Corporate welfare bums and politics

[jacee]

I'd like to see a breakdown, and if the huge subsidies for wind/solar/etc. are included.

When referring to subsidies, do they mean outright cash given, or tax breaks ?

Some incentives given by Industry Canada do help to expand operations and R & D, or to help with competition, not all are bad. Don't forget a lot of these breaks are for struggling small business, not all are giant corps.

If you want to cry about "welfare" take a good look at the grants offered to the Arts community through the Canada Council and so on, now that's "Welfare".

This article from th OP says tax breaks are NOT included so there's more to be researched and exposed yet.

I'm inclined to think that the quickest way to break the Lib/Con corruption connections to their buddies/political funders is to elect an NDP government. They don't have those too-cozy connections to corporate power, and you can bet that any handouts would be closely tied to accountability for jobs.

I'm willing to look at anything, including 'Arts' grants, but I think we'd find those are strongly tied to jobs for artists. Locally, for example, the city matches storeowner funds for beautification of storefronts and some artists are supporting themselves doing 'artfronts'.

It's the complete lack of accountability for jobs or benefit to the public that really bothers me. The feds hand out as much of our money in corporate subsidies as they do on health care, always a top priority among Canadians and heavily and publicly scrutinized, but we know NOTHING about the results achieved with our corporate welfare money!!

It's pretty mindboggling.

Edited September 23, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Blah blah blah.

People like you who blather away about the god damn left are also the last people to demand the sort of official accountability and transparency that would clear both the left's and the right's deck when it comes to the process of lobbying for, handing out and receiving subsidies.

The corporations, the welfare and the bums are not the real issue here - the politicians are, and at the end of the day, you right-wingers are always the first in line when it comes to defending their right to secrecy.

Oh snap!

[TimG]

an NDP government. They don't have those too-cozy connections to corporate power, and you can bet that any handouts would be closely tied to accountability for jobs.

No. They just steal money from charities and use it fund the party. They are also the political wing of the government unions. So instead of shoveling taxpayer money into corporations they give public sector unions obscene payouts. Of course, making rich public servants even richer does not actually create jobs but such subsidies are fine with you. Edited September 23, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

I am willing to bet that a vast majority of corporate handouts are to well connected insiders and lobbiests.

I am not sure how "Progressive" Bruce Carson is.. But I do know he is a well connected Conservative insider and former Harper Advisor.

Case in point ...

Bruce Carson, for those uninformed, convicted of repeated frauds before he became aid to Harper ... got 'booted' out ... back to Alberta to run a tidy fraud shop 'investigating alternative energy technologies' with $65m in federal funds ... in reality spent on oil sands promotion. That hasn't come under police scrutiny yet, but in July he was charged for "influence peddling" in

another matter.

I wonder ... do you think it's possible that some public corporate welfare funds are spent on corporate lobbyists?

That would mean they are paid by the taxpayers to lobby our taxpayer-paid politicians to allocate money to corporations that would again employ lobbyists ... quite the scam!!!!

Ya think?

[jacee]

No. They just steal money from charities and use it fund the party. They are also the political wing of the government unions. So instead of shoveling taxpayer money into corporations they give public sector unions obscene payouts. Of course, making rich public servants even richer does not actually create jobs but such subsidies are fine with you.

Well if that's the best you can do, it's pretty pathetic.

There are 150 public servant ceo's in Ontario who might be considered "rich" , but I doubt they're an NDP priority.

[TimG]

Well if that's the best you can do, it's pretty pathetic.

Hardly. The NDP is as corrupt as any other party. They just find it harder to find friends in the business sector (unless they are companies flogging 'green' technologies). Giving sweet heart contracts to their union buddies costs the taxpayers a helluv a lot.

But we all know this is not about facts. You simply want to lynch some rich people to make you feel better. Frankly, I would like to see government stop spending money on such things but the last thing we need is a government that is going piss away even more money.

Edited September 23, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

So, "Left of Centre" want corporate handouts.

Thank you for that opinion.

and now for something completely different from our Conservative Government.

Seems the Fraser institute overlooked this...

The report did not mention the more than $800,000 repayable loan the Conservatives gave to an Ontario company last month to make non-exploding sausages

Yummy and safe.

I'll sleep better knowing that my tax money is stopping the sausage explosions in my fridge!

If a sausage explodes ... is it still a sausage?

TimG is concerned about "lefties" heads exploding ... Can he get a government grant to prevent that?

And btw ... "repayable" doesn't mean it gets paid back to the government/taxpayer:

The reports in the OP say repayment seems to slide by ... Half of the $182b was supposed to be "repayable", but only a miniscule $9m has ever been repaid! IE, only about $1 of every $9000

I think I'll ask for that deal for my income taxes!

[jacee]

Hardly. The NDP is as corrupt as any other party. They just find it harder to find friends in the business sector (unless they are companies flogging 'green' technologies). Giving sweet heart contracts to their union buddies costs the taxpayers a helluv a lot.

But we all know this is not about facts. You simply want to lynch some rich people to make you feel better. Frankly, I would like to see government stop spending money on such things but the last thing we need is a government that is going piss away even more money.

You are quite the apologist for corporate wefare bums, eh Tim! Are you a lobbyist?

____________________

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE IN THE POLL, FOLKS!!!

Edited September 23, 2012 by jacee

[madmax]

In practice it always means the government gives money to industries that the government decides it want more of.

The Government wants more Banks?

[madmax]

Subsidies are not really the issue. The issue is proper taxation. Corporate profits need to be taxed within Canada for operations within Canada. They can be taxed on the corporations, or on Canadian ownership, but they do need to be fully taxed. That means closing tax loopholes, especially those which allow corporations to move money abroad without being taxed on it, or to hide money in offshore tax havens. The same goes for individuals, btw.

