Is it Conservative "greed" or are leftists unrealistic?

[Accountability Now]

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

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

Not lower than the effective tax rate.  The US has many loopholes and tax havens that allow for deductions that reduce that nominal number you see down to a much lower number. If I remember correctly, even the State tax is deducted from the Federal meaning you need to actually compare the Federal and State/Provincial rates combined just to start. 

 

 

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

aside from Wyoming and one or two other backwaters, they all have some sort of business tax or another.  

Well actually six total. Wyoming, Washington, Texas, South Dakota, Ohio and Nevada.  Another seven are below 5%. 

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

"LOTS of them" is vague enough to not really mean anything.

My inference is that LOTS would be more than SOME. If you are keeping LOTS then you can't say the that Trumps tax cuts were a 'total failure' as you put it. If they are keeping LOTS of them then it must be decent at worst. 

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

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.  

Changing the goal posts is EXACTLY what you just did. My original argument was in response to your statement above (requoted here for ease):

On 4/4/2022 at 12:10 PM, Moonbox said:

This was purely a tax credit for high-income earners

You were saying that only high income earners got this tax credit. That is when I said every household could benefit from it, meaning NOT just high income earners. You then responded by saying only high income earners got the MAX Benefit from it, changing the goal posts from just a benefit.  I was never arguing that the tax credit was a game changer for all, I just showed that households with two income sources from different tax brackets could use the credit. I then posted an example showing such credits with various incomes including a number of those under 100k.  I was asking for a citation to prove that ONLY high earners (ie. over 100k) could get this benefit. I hadn't realized you moved the goal posts and were talking about the max benefit. 

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

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?  

You conceded he had economic challenges for the two years of recession and then continually blasted him for 5 years of post recession where I stated that he was still dealing with a low FX rate. If you want to concede Harper had economic hardship over his entire duration then I don't need to discuss it anymore because that would suffice for reasoning why he was a 7% increase in spending and Chretien/Martin were only 4%. 

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Adding FX makes an already tedious debate more expansive and exhausting, but maybe that was your aim?    

You found this tedious??? I showed you a graph outlining the FX in the last 70 years showing that Chretien (and Harper) had the highest FX rates in that time period and that strangely enough were the same years where we had surpluses. I also showed you the US was having surpluses in that time too meaning Canada's success was tied to the booming US economy which again is seen in the.....FX.  If this is too tedious for you to see a simple correlation then I'm not sure what else there is to talk about. 

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

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

So for the second time, the anomaly was the fact that Chretien had no real opposition when he made those moves. Seriously...the Official Opposition was the BLOC. The BLOC? A party that only resides in one province and would NEVER be able to take over the PM office if they won every seat they had. Chretien was allowed to do whatever he wanted without consequence and good on him....he did the right thing. His move was correct financially but politically it would have cost him if he had any threat on that end. 

Harper on the other hand got handed a non-confidence vote shortly after dealing with the largest recession since the Great Depression. Political threats unfortunately sway policy. 

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You can try to make excuses for it, but long-term proportional increases to program expenditure (not just temporary stimulus)

Harper - 7% increase in spending

Chretien/Martin - 4% increase in spending

Other Liberal PMs - 40-80% increases in spending

Other Conservative PMs - 3-7%

Why are you still arguing this? Chretien/Martin acted like Conservatives....good on them. 

 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Well actually six total. Wyoming, Washington, Texas, South Dakota, Ohio and Nevada.  Another seven are below 5%. 

No, because half of those states have an alternative tax, which I already talked about.  It's really just Wyoming and South Dakota.  

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

My inference is that LOTS would be more than SOME. If you are keeping LOTS then you can't say the that Trumps tax cuts were a 'total failure' as you put it. If they are keeping LOTS of them then it must be decent at worst. 

Okay. Sure. If we're being semantic then I withdraw "total failure" and leave it at "failure".  ? 

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

You were saying that only high income earners got this tax credit.

No, I didn't.  

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

That is when I said every household could benefit from it, meaning NOT just high income earners. You then responded by saying only high income earners got the MAX Benefit from it, changing the goal posts from just a benefit.

Okay. I see.  I need to be really, really careful with semantics around you.  I said the tax cut was purely for high income earners.  Purely was for emphasis, but I can understand how you saw it otherwise.  The tax cuts did sweet FA for lower earners and most dual income earners, and absolutely nothing for the overwhelming majority (85%) of households, as illustrated by the CD Howe study I posted.  This was therefore a  purely effectively a targeted tax cut for higher earners, and though I hope you found this clarification helpful, it really doesn't have any effect on the overall conclusion.  It was not a helpful, equitable or useful policy initiative.  

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

You conceded he had economic challenges for the two years of recession and then continually blasted him for 5 years of post recession where I stated that he was still dealing with a low FX rate.

