Businesses Getting Billions In Tax Cuts

[logicalview]

Wholly Occupy Canada!

Profitable Canadian businesses are set to reap $2.85 billion in additional income tax savings in 2012, even as Prime Minister Stephen Harper complains about all the private "money sitting on the sidelines."

The last of five annual corporate tax cuts took effect Sunday, reducing the federal rate by another 1.5 points to 15 per cent.

Queue the Harper bashers!

From 22.12 per cent in 2007 to 15 per cent on Jan. 1, federal corporate tax rates have been in steady decline. In fact, federal corporate taxes have been cut almost in half since 1990, when they stood at 28 per cent.

Hey, did you notice that it was the federal rate being discussed above?

Back in 2000, the combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate in Canada averaged 43 per cent — the highest among OECD countries.

But that doesn't mean squat to those that hate the economic engine of this great country. If they had their way "greedy" corporations would be taxed to death and then taxed again for fun.

But wait, what company in their right mind would come to Canada, the truth north strong and free, to pay the highest tax rates when they can set up shop, create jobs and pay taxes in another "greedy" corporation friendly country?

If the average rate in Canada was 43 per cent (and according to the entitlement crowd it should be way more) then what is the rest of the world like?

Jack Mintz, a tax specialist who is chair of public policy at the University of Calgary, says Canada's combined federal-provincial corporate rate in 2012 will be around the world average of 26 per cent.

So the rest of the free world now operates at 26 per cent and Canada was at 43 per cent?

(Ehhem, "Jack Mintz is a liar", heard from the back row seats.)

These lower taxes must mean that "greedy" corporations must be getting absolutely filthy rich while "normal" Canadians are dying in the street.

The move (the recent reduction of corporate taxes) comes as corporate Canada, from multinationals to midsize businesses, squirrels away hundreds of billions of dollars as it rides out a second storm of global economic turbulence in the past three years.

The latest figures from Statistics Canada through the third quarter of 2011 show Canadian business sitting on more than $583 billion in Canadian currency and deposits, and more than $276 billion in foreign currency.

How dare the greedy corporations "squirrel away hundreds of billions of dollars" when they should be robbed of it and the spoils be given to the poor.

Mintz argues profits are being shifted back to Canada due to the tax cuts, a move that benefits provincial tax bases in particular.

Wow. Then the taxpayer should be happy then right?

"In an open economy, most of the corporate tax ends up impacting on labour and tends to be either shifted to higher consumer prices or lower wages. So it tends to be a regressive tax, the corporate tax."

"But the public doesn't perceive that," Mintz said in an interview. "They look at (corporations) as powerful and that if you cut corporate taxes you're making the rich more rich."

So the public is pretty much playing silly bugger then?

Mintz agrees "this whole issue of cash on hand for corporations, it plays very well for the people who are critical of corporate tax cuts in terms of helping the more powerful."

"Yet on the other hand, that liquidity has helped us avoid a much more severe recession because Canadian companies have good balance sheets," he said. "If they didn't, they would have got into a lot more trouble."

More trouble means less jobs.

"Businesses don't invest for political reasons," Perrin Beatty, the CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview.

"They invest because they feel the climate is such they'll get a return on the investment. You're not going to go off and hire somebody if you think you're going to be selling less stuff next year than you did this year."

However there are plenty in the entitlement crowd that can't grasp that simple concept.

[Bagotricks]

"Businesses don't invest for political reasons," Perrin Beatty, the CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview.

"They invest because they feel the climate is such they'll get a return on the investment. You're not going to go off and hire somebody if you think you're going to be selling less stuff next year than you did this year."

However there are plenty in the entitlement crowd that can't grasp that simple concept.

Entitlement crowd? You mean the top 1% getting welfare checks and sitting on the money?

This article once again clearly dispels the myth of "trickle down".

We are told that corporate tax cuts stimulate the economy in rough times and create growth and jobs, but when they got the tax cuts the sat and are still sitting on that money and bluntly say don't invest it in shakey, uncertain times (like now). So much for that little ditty.

Welfare checks for the jet set crowd. Your taxes will go up and wages and services will go down to pay for it. Infact, they already have.

