Tax Policy

[BHS]

There seems to be alot of them going around today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Seek and ye shall find."

I think you see a lot of religious conservatives because that's what you want to see. There are plenty of religious types who support the Liberals, the NDP, and the Democrats too.

Besides, what is a conservative? It has generally become a bi-word for people who oppose socialist policies (and that is it's de facto modern political meaning, as I take it), but a conservative is someone who opposes change in favour of the status quo. In this light, the Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most conservative organizations on Earth.

[for_liberty]

There seems to be alot of them going around today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Seek and ye shall find."

I think you see a lot of religious conservatives because that's what you want to see. There are plenty of religious types who support the Liberals, the NDP, and the Democrats too.

Besides, what is a conservative? It has generally become a bi-word for people who oppose socialist policies (and that is it's de facto modern political meaning, as I take it), but a conservative is someone who opposes change in favour of the status quo. In this light, the Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most conservative organizations on Earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you I just think right now it seems that the conservatives have taken over by the religiuos right, particulary in the US.

[for_liberty]

There are a number of real conservatives that want to take their party back. I always read one writer in the US Justin Raimondo who is great. He is the editor for antiwar.com

[mirror]

Interestingly enough conservative has become a dirty word in Canada just like liberal is perceived in the US.

[BHS]

I prefer to think of myself as an Individualist.

[for_liberty]

I would consider myself an Individualist also. I don't think anyone elses rights trump mine and vice versa. To many people now think about the "common good".

[err]

In this light, the Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most conservative organizations on Earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it matters what kind of light you use, Paul Martin is a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE!!!!!

[err]

I would consider myself an Individualist also. I don't think anyone elses rights trump mine and vice versa. To many people now think about the "common good".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent. I take it Jack Layton can be counting on your vote next election !!!

[for_liberty]

I would consider myself an Individualist also. I don't think anyone elses rights trump mine and vice versa. To many people now think about the "common good".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent. I take it Jack Layton can be counting on your vote next election !!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack Layton? He wants to take even more of my money and spend at he see's fit. I do agree with him on social issues, but there is no way i could vote for him because of fiscal issues. He doesn't want economic freedom.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Besides, what is a conservative? It has generally become a bi-word for people who oppose socialist policies (and that is it's de facto modern political meaning, as I take it), but a conservative is someone who opposes change in favour of the status quo. In this light, the Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most conservative organizations on Earth

Yes, by definition a 'conservative, resisting change,' would therefore want to keep Martin in power!

There are a good many things that need to change in Canada, because there are many things industry can do better than the gov't, and a few things that industry cannot be trusted to do (fairly) that a gov't must.

[for_liberty]

Dear BHS,

Besides, what is a conservative? It has generally become a bi-word for people who oppose socialist policies (and that is it's de facto modern political meaning, as I take it), but a conservative is someone who opposes change in favour of the status quo. In this light, the Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most conservative organizations on Earth

Yes, by definition a 'conservative, resisting change,' would therefore want to keep Martin in power!

There are a good many things that need to change in Canada, because there are many things industry can do better than the gov't, and a few things that industry cannot be trusted to do (fairly) that a gov't must.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think there is a thing government can do better than industry unless government hands industry a monopoly. If they do that there is no incentive for industry to do better and that is why we have expensive and ineffecient services from the government now, they have a monopoly.

[stubblejumper]

that is why we have expensive and ineffecient services from the government now

How do you explain the Crown Corp in Man and Sask that turn profits,charge the lowest fees and are innovative ?

Government ownership can work in a non-competitive enviroment or competitive.

SaskTel no longers has a monopoly yet still dominates the market from ISP ,Mobile,Cable TV to home phones. A competitive well run crown corporation is well suited for the free market and will always supply the cheapest and best product.Due to the fact that profits are not its main goal and any profits made are used to reduce the tax burden.Win-Win.

[Big Blue Machine]

I think that no person should give more than 45% of their income to both governments.

