Jump to content

Is it Conservative "greed" or are leftists unrealistic?


Recommended Posts

On 3/26/2022 at 10:26 AM, Moonbox said:

Sure it is, because they took a balanced budget with large surpluses and erased 10 years of progress the Liberals made paying down the debt in ~3 years by diving deep into debt to support their minority governments.  

2071312025_debtpergovernment.thumb.png.03a847916d15436588731c17a7fa4fb3.png

Going back to Harper, let's look at his ACTUAL deficit record, rather than the make-believe you're playing here.  

reviewharper.thumb.png.a777bf02d06bfdfcecc4d0cbd3f35895.png

Harper ran massive deficits from 2008-2014 (~$137B worth) and spent like a drunken sailor throughout.  He had the financial crisis to contend with but that wasn't anywhere near the COVID-19 crisis in scale or impact.  

The COVID-19 lockdowns were unprecedented and would have hobbled any government.  That being said, there's no doubt that Trudeau's abandoned any pretense of fiscal conservatism and we're headed for pain.  That he's mismanaging Canada's finance is no surprise given his father's appalling legacy.  Let's just not pretend that Harper was a good steward of the federal books.  He left us with big, fat debts and the transition from him to Trudeau has just been from bad to worse.  

oh the covid excuse.  COVID made Trudeau run a never before seen budge deficit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2022 at 4:32 PM, Army Guy said:

If you read your source you provided it included in that deficit repayment 3 PM's Chretien, Mulroney, and the first 2 years of Harper , it was your source not mine...

The key here is, and what most are saying is that we did not have to spend all that funding to over come the pandemic, had the plan been better prepared, and a little thought put into it , instead of being reactionary to everything...a lot of promises were made that still has not come to fruition, like making PPE in Canada forever, making our own medical equipment, and bringing a medication manufacture capacity here in Canada...very little has happened on those frons in the last 3 years...

I'll give you the source , but i think it is pretty much self explanatory.

My bad my original source was a little off todate Justin has added 472.2 bil to the nations deficit...and 154 bil in additional spending not including his 78 bil for defense, and 49 bil for 2 of the NDP promises...so another 127 bil....like i said Justin promised more than 2 to the NDP there is a list of which is not costed.... so far he is on track to spend just over 753 bil...and it is only going to get worse....now tell me he is comparable to Harper...

There is always a bottom to the hull, you can not spend like a lunatic and then say there is not going to be any consequences. Greece is a good example of what not to do for economic policies...and social programs...and since we can not see into the future or ability to respond to the next crises what ever that is, is not looking good at the moment... but hey I'm already retired, home paid for, still young enough to work if i decide... spend your asses off... but if i was a young buck i would be concerned, a lot concerned..it is your future he is playing with...

GOLDSTEIN: Trudeau's runaway spending hiked Canada's debt $160 billion before pandemic hit — report  | Toronto Sun

Canada PM's deal with opposition party raises deficit, inflation alarm bells | Reuters

First, the only reason the Cretien years tackled the debt was they savagely cut military spending.

Second, the way Trudeau went about dealing with COVID was totally ass backwards.  Instead of giving direct money to individuals they should have been propping up the small business that got destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2022 at 8:34 PM, Moonbox said:

Justin's made a fool out of himself internationally on virtually every stage.  You don't have to convince me that's not the case.  Him showing up with his family in India wearing cringe Bollywood costumes would be like Narendra Modi visiting Canada in lumberjack-wear complete with coontail courer-de-bois hat.  The guy's a complete joke.   

That the clowntown fringe of the EU's two-bit nations are criticizing him isn't in the least bit remarkable .  Who the hell cares what some bald and fat mouth-breather from Romania says, or what the illustrious representatives from Croatia or Finland's right wing say while they're trying to score cheap points back home?  Nobody.

Canada's reputation around the world is fine, Justin's embarrassing performances aside.  He's not taken seriously and is considered a lightweight, but to think our international reputation is in shambles over the Freedumb Convoy or his frequent cringe-inducing moments forgets how unremarkable he is compared to Donald Trump and his carnival of foreign relations disaster.  

I've been reading you posts and especially the one about corporate tax rates.  I know you despise Trump but would you agree his cutting of the corporate tax rates was one of the best fiscal policies in North America these few years?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2022 at 12:24 PM, Moonbox said:

Chretien's deficit reductions were the only ones we've seen in the last 40 years that amounted to anything.  What sources are attaching Harper's name to that?  Come on dude.  The numbers are there.  

I voted for Harper.  I'd take him back in a heartbeat over Justin.  Again, let's just not play revisionist history and pretend he was a master of tackling deficits.  He grew them - a lot.  He was not anywhere near as bad as Justin is or will be, but he was no fiscal miracle worker.  He was a cynical pragmatist and spent his way out of being defeated by non-confidence during his minority governments.  

He should have gotten rid of his Finance Minister.  My big issue with Harper is he cynically stopped increased funding for the military to build social programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Faramir said:

Greed of course is also very subjective.  If I penny pinch and don't give money to windshield wiper boys does that make me greedy?  Or does that make me a good steward to my family?

Hah....I drop my kids off on the busiest intersections on the way to work and take a cut of the action myself. I want them to learn that greed is good.

 

 

 

 

What? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Hah....I drop my kids off on the busiest intersections on the way to work and take a cut of the action myself. I want them to learn that greed is good.

 

 

 

 

What? 

These are generally young people so that makes sense.  I use to take a bus and this horrifyingly old woman would bring bags and bags of bottles on the bus.  Her bus pass was probably subsidized and collecting cans was how she made money.  I remember thinking I don't want to be her when I retire.  Scary.  But the prices of nursing homes could easily send me to bottle collecting.   See I agree that greed is bad, like greedy nursing homes.  Of course that is TOTALLY subjective and there could be legitimate reasons nursing homes charge so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faramir said:

Well, I will just address your main point of "greed".  It is a human personality trait.  Conservatives are no more or less greedy than liberals.  Churchill called socialism the politics of envy.  There are probably more rich liberals than conservatives.  Think of the Clinton family, George Soros, the Heinz family, Al Gore, ect....  

