One of the reasons I won't be voting for Harper: Economic record

[Argus]

that's quite the selective data mining effort there! Of course, when you see the actual complete statement that reads:

- "Cumulative tax changes since 2005 have been progressive overall and most greatly impact low-middle income earners (households earning between $12,200 and $23,300), effectively resulting in a 4.0 per cent increase in after-tax income"

- "The lowest and highest 10 per cent of income earners benefit least, with after-tax gains of 2.2 per cent and 1.4 per cent, respectively"

tell me member Argus, in the context of your "expressed facts", is 4% of a lil' pie any where near as much as 2.2% of a big pie? Hot damn... I trust those low income earners don't spend all that 4% in one place! After a decade of KingHarperRule... 4%. (/ArgusFacts)

.

A 4% overall increase income is actually pretty damned good, especially if you're poor. As for the lower impact on the very poor, well of course the tax changes didn't impact them. THEY DON'T PAY ANY TAXES!

[Smallc]

A 4% overall increase income is actually pretty damned good, especially if you're poor. As for the lower impact on the very poor, well of course the tax changes didn't impact them. THEY DON'T PAY ANY TAXES!

It amazes me how difficult that last point is for some to understand. You can only refund so much of something that people didn't pay in the first place.

[waldo]

It amazes me how difficult that last point is for some to understand. You can only refund so much of something that people didn't pay in the first place.

talk to member Argus... apparently... he thought this was a most significant point to make! But first clue the guy in - when he blusters forward with his shouted "THEY DON'T PAY ANY TAXES"... just what is, in that context... wait for it, wait for it... "after-tax income"? Oh my...

[Argus]

talk to member Argus... apparently... he thought this was a most significant point to make! But first clue the guy in - when he blusters forward with his shouted "THEY DON'T PAY ANY TAXES"... just what is, in that context... wait for it, wait for it... "after-tax income"? Oh my...

Yes, you have to actually have some income in order to get tax relief. Not exactly a shocking idea. However, let's remember that most poor people get big tax refunds, too, especially those with kids.

From an earlier post of mine, I would point out the working income tax benefit, which is up to an $11,000 deduction for a poor family. Add in the basic personal amount of about $11,000 federal, and something near $9,000 provincial, plus $4,000 per child dependent, and most who can be described as poor wind up with refunds, which adds, rather than subtracts from income.

[cybercoma]

Yes, you have to actually have some income in order to get tax relief.

Which just proves the point that tax relief schemes are idiotic, if your goal is to help those who need it the most. Guys who go around internet forums and brag about paying $100,000 in income taxes aren't exactly struggling to make ends meet. Edited August 9, 2015 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Which just proves the point that tax relief schemes are idiotic, if your goal is to help those who need it the most. Guys who go around internet forums and brag about paying $100,000 in income taxes aren't exactly struggling to make ends meet.

People in the middle class do need the most help though. You can only give so much to people who don't contribute to the system before it becomes a disincentive to contribute.

[cybercoma]

People in the middle class do need the most help though. You can only give so much to people who don't contribute to the system before it becomes a disincentive to contribute.

The incentive is to not have your head in a guillotine. The incentive is to avoid all of the problems associated with massive wealth inequality, which not only affect those without wealth, but also those with the wealth.

[blueblood]

The incentive is to not have your head in a guillotine. The incentive is to avoid all of the problems associated with massive wealth inequality, which not only affect those without wealth, but also those with the wealth.

Which is why rich people create jobs, save money in banks, buy a lot of stuff, and invest in start ups. The system is fine. Just because some entitled university students without work ethic rolled the dice on a sociology degree and cant make any money at it doesnt mean everythings broken.

This isnt the dark ages. The thing which got us out of the dark ages was merchants in italy telling the pope to go piss up a rope when it comes to the church's position on "usury"

[Smallc]

The incentive is to not have your head in a guillotine. The incentive is to avoid all of the problems associated with massive wealth inequality, which not only affect those without wealth, but also those with the wealth.

That seems to suppose that there can be a positive to disincentivising contribution to society. Studies have shown that those who don't work are less happy, less healthy, and less likely to create any kind of wealth for future generations. People need assistance that's designed to help them do better on their own - to feel like they're making a difference and earning their place. Creating a permanent underclass, as we have now, isn't the answer.

[blueblood]

That seems to suppose that there can be a positive to disincentivising contribution to society. Studies have shown that those who don't work are less happy, less healthy, and less likely to create any kind of wealth for future generations. People need assistance that's designed to help them do better on their own - to feel like they're making a difference and earning their place. Creating a permanent underclass, as we have now, isn't the answer.

