Economic Growth Falls again

[madmax]

Small business' are squeezed, but that is far more a problem on the local tax level than it is fed level. The property taxes are what is killing small business. Make amends to that instead.

Small business haven't ever gotten the breaks they deserve. Talking with local politicians, they don't see it changing. Many large corportations are given the land at a cut rate deal, and then the focus is to reduce their property taxes to zero. I come from a region that has the highest industrial property taxes in sw Ontario. They make no bones about giving away the land, focusing on reducing the taxes of these companies, (Many large warehousing units for manufacturing firms offshore), to zero. It was mentioned to myself in a formal meeting that the loss in taxes were going to be shored up be personal property tax. I didn't hear a single municipal politician in my area state, they wanted to raise personal property taxes.

But, if they ain't getting the money from the Feds, not from Large Corporations, then who is left to foot the bill. Small Business and the average homeowner.

I agree with you very much that property taxes are killing small business. It makes no sense to me how multi million dollar companies pay less property tax then small business, yet the acreage they use in land, and the services they consume far exceed that of small business.

Go figure.

[jbg]

Over time, and God willing our economy got better, employers would fight for employees and pay the $300 a month it takes to get them.

They already offer dental and eye glasses don't they?

So in time they would offer healthcare. Of course, employers need to be desperate to find and keep people which they are not.

Many companies in the US are cutting off health care benefits, because the costs are killing the company. Health Care benefits are one of the main targets of large corporations. Smaller companies in the US are often pressured by their insurance provider to drop people whom are a heavier burden or their policy will not be renewed. Then there is the problem of people whom end up with a chronic or terminal illness and cannot return to work. Regardless of how much coverage they had while working, they can end up with none once the going gets tough.

*snip*

There are two things at issue.

The real problem, which everyone, politician and non-politician dances around is the cause of this exploding cost. It has only a little to do with the socialized nature of Canada's system, and a lot to do with technical advances in medicine.

I know of a person who had emergency cancer surgery during 2004. A huge cancerous mass was removed from her digestive tract. With the aid of chemo (she went through numerous different conventions as her cancer developed resistance to each) she had just over two reasonably good years, before hard-core illness took hold again. Now, the end is near.

Can anyone say that this treatment was not worthwhile? Of course not. Is it free? Of course not.

The potential demand for medical services is unlimited. Unlike computer technology, costs rise rather than fall with each advance.

Do I have a solution? No. But neither do politicians using health care as a political football.

[Renegade]

The real problem, which everyone, politician and non-politician dances around is the cause of this exploding cost. It has only a little to do with the socialized nature of Canada's system, and a lot to do with technical advances in medicine.

Yes it is a large part of the problem. Another issue is there is no incentive by the individual to avoid costs. For example if it cost an individual an additional $1000/year to eat healthier, and in doing so they can avoid $5000/year in health care costs, they have no incentive to do so since the $1000 is from their pocket but the $5000 is from the communal pocket.

I know of a person who had emergency cancer surgery during 2004. A huge cancerous mass was removed from her digestive tract. With the aid of chemo (she went through numerous different conventions as her cancer developed resistance to each) she had just over two reasonably good years, before hard-core illness took hold again. Now, the end is near.

Can anyone say that this treatment was not worthwhile? Of course not. Is it free? Of course not.

How do you know the treatment was worthwhile? What is the criteria to determine this? If she had lived only a month after the operation was it still worthwhile? How about if the operation cost $100 million, was it still worthwhile?

The issue is that it is impossible to adopt absolutes such as "we can't place a price on a human life". Because we have finite resources, we are forced to make those tradeoffs everyday. Unfortunately where those decisions are made is ill-defined and are often made by doctors, and hospital administrators sometimes under pressure from family.

What we need is public debate on the issue, but unfortunately it seems to be a sensitive issue, and one which politicians and public alike, shy away from discussing.

[jbg]

What we need is public debate on the issue, but unfortunately it seems to be a sensitive issue, and one which politicians and public alike, shy away from discussing.

Exactly my point.

[mikedavid00]

Just to jump in here, a report from the fraser institute has been release which is relevant to this topic. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...?sNav=pb&id=877 essentially states that Canada needs a shake up in health care. Dont agree with all the method they used but its still worth a read.

Also I just want to say a couple things about the health care system with the US. Its not our system or theirs, there is compromise. Im sick of Canadians fear of the word "Americanization" whenever proposal is made to desocialize the system by only a little.

Yeah I comletely agree. You can't blame Canadians for feelign that way becuase our media and Liberal leaders dictate to the people what to think. People are afraid of the unknown, they aren't educated. The only way people will get educated is if they were forced to 'vote' on bringing in private healtchare and deescision was left to the people.

I read through the paper by Nadeem Esmail.

He seems to be missing the crux of the arguemnt. Maybe there is nothing wrong with our healtcare system, it's just that there are too many people using it.

