Just how fiscally conservative are these Conservatives?

Argus · March 24, 2013

Americans' corporate taxes are still insanely high compared to ours.

Well, yes and no. The posted rates might be higher, but once you get through all the loopholes they're often lower. Giant companies that make billions can wind up paying zero taxes.

Ours are working out much better for us because they are much lower.

And yes, our unemployment is much better now than it has been during times when other countries were experiencing economic troubles.

But what's the correlation? Since Harper last lowered the corporate rate unemployment has gone UP not down. So what exactly did foregoing $11.3 billion a year in taxation gain Canada?

Argus · March 24, 2013

Our unemployment rate is one of the best in the developed world, we're talking 7%. That is a dream scenario compared to most socialist democracies today.

Really? Australia and Germany are at 5.4%, Japan is 4.2%. A whole host of countries are around the 7% range. The US ,for that matter, is at 7.7%. I don't get the correlation between 'socialist democracy' and unemployment.

There are plenty of high-paying labor jobs in the west, pretty much for anyone that wants one.

Presuming, of course, one has the necessary skill set, and, in most cases, the necessary experience, and of course, is able to abandon his or her family and friends to go there.

If you object to corporations making bigger profits, then don't buy from them.

I don't object to corporations making bigger profits. I object to corporations making masses of money and not paying much in the way of taxes on it. I currently pay about 45% of my income in taxes, and have virtually no tax breaks or grants. Why should corporations pay 26% (excluding oodles of special tax breaks and loopholes)? Whatever arguments you can make about corporations retaining more money creating economic activity can be made for me, too. Given more money I'll generate more economic activity, or else invest the money in largely Canadian companies, much like they do. Actually, I'd do better, because I don't invest in China at all. The pertinent point is that lowering their taxes means lowering my services or raising my taxes. Someone has to pay the piper, after all. If it's not them then it's me.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Argus

Argus · March 24, 2013

You are right, and he's tried to improve us from the pure socialist state. Medicare expansion now has a realistic, responsible goal of increasing with GDP.

Hang on. How is medicare increasing with GDP responsible? After all, we're bringing in a lot of immigrants every year, which increases the number of people needing medical services. Yet as statistics have shown us the income of such people is generally lower than that of Canadian born, which means they are not increasing GDP in the same proportion as they are increasing demand for services. Also, the population is aging, thus further increasing need for medical services. It would seem, then, that funding for medical expansion needs to increase just to keep pace.

RNG · March 24, 2013

@ Argus. One must be very careful quoting government issued employment data. The official 7.7% the US quotes is widely laughed at by my American friends. Many of them quote something they call the G6 or something rate which they say is really over 12%. Apparently the 7.7% figure is just those currently receiving their version of employment insurance. And although the Japanese rate of those actively looking for a job is 4.6% according to a quick google search I just did, that is still twice the long term average for Japan.

punked · March 24, 2013

@ Argus. One must be very careful quoting government issued employment data. The official 7.7% the US quotes is widely laughed at by my American friends. Many of them quote something they call the G6 or something rate which they say is really over 12%. Apparently the 7.7% figure is just those currently receiving their version of employment insurance. And although the Japanese rate of those actively looking for a job is 4.6% according to a quick google search I just did, that is still twice the long term average for Japan.

If you want to count the unemployed and underemployed you need to apply the same logic to Canada.

ReeferMadness · March 24, 2013

Most stereotypes contain a grain of truth but the stereotypes of 'tax and spend Liberal' vs the hard-nosed fiscal Conservatives are just ridiculous nonsense. On both sides of the border, it's the neo-cons who spend like drunken sailors and the spend the money on, well, drunken sailors. They pour money into buiding jails and then enact laws to ensure the jails will be full. They pour money into military toys and then pursue foreign politics in such a way as to guarantee that those toys will be out there killing people.

Paul Martin put this country on the path to fiscal stability and Jim Flaherty put us back on the road to ruin.

ReeferMadness · March 24, 2013

If you want to count the unemployed and underemployed you need to apply the same logic to Canada.

