Conservative economics are failing us

[cybercoma]

How can the Ministry on Natural Resources increase revenues?

How can the RCMP raise resources?

How can the OPP raise resources?

How can Parks Canada raise resources?

one way.... Taxes.. Not so "Subtle"

You know, Fletch, for someone that trumpets supply-side economics you apparently have no understanding whatsoever of the theoretical mechanism behind it. But this isn't about supply-side economics. It's about government revenues and if you can't think of any ways for the government to increase its revenues other than raising taxes, then dare I say your opinion on these matters is hardly credible.

[Fletch 27]

Oh please, enlighten me.. PLEASE ! Enlighten me!!!!!

3 Ways: Normally there are 3 sources of Revenue 1)Taxes (Imposed) the sale of Government 2)Bonds and 3)Notes (Both Purchased Voluntarily)

ENLIGHTEN ME!!!!! You may be holding the Electoral HOLY GRAIL! ENLIGHTEN US ALLLLLLL!!!!!!!

You know, Fletch, for someone that trumpets supply-side economics you apparently have no understanding whatsoever of the theoretical mechanism behind it. But this isn't about supply-side economics. It's about government revenues and if you can't think of any ways for the government to increase its revenues other than raising taxes, then dare I say your opinion on these matters is hardly credible.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Fletch 27

[Wild Bill]

How can the Ministry on Natural Resources increase revenues?

How can the RCMP raise resources?

How can the OPP raise resources?

How can Parks Canada raise resources?

one way.... Taxes.. Not so "Subtle"

Well, the individual departments can become more productive, doing the same or more with fewer employees.

Or, at an over-all level the government can stimulate the economy to increase business and job growth. More tax revues means government can afford to give more services.

Looking back over the past few decades, it looks to me that the second point has been a miserable failure everywhere but Alberta.

It often seems as if the political brain is incapable of dealing with more than one thing at a time. They can concentrate on eastern manufacturing or western resources. One or the other but never both.

Mind you, McGuinty hasn't been a positive force and he is the one more directly responsible for Ontario. Except for Samsung, of course. He's been a GREAT benefit for them!

[Fletch 27]

Oh wise one Cybercoma, has stated that the Federal Gov can INCREASE REVENUES!!

"They don't need to raise taxes, they need to increase revenues. It's a subtle, but important difference"

Hes onto something i think! I would LOVE to know how however!

Your points below are for "efficiancies".. and i love an efficiant Government, now one that could raise revenues WITHOUT TAXES?? THAT would be spectacular! Im just sitting here at my keyboard waiting with baited breath for his reply!!!

Well, the individual departments can become more productive, doing the same or more with fewer employees.

Or, at an over-all level the government can stimulate the economy to increase business and job growth. More tax revues means government can afford to give more services.

Looking back over the past few decades, it looks to me that the second point has been a miserable failure everywhere but Alberta.

It often seems as if the political brain is incapable of dealing with more than one thing at a time. They can concentrate on eastern manufacturing or western resources. One or the other but never both.

Mind you, McGuinty hasn't been a positive force and he is the one more directly responsible for Ontario. Except for Samsung, of course. He's been a GREAT benefit for them!

Edited October 11, 2012 by Fletch 27

[cybercoma]

Fletch, you're making yourself look quite silly. Why don't you take a time out and just think for a minute about how government revenues could increase without raising taxes.

[Rocky Road]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/slowing-world-economy-hits-canada-us-trade/article4604008/

Another grim indicator that things are slowing down.

[Fletch 27]

Fletch, you're making yourself look quite silly. Why don't you take a time out and just think for a minute about how government revenues could increase without raising taxes.

You got nuthin huh?

[Smallc]

You got nuthin huh?

Revenue increases when the economy grows. No tax increases are necessary.

[Fletch 27]

Federal Gov revenues incease when the economy grows? Via increased spending, Via increased Tax revenues? Increased Income-tax?

This is about increasing revenues through OTHER means than taxes... And Cybercoma has the answer... Just taking a while.. ("Why don't you take a time out and just think for a minute about how government revenues could increase without raising taxes" said Cybercoma).

Taxes removed.... How will revenues increase even when the economy grows?

http://www.megadox.c...eviews/4575.pdf

Revenue increases when the economy grows. No tax increases are necessary.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Fletch 27

[Rocky Road]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/preparing-for-when-the-oil-runs-out/article4602867/

Preparing for when the Oil runs out.

[Smallc]

("Why don't you take a time out and just think for a minute about how government revenues could increase without raising taxes" said Cybercoma).

You should keep thinking about that, since you obviously still don't get it. You don't have to increase taxes to increase revenue if you can grow the economy.

[cybercoma]

The entire point of supply-side economics is that the government can actually INCREASE tax revenues by decreasing the tax rate. I don't have the patience to teach someone that's unwilling to learn.

[CPCFTW]

Ahh... the old "pay them what's fair" argument. Often used in discussions of unionized positions, not so often used in discussions of CEO salaries...

Isn't it "pay ME whatever I can get "?

As wage arbitrations for unions often come down to the employers ability to pay. Since employers in public workers jobs can just raise taxes (as they have for a generation) we simply pay and pay until wages and benefits are no longer sustainable. as I recall the recent Sunshine List for Ontario had some public service employees in the high wages listing.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...shine-list.html

Well there's your answer to a pretty simple question. Not sure why you would bother asking it.

[CPCFTW]

It's not a zero-sum game.

Your link has nothing to do with what Peeves wrote.

