Halt corporate tax cuts, Liberals say

[oneh2obabe]

Richard J. Brennan
Ottawa Bureau ... Toronto Star

OTTAWA––The Liberals on Thursday urged the federal government to halt billions in corporate tax cuts, saying it’s irresponsible to help companies when the country is drowning in debt.

“I want to decry the choice of the Conservative government, which ignores Canadian families who are struggling,” said MP Geoff Regan.

“It’s absolutely outrageous that Canadians are having to pay more on EI and CPP while big corporations are getting tax breaks from this Tory government,” he added.

Canadians earning more than $44,200 annually will pay an additional $76 in EI and CPP premiums in 2011, while employers will pay up to an additional $110 in payroll taxes per employee, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Regan chastised the Conservatives for forging ahead with a tax break “we can’t afford” when Canada’s corporate tax rates are already amongst the lowest in the G7.

The federal corporate income tax rate will be reduced from 18 per cent to 16.5 per cent effective Jan, 1. It will then be reduced to 15 per cent in 2012.

The corporate tax cut amounts to $1.65 billion next year, and jumps to nearly $4 billion in 2012.

complete article
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... sayRichard J. Brennan Ottawa Bureau

[kompili]

I guess the ones running the country need tax breaks to get back the money they pour into the system to get the right people elected.

[grammafreddy]

It certainly is a double-edged sword, isn't it?

We need the companies to come to Canada and start businesses and hire Canadians to fill their jobs.

We Canadians, as individuals, have to pick up the tax slack when government cuts corporate taxes to entice business - or have the government operate on less and/or cut services to Canadians.

OR ...

Government could become more fiscally prudent and frugal in house and look for ways to cut expenses internally. But they won't do that. Too many bureaucrat have established their little empires and circles of "friends" and have no intention of losing them and their kingdoms to sound fiscal management policies.

[Rwede]

So if we canned the CBC and Indian Affairs Deaprtment, we'd make back the tax cuts and then some. More people working with the tax cut stimulus and fewer sloths wasting billions in tax dollars at CBC and DNID. It's a win-win.

Seems like a reasonable way to achieve what grandma is suggesting, and who'd miss either of these wasteful, ineffective institutions?

[SpaceAddict]

It will not make a bit of difference. Even if they cut the taxes to make it more profitable to get companies to set up here or stay here they will be still sold off to the USA and Mexico one at a time. We can't compete cause the wages are to high so expect that to go next. We don't try to keep businesses here in the first place so why would this change anything? Look at the biggest solar cell manufacturer in the world is in Germany. Too bad it actually is a Canadian company. We would not even let them set up shop here practically.

This will just end up like a similar plan implemented in the USA. All that will happen is the same effect. The companies make a hell of a lot more cash and the jobs still get exported overseas.

[Bagotricks]

It certainly is a double-edged sword, isn't it?

We need the companies to come to Canada and start businesses and hire Canadians to fill their jobs.

We Canadians, as individuals, have to pick up the tax slack when government cuts corporate taxes to entice business - or have the government operate on less and/or cut services to Canadians.

OR ...

Government could become more fiscally prudent and frugal in house and look for ways to cut expenses internally. But they won't do that. Too many bureaucrat have established their little empires and circles of "friends" and have no intention of losing them and their kingdoms to sound fiscal management policies.

Isnt it funny how both options you listed both entail the rich getting massive tax breaks?

So either we pay more tax and more user fees to make up for business tax cuts, cut services, or make the government lay off thousand of employees and trim fat -

...but the ONE thing that stays - is massive tax breaks for business.

There are lots of business's all over the world, in countires with varied tax rates. If low taxes were the only critera for a business - then Canada would be the headquarters of every corporation in the world.

The fact is these "tax breaks" are sold to the public as ways to generate business and jobs - but really they just pad the paycheques of a few CEO's that hold alot of water in Big Blue country. "Taxes" only eat away little tiny bits of billions of untouched profits.

[Rwede]

The fact is these "tax breaks" are sold to the public as ways to generate business and jobs - but really they just pad the paycheques of a few CEO's that hold alot of water in Big Blue country. "Taxes" only eat away little tiny bits of billions of untouched profits.

Sure. There are lots of big companies that pay big money to CEOs that don't offer any employment to any of the middle class of Canada. Right.

Perhaps some reading about how companies reinvest profits for growth (growth takes more employees at ALL levels, in case you were wondering) is in order.

Fact is, without good leaders who earn big money for the way they can keep a big company operating, there would be no jobs for the millions of grunts who depend on these companies.

Attacking the CEO of a company who must make critical and skilled decisions daily that will make or break the company, and comparing that to the decision making skill of some union grunt who pushes the red button to stop the conveyor or the green button to start the conveyor all day is very foolish.

[steven lloyd]

Perhaps some reading about how companies reinvest profits for growth (growth takes more employees at ALL levels, in case you were wondering) is in order.

Perhaps just any reading on any political or economic subject would be in order. Your “knowledge” of “trickle-down” economics is only rivalled by your “knowledge” of union work environments.

But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed? For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opini ... ugman.html

Myth: Trickle-Down Economics Work

... and what a wonderful world it would be if they worked. Of course, they don't. Trickle-down (also called "supply-side") theorists hold that pumping money into the hands of the wealthy will cause them to invest in business, which will in turn cause the economy to grow, which will create jobs, which will (finally!) get money into the hands of the working stiff.