Agreed, its about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

[cybercoma]

Which is why rich people create jobs

This always has been and always will be a myth. Rich people don't create jobs, at least not permanent ones. They may start up businesses and temporarily bankroll jobs in the short run, but they certain don't create and sustain jobs. That can only be done by a healthy economy–and wealth moving around the system is the lifeblood of the economy. When wealth is concentrated at the top, those jobs the rich create are meaningless because the people who should signal demand for the things that those businesses/entrepreneurs provide are being squeezed out. A healthy economy has money moving around, not being increasingly concentrated in very few hands.

Edited August 10, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

That seems to suppose that there can be a positive to disincentivising contribution to society. Studies have shown that those who don't work are less happy, less healthy, and less likely to create any kind of wealth for future generations. People need assistance that's designed to help them do better on their own - to feel like they're making a difference and earning their place. Creating a permanent underclass, as we have now, isn't the answer.

You don't say? Those who don't work are more likely to be unhealthy....perhaps disabled even? They're more likely to be less happy...or perhaps suffer from mental illnesses?

Come on, man. People who are able to work generally want to work and provide for themselves. The unemployment figures are even doctored so that it doesn't account for people who aren't "actively looking for full time work."

[Smallc]

You don't say? Those who don't work are more likely to be unhealthy....perhaps disabled even? They're more likely to be less happy...or perhaps suffer from mental illnesses?

Come on, man. People who are able to work generally want to work and provide for themselves. The unemployment figures are even doctored so that it doesn't account for people who aren't "actively looking for full time work."

I know a lot of people who could be working and aren't. They sleep all day and play video games to pass the time. They have several children and use them like cattle as a form of income. This isn't working.

[Smallc]

Poverty begets poverty - and often, as a society, we're complicit.

[blueblood]

This always has been and always will be a myth. Rich people don't create jobs, at least not permanent ones. They may start up businesses and temporarily bankroll jobs in the short run, but they certain don't create and sustain jobs. That can only be done by a healthy economyand wealth moving around the system is the lifeblood of the economy. When wealth is concentrated at the top, those jobs the rich create are meaningless because the people who should signal demand for the things that those businesses/entrepreneurs provide are being squeezed out. A healthy economy has money moving around, not being increasingly concentrated in very few hands.

That doesnt make sense. The jobs your talking about are government jobs. There are only so many of those and society cant afford too many. So its the rich person taking a risk. Rich prople are hella rich right now because east asia isnt in the dark ages anymore and can afford to buy our products.

I dont think you know what real poverty is. Canada has none of that compared to other places. Problem is that young people are going to have to learn to suck it up and do jobs that might not be desireable.

Rich people providing jobs is not a myth its fact.

[hitops]

This always has been and always will be a myth. Rich people don't create jobs, at least not permanent ones. They may start up businesses and temporarily bankroll jobs in the short run, but they certain don't create and sustain jobs. That can only be done by a healthy economy–and wealth moving around the system is the lifeblood of the economy. When wealth is concentrated at the top, those jobs the rich create are meaningless because the people who should signal demand for the things that those businesses/entrepreneurs provide are being squeezed out. A healthy economy has money moving around, not being increasingly concentrated in very few hands.

Who do you think sustains a healthy economy and moves money around for commerce?

There is a reason the most decisive efforts in the last 100 years to bring down the rich and distribute it to the poor were also the largest humans disasters in that same period of time.

Edited August 10, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

It is no more Harper's fault that decimated oil prices have slashed revenues, than it was Chretien's doing that the internet was invented and created prosperity throughout the entire western world in the 90's.

The critics of Harper's economy record have nothing substantial to say that ties to Harper specifically at all. And at the same time, they ignore his ACUTAL economic screwup - allowing 40 year, no money down mortgages. This, via the CMHC, is by far more responsible for our current economic problems than anything else.

[On Guard for Thee]

It is no more Harper's fault that decimated oil prices have slashed revenues, than it was Chretien's doing that the internet was invented and created prosperity throughout the entire western world in the 90's.

The critics of Harper's economy record have nothing substantial to say that ties to Harper specifically at all. And at the same time, they ignore his ACUTAL economic screwup - allowing 40 year, no money down mortgages. This, via the CMHC, is by far more responsible for our current economic problems than anything else.

Well other than the fact he took a hefty surplus handed to him, almost immediately turned it into a deficit, (what's that now 6 in a row, soon to be 7)? and added something like 130 billion to the national debt. "Nothing substantial" you say?

[The_Squid]

Well other than the fact he took a hefty surplus handed to him, almost immediately turned it into a deficit, (what's that now 6 in a row, soon to be 7)? and added something like 130 billion to the national debt. "Nothing substantial" you say?