Vote Conservative for more welfare checks to successful, profitable companies. Cross your fingers for some crumbs, just don't hold your breath.

[Free Market]

"Businesses don't invest for political reasons," Perrin Beatty, the CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview.

"They invest because they feel the climate is such they'll get a return on the investment. You're not going to go off and hire somebody if you think you're going to be selling less stuff next year than you did this year."

However there are plenty in the entitlement crowd that can't grasp that simple concept.

Entitlement crowd? You mean the top 1% getting welfare checks and sitting on the money?

This article once again clearly dispels the myth of "trickle down".

We are told that corporate tax cuts stimulate the economy in rough times and create growth and jobs, but when they got the tax cuts the sat and are still sitting on that money and bluntly say don't invest it in shakey, uncertain times (like now). So much for that little ditty.

Welfare checks for the jet set crowd. Your taxes will go up and wages and services will go down to pay for it. Infact, they already have.

Vote Conservative for more welfare checks to successful, profitable companies. Cross your fingers for some crumbs, just don't hold your breath.

Bagotracks, explain yourself? Welfare cheques for the 1%? Where do you see these? All I say is tax cuts on money that is only there because someone took the initiative and the risk to create the enterprise in the first place that is now going to be taxed less. Given that you were probably born and raised in Canada, a country that provides its citizens with overwhelming opportunity if they only make the right life choice decisions and work hard you should be ashamed of yourself for making such an allegation. You could have been born on a shantytown on the outskirts of Nairobi or La Paz or Bangkok. I have seen some of those places. Those are people who have legitimate reason complain.

As for the topic at hand, my wife and I were having this discussion this morning. Where should we be investing our money? Where can we expect to see good growth opportunities and rates of return that will compensate us for the risks we would be taking on?

[NAB]

Right now I think your mattress might be as good a place as any LOL.

Nab

[Free Market]

Right now I think your mattress might be as good a place as any LOL.

Nab

The areas I have been giving consideration to are opportunities in South America in general and locally, where there might be opportunities in biotech and nanotech. From my own jaunts down there (South America) I have seen firsthand evidence that there is good reason to believe they are on track to become an serious economic powerhouse over the next 10-20 years. Brazil is already there pretty much. Locally, I have attended a few conferences and I think we will see a lot biotech and nanotech emerge from the R&D labs over the next few years. One area of nanotech with a bright future is thin film photovoltaics. They are approaching the magical $1/watt, which means they are truly green in every sense of the word (granted in Canada closest we get to that is with our $20 bill, the rest are blue ($5) or reddish ($50) or some other colour.) and stand on their own without special tariffs from BC Hydro, etc. or government subsidies.

[Prestige Mike]

How about the G-20 gets together and agrees to raise corporate taxes together?

[Free Market]

How about the G-20 gets together and agrees to raise corporate taxes together?

And what would be the point of that? Progressive countries like Sweden are doing everything they can to reduce their corporate taxes. They are socially regressive.

[Bagotricks]

Bagotracks, explain yourself? Welfare cheques for the 1%? Where do you see these? All I say is tax cuts on money that is only there because someone took the initiative and the risk to create the enterprise in the first place that is now going to be taxed less.

These companies used roads, services, infrastructure, police and military and legal means to make their money. Tax dollars pay for that infrastructure. That infrastructure was built with the tax revenue that the high earners paid previously, at a much higher rate. There is a now a infrastructure crisis in Canada and there is 18% less money coming in from the top 1% since 2000.

Why should they pay less into the system when they are taking so much out of it? Those "tax breaks" means crumbling roads and hospital line-ups, while they pad their bank accounts and open up slave factories in Mexico. Trickle down is a myth, sold by politicians who are owned by the top shelf of society.

Why should they get breaks, especially when they are highly profitable and not creating jobs with their new found wealth, but sitting on the piles of cash instead waiting for better days, as this article ( and all known economic data ) clearly shows?

[Free Market]

Bagotracks, explain yourself? Welfare cheques for the 1%? Where do you see these? All I say is tax cuts on money that is only there because someone took the initiative and the risk to create the enterprise in the first place that is now going to be taxed less.