[for_liberty]

Sask tels infastrucute was paid for by the tax payer. Industry has to raise the capital on it's own. Unless of course they pay of politcians to help them out. Oh yes isn't government grand?

[stubblejumper]

Sask tels infastrucute was paid for by the tax payer.

So is every Natural gas company and power companies infrastructure. Those things wouldn't have been built,out west, if not for the governments of the time.

They had the foresight to see that no private company was going to run these industries here but now that the infrastructure is there , it is more cost effective for these companies.Do they owe the tax payer? How is the tax payer different from a share holder?

Is profit not a private tax? How does private business finance their projects ?

[for_liberty]

Sask tels infastrucute was paid for by the tax payer.

So is every Natural gas company and power companies infrastructure. Those things wouldn't have been built,out west, if not for the governments of the time.

They had the foresight to see that no private company was going to run these industries here but now that the infrastructure is there , it is more cost effective for these companies.Do they owe the tax payer? How is the tax payer different from a share holder?

Is profit not a private tax? How does private business finance their projects ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm giving you the reason why sask tel is cheap. They didn't pay for the infustructure. How do you explain Air Canada and Perto Canada? They where a mess untill private industry took over. Air Canada was also paid for by the tax payer and West Jet is way cheaper and they turn over a nice profit.

Also are you happy that private industry came in?

And how is private industry diiferent form government? I can chose not to buy from a industry. Government forces me to pay for their services.

[Yaro]

This is what I was talking to, in regard to a "cornerstone of capitalism". The capitalist (free market really, but I take them to be part and parcel) system uses the freedom of choice as an incentive for investors and entrepreneurs to participate in the system. If you know that when all is said and done, the government is going to take the fruits of your labour entirely, then why bother? This disincentive is a major drawback in all socialist schemes.

Property rights are a completely separate animal from capitalism. There is little to evidence that death taxes provide for disincentives, and considering that the economic mobility of a society is directly inverse of the extent to which an aristocracy has formed your thinking fairly backwards on this. Also consider that with the elimination of generational wealth you could expect a significant increase in the skilled workforce as well it becomes clear that the aggregate production of society would undoubtedly increase. This is of course before you consider any social or political impacts which would almost exclusively be beneficial.

There are a good many things that need to change in Canada, because there are many things industry can do better than the gov't, and a few things that industry cannot be trusted to do (fairly) that a gov't must.

I don't think there is a thing government can do better than industry unless government hands industry a monopoly. If they do that there is no incentive for industry to do better and that is why we have expensive and ineffecient services from the government now, they have a monopoly

Clearly you two need to do more research because there are very few things (if any) that are done by the Canadian government that would be more efficiently handled by private corporations. If you would care to bring up an example I would be willing to debate it but it’s clear to me that you’re stating on unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

Sask tels infastrucute was paid for by the tax payer. Industry has to raise the capital on it's own. Unless of course they pay of politcians to help them out. Oh yes isn't government grand?

While I agree with you on the topic of corporate welfare being a serious problem worldwide, that will not change until we drop free trade.

As to Sask Tels infrastructure, all telecommunications infrastructure is publicly funded, everywhere and that since private competitors receive the exact same access to this network your argument holds no weight.

No private company is going to be cost competitive with a public one after you factor in the kind of additional costs for advertising, increased administration costs, and above all else profit which will in there entirety push the difference in cost between the two to in excess of 60-70% average. This is why you simply will never see private companies successfully competing. Instead they take the tack of doing there best to get the government to shut down public operations.

I'm giving you the reason why sask tel is cheap. They didn't pay for the infustructure. How do you explain Air Canada and Perto Canada? They where a mess untill private industry took over. Air Canada was also paid for by the tax payer and West Jet is way cheaper and they turn over a nice profit.

