Flaherty calls on business to reduce prices.

[Michael Bluth]

Here is the story. Link

Canadians aren't fully benefitting from the potential advantages of the strong dollar.

“It's an important issue for the economy,” said Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist for the Bank of Montreal.

“The Bank of Canada is disappointed about how strong underlying inflation has been in Canada at a time when the currency is on fire.”

Mr. Porter published a report in June showing that while the loonie has appreciated by 50 per cent over the past five years, import prices have not dropped accordingly.

These business friends of the Liberals need to realize that we now have a Government that won't give them a free ride in screwing the Canadian consumer.

The Minister of Finance has made a very valid point. If big business wants to work with the Government then they should do the right thing.

[geoffrey]

Yet another interventionist policy from our centrally planned friends at the CPC.

Let business set their own prices. This has to be the most political, ridiculous and destructive announcement I have ever heard from Flaherty, next to the Income Trusts of course.

He's incompetent and must be removed from his position before he does further damage.

If consumers don't see benefits soon, he said, they should exert pressure by shopping around for the lowest prices.

Well I'll be damned. Consumers should shop around! Thanks Jim!

--

When the dollar advantage was for our exporters, the Americans weren't calling for Canadians to immediately lower prices to reflect that or for American companies to pass on the savings. The Canadian government didn't ask us to stop 'gauging' the poor little Americans.

--

This government is in trouble if it resorts to such ridiculous speeches to gain public support. How about something innovative to improve Canadians piss poor productivity Jimmy-boy instead of pandering to the clueless??

[Michael Bluth]

Yet another interventionist policy from our centrally planned friends at the CPC.

Let business set their own prices. This has to be the most political, ridiculous and destructive announcement I have ever heard from Flaherty, next to the Income Trusts of course.

He's incompetent and must be removed from his position before he does further damage.

Well I'll be damned. Consumers should shop around! Thanks Jim!

So no further cuts of any kind to business taxes?

If businesses want to set their own prices why should the Government do anything to help them?

[jdobbin]

Well I'll be damned. Consumers should shop around! Thanks Jim!

Canadians are making that choice already. Canadians businesses who continue to keep prices up 25% such as in electronics, books and cars are seeing traffic flowing south to make purchases.

[Leafless]

Canadians are making that choice already. Canadians businesses who continue to keep prices up 25% such as in electronics, books and cars are seeing traffic flowing south to make purchases.

Canadians should not have to shop around.

What is the excuse with automobiles?

I heard dealerships are keeping prices unrealistically high so dealers can make up for bad times when the dollar was low and sales were low.

How to beat it?

Buy your car in the U.S. by being your own broker but forget about the warranty.

[Michael Bluth]

I heard dealerships are keeping prices unrealistically high so dealers can make up for bad times when the dollar was low and sales were low.

How to beat it?

Buy your car in the U.S. by being your own broker but forget about the warranty.

Chrysler just brought back the friends and family pricing.

That is by now means keeping prices artifically high. NA auto companies are cutting their prices out of desperation, but they are definitley cutting prices.

[jdobbin]

Chrysler just brought back the friends and family pricing.

That is by now means keeping prices artifically high. NA auto companies are cutting their prices out of desperation, but they are definitley cutting prices.

You have evidence that it puts prices at the same level as the U.S.?

[Michael Bluth]

You have evidence that it puts prices at the same level as the U.S.?

I told you if you asked politely I'd answer

Actually prices for Dodge brands are now a little cheaper in Canada than they are in the US.

Here's a link to a 2007 Dodge Charger at a dealership in LA for $32,740 USD.

Here's a link to a http://www.southbaycpj.com/new-cars.aspx?I...toryId=17710223 Dodge Charger at dealership in Calgary for $28,090 CAD.

Touché!

[jdobbin]

I told you if you asked politely I'd answer

Actually prices for Dodge brands are now a little cheaper in Canada than they are in the US.

