Liberal Party.

[maple leaf]

Have the Liberals corporate tax cuts along with the Federal corporate tax cuts worked for us? Are we as a province better off now because of doing that?


ABOUT US
Behind The Numbers delivers timely, progressive commentary on issues that affect Canadians, including the economy, poverty, inequality, climate change, budgets, taxes, public services, employment and much more. Contributors include staff and research associates from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA). The views expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the CCPA. Read more…


Dead Money
August 23rd, 2012 Toby Sanger · No Comments · Economy & Economic Indicators, Taxes and Tax Cuts
Kudos to Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney for raising the profile of the over $500 billion Canadian corporations are holding in excess cash surpluses and not investing in the economy, which garnered front page coverage (and kudos to the CAW for inviting him to speak).
It’s not the first time he’s raised this  concern.  Last year at the Empire Club he told assembled business leaders that their companies were in “rude health, have the means to act–and the incentives”, urging them to invest their surpluses.   After cutting corporate tax rates, Finance Ministers Flaherty and Duncan have also demonstrated frustration with Canadian businesses for not investing enough in the economy and urged them to invest more.
Contributors to this and the progressive economic  blog, including Jim Stanford, Erin Weir, Andrew Jackson and myself have  raised concern about corporate Canada’s growing corporate cash hoards and surpluses for much longer.
It’s important to recognize that this half a trillion didn’t just fall from the sky into the corporate coffers.  As I pointed out on page 6 of this piece published in early 2007, the growing corporate surpluses ($300 billion at that time) represented an unprecedented shift in the balance between household and corporate sectors.

 


Prior to a dozen years ago, Canada’s household sector had traditionally run surpluses which were then lent to corporations to invest in the economy.   As a result of slow wage growth, high profits, corporate tax cuts, rising house prices, and slow rates of business capital investment that relationship completed changed around 2000–and it’s got much worse.  Above  is an updated version of the slide, which I’ve used in many presentations since.
The flip side of the growth of these  unprecedented corporate surpluses and the resulting growing cash hoards is of course record rates of household indebtedness–which is a major threat to our economy.  While there’s always alarmism about government sector deficits, one of the the underlying problems that helped cause the crisis and is a factor in our slow rates growth was this imbalance and the growing rates of household indebtedness.
It’s not just Canada, but similar trends occurred in the US and Europe.   And it’s a double-edged sword.  While CEOs may claim their surpluses and cash hoards are a buffer against economic uncertainty (as Matt Campbell did in the Globe this morning), much of the non-financial corporations surpluses ultimately went into the increased financial speculation that caused the financial and economic crisis.   In these ways, it’s not “dead money” any more than zombies are dead: it’s money that, while seeming to keep their hosts alive, has played havoc with the rest of us. Even the OECD and the IMF now seem to recognize to some degree that growing inequality of income (and between sectors of the economy, which is related) is bad for the economy.
Our Finance Ministers have used tax cuts, low interest rates, wage suppression, deregulation, etc. etc. ostensibly to get corporations to invest more of their profits and surpluses in the economy–but it hasn’t worked.  Now they (and Carney) are trying to use moral persuasion, but that’s unlikely to work either.
Capitalism, in its different forms, isn’t supposed to be swayed by any morals beyond its own: maximizing short-term profits.   If CEOs don’t see any potential reward  for making an investment  (whether through profits or personal reward through share buybacks and stock options), then they aren’t likely to do it.   And if there’s a lack of demand for their products, then they aren’t going to invest.
Returning excess cash to shareholders, as Carney urged them to do if they aren’t going to invest, isn’t going to help much either.   While pension funds could also benefit, much of this will go to the wealthiest in society.  This will not only lead to less economic stimulus (as they have a lower propensity to spend), but it will also increase inequality and economic instability — as even the IMF, OECD and Conference Board now recognize.  And if the wealthy are to invest it, where would they invest it: back into companies that aren’t investing in the economy, speculative financial investments, or into more real estate, blowing up that bubble even more?
There’s a simple and straightforward solution.  If corporations aren’t going to invest despite all that’s been provided to them, then governments should tax these surpluses back through various means and use the revenue to increase public investment in the economy and redistribute the wealth to reduce inequality including by expanding public services, which will go a long way to improving the precarious state of household finances.
(Of course, we’re not going to get much of this from most of our existing governments.  With the failure of supply-side economic policies in stimulating investment and the economy, I expect that Flaherty and co. will instead accelerate privatization and P3s in their coming budgets: essentially handing over public assets and investment opportunities at the public’s expense on a platter to private business who are failing to invest money into the private sector.)