It's difficult to compare the unemployment rates between the US and Canada because of policy differences. In the US, people with few marketable skills are much more likely to wind up in one of two places where they won't show up in the unemployment stats. Those two places are:

prison
the military

It has been argued (and I agree) that official unemployment stats are 1-2 points lower because of the large number of disadvantaged people who show up in one or both of these categories.

RNG · March 24, 2013

It's difficult to compare the unemployment rates between the US and Canada because of policy differences. In the US, people with few marketable skills are much more likely to wind up in one of two places where they won't show up in the unemployment stats. Those two places are:

prison

the military

It has been argued (and I agree) that official unemployment stats are 1-2 points lower because of the large number of disadvantaged people who show up in one or both of these categories.

But as I said, in the case of the US, the government figures do not include those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. So my American friends tell me the real rates in the US is way higher. I'm not sure how the Canadian figure is arrived at.

CPCFTW · March 24, 2013

US has 2-3% less labour force participation rate than Canada, and starts counting at 16yrs old (Canada starts at 15yrs old). The percentage of people 15 and older who are working in Canada is about 3-4% higher than the US.

Edited March 24, 2013 by CPCFTW

hitops · March 25, 2013

Most stereotypes contain a grain of truth but the stereotypes of 'tax and spend Liberal' vs the hard-nosed fiscal Conservatives are just ridiculous nonsense. On both sides of the border, it's the neo-cons who spend like drunken sailors and the spend the money on, well, drunken sailors. They pour money into buiding jails and then enact laws to ensure the jails will be full. They pour money into military toys and then pursue foreign politics in such a way as to guarantee that those toys will be out there killing people.

Paul Martin put this country on the path to fiscal stability and Jim Flaherty put us back on the road to ruin.

Please everyone stop the madness. The internet boom and the 90's prosperity for the entire world was not because of Paul Martin, Bill Clinton or any other world leader. They were just there to happily go along for the ride and pretend it was all them. It's like giving Theodore Roosevelt credit for single-handedly conjuring up a widely prosperous munitions industry.

Edited March 25, 2013 by hitops

Hudson Jones · March 25, 2013

The major reasons Canada's economy did not plummet like most other Western countries is due to high oil prices and the banking system's regulations. It has nothing to do with Harper. Harper has done nothing to live up to the hype the conservatives build around their brand.

Mighty AC · April 2, 2013

Yes, and we're paying for the hype with our tax dollars. The idiots actually outspent Proctor & Gamble in Superbowl ads to flog the 'Action Plan'.

I completely agree with the OP. This government is neither socially nor fiscally conservative. They've played politics with tax policies and spent like drunken sailors. (Why do sailors spend more than other drunks?) The one Con that seemed to have his act together on fiscal policy was Garth Turner. Unfortunately, he was turfed long ago for putting his constituents ahead of PMO talking points.

Anyway, Garth was the one who pushed for income splitting and the TFSA. He warned that GST cuts may score political points but would do little to improve personal finances. Garth also hounded the leprechaun over income tax reform. His goal was a graduated flat tax (oxymoronic name) at a lower average rate but with far fewer deductions. The result would have led to the same revenue stream but with much less overhead and a one page tax form that could have been completed in 10 minutes.

Mighty AC · April 2, 2013

I could add in all those corporate tax cuts which cost us $10-11 billion a year, and the GST cuts which cost the treasury another $12 billion a year. The latter was done for pure politics. The former out of the application of an old theory which no longer seems applicable in this day and age. I.e., cut taxes on business and they'll expand, hire more people, create more economic activity, and you'll get more back in the end. Mostly, from what I've seen, the corporate tax cuts have resulted in them squirreling away the money or investing in China.

Demand for products and services drive job creation, not lower costs. Jobs are added as a last resort if demand cannot be met by existing staff. Demand is created and sustained by a healthy middle class.

Lower corporate taxes can impact the decision of larger companies to maintain offices and facilities in a particular province or country. However, I think free trade agreements between unequal nations have seriously lessened the effectiveness of the corporate tax cut lever. Far greater savings can be achieved by outsourcing to China, Mexico, Columbia, etc. The workers make nothing, have very few rights and protections and there are almost no health, safety and environmental costs.