We aren't talking about reducing unemployment by restricting the amount of hours worked in the public sector. We are talking about paying less (preferably for more hours worked, in fact).

Furthermore, the majority of public sector employment is not a demand of the market, which makes your post, as usual, irrelevant.

Edited October 11, 2012 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

The entire point of supply-side economics is that the government can actually INCREASE tax revenues by decreasing the tax rate. I don't have the patience to teach someone that's unwilling to learn.

Yes that is an important difference. An important difference that you would dispute in any other thread.

In fact, you didn't address this important difference in your OP:

What has Harper done to encourage our economy to pick up again? He has made an effort to sign deals with expanding economies in Asia to foster our exports, as the economies in Europe continue to suffer. However, this is not enough and such a strong reliance on our resources (the Asian markets can manufacture their own goods much easier) is going to make the Canadian economy increasingly more volatile going forward. This systemic volatility will make middle-class Canadians more reliant on government programs that are designed to smooth out rapid changes in the economy. Problem is Conservative austerity measures and cutbacks are pulling that rug out from under us, while their economic policies and foreign trade policies push us deeper into an economically volatile future.

How about cutting taxes (TFSA, corp taxes, GST, countless tax credits, raising basic personal exemption, etc.)

Or are supply side economics not a subtle, but important difference, when you have your harper bashing cap on instead of your public sector union cheerleader pom poms out?

Edited October 11, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Argus]

The entire point of supply-side economics is that the government can actually INCREASE tax revenues by decreasing the tax rate. I don't have the patience to teach someone that's unwilling to learn.

That's a good theory. I understand the Romney/Ryan team are big proponents...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Or are supply side economics not a subtle, but important difference, when you have your harper bashing cap on instead of your public sector union cheerleader pom poms out?

Maybe if you actually understood the things you were reading, you would realize that I don't support supply-side economics and you would know the reasons why. It's not supply-side economics that are the important difference, it's the fact that government revenues can rise without increasing the tax rate. I bring up supply-side economics because Fletch supports it, but in this thread seems to have no idea how the hell the government can increase revenues without raising taxes. Therefore, Fletch obviously has absolutely no idea the theory behind supply-side economics, which is based on the Laffer Curve. That doesn't mean I support the theory. It's fundamentally flawed, but that's a different conversation for a different thread.

[Smallc]

That's a good theory. I understand the Romney/Ryan team are big proponents...

It can work, but only sometimes, and only up to a point.

[CPCFTW]

Maybe if you actually understood the things you were reading, you would realize that I don't support supply-side economics and you would know the reasons why. It's not supply-side economics that are the important difference, it's the fact that government revenues can rise without increasing the tax rate. I bring up supply-side economics because Fletch supports it, but in this thread seems to have no idea how the hell the government can increase revenues without raising taxes. Therefore, Fletch obviously has absolutely no idea the theory behind supply-side economics, which is based on the Laffer Curve. That doesn't mean I support the theory. It's fundamentally flawed, but that's a different conversation for a different thread.

So if you're prepared to admit that lowering taxes is a means to raise government revenues (keeping in mind that the government under discussion was the current Canadian government), please do tell why supply side economics is fundamentally flawed.

Within the context of the discussion about paying for public sector employee wages, one would reasonably conclude that you believe that the Canadian government can raise revenues by lowering taxes. Please review the relevant posts and explain how one would conclude otherwise (or you can admit that you support Harper's economics, the very subject of this thread).

[wyly]

like the trickle down theory, lowering taxes doesn't work...if you lower corporate taxes the money saved just leaves the country as extra profit... in lean times companies hold back reinvesting in a wait and see game, individuals do the same...when you hear daily reports of national debt and that the USA is still in a dangerous position few corporations or individuals are going to spend much, everyone is still very cautious tax breaks aren't much of an incentive...

[CPCFTW]

like the trickle down theory, lowering taxes doesn't work...if you lower corporate taxes the money saved just leaves the country as extra profit... in lean times companies hold back reinvesting in a wait and see game, individuals do the same...when you hear daily reports of national debt and that the USA is still in a dangerous position few corporations or individuals are going to spend much, everyone is still very cautious tax breaks aren't much of an incentive...

Sure they are. If you knew anything about corporate finance, you would know that corporate investment decisions are based on after-tax returns. Companies hold onto cash when the incremental after-tax returns from a project do not justify the risk. If after-tax returns are improved through lower taxation, then companies can accept more risk for investing their free cash. It's pretty simple stuff really.

[Michael Hardner]

sarcasm right?

I just found out that our top sales guy has his BFA from York U. Started his own graphics business, ended up in web platform upselling.

[CPCFTW]

I just found out that our top sales guy has his BFA from York U. Started his own graphics business, ended up in web platform upselling.

Sounds about right. Had to start his own business to get an employer interested in him.

[wyly]

Sure they are. If you knew anything about corporate finance, you would know that corporate investment decisions are based on after-tax returns. Companies hold onto cash when the incremental after-tax returns from a project do not justify the risk. If after-tax returns are improved through lower taxation, then companies can accept more risk for investing their free cash. It's pretty simple stuff really.

mrs wyly is a Sr. accountant...simple in theory except it doesn't happen... corporations aren't good citizens who care about canadians employment, they care about share holders, nothing can force a corporation to invest in lean times, given a choice they don't take risk they'll bury it..to have any chance of working it needs to be tied to investment and even then they'll be hesitant to do so.... banks tighten lending and I cut back on non essentials items the same as anyone else...

[Fletch 27]

still no facts huh?