Here's a link to a 2007 Dodge Charger at a dealership in LA for $32,740 USD.

Here's a link to a http://www.southbaycpj.com/new-cars.aspx?I...toryId=17710223 Dodge Charger at dealership in Calgary for $28,090 CAD.

Touché!

I'm afraid that I don't believe it after making the comparison myself this week when I was in the States.

The Globe and Mail was dubious as well despite Chrysler's assurance that things were really close in price.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/Business/home

CHRYSLER PACIFICAPricing in Canada

Base model: $37,495

Total: $37,495

Pricing in the United States

Base model: $29,262

Total: $29,262

There are several dealers who trade in the States who could get me a Dodge Charger for cheaper than in Canada.

Edited August 5, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

I'm afraid that I don't believe it after making the comparison myself this week when I was in the States.

You asked for evidence, but your personal experience trumps anything.

I admit to hacking into the Web sites of both dealerships and changing their price pages in under 10 minutes just to try and provide false evidence.

Good thing you refuse to believe any evidence that contradicts what you know to be true.

[jdobbin]

You asked for evidence, but your personal experience trumps anything.

I admit to hacking into the Web sites of both dealerships and changing their price pages in under 10 minutes just to try and provide false evidence.

Good thing you refuse to believe any evidence that contradicts what you know to be true.

Actually, I showed you a Globe article that contradicts Chrysler.

[Michael Bluth]

Actually, I showed you a Globe article that contradicts Chrysler.

I guess a six week old article trumps prices from dealership Web site accessed today.

[jdobbin]

I guess a six week old article trumps prices from dealership Web site accessed today.

I think I trust the Globe and Mail and Canadian Car and Driver more than your spot check.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/dd/...ifferential.htm

n recent years, however, the situation has changed enormously. Using an average of U.S. dollar exchange rates from January to June 2006, we have determined that the typical vehicle is $5,842 (17 percent) more expensive in Canada than in the United States.

To take this down to a more comprehensible level, consider the case of the Subaru Impreza WRX. In Canada, this sporty sedan lists for $35,495, while in the U.S., it bases at $24,995. Converted using the above mentioned exchange rate average, the U.S. price works out to $28,524 in Canadian currency. The Subaru WRX is 20 percent more expensive in Canada than in the U.S., the price differential effectively moving it from the upper end of the "Compact Sedan" category and into the meat of the "Small Luxury" market. A great number of other cars display similar social mobility when their Canadian and American prices are compared.

Contrary to our previous years' findings, only five 2006 models in the study (we did not price every vehicle) achieved the distinction of being more affordable in Canada than in the United States: the Pontiac Montana SV6, Toyota Corolla, Hyundai Elantra, Chrysler PT Cruiser Convertible, and Hyundai Accent. It appears that, to date, automakers have not adjusted their MSRPs to reflect our dollar's newfound strength, and Canadian vehicle buyers have not reaped the benefits resultant from a strong currency.

[geoffrey]

So no further cuts of any kind to business taxes?

If businesses want to set their own prices why should the Government do anything to help them?

Well, business taxes should be eliminated because they are a hidden tax to everyday citizens... in fact, a double tax at the end of the day. It has nothing to do with a give a little, get a little. Only a big government man would think in those terms.

Government influence in markets should be kept to a minimum. It should never have the power to control the markets through threats of taxation. Any government that does must be quickly dismissed by the people. Putin has accomplished this in Russia, and now controls all the industry through political blackmail.

Flaherty has no right to demand anything from business. No authority whatsoever.

[Michael Bluth]

Flaherty has no right to demand anything from business. No authority whatsoever.

Does the opposite apply? That business has no right to demand anything from government? No authority whatsoever?

If you really feel there should be no taxes on business whatsoever, what do you think the rates on the various personal income tax brackets should be?

Edited August 5, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Posit]

No. Business do not have a "right" to tell government what to do either. They are not people and have no rights under the charter. While their owners and employees do enjoy Charter rights, the business does not.

