• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyway, about things that really matter ... the Globe and Mail reports that, "Canada’s protected dairy and poultry industries are in the crosshairs of the United States and other farm export powers as momentum builds toward a massive Pacific Rim trade deal ... Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are expected to resume shortly, with a deal possible as early as August."

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson explains that Prime Minister Harper appears poised to display real, strategic, national leadership, despite the fact that it will hurt his partisan, political interests:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-poised-to-sign-pacific-rim-trade-deal-putting-safe-rural-ridings-in-play/article25100149/
gam-masthead.png

Harper poised to sign Pacific Rim trade deal, putting safe rural ridings in play

JOHN IBBITSON
The Globe and Mail

Last updated Thursday, Jun. 25, 2015

Apart from balancing the budget, the third Harper government has considered trade its highest priority. That’s why Stephen Harper is poised to toss accepted electoral wisdom aside and sign the landmark Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

The agreement, which will transform Canada’s trade relationship with Asian and Pacific countries, will signal the death knell for dairy and poultry subsidies and shift the electoral calculus in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

Conservative insiders acknowledge that the decision is likely to cost the party seats in rural Ontario on election night in October. But Mr. Harper is determined to commit Canada to the accord regardless. This is his legacy.

The government has already negotiated and signed an ambitious agreement with the European Union. Now, with congressional hurdles overcome, the United States is ready, along with Japan, Canada and nine other countries, to proceed with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the most ambitious regional trade agreement ever negotiated, encompassing 40 per cent of global GDP.

Because Mexico is also a member, the new accord will supplant the North American Free Trade Agreement. Staying outside TPP, Mr. Harper has argued in government meetings, would see the U.S. and Mexico move to a new level of trading integration, with Canada left behind.

And being part of TPP will, at a stroke, vastly expand Canada’s economic links with major developed and developing Pacific countries such as Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam.

It is possible to envision a not-too-distant future in which most countries of the Atlantic and Pacific regions become part of a single, global trade zone.

But in Canada, TPP will be no easy sell. Although there will doubtless be a phase-in period, along with compensation for affected farmers, signing means the end of supply management, which for decades has protected the dairy and poultry industries.

Those farmers will be justifiably angry at the Conservatives. Mr. Harper promised he could get a TPP deal while still protecting supply management. In the end, he decided to sacrifice the interests of the farmers to the greater interest.

Rural seats in Southwestern and Eastern Ontario that were once considered safe will now be very much in play.

The Conservatives will fight hard to hold those seats regardless, stressing the crucial link between rural values and Conservative priorities. And Mr. Harper will trumpet the accord in places such as the Greater Toronto Area and B.C.’s Lower Mