Federal Budget 2015

Black Dog · May 1, 2015

What? Governments typically tax income, not wealth.. They are two different concepts. Are you really this dense?

Do yourself a favor and look up wealth tax.

I know they are different. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about perceptions.

But yeah, since you mention it, I'm totally in favour of cranking up taxes on people's net worth to help create a more equitable society.

And ROFL at that comment about financial advisors. I have 10x the financial education as most financial advisors.

Good for you.

CPCFTW · May 1, 2015

I know they are different. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about perceptions.

But yeah, since you mention it, I'm totally in favour of cranking up taxes on people's net worth to help create a more equitable society.

That's exactly what we're talking about. I'm glad that we're now in agreement that wealth, not income, is a what needs to be addressed in order to create an equitable society.

As you've noted, perceptions need to be changed so that the public can stop focusing their jealousy towards those with high incomes, and instead focus on those with a high networth.

I think moving towards taxation of lifetime earnings is a good start, as I suggested many pages ago.

Argus · May 2, 2015

That's exactly what we're talking about. I'm glad that we're now in agreement that wealth, not income, is a what needs to be addressed in order to create an equitable society.

As you've noted, perceptions need to be changed so that the public can stop focusing their jealousy towards those with high incomes, and instead focus on those with a high networth.

I think moving towards taxation of lifetime earnings is a good start, as I suggested many pages ago.

So a guy like Elon Musk, who is a brilliant workaholic entrepreneur needs to have his wealth taxed away so he can stop wasting it on things like building space ships and instead give it to people who dropped out of high school and now bitch about their comparative poverty?

CPCFTW · May 2, 2015

So a guy like Elon Musk, who is a brilliant workaholic entrepreneur needs to have his wealth taxed away so he can stop wasting it on things like building space ships and instead give it to people who dropped out of high school and now bitch about their comparative poverty?

Yeah I'm not a big fan of wealth tax either. That's why I suggested a lifetime income tax.

I would see it as a surtax type thing, not completely replacing income taxes, but something that would allow us to reduce taxes on people earning their first million and then increase taxes thereafter.

Then maybe there'd be more than one Elon Musk.

As I noted from the start of this conversation, high tax rates on high incomes slows down class mobility. If our best and brightest are making 100-200k in their mid-20s, I'd like a tax regime that accelerates them towards accumulating enough wealth to begin thinking about entrepreneurship in their early 30s instead of their 40s.

Edited May 2, 2015 by CPCFTW

Topaz · May 2, 2015

So are you guys talking about inheritance tax. maybe anything over 100,000 and maybe lottery tax???

CPCFTW · May 3, 2015

No a lifetime income tax:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifetime_income_tax

Moonbox · May 4, 2015

So a guy like Elon Musk, who is a brilliant workaholic entrepreneur needs to have his wealth taxed away so he can stop wasting it on things like building space ships and instead give it to people who dropped out of high school and now bitch about their comparative poverty?

That's a little bit oversimplified/black & white...but you have a point.

That was funny well said.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Moonbox

Michael Hardner · July 22, 2015

Seems like a good place to put this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/deficit-projected-for-federal-government-this-year-1.3163097

New projections by the parliamentary budget officer suggest the federal government's budget won't be balanced this year, despite the Conservatives' promise to have no deficit in 2015.

The budget officer released the report Wednesday morning, following a July 16 request from the Liberals and July 18 request by the New Democrats. The parties made the requests based on a decline in real GDP in the first quarter of 2015, which results in lower corporate tax revenue and HST for the federal government.

Harper is starting to look like a man whose luck ran out. This also reminds me of Ontario 1991 when Bob Rae inherited a southward-bound economy and turned it not around...

nerve · July 22, 2015

I am still suprised people support keynesian economic tax systems - when keynesian capitalism is in full collapse currently, and only through injections of charity donations of external capital is it being floated. We are seeing that debt GDP ratios over 150% are unsustainable, and the more debt you get the harder it is to get out of it.

The truth is that states with low taxation and low expenditures are most successful at successful fiscal policy.

I am in awe you all want to tax "the wealthy people" when they are the best at managing wealth. It is like shooting yourself in the foot.

People need to "self manage", they need to form food cooperatives, they need to create local enterprises to fill their public needs. Meanwhile the government needs to nationalize essential commodities, and insure that inputs into public infrastructure are paid for by its users.

There needs to be a massive reduction in the public service because it is only a consumer, and generally not a contributor to the economy.

The government needs to get people to buy retirement food, clothing, and other essentials rather than throwing money into a chaotic stock market.