http://www.behindthenumbers.ca/2012/08/23/dead-money/

[maple leaf]

Words describing the liberal party that keep coming up ,such as incompetent,mismanagement,lies,deceit,malfeasant.Thought I would make a list of what this currant government has under taken to deserve such description .Please feel free to add to the list,it is only what I could think of, off the top of my head.


The most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada.Yet are in court spending thousands upon thousands loosing court cases ,like over ripping up contracts and hiding info from the Auditor general on the BC rail sale.

promises of tax cuts with one side of their mouths,then take it back with things like MSP premiums and carbon tax,hurting the middle class the most.

Liberals reverse the changes to MLA pensions that had been made by the NDP,once again giving MLA's gold plated pensions.

Liberals vote themselves big raises while insisting everyone else settles for 0%

Medical care when and were you need it,was the election promise.Cutting and slashing many medical services,mostly hurting people such as special needs and seniors.

Stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring that has drained resources from children and family services,was the promises.Gave CLBC managers big bonuses for kicking the most vulnerable to the curb,then tell us they cancelled the bonuses to later we find out they got it anyway under wages.

Vancouver convention centre, we where told would cost 495 million ballooned to 883,2 million. Campbell picked B.C. Liberal insiders to be project leaders. The board was chaired by his deputy minister, and included a former Liberal party president. According to the Auditor General, "from the beginning the board lacked a member with the appropriate expertise for a project of this specialized nature."

Not sell or privatize BC Rail.We all know how that went.

Kinsella is alleged to have been involved in entering the $505 million dollar BC Rail tax indemnity (refund) on the books at 255 million. The sale of BC Rail included a $505 million BC Rail tax indemnity on top of $750 million cash and $250 million in direct tax credits. Under the terms of the indemnity, If CN is not refunded the amount of the indemnity from the Federal Government, the Province will return this amount. This reduces the sale price of BC Rail from $1.05 billion to around $500 million. The BC Rail tax indemnity was taken off the Public Accounts in January 2005, before the May 2005 election, when it was reclassified a contingent liability. The BC Rail sale Annual Report was defective and did not cite the indemnity, and recorded these tax credits at zero bookvalue.[29]
snip from wikipedia.

Paid 6 million to convicted criminals ,which should only be paid to not guilty parties.

30 million payout to fix the bungling of an uranium mine application.

ICBC rates increase while managers get big bonuses,and government raids funds for general revenue.

Changing rules on IPP 's to make Hydro buy their power first at up to 4 times the rate hydro can produce it for.

HST not on the radar,then spending millions on miss leading stick man adds giving half biased truths.

Wasted hundreds of thousands amusing corporate big wigs at the Olympics,promising us thousands of jobs and business as a result,never happened.

Sea to sky highway will not cost no more than 600 million says Collen Hansen.User vehicle charges to the tune of 63 million every year for contracts over 25 years ,over and above 600 million.

looses 35 million to name BC place

Replaces BC place roof which still had life for 20 more years.We were told it would cost 100-150 million.But in march 2008 it became 365 million,then in Nov it became 458 million,then by 2010 it was 563 million.

The Campbell government admitted that during the most recent election they suppressed information showing the number of people in BC forced to apply for welfare had increased by 10,000. The information was released shortly after the election  http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/22/bc-welfare-cases-up.html

Liberal's own fudget-budget Before the 2009 election ,the liberals lead us to believe the deficit was 495 million ,then after the election it was discovered to really be 2.7 billion .