[Argus]

You've still left the issue entirely within the politicians court, or their secret cozy little back room I should say.

Tax loopholes like subsidies exist because lobbyists ask for them, out of sight and earshot.

I disagree. They are put in place because lobbyists ask for them. They stay in place because the rest of us accept them.

[Shady]

What are some examples of tax loopholes?

[scribblet]

I'd like some more concrete info. The link doesn't really explain it, although I don't understand the corporate transfers and capital transfers, they are not actual cash subsidies but seem to be just a method of bookkeeping, or just a deferring of taxes to a later time ?

The breakdown 1994 and 2006, is interesting, provincial governments gave more money to business than any other level of government.

This isn't 'corruption' it's a gov't at various levels, doing what it believes is best to stimulate the economy. IMO transfers to the arts and various self interest groups are in the same category, we shouldn't be handing out welfare payments to them should we ! That includes welfare payments at the municipal and provincial level for something like - say - the pride parade. One time seed money for these self interest groups is okay, but that's all.

If you object to 'corporate welfare' then you have to object to all the other handouts, handouts to NAC for instance, can't complain about one and not the other.

[Shady]

I agree, we really need specifics. What the subsidy is exactly, who it's applied to, and for how much, and at which levels of government, municipal, provincial, federal.

[eyeball]

I disagree. They are put in place because lobbyists ask for them. They stay in place because the rest of us accept them.

Really? Let's try testing that theory by making meetings between lobbyists and politicians completely public.

[Bonam]

Let's try testing that theory by making meetings between lobbyists and politicians completely public.

Impossible. If you made official meetings "public", people can still communicate through unofficial channels, through friends and acquaintances, etc.

[eyeball]

Impossible. If you made official meetings "public", people can still communicate through unofficial channels, through friends and acquaintances, etc.

Fine, the decision and the inputs that went into it at the unofficial meeting should match what was recorded in public.

In any case it's not impossible. One way would be a political party who's members commit to wearing POV cameras while in power.

They should be able to quickly, within an election cycle to build a credible public case for legislating this as a requirement of the job.

I'd relish the thought of another political party calling for greater secrecy and less accountability - maybe they could use the slogan 'Trust us'.

[Bonam]

Fine, the decision and the inputs that went into it at the unofficial meeting should match what was recorded in public.

In any case it's not impossible. One way would be a political party who's members commit to wearing POV cameras while in power.

They should be able to quickly, within an election cycle to build a credible public case for legislating this as a requirement of the job.

And just what kind of people do you think would want to run for such a party? We already don't get the sharpest knives in the drawer as our politicians. Do you really want people as leaders who are desperate enough for a job that they'll agree to have their entire lives broadcast 24/7? You'll get the same kind of bottom of the barrel scrapings as you get on reality TV.

[eyeball]

And just what kind of people do you think would want to run for such a party?

Principled one's I hope.

We already don't get the sharpest knives in the drawer as our politicians. Do you really want people as leaders who are desperate enough for a job that they'll agree to have their entire lives broadcast 24/7? You'll get the same kind of bottom of the barrel scrapings as you get on reality TV.

These would still tower above what we have now.

In actual fact, I think we should draft jury-like citizen's-assemblies at random to govern us with something like a council of elders to act as a senate.

I really need to find another planet to go live on. This one is such a god damn waste of effort.

Edited September 24, 2012 by eyeball

[dre]

Impossible. If you made official meetings "public", people can still communicate through unofficial channels, through friends and acquaintances, etc.

You could allow people to allocate a small portion of their taxes as they wish. So when you file your taxes 95% of what you owe goes into general revenues to fund the governments normal operation, but you could direct the other 5% to "national defense" or "renewable energy" or "fossil fuel energy" or "foreign aid" or "infrastructure" or "education".

[jacee]

This isn't 'corruption' it's a gov't at various levels, doing what it believes is best to stimulate the economy.

Ya? You're not at all curious whether the recipients of (our) governments' largesse are political donors?

IMO transfers to the arts and various self interest groups are in the same category, we shouldn't be handing out welfare payments to theme should we ! That includes welfare payments at the municipal and provincial level for something like - say - the pride parade. One time seed money for these self interest groups is okay, but that's all.

If you object to 'corporate welfare' then you have to object to all the other handouts, handouts to NAC for instance, can't complain about one and not the other.

I object to my taxpayer dollars being consumed by profitable enterprises, with no public accounting of how our money is used and what results are achieved that benefit taxpayers. Public funds should NEVER be distributed as 'profit' dividends to company shareholders:

I don't object to use of some public funds to support non-profit arts, pride parade, etc.

[bleeding heart]

Ya? You're not at all curious whether the recipients of (our) governments' largesse are political donors?

Probably rationally curious about some governments...just not this particular one.

[TimG]

you could direct the other 5% to "national defense" or "renewable energy" or "fossil fuel energy" or "foreign aid" or "infrastructure" or "education".

What if you would rather have the money returned? It is not much of a choice if you are forced to spend it on something.

[TimG]

In any case it's not impossible. One way would be a political party who's members commit to wearing POV cameras while in power.

You are always obsessing about secrecy but this has to be the most insane idea yet.

The fact is I talk to many people in the course my work. I say things to be polite and will often agree with people and express opinions I do not have in order to avoid creating social friction. I doubt politicians are any different. So even if you did have a 24/7 recording of everything that was said to a politician and what they said back it would be completely useless since their is no way to know what the politician actually believes and actually intends to act on.

[Mr.Canada]

I don't want tax dollars subsidizing business either. I was against the auto bail outs and any other bailouts. I think business should succeed and fail dictated by the market with sound management practices. If business is putting out a good product consumers will buy it, if not they won't. It's fairly simple.