Who cares? The FX rate is not the tax base, which continued to expand in real terms (inflation adjusted) despite the high Canadian dollar.  Economists have been warning of lower GDP growth for 20 years now and that's more a demographic than foreign exchange problem, and governments will have to deal with it well into the future.  The high Canadian dollar did not cause Canada's tax revenue base to plummet, therefore it cannot be used to excuse increased spending.  

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

If you want to concede Harper had economic hardship over his entire duration

He didn't.  A high Canadian dollar is not economic hardship.  As you alluded to early, it's actually a signal of relative economic strength, though there's way more that goes into this topic than what we've discussed so far.  

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

then I don't need to discuss it anymore because that would suffice for reasoning why he was a 7% increase in spending and Chretien/Martin were only 4%. 

Which isn't true.  Chretien/Martin's increases to spending were basically 0, inflation-adjusted by person (which I believe we agreed was the best measurement).  Under Harper, they increased by almost 11%.  

Per-person spending when Chretien took office:  $6995

Per-person spending when Harper took office:  $6992

Per-person spending under Harper in 2014:  $7740

So to summarize:

Chretien/Martin = 0% increase to spending

Harper = 10-11% increase to spending

2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

You found this tedious??? I showed you a graph outlining the FX in the last 70 years showing that Chretien (and Harper) had the highest FX rates in that time period and that strangely enough were the same years where we had surpluses. I also showed you the US was having surpluses in that time too meaning Canada's success was tied to the booming US economy which again is seen in the.....FX.  If this is too tedious for you to see a simple correlation then I'm not sure what else there is to talk about. 

There you go.  You touched on the relevant point there.  You're highlighting correlation, not cause.  Chretien surpluses were a combination of austerity in the early years followed by a strong economy. Did a low dollar help?  For exports, sure.  For other stuff?  No. Overall, it likely helped especially in the short term, but it caused problems too and it's one of the reasons that Canadian productivity continues to fall behind the USA's.  

If you want to talk about financial hardship, the Chretien Liberals had debt servicing payments that amounted to something close to 1/3 of federal revenues when they took over, yet they still cut spending and relied on Mulroney tax hikes to pull them out from the brink.  

4 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Why are you still arguing this? Chretien/Martin acted like Conservatives....good on them. 

Yes.  That's the sort of government I'm looking for, not cynical pretenders like Harper, and so the Liberal vs Conservative reputations mean squat.  If it were just the poorly-implemented tax cuts, or just the extra program spending, I'd look back at Harper more favorably.  As it stands, he was hardly the paragon you guys make him out to be.  Better than Trudeau though? That goes without saying.  

 

[Accountability Now]

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, because half of those states have an alternative tax, which I already talked about.  It's really just Wyoming and South Dakota.  

Ok...but we were talking about corporate taxes. Moving the goal posts are ya?

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Okay. Sure. If we're being semantic then I withdraw "total failure" and leave it at "failure".  ? 

How would you call it a failure when the next guy (and presumably your guy) is retaining LOTS of it. A failure is when you scrap the whole thing entirely. Not just tweak it. I get it though....you hate all things Trump so an objective view on this is not possible. 

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Okay. I see.  I need to be really, really careful with semantics around you.  I said the tax cut was purely for high income earners.  Purely was for emphasis, but I can understand how you saw it otherwise.  

Maybe the time developing your arguments would be better spent using the Dictionary. The word purely is defined as:

Quote

 

pure·ly

entirely; exclusively.

"the purpose of the meeting was purely to give information"

 

Where in that definition do you see a semantical way that allows to you think that purely means 'mostly' or 'some'. 

I don't want to be too hard on you as I don't know your background. Perhaps English is your second language? Glad you were able to clear it up though. Next time don't blame someone for the conversation going sideways based on your mistake!

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Who cares? The FX rate is not the tax base, which continued to expand in real terms (inflation adjusted) despite the high Canadian dollar.  

What the FX did cause was a trade surplus.  Look at the graphic below. Is it not OBVIOUS there was a HUGE trade surplus in the Chretien years and earlier Harper years when the FX was high. What about the obvious trade DEFICIT when the FX was low? 

 

So we know there was a trade surplus. What are the benefits of a trade surplus??

https://study.com/academy/lesson/pros-cons-of-a-trade-surplus.html

 

Quote

 

Pros of a Trade Surplus

Even though the modern global world of trading is complicated, there are still some advantages that a nation can gain by having a trade surplus. This is especially true of smaller, more undeveloped nations that need the incoming currency to grow their economies. Other advantages include:

• Lowered government spending: When a country has a trade surplus, it isn't as necessary for its government to subsidize various industries. Because the industries or businesses are exporting a lot of their goods for currency, they can operate without government assistance. This empowers the country's government to spend more funds on the well-being of its people.
• Transfer of technology: When a nation has a trade surplus, it can use the extra currency to invest in technology. Doing this makes it possible to interact more efficiently with international branches of a business. It also helps a business or industry to more effectively market its product.
• Generation of tax revenues: When companies in a nation make profits by exporting and selling their goods, they're taxed on those profits. This generates tax revenues that can be used to build the country's infrastructure.
• Job creation: When a country exports more than it imports, this leads to an increased need for production of goods. This increased need creates jobs because employees are needed to produce and distribute the goods.

