So what would an NDP government do?

[On Guard for Thee]

How short people's memories are that they forget Harper is the one who set the fire by destroying federal revenue. He not only blew through a surplus that was handed to him, but also went into deficit. He set the fire and now people want to give him credit for putting it out by raiding billions from EI and selling off GM stock.

Yeah but dont worry, they have a plan. Joe Oliver rolled it out famously in that interview were he said we will let grand kids take care of it. I bet he got a stern talking to from Harper for that faux pas.

[Argus]

Yes you did dispossess us when you kept electing and defending the same style of governance that's demolished thriving fishing communities and industries on both coasts.

Maybe you thought it was someone else's problem or that fishing communities had it coming or something. Maybe you just didn't give a shit.

The fisheries have been in trouble as long as I can remember. I don't doubt your belief that various governments of both political stripes have mismanaged it but from where I sit I have no way of judging what should be done or shouldn't be done, which is why I don't bother about it. I don't know who's in the right and who's in the wrong. I seriously doubt anyone is trying to screw things up or was. I'm sure they're doing their best, but again, I have no way of judging how incompetent the current regime is, or the Chretien regime, or the Mulroney one or the Trudeau one. I also don't know how much is their fault vs world conditions, vs what the local provincial governments have done. I doubt anyone not involved in fisheries does. I see no reason, however, to believe the mandarins the NDP appoints will be any more wise or capable than the ones who have rotated through the jobs over the past thirty odd years.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

You can wager Conservatives will open the money spigots wide, bribing us with our own tax money in a desperate effort to avoid defeat.

Have you read the NDP platform? It basically promises money for everything everywhere, at every level. They'll be funding all sorts of stuff in the municipal sphere, from community centres to public housing, funding stuff in the provincial sphere, from college tuitions to language training, and of course, throwing money at every conceivable project at the federal level. I can't offhand think of anything they haven't promised extra money for.

[On Guard for Thee]

This is absolute nonsense. How is it you people can whine about him subverting democracy by proroguing parliament, and complain about how he labelled the NDP/Liberal move to form a collation as wrong, and at the same time pretend it all never happened?

Speaking of nonsense, this post seems to make no sense.

[Vancouver King]

From what I have been reading from economists, and my own memory of economics courses at college, corporate taxes are a very bad way, perhaps the worst way of supporting the government. Instead you should tax consumption. Because everyone has to either spend or invest that money, and you want to encourage investment. Same goes for companies. They either invest it or spend it ,and you want to encourage investment. In that light, Harpe's cuts to the GST were a bad idea but I've never said he was always right, and never defended them at the time. Cutting the GST was for political purposes, not economics.

Nevertheless, Harper's stewardship has been fairly decent, though not exemplary. And the claim the deficit was forced on him can't honestly be denied given he world recession was not his fault nor foreseeable, and given the response of the opposition parties at the time.

Corporate taxes have always been a significant part of revenues and the push by Conservatives to reduce/eliminate them reflects their governing priorities - corporate interests, not taxpayers interests.

[drummindiver]

While you're at it are you going to look at the Conservatives massive deficits, largest cabinet in Canadian history, and pillaging billions out of EI to "balance" their budget? We don't even have to look at their policy, since it's entirely BS. We can see exactly what kind of fiscal managers they've been. We can even count the half a million jobs that Canada has lost since they've been in power.

Are you serious?

Harper did it to the tune of 1.8 billion.

Chretien and Paul Martin raped it to the tune of 55 billion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/government-broke-law-on-ei-financing-in-3-years-top-court-1.750084

[drummindiver]

No, the coalition had fallen apart without having yet see the budget. In part because Ignatieff had just take over the LPC, and also because Harper was starting out doing his favorite trick of proroguing the government.

lol

This debate has been debated before on here.

Liberals have done it the most...

[On Guard for Thee]

lol

This debate has been debated before on here.

Liberals have done it the most...

That would be because they have been in power more often and it is a necessary function to end a session. It is the arbitrary use of prorogation that Harper uses that is the problem.

