2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Its a pretty slick move targetting the soft NDP'ers. Take from the corporations and give to the people.

I fall on the other side of that one obviously. Give corporations a break and the benefits flow down to the public.

What's kind of annoying about this whole process to me is that I can see a huge potential for Canada over the next few trying fiscal years in the US to be a better place to start and exist as a business with more competitive tax structures. If we could get some companies to relocate to Canada or see the next crop of sucesses come from Canada due to a better fiscal regime then we could benefit greatly in an international sense from the added well-paying jobs and productivity gained.

Unfortuately Iggy has reduced this discussion to a hypothetical two-dimensional lever where money can be shifted without consequence back and forth between corporations and students with no attention paid to the advances that more business being done in this country can bring.

[CaptainCrunch]

Right now Ignatieff and Jack Layton are sounding like Big Business evil, small business good, family better.

[SeoulFire]

On a lighter note:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/canew...-24724606.html

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Ya, but fundamentally speaking all business are taxed on income, not revenue. To call CDE a "subsidy" goes against the underlying structure of corporate tax.

Whether its an Albertan drill hole, an Ontario manufacturing plant, or the pencil some Yukon car dealership buys, costs get netted off of revenue to determine taxable income.

If anything, CDE is a "penalty" because costs must be spread out instead of writing it off as it occurs.

Ah well, we digress...

This is not entirely true, pencils may qualify for some type of capital cost allowance (been a while since I've calculated corporate income tax) but corporate income, treated under our tax laws is revenue.

There are a host of various tax breaks and writeoffs available like for capital costs but the CDE and the CEE are specialized write offs for the oil and gas sector. CEE allows 100% write off from income and allows carry forward and allows flowthrough shares. That's three big subsidies right there that don't exist for other businesses. CDE allows 30% of costs to be written off. If, as you say the the tax system exists, that you can write off all of your capital expenses then why would we need these specialized items?

Bottom line, it's a subsidy and a very big one at that. One report estimated that it's worth over $600 million in foregone tax revenues.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Give corporations a break and the benefits flow down to the public.

They've been beating that horse for decades.

Maybe it's time to do the reverse? Give people a break and the benefits flow down to the corporations. They'll have more money to spend and that money goes to, you guessed it, corporations.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

They've been beating that horse for decades.

Maybe it's time to do the reverse? Give people a break and the benefits flow down to the corporations. They'll have more money to spend and that money goes to, you guessed it, corporations.

I don't want to have a few extra bucks in my pocket, I want a crapload of job opportunities to choose from.

The better business environment we have in Canada, the more business and investment we have here, the more jobs we have.

It all boils down to jobs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

They've been beating that horse for decades.

Maybe it's time to do the reverse? Give people a break and the benefits flow down to the corporations. They'll have more money to spend and that money goes to, you guessed it, corporations.

Since most of the big corporations in Canada are based around energy production, I don't think your theory holds all that true.

For car manufacturers as an example maybe, but I'm not sure that it works on big ticket items.

I think there does have to be a balance on both, but if you can make it a friendly enough business environment to encourage organizations to expand their operations here or encourage international organzation to come here, there is a pretty good flow down in terms of employment and a stable business environment.

Just because you put a few extra bucks in a persons pocket doesn't mean that they're going to necessarily spend the money or spend it where you want to.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I don't want to have a few extra bucks in my pocket, I want a crapload of job opportunities to choose from.

Basic enomomic theory says that the job opportunities should come regardless of the money's starting point since the increased customer purchasing power should increase demand and the private sector will expand until they can produce an adaquate supply.

Then again it's been a long time since I took a macro or micro economic course.

On today's election activities... I award the Tories and Grits zero points, the Dippers -1 Point, and the Bloc +1 point.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Basic enomomic theory says that the job opportunities should come regardless of the money's starting point since the increased customer purchasing power should increase demand and the private sector will expand until they can produce an adaquate supply.

Then again it's been a long time since I took a macro or micro economic course.

Are you suggesting that job opportunities would be the same with 0% and 100% corporate tax rates, and everywhere in between???

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He thinks that he can make that up with the corporate tax cuts.

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has actually done a study of what would happen to tax revenue and unemployment if you jacked up Corporate tax rates.

Well its not "jacking up the tax rates" to use your term. Its just not cutting the last cut that the CPC wants to. Frankly the rates have come down from about 23% in 2005 to 18% now IIRC. Any study that you find is going to be influenced by the party paying for the study.

I can definitely see the benefits of a lower corporate tax regime. At the same time I see countries like Ireland which had ridiculously low taxes for corporations and then their economies were smashed to bits in the crisis. That is of some concern. I also think that alot of the services and programs funded by tax dollars are of great benefit to the corporations here. They don't have to spend on healthcare for example, whereas to the south of us there are additional expenses there to be concerned about as an employer.

