Premier Christy Clark, how do you like her so far?

[sooperphreek]

no - the owner just has to tighten his belt and sell the house in the hamtons to make sure he weathers the storm.

[The Green Barbarian]

no - the owner just has to tighten his belt and sell the house in the hamtons to make sure he weathers the storm.

a storm created by fools.

[D suzuki]

[quote="NAB"][quote]Previously-secret $300 million IBM contract released by reluctant province

The province backed down in an eight-year legal fight to keep parts of the contract from public view, saying it would not appeal a B.C. Supreme Court ruling last month that forced it to release all the information.

The eight-year dispute has cost taxpayers at least $230,000 in legal fees.

That includes more than $124,000 for government (not counting in-house lawyers) and about $105,000 for the privacy commissioner to fight the government in court.


good find nab , just shows the libs do have things they want to hide

[NAB]

Hmmmm....sound familiar? Just goes to show what can happen (even needs to happen?) when extreme Right Wing political interests get "too business friendly" and at the same time let borrowing, taxing, and spending get wildly out of control over a long enough enough period of time on the taxpayer's / feepayer's dime ....

......Coming soon to BC I suspect with some serious drop in anticipated government revenues surprises on the horizon, regardless of whether it is by an NDP government or a Liberal/Socred/Coalition lead by Christy and/or Kevin.... Or even a Conservative government for that matter. The only difference is likely to be that the Conservatives would be more likely to add getting government spending and waste under tighter control so that the tax hit wouldn't be quite so painful. Perhaps even not so likely to keep protecting and growing government related jobs and associated runaway public sector salaries/wages/ and benefits like the other two parties are prone to doing.

"France slaps 7 billion euros in taxes on rich and big firms"

Some snips.....

PARIS (Reuters) - France's new Socialist government announced tax rises worth 7.2 billion euros on Wednesday, including heavy one-off levies on wealthy households and big corporations, to plug a revenue shortfall this year caused by flagging economic growth.

An extraordinary levy of 2.3 billion euros ($2.90 billion) on wealthy households and 1.1 billion euros in one-off taxes on large banks and energy firms were central parts of an amended 2012 budget presented to parliament.

The law, which includes tax increases on stock options and dividends and the scrapping of an exemption on overtime, should easily receive approval by a July 31 deadline after the Socialists won a comfortable parliamentary majority at elections last month.

Hollande says the rich must pay their share as France battles to cut its public deficit from 5.2 percent of GDP last year to an EU limit of 3 percent in 2013 despite a stagnant economy and rising debt.

"We are in an extremely difficult economic and financial situation," Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici told a news conference. "In 2012 and 2013, the effort will be particularly large. The wealthiest households and big companies will have to contribute."

Having promised to freeze central government spending without cutting staffing levels, Hollande will now face the difficult task of convincing France's powerful public sector unions to accept a cap on pay rises and promotions.

"SARKOZY MORE BUSINESS FRIENDLY"

The Socialists accused the previous government of President Nicolas Sarkozy of deliberately overestimating economic growth and tax revenues by several billion euros to improve his chances in presidential elections in April and May.

The amended budget eliminated a number of reforms introduced by Sarkozy, such as the tax exemption on overtime for companies with more than 20 employees. Scrapping that measure should raise 980 million euros this year, the Socialists said.

Repealing a law which shifted labor charges onto a rise in VAT sales tax will also have a net positive effect of 800 million euros, and a doubling of a tax on financial transactions to 0.2 percent will bring in 170 million euros.

"There's a sharp break, politically and to a lesser extent economically, with Mr Sarkozy's more business-friendly fiscal policies," said Nicholas Spiro of Spiro Sovereign Strategy.

Some 300,000 people are likely to be affected by the one-off rise in wealth tax on households with net worth of more than 1.3 million euros, which rolls back a tax shield on the rich introduced by Sarkozy, officials said.

More: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSB ... 4?irpc=932

[interjector]

How do I like Premier Christy Clark so far? Well, so far I like how she's changed her hair style from the spikey fast look to the smooth full look.

[The Green Barbarian]

Hmmmm....sound familiar?

I think these increases would be a lot easier to swallow if they were accompanied by cuts in spending. I note in that article that the socialist bone-heads in France are doing the typical half measure of ramping up taxation without making any spending cuts. All that is going to happen is that most wealthy corporations will restructure and re-domicile to a lower-taxation jurisdiction and wealthy tax-payers will flee the country (many have already) and tax revenue won't increase, in fact, it will go down, and the economy will die. But even with this shining example of what not to do (as if Venezuela wasn't already enough), people just will never learn, and will want the BC government run by Comrade Dix to do the same. Jealousy and envy always over-ride logic and reason.

[Smurf]

Although I understand where you're coming from I have to wonder where they are going to run to. Maybe Greece or Spain. The havens are getting more and more limited by the day. I totally agree with the cutting of spending to match the tax changes. The problem here is party lines. People can't think for themselves. They must follow party lines and beliefs. They like us and most of the world need massive changes and I'm sure they are comming as is shown in different ways by Spain, Greece and now France. I can't see how it is so hard to see we need better, fairer, tax systems, reasonable spending cuts done in a way that doesn't make things worse. We have to get rid of the left/right wing extremists and the swings that go with them. In other words we have to learn to get along for a common goal "the good of the country" which will never happen under either left or right extremes.

[The Green Barbarian]

Although I understand where you're coming from I have to wonder where they are going to run to. .