Unfortunately, the outsourcing erodes the health of our middle class and hurts demand. Saving an additional 75 cents on a T-shirt at Walmart does not offset the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Mighty AC

eyeball · April 2, 2013

The workers make nothing, have very few rights and protections and there are almost no health, safety and environmental costs.

Unfortunately, the outsourcing erodes the health of our middle class and hurts demand. Saving an additional 75 cents on a T-shirt at Walmart does not offset the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Workers in countries like China were supposed to see their standards rise as their society opened up and became more like our's as a result of trading with us. But of course our government sent Internet security experts over to China to help their government build a Firewall around it's society and keep it closed and unlike our's.

What's actually happened is that trade with countries like China have made our governments more like theirs - closed, secretive, opaque and filled with shit.

Edited April 2, 2013 by eyeball

Moonbox · April 2, 2013

Trade with China has made our government more secretive? What? :rolleyes:

eyeball · April 2, 2013

That's right. The expectation that cultures who trade with one another become more like one another is on a two-way street.

In the case of China's and Canada's we now have the fusion of our corporation's sociopathy with their government's authoritarianism. As I said in a related thread this makes the Borg look like Tribbles.

Moonbox · April 3, 2013

The cultural homogenization of trading partners is, in fact, a real phenomenon, but you clearly don't understand it very well. When there is a lot of cross border traffic, naturally things like art, food, music and customs will follow, and some of them will be adopted. This is based on people just naturally taking a liking to new things. The suggestion that a Calgary WASP-led party is adopting the culture and political tendencies of China because of trade, however, is ludicrous, and it's sad that you're even suggesting it. With that sort of broken, infantile logic, we should assume that Canada has naturally adopted the gun toting culture of the USA, because they're our biggest trading partner. What? We have only a small fraction of the per-capita gun deaths the USA does? That's what I thought.

eyeball · April 3, 2013

The cultural homogenization of trading partners is, in fact, a real phenomenon, but you clearly don't understand it very well. When there is a lot of cross border traffic, naturally things like art, food, music and customs will follow, and some of them will be adopted. This is based on people just naturally taking a liking to new things. The suggestion that a Calgary WASP-led party is adopting the culture and political tendencies of China because of trade, however, is ludicrous, and it's sad that you're even suggesting it. With that sort of broken, infantile logic, we should assume that Canada has naturally adopted the gun toting culture of the USA, because they're our biggest trading partner. What? We have only a small fraction of the per-capita gun deaths the USA does? That's what I thought.

Yeah well, you know what people who assume too much wind up looking like. Maybe you thought I was talking about pandas when I clearly said internet security expertise, for the purpose of a government keeping information out of the hands of it's citizens, just like a certain WASP-led party from Calgary likes to do.

When our governments started talking to us about trading with China and the changes this would cause to occur it was made quite clear that this meant things like improved human rights in China. I don't recall anyone suggesting any changes to Canada beyond the usual prosperity for all.

And WTF anything about this has to do with per-gun capita deaths is anyone's guess. Next time pay attention to what I said not what you thought.

August1991 · April 3, 2013

It takes a New Democrat to Balance a budget just look at NS 800 million dollar conservative deficit to balanced in 4 years.

You understand politics the way my neighbour watches hockey. For you and him, it's all about "teams".

Is it too late to get Preston Manning back?

Manning never became PM. Harper did.

-----

When the situation is uncertain (as State politics usually are), slow, adaptive change is better than radical, abrupt change. (Flanagan referred to this as "incremental" conservatism. Is that an oxymoron?)

When the situation is more certain (as items traded in markets often are), immediate change is better. (At the University of Chicago, this is referred to as the Efficient Market Hypothesis.)

IMV, it's about information.

Edited April 3, 2013 by August1991

August1991 · April 3, 2013

I'm consistent in being very fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

And my answer to you, RNG, is that without family, no government will ever be able to pay for everything.

There is not enough money in the world if a government tries to perform the role of a family.

Fiscal conservative? I agree. Social liberal? Contradiction.

-----

IMV, we are individuals who use different institutions to co-operate. Family is one, government another. Markets with prices still another. Based on current technology, this is what we have as methods to co-operate.

Edited April 3, 2013 by August1991

shortlived · April 3, 2013

And my answer to you, RNG, is that without family, no government will ever be able to pay for everything.