If you recall the latest increase in retail prices were not because of greed or costs of production. The cost of fuel drove up the transportation costs and force all manufacturers and retailers to increase their prices accordingly. If Flaherty wants business to lower prices hows about he starts by going after the oil companies (who are greedy) and by lowering taxes on gas and oil?

[Michael Bluth]

No. Business do not have a "right" to tell government what to do either. They are not people and have no rights under the charter. While their owners and employees do enjoy Charter rights, the business does not.

If you recall the latest increase in retail prices were not because of greed or costs of production. The cost of fuel drove up the transportation costs and force all manufacturers and retailers to increase their prices accordingly. If Flaherty wants business to lower prices hows about he starts by going after the oil companies (who are greedy) and by lowering taxes on gas and oil?

If businesses aren't passing on savings to consumers due to lower costs from American imports why would they pass on savings to consumers due to lower costs from taxes on gas and oil?

[geoffrey]

Does the opposite apply? That business has no right to demand anything from government? No authority whatsoever?

If you really feel there should be no taxes on business whatsoever, what do you think the rates on the various personal income tax brackets should be?

Of course there should not be business taxes! What the hell is a business? It is made soley of individuals. Tax the individuals, and not hide yourself behind a often loved tax of the left.

Corporate taxes are taxes against those that grow our economy. It's ridiculous and unfounded. Don't hide the taxes. Be strong like Mulroney was with the GST and have it appear on every receipt, not have the masses rally around taxing those damned corporations into the ground (while throwing out their savings in the process).

Business has absolute right to demand the government change. Each corporation is a 'union' of sorts, a collective of individuals in our society.

Saying corporations can't demand government change is equivalent of asking for citizens in general to be silenced of all dissent.

Back to Flaherty's ridiculous comments, would you be ok with the government appearing at your garage sale and telling people not to buy because in their opinion, you charge too much?

No. Business do not have a "right" to tell government what to do either. They are not people and have no rights under the charter. While their owners and employees do enjoy Charter rights, the business does not.

What is a corporation? It's a piece of paper. The actual business is made soley of individuals. I really struggle with this leftist definition of big bad corporate Canada vs. the rest of us. What you don't get is that big bad corporate Canada finances your retirement.

Increasingly taxing them or refusing to eliminate the hidden tax on investors a horrendous invasion of economic liberty, and a covert one at that.

If you recall the latest increase in retail prices were not because of greed or costs of production. The cost of fuel drove up the transportation costs and force all manufacturers and retailers to increase their prices accordingly. If Flaherty wants business to lower prices hows about he starts by going after the oil companies (who are greedy) and by lowering taxes on gas and oil?

Going after oil and gas? What the hell does that mean? Pushing up their taxes?

Without oil and gas, Canada would be a very very second rate nation. It's called a free market. Don't like it, don't buy it. Too bad.

[Michael Bluth]

Of course there should not be business taxes! What the hell is a business? It is made soley of individuals. Tax the individuals, and not hide yourself behind a often loved tax of the left.

Business has absolute right to demand the government change. Each corporation is a 'union' of sorts, a collective of individuals in our society.

Saying corporations can't demand government change is equivalent of asking for citizens in general to be silenced of all dissent.

OK Geoff, let's say we adopt your suggestion.

All corporate taxes are gone tomorrow. What tax increases should the Government incorporate to make up for the lost revenue? Or how much in cuts should be made to government expenditures? Where would those cuts be made?

[geoffrey]

OK Geoff, let's say we adopt your suggestion.

All corporate taxes are gone tomorrow. What tax increases should the Government incorporate to make up for the lost revenue? Or how much in cuts should be made to government expenditures? Where would those cuts be made?

Depends. Do you want to tax the same revenue stream? Then tax investors, made it a big bold line that says how much the government took from your dividends on your statements.