Belgium and Switzerland.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6338252996

[NAB]

Given the state of the global and local economies, and the uncertainty of what any jurisdiction is doing or may do with respect to dealing with it,.... I rather doubt ANY company in its right mind has relocating/redomiciling elsewhere on its mind. At least motivated in any way by taxation levels where they are. Such major business decisions are based on far greater, diverse, and important criteria than just taxes (labour and benefits costs are the biggie), because even if the differences in taxation may be marginally supportive of a move today or was yesterday all other things being more or less equal, no one in today's uncertain global economic climate knows if that would still be the case tomorrow.

Nab

[sooperphreek]

why leave? just spread propaganda for 4-5 years and use your money to smear the government so you can call in favors later on......isnt that what the koch brothers have done in the states?

[grammafreddy]

She looks like she knows how to ride a horse.

[The Green Barbarian]

Given the state of the global and local economies, and the uncertainty of what any jurisdiction is doing or may do with respect to dealing with it,.... I rather doubt ANY company in its right mind has relocating/redomiciling elsewhere on its mind. At least motivated in any way by taxation levels where they are. Such major business decisions are based on far greater, diverse, and important criteria than just taxes (labour and benefits costs are the biggie), because even if the differences in taxation may be marginally supportive of a move today or was yesterday all other things being more or less equal, no one in today's uncertain global economic climate knows if that would still be the case tomorrow.

Nab

Nab - I didn't realize you were this naive. Of course companies redomicile and change jurisdictions. Usually most companies nowadays that are internationally based, are headquartered in a tax-free jurisdiction, such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or Barbados, and their subs operate in various countries. You have to look no further than what happened in Australia when the uber-socialist Kevin Rudd tried to bring in a mining "super-tax" - all the happened was the big boys stopped all capital investments and closed down their Australian subs. Instead of garnering all of this cash, the Australian government was made to look the giant fool, and the stupidity of the tax cost Kevin Rudd his job, when faced with massive job losses and revenue losses from the mining sector (where he foolishly thought he would be reaping billions) he had to resign in shame. It's the same movie over and over again. The multi-nationals are structured for just such events - ie the local government in the jurisdiction they operate in suddenly going socialist to appeal to their jealous and naive electorate, and this move always always back-fires. Always.

[sooperphreek]

then the mechanisms that make it so easy for a company to position themselves wherever they want on paper should be done away with. you want to have our country and society buy your products? then you live and breathe loud and proud as a member of that country and swallow your pride when you have to anty up and pay a bit more.

[The Green Barbarian]

then the mechanisms that make it so easy for a company to position themselves wherever they want on paper should be done away with. you want to have our country and society buy your products? then you live and breathe loud and proud as a member of that country and swallow your pride when you have to anty up and pay a bit more.

for what purpose though? Just so the money can be funnelled into a stupid government run by idiots that will just blow the cash on socialist black holes? This kind of "thinking" (and I use the term lightly) is so 20th Century. The world has moved on from tiny fiefdoms, and even the concept of countries. Companies invest capital based on a set of variables such that they are going to make money. That's called "risk". This risk has to be managed, such that when one of the variables changes and the risk outweighs the reward, and the concept of profit disappears, action can be taken for risk mitigation, including stopping flows of capital, layoffs etc when the domestic jurisdiction you are operating in changes the playing field, and makes an incredibly stupid taxation policy decision to satisfy its naive and uneducated electorate.

You should try it some time - go and invest in the stock market, or invest in a business, then see how angry you get when the government arbitrarily increases taxes such that your business is no longer profitable and you lose your entire investment. Suddenly, I'd bet immediately, all concept of your nonsensical "live, breathe loud and proud" rhetoric would vanish, and you'd be feeling completely betrayed. That's how the mining internationals felt in Australia, and in the end, the Australian people as well, which is why Mr. Rudd was given his walking papers.

[NAB]

""11th senior staffer leaves Clark's communication team

The exodus of almost a dozen senior communications officials since Christy Clark became premier is raising questions about who is taking the blame for her government's woes.

Eleven communications directors have quit or been fired by the Clark administration since she became premier last spring.

The premier has also shuffled through three press secretaries, two communications directors and three deputy ministers in charge of government communications.

Political scientist Norman Ruff said premiers who are lagging badly in the polls tend to blame the communications staff when their policies fall flat.

"Admitting faults doesn't come easy to anyone, especially to politicians, so one tends to blame communications rather than the actual policy - in this case, the absence of a policy focus," Ruff said.

Clark's "policy vacuum" puts intense pressure on her government's communications staff, most of whom are political appointees and can be fired at whim, Ruff said.

The latest departure came Wednesday when longtime communications director Michelle Stewart left her job in the Health Ministry.

The government had wanted Stewart to take over communications at the Justice Ministry under Shirley Bond. Instead, amid a conflict over whether she would be forced to take the transfer, Stewart quit.

A veteran of both NDP and Liberal governments, Stewart was respected by both parties, and was considered one of the government's most knowledgeable communications staffers.

Approximately five of the 11 departed directors took internal jobs in the unionized civil service.

Three or four were fired. Longtime director Marisa Adair, who had also worked under an NDP government, left to join the B.C. Medical Association.

Communications directors are responsible for directly briefing ministers, hiring staff and strategizing on public messaging.

The government is forecast to spend $26 million on its 201-person communications branch this year, which it says is leaner and less expensive than when the Liberals took power in 2001.

The deputy minister in charge is Athana Mentzelopoulos, a former premier's office staffer and a bridesmaid at Clark's wedding.

The minister responsible, Margaret MacDiarmid, said she was not aware of any concerns about Mentzelopoulos's leadership causing departures.""

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local ... story.html