Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Just want to point out that this represents a lack of understanding about how market stability is supposed to work. Whatever role government plays in the market, however much or little interference it contributes, the important thing is to try to create stable, predictable conditions so that businesses don't have to guess what structural changes will be made in the future based on political swings. What you're describing, business creating contingencies for potential future government actions that worsen market conditions, is the reason that it's so hard to get investment in unstable countries in Africa or South America, for example. That's the extreme version of what you're talking about here.
In other words, whether you think there should be a carbon tax or the minimum wage should be X or the corporate rate should be Y, or there should be tolls on every major roadway in the city or whatever, one of the goals of each level of government should be to create a stable business environment where businesses do not have to do precisely what you're suggesting every business should do.
|
Creating a stable business environment? Is that not what the intent of planning for future shortfalls in revenue is?
You're planning ahead for when the money isn't coming in anymore so that you DON'T have to raise taxes when people are hurting in the midst of a downturn?
And again, we're talking about going from THE LOWEST tax to tied for the 2ND LOWEST tax. It's not like the business legislation in Alberta just went bonkers here.... I think it's smart business to give yourself wiggle room for cost increases. Government imposed or otherwise. Planning your business with the absolute best case scenario as the only option is a recipe for disaster. Just ask this guy.