He over complicates the issue. Everyone knows it's not an issue with spending. There are simply too many people coming in, too fast, to use the system and our healthcare system is not able to expand to the rate of people wandering into Canada each year. Thus, it's bankrupting. Healtchare then gets rashioned where it's needed most which is Vancouver, Montreal, and the GTA.

[mikedavid00]

Many companies in the US are cutting off health care benefits, because the costs are killing the company.

No. That is an unfactual statement that you just made up or heard from someone at work. I'm ingoring the rest of your post.

[madmax]

No. That is an unfactual statement that you just made up or heard from someone at work. I'm ingoring the rest of your post.

Yes Mike, I have nothing better to do, then lie to you.

Two quotes, one from GM. One for the EPI. You Can also look up Delphi for more individual proof of my lies.

from the Economic Policy Institute

This report's central findings regarding health insurance coverage include:

The number of uninsured Americans rose by over six million, from 39.8 million in 2000 to 45.8 million in 2004. This increase was due primarily to the precipitous decline in employer-provided health coverage for workers and their families.

The downward trend in the rate of employer-provided health insurance continued from 2003 to 2004, during a period in which the economy created 1.5 million jobs—either many of these new jobs did not include health coverage or existing jobs shed coverage during the year (or both).

Jobholders experienced a significant decline in health insurance coverage from 2000 to 2004. In 2000, 58.9% of workers had employer-provided coverage, whereas only 55.9% of workers had coverage in 2004.

No category of workers was insulated from loss of coverage. Even full-time, full-year workers and workers with a college degree experienced declines in coverage between 2000 and 2004. Full-time, full-year workers' coverage rates fell by 2.3 percentage points and college graduates' coverage rates fell by 2.8 percentage points.

Workers among the bottom 20% of hourly wage earners were the least likely to have employer coverage; 24.4% of the bottom quintile were covered compared to 77.5% for workers in the highest wage quintile.

Children experienced the sharpest declines in employer-provided health insurance coverage. In 2000, 65.6% of children had employer-provided coverage, whereas in 2004 only 60.8% did, a fall of nearly five percentage points. Fortunately, existing government insurance (i.e., Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs) increased coverage to children by six percentage points, enough to offset the sharp decline in employer coverage for this group.

Unlike the trend with children, the fall in employer-provided coverage for prime-age working adults was not accompanied by a sufficient increase in public coverage.

GMs own website

GM - GMability Workplace: GM and UAW Reach Tentative Agreement on ...Recently, GM’s salaried U.S. employees and retirees were informed of additional changes to their health-care benefits, including higher medical co-pays. ...

Benefits are being cut or reduced and employee contributions to receive these benefits are increasing.

Smaller companies don't make the news, but it is hard for all companies to handle burdensome health care costs. As the above study would indicate. Steady decline since 2000 in the US.

[geoffrey]

Harper tonight on his CTV interview claimed that the economy was going strong and people had little to be concerned about.

Really, I'm confused whether this guy treats Canadians like idiots, or is in fact an idiot himself. How can I vote for someone that thinks that the economy is strong and there is no concern? That person is truly incapable of governance.

This coming from the same guy that only a few years back claimed Canada was already a second class nation... what happened to our boy Stephen?? What happened to our provincial autonomy, economic reform, ect. ect.?

He may have delivered on his priorities, but he's failed in what he was to deliver to those that have supported him so long.

[jbg]

Many companies in the US are cutting off health care benefits, because the costs are killing the company.

No. That is an unfactual statement that you just made up or heard from someone at work. I'm ingoring the rest of your post.

From soneone who is a top level employee, but not an owner, of a small law firm, I will tell you that the annual cost of coverage has approached the point of strangulation.

[jdobbin]

Harper tonight on his CTV interview claimed that the economy was going strong and people had little to be concerned about.

I saw the interview as well. I too am worried about the economy. The growth has been so breakneck that it is bound for a slowdown. In fact, it might already be happening. Harper should be pushing productivity a lot more than the "What me worry?" stance he took in the interview.

[geoffrey]

Harper tonight on his CTV interview claimed that the economy was going strong and people had little to be concerned about.

I saw the interview as well. I too am worried about the economy. The growth has been so breakneck that it is bound for a slowdown. In fact, it might already be happening. Harper should be pushing productivity a lot more than the "What me worry?" stance he took in the interview.

Exactly. Most key indicators show that we are in some trouble, especially in Ontairo where they lost jobs this month... again.

I don't think people will be fooled... it won't take much for the election issue to switch from environment to economy when many don't have jobs...

Is the CPC ready for an economy based election? Maybe a little... I can tell you the Liberals under Dion are not. Economy was only mentioned by Kennedy in the campaign, the rest of them, like Harper, think there is no issue.

Silly people. The incompetence Federally is just shocking.

