Kevin O'Leary nails it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Dude, I am trying to have an actual debate on this.

How can the gov. make it has easy as possible for businesses to start up, and for businesses to relocate to AB?

The Canadian people would not tolerate blowing up the Rand forula.

How else are you going to compete with the 24 right to work jurisdictions in the United States? What about Mexico?

If a company comes to Alberta and set's up shop and creates jobs that are here in AB, as a tax payer I would be OK with that business not paying corporate tax because to me the jobs created far outweigh having a corporate tax and less jobs.

So a race to the bottom is your answer then? As far as I'm aware, the states that have gone to right to work have not seen higher levels of employment vs. those that haven't (i.e. Wisconsin vs. Minnesota), and obviously the quality of life in Mexico is nothing to be proud of. What would then be your suggestion for paying for infrastructure? Would you be okay with higher personal income taxes to offset the lost revenue? Do businesses who make use of our infrastructure not have a responsibility to pay for some of it?

[polak]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Yes, they will be far better off when they have to live in BC or Saskatchewan to get an O&G job. There is no cartel in western Canada, we can't just set our own rates without consequences.

If you think the demand for oil, and oil related products (plastics, rubber, etc.) is gone in two generations that is a pretty obtuse view. And our reserves certainly won't be extinguished in the next two generations (50-60 years).

Two full generations? like 100 years from now? Yes I 100% believe that Oil being a heavily in demand commodity will be a thing of the past. Especially oil that costs so much to pull out of the ground.

[PeteMoss]

Raising the corporate rate to 12% puts Alberta equal to Saskatchewan and lower than Newfoundland if you only consider oil provinces and still below the Canadian average.

This increase is basically bringing Alberta up to a normal Corporate tax rate and not an outlier way below other provinces.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But there's no guarantee cutting taxes will mean more jobs. Companies can of course hoard that money, or pay it out to shareholders instead. It's not like Alberta has the highest corporate tax rate in the country either, it's one of the lowest in Canada even after the increase. Alberta also has a good established talent pool of workers, and no PST which can only help. It should in theory be more attractive than almost anywhere in Canada to start up a business. To me the minimum wage going to $15 would be a bigger issue to deterring business investment than the 2% incremental increase in corporate tax.

As to a better idea, I mean there's no one idea. I mentioned that low paying jobs aren't sustainable in an environment where cost of living is rising....so how do we reduce cost of living? If we did that those types of jobs could be more acceptable because they can provide a decent standard of living. But trying to reduce cost of living is a big task to undertake.

If it does not work after a reasonable time (~10 years), then raise them again. We can't be afraid to try different things and we can't be afraid to reverse course if they don't work.

Simply sitting back and being a naysayer (not you in particular) is not an acceptable solution.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

If it does not work after a reasonable time (~10 years), then raise them again. We can't be afraid to try different things and we can't be afraid to reverse course if they don't work.

Simply sitting back and being a naysayer (not you in particular) is not an acceptable solution.

A business that can't support itself on a 12% corporate tax rate probably shouldn't be in business, as it's likely not sustainable long term.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So a race to the bottom is your answer then? As far as I'm aware, the states that have gone to right to work have not seen higher levels of employment vs. those that haven't (i.e. Wisconsin vs. Minnesota), and obviously the quality of life in Mexico is nothing to be proud of. What would then be your suggestion for paying for infrastructure? Would you be okay with higher personal income taxes to offset the lost revenue? Do businesses who make use of our infrastructure not have a responsibility to pay for some of it?

Are you even reading my posts? Seriously.

Not once, have I said we should blow up the Rand formula. My entire point is to find ways to reduce costs OTHER than wages.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

A business that can't support itself on a 12% corporate tax rate probably shouldn't be in business, as it's likely not sustainable long term.

Well do you have a better idea other reading left wing talking points? Nope. Didn't think so.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Are you even reading my posts? Seriously.

Not once, have I said we should blow up the Rand formula. My entire point is to find ways to reduce costs OTHER than wages.

Are you reading my posts? I'm saying that the right to work states have not gained any economic advantage by becoming right to work states. Again, though, how do you plan to pay for infrastructure and social programs with such low tax rates?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Well do you have a better idea other reading left wing talking points? Nope. Didn't think so.

Companies and businesses should be formed on the basis of supply and demand, correct? Isn't that the foundation of free market capitalism? Lowering the corporate tax rate doesn't increase demand for a product.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

If it does not work after a reasonable time (~10 years), then raise them again. We can't be afraid to try different things and we can't be afraid to reverse course if they don't work.

Simply sitting back and being a naysayer (not you in particular) is not an acceptable solution.

