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

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

Well but that doesnt prove that state regulators are the solution to the "private regulators cannot work because of the human element" problem. The human element is there and on top of that you have to deal with the fact that state regulators are completely removed from carrying any sort of real responsibility.

Private companies screw up, they face the wrath of unsatisfied consumers so they try their best not to screw up. What's the motivation of a state regulator not to screw up? Altruism, and that's about it...

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Azure

Insert foot into mouth.

That is because Obama inherited a recession. The $700B bailout was Bush's administrations idea anyway. He has only had 1/2 a year out of 8, you cannot really judge him yet.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by starseed

That is because Obama inherited a recession. The $700B bailout was Bush's administrations idea anyway. He has only had 1/2 a year out of 8, you cannot really judge him yet.

Although in reality that's a good point, it isn't how politics works. The economy--and the deficit--are Obama's baby now, for better or for worse. That's just how politics is--it can be akin to a game of "hot-potato" sometimes.

You might make similar arguments about Reagan and Bush I--both had democrats in congress holding the purse strings and limiting their deficit hawkery a little--though Reagan was much more interested in lowering taxes than he was in cutting spending. By contrast, Bill Clinton had a Republican-controlled congress, so giving him full credit doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

Bush II on the other hand has no excuse--but that's a whole different story.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by starseed

That is because Obama inherited a recession. The $700B bailout was Bush's administrations idea anyway. He has only had 1/2 a year out of 8, you cannot really judge him yet.

Who said anything about the $700B bailout?

Your 'picture' is talking about the 'budget'...and the deficits that every government since Reagan, save Clinton, have run.

Obama's BUDGET, the one HE proposed.....has a billion dollar deficit. Guess what? That is more than all 3 of those 'fiscal conservatives' budgets combined.

So much for your 'theory.'

Obama is nothing more than a big-government fool. I don't need 8 years to figure that out.

[SebC]

Of course there are good taxes... they're the ones that keep the booms from getting too big so that the busts don't get too big.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Bush II on the other hand has no excuse--but that's a whole different story.

Not even the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan can be used by an excuse by all the people who want to defend Bush II for his ridiculous spending practices.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Of course there are good taxes... they're the ones that keep the booms from getting too big so that the busts don't get too big.

Don't forget those taxes that encourage companies to take their business elsewhere.

[starseed]

I am not saying I am in favour of the scale of the bailouts, or the massive deficit Obama has run, but I think Obama will find a way once the recession is over, to start paying down the debt.

It is a blind assumption that may not come true, but we will see. I am not in favour of politicians who blindly cut taxes only to find that they are not willing to cut much fat from the government. There has to be a solid prudent plan instead of just throwing money at tax cuts and hope that the 'trickle down theory' will counterbalance the massive debtload that will be brought on the country.

The Liberals in this country had us on pace to eliminate the debt by the 2020s, the conservatives wiped away the surpluses even before the recession hit. I am a firm believer in eliminating our national debt during the good times. There is no excuse for the conservatives other than their faith in reaganomics which IMO has made a very negative impact on US society.

[Azure]

And I'm not in favor of politicians who want to raise corporate taxes to pay for ridiculous spending programs that won't improve the social quality of life anyways.

The US is far beyond the point of 'finding a way, DOWN the road' to fix the problem they have now.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by starseed

The Liberals in this country had us on pace to eliminate the debt by the 2020s, the conservatives wiped away the surpluses even before the recession hit. I am a firm believer in eliminating our national debt during the good times. There is no excuse for the conservatives other than their faith in reaganomics which IMO has made a very negative impact on US society.

To be fair, the Conservatives were elected on this platform by the people of Canada in '06 and they simply followed through on their promises. Your beef with the defecit/surplus results should be with the electorate who chose this option over the what the Liberals were offering.

Their plan, combined with the economic downturn would have led us to pretty much the same state we are in because instead of cutting billions in taxes, they planned billions of dollars in additional spending through socialized child care and the Kelowna Accord.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by starseed

I am not saying I am in favour of the scale of the bailouts, or the massive deficit Obama has run, but I think Obama will find a way once the recession is over, to start paying down the debt.

It is a blind assumption that may not come true, but we will see. I am not in favour of politicians who blindly cut taxes only to find that they are not willing to cut much fat from the government. There has to be a solid prudent plan instead of just throwing money at tax cuts and hope that the 'trickle down theory' will counterbalance the massive debtload that will be brought on the country.

The Liberals in this country had us on pace to eliminate the debt by the 2020s, the conservatives wiped away the surpluses even before the recession hit. I am a firm believer in eliminating our national debt during the good times. There is no excuse for the conservatives other than their faith in reaganomics which IMO has made a very negative impact on US society.

You mean when he'll be trying to get re-elected? Yeah that's totally the time when Obama will cut the spending to pay off debt.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I'm not in favor of politicians who want to raise corporate taxes to pay for ridiculous spending programs that won't improve the social quality of life anyways.

The US is far beyond the point of 'finding a way, DOWN the road' to fix the problem they have now.