Greed of course is also very subjective.  If I penny pinch and don't give money to windshield wiper boys does that make me greedy?  Or does that make me a good steward to my family?

It used to be a human personality trait to be proud a person could provide for his family, without all the federal hand outs and needless social programs that do nothing other than steal from our wallets. for people that are sometimes to damn lazy to help themselves.

There is nothing wrong with providing for your family, nor is there anything wrong with working hard on a honest job.. It just seems the left remind me of a bunch of squawking little baby birds, constantly scream give me more give me more...and then complaining the Government should be doing more to help them make ends meet..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

1. Chretien achieved this feat  by making a massive budget cut in the 1995 budget and then slowly started to increase spending year after year. Even with his drastic cut of 95, he almost ended up where he started.

but he didn't end up where he started, and the drastic cut in spending at the start allowed him to run years of surpluses. As the debt came down and the economy expanded, increased spending became more justifiable.  

17 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Point being, he wasn't really different than any other PM except for a the one massive cut he made. Again...kudos to him for doing what was needed but also very obvious that he had no adversity in his time of governance. As you can see in the graphic below, he was one of few PMs that doesn't have a foot note like "recession" under his years. 

You can see in your own chart that Harper was increasing spending per person even leading up to the recession, and 5 years post-recession, spending never got back down to his elevated pre-recession levels.  The worst part, I'll repeat again and again, is that he did all this while implementing poorly-targeted tax cuts.  

17 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

2. Based on the graphic below, one can see how people get the idea that Conservatives cut costs and Liberals spend.  Liberals like King, St. Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau Senior and now Trudeau Jr all show significant increases in their time. While, Conservatives being Deifenbaker, Mulroney and Harper all show minor/moderate increases.

I'd argue that what governments were doing before most of us were born is less relevant than what we've seen in more recent history.  How do we figure King's wartime spending is relevant to this discussion.  Should we show Borden's spending in WW1?  Come on.  

The one thing that the chart does show, I'll say, is how bad a Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was and why I dreaded his son ever since he became an MP back before the recession.  

17 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Chretien is an anomaly compared to the other Liberals and again, I feel he was able to make such cuts because he had no recession to deal with in 95-96 and then was given the benefit of a strong North American economy in his following days. 

I think the point is that he decreased spending, when most governments would increase during good times (because they can) but then justify increasing during bad times (stimulus) as well.  Chretien may have been an "anomaly" but he wasn't just a Liberal anomaly.  He was an anomaly in Canadian federal politics altogether.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It used to be a human personality trait to be proud a person could provide for his family, without all the federal hand outs and needless social programs that do nothing other than steal from our wallets. for people that are sometimes to damn lazy to help themselves.

There is nothing wrong with providing for your family, nor is there anything wrong with working hard on a honest job.. It just seems the left remind me of a bunch of squawking little baby birds, constantly scream give me more give me more...and then complaining the Government should be doing more to help them make ends meet..

Yes, and many reap the rewards of hard work by running successful businesses.  Me I'm not particularly ambitious, which is reflected in my modest middle class income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

but he didn't end up where he started

Came pretty darn close. Again, governments are able to spin the narrative by comparing their budgets to the previous year. He took the heat in 95 with drastic cuts and then played the hero part every year after saying "look we're increasing spending". Don't get me wrong...its a great move but there were only a few years where he DIDN'T increase spending and you simply comparing two points is not a full assessment.

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 and the drastic cut in spending at the start allowed him to run years of surpluses.

Nope. The drastic cut allowed him to balance the budget however it was the unexpected revenues that actually drove him into surplus. Note...a few billion under balance or a few billion above balance is all around zero in my mind. The true surpluses came in 98 and 99 when the economy was booming even more than they expected. One more time....guess who else was having surpluses then??

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You can see in your own chart that Harper was increasing spending per person even leading up to the recession,

You mean when he had a minority government being threatened by shut down of a Liberal/NDP coalition if he didn't increase spending? Right. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 and 5 years post-recession, spending never got back down to his elevated pre-recession levels.  

But it did DECREASE in that time period. Chretien made a bold move by cutting drastically in one year. I will give him credit for that however Chretien had no really opposition.  With the PC party literally dead on the floor, Chretien could make such moves. Harper never had such room to move even when he had a majority. 

 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The worst part, I'll repeat again and again, is that he did all this while implementing poorly-targeted tax cuts.  

I assume you're talking about GST? If so, why hasn't Trudeau reinstated the 7% GST or even talked about it? Going from memory here but I don't think anyone that ran against Harper campaigned on increasing the GST either. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I'd argue that what governments were doing before most of us were born is less relevant than what we've seen in more recent history.  How do we figure King's wartime spending is relevant to this discussion.  Should we show Borden's spending in WW1?  Come on.  

Why does it upset you that I used historical examples to show why the Liberals have a historical reputation? Did you want to just focus on Chretien so that your point becomes true instead of me showing you that every other Liberal in that graphic had substantial increased spending while the Conservatives had mild/moderate increases? Tell you what...remove King. I don't care because my point is still true. Now what? Who else do you want me to remove to make your point?

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I think the point is that he decreased spending, when most governments would increase during good times (because they can) but then justify increasing during bad times (stimulus) as well.  Chretien may have been an "anomaly" but he wasn't just a Liberal anomaly.  He was an anomaly in Canadian federal politics altogether.  

Again, a great move.  Very few times can such politicians make a pure move that is the RIGHT move, instead they make political moves. Chretien didn't have to worry about politics until Harper came along. He could make the RIGHT moves without fear of losing political standing because the Official Opposition was the BLOC and REFORM parties. Chretien was afforded the room to make unpopular but RIGHT decisions. He also had no recessions and a super strong North American economy to back him. I wish we had this situation more often but I will continue to argue strongly that Harper never got anywhere close to having that same room. 

Chretien was an anomaly but again there's more of a reason than you present. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

But it did DECREASE in that time period. Chretien made a bold move by cutting drastically in one year. I will give him credit for that however Chretien had no really opposition.  With the PC party literally dead on the floor, Chretien could make such moves. Harper never had such room to move even when he had a majority. 