There is not enough money in the world if a government tries to perform the role of a family.

Fiscal conservative? I agree. Social liberal? Contradiction.

-----

IMV, we are individuals who use different institutions to co-operate. Family is one, government another. Markets with prices still another. Based on current technology, this is what we have as methods to co-operate.

In Canada the federal government controls money supply (the commons/government) not the fed.

Canada can just create its own credit rather than issuing bonds if it wanted to, but it is pandering to the wealthy as a means of stimulating foreign investment, and overseas reserves in CAD. Year on year Canada has increased its M3, and if it wanted to it could drastically inflate the economy to raise capital, but they would rather tax than generate supply. Due to the length of longterm investment in the retail and industrial sectors. Canada could completely remove taxes if it wanted to, and largely eliminate a massive chunk of the debt by first consolidating debt in foreign currencies then inflating that cad through supply of credit basically unlimited supply in just paying its bills with money it prints rather than money sent to it through taxes. bond payouts would in turn be revenue instead of expenses. but lets get real, its not about sound fiscal policy it is about squeezing as much from people as possible for the ultra rich who control the financial sector.

Its all about balancing infaltion in line with supply increase based on the trend of economic growth, steady as she goes, while it is almost gaurenteed that either taxes must increase to pay back bonds, or debt must accumulate because bonds can't be paid back or expenses must be cut back decreasing the level of service provision.. the current system has a lifespan by design, it is a trap. It is the downward debt spiral because the ecnomy is genrally a cycle and it will go down if government doesn't cut its debt massively during good times, and being in debt you can't get out of it unless you remove it beyond where you started, it is just a debt treadmill.

These things are relatively set in stone under the conservatives, they are basically forced to cut because they wont take from the ultra rich. That is simply based on tax rates. They are still giving money away, still giving away tax dollars, that needs to be stopped. Taxes should go to services, not paying the rich.

Edited April 3, 2013 by shortlived

Archanfel · April 5, 2013

And my answer to you, RNG, is that without family, no government will ever be able to pay for everything.

There is not enough money in the world if a government tries to perform the role of a family.

Fiscal conservative? I agree. Social liberal? Contradiction.

-----

IMV, we are individuals who use different institutions to co-operate. Family is one, government another. Markets with prices still another. Based on current technology, this is what we have as methods to co-operate.

Why should the government pay for everything? Being social liberal means the government should butt out people's lives, that including stop paying for people's lives. Liberalism should not be the same as, and I dare say should be the opposite to, progressiveness.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Archanfel

eyeball · April 5, 2013

Why should the government pay for everything? Being social liberal means the government should butt out people's lives, that including stop paying for people's lives. Liberalism should not be the same as, and I dare say should be the opposite to, progressiveness.

Being fiscally conservative should mean the government doesn't tilt economic playing fields away from human beings and towards things like banks and corporations.

Archanfel · April 5, 2013

Being fiscally conservative should mean the government doesn't tilt economic playing fields away from human beings and towards things like banks and corporations.

Very true, not that the Canadian government is doing that. A fiscal conservative government should not intefere with the market, either by

helping human beings, or by favouring certain corporations. Therefore, no regulation, no bail outs, no taxes, totally free market. Unfortunately, in general, most individuals will not be able to fight large corporations without the government's help, at least not in the short term, so I am not sure that's what people want. What people want is to put all the burdens on the corporations, yet don't bail them out. Actually, people want the bail out too, they just don't want to acknowledge that.

eyeball · April 5, 2013

Very true,

Glad to see you agree...

not that the Canadian government is doing that

...but that's where we differ on what's true. Our government is doing it all the time.

All the government has to do to help human beings in their struggle against corporations is to transfer it's responsibility to charter a corporation, the legal document that breathes life into them, to governments at a regional district or municipal level. This way they will be closer to the chain of accountability that starts with local taxpayers and in the case of corporations who extract natural resources, the people who live in the same ecosystems these resources are extracted.

It's a lot harder for someone to stab you in the back when they're sitting across the table from you in your home community but real easy when they're in Ottawa. Even our provinces are too large to entrust the business of chartering corporations to provincial governments.