Lowered government spending! Generation of tax revenues!  Job creation. 

You spoke on the tax base. I saw a graphic somewhere where I believe it said 50% of the federal tax revenue was from income tax. So if more people are working then an increased tax base. Unemployment clearly came down in 1995 to a low in 2008. Guess what also happened in 2008? The FX started to decrease and the CAD got stronger. Once the recession ended the dollar started drop again and so did unemployment. The dollar today is again low and we are seeing record unemployment rates.

Again...FX is not the ONLY factor but it is a factor especially when your argument of increased spending involves a few percentage points difference. 

 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Which isn't true.  Chretien/Martin's increases to spending were basically 0, inflation-adjusted by person (which I believe we agreed was the best measurement).  Under Harper, they increased by almost 11%.  

As I said, I was eyeballing from the graphic I provided where it shows Chretien's start is lower than Martin's end. Again, we are dealing with small percentages compared to the rest of your Liberal buddies who are in the 40-80% range. Small percentages again that can be explained by external circumstances. 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

So to summarize:

Chretien/Martin = 0% increase to spending

Harper = 10-11% increase to spending

What do you think is NORMAL or ACCEPTABLE spending increases? If you think Chretien's way is the proper way then NO government should have ever increased it and in that regard why is Chretien's way higher than Diefenbaker or any other PM in earlier years. If zero percent spending increase is the only way then when a PM increases the spending, surely the next guy should reduce it to get back to normal. OR....is marginal increases OK? If so what's big deal about Harper's marginal increase compared to other guys with 40-80% increases??

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

There you go.  You touched on the relevant point there.  You're highlighting correlation, not cause. 

Almost everything we are discussing here is correlation. The only real causations that are accurate is 1) that Chretien did make drastic cuts to federal spending (again due to his unique position of having no opposition) and 2) various leaders faced economic hardships whereas Chretien did not. The rest is up to interpretation of the many variables and factors which is what a political discussion entails. If you're looking for a mathematics discussion with an objective answer then go for it. 

 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yes.  That's the sort of government I'm looking for, not cynical pretenders like Harper, and so the Liberal vs Conservative reputations mean squat.  If it were just the poorly-implemented tax cuts, 

Just remember...your hero Chretien campaigned on removing the GST. Never did happen...did it??? At least Harper kept his promise. Like I said, Chretien could do what he wanted because he had no push back. Ralph Klein did the same draconian cuts in Alberta before Chretien for the same reason as he had no opposition either. I do admire someone that makes the correct move regardless of what it does to their political future. But again...Chretien didn't have to worry about his future as there was no one to take it from him. 

 

 

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Ok...but we were talking about corporate taxes. Moving the goal posts are ya?

They do have corporate taxes.  They just tax gross revenue instead of net revenue, and call them "gross receipt taxes". Next time you try to be smug, at least have a clue what you're talking about.  ?  

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

How would you call it a failure when the next guy (and presumably your guy) is retaining LOTS of it. A failure is when you scrap the whole thing entirely. Not just tweak it. I get it though....you hate all things Trump so an objective view on this is not possible. 

Because it hugely overshot and didn't yield the results it was supposed to.  Repealing +50% of it is hardly a tweak, either, lol. 

As for Trump, the fact that you tried to use his own dumb, counter-productive policies as explanations for why some of his other policies didn't yield results is pretty awkward.   

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Maybe the time developing your arguments would be better spent using the Dictionary. The word purely is defined as:

Where in that definition do you see a semantical way that allows to you think that purely means 'mostly' or 'some'. 

I don't want to be too hard on you as I don't know your background. Perhaps English is your second language? Glad you were able to clear it up though. Next time don't blame someone for the conversation going sideways based on your mistake!

When you start focusing more on scoring points with things like dictionary definitions and other minutia, you're losing the debate.  After numerous clarifications, you've still not offered any meaningful counter-argument to the easily demonstrable fact that income-splitting served no discernible policy objective beyond being a tax-break for higher-income families.  

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Again...FX is not the ONLY factor but it is a factor especially when your argument of increased spending involves a few percentage points difference. 