It decreased from the topic of the recession (which you'd obviously expect) but it still ended up higher than even before the recession.  He had 5 good years to bring things back to pre-recession levels, and he didn't do it.  

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

I assume you're talking about GST? If so, why hasn't Trudeau reinstated the 7% GST or even talked about it? Going from memory here but I don't think anyone that ran against Harper campaigned on increasing the GST either. 

Martin campaigned on income tax cuts, which are far more effective and equitable.  I'd have a lot more respect for Harper's fiscal record if not for this and his goofy tax credits.  

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Why does it upset you that I used historical examples to show why the Liberals have a historical reputation? 

It doesn't upset me.  I just don't see how they're useful.  How far back are we going to go?  You referenced King's deficits, so can I reference Robert Borden's WW1 deficits?  Do we go back to the 1800's?  Why are we referencing dead prime ministers whose children are probably dead as well? 

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Chretien was an anomaly but again there's more of a reason than you present. 

I think you're downplaying his successes because they don't fit the narrative you're promoting.  That's 12 years of  (relatively) recent Liberal leadership bucking the narrative that Liberals = spenders and Conservatives = savers.  On a different note, I would say go ahead and compare Mulroney to Harper.  Mulroney actually reduced public spending per person but isn't given any credit for it because of the crippling debt service costs he inherited from Justin's sleezebag father.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It decreased from the topic of the recession (which you'd obviously expect) but it still ended up higher than even before the recession.  He had 5 good years to bring things back to pre-recession levels, and he didn't do it.  

So according to that graphic, ONE PM in that group actually achieved that feat. Why is that the bar you now set for all PM? Realistically, one could group Chretien and Martin together and an argument could be made that spending was higher when that government left office versus when it started. After all Martin was Chretien's finance minister. 

21 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Martin campaigned on income tax cuts, which are far more effective and equitable.  I'd have a lot more respect for Harper's fiscal record if not for this and his goofy tax credits.  

So it wasn't the GST cuts that bothered you? Which tax credits specifically?

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Why are we referencing dead prime ministers whose children are probably dead as well? 

I presented a graphic and then used the PMs available on said graphic to illustrate the point. Why is that so hard to comprehend? I didn't go searching for further points to hammer this home.  Again, take away whomever you want and my point still remains the same. 

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 Why are we referencing dead prime ministers whose children are probably dead as well? 

So according to you Trudeau Sr. should be removed from consideration too since he's dead. And he has a dead child so he's certainly out. Got it!

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I think you're downplaying his successes because they don't fit the narrative you're promoting.  That's 12 years of  (relatively) recent Liberal leadership bucking the narrative that Liberals = spenders and Conservatives = savers.  On a different note, I would say go ahead and compare Mulroney to Harper.  Mulroney actually reduced public spending per person but isn't given any credit for it because of the crippling debt service costs he inherited from Justin's sleezebag father.  

The combined years of Chretien/Martin Liberal government actually show increased spending but this again proves my point with your argument. You focus on two data points and ignore virtually every external circumstance that took place during those government's time in office.  Chretien had no recessions. Chretien had a booming economy where people don't rely on the government as much and thus spending isn't as required. Most importantly, Chretien had no feasible opposition which allowed him to make the right moves without consequence. Mulroney introduced the GST which was the right move at the time but he and his party paid the price for it. 

So again...what narrative am I promoting? That these issues are more complex than picking out a start and finish point and ignoring every other factor involved. Yes....that is my narrative and you can argue that but any other falsely claimed narrative that you think I have would just be a strawman argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

So according to that graphic, ONE PM in that group actually achieved that feat. Why is that the bar you now set for all PM? Realistically, one could group Chretien and Martin together and an argument could be made that spending was higher when that government left office versus when it started. After all Martin was Chretien's finance minister. 

I'm questioning the mental short-cuts.  Judge a government or a party on it's platform or it's record, rather than the lazy heuristic framing of party-oriented ideology.  We have good and bad examples of fiscal managers from both sides.  Trudeau Sr was very bad.  Mulroney was arguably good.  Chretien was also good.  Harper was not.  Trudeau Jr is worse.  

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

So it wasn't the GST cuts that bothered you? Which tax credits specifically?

The GST cuts were shit.  Consumption taxes are much better policy than income tax, which is what should have been dropped (if anything).  As far as the tax credits go, most of them were garbage.  Not only were they bad policy favoring special interests and/or only the people with the means to take advantage of them, but they were also inefficient wastes of time that made the tax code confusing and more difficult to administer.   I don't really need to be specific here, but I think we can potentially agree why home-reno tax credits, or social-club rebates for $30 club memberships were inequitable in the former, and a complete waste of time with the latter.

Leading up to the 2015, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation recommended:

“Broad-based income tax cuts through lower rates and fewer brackets" and concluded that "boutique credits clutter up the tax code and single out favoured groups. Lower, flatter, simpler taxes are fairer and more efficient.”

By the time Harper's tenure was over, he added ~750 pages to what was previously ~2500 pages in Canada's tax code.  Brilliant.  ?

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

So according to you Trudeau Sr. should be removed from consideration too since he's dead. And he has a dead child so he's certainly out. Got it!

I didn't say anything about removing Trudeau Sr.  I'm asking you why you think Mackenzie King's wartime spending is relevant.  If you're going to make excuses for Stephen Harper's spending during the recession, surely you can do the same for King during WW2, right?  

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

So again...what narrative am I promoting? That these issues are more complex than picking out a start and finish point and ignoring every other factor involved. 

The narrative that Conservatives are somehow more credible fiscal managers than conservatives.  Harper was not a good fiscal manager and his legacy will be remembered poorly.  Nobody's blaming him for deficit spending during the recession, but he never did reign it back in to pre-recession levels 5 years later and he continued to run deficits while lowering taxes and those can't be blamed on 2008/2009.  

As before, however, I don't think any can argue here that Trudeau Jr isn't even worse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Judge a government or a party on it's platform or it's record, rather than the lazy heuristic framing of party-oriented ideology. 