[Evening Star]

Corporate taxes have always been a significant part of revenues and the push by Conservatives to reduce/eliminate them reflects their governing priorities - corporate interests, not taxpayers interests.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if there were really a consensus amongst economists that "corporate taxes are the worst way to support a government" (let alone if there were a consensus that e.g. 15% corporate tax is great but 18% is disastrous). I'm not even sure that investment should always be encouraged rather than spending. I can imagine situations where spending should be encouraged.

[drummindiver]

That would be because they have been in power more often and it is a necessary function to end a session. It is the arbitrary use of prorogation that Harper uses that is the problem.

You say arbitrary for Harper.

Not for the Libs though.

Can't have it both ways. It's a normal function of parliament.

[Argus]

Corporate taxes have always been a significant part of revenues and the push by Conservatives to reduce/eliminate them reflects their governing priorities - corporate interests, not taxpayers interests.

Corporate taxes used to be the only source of revenue because ordinary people had nothing to give, and because the world was very, very, very big back then. Neither of those is true any longer. It's very easy for corporations to move to another jurisdiction. Just look at the US, where all those 'right to work' states with low taxes have attracted so many corporations down south and away from the states with stronger labour laws and higher taxes.

So you tell a corporation that their taxes are going up and they recalculate what their profits would be here vs elsewhere, and then you tell them you're going to also tax them on Co2 emissions, and they recalculate again, and then you tell them you're going to ladel on a new level of bureaucracy with a lot more rules and again they start recalculating, and as soon as the calculation says they can make more more money somewhere else they leave and set up shop in China or India or Bangladesh or Mexico, where they don't have to worry about high taxes or emissions controls or unions or bureaucracy.

But if you tax consumption then no matter where something is made it'll be taxed by the government once it comes here and someone buys it. And if those hated rich people want to buy big cars and houses and expensive furniture and high tech gizmos, then you tax those objects. I guarantee you a rich man spends a hell of a lot more than a poor man, so will be taxed much more. The only consideration in taxing corporations would be to find a way to tax money which is made in Canada, and would otherwise be shipped back to shareholders in other countries. But we generally have tax treaties with other countries with that in mind.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

You say arbitrary for Harper.

Not for the Libs though.

Can't have it both ways. It's a normal function of parliament.

It is a normal function of parliament. It is used supposed to be used to allow time to get on with new business. Not as a way of evading the judgement of the commons as Harper does.

[cybercoma]

Are you serious?

Harper did it to the tune of 1.8 billion.

Chretien and Paul Martin raped it to the tune of 55 billion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/government-broke-law-on-ei-financing-in-3-years-top-court-1.750084

Exactly. But Conservatives only complain when Chretien does it. When Harper does it, it's called balancing the budget and they give him a pat on the back.

[Accountability Now]

Here's one fwiw: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/04/29/fiscal-record-of-canadian-political-parties/. (I feel that it would be much stronger if the author gave a chart that looked at provincial governments only.

Interesting post however I do agree with you that I would feel better about the information being presented if it had just the provincial governments. Federal governments have historically had more deficits which skew the numbers when you look at a combined federal and provincial level. (https://www.capp.ulaval.ca/sites/capp.ulaval.ca/files/cahier_21.pdf)

Still, NDP governments in SK and MB have been widely known to have regularly turned balanced budgets.)

I don't know about Manitoba but Saskatchewan's way of bookkeeping is not the same as the rest of Canada. In fact, they feel that a vast majority of these so called surpluses were actually deficits if they accounted the same as the other provinces or federally. Here's an article showing this: (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/9-out-of-10-budgets-not-balanced-sask-auditor-says-1.1323251)

If this is correct, I wonder how many of those 52 balanced budgets would be attributed to Saskatchewan. I think at least 10 which would bring that number down.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Accountability Now

[Smallc]

Are you serious?

Harper did it to the tune of 1.8 billion.

Chretien and Paul Martin raped it to the tune of 55 billion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/government-broke-law-on-ei-financing-in-3-years-top-court-1.750084

EI under Harper was until now running a deficit, financed by general revenue and borrowing.