Business as usual is far more likely but I felt compelled to voice my concern over the same old system that is in cardiac arrest these days, it is a failure. That policy construct is a failure.

This should be about creating wealth not taking wealth from others. It should be about inspiring wealth creation, not wealth removal by taking a cup of water from the pool and pouring in the other end. Add water, the same is true with government fiscal policy, new capital needs to be created.

The bottom line for government should only be insuring that everyone has enough water so to speak in that peoples essential needs should be provided for by insuring food production, water production, energy for heat, safe housing etc..

Canada is in big trouble down the road though due to having multiple levels of government with only one with fiscal control - the provinces will fail under debt given enough time. The federation really ought to work to better centralize the economy.

IMO anything short of a radical realignment in policy in regard to creation of wealth distribution for anything but essential needs has to be gutted, people should be put to weath creation not managing redistribution of wealth, it is incredibly inefficient and doesn't help. The economy will drive itself.

There is just too much in these things, it is bloated for actual need, it is all about robbing people through coercion and extortion, it needs to stop.

The reason redistribution is the vogue is because government has been dismal in teaching people how to generate wealth and to provide a means of doing that. Keynes-Capital redistribution Government itself is a wealth consumer rather than a wealth generator so it is a horrible model to look to to get things right.

It is a failure, it will always be a failure as long as it depends on others to sustain itself.

The key is economic revolution to empower people and to enable them to support themselves, that means land reform, that means fiscal reform, that means liberalization, and it means downsizing government.

People need to accept it.

This could be as simple as giving people seed credit, growing supplies, encouraging people to grow. You can't build from scratch but we need to rob the poor and put them somewhere they can generate their own wealth, just giving them wealth won't fix the problem. The government needs to manage the poor not the rich, the problem is with the poor, and making the rich poor isn't the answer. Of course they need to be supported while they learn to grow wealth, but it is essential government doesn't just sit back and expect it to fix itself, it needs to draft the poor to economic programs. Downsize all the program bloat and concentrate on one thing, turning the poor into self-wealth generators. It shouldn't be a poor house for others, the poors house should be about building for themselves.

Until the poor, including government, can support itself there will be no winning solution for ethics and equity.

Edited July 22, 2015 by nerve

overthere · July 22, 2015

The truth is that states with low taxation and low expenditures are most successful at successful fiscal policy.

That would include nearly every country in Africa.

They have minimal taxation and spend very little on pesky social contracts. 'Successful' is an adjective rarely heard on the continent.

Does your truth apply to them?

Evening Star · July 22, 2015

I am still suprised people support keynesian economic tax systems - when keynesian capitalism is in full collapse currently,

I'm not sure what you could be referring to. If you're talking about Greece, that's a case where some of the major creditors are social democratic welfare states themselves. If you're talking about the 2008 economic collapse and its aftereffects, I derive basically the opposite message from that.

eyeball · July 22, 2015

I am in awe you all want to tax "the wealthy people" when they are the best at managing wealth. It is like shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm in awe at the disconnect between wealth and power. I fail to see how anyone can discuss one without the other. And subtracting farther from this is the even more awesome disconnect between wealth and natural capital - our planet's ecosystems and our human economies. The over-taxation of the former has everything to do with the over-extension of the latter. There's just not enough to go around to keep the rich happy and the poor off their backs. There never has been.

Until the poor, including government, can support itself there will be no winning solution for ethics and equity.

There are no ethics or equity because we've all failed at managing power and pretty much shot ourselves in the head as a result. There is only one strategy around a shrinking waterhole. Maybe we'll come to realize that better when the bullet finally sinks in.

Edited July 22, 2015 by eyeball

waldo · July 22, 2015

Seems like a good place to put this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/deficit-projected-for-federal-government-this-year-1.3163097

Harper is starting to look like a man whose luck ran out. This also reminds me of Ontario 1991 when Bob Rae inherited a southward-bound economy and turned it not around...

oh my! A $1 Billion deficit. Hey now - didn't Harper, didn't Oliver just about guarantee a budget surplus for 2015/2016?

Harper Conservatives from 2006: in 2 short years turned a $13 Billion surplus (from Chretien/Martin) into a $5 Billion deficit... have been running deficits every year since. This was to be THE YEAR... a surplus, count on it! Fiscal Conservatives? Oh my!

msj · July 22, 2015

But but but but, there is an election!

They have to bribe us with our own money!

It's not their fault the great oil bust is happening!

Etc, etc, blah blah blah yeah, I don't buy it either.

They have had long enough to balance a stinking budget by now - what they lack in credibility is more than made up by excuses.

Smallc · July 22, 2015

They have had long enough to balance a stinking budget by now - what they lack in credibility is more than made up by excuses.