FX is an underlying factor, and that's it.  It's only relevant insofar as it affects government tax revenue.  If you're going to make an argument for increased government spending and deficits, it should be based on what happened to tax revenue and employment rather than one their underlying causes. The problem for you is that federal government revenues rose substantially during the high-FX period you're referencing, and unemployment fell gradually throughout as well.  

Conversely, the reversal of the exchange rate in 2014 and beyond didn't translate in accelerated revenue growth for the government.  

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610045001&pickMembers[0]=1.1&pickMembers[1]=2.2&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2010&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2020&referencePeriods=20100101%2C20200101

To summarize, this was an irrelevant topic in and not worth diving into.  Not only do you not understand it very well in the first place, the conclusions and implications you draw from it were wrong anyways.  ?

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

As I said, I was eyeballing from the graphic I provided where it shows Chretien's start is lower than Martin's end.

but eyeballing a chart is pointless when we've already agreed (IIRC) that inflation and population adjusted numbers are the most accurate measurement.  

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Again, we are dealing with small percentages compared to the rest of your Liberal buddies who are in the 40-80% range. Small percentages again that can be explained by external circumstances. 

Your continued attempts to project your own identity politics on me is getting old.  Considering I've already said Trudeau Sr and Jr are probably our two worst PM's ever, the idea that I'm arguing for my "Liberal buddies" is foolish.  I've held up Mulroney (a Conservative) and Chretien/Martin (Liberals) of examples of real fiscal conservatives.  I don't care what party they are.  You clearly do, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about what happened before personal computers and cable television.  

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

If so what's big deal about Harper's marginal increase compared to other guys with 40-80% increases??

Trudeaus were/are bad.  Harper was less bad.  Yay.   

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Almost everything we are discussing here is correlation. The only real causations that are accurate is 1) that Chretien did make drastic cuts to federal spending (again due to his unique position of having no opposition) and 2) various leaders faced economic hardships whereas Chretien did not.

Chretien made drastic budget cuts BECAUSE of economic hardship.  1/3 of federal revenues were going towards servicing Trudeau Sr's debt and Canada was headed for a fiscal death-spiral.  Mulroney's GST and those budget cuts were the only thing that saved us.  Back in the early 1990's, the prospect of a sovereign debt default in Canada was considered a very real possibility and hugely undermined confidence in the Canadian economy.  

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Just remember...your hero Chretien campaigned on removing the GST. Never did happen...did it???

Good for him.  He did the right thing.  Mulroney also did the right thing, even though it basically killed the PC party in Canada.  Both are admirable.  

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

At least Harper kept his promise. Like I said, Chretien could do what he wanted because he had no push back.

Harper having pushback is a lame excuse.  Stimulus spending during a recession is one thing, but structural increases to public spending and the size of government despite 4 years of majority well-beyond the recession is another.    

Again, you seem to think that I hate Harper.  I don't.  I would rather he was still PM than what we have now.  I just found him disappointing and don't think he left us better off than when he started.  

4 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

What do you think is NORMAL or ACCEPTABLE spending increases?

Acceptable?  I don't really think any of it is acceptable.  I think our public service is already bloated and overpaid and that's mostly the fault of Trudeau Sr (and now his son).  An almost 11% increase on an already bloated federal public service is both unwelcome and unnecessary.  Mulroney and Chretien had us on the right path and then we reversed under Harper and now are torpedoing ourselves under Trudeau.  

 

[Accountability Now]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

They do have corporate taxes.  They just tax gross revenue instead of net revenue, and call them "gross receipt taxes". Next time you try to be smug, at least have a clue what you're talking about.  ?  

? Gross Receipts tax are mostly passed onto the consumer and not actually incurred by the business. We submitted these when we did work in New Mexico. That tax cost us NOTHING!   Corporate income tax is not passed on rather its reduced through tax planning and strategy. 

I'm actually embarrassed for you that you put up such a poor response when clearly we were talking about reasons why businesses would choose to set up in a given state and picking states with low corporate taxes as the reason. Most states now have economic nexus laws that require them to collect sales, use or gross receipts tax (over a certain amount) even if their state doesn't collect it. As such the competitive advantage of being in a State without sales, use or gross receipts tax is becoming very limited. 

I guess you need to get a clue so you can at least try and be smug instead of sounding completely idiotic. 

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 Repealing +50% of it is hardly a tweak, either, lol. 

How much have they repealed so far? Everything I have read has shown that Biden's bill hit the wall.  Corporate tax is still at 21% even though Biden said he was going to repeal it on day 1. 

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

As for Trump, the fact that you tried to use his own dumb, counter-productive policies as explanations for why some of his other policies didn't yield results is pretty awkward.   

I didn't use them. I showed an article showing a commentator using those examples. If you have such strong resentment towards this argument then please by all means contact James Pethokoukis. He's an official contributor to CNBC. Maybe the two of you can go on their and you can impress everyone with your incredible wisdom. ? Of course remember to bring your dictionary as you don't want to be using words which you have no clue of their meaning!!

