Photo
March 30, 2012
5 notes
inbonobo: politicalcanuck: danspeerin: INFOGRAPHIC - From the Globe and Mail - showing you the Canadian Budget breakdown. P.S. for us young people - that 40.4 BILLION reserved for the Elderly is only going up, with the Boomers - so buckle in Gen Y. I have no other countries to compare this to, but is it me, or does the disparity between corporate income tax and personal income tax seem rather large?  Shouldn’t the revenue from corporate taxes be a LITTLE higher than a THIRD of what comes in from personal income tax? Scandinavian countries have an even greater disparity while providing more services to their population and having generally more advanced, vibrant economies. Here are the reasons to reduce taxes for corporations: If you take the view the “corporations are people” then you should tax them at personal income tax levels. However, that is not the view most people take and in that case, corporate taxes are a form of “double taxation”, as people’s work is taxed once in corporate taxes, then a second time in personal income tax. We need to focus on personal income taxes, while reducing loopholes for the rich so that their effective tax rate approaches the rate for their income group. If corporations are not people, corporate income taxes should reflect services offered to corporations. Corporations are much easier to move to countries with low taxes than people. We should strive to become an attractive place for corporations to set up their operations here not just through  low taxes, but more importantly, making it easy / cutting red tape. In a corporate-friendly environment with fair but strict rule (and that includes lower taxes) corporations might spend less on corrupting / lobbying the government to create loopholes and there will also be less incentive for regulatory capture. Ah-hah! Thanks for the comment re Scandinavian disparity, that was actually exactly what I was wondering about. that being said, in your list of reasons to keep corporate taxes low, I’d say the US has provided fairly generous tax breaks to corporations, and if anything, lobbying there is WORSE. Not that taxes are the only reason for that (culture, and their election finance laws cannot be ignored) but still a point. Also, Ireland is a good example of having made every effort to keep their country easy for companies to move to.  I seem to recall the EU had to give them quite a bit of help in the last few years. I’m not saying that your statements are necessarily incorrect, so much as there’s a balance needed and I think, sometimes governments take those “rules” you’ve referenced above as “common sense, works 100% of the time”, and then don’t pay attention to the actual impact of their decisions and examine them critically. But that is something I have literally been saying to myself about half of politics I disagree with for AAAAAAGES, so you know.  It doesn’t just apply to this.

inbonobo:

politicalcanuck:

danspeerin:

INFOGRAPHIC - From the Globe and Mail - showing you the Canadian Budget breakdown. P.S. for us young people - that 40.4 BILLION reserved for the Elderly is only going up, with the Boomers - so buckle in Gen Y.

I have no other countries to compare this to, but is it me, or does the disparity between corporate income tax and personal income tax seem rather large?  Shouldn’t the revenue from corporate taxes be a LITTLE higher than a THIRD of what comes in from personal income tax?

Scandinavian countries have an even greater disparity while providing more services to their population and having generally more advanced, vibrant economies. Here are the reasons to reduce taxes for corporations:

  1. If you take the view the “corporations are people” then you should tax them at personal income tax levels. However, that is not the view most people take and in that case, corporate taxes are a form of “double taxation”, as people’s work is taxed once in corporate taxes, then a second time in personal income tax. We need to focus on personal income taxes, while reducing loopholes for the rich so that their effective tax rate approaches the rate for their income group.
  2. If corporations are not people, corporate income taxes should reflect services offered to corporations. Corporations are much easier to move to countries with low taxes than people. We should strive to become an attractive place for corporations to set up their operations here not just through  low taxes, but more importantly, making it easy / cutting red tape.
  3. In a corporate-friendly environment with fair but strict rule (and that includes lower taxes) corporations might spend less on corrupting / lobbying the government to create loopholes and there will also be less incentive for regulatory capture.

Ah-hah! Thanks for the comment re Scandinavian disparity, that was actually exactly what I was wondering about.

that being said, in your list of reasons to keep corporate taxes low, I’d say the US has provided fairly generous tax breaks to corporations, and if anything, lobbying there is WORSE.

Not that taxes are the only reason for that (culture, and their election finance laws cannot be ignored) but still a point.

Also, Ireland is a good example of having made every effort to keep their country easy for companies to move to.  I seem to recall the EU had to give them quite a bit of help in the last few years.

I’m not saying that your statements are necessarily incorrect, so much as there’s a balance needed and I think, sometimes governments take those “rules” you’ve referenced above as “common sense, works 100% of the time”, and then don’t pay attention to the actual impact of their decisions and examine them critically.