And what other country has managed to do that thus far?

msj · July 22, 2015

And what other country has managed to do that thus far?

Yes, another excuse!

I forgot that one.

Let's go with Germany, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland.

Of course, Canada should not really be compared with those economies as they either are way better than ours or they like to have national oil funds or blah blah blah excuses excuses excuses.

But we could compare to another commodity economy like Australia which is running a higher deficit than Canada (as a % of GDP).

The thing is this: who asked the CPC to not run a deficit?

I have no problem running a small deficit at 1-2% of GDP once in a while.

And if things get really hairy running a bit higher for a couple of years is fine too.

But to set expectations,to set policy, so that we must balance a budget and then fudge one's way through an election campaign over such expectations is just bad policy. Or bad promise breaking.

We all know that the budget is going to be difficult to balance because of election goodies and commodity plummeting.

The reaction thus far has been to deny reality and not mention the "r" word - I do not like any party that insults my intelligence to this degree.

In fact, at this rate it will be the Liberals who will have to ask Harper if, and when, the budget will balance itself. :lol:

Topaz · July 22, 2015

The PM sure hasn't been very lucky since 2006 and anyone he's appointed or he drew attention to, has turn out to be a bad choice for them and him. Did he really get a Bs in Economics or just a Bs in Bs???

Smallc · July 22, 2015

Economists aren't concerned about Canada's finances. The answer to my question is, very few, if any.

Argus · July 22, 2015

But but but but, there is an election!

They have to bribe us with our own money!

It's not their fault the great oil bust is happening!

Etc, etc, blah blah blah yeah, I don't buy it either.

You don't buy the affect the drop in oil has had on our economy? Are you aware that commodities in general are also depressed? The Chinese don't need so much iron, copper, etc these days. And gold is way down too. If you think a Canaian government can have any impact on that, you're kinda nuts.

msj · July 22, 2015

Economists aren't concerned about Canada's finances. The answer to my question is, very few, if any.

I agree.

But that just makes the political rhetoric about balancing the budget even stupider.

Sheogorath_The_Mad · July 23, 2015

Economists aren't concerned about Canada's finances. The answer to my question is, very few, if any.

Ah desperation sets in. We all know if this was a left wing government you'd be sharpening the knives. The unfortunate fact for conservativesis that they've spent 10 miserable years in power bleating on and on about the dangers of deficits and how they're the only ones capable of balancing the budget. I think only the kool-aid drinkers are going to let them walk away from that.

Evening Star · July 23, 2015

You don't buy the affect the drop in oil has had on our economy? Are you aware that commodities in general are also depressed? The Chinese don't need so much iron, copper, etc these days. And gold is way down too. If you think a Canaian government can have any impact on that, you're kinda nuts.

You're saying that modest deficits are OK sometimes, given that economies fluctuate, and that a perfectly balanced budget is a foolish thing to obsess over? I agree. Can we expect Conservative (and other) leaders to start saying this?

Edited July 23, 2015 by Evening Star

Evening Star · July 23, 2015

In fact, fanatically eliminating the budget deficit with no regard to the social cost, like the Liberals did in the 90s, is unconscionable imo. No progressive should advocate this. The Opposition should take MORE credit for forcing the government to borrow and implement stimulus measures during the 08/09 recession, even if it led to a deficit. What is more important imo is how we are investing the money that we are borrowing and how we are generating revenue: it is in these areas that I take issue with Conservative policy.

Vancouver King · July 23, 2015

The PM sure hasn't been very lucky since 2006 and anyone he's appointed or he drew attention to, has turn out to be a bad choice for them and him. Did he really get a Bs in Economics or just a Bs in Bs???

With Canada's economy in disarray and getting worse, with legions of Conservatives under investigation , in jail or otherwise not available, the final assignation must be the fact that Harper has never had a balanced or surplus budget. This final factor might be Conservative's undoing.

marcus · July 23, 2015

Harper has always used the economy to woo those who value economic policies and management. It will be interesting to see if the other parties will be able to get the message through all the facade to those who could change their votes after seeing some of the realities.

1) The Harper government will have a $1 billion deficit this year.

Tory promise in doubt with Ottawa on track to post $1-billion deficit this year, new PBO report shows - Link

Which ties into:

2) What kind of a businessman puts all his eggs in one basket? Harper's reliance on the oil industry is bad management.

From 2013: Relying too heavily on oil sands could be bad for Canada’s economy, report warns

Time to reach out to the burbs and small towns to warn them about reality. It will be difficult to penetrate through the massive propaganda and emotional cheerleading that have gripped some Canadians.