I am a free market capitalist....but someone has to pay. I guess for that sort of rationale I'm both on the fence, and somewhere in the middle of what to do. By default then I actually think that the Liberal plan fits me better...seems to be a case where the NDP will say its too low still and the CPC will say its too high.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Since most of the big corporations in Canada are based around energy production, I don't think your theory holds all that true.

For car manufacturers as an example maybe, but I'm not sure that it works on big ticket items.

I think there does have to be a balance on both, but if you can make it a friendly enough business environment to encourage organizations to expand their operations here or encourage international organzation to come here, there is a pretty good flow down in terms of employment and a stable business environment.

Just because you put a few extra bucks in a persons pocket doesn't mean that they're going to necessarily spend the money or spend it where you want to.

It was kind of tongue in cheek, but at the same time, the point is we've been hearing this theory of "trickle down" for 30 years. Things aren't getting all that much better for the people who are supposed to be enjoying the warm trickling effect.

I'm no economist, I don't know the solution, but I know tired old canards like "tax breaks for corporations means everyone wins" aren't working.

I know in the States they bent over backwards for corporations and Wall Street, and then they taxpayers were bent over forwards by corporations and Wall Street.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It was kind of tongue in cheek, but at the same time, the point is we've been hearing this theory of "trickle down" for 30 years. Things aren't getting all that much better for the people who are supposed to be enjoying the warm trickling effect.

I'm no economist, I don't know the solution, but I know tired old canards like "tax breaks for corporations means everyone wins" aren't working.

I know in the States they bent over backwards for corporations and Wall Street, and then they taxpayers were bent over forwards by corporations and Wall Street.

Stagnant or lower real incomes for 90% of the population over the past 30 years is pretty good evidence that trickle down doesn't really work.

[Savvy27]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...a-promise.html

All we know is that the $500 million would be shared between the provinces for child-care infrastructure, training and/or spaces. Oh, and Liberals said the Conservative's $100 a month payments, worth $2.6 billion annually, will continue as well.

What started as a targeted plan back in 1993 with promises of $720 million, has now evolved, in Liberal eyes anyway, into a combined (Liberal-Conservative) $3.1-billion a year child-care plan with no real guarantee of a single new daycare space being created.

Ouch. They better re-work this idea.

[Slava]

Some bad news from the campaign trail today: looks like no debate between just Harper and Ignatieff.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...8.html?ref=rss

For those of us who are undecided (which truthfully I am....believe it or not. I'm almost surely not voting Liberal at this point) this really sucks. No matter who you support I think that this might've been interesting to watch two guys who supposedly are well versed in their positions actually get a little bit passionate in going for each others throats! Instead it'll probably be the same old 5 member (I think they'll bend and let May in) giving us the trite prepared statements for the most part.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

and yet the Conservatives did scale up by one vote, so I don't think its much of a stumble in the campaign. Right now this is euivalent to a seat shuffle on the opposition side of the house with the Conservatives retaining or slightly gaining on thier minority.

And as someone pointed out, the percentage increases were mainly seen in the West which is seat wise fairly secure for the Cons.

The big battleground remains Quebec and inner Toronto, and the polls that I saw up to a couple of days ago show the Liberals losing ground to the Bloc and the cons to an extent.

I would expect that we'll see ups and downs as promises resonate or don't resonate until the two days of leaders debates, then the polls will settle into a more realistic area.

John Ivison, who's hardly a Liberal media guy, wrote about what I touched on. We may be seeing the signs of a hard turn in this election:

Mr. Harper would never have risked mixing with people who had not been pre-vetted. All Conservative photo-ops are carefully arranged and people at rallies must be on a list. Part of this is because he is running a low-risk, front-runner campaign, where you limit the number of opportunities to slip on the inevitable electoral banana-skin. The assumption is that people will vote for you, if you don’t irritate them into voting against you.

But it is more than that. Mr. Harper is simply not a happy electoral warrior and he has never been comfortable kissing babies and hugging pregnant women. When it comes to communication strategies, his need for message control has led to a testy relationship with the media. As Prime Minister, he has managed the flow of information to the media from his MPs and ministers, controlled the environment in which he faces journalists and rationed press conferences and interviews.

In Halifax Thursday, he attempted to carry those tactics into the election campaign and journalists rebelled, complaining they were corralled behind a fence 40 feet from the Conservative leader and limited to five questions a day.

Relations are threatening to spill over by all accounts. Conservative supporters are now making personal attacks on reporters, with one Conservative on Twitter calling two senior press gallery journalists “pathetic” and another approaching scribes to ask if “you guys are reporting the news or making it.”