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

When you start focusing more on scoring points with things like dictionary definitions and other minutia, you're losing the debate. 

Whatever you say Mr. Semantics. 

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 After numerous clarifications, you've still not offered any meaningful counter-argument to the easily demonstrable fact that income-splitting served no discernible policy objective beyond being a tax-break for higher-income

My points were two fold 1) I said I liked it (for me...not for you or anyone else) 2) I disagreed when you said it was PURELY for high income earners.  At least you have changed your wording from PURELY to DISCERNABLE. Did you look that up to ensure you have it right? Wouldn't want you to wallow in another English language failure. ?

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

FX is an underlying factor, and that's it. 

Finally he sees the light!!! Hallelujah! Praise the Lord, I think we might be able to save him after all!

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 If you're going to make an argument for increased government spending and deficits, it should be based on what happened to tax revenue and employment rather than one their underlying causes. 

I spoke too soon. High trade surpluses are caused by high FX rates. Trade surpluses lead to LESS government spending as companies don't need subsidies, incentives and overall help to operate. This was CLEARLY laid out to you but you either choose to ignore it or are too daft to understand it. Either way, I can't continue to hold your hand on this argument. 

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The problem for you is that federal government revenues rose substantially during the high-FX period you're referencing,

I use USD to CAD FX, so a HIGH FX rate means our dollar is weaker. I'm assuming when you say HIGH FX you are using CAD to USD which means the dollar is stronger.  If that is the case, then three things here:

1. You seem to kick and scream that the only way to compare GDP is by inflation adjusted per capita. Why wouldn't you do the same for tax revenue? More people each year means more taxes. Capiche? Dollars in 2007 are the same as dollars in 2022?

2. Even if we are to use your rates, there are only two times where revenue changes from that liner uptick and that is during recessions (ie MAJOR events). Drops or gains in FX alone will not sway the Tax Revenues enough to create depressions or expansions but are able to affect it enough to show marginal differences as per what we were discussing. Moreover, there is a lag in the trade surplus/deficit to the FX relationship because investors don't just shift things over night. They wait to see longer term trends.

3. Many times, I have stated the point that external factors play a significant role in this equation. In this period, the US was not recovering from the financial crisis as well as Canada and shortly after the Asian energy demand which saw our oil and gas take over as the dominant market in Canada. Revenues went up as the price of oil was at $120 per bbl (plus) for this time period, skewing the numbers. 

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

unemployment fell gradually throughout as well. 

Unemployment fell as the dollar got weaker. This is exactly my point. Are not understanding the argument? 

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 

Conversely, the reversal of the exchange rate in 2014 and beyond didn't translate in accelerated revenue growth for the government.  

Again, price of oil dropped substantially in August of 2014 down to half of what is was earlier that year.  Another external force.  That large sudden change was much more drastic than the minor to moderate drop in the dollar, nothing like what what was seen during the Chretien years. 

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

To summarize, this was an irrelevant topic in and not worth diving into.  Not only do you not understand it very well in the first place, the conclusions and implications you draw from it were wrong anyways.  ?

Dude I get that you can't follow unless its a direct, linear relationship. That's fine. I won't press you anymore to think abstractly or outside the box because you just don't have the horses upstairs to think that way. Its fine. Maybe you should focus on your dictionary work instead of more complex economic trends. The reality is I am dumber the more I listen to your incessant blathering about nothingness.

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

but eyeballing a chart is pointless when we've already agreed (IIRC) that inflation and population adjusted numbers are the most accurate measurement.  

LMFAO! The graphic I provided DID use inflation (2021 dollars) and population adjusted numbers! You really struggle at this, don't you??? Too rich....I honestly am laughing at your lunacy right now. 

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You clearly do, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about what happened before personal computers and cable television.  

Nope. I just enjoy showing you how stupid your arguments are. Many times I have said, the PM cannot be judged on the external circumstances. They are a captain of a ship that must navigate the waters whether they are rough or calm.  Chretien had calm waters and Harper was bumpy. Your claims suggesting otherwise continue to show your true stripes.

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Good for him.  He did the right thing.  Mulroney also did the right thing, even though it basically killed the PC party in Canada.  Both are admirable.  

Sure but its easy to be tough when you have a  gun and your opponents are carrying feathers. Chretien did what was right but had no threat of consequence of making this right decision.  Good on him but I don't put him on a pedestal for it. 

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Acceptable?  I don't really think any of it is acceptable. 

 Mulroney and Chretien had us on the right path and then we reversed under Harper and now are torpedoing ourselves under Trudeau.  

