Stephen Harper: I don't believe any taxes are good taxes

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by llama64

Taxes are bad! Yay go Harper!

...

No, Taxes are disliked but are required for a society with a private central bank. For an economist and the leader of a government to say something like that at an international meetup like the G8 is incredibly questionable.

Still, gotta love the dig at UofC - as if it's some sort of right wing school.

Fixed.

[Rerun]

I wouldn't be surprised if the author, Jeffery Simpson, is a secret card carrying member of the Liberal Party.

The only thing this article is good for is to wipe my @ss if I run out of toilet paper.

[ikaris]

I don't think Harper's comment should be taken so literally. It was just a populist message.

[FanIn80]

This is what the media does though. Personally, I think "media" is the first thing that should be reformed in this country.

Bring some ethics back into the picture. Enough with the lowest common denominator BS.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This is what the media does though. Personally, I think "media" is the first thing that should be reformed in this country.

Bring some ethics back into the picture. Enough with the lowest common denominator BS.

I think the Internet is reforming the media all by itself. The old mediums are slowly becoming dinosaurs. But only the richest companies have been able to keep those dinosaurs alive which is why the traditional media is owned by so few companies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This is what the media does though. Personally, I think "media" is the first thing that should be reformed in this country.

Bring some ethics back into the picture. Enough with the lowest common denominator BS.

The internet is already doing that.

How many big media companies are slowly going bankrupt?

[FlamesAddiction]

It is just an opinion piece, so it isn't really "reporting the news". Unfortunately, every paper does this. I have seen the National Post print similar articles from the other end of the political spectrum.

Just taking the comments in isolation, it's hard to judge what they mean. The word "good" can mean so many different things. It's like making auto repairs... it's not "good" when I have fork out money for them, but it is "good" in the sense that it is necessary.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just taking the comments in isolation, it's hard to judge what they mean. The word "good" can mean so many different things. It's like making auto repairs... it's not "good" when I have fork out money for them, but it is "good" in the sense that it is necessary.

Exactly; what Harper undoubtedly meant is that taxes are something you want to minimize as much as possible, but not to the point where the government can't fund the necessities. They are only "bad" in the sense that you don't want them, but still need them.

[Pastiche]

More fodder:

Dialling it back a notch, Harper's comment was telling on another level. Even if one assumes he was overstating things, that he was just trying to make the point that he'd prefer to see all taxes lower than they are, his words might help explain one of the decisions for which he's been most heavily criticized - the untimely cuts to the GST.
Nobody can seriously argue that all taxes are equally bad (or good). Some are better than others at drawing large amounts of revenue with comparatively minimal economic or personal impact. By the estimation of most economists, the GST is a good tax. But if you start from the premise that any tax cut is a good tax cut, then the main consideration becomes bang for your buck in terms of public opinion - and the GST is among the showiest of taxes to cut.
Nobody likes paying taxes; in and of themselves, they're unpleasant things. For the average taxpayer, it's pretty harmless to grouse about them without considering them in relation to each other or to the services they help provide. For the prime minister, it's a little more troubling.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs...rticle1216560/


And a rebuttal by Spector:

Saying that there's no such thing as a good tax is not the same as saying that all taxes should be eliminated. And it's quite a leap to suggest that Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who expressed the former but not the latter, must be an anarchist or that he holds anarchist views.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs...rticle1217532/

[SeeGeeWhy]

From John Maudlin's Outside the box newsletter (july 13, 2009):

"The most extensive research on tax multipliers is found in a paper written at the University of California Berkeley entitled The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a new Measure of Fiscal Shocks, by Christina D. and David H. Romer (March 2007). (Christina Romer now chairs the [US] president's Council of Economic Advisors). This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3."

Tax is bad for business, which in my view is bad for society. Business is the way that we directly improve "our' quality of life, which drives our ability to agree to social contracts and live a peaceful, healthy and law abiding existence. To wound business is to wound ourselves. Thus, I agree that tax is bad.

