

[mentalfloss]

I can't believe these libertarian Friedman lovers still exist considering how much that philosophy has been repeatedly shown to be a complete FAILURE the last 30-40 years.

Just ask Carney or any respected economist and they'll tell you that it was our tightly regulated banking sector that saved us in 2008 -- not streamlined tax relief, rofl

[Tilter]

from the liberal and taliban NDP hugged thugs who want to steal it from hard working individuals.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/06/pms-office-supports-spicemans-battle

The Prime Minister’s Office called Saturday to provide moral support to a Toronto man who faces charges related to an incident last summer.

“It was a nice phone call” said Naveen Polapady, owner of Maroli Indian Kerala Cuisine on Bloor St. W. “I have received a lot of support from the community and other business owners through telephone and email.”

Bill C-26, which has since been dubbed the “Lucky Moose” bill, seeks to clarify the rules around defence of home and property. It was introduced by the Conservative government, but was delayed by the 2011 election.

“I don’t think business owners should have to worry about stuff like that,” said Michael Wickens, who shops regularly at the Lucky Moose. “At the end of the day, they’re just defending themselves.”

This is why canada needs a strong leader and great man such as Prime Minister Harper!!!

Does that actually mean that there's a chance that the individual, the victim, might find him/herself with some rights? Till now, with the hangover from the liberal idea that the thug has all the rights, the victim never stood a chance, the thought being that the government, having been in power for 13 years whith a propensity to be light fingered and shifty thought to change the law so criminals had more rights than lawful citizens.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Tilter

[PIK]

LMAO.. typical of a childish conservative supporter.

But on the same note... I believe the Conservative government has performed so incompetently they are looking for anything right now to change the channel.

This is nothing more then a repeat when the NDP brought up a case a few years back...and the bill winds its way through.... it was originally and NDP private members bill IIRC.

NDP MP Olivia Chow, who acted as Chen’s interpreter at a news conference on the courthouse steps, urged her fellow MPs to adopt her private member’s bill that would change the Criminal Code to protect people like Chen, when the arrest is made “a reasonable time” after the crime is committed.

Actually it is a party that looks out for the small guy. And trying to rid us of the political correctness.

[mentalfloss]

Actually it is a party that looks out for the small guy. And trying to rid us of the political correctness.

That's just something neocons say.

[CPCFTW]

Your example is great and all if the only two variables are corporate tax rate and pre-tax income. Here in the real world, there are a few more variables which come in to play. For example, the country with a 0% corporate tax sounds like it is a fairly low tax jurisdiction overall. As such, they likely have fewer social services. All of a sudden the company has extra costs to provide health insurance which is covered in Country B. Also, because they have less money to work with, maybe the transport network hasn't been subsidized as much in Country A, leaving the company having to cover costs related to that, or bite the bullet and accept a lower rate of productivity. Maybe the education system is poorly funded, meaning the workers would have to be trained more, resulting in higher costs.

So yeah, thanks for playing.

Corporate taxes are a relatively minor component of government revenues. I never said anything about other forms of taxation, so you can't just make an assumption that it is a "lower tax jurisdiction". My contention is that the loss of corporate tax revenue would be more than offset by additional personal income tax revenue, as well as less demand for social services due to lower unemployment. Furthermore, consumption taxes could be raised without negatively impacting consumers, as prices would most likely decline when corporate taxes are lowered (in a competitive market, prices would decrease significantly).

So yeah, thanks for playing.

Edited April 10, 2012 by CPCFTW