I recognize the importance of keeping corporate tax at competitive levels, but these evil social programs go a long way towards creating a better society for all of us. The slums and gutters in America are many times worse than they have ever been, the problems created by poverty and a lack of a workable saftey net have been mounting in that country for years. In Canada we could do more to make it more efficient and ensure that people are enabled to pick themselves up and out of welfare and into the workforce, but eliminating the efforts to reduce poverty would create a decaying social problem that is plaguing the US. There is a reason the US government pays more per capita on healthcare despite not covering millions of their citizens, there is a reason 1 out of every 100 americans are in prison, there is a reason crime and poverty in urban centres get worse every year, and that reason is a failed ideology. The reagan/socially conservative philosophy. The pure capitalist ideology.

The Liberals were the party of business, while also being the party of social progress. Now that they have come back from the far left, they are best choice for the best form of government we have yet to come up with.

I am in a rush, I will write more when I get off work... sorry for jumping all over the map and skipping things.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't forget those taxes that encourage companies to take their business elsewhere.

Prisoner's dilemma... whilst it's in one country's self-interest to lower taxes at the expense the others, when every one does this it leads to vicious business cycles. Fortunately, unlike in an actual prisoner's dilemma, countries can communicate and thus co-operate to keep the global economy stable. It's also an interated problem, so there's potential to retaliate for non-cooperation.

Hey, if they can do it for controlling the downswings (which is why there were meetings to co-ordinate stimulus packages: if nobody else spends you're wasting your money ineffectively, if everybody else spends yours is just a drop in the bucket that isn't really important so you might as well just let everyone else do the lifting and save yourself from going into debt - yet if everyone does this there won't be a stimulus and your economy stays in the gutter so the best solution is co-operative) then they can do it for controllign the upswings (as another way to control the downswings).

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by SebC

Hey, if they can do it for controlling the downswings (which is why there were meetings to co-ordinate stimulus packages: if nobody else spends you're wasting your money ineffectively, if everybody else spends yours is just a drop in the bucket that isn't really important so you might as well just let everyone else do the lifting and save yourself from going into debt - yet if everyone does this there won't be a stimulus and your economy stays in the gutter so the best solution is co-operative) then they can do it for controllign the upswings (as another way to control the downswings).

So they can do like Steady Eddie has done in controlling the upswing and making the downswing that much worse?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So they can do like Steady Eddie has done in controlling the upswing and making the downswing that much worse?

Umm... no.

Stelmach's royalties came in way too late, and should have been off as soon as the economy started slipping. It's a self-correcting system, the idea is smooth out the fluctuations. As soon as it's on the way down the derivative element is the important one.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Umm... no.

Stelmach's royalties came in way too late, and should have been off as soon as the economy started slipping. It's a self-correcting system, the idea is smooth out the fluctuations. As soon as it's on the way down the derivative element is the important one.

Well, the problem with that is actually seriously thinking the government will cut taxes in a time of recession to promote more growth.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by SebC

Umm... no.

Stelmach's royalties came in way too late, and should have been off as soon as the economy started slipping. It's a self-correcting system, the idea is smooth out the fluctuations. As soon as it's on the way down the derivative element is the important one.

No, the royalties shouldn't have ever came in in the way they did. It was a fallacy that by raising royalties, the government would increase yearly revenues. The oil and gas industry is complex with many feedbacks so when the expected royalty cost went up, the land sale value went down. The government lost over a billion dollars in land auctions the year after they announced the changes to the royalty system, even before the benefits of the increased costs came in.

Alberta is a mature petroleum basin and that means that there are many many wells each producing a much lower volume than in years past. By increasing the government cut, a huge number of marginal wells went from economically viable (turning a small profit for the company and as much as ten times that income for the government) to no longer viable and therefore shut in, producing no taxes or royalties. When you couple the change with the economic downturn and the amazing crash in natural gas prices resulting from shale gas production from the Barnett Shale in the States, you have a perfect storm that drove investment out of the province to other jurisdictions and amplified the damage of the current recession. This is what you get when you have farmers tinkering with economics.

The only changes that were justified would be the changes to the bitumen cost structure because they were set artificially low for the last 30 years to encourage investment and technology development. That technology development is complete and new projects should be taxed accordingly.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, the problem with that is actually seriously thinking the government will cut taxes in a time of recession to promote more growth.

Seems to me that implementation problems are more prevalent on the boom side than on the bust side. If you raise taxes in the booms, you can afford to cut them in the recessions.

Originally Posted by Bownesian

snip

Bownesian... you're largely right. I'm was thinking more of the oilsands sector, where the boom led to massive cost escalations that don't correct themselves as quickly as the oil price does. That's made billions of dollars' worth of potential development unprofitable.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Seems to me that implementation problems are more prevalent on the boom side than on the bust side. If you raise taxes in the booms, you can afford to cut them in the recessions.

Well, I guess you have the idea of not wanting to screw with what is working, but I would tend to agree with implementing slightly higher taxes in a boom, and lowering them in a bust.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, I guess you have the idea of not wanting to screw with what is working, but I would tend to agree with implementing slightly higher taxes in a boom, and lowering them in a bust.

Then aren't the taxes in the boom that you agree with "good taxes"?