Again you missed the point. If increased spending (taking into account population and inflation) is NEVER acceptable then there should be a BASE rate that never changes with time.  If that is the case then Chretien (even with his cuts) was spending way more than Diefenbaker. 

Alternatively, we can accept that a small percentage increase over time is acceptable for which we have proper grounds to actually gauge how our PMs are faring. 

Of course...this again may be too complex for you so I don't expect you to get it. 

[Moonbox]

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 AM, Accountability Now said:

? Gross Receipts tax are mostly passed onto the consumer and not actually incurred by the business. We submitted these when we did work in New Mexico. That tax cost us NOTHING!   Corporate income tax is not passed on rather its reduced through tax planning and strategy. 

Pretty much every tax gets passed on to the consumer, in one way or another.  The gross receipt tax usually looks small at any singular point in the supply chain, but the low rates are illusionary and as it pyramids up the chain those taxes have a multiplying with each input being taxed over and over and over all the way up. There's a reason most states got rid of theirs and it had nothing to do with them not generating enough revenue and everything to do with being bad for business.  

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 AM, Accountability Now said:

I'm actually embarrassed for you that you put up such a poor response when clearly we were talking about reasons why businesses would choose to set up in a given state and picking states with low corporate taxes as the reason.

Be embarrassed for yourself, goof, because you've once again lost the thread of the debate.  We were talking about how corporate tax cuts have diminishing returns regarding their efficacy.  The gross receipt tax is just another form of tax on corporations, with the distinction of it being much simpler math and but that its effects are distortive.    

You're not even making an argument here.  

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 AM, Accountability Now said:

I didn't use them. I showed an article showing a commentator using those examples.

So you we're just posting stuff for the sake of it then, is that it?  My god.  ?

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 AM, Accountability Now said:

My points were two fold 1) I said I liked it (for me...not for you or anyone else) 2) I disagreed when you said it was PURELY for high income earners.

Nope! ?

My argument from the start was that income-splitting  was unfair and arbitrary and you disagreed and said it was fair.  Your counter-argument was silly and easily discounted, and the posts are still there so go back and review them.  You chose to hone-in on the dictionary definition of one word I used further into the debate and despite clarification, you're STILL harping about because  you don't actually have an argument.  

At this point it's pretty clear that this is just how you debate.  

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 AM, Accountability Now said:

LMFAO! The graphic I provided DID use inflation (2021 dollars) and population adjusted numbers! You really struggle at this, don't you??? Too rich....I honestly am laughing at your lunacy right now. 

We've already been over these numbers, fool.  The folks who drew the damn chart already broke it down:

Before Chretien took office in 1993, per-person program spending was $6,995. At its lowest point, Prime Minister Chretien reduced this number to $5,806. Although per-person spending inched up to $6,670 near the end of his tenure, the amount was still lower compared to when he took office.

According to data from the federal Department of Finance, the Harper Conservatives increased per person spending (inflation adjusted) from $6,992 in 2005 to $7,740 in 2014—an increase of 10.7 per cent.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/both-trudeau-and-harper-increased-size-of-federal-government

Why are we talking about "eyeballing" the chart when the numbers have already been clearly explained by the people who drew it?  Next time take a level and draw a line across the screen if you're so visual ?.

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 AM, Accountability Now said:

Unemployment fell as the dollar got weaker. This is exactly my point. Are not understanding the argument? 

but it also fell as the dollar was strengthening, from 2000-2009, and then rose when the dollar was falling, from 2013-2016.  I understand what you think your argument is, but it's dumb for a couple of key reasons:

1)  You oversimplify and exaggerate relationships you only vaguely understand

2)  The numbers prove that.  Average unemployment under Harper was historically low (at ~7%), and that's counting the bad recession years.  Oops!

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 AM, Accountability Now said:

Again you missed the point. If increased spending (taking into account population and inflation) is NEVER acceptable then there should be a BASE rate that never changes with time.  If that is the case then Chretien (even with his cuts) was spending way more than Diefenbaker. 

Nobody said increase spending is never acceptable.  I'm saying that if public spending is already high, increasing it further is....bad.  Diefenbaker couldn't be less relevant to the conversation.   

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 AM, Accountability Now said:

Alternatively, we can accept that a small percentage increase over time is acceptable for which we have proper grounds to actually gauge how our PMs are faring. 

I'd say double-digit percentage increases aren't small, and Harper's grounds for long-term program spending increases were dubious and cynical, just like his tax policy and all of his little boutique tax-breaks.  

[Accountability Now]

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Pretty much every tax gets passed on to the consumer, in one way or another. 

As usual, you miss the point. GRT is directly passed on meaning the corporation doesn't consider it in their evaluation of where they set up shop. I already gave you the example of my experience in New Mexico where our customer actually told us we had to add it to the price!  Taxes like GRT or sales/use tax use to be a factor until they created economic nexus between states.  According to you, GST would be a factor for provincial competition. ?