Or, if you want to be a productive economy, tax consumption or income (I've argued elsewhere for flat taxes, I think they are the best way of income taxation... consumption has idealistic advantages but pragmatic issues). Never tax money that is going towards the future growth of our economy. That is absolutely foolish.

But it's also politically easy because people think the government is taxing corporations. What they don't realise is they pay every tax... the corporate tax twice (higher prices or lower returns, and lower take home salaries).

As for what to cut? Again, idealistically almost everything but law enforcement and some infrastructure. The military should be severely scaled back, Health Canada completely gutted and tossed to the curb, the elimination of all Indian programs, the government completely out of culture (ie. CBC and museums and zoos), having citizens pay out of pocket for foreign travel situations that require assistance (good market for private insurance), completely eliminate all corporate loan guarntees, end funding of all special interest groups.

Let's take it further. Completely eliminate all Federal spending and taxation to cover this spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That should move the Federal rate down to next to nothing. If a province wants something, the locals can pay for it. Don't like your province's choices? Move.

Pragmatically, there are lots of cuts that would be great to see. But shifting corporate taxes into income or consumption taxes would be the most honest thing for the government to do.

Want to know something else really exciting? Tax collections from flow through entities will decrease this year because of the tax changes. Corporate taxes are easy to defer and deduct. Personal taxes are essientially impossible.

From moving the taxes from personal to corporate, the CPC both destroyed the most productive and efficient business model in Canada and lowered their taxing power.

Great policy Jim. Great policy. And he keeps going by now threating companies that don't lower their prices. Hey Jim. It's a free market. Don't like the price, don't pay it. Tough.

[Michael Bluth]

Great suggestions for a Government with no intention of being re-elected. Or holding onto party status in the succeeding election.

Why would anyone invest in Canada? Why wouldn't a wealthy Canadian invest his money out of the country and just not bother to re-patriate it?

What percentage of the population would vote for a Government that provides such a minimalistic level of services?

Hell the Conservatives would be lucky to hold 10% of the vote...

I know you'll call it Government at any cost, but your suggestions would lead to the absolute obliteration of any party to the right of the Liberals.

Edited August 5, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

I think Harper's comments this past Friday on taxes is relevant to this thread.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...70803.wtories03

"Everybody likes big tax cuts. I would love a big tax cut. [but] obviously what we do ultimately depends on the fiscal room the government has," Mr. Harper told a press conference to end his Conservative party's summer caucus meeting.

"First and foremost, this government is committed to running responsible fiscal policy where we not only balance our budgets, but we continue to run modest surpluses so we can pay down debt. That's important. And after that we will, obviously, look at a range of tax-reduction measures as well as investments in spending priorities where we think those are relevant to voters."

Conservative strategists and several MPs attending the meeting this week say tax cuts should be high on the list of measures adopted by the party as it prepares for another election.

It looks like Harper prefers to spend down the surplus rather than reducing taxes.

[Michael Bluth]

I think Harper's comments this past Friday on taxes is relevant to this thread.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...70803.wtories03

It looks like Harper prefers to spend down the surplus rather than reducing taxes.

Conveniently ignored the goal of moderate surpluses to pay down the debt in micharacterizing Harper's preferences.

Harper will admit the $14 billion of the most recent surplus is far from moderate. That's why you will see a combination of tax cuts and investments in program spending in the next budget.

[jdobbin]

Conveniently ignored the goal of moderate surpluses to pay down the debt in micharacterizing Harper's preferences.

Harper will admit the $14 billion of the most recent surplus is far from moderate. That's why you will see a combination of tax cuts and investments in program spending in the next budget.

It is always next time. I don't know that even some right wing people are going to like hearing that refrain, especially when spending is higher than what the Tories promised by quite a margin on two budgets.

[Michael Bluth]

It is always next time. I don't know that even some right wing people are going to like hearing that refrain, especially when spending is higher than what the Tories promised by quite a margin on two budgets.

The proof will be in the pudding. Yet again another unsourced statement from the Government to prove your point...