Kash Heed breaks Election rules and yet is a sitting MLA.Liberals seam to be above the law.

Shady back room deals to get the Liberals to privatize liquor transportation,With no business plan to do so.
Government book keeping so bad the Auditor general shakes head as can't make sense of them.

Contractual obligations increased by 300 % since 2005/2006 from 34 billion to now 96 billion.The provincial debt reported to be 51 billion.For a total of 146 billion in debt.

Continues to cancel fall sittings of the legislature,were they can be held accountable for their policies and taken to task for their responsibility to the tax payers in the ministries they control.

[flamingfingers]

Saturday, September 15, 2012
The cancelled fall sitting bad for business community
David Schreck draws useful attention to a significant effect of the cancellation of the fall sitting of the legislature.

The rules for the return of the PST next April have still not been set, more than a year after a referendum ordered the HST's repeal.

A fall sitting would allow a full debate of the planned tax regime, and a chance for businesses affected to identify issues.
But instead, according to the Finance Ministry, a proposed version of the legislation won't be introduced until December, and it will be passed in the abbreviated spring session, less than two months before the tax regime changes.

That is neither prudent, nor competent. The tax regime is important, and should be debated. Businesses need more than two months to prepare. The government has had lots of time to get the legislation ready.

The rest is here:

http://willcocks.blogspot.ca/2012/09/th ... d-for.html

[maple leaf]

Saturday, September 15, 2012
The cancelled fall sitting bad for business community
David Schreck draws useful attention to a significant effect of the cancellation of the fall sitting of the legislature.

The rules for the return of the PST next April have still not been set, more than a year after a referendum ordered the HST's repeal.

A fall sitting would allow a full debate of the planned tax regime, and a chance for businesses affected to identify issues.
But instead, according to the Finance Ministry, a proposed version of the legislation won't be introduced until December, and it will be passed in the abbreviated spring session, less than two months before the tax regime changes.

That is neither prudent, nor competent. The tax regime is important, and should be debated. Businesses need more than two months to prepare. The government has had lots of time to get the legislation ready.

The rest is here:



http://willcocks.blogspot.ca/2012/09/th ... d-for.html

They will probably do everything behind closed doors,out of site of any scrutiny ,where they can make sure that they are looking after the best interests of their corporate backers.Then in the spring they will ram it through the legislature with no debate,when it is to late for anyone to do anything about it.Knowing full well they won't be the next government anyway.Won't surprise me either if they do the same with the liquor distribution privatization,a final gift to Kensella on their way out the door.

[NAB]

Well, in thinking about it no one in business is going to know much about the detail of the PST until December, and presumably will recognize that it is essentially a NEW tax, meaning that starting in January all businesses will have to register and start over from scratch under whatever new rules, regulations, exemptions, reporting, and payment procedures apply to them. With the 2013/14 budget being brought down in February, I rather doubt the government is going to have much of handle on PST revenues projections under the new scheme for budgeting and election campaign purposes. Lots of time after the election for adjusting that as desired to ensure it becomes just another tax increase in one way or another ;-)

And to me it makes a whole lot of sense to scrap the carbon tax and take that into account when setting new PST taxation regimens. Prior to BC HST business had two sales taxes to deal with. With carbon tax and BC HST many businesses and government still had two taxes to deal with, Now with return to PST many will now have THREE taxes to deal with (four or more if you happen to be in business in the lower mainland).

Nab

[NAB]

I bin wondering what Colin Hansen has been busy at in return for his MLA salary and perks since he lost his job as Finance Minister and took his place in the back benches.. "Liberal Party related work" it appears...
Nab

""By Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun

VICTORIA — After considering a late-in-the-day re-branding, the B.C. Liberals have decided to face the voters one more time under their own name.