These companies used roads, services, infrastructure, police and military and legal means to make their money. Tax dollars pay for that infrastructure. That infrastructure was built with the tax revenue that the high earners paid previously, at a much higher rate. There is a now a infrastructure crisis in Canada and there is 18% less money coming in from the top 1% since 2000.

Why should they pay less into the system when they are taking so much out of it? Those "tax breaks" means crumbling roads and hospital line-ups, while they pad their bank accounts and open up slave factories in Mexico. Trickle down is a myth, sold by politicians who are owned by the top shelf of society.

Why should they get breaks, especially when they are highly profitable and not creating jobs with their new found wealth, but sitting on the piles of cash instead waiting for better days, as this article ( and all known economic data ) clearly shows?

And can you assure me that corporate taxes are not being used to fund things like healthcare or subsidize the use of roads, infrastructure, etc. that are used by private citizens? And why are you so concerned about trickle down? We live in a country that has made the investments to provide its citizens with the opportunity to make their own way. Are you going to tell me that when I drive down KLO road that Okanagan College and its trade school are a figment of my imagination? How about UBC-O off of highway 97 just north of town? Is that a figment of my imagination too? Were the graduate students there doing biotech research that might be commercialized also a figment of my imagination?

[Prestige Mike]

How about the G-20 gets together and agrees to raise corporate taxes together?

And what would be the point of that? Progressive countries like Sweden are doing everything they can to reduce their corporate taxes. They are socially regressive.

If the g-20 agreed to raise corporate taxes across the board, then corporations couldn't use the threat of leaving our country to do business in a country with lower corporate taxes.

[heymac]

Companies leaving and setting up shop somewhere else happens for many reasons, not just tax cuts. A bigger problem is they leave for lower wages to the workers that do the work. They don't give a rats a$$ about them. It's all greed for the ones at the top. Having them sit on billions of dollars when there are so many out of work proves it. Why would you hire more when you don't plan on selling more you ask? The world is changing and with all the democracy protests and governments falling like dominos why would you think your going to sell less? Huge opportunity to sell more I would think. But no they will cry the blues and order workers to take less all the while demanding tax cuts and making more instead of hiring.

[heymac]

http://www.nationofchange.org/san-francisco-becomes-first-nation-10-minimum-wage-and-sky-isn-t-going-fall-1325435099

[Captain Awesome]

People who complain about rich people or businesses not paying any taxes usually don't pay any taxes themselves (due to low income).

[NAB]

Meanwhile, we have this. But then people capable of effectively negotiating/lobbying for billions in tax cuts for their companies while being able to keep the wages they pay stagnant (hence not contributing more in personal taxes to the government) don't come cheap...

They make 189 times the average salary

by The Canadian Press - Story: 69226
Jan 2, 2012 / 6:46 pm

The richest of the rich have gained more ground in Canada, and are now making 189 times the average Canadian wage, according to a new report.

The 100 highest paid chief executives whose companies are listed on the S&P/TSX composite index made an average of $8.38 million in 2010, according to figures pulled from circulars by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-leaning think-tank.

That's 189 times higher than the $44,366 an average Canadian made working full time in 2010, the report says.

And it's a 27 per cent raise from the $6.6 million average compensation for the top 100 CEOs in 2009, the report says.

Regular Canadians, on the other hand, have seen their wages stagnate over the past few years. In 2010, after adjusting for inflation, average wages actually fell.

"The gap between Canada's CEO elite 100 and the rest of us is growing at a fast and steady pace, with no signs of letting up," says economist Hugh Mackenzie, who authored the report.

"The extraordinarily high pay of chief executive officers is more than a curiosity. It actually is a reflection of a troubling redistribution of society's resources in Canada and the United States, and in most of Western Europe," he said in an interview.

He points out that in 1998, the top 100 CEOs were paid 105 times the average wage. Since then, the ratio has generally climbed up.

In 2008, it was 174, dropping back to 155 during the recession in 2009. The high-water mark was 2007, when it peaked over 190.

[steven lloyd]

Anyone who can should watch the movie "Margin Call". Good movie with good actors and a good storyline, very relevant. It was interesting listening to these guys who, "earning" over four, ten, and one guy even 86 million a year talk about the fact how they actually never created or provided anything of real value. "It's just numbers on paper that we push around".

A good movie, I highly recommend it.