But I did that. When we use the metric of spending per person we see which governments increased spending over their time and by how much. In general, the Liberals increased spending more than the Conservatives. Based on the graphic I provided and simply eyeballing the numbers, you will see the following increases:

Liberals

King - 1000 to 1800 (80%)

St. Laurent - 1800 to 3000 (67%)

Pearson - 3000 to 4200 (40%)

Trudeau Sr - 4200 to 7200 (71%)

Chretien - 7000 to  6800 (-3%)

Martin - 7500 to 7200 (-4%) 

Note: Chretien and Martin combined - 7000 to 7200 (3%)

Conservatives

Diefenbaker - 3000 to 3200 (7%)

Mulroney - 6900 to 7100 (3%)

Harper - 7500 to 8000 (7%)

Now I know my numbers may be off as I am eyeballing them from the graph however when looking at the groups you can see a trend that Liberals like to spend as they consistently had very high double digit increases in their spending with the exception being the Chretien and Martin years. The Conservatives also increased spending however they were all single digit, lower increases.

Based on this metric alone you can see why the Liberals and Conservative MAY have gotten their reputations. Of course I am the one saying we need to consider all things when branding a government so I wont say this metric is the end all and be all. 

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The GST cuts were shit.  Consumption taxes are much better policy than income tax, which is what should have been dropped (if anything). 

I don't agree or disagree with your GST position however I still don't see a big fuss from the Liberals to put it back in. 

Harper took off half a point from the lowest tax bracket for income tax. What else do you want? ?

His big cut was to corporations which I agree with because I see the companies leaving Canada for better corporate rates. Do you remember Tim Hortons leaving Canada for the US and then returning when this happened. Corporations have the ability to leave and still operate businesses here barely leaving any tax dollars behind. I know this as we used to do it all the time with my company. 

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 I don't really need to be specific here, but I think we can potentially agree why home-reno tax credits, or social-club rebates for $30 club memberships were inequitable in the former, and a complete waste of time with the latter.

Yes I can agree with that. The one tax cut that I loved was the income splitting. I was really pissed when Trudeau took that away. 

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I didn't say anything about removing Trudeau Sr. 

Your comment was why should we worry about people who are dead. Trudueau is dead hence I asked if we should remove him from consideration. 

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 I'm asking you why you think Mackenzie King's wartime spending is relevant.  If you're going to make excuses for Stephen Harper's spending during the recession, surely you can do the same for King during WW2, right?  

Reputations are built on history. I included all the PMs in the graphic as that was the history that was provided. As I stated before you can remove King if you want....I really don't care as St. Laurent, Pearson and Trudeau Sr. all show my point well enough. 

King certainly had to deal with adversity of WW2 but I'm not even picking him apart for his war time spending where he increased it 676%. No...I am using his numbers of before the war and after the war when the numbers were more back to normal. So if you want to compare, King increased spending by 80% and Harper increased spending by 7%. Not sure you want to make the comparison based on that metric!

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 he continued to run deficits while lowering taxes and those can't be blamed on 2008/2009.  

He had a single digit deficit in his second last year and a single digit surplus in his last year. Basically in his last two years he had balanced the budgets. Not bad considering we just faced a recession in Canada and the world faced the Great Global recession. Again, you need to stop thinking of Canada as island. In the time that Harper was PM he spent many years where the dollar was actually better than the USD or around par. Do you know what this does to expected revenues from a government budget point of view? To put this perspective, the FX when Chretien was in was mostly around 1.5. That means that every US dollar brought in would yield an extra 50 cents CDN compared to Harper's day where it yield zero cents or even cost him some cents.  With Canada being largely an export nation, the FX is an important consideration and again shows our fate is not always in the hands of the governing party. 

Edited by Accountability Now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2022 at 1:08 AM, Accountability Now said:

Based on this metric alone you can see why the Liberals and Conservative MAY have gotten their reputations. Of course I am the one saying we need to consider all things when branding a government so I wont say this metric is the end all and be all. 

The reputations are irrelevant.  As I said, it's a lazy heuristic for people prone to identity politics.  What happened 50-60+ years ago has absolutely nothing to do with the politics today.  The CPC didn't even exist back then and the Liberal Party from back then was unrecognizable from today.  

On 4/2/2022 at 1:08 AM, Accountability Now said:

I don't agree or disagree with your GST position however I still don't see a big fuss from the Liberals to put it back in. 

Harper took off half a point from the lowest tax bracket for income tax. What else do you want? ?

Whoopity-doo.  The lowest tax bracket pays almost nothing already so that was hardly a difference maker.  For the Liberals to go ahead with raising GST back to previous levels would probably not be worth the effort.  The optics of consumption taxes are terrible because you see it on every purchase you make.  It was good policy for Mulroney to implement it but it was deeply unpopular and Harper scored cheap points in reducing it.   

On 4/2/2022 at 1:08 AM, Accountability Now said:

His big cut was to corporations which I agree with because I see the companies leaving Canada for better corporate rates. Do you remember Tim Hortons leaving Canada for the US and then returning when this happened. Corporations have the ability to leave and still operate businesses here barely leaving any tax dollars behind. I know this as we used to do it all the time with my company. 

Corporate tax cuts have diminishing returns.  It's hard to judge their efficacy in job/wealth creation but it's been widely studied that the effect of (relatively) high corporate taxes being reduced to lower is much more impactful than bringing average or low rates lower.  The bigger problem, as you say, is the tax arbitrage that companies undertake internationally - the proverbial race to the bottom.  Trump turned that into an art form south of the border and the returns on that were both temporary and insignificant and will likely need to be reversed.  

On 4/2/2022 at 1:08 AM, Accountability Now said:

Yes I can agree with that. The one tax cut that I loved was the income splitting. I was really pissed when Trudeau took that away. 

I can understand that but income-splitting was inherently unfair and offered no benefits to the economy.  

On 4/2/2022 at 1:08 AM, Accountability Now said:

Again, you need to stop thinking of Canada as island. In the time that Harper was PM he spent many years where the dollar was actually better than the USD or around par. Do you know what this does to expected revenues from a government budget point of view?

Not really relevant.  Economic weakness can excuse short-term fiscal outlays to prop up the economy and smooth out volatility, but they do not excuse long-term increases to the size of government and public spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The reputations are irrelevant. 