The governing party announced the decision Monday, accepting the recommendation of a three-member panel that “the B.C. Liberal party not change the legal name of the party prior to the next provincial election.”

The stand-pat report ended more than a year of flirtation with a notion that arose once the party chose Christy Clark as its leader in the spring of 2011.

Clark had roots in the federal Liberal party, making it harder for federal Conservatives and others, who’d never liked the “Liberal” moniker in the first place, to support the provincial coalition.

Bringing the concern to the forefront at the May 2011 party convention was Colin Hansen, MLA, former cabinet minister and himself an ex-federal Liberal.

“If the B.C. Liberal Party had its own unique name that was purely British Columbian,” he told delegates, “I think it would help to reinforce in the public’s mind that first of all we are a coalition and that we are here basically to represent the best interests and the future of British Columbia.”

The suggestion drew immediate endorsement from Conservative-in-all-but-name MLA Bill Bennett, the maverick from Kootenay East. “In my election campaigns it is like running a race with a bag of cement tied to your waist,” he said of the Liberal label. “Why don’t we find a name that doesn’t attach us to either of the federal brands?”

Still there was no immediate action, only talk. Then, after the party’s crushing defeats in April byelections in Port Moody and Chilliwack, the premier herself revived the notion.

“I’m not opposed to changing the party’s name,” she told reporters as Liberals reeled at the loss of once safe seats. “We are a coalition party. We include people from all across the political spectrum — everybody who wants to defeat the NDP.”

At Clark’s prodding in May, the party’s governing council appointed a working group to “seek the broadest possible input from members” and “knowledgeable individuals” about the possibility of a “re-branding” before the May 2013 provincial vote.

Headed by Hansen himself, the group launched an email site and online survey, while soliciting written submissions, with meagre results.

Fewer than 300 members took part in the online survey. A mere three dozen put their suggestions in writing. Opinions were split on what to do and when.

“One of the first conclusions that can be drawn,” said the group in its six-page report on the consultations “is that, given the relatively small numbers participating, the name of the party cannot be seen to be a major issue to the vast majority of members.”

Alternatively, most members may have concluded that the party leadership was going through the motions in hopes of placating its conservative wing and raising awareness with others that it was, in fact, a coalition.

For, as the Hansen group acknowledged, it was late in the day to be seriously contemplating a name change.


“One of the biggest concerns of the committee (and many who were consulted) is the time and money it takes any organization to ‘re-brand,’ ” said the report. “Even if a name change were desirable, is there enough time to transition from the existing name to a new brand before the next election or would there be a risk that many voters would be more confused?”

Or laughing their heads off at the sheer desperation of it all. New Democrats were already joking about Liberals putting themselves into the witness protection program or skipping town ahead of the electoral equivalent of the collection agency. Those and other laugh lines have now been put on hold by the Liberal decision to postpone further discussion of a name change at least until after the electorate has had its say.

Happily for the critics, the fallback position offers some risible possibilities of its own.

“One of the first discussions that the committee had was regarding how the discussion regarding the name of the party should be presented,” says the report.

“If consideration was to be given to a name change, it had to be done in a manner that did not take attention away from the many accomplishments of the B.C. Liberal government over the past 11 years. There is a long list of these accomplishments that, by far, outnumber the mistakes that any government inevitably makes.”

All this in keeping with a theme that the Liberals, far from hiding their record, ought to “celebrate it” going into the next election.

But for many voters, the brand is associated, first and foremost, with an initiative that Hansen had much to do with in his capacity as finance minister in the postelection period. Namely imposing the harmonized sales tax 10 weeks after a campaign in which it was barely mentioned and then only as not being on the radar.

“From the folks who sprang the HST on you after the last election,” one can imagine the anti-Liberal ads saying. “Guess what surprises we have in store for you this time?”

Celebrate the brand? For many Liberals, the hard part will be establishing some distance from all the bad baggage associated with the party name.""

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/20 ... story.html

[steven lloyd]

Celebrate the brand? For many Liberals, the hard part will be establishing some distance from all the bad baggage associated with the party name.