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Be embarrassed for yourself, goof, because you've once again lost the thread of the debate.  We were talking about how corporate tax cuts have diminishing returns regarding their efficacy.  

And your embarrassment continues however this time you are fully aware of it so no empathy on my end! The THREAD of the debate was why governments reduce CIT in order to attract businesses. Your COUNTER to this THREAD was diminishing returns where I already stated it would get to a point where the Foreign Tax Credit wouldn't make it worth going lower than 10% since that is the typical withholdings amount. For the love of everything holy, please get a grip on what the ACTUAL debate is. 

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 You're not even making an argument here....that  I  can counter 

I fixed your comment for you. You're welcome. 

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

So you we're just posting stuff for the sake of it then, is that it?  My god.  ?

Just showing you that your myopic, delusional point of view is centered on your hatred of Trump. Job well done. 

By the way, I note how you side stepped by question about just how much of Trump's tax cut bill have they repealed. You stated it was 50+%. Show me how much they have actually repealed. 

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

My argument from the start was that income-splitting  was unfair and arbitrary and you disagreed and said it was fair.  Your counter-argument was silly and easily discounted, and the posts are still there so go back and review them.  

 Oh no....you didn't have a point. You regurgitated a study and tried to pass it off as your own idea full well knowing that you have zero original ideas. The problem is you even missed the point of the study when you went all communist and declared this tax cut was PURELY for high income earners when that CLEARLY was not the case.  You then moved the goal posts in an attempt salvage your already destroyed credibility by saying the tax benefit was only worth it if you got the MAX benefit.  You are running in circles here Moony. Might want to stop and catch your breath!

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

At this point it's pretty clear that this is just how you debate.  

 Debate? A debate involves two or more intelligent people exchanging intelligent, cohesive arguments.  You don't qualify for that definition. This is more like a professor schooling his student, although the student is beyond teaching. ?

 

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Why are we talking about "eyeballing" the chart when the numbers have already been clearly explained by the people who drew it?  Next time take a level and draw a line across the screen if you're so visual ?.

Do you HONESTLY not remember why we were using the graphic? You provided an article that focused on 2 Prime Ministers and then proudly used that narrow point of view  to decry the historical reputations these parties have earned. The graphic I provided illustrates the same idea but with numbers from 12 PM (all using your precious inflation controlled, per capita numbers even though you blundered on your last post whining about me NOT using it ?) 

I get it though....the graphic CLEARLY shows that Conservatives have a history of mild/moderate spending increases compared to extreme spending increases by the Liberals with Chretien being the 'anomaly'.  The graphic BLOWS your point out of the water and leaves you crying to your Liberal buddies about this reputation once again but for some reason you try to pass it off on me by once again coming back with a point about TWO Prime Ministers.  If you want to find concrete numbers for EACH PM then go for it. Until then eyeballing the graphic was good enough to show you the idiocy in your so called argument. 

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

but it also fell as the dollar was strengthening, from 2000-2009, and then rose when the dollar was falling, from 2013-2016. 

Its become abundantly clear at this point that you don't have the ability to comprehend complex arguments. You need an article or study for you to regurgitate in order to THINK you have a point. This fact is extremely clear here because you again forgot the point that EVEN you agreed to.

FX is an underlying factor that is an indication of economic conditions between countries, not necessarily based on the individual country itself. In the 90s, Canada was booming as was the US. So even though the FX was driven by the success in the US, Canada was still doing well.  In 2000-2009, Canada was still  relatively well  but not great. However the US had the fall out of the dot com burst, 9/11, Iran War and then of course the financial crises.  Our dollar didn't increase though because we were killing it, it increased because the US was struggling which ended the trade surplus and pushed us to deficit.  HENCE why I say that Canada being an export nation heavily depends on what is happening OUTSIDE of our borders.  

As for 2013-2016, you specifically chose a correction period in the FX over a short period of time. How desperate are you?

I understand you now. If the argument isn't completely linear or if someone hasn't posted the idea online already, then you have no ability or will to actually understand the idea. No problem but just stop pretending and move on to more objective things. 

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The numbers prove that.  Average unemployment under Harper was historically low (at ~7%), and that's counting the bad recession years.  Oops!

 

Two things that absolutely show your myopic point of view:

 

1. Your Harper Derangement Syndrome is in serious disruptive mode. You need to attend to that right away. When discussing FX and Unemployment, I indicated that even HARPER had good years of a FX consequences, hence the reason he had two years of double digit surpluses (inflation adjusted, as per your preference).  These good years were good enough to make up for bad years to follow in regards to an overall unemployment rate. 