On principle I agree with you however reality has shown that those reputations aren't far off. Again, its not that its possible that a government can't break away like Chretien did however the numbers show why each party has its reputation. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Whoopity-doo.  The lowest tax bracket pays almost nothing already so that was hardly a difference maker.  For the

I was being sarcastic which I hoped the emoji would have alluded to. I guess it didn't work. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

For the Liberals to go ahead with raising GST back to previous levels would probably not be worth the effort. 

If its not worth the effort then that basically means it wasn't as significant of a tax cut as you allude to. Again, this just proves that governments rarely make the unpopular but correct decisions. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Corporate tax cuts have diminishing returns. 

As long as those companies decide to stay in Canada then no...they do not. Its when another country attracts them with lower tax rates and we lose them would I use the word diminishing.  Like you say its a race to the bottom where you don't always have to be winning that race but you certainly can't be losing it by a country mile. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I can understand that but income-splitting was inherently unfair and offered no benefits to the economy.  

Unfair? I would argue it actually made things fair. Households operate as joint entities so why can't they be taxed that way? My wife decided she would stay home and take care of the kids meaning she got no income. Because of this, we did not take up space in an overcrowded day care nor did she take the job from some other single mom who needed employment. Income splitting allowed us to be viewed as one entity pay the appropriate taxes based on that. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Not really relevant.  Economic weakness can excuse short-term fiscal outlays to prop up the economy and smooth out volatility, but they do not excuse long-term increases to the size of government and public spending.

Are you kidding? You're saying the FX is NOT relevant? Clearly you don't participate in international business much. Canada is largely an export nation with the US being our largest trading partner. When the USD/CAD is high it does two things:

1. It increases the amount of CAD returned for every USD brought into Canada (as I explained above). When my company started in 2006, the FX rate was 1.15 or so. The rate jumped up to 1.30 a number of years back and has stayed closely around there. That difference means even if we maintain the same USD revenue, our return back in Canada increases by 10-15% margin points simply because of this FX difference. That's a huge boost for companies immersed in exports

2. Instead of holding their price point, CDN companies can choose to lower their USD rate knowing they will still make the same return when it comes back to CDN dollars. This allows them to be way more competitive than their US counter parts which means they sell more (ie more taxable revenue). This was the reason that Ontario's manufacturing industry took such a big hit in the mid 2000s as the dollar turned on them.

Now...look at the dollar when Harper was in power. Highest point was 1.34, lowest point was 0.9057 with the average being 1.08. Compare that with Chretien who had his highest point at 1.62, lowest point at 1.29 with an average of 1.45. The AVERAGE difference is  staggering with a difference of almost 30 points.  Companies could literally sell for their cost knowing they were getting 30 points on FX. And you think that doesn't have an effect on the economy, on revenues and most importantly on taxes collected off these revenues??? It is VERY relevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

On principle I agree with you however reality has shown that those reputations aren't far off. Again, its not that its possible that a government can't break away like Chretien did however the numbers show why each party has its reputation. 

The reputation is irrelevant.  What the Liberals or the Conservatives did in the 1940's and 1950's or whatever has little/no bearing on what they'll do today.  

18 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

If its not worth the effort then that basically means it wasn't as significant of a tax cut as you allude to. Again, this just proves that governments rarely make the unpopular but correct decisions. 

It was a significant tax cut, but a popular one - just not the right one.  I'm judging Harper for his policy, however, and not his ability to play to the crowd.  

18 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

As long as those companies decide to stay in Canada then no...they do not. Its when another country attracts them with lower tax rates and we lose them would I use the word diminishing.  Like you say its a race to the bottom where you don't always have to be winning that race but you certainly can't be losing it by a country mile.

That's the point.  Having oppressive corporate tax rates is one thing, but once in the competitive range other factors are usually more important (like labor force, infrastructure, electricity costs, regulation, current environment etc).  Cutting corp. taxes rates while they're already competitive has less and less marginal return the further down you go.  Trump's corporate tax cuts were disastrous upon review, with the trickle-down never materializing and economic growth not even remotely coming close to the revenues lost. 

Tax rates are flexible and can be adjusted.  What one government gives, another can take away, or another country can match.  The race to the bottom and the tax arbitrage we see from jumping jurisdictions doesn't help anyone but the folks at the top pocketing the difference.  You brought up Tim Horton's, so go a bit further.  What do you figure the impact on jobs and investment in Canada was for an almost exclusively Canadian brand being headquartered in the US?  You really couldn't have given a better example of how unhelpful and unproductive corporate tax arbitrage is.         

18 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Unfair? I would argue it actually made things fair. Households operate as joint entities so why can't they be taxed that way? My wife decided she would stay home and take care of the kids meaning she got no income. Because of this, we did not take up space in an overcrowded day care nor did she take the job from some other single mom who needed employment. Income splitting allowed us to be viewed as one entity pay the appropriate taxes based on that.

Nothing about it was fair.  It was never even an option for +85% of households.  This was purely a tax credit for high-income earners and rarely (if ever) was the deciding factor of whether one parent stayed home.  The idea that it was somehow helpful to the rest of Canada to have your wife not working or your kids not in daycare is a bit silly.  If your wife was the best candidate for a job, it would have been better to have her in it.  As for daycare, there are a lot better ways of making space available than tax cuts for the wealthiest 10-15% of the population.  

Having come from such a family, I can attest to the inherent benefits of a having a stay-at-home parent.  Financial incentives were neither required nor deserved, though I'm sure my father would have liked them too.  

Even Flaherty spoke out against income splitting before he died.  

18 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Are you kidding? You're saying the FX is NOT relevant? Clearly you don't participate in international business much. Canada is largely an export nation with the US being our largest trading partner.

You've already argued that slower GDP growth and economic hard times were responsible for much of Harper's poor economic record.  What purpose does it serve to dive deeper into the underlying causes, other than to muddy the debate?  I understand FX rates and how they affect trade account balances probably better than anyone currently posting on this forum, and can dive much deeper into the winners and losers on both end of an exchange swing.  They do not however, provide much explanation for why Harper increased the size of government while cutting public revenues.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, West said:

Income splitting was "not fair"? 