Harper has added over $150 billion to the debt. This has completely decimated the work that the Liberals did to pay down the debt while they were in power.

This PM has been a disaster on Canada's economic situation.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-matter-how-you-add-it-up-harpers-fiscal-record-is-a-catastrophe/

Edited August 10, 2015 by The_Squid

[On Guard for Thee]

Harper has added over $150 billion to the debt. This has completely decimated the work that the Liberals did to pay down the debt while they were in power.

This PM has been a disaster on Canada's economic situation.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-matter-how-you-add-it-up-harpers-fiscal-record-is-a-catastrophe/

Oh OK, I was out by 20 billion or so. Please understand I was using the Harpernomics theory at the time.

[jacee]

Who do you think sustains a healthy economy and moves money around for commerce?

There is a reason the most decisive efforts in the last 100 years to bring down the rich and distribute it to the poor were also the largest humans disasters in that same period of time.

Such catastrophizing!

The rich will still be rich ... just not obscenely so as at present.

What's a million here and there to them anyway!

But a million more in worker wages is a dozen or more families fed, housed, clothed.

Ya I think a $10m CEO can lose a few million here and there without suffering.

You know for 30 years I often worked 12 hr days for 8 hrs pay. I'd put my own work output quality and quantity up against a CEO's any day. It didn't have dollar input attached because it was public service. But a CEO's work isn't intrinsically more valuable just because it's a monetized business.

In my experience, the work of public service senior managers contributes substantially to society at a very small price compared to corporate CEO's.

Nobody's trying to put CEO's and owners out on the street homeless like they do to workers' families without blinking.

But many think they could get along just fine with a few million less.

.

Edited August 10, 2015 by jacee

[PIK]

What has harpers policies done to hurt anyone here. They have lowered my taxes, just so the ONT LIBERAL GOVERNMENT can take them. The ONT government has actually hurt people big time, myself included. So is that is what we want for Canada, Ms Wynne seems to be running his campaign. And now the NDP have let it slip that they are going to start shutting down the oil sands. It says a lot about the people that want to put in mulcair or trudeau, it is almost like you hate the country and the people in it.

[PIK]

Just imagine if the others were running the place during these tough times, we would be in a big hole that we would never get out of. And on Chretien, with the way the world economy was when he was PM anybody could have done what he did.

[Smallc]

Harper has added over $150 billion to the debt. This has completely decimated the work that the Liberals did to pay down the debt while they were in power.

Actually, no it didn't, as debt doesn't work that way. The economy is worth almost $2T now, and will probably pass that number early next year. The debt as a percentage of that has started falling again (for a couple of years now) and so it has less of an impact on the economy.

To say the above, BTW, is to feign ignorance of the circumstances under which that debt was added. Every country in the G7 ran a deficit, and all but 2 of them (other than Canada and Germany) have a deficit today. No economist will tell you that Harper has done a bad job at debt management, nor will any of the international credit agencies.

[waldo]

No economist will tell you that Harper has done a bad job at debt management, nor will any of the international credit agencies.

24% of the total accumulated debt since Confederation was amassed under Stephen Harper... and that just since 2008.

notwithstanding, as you know, but apparently have now conveniently chosen to ignore, the first (of Harper's 2 recessions) had a very mild impact on Canada... here, let me remind you once again:

- per StatsCan: Canada's (first Harper) recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7... lasting all of 3 quarters!

something I wrote in a related discussion: "Canada's 'mild & short" recession resulted more from how Canada was positioned going into the recession; positioned as a result of policy/actions over the prior decade where the Liberal federal governments had budget and trade surpluses for most of that prior decade. Of course, Canada's banks were solid and there was no ongoing/pending housing bubble. All of this helped to diminish any credit crunch when banks ultimately tightened up on loans. Additionally high commodity prices helped to reduce the initial recession impact; effectively Canada entered the recession well after most other countries. Milder, shorter and entered later... resulting in, again, only a 3 quarter recession."

the summations I read suggest all of this (Liberal Party) pre-recession positioning, coupled with sounder markets, allowed Canada's domestic economy to whether the short recession quite well... that it was really export earnings and corporate profits that were significantly impacted.

of course, none of this stops fervent proponents of claimed Harper Conservative fiscal prowess from always over-emphasing the recession... in line with the 'meltdown' reference from a few posts back. Of always overemphasizing actions taken by Harper Conservatives to limit the recessionary impact... while conveniently ignoring the position Canada was in the lead-up to the recession, and how that position was realized over the prior decade by Liberal governments.