The best measure we have to demonstrate what a wholesale failure they've been is to chart the growth of median household incomes since 1980. (For an explanation of why median incomes is a good measure, see "Further Discussion" below the jump.) When Ronald Reagan was sworn in, the median household income was $48,976. In 2006, the last year US Census numbers were available, it was $58,407, a growth of $9,431 (all in figures adjusted to 2006 dollars). Of that growth, 83% is attributable to the eight years under a Democrat. Republicans account for only 17%.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/06/busting-the-myt/

Many things have been said about the debunked, but still clung to, "trickle down" economic model. I equate it to a multi-story outhouse. And if you're not in the top 5 percent, you end up all wet. The "toppers" get to set up in the penthouse of our economic outhouse, safe and secure, passing down everything that we know "rolls downhill." Just under them are the wanna-be toppers, those who are sucking the teat of corporate welfare, gorging at the trough of Ayn Rand style excess, and swilling the brew made from the sweat of the brow of the working class. They only get wet a little, when the toppers decide to "trickle down."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... _head.html

[Rwede]

Do you subscribe to that Commie propoganda, or is it just on your union's website?

Trickle-down has nothing to do with what I posted. Paying people top dollar for their skill and expertise above and beyond your union wage scale (which has no regard for contribution to the company or for the skill set of the employee) is what I was referring to, along with the growth that successful companies have from profitability (although your leftist idea of "growth" is through debt only).

Try reading it again. Maybe turn off the red light this time.

[Bagotricks]

The fact is these "tax breaks" are sold to the public as ways to generate business and jobs - but really they just pad the paycheques of a few CEO's that hold alot of water in Big Blue country. "Taxes" only eat away little tiny bits of billions of untouched profits.

Sure. There are lots of big companies that pay big money to CEOs that don't offer any employment to any of the middle class of Canada. Right.

Perhaps some reading about how companies reinvest profits for growth (growth takes more employees at ALL levels, in case you were wondering) is in order.

Fact is, without good leaders who earn big money for the way they can keep a big company operating, there would be no jobs for the millions of grunts who depend on these companies.

Attacking the CEO of a company who must make critical and skilled decisions daily that will make or break the company, and comparing that to the decision making skill of some union grunt who pushes the red button to stop the conveyor or the green button to start the conveyor all day is very foolish.

There was a fine line between providing a good environment to business, and blatantly gouging lower end taxpayers by giving high end tax payers big breaks. Now that line has been built into a wall. As another poster pointed out indirectly - CEO's have made themselves "untaxable" at this point in time, in our country. What can we cut? Who will have to pay MORE? Anyone but the CEOS- we need jobs. Yet - they make BILLIONS in profits ( thats after everyone is paid and all equipment has been maintained ) so BILLIONS left over - but we need to keep them around ( and happy ) so we let them keep all their cheese.

For example, BC has the lowest tax rates in North America. If that is all the mattered then the rest of Canada would be closed for business. We both know thats not "all that matters" and the trickle down effects of Reganomincs has been disproven many times.

For example : http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2011/01/0 ... wages.html

..."The country's best-paid CEOs made an average of $6.6 million in 2009 during the darkest period of the recession. That compares to the total average Canadian income of $42,988 and the total average minimum wage worker's income of $19,877.
Canadians may still be feeling the pain from a worldwide economic meltdown caused by reckless financial speculation, but Canada's business elite has preserved its privileged position,"

The (CEO's) remain untouched.

Yes CEO are great, wonderful and smart people and hold the keys to so many poor low end wokers. Does that make them exempt from paying their FAIR SHARE?

Apparently is does.

[steven lloyd]

Do you subscribe to that Commie propaganda, or is it just on your union's website?

Actually, I’ve known that since studying economics in university (thirty years ago) but wanted to provide you with some links in case you ever found yourself inspired to actually read something besides comics.

Paying people top dollar for their skill and expertise above and beyond your union wage scale (which has no regard for contribution to the company or for the skill set of the employee) is what I was referring to, along with the growth that successful companies have from profitability (although your leftist idea of "growth" is through debt only). Try reading it again. Maybe turn off the red light this time.

Thanks for coming out and giving it a shot dickie. Better go check now:
Might be time to go and press the “green” button again.

[Bagotricks]

The fact is these "tax breaks" are sold to the public as ways to generate business and jobs - but really they just pad the paycheques of a few CEO's that hold alot of water in Big Blue country. "Taxes" only eat away little tiny bits of billions of untouched profits.

Perhaps some reading about how companies reinvest profits for growth (growth takes more employees at ALL levels, in case you were wondering) is in order.

...right, like BC Hydro raising rates 30% in 3 years to cover "upgrades to their equipment" when they posted a profit of 2.23 billion in 2009?

Mr. CEO made 2.23 billion last year, and your bill is going up 30% to pay for upgrades to his company.

[Rwede]

Can you provide a link to Canadian personal income tax rates that supports your assertion that top wage earners pay little or no tax, while low income earners pay more?

Seems the grunts where I work pay about 12% all in. I pay closer to 38%, and about 49% on my incremental bonus earnings.

I'd like to see how I can save all these taxes that I am paying, Bag. Help me out, buddy.

[steven lloyd]

I pay closer to 38%, and about 49% on my incremental bonus earnings.

stop it dickie - you're killing us here.

[Rwede]

Mr. CEO made 2.23 billion last year, and your bill is going up 30% to pay for upgrades to his company.

Really? The CEO of Hydro made $2.23 billion in 2009?

Mr BG Elton, CEO actually made $549,923 in 2009, including all pension and benefit costs. His base salary is $328,900.

Actually, Hydro made $365 million in 2009, and $447 million in 2010, not $2.23 billion.