What's "not fair" is having to pay for a dual income household's day care while you make the sacrifice to have one of the two parents stay home to raise their kids. 

Agreed.  Harper was better for families, making it easier for parents to make the choice to have a parent stay home.  I also think his tax credits for athletics and the arts encouraged families to be physically active and become more well rounded.  The current regime is about extracting maximum labour from essential workers, offering them minimal breaks or incentives, while cementing the overreach of government.  They want more people working, taxed at higher rates, especially with carbon taxes which are consumption taxes that are unavoidable for most people.  The “freebies” handed out under new Liberal programs are available to those who aren’t working or have little or inconsistent participation in the labour force.  They actually incentivize unemployment and inactivity.  Life under the Liberals is harder for working families, both because of their policies and the high cost of living that has also partly been raised by their policies.  They’re anti-family and anti-freedom.  They’re squeezing people financially and through increased government regulations and controls.  Life is worse now for more people.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The reputation is irrelevant.  What the Liberals or the Conservatives did in the 1940's and 1950's or whatever has little/no bearing on what they'll do today.  

Except when they continue to do those same things that gave them the reputation. I have already challenged you to remove the older examples as you will still find the more recent governments don't stray too far from those reputations with Chretien being the only exception. 

 

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's the point.  Having oppressive corporate tax rates is one thing, but once in the competitive range other factors are usually more important (like labor force, infrastructure, electricity costs, regulation, current environment etc).  Cutting corp. taxes rates while they're already competitive has less and less marginal return the further down you go.  

I don't think you get what it means for a company to move. Its not like they are picking up shop and taking all their assets with them. Rather, its more of a legal thing where they restructure which company owns which. Having a lower tax rate in a given country means they will restructure it so that they are paying more taxes in that country. So when Tim Horton's moved south, so did a significant tax revenue. At the end of all this, their headquarters may actually move but the rest stays the same just a better tax situation. Companies don't always do this however because its costs a lot to restructure so the tax breaks need to be worth it. 

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

  Trump's corporate tax cuts were disastrous upon review, with the trickle-down never materializing and economic growth not even remotely coming close to the revenues lost. 

I'm not an expert on Trump's tax cuts but it certainly isn't hard for me to find articles like this:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/07/opinion/face-it-trumps-tax-cuts-werent-all-bad/

Quote

 

It’s a hard truth for many partisans to accept: Sometimes your political enemy manages to do a good thing. Maybe your enemy stumbles into it by accident or misleads voters to make it happen. But none of that means that they can’t, on occasion, make what turns out to be a pretty smart and beneficial decision.

Sorry, Democrats, but President Trump’s big corporate tax cut was just such a good thing. That’s why President Biden wants to keep lots of it.

 

I thought this article was interesting because it actually acknowledges what you attempt to say but counter it with reason. 

Quote

 

That said, many Democrats still think the Trump tax cuts were a total failure — and an expensive one. It’s true that if you look at the economy before and after the Trump tax cuts, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of difference. Growth, productivity, and business investment seem about the same. There’s not much sign of the sharp and sustained surge that was promised.

Economists who support the tax cuts make two points in response. First, don’t confuse political arguments with economic ones. While Republican politicians may have sold the tax cuts by promising a flood of corporate cash into the domestic economy from overseas holdings, that’s not what the wonks expected. They were looking for a gradual increase in domestic investment, as companies searched out investments that would be made more profitable by the tax cuts.

Second, a month after Trump signed the tax cuts into law, he slapped tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines. That began a series of trade spats that led to tit-for-tat tariffs by the United States and China. Many economists think the uncertainty and higher costs created by this trade war may have caused enough companies to defer their investment plans and seriously undermined the effectiveness of the tax cuts. What Trump gave with one action, he took away with another. As economist Steven Davis, co-creator of the Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, described it back then, companies faced “a tremendous, Trumpian upsurge in anxiety and uncertainty.”

 

 

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The race to the bottom and the tax arbitrage we see from jumping jurisdictions doesn't help anyone but the folks at the top pocketing the difference.  

And who makes the decision to move. The folks at the top. Please don't make an emotional argument here trying to convince me that the owners should just do the 'right' thing. They will always do what's best for their shareholders and if taking advantage of a lower tax break benefits them then that will be one of a hundred things they will consider. 

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You brought up Tim Horton's, so go a bit further.  What do you figure the impact on jobs and investment in Canada was for an almost exclusively Canadian brand being headquartered in the US?     

Jobs and investment? Nothing. Again, this just shows that you don't really understand how corporate structures work. Everyone in Canada still got their coffee and TimBits. The only people potentially losing their jobs were lose who worked at headquarters although I'm guessing a bunch of them just made the move with the company. I am also guessing that the vast majority of Tim Horton's employees in Canada had no idea the country of incorporation moved. As for investment, I'm guessing it set of signals to other companies to not invest in Canada because the tax rates were too high. From Tim Horton's point of view, their move worked as Canada lowered its rates allowing them to move back. 

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You really couldn't have given a better example of how unhelpful and unproductive corporate tax arbitrage is.         

? A better example? This is the prime example showing why countries  need to monitor their tax rates. Tim Horton's made a switch and then flipped right back once the rates dropped. This is by far the BEST example of what companies are able to and willing to do to maximize profits. 

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Nothing about it was fair.  It was never even an option for +85% of households.  This was purely a tax credit for high-income earners and rarely (if ever) was the deciding factor of whether one parent stayed home. 

 What are you talking about?? Income splitting worked for EVERY household with married or common law couples. Even if I made $100k and my wife made 50k, that would mean we would both be taxed at a rate where we made 75k each. The only households it didn't work in were those with single incomes.  I can agree that it wasn't the ultimate deciding factor for a parent to stay home but it did become a factor. 

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You've already argued that slower GDP growth and economic hard times were responsible for much of Harper's poor economic record.  What purpose does it serve to dive deeper into the underlying causes, other than to muddy the debate?  

Sorry...does it make it too complex for you if I add another component? I said from the start that economic performance is a complex group of factors and not just based on one or two metrics. Besides, your contention was that Harper only had a recession to deal with for a couple years and his overall performance was poor for the entire duration. The FX was also poor for his entire time in office.  Just another factor to add to the conversation. 