 

2. Your inability to understand complex relations is abundantly clear. The historically high FX rate in the 90s and early 2000s created a trade surplus that lasted into Harper's years. When the US economy started to tank, the surplus slowly started to erode as the FX rates lowered ultimately hitting a trade deficit when the dollar hit par.  Again, FX is an expression of how good you are doing in relation to another country and Canada still had the oil boom to help out.  To quote a blundering idiot who actually got one thing right " FX is an underlying factor" which means its not a liner equation for you to input certain years and expect it to pop out a formula. It is viewed in trends because that is the way the business world works with lags in responses to those trends. Way to complex for you to get. 

 

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody said increase spending is never acceptable.  I'm saying that if public spending is already high, increasing it further is....bad.  Diefenbaker couldn't be less relevant to the conversation.   

But what is HIGH? If you aren't able to concretely state a number that is ACCEPTABLE then how can you possibly state something is high? You brazenly blast Trudeau Sr for his large increases to spending, so is his start point acceptable? If so, then Chretien is WAY higher than that and should not be adorned. Again, if these numbers are inflation adjusted and per capita and are viewed as the BEST way to compare, then Diefenbaker (and the rest of them) is absolutely relevant to the conversation because they MIGHT actually be spending at the ACCEPTABLE point. Unless that relevance destroys your point (which is why you dismiss it)

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 I'd say double-digit percentage increases aren't small, and Harper's grounds for long-term program spending increases were dubious and cynical, just like his tax policy and all of his little boutique tax-breaks.  

He's barely double digits in the time period that includes the greatest recession since the Great Depression. The fact you think the economy just REBOUNDS after the recession is over is completely ridiculous.  Of course this isn't about facts for you is it? This is proven by the graphic which shows Chretien only ever made cuts in his first number of years but then increased spending every year (and majority of years) after getting back to a point close to where he started.  Don't you view this period of increased spending as BAD???  Or is this marginal increase ok because its your Liberal buddy?

 

[Moonbox]

22 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Its become abundantly clear at this point that you don't have the ability to comprehend complex arguments. You need an article or study for you to regurgitate in order to THINK you have a point. 

You're not making complex arguments. You're making foolish ones.  It's Dunning-Kruger on full display. 

You're literally mocking my reference to studies and articles in favor of your pseudo-economic nattering and aimless, windbag responses.  

I'm not discounting your goofy tunnel-vision focus on FX rates because it's "too complex".  I'm discounting it because you're oversimplifying its implications and using it as a blanket excuse for Harper's spending - as if it's the bellwether for the Canadian economy rather just one of countless factors.  That the macroeconomic numbers don't support the conclusions you're drawing is problematic, to say the least.  It proves not only that the FX (both in cause and effect) is not nearly as black-and-white as you pretend it is, but also that (outside of the recession) the economy under Harper wasn't nearly as bad as you'd have us believe.  

That you combine your pompous faux-expertise with your emotional projecting and bias etc is boring.  Judging by your defensiveness and insults, you'd almost assume I kicked your dog, but no.  I merely compared Harper unfavorably (with numbers) to Mulroney and Chretien and pointed to how he abandoned nearly 20 years of fiscal restraint.  That was enough to set you off on an exhausting path of winding excuses, strawmen, red-herrings and insults.  

This is my last reply in this thread.  I'm barely even skimming your responses at this point.  

 

 

 

[Accountability Now]

 

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You're not making complex arguments.

I've been saying this all along. Its not complex....well, for pretty much everyone other than you. You look at the two periods and one had a trade surplus with a low dollar and one had a trade deficit with a high dollar. Which period do you think had the budget surpluses? ? And which PM had their time ENTIRELY in that period and which PM got only a couple years in that period? I'm sure a genius like you will figure it out. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You're literally mocking my reference to studies and articles in favor of your pseudo-economic nattering and aimless, windbag responses.

At least I make arguments. You read some study and regurgitate what the author is saying and then try to pass it off as if its your idea. Anything OUTSIDE the scope of that study is like speaking Arabic to you since you don't have the horses upstairs to actually comprehend how the world outside of Canada actually works and how it affects our outcomes.

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I'm discounting it because you're oversimplifying its implications and using it as a blanket excuse for Harper's spending - as if it's the bellwether for the Canadian economy rather just one of countless factors.

As usual, your Harper Derangement Syndrome is shown to be the root cause of your bluster and fury. Never once did I say it was the 'blanket excuse', I said external causes outside of Harper's control played a FACTOR in the outcome. Just like external causes outside of Chretien's control played a FACTOR in his success. Just like FX was a FACTOR in the economic situation. 

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

This is my last reply in this thread.  

Probably for the best as I am definitely getting dumber just by reading your asinine attempts at an argument. But of course you are running now as this would have been the third time I asked you to show how much of Trumps Tax Cut the Democrats have repealed so far. You said 50+%.....is that your final answer? ?