But that is something I have literally been saying to myself about half of politics I disagree with for AAAAAAGES, so you know.  It doesn’t just apply to this.

Tags: canada budget finance fiscality fiscal policy taxes taxation corporation regulatory capture

Photo
March 30, 2012
5 notes
danspeerin: INFOGRAPHIC - From the Globe and Mail - showing you the Canadian Budget breakdown. P.S. for us young people - that 40.4 BILLION reserved for the Elderly is only going up, with the Boomers - so buckle in Gen Y. I have no other countries to compare this to, but is it me, or does the disparity between corporate income tax and personal income tax seem rather large?  Shouldn’t the revenue from corporate taxes be a LITTLE higher than a FOURTH of what comes in from personal income tax?

danspeerin:

INFOGRAPHIC - From the Globe and Mail - showing you the Canadian Budget breakdown. P.S. for us young people - that 40.4 BILLION reserved for the Elderly is only going up, with the Boomers - so buckle in Gen Y.

I have no other countries to compare this to, but is it me, or does the disparity between corporate income tax and personal income tax seem rather large?  Shouldn’t the revenue from corporate taxes be a LITTLE higher than a FOURTH of what comes in from personal income tax?

Tags: 2012 Baby Boomers Canada Gen Y budget harper infographic money politics stephen harper Millennials

Link
September 20, 2011
6 notes
Feds hire 'cuts' consultant at $90,000 a day

The federal government is paying a high-powered management consultant firm almost $90,000 a day for advice on how to save money.

Deloitte Inc. was hired on Aug. 15 on a $19.8-million contract to advise the federal cabinet and senior officials on ways to balance the books by 2014.

The contract is to advise “senior and elected officials on public and private sector best practices in improving productivity and achieving operational efficiencies.” It expires March 31.

There is also an option for a one-year extension. The federal government invited a select group of 20 “pre-qualified” firms to bid on the work on July 11, rather than use a fully open tendering process. And documents describing the work required were supplied directly to the invited bidders, instead of on a tendering website for anyone to see.

The Canadian Press obtained a copy of the “statement of work” under the Access to Information Act.

Deloitte will advise the government on the Strategic and Operating Review, a year-long exercise announced in the March 22 budget which will eventually trim $4 billion from $80 billion in annual program spending.

A list (in no particular order) of my thoughts:

  • This kind of price tag and the gut response to really more goes to show the difference between a massive, many cogged government and the common person.  19.8 million versus 4 billion dollars in savings is significant.  SHOULD it pan out and the company delivers, the government successfully applies the recommendations and the sun remains shining and the wind does not blow from the west, this price is definitely comprehensible.
  • However - the gut response makes for good headlines.
  • Also, $90K is more than most people see a YEAR.
  • also, also.  There is always something that feels a little off about we have to spend money to save money.
  • Dude.  DIDN’T THEY.  IN APRIL.  AND THEN AGAIN IN JUNE.  MAKE A BIG DEAL.  ABOUT THE WHOLE.  ”we have the economic plan! the plan that will save us and BALANCE THE BOOKS BY 2014?!?!? If this amazing plan, part of a very lack lustre budget, was, you know, guaranteed by the BUDGET and the PLANS already in place, shouldn’t it be unnecessary to hire these people, since the promise was already MADE?
  • Sounds like the cart was put before the horse.
  • Why am I not surprised.

Tags: News Canada Lies our government might be telling us Politics Deloitte Inc Budget

Quote
May 28, 2011
6 notes
"

In the last federal budget, the Conservative government said program expenses were forecast to drop to 12.9 per cent of gross domestic product in 2015-16 from 15.1 per cent in 2010-11, held up as evidence of its tight fiscal management.

However, in order to increase program spending as planned while lowering its percentage of GDP, the economy will have to grow in the next four years from about $1.2 trillion to $2 trillion, a massive - and, frankly, unbelievable - annual growth of 13.5 per cent.

"

—

Oh Canada. (via jakke)

You know, I tend to be a bit of an ideological (or maybe naive) soul about the concept “lying politicians” - I don’t think most of them lie, I think a lot of them make promises that they think they can keep at the time, and then when they are actually voted in, the cold hard chill of reality sets in, and they can only do say 10% of what they promised.  This is clearly not the case here.

STUFF LIKE THIS HARSHES MY ROSE-COLOURED GLASSES BUZZ, GUYS.