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

They do not however, provide much explanation for why Harper increased the size of government while cutting public revenues.  

Because when the economy is booming, people require government assistance less than when its lagging. Hence the reason why the government doles out funds when we hit recessions and has the ability to pull that back when the economy recovers. An example of this, comes from the manufacturing in Ontario who took a large hit due to the FX rate or what they called the Petro Dollar.  Money was put into that industry and others as well as EI due to the losses. 

With that said, I'm not sure I really need to justify big reasons for Harper's small increase which was what...7% according to my eyeball assessment of that graphic. I would comment on it being one of the lowest increases in history but I've seen how you get when we try to bring history into the conversation. ?  I'm starting to see that you have a very binary way of arguing such that an increase is bad and a decrease is good, no matter how big they are. So to you, a 7% increase is the same as a 70% increase, which clearly isn't true. 

Edited by Accountability Now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

I don't think you get what it means for a company to move. Its not like they are picking up shop and taking all their assets with them. Rather, its more of a legal thing where they restructure which company owns which. Having a lower tax rate in a given country means they will restructure it so that they are paying more taxes in that country. So when Tim Horton's moved south, so did a significant tax revenue.

I understand what it means.  That's why I called it tax arbitrage, or in the case of Tim Horton's merging with Burger King and moving to Canada, tax inversion.  It's a tax loophole and nothing more and that's why there have been concerted efforts from global policy makers to end/discourage offshore profit shifting.  

Regardless, the reality is that corporate tax cuts have diminishing returns past a certain point.  Despite your claims to the contrary, this is a self-evident truth.  If it weren't the case, why aren't we seeing 0.5% corporate tax rates?  Surely if they convince people to base their companies in Canada, we'd benefit, right?   ?

20 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

I'm not an expert on Trump's tax cuts but it certainly isn't hard for me to find articles like this:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/07/opinion/face-it-trumps-tax-cuts-werent-all-bad/

I thought this article was interesting because it actually acknowledges what you attempt to say but counter it with reason. 

You'll never find any shortage of writers from right-leaning think-tanks promoting tax cuts.  As far as this article goes, the arguments made are pretty limp.  He's saying that Trump's tax cuts weren't a failure because:

a)  Biden isn't reversing all of them

and 

b)  The full effects of the cuts were maybe disguised by all of the other dumb shit Trump did.  

20 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Please don't make an emotional argument here trying to convince me that the owners should just do the 'right' thing. 

Dude, don't make up arguments for me.  The companies that take advantage of bad tax policy and rules are doing what's right for them, and nobody should blame them for it.  

20 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

What are you talking about?? Income splitting worked for EVERY household with married or common law couples. Even if I made $100k and my wife made 50k, that would mean we would both be taxed at a rate where we made 75k each. The only households it didn't work in were those with single incomes. 

It's pretty clear you don't have a clue how it worked, or at least that you haven't actually considered the implications.  The maximum benefit was a $2000 tax-credit and that only applied to families with one spouse earning at least $100,000 being able to shift $50,000 to the other.  Given that only ~15% of the population earns over $100k/year and that only families with kids under 18 benefited, this was a very small percentage of the population getting the max benefit.  You also have to consider how bracketed income taxes work and that often two spouses earning different amounts each year could barely benefit from the plan simply because shifting even a significant portion of income to your spouse didn't bring you down to a lower marginal rate.  

If you actually give a shit, read this:
https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary_335.pdf

sasda.thumb.png.cb77a91a94d1278a70bc169225b3c963.png

20 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Sorry...does it make it too complex for you if I add another component?  

Your faux-expertise is hardly "complex".  If it actually mattered for the debate we could really dive into it and I could show you how completely inadequate your arguments and/or understanding of the FX issue really is.  For the purpose of this debate, however, all that really matters is that the economy faced challenges, as you say.  Diving into all of the reasons why is a pointless red-herring.  

20 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Because when the economy is booming, people require government assistance less than when its lagging. Hence the reason why the government doles out funds when we hit recessions and has the ability to pull that back when the economy recovers.

but Harper never did pull it back, despite having half a decade do so post-recession.  Great job.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 It's a tax loophole and nothing more and that's why there have been concerted efforts from global policy makers to end/discourage offshore profit shifting.  

And until they find a way to actually do it, companies will continue to search for ways to better their own situation. As such having a large disparity in corporate taxes with other countries will cause reason for movement. Being within the same range should create this stability.

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

If it weren't the case, why aren't we seeing 0.5% corporate tax rates?  Surely if they convince people to base their companies in Canada, we'd benefit, right?   ?

Certain US states have done just that and choose to make their income by other methods. On a national level, you only need to compete with certain countries because like you said, things like labor force, infrastructure, etc come into play. Plus, any money leaving one country gets taxed a withholding tax (usually 10%) and this tax is a Foreign Tax Credit locally....so if Canada were to drop its rate below 10%, they basically are getting nothing in taxes for those situations. There are also a significant number of business that have zero foreign transactions so the equation needs to account for the 0.5% rate on those ones too where there is no risk of them relocating. 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You'll never find any shortage of writers from right-leaning think-tanks promoting tax cuts.  

And I'm sure you can find no shortage of lefties bashing them. 

 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

As far as this article goes, the arguments made are pretty limp.  He's saying that Trump's tax cuts weren't a failure because:

a)  Biden isn't reversing all of them

and 

b)  The full effects of the cuts were maybe disguised by all of the other dumb shit Trump did.  

Actually he says "That's why President Biden wants to keep lots of it". If Biden wants to keep LOTS of it then does that not cross the partisan wall and show it wasn't that bad. 

As for the second part, I think you are offering the limp rebuttal as again other policies or even external factors could easily have an effect on this.  

 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 The maximum benefit was a $2000 tax-credit 

Whoever said it was life changing. It was a benefit not a retirement plan!