HOWEVER, as we are constantly learning, people can't be trusted to be self regulating... even in a free market economy. You need some taxes to help regulate behaviour and keep things at an even keel. The human element will forever prevent mankind from implementing a perfect socio-economic system.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I think it's definitely fair to say that Harper has been given a tough ride in some of the Eastern media circles of late (as will not be a surprise to anyone, I'm no fan of his, but I do think criticism ought ideally to be grounded in basic fairness). This is probably no big deal--one op/ed in one newspaper. But it does illustrate something about politics, which is that people (especially those who don't much like you) tend not to give you the benefit of the doubt when you speak. In that case, if Harper meant to say that taxes are a necessary evil (and it's hard to argue with that anyway) then that's what he should have said.

However, if this weren't a slow news day we wouldn't even be talking about this.

I'm picturing Newspaper editors across the country: "Stephen Harper believes in supply-side economics?!? STOP THE PRESSES!!!!"

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

(Christina Romer now chairs the [US] president's Council of Economic Advisors). This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3."

Maybe she ought to tell the Democrats.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Maybe she ought to tell the Democrats.

I don't think tax multipliers are an exact science, but there are other considerations to ponder. For instance, government dollars spent are also subject to a multiplier effect--so you'd kind of have to weigh one against the other.

There's probably some kind of a butter zone. We can all agree that a marginal tax rate of 75% is a terrible idea--but we can probably just as easily agree that 5% across the board is pretty bad too.

[CaptainCrunch]

Who knows, maybe this will garner more votes for Harper. I mean we all have direct fears on new taxes or increases in the old ones, and there's an assumption that the Liberal's if they gain office will immediately raise taxes.

What Harper should have done was the George Bush "Read . . . MY . . . Lips . . . No New Taxes"

[Azure]

Well, I doubt her numbers are exactly right, but her point is. Raise taxes, and people spend less, because they don't have as much money to spend.

So, in a recession, the government probably shouldn't be looking at raising corporate taxes even higher to pay for a screwed up health care plan. Especially when companies like Microsoft and Amazon have both said that they will move business off-shore if the tax structure does not benefit them.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Who knows, maybe this will garner more votes for Harper. I mean we all have direct fears on new taxes or increases in the old ones, and there's an assumption that the Liberal's if they gain office will immediately raise taxes.

What Harper should have done was the George Bush "Read . . . MY . . . Lips . . . No New Taxes"

Who knows. It certainly isn't going to lose him any votes. I mean it's not as if "low taxes" is a new idea in the Conservative party lexicon!

Some dude writing an op/ed isn't going to change that.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

HOWEVER, as we are constantly learning, people can't be trusted to be self regulating... even in a free market economy. You need some taxes to help regulate behaviour and keep things at an even keel. The human element will forever prevent mankind from implementing a perfect socio-economic system.

Pardon my snide remark, but who will regulate behaviour of humans who cannot be trusted? Little green aliens?

I like how people bring up the "it cannot work because humans are not angels" argument. Politicians/regulators are what?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Pardon my snide remark, but who will regulate behaviour of humans who cannot be trusted? Little green aliens?

I like how people bring up the "it cannot work because humans are not angels" argument. Politicians/regulators are what?

While more and more I do tend to think that completely unfettered markets are just as utopian as egalitarian socialist regimes; market principles do allow for a good deal of state intervention in the form of enforcing contracts etc...

The state should act as an arbiter through the functionality of law, not on the erroneous assumption that politicians or bureaucrats somehow possess a great deal more altruism than the average person.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Who knows, maybe this will garner more votes for Harper. I mean we all have direct fears on new taxes or increases in the old ones, and there's an assumption that the Liberal's if they gain office will immediately raise taxes.

What Harper should have done was the George Bush "Read . . . MY . . . Lips . . . No New Taxes"

And thats why we get right wing governments constantly adding to the national debts of their countries. Should the future generations be shouldering the burdens of our debts?

This was made before the recession I believe (well, before the bailout anyway):

[Azure]

Originally Posted by starseed

And thats why we get right wing governments constantly adding to the national debts of their countries. Should the future generations be shouldering the burdens of our debts?

This was made before the recession I believe:

Insert foot into mouth.

WASHINGTON — The federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time ever and could grow to nearly $2 trillion by this fall, intensifying fears about higher interest rates, inflation and the strength of the dollar.

Oh, and you really ought to check who was in Congress during those 'surplus' years that Clinton had. The US government is 'supposed' to function best when the executive and legislative branches are constantly at war with each other.