[mikedavid00]

Workers among the bottom 20% of hourly wage earners were the least likely to have employer coverage;

Yes. There have been more low wage, part time jobs for mexicans and thus less healthcare for them.

Big deal.

'Companies aren't starting to stop including healtchare benefits'. That's just not happening.

[mikedavid00]

Really, I'm confused whether this guy treats Canadians like idiots, or is in fact an idiot himself.

In his defense, all leaders have to show a positive outlook in order to instill confidence in the market. Stats can, Harper, and all the other political organizations will always say that the market is good.

Look at the tech boom and Bush always insisiting there were new jobs, new sectors, etc. It was never true, but it's his job to instill confidence in the market place. Our country can be in collapse (which I honestly belieave we are in the beginning 20% of an all out collapse) and any leader will shout out that things are fine, things are good.

Same with supporting our troups.

He may have delivered on his priorities, but he's failed in what he was to deliver to those that have supported him so long.

I agree completely. I think when he gets a majority he'll clean up gov't thought because I've never lost my old Reform party values. I doubt he has lost his.

I'm also not a fan of Mulrouney when compared to preston Manning. I much more back Manning.

Actually I don't think there was a campaign promise of mannings I did not agree with. I loved the guy. One day in Ottawa I was at a Quickie mart at night buying some chocolate milk. I was in my late teens. And then all of a sudden Preston Manning walks in. And everyone just looked at him and grinned. He said something funny and made us laugh because we were staring at him hehe. I can't remeber what he bought. He looked much smaller in person though. I was real nervous. I've met Alan Rock, seen Mulrouney give a speech live, been to the govern generals house a couple of times, met the queen, seen the Pope.

Kid growing up in Ottawa.

[madmax]

Workers among the bottom 20% of hourly wage earners were the least likely to have employer coverage;

Yes. There have been more low wage, part time jobs for mexicans and thus less healthcare for them.

Big deal.

'Companies aren't starting to stop including healtchare benefits'. That's just not happening.

Your entitled to your opinion.

I take the Lawyers comments seriously. Strangulation isn't a positive white collar term for healthcare benefits and the longevity of the company vs the program.

I will also consider how many Mexicans work in GM/Delphi USA.

And Finally, since you poorly edited the first post that I wrote in order to be dismissive, you can go back and reread it.

Your selectivity in a report that covers white collar health care benefit decreases, along with lower income benefit decreases, doesn't mean that a Reduction in HealthCare Benefits is "Just Not Happening."

Regardless of your beliefs, you an advocate for employers to cover these benefits.

good luck with that.

[geoffrey]

This topic once upon a time was about economic growth in Canada, and how to improve it considering that outside Alberta Canada isn't a real going concern anymore. But instead of starting a new thread, I decided to continue this one...

Well PwC released a report in December that I had been trying to track down and I finally found it:

http://www.pwc.com/ca/eng/ins-sol/publications/itr_1206.pdf

Shows that Income Trusts were a fantastically efficient means of doing business... not the evil productivity demons the Liberals and now apparently the CPC make them out to be.

They were an incredible step to modernize Canada's decaying economy and ancient taxation system.

[madmax]

Shows that Income Trusts were a fantastically efficient means of doing business... not the evil productivity demons the Liberals and now apparently the CPC make them out to be.

The Liberals didn't demonized income trusts. They did their typical, hide in the bush stance. The NDP were against income trusts, the CPC were for them.

Guess you should be talking to the Irish guy, to set him straight.

Btw, you actually endorse Liberal Economic Policies, not to be confused with the Liberal or Conservative Party.

[geoffrey]

Btw, you actually endorse Liberal Economic Policies, not to be confused with the Liberal or Conservative Party.

Huh? I don't fit with either party economically it seems. I thought Harper was a small government tax cutter, but since that's obviously not true... nope. I don't buy any party's economic agenda.

[tml12]

This topic once upon a time was about economic growth in Canada, and how to improve it considering that outside Alberta Canada isn't a real going concern anymore. But instead of starting a new thread, I decided to continue this one...

Well PwC released a report in December that I had been trying to track down and I finally found it:

http://www.pwc.com/ca/eng/ins-sol/publications/itr_1206.pdf

Shows that Income Trusts were a fantastically efficient means of doing business... not the evil productivity demons the Liberals and now apparently the CPC make them out to be.

They were an incredible step to modernize Canada's decaying economy and ancient taxation system.

That was definitely the pursuit of income trusts and hopefully will be in the future.

[geoffrey]

That was definitely the pursuit of income trusts and hopefully will be in the future.

As long as we have a tax and spend government in Ottawa, it will be very difficult to make us a productive nation again. Until then, we'll remain a second class, middle of the pack nation compared to the OECD. In my opinion, that's a little unacceptable. Ireland has no oil yet makes tons more money than we do. What up?