[-1=e^ipi]

and to focus immigration not on skilled immigrants but on family reunification.

Which is btw the 'american-style system' (at least comparatively). But don't tell the NDP this, they won't like it.

Sounds like this would be damaging to the country.

Probably. But are the liberals and conservatives better options? And personally, I'm tempted to vote NDP because it would be interesting to see how much damage they can do. Aren't you curious?

[-1=e^ipi]

How far down before do we slide before Canadians "get it"?

The majority are unlikely to ever 'get it', especially with the social justice warriors infiltrating our education & media.

[Evening Star]

I don't know about Manitoba but Saskatchewan's way of bookkeeping is not the same as the rest of Canada. In fact, they feel that a vast majority of these so called surpluses were actually deficits if they accounted the same as the other provinces or federally. Here's an article showing this: (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/9-out-of-10-budgets-not-balanced-sask-auditor-says-1.1323251)

If this is correct, I wonder how many of those 52 balanced budgets would be attributed to Saskatchewan. I think at least 10 which would bring that number down.

Ha, since 2007, the right-wing Saskatchewan Party has actually been in power, but yes, your point is taken: when making these sorts of comparisons, the accounting should be consistent.

There are other factors to consider, too: for instance, I think it can be inappropriate for a government to run a surplus (or even a balanced budget) during a major recession. Looking just at a chart of surpluses and deficits gives pretty limited information.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Evening Star

[-1=e^ipi]

Instead you should tax consumption. Because everyone has to either spend or invest that money, and you want to encourage investment.Cutting the GST was for political purposes, not economics.

Yes. Unfortunately, the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Greens are all too stupid to understand this.

I'd be surprised if there were really a consensus amongst economists that "corporate taxes are the worst way to support a government"

I guess you could come up with worse ways if you tried such as taxing investment, education or health care.

[-1=e^ipi]

But if you tax consumption then no matter where something is made it'll be taxed by the government once it comes here and someone buys it.

That and it encourages saving/investment which increases long run economic output. Robert Solow didn't win his Nobel Prize for nothing.

I guarantee you a rich man spends a hell of a lot more than a poor man, so will be taxed much more.

Plus poorer people generally spend a larger share of their income on essentials (which are usually tax exempt), so their effective tax rate is smaller with consumption taxes.

[Evening Star]

That and it encourages saving/investment which increases long run economic output. Robert Solow didn't win his Nobel Prize for nothing.

Do you have a link (or citation for a print source) to something written by Solow or other Keynesians on the merits of corporate (or personal) income taxes vs consumption taxes? I would like to read more.

[-1=e^ipi]

Do you have a link (or citation for a print source) to something written by Solow or other Keynesians on the merits of corporate (or personal) income taxes vs consumption taxes? I would like to read more.

Try this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan_model

[Accountability Now]

There are other factors to consider, too: for instance, I think it can be inappropriate for a government to run a surplus (or even a balanced budget) during a major recession. Looking just at a chart of surpluses and deficits gives pretty limited information.

Absolutely. The ability to compare various parties or PMs based solely on surpluses or deficits is inane. There are many factors that affect the outcome of a budget and one of the largest one affecting Canada is the FX since we are a net exporting country. Look at those years that the Liberals were getting the surpluses and you will see FX rates of 1.4-1.6 since the US was doing quite well at those times. Since the recession, the FX was around 1.0 -1.05....even dipping to 0.95 which hits the bottom line a lot harder. Even the most recent balanced budget is going to be achieved by the FX heading back to 1.2-1.3. All of which, no PM has any direct control over.

[cybercoma]

The majority are unlikely to ever 'get it', especially with the social justice warriors infiltrating our education & media.

I like SJW is the new cool thing to say since radical rightwing extremists were laughed at for their "libruhl" nonsense.

[-1=e^ipi]

I like SJW is the new cool thing to say since radical rightwing extremists were laughed at for their "libruhl" nonsense.

SJW != liberal, unless you completely pervert the meaning of liberal (which many have).