No one was going to be fooled by a name change at this state of the game. The Liberals have been thoroughly exposed (to most people) and any effort to change their name to present some “new look” just another humiliating embarrassment. I think at this point most people have even figured out their so-called tax “cuts” were, in fact, quite costly – at least when as recklessly implemented and managed as they were by this party in 2001 and onward. It’s going to be hard to identify what spending we can attribute to the NDP, and what spending a result of deferred obligations (in the billions over the next six decades) and other consequences (costs and losses) of their scorch and burn policies they’ve implemented on their way out in defeat. There is nothing more important than removing this government in the most decisive manner as possible. The electorate thought they taught the NDP a lesson in their last defeat. Too bad the Liberals learned nothing. Hopefully the lesson for the next government is even stronger, and this electorate not so hesitant in delivering it again if not quickly learned.

[flamingfingers]

Kinda makes you go.... Hmmm?

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Dumb attack ads, and the real tax-cut winners

I'm baffled by the B.C. Liberals' focus on attacking the leaders of the other parties. So far, the efforts have looked amateurish and cynical, and have failed utterly to change public opinion.

Surely the critical issue for the party is finding ways to make people see Christy Clark more positively, not trying to slag the other guys.

The last Angus Reid poll found 28 per cent of British Columbians approve of Clark's work as premier; 53 per cent approve of the job Dix is doing as opposition leader. It's hard to see how any collection of low-budget attack ads are going to drag Dix down to less than 28 per cent.

There's certainly potential in pushing the NDP to commit to positions in advance of the election. (Though Dix will then remind people about the Liberals' promises not to bring in the HST, and ask what their positions are worth.)

But the attack ads seem pointless.

And they risk raising unintended issues.

The latest web attack, for example, says "When the NDP left government, a family of four earning $60,000 a year paid $1,970 more in provincial income tax than they do today," citing budget tables.

That's true enough. But the budget tables also calculate total provincial taxes - MSP, sales taxes, carbon tax.Those other taxes and fees went up $1,463 under the Liberals.

The family still pays less to the province - but $507 less, not $1,970. It's a dubious approach for a party trying to claim Dix is the one who can't be trusted.

And the ad opens the door to other tax questions.

The tax changes since 2001 under the Liberals have meant low income people pay much less to the province - 50 per cent less for a single person earning $25,000, 40 per cent less for a family of four earning $30,000.

But the next biggest beneficiary, given the budget examples, is a single person earning $80,000. He, or she, pays 28 per cent less than he did in 2001.

And a family of four earning $90,000 has received a bigger overall provincial tax cut - in dollars, and as a percentage - than a family earning $60,000.

Worse, the smallest reduction has been for a senior couple earning $30,000 in pension incomes. They're paying three per cent less - $1.50 a week in tax relief.

Then, of course, there is the bigger assumption in the ads that tax cuts, in and of themselves, are automatically a good thing.

That family of four earning $60,000 is paying about $10 less a week to the province than it did in 2001. Maybe many of those families would consider it good value to pay the $10 if health care or education was improved for them and the people they care about.

http://willcocks.blogspot.ca/

[Fritzthecat]

thank goodness there is the Conservative Party, otherwise there'd be no one to vote for this election!

I see the BC Liberal name change scheme is working.

[NAB]

"Ex-politician Gordon Wilson says Christy Clark could conceivably win by building big L Liberal party"

""Embattled B.C. Liberal premier Christy Clark has a critical decision to make.

It’s one that may spell the difference between a victory or a crushing defeat in next year’s provincial election, according to former B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Wilson.

It’s choice whether to preserve the already splintered coalition of federal Conservatives and Liberals in the province that was held together by Clark’s predecessor, Gordon Campbell. Or to build what Wilson describes as the “Liberal option” for British Columbia.