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

only applied to families with one spouse earning at least $100,000 

Citation request. I know in my case I was over $100k and my wife wasn't however I was certain some of my friends wer not over 100k and they took advantage of this. In many of the examples I see online they show people who make less than 100k. The only criteria is to be in different tax brackets. 

incomesplitting.thumb.jpg.df22bbb7e37eed4c8ff1adb4125386e5.jpg

https://www.taxtips.ca/filing/family-tax-cut.htm#:~:text=The Family Tax Cut%2C announced,"notional" transfer of income.

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Given that only ~15% of the population earns over $100k/year and that only families with kids under 18 benefited, this was a very small percentage of the population getting the max benefit. 

Again, you're showing the 100k. I'll wait to see your cite but even if its true then that's fine. It doesn't need to benefit lower income people as they pay very few taxes to begin with. Hard to give people tax cuts when they don't pay any. 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You also have to consider how bracketed income taxes work and that often two spouses earning different amounts each year could barely benefit from the plan

Its funny how you are so concerned about barely benefiting when you didn't seem to care about double digit spending increases versus single digit. In your eyes a benefit should be a benefit!

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Your faux-expertise is hardly "complex". 

Faux expertise? Lol...never claimed to be an expert but then again I don't think its too complex to add one item to the conversation. Maybe you do?  I'm not saying that FX is the ONLY factor but its pretty clear that the FX affects manufacturing and exports and its very interesting that in the last 70 years, the years with the LOWEST FX rates yielded the only years of a sustained surpluses.  Now the caveat here is that a low USD FX rates can mean three things: 1) that your country is doing terrible 2) the US is doing great 3) a factor involving both.  Again, during those surplus years, the US was booming which drove up our economy.  You want to do a deep dive into micro and macroeconomics...please be my guest. 

fx.thumb.jpg.e1a3672d363d2b28dd65c91e5473ea2a.jpg

 

20 hours ago, Moonbox said:

but Harper never did pull it back, despite having half a decade do so post-recession.  Great job.  

?‍♂️ I am still amazed at how you are so fixated on a 7% increase with a recession thrown in the middle and conversely you praise a 3% decrease with zero adversity. In my mind single digit increases with dollars we are talking about are negligible.  Of course, 70% increases are a different story. 

If your bar is to have decreased spending over a government's time in office then I'm guessing you will never be happy except for when the 'anomalies" come along. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

And until they find a way to actually do it, companies will continue to search for ways to better their own situation. As such having a large disparity in corporate taxes with other countries will cause reason for movement. Being within the same range should create this stability.

Agreed, but Canada's corporate taxes were already much lower than the USA's when Harper dropped them.  ?

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Certain US states have done just that and choose to make their income by other methods.

aside from Wyoming and one or two other backwaters, they all have some sort of business tax or another.  The gross-receipt tax in Texas, for example, is even more business-unfriendly than corporate taxes.  

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Actually he says "That's why President Biden wants to keep lots of it". If Biden wants to keep LOTS of it then does that not cross the partisan wall and show it wasn't that bad. 

"LOTS of them" is vague enough to not really mean anything.  They are talking about more than halving the reduction from 34% to 21% to meet in the middle at around 28%.  The TCJA was also complicated enough in the minutiae that individuals and businesses were confused and whoever adjusts it will have their work cut out separating the good from the bad.  

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

As for the second part, I think you are offering the limp rebuttal as again other policies or even external factors could easily have an effect on this.  

They almost certainly did have an effect, but I'd propose they were just one of many examples of Trump's dufus economic policy rather than a way to explain why massive tax cuts for an already booming economy didn't yield results.  This was 9+ years into an expansionary cycle when unemployment was already low and deficits were high.  Whatever future benefits we may or may not see from will have to be weighed against future debt problems, and the wisdom of fiscal stimulus near the top/end of the economic cycle was dubious, at best.  

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Citation request.

Citation for what?  That the max benefit was only $2000 and that you could only get it if you earned $100,000 or more?  Since the max you could split was $50,000, this is basic math.  I provided a fairly detailed citation already, so if you can clarify what your actual contention is I'm happy to oblige.  

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Again, you're showing the 100k. I'll wait to see your cite but even if its true then that's fine. It doesn't need to benefit lower income people as they pay very few taxes to begin with. Hard to give people tax cuts when they don't pay any. 

You were telling us earlier that it benefited every household with married or common-law couples, so now we're changing the goal-posts...got it.  

Regardless, you're touching on the crux of the matter, which is that this was a targeted tax cut mostly for wealthier nuclear families with children and only 9% of households received significant benefit with another ~6% of households getting less than $500.  The other 85% got nothing.  As a policy measure it was arbitrary, didn't promote anything useful, and was clearly far from fair.  

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Faux expertise? Lol...never claimed to be an expert but then again I don't think its too complex to add one item to the conversation. Maybe you do? 

Like I said, why are we adding this item? If your underlying argument is that there were economic challenges to excuse Harper increasing the size of government, and for the sake of the debate I already conceded there were economic challenges, why are we branching out further and digging into the underlying causes?  What's actually important is what happened to GDP and the tax base, rather than the underlying reasons for it.  Adding FX makes an already tedious debate more expansive and exhausting, but maybe that was your aim?    

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

I'm not saying that FX is the ONLY factor but its pretty clear that the FX affects manufacturing and exports and its very interesting that in the last 70 years, the years with the LOWEST FX rates yielded the only years of a sustained surpluses. 

nobody is arguing that FX doesn't affect exports, but there's always a trade-off.  A low exchange rate can also hurt by contributing to inflation (and potentially higher interest rates), discouraging capital expenditure (thus lowering long-term productivity growth) among a great many other things.   

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

If your bar is to have decreased spending over a government's time in office then I'm guessing you will never be happy except for when the 'anomalies" come along. 

There was nothing anomalous about reducing deficits via higher taxes and reduced spending, which was the opposite of what we saw from Harper.  ?

You can try to make excuses for it, but long-term proportional increases to program expenditure (not just temporary stimulus) cannot be explained by slower economic growth or a recession from which Canada had emerged 5-6 years before Harper left office.  Chretien/Martin and even Mulroney were the examples of governments doing the needful, rather than the cynical/wantful, and we should hold them up as examples of fiscal stewardship rather than Stephen Harper.  Even so, he's still way better than Trudeau (Sr or Jr).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...