(Source: vancouversun.com, via jakke)

Tags: canada politics budget

Link
March 15, 2011
1 note
Canadians Don't Want The Federal Government Brought Down On Its Budget
  • This is based on an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted between March 7-9 of 1002 Canadians with a margin of error of 3.1% 19 times out of 20.
  • 27% of Canadians think the opposition should vote against the budget.
  • A further 17% feel that the opposition should wait and see what is in the budget before deciding on the vote.
  • Should the budget lead to an election, Canadians are evenly split as to whether or not the Conservative Government or the Opposition is to blame.
  • Poll found 40% in favour of the Tories, a 3% drop from the last poll in February.
  • Liberals are unchanged at 27% and the NDP grew 3% to 16%
  • Bloc Québecois would receive 11% of the vote nationally, and take the lead in Québec.
  • Liberals have declared they will vote against the bill.  NDP is on the sidelines until they know how much of their proposals are included in the bill.  The Bloc have made their own requests, a 5 billion dollar proposal including 2.2 billion dollars to compensate Québec for the harmonization tax.

Other highlights include:

  • 92% support more infrastructure put in place for low-income seniors
  • 90% support increased spending on health care.
  • 84% support expanding the Canadian Pension Plan.
  • 39% support corporate tax cuts, 58% oppose.
  • 29% of Canadians support giving 2.2billion to Québec over tax harmonization. 64% of Québecois support it.

—-

Uhm.  What if the budget doesn’t include increased infrastructure for seniors, expanding CPP and health care spending, but includes corporate tax cuts? Just asking, Canada.

    Tags: Canada Budget Budget 2011 Election 2011 News Poll

    Link
    March 13, 2011
    5 notes
    Election Rumblings Grow Louder

    OTTAWA — Rumblings that a federal election might be imminent grew louder on Sunday when NDP Leader Jack Layton said there were no signs that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would address any of his party’s budget demands.

    “I don’t want to support this particular government,” Mr. Layton said on CTV’s Question Period. “I do want to get things done.

    “However, the fact that we’ve really had no indication from the government that they’re doing anything significant, you’ve got to assume that that budget document’s probably been sent off to some printer somewhere already being printed.”

    Mr. Layton met with Mr. Harper several weeks ago to discuss the key issues that the NDP hoped would be addressed in the upcoming budget, including support for seniors and better funding for doctors and nurses. The opposition could send Canadians to the polls if they decide not to support the federal budget, which is a confidence matter.

    Tags: Canada Budget Budget 2011 Election 2011 Jack Layton NDP Stephen Harper

    Link
    February 20, 2011
    2 notes
    Scrapping Tax Cuts Still Key to Budget Support

    Synopsis:

    Friday night (February 18th) New Democrat Party leader, Jack Layton met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss the new budget which needs to be laid out in about 4 weeks. 

    In the forty minute conversation, according to Mr. Layton, they discussed primarily the plan for tax cuts to corporations (ostensibly to encourage job growth), bringing back the tax credit for home heating and home renovations and the dearth of general practitioners in the country - 4 million Canadians, more than a tenth of the population are without a Primary Medical Doctor.

    —

    Mr. Harper needs one opposition party (Liberal, Bloc Quebecois or NDP) to agree to his budget for it to pass.  If he cannot get that much, Canadians will go to the polls due to a defeated minority government.

    A lot of people seem to be getting upset in CTV.ca comments that NDP’s Jack Layton is “interfering” and it’s not his place because he is not prime minister.  No, honey, this is a minority government, and that means the party in power needs to play nice with at least one other opposition party (sometimes you have to play with TWO depending on how the numbers play out, O NOES) or you get ousted because every year you have to put out a budget that people have to vote for.  Jack Layton is not “interfering”.  Jack Layton is “negotiating” to get what he wants for Canada.

    (disclaimer: I am generally an NDP voter in case you can’t tell)

    I’ve noticed a few blogs also feeling that Mr. Layton is selling out by getting into bed with the Conservatives and - I don’t know.  On the one hand - STRANGE BEDFELLOWS.  But on the other - NDPs aren’t going to get a majority government or even a minority government (c’mon, we Canadians are too happy flipflopping between Liberals and Conservatives as if there’s an appreciable difference between the two to throw ourselves to the NDPs now)  any time soon.  And if we go to the polls and either end up with a Liberal or Conservative Majority, he won’t have as much bargaining power. So now is the time to negotiate for what he wants in return for Mr. Harper staying in power.

    This is probably why there aren’t any tumblrs out there (That I can find) devoted to Canadian politics.

    Instead of shouting: “SIT. DOWN.” in congress we go and have nice polite Friday meetings and then talk about it in the news the next day.

    Tags: Budget Canada Jack Layton Minority Government NDP Stephen Harper conservatives politics CTV