“I would suspect that Christy is going to have to decide whether or not she’s going to try to patch together and hold together this coalition of Conservative-Liberal interests in British Columbia,” Wilson, who also served as an NDP cabinet minister, told the Straight in a recent phone interview.

“Or if she’s going to decide to do what many capital L liberals would like her to do—and that is actually build a Liberal option that denounces some of the issues that Campbell took on,” Wilson continued, “recruit aggressively people who are seen to be more centrist, more populist politicians, and advance an agenda that is unique and different, and enhance that agenda by tabling a budget that is very, very progressive [and] that really addresses the fact that we are facing extremely difficult economic times, both continentally and internationally."

“It would be an end to any notion of a coalition,” Wilson also said. “From my point of view, Christy Clark, when she took over the leadership, she had a very real opportunity to jettison off the Conservative element and build the Liberal option.”

By doing so, a new and truly Liberal party will capture the centre and left centre, undercutting the B.C. NDP, he added.

“It does allow Christy Clark to forge a new agenda,” Wilson stressed.""


http://www.straight.com/article-774596/ ... eral-party

[flamingfingers]

"Embattled B.C. Liberal premier Christy Clark has a critical decision to make.

It’s one that may spell the difference between a victory or a crushing defeat in next year’s provincial election, according to former B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Wilson.

It’s choice whether to preserve the already splintered coalition of federal Conservatives and Liberals in the province that was held together by Clark’s predecessor, Gordon Campbell. Or to build what Wilson describes as the “Liberal option” for British Columbia.

Ah yes, Gordon Wilson attempting to extend his 15 minutes of fame.

Christy Clark is incapable of making any decisions outside of what is personally expedient to her own self interests: Keeping the reins of power for as long as she possibly can!

The Christy Liberals are finished, done, nobody believes a word that comes out of any Liberal's mouth. Even if Christy had an epiphany and did the honorable thing and resigned (can't believe I used 'honorable' and 'Christy' in the same sentence) and got Christ on the Cross to take her place, there is not enough time for all the transgressions of the past 12 years to wipe clean the slate in the voters' minds.

[NAB]

Well, looks like ol' Jock wants us to just rack up more taxpayer supported debt on behalf of BC Business and just keep kicking the can down the road.. Wonderful... :-(

Excerpt from:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Liberal ... story.html

Finance Minister Mike de Jong said he still intends "to do everything humanly possible" to balance the books this spring.

But would that include jacking up taxes, slashing spending on critical government services, or both?

That would be humanly possible, but probably not politically possible for the Liberals, who are in enough trouble with voters as it is.

That's why it was important to note Jock Finlayson, chief economist for the Business Council of B.C., said last week that the government should consider abandoning its balanced-budget promise.

Why would a business group advise the government to rack up more debt? Because they're afraid of an increase in corporate taxes at the same time they're bracing for the return of the provincial sales tax.

This gives Clark some political cover should she be forced to break her balanced-budget pledge. The government hopes the economy and natural-gas prices will recover enough in the next few months to make a balanced budget still possible.

But with the deficit now sitting at more than $1 billion, that's looking like a long shot.

Here's the government's other problem: a concurrent deficit in their credibility.

Even if the Liberals did present a miraculously balanced budget on the eve of the May election, would anyone believe it? Especially if the "surplus" was a razor-thin one?

British Columbians have been burned by pre-election fudge-it budgets in the past.

[Fritzthecat]

Whathappened to the BC Liberal "law" that unbalanced books were to become "illegal"? 2001 anyone?

[Urbane]

Whathappened to the BC Liberal "law" that unbalanced books were to become "illegal"? 2001 anyone?

You must have missed the 2008 global financial meltdown and the subsequent "unbalanced books" here, there, and everywhere. You likely also missed the fact that Campbell was continually raked over the coals by his critics for his "obsession" with balancing the books.

[NAB]

Let's not forget however that the criticism of BC's BBL originated fully across the political spectrum (including from within his own coalition - left, centrist, and right). Much like the criticism of the BC HST originated across the entire political spectrum for that matter.

Nab