Air Canada as a national carrier was required to service areas at a loss, this is fact. Air Canada is also considered (well was considered) the safest carrier in the world where as West Jet is running old planes that will soon need to be replaced, they have a significantly inferior service record in almost every way. Oh and just so you know West Jet won't go directly up against Air Canada, they actually actively avoid it.

As for Petro Canada, I don't know why you would possibly bring this up, this operation is a classic example of the government running a company better then any corporation. Petro Canada could have and should have been used to provide Canada with a domestic edge by selling gas to citizens and companies at a discount. Instead that money is lining the pockets of people using our own oil for minimal cost. Canada's oil policy in its entirety is asinine, its actually something that Alberta (who actually only lease out the oil fields) handles in an effective way but not very consistent with your theories.

And how is private industry diiferent form government? I can chose not to buy from a industry. Government forces me to pay for their services.

I don't disagree with the idea of private competition for all publicly run companies but what I don't want to see is the public companies hampered simply for the sake of making those private companies competitive. If a private company can't compete then that’s no different then the virtual monopoly in almost every major industry that exists.

[BHS]

Property rights are a completely separate animal from capitalism. There is little to evidence that death taxes provide for disincentives, and considering that the economic mobility of a society is directly inverse of the extent to which an aristocracy has formed your thinking fairly backwards on this. Also consider that with the elimination of generational wealth you could expect a significant increase in the skilled workforce as well it becomes clear that the aggregate production of society would undoubtedly increase. This is of course before you consider any social or political impacts which would almost exclusively be beneficial.

I can't follow your logic here at all. I have no idea how you arrived at any of your conclusions. Does anyone understand this, who can help me out here?

While I agree with you on the topic of corporate welfare being a serious problem worldwide, that will not change until we drop free trade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is ludicrous. Dropping free trade doesn't mean barring foreign imports, it just means imposing tarriffs that will be matched by whichever countries we trade with, making it more difficult for our own industries to export goods and raw materials. We simply don't have the internal market to keep the companies that benefit from corporate welfare solvent. Bombardier, for example, can hardly sell its jets as things are today. Do you think scrapping free trade will change this?

As for the rest of the conclusions you come to, they are as incomprehensible to me as your first paragraph. I'd go over my concerns point by point, but I get the feeling that it would just end up being a waste of my time.

[Yaro]

I can't follow your logic here at all. I have no idea how you arrived at any of your conclusions. Does anyone understand this, who can help me out here?

If you’re going to ask for a more in-depth explanation, please be more specific.

This is ludicrous. Dropping free trade doesn't mean barring foreign imports, it just means imposing tarriffs that will be matched by whichever countries we trade with, making it more difficult for our own industries to export goods and raw materials. We simply don't have the internal market to keep the companies that benefit from corporate welfare solvent. Bombardier, for example, can hardly sell its jets as things are today. Do you think scrapping free trade will change this?

As for the rest of the conclusions you come to, they are as incomprehensible to me as your first paragraph. I'd go over my concerns point by point, but I get the feeling that it would just end up being a waste of my time.

Clearly you didn't actually take any time at all to actually consider what I had said. Corporate welfare whether to Bombardier or GM is necessary to the extent that we need to compete with foreign jurisdictions which provide those competitive advantages. Free trade creates an environment where the government has no other means to fight this competition. Tariffs allow a government to create a circumstance where a company gains an advantage throws access to local markets; this is just one more tool, and a valuable one taken away by free trade.

If as part of a free trade pact we had agreed to provide no subsidize to private industry then your argument might have validity but as the world stands, it does not.

This is hardly a complex issue and I suggest that before you make another post you do some thinking about what I say, I generally use my words sparingly because I assume a certain level of intelligence on the part of the reader.

As an aside, your ignorant attack on what you assume to be unfair subsides to Bombardier show fairly clearly you have no comprehension of the aircraft industry which is subsidized the world over. If you want to see what would happen to Canada's aviation industry were we to stop subsidizing it to a lesser extent then virtually every other plane building nation does just look at our ship building industry which was once one of the strongest in the world.