No wonder Mr. Ignatieff is in good humour. A Nanos poll Thursday suggested the first possible shift of the campaign, with Conservative support holding steady at 39% but the Liberals rising four points to 32%, at the expense of the NDP. The Liberal campaign to this point has been unambitious – sticking mainly to big cities where they know they can draw a crowd.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-for-campaign/

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Are you suggesting that job opportunities would be the same with 0% and 100% corporate tax rates

I dunno, they didn't offer a class that examined the operational expansion of an identical company operating in states of both extreme privatization (0%) and in a state of extreme nationalization (100%).

But it is silly to suggest that cutting income taxes won't have an increasing effect on job creation. To flip your question Are you suggesting that job opportunities would be the same with 0% and 100% income tax rates.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well its not "jacking up the tax rates" to use your term. Its just not cutting the last cut that the CPC wants to. Frankly the rates have come down from about 23% in 2005 to 18% now IIRC. Any study that you find is going to be influenced by the party paying for the study.

I can definitely see the benefits of a lower corporate tax regime. At the same time I see countries like Ireland which had ridiculously low taxes for corporations and then their economies were smashed to bits in the crisis. That is of some concern. I also think that alot of the services and programs funded by tax dollars are of great benefit to the corporations here. They don't have to spend on healthcare for example, whereas to the south of us there are additional expenses there to be concerned about as an employer.

I am a free market capitalist....but someone has to pay. I guess for that sort of rationale I'm both on the fence, and somewhere in the middle of what to do. By default then I actually think that the Liberal plan fits me better...seems to be a case where the NDP will say its too low still and the CPC will say its too high.

Ireland in a lot of ways is not Canada, even with a business friendly tax. the rest of their infrastructure was completely messed up.

And if they're hiring Canadians to work in those companies then how do social programs effect their ability to hire? Those are universal.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ireland in a lot of ways is not Canada, even with a business friendly tax. the rest of their infrastructure was completely messed up.

And if they're hiring Canadians to work in those companies then how do social programs effect their ability to hire? Those are universal.

I don't disagree, and I really am torn on this. Its just that the corporations benefit immensely from the government programs and funded infrastructure as well. Can I say that they should pay their fair share as a result of that though? Clearly no.....I'd be branded as a commie! Someone has to pay for that though, and because the corporations benefit along with the rest of us they should pay something.

I just think its a little more convoluted than the politicians would have us believe. Thats why I gravitate to the more moderate position here. Even if one party is totally right we're part of the way there that way!

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I dunno, they didn't offer a class that examined the operational expansion of an identical company operating in states of both extreme privatization (0%) and in a state of extreme nationalization (100%).

But it is silly to suggest that cutting income taxes won't have an increasing effect on job creation. To flip your question Are you suggesting that job opportunities would be the same with 0% and 100% income tax rates.

Huh? Of course not. That's what I was getting at.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

John Ivison, who's hardly a Liberal media guy, wrote about what I touched on. We may be seeing the signs of a hard turn in this election:

Mr. Harper would never have risked mixing with people who had not been pre-vetted. All Conservative photo-ops are carefully arranged and people at rallies must be on a list. Part of this is because he is running a low-risk, front-runner campaign, where you limit the number of opportunities to slip on the inevitable electoral banana-skin. The assumption is that people will vote for you, if you don’t irritate them into voting against you.

But it is more than that. Mr. Harper is simply not a happy electoral warrior and he has never been comfortable kissing babies and hugging pregnant women. When it comes to communication strategies, his need for message control has led to a testy relationship with the media. As Prime Minister, he has managed the flow of information to the media from his MPs and ministers, controlled the environment in which he faces journalists and rationed press conferences and interviews.

In Halifax Thursday, he attempted to carry those tactics into the election campaign and journalists rebelled, complaining they were corralled behind a fence 40 feet from the Conservative leader and limited to five questions a day.

Relations are threatening to spill over by all accounts. Conservative supporters are now making personal attacks on reporters, with one Conservative on Twitter calling two senior press gallery journalists “pathetic” and another approaching scribes to ask if “you guys are reporting the news or making it.”

No wonder Mr. Ignatieff is in good humour. A Nanos poll Thursday suggested the first possible shift of the campaign, with Conservative support holding steady at 39% but the Liberals rising four points to 32%, at the expense of the NDP. The Liberal campaign to this point has been unambitious – sticking mainly to big cities where they know they can draw a crowd.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-for-campaign/

The one thing thats pretty clear is that Layton's early strategy of simply attacking the Conservatives was flawed. He really wasn't going to steal votes from the Cons as Con voters are really not interested in NDP policies.

Layton really needed to jump on Ignatieff from the start and try to pull seats away fromt he Liberals.

I would expect that Layton will start tearing into Ignatieff in a hurry, or he's really going to start losing more then percentage points.