But I think you're forgetting that going into the May election, the vast majority (nearly 70%) of people wanted a corporate tax increase. Smart or not, the NDP did what the general public wanted. We can't be surprised they did the politically expedient thing. It's not a simple thing after all, there are political consequences. The PCs ran on keeping the tax as is but bringing back health care levies. We all know how that worked out.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by polak

Two full generations? like 100 years from now? Yes I 100% believe that Oil being a heavily in demand commodity will be a thing of the past. Especially oil that costs so much to pull out of the ground.

A generation is not 50 years, how many people do you know are having children at 50?

A generation is in the 25-30 year range. So really you are worrying about your grandchildren's grandchildren.

What magic element are we going to make plastics or rubbers from?

A one-hundred year plan is destined to fail, you need to plan for the near future using known metrics, not some crystal ball or what might be.

Stating 100% what 100 years from now looks like, is idiotic.

[PepsiFree]

Here's an interesting article on some recent studies done by Stats Can regarding corporate tax cuts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...service=mobile

- constant debate between pro-business types/conservative policy makers and pro-labour types
- companies haven't reinvested tax cuts into their business since about 1990

Some other stuff that touches on some of what is being discussed here, but overall the evidence seems to suggest that corporate tax cuts haven't benefitted Canada for multiple decades.

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by rubecube

A business that can't support itself on a 12% corporate tax rate probably shouldn't be in business, as it's likely not sustainable long term.

Serious question...have you ever ran a business?

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But I think you're forgetting that going into the May election, the vast majority (nearly 70%) of people wanted a corporate tax increase. Smart or not, the NDP did what the general public wanted. We can't be surprised they did the politically expedient thing. It's not a simple thing after all, there are political consequences. The PCs ran on keeping the tax as is but bringing back health care levies. We all know how that worked out.

You are totally right.......if only everyone saw the world the way I do.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Flacker

A generation is not 50 years, how many people do you know are having children at 50?

A generation is in the 25-30 year range. So really you are worrying about your grandchildren's grandchildren.

What magic element are we going to make plastics or rubbers from?

A one-hundred year plan is destined to fail, you need to plan for the near future using known metrics, not some crystal ball or what might be.

Stating 100% what 100 years from now looks like, is idiotic.

What? Kids that are born in the next 10 years will be around in 100 years. Their kids are the ones who are going to be facing a potential Alberta without nearly the same demand for Oil.

Alright, 100% was obviously an exaggeration but you can put a pretty good guess on where demand for oil as a combustion trigger will go in 100 years considering the direction that technology is going in and environmental impact.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

Serious question...have you ever ran a business?

Relevance to the argument?

[polak]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

Serious question...have you ever ran a business?

Originally Posted by rubecube

Relevance to the argument?

Here comes the "feel sorry for the business owner" angle like it's some God Given right to own a successful business despite it's actual viability. Especially rich, considering the corporate tax increase applies to large businesses only.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by polak

What? Kids that are born in the next 10 years will be around in 100 years. Their kids are the ones who are going to be facing a potential Alberta without nearly the same demand for Oil.

Alright, 100% was obviously an exaggeration but you can put a pretty good guess on where demand for oil as a combustion trigger will go in 100 years considering the direction that technology is going in and environmental impact.

Ok, kids born today, they have kids in 30 years (loose average), these children are in the workforce 50 years from today (two generations) and out of the workforce 90 years from today.

Your grandchildren would be retired in 100 years.

If you can't figure out generations, I don't put much weight in your economic planning.

Crap source, but the first I could find in a hurry:
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/cs/Satelli...=1265124426382

Generation is defined as 20-25 years.

[codfather]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Companies and businesses should be formed on the basis of supply and demand, correct? Isn't that the foundation of free market capitalism? Lowering the corporate tax rate doesn't increase demand for a product.

This is not how it works at all...

Products and services are based on supply and demand. Companies and businesses are responsible for providing these while maximizing profit. Lowering the corporate tax rate means a business retains more profit which can then be reinvested into the company. So you're right that tax rates don't influence demand for a product (directly at least, though indirectly this could be argued), but they do determine impact how profitiable a company is and where they spend their revenues (less to reinvest into the business because a bigger share of profit went to the government).

[polak]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Ok, kids born today, they have kids in 30 years (loose average), these children are in the workforce 50 years from today (two generations) and out of the workforce 90 years from today.

Your grandchildren would be retired in 100 years.

If you can't figure out generations, I don't put much weight in your economic planning.

Actually that's pretty flawed since you're assuming that life expectancy and retirement age stays the same but the generations thing wasn't the main point of my argument. Does it really make a difference if we're taking steps for secure Alberta's future for your grandkids or your great grandkids? Your whole viewpoint is that you only care about your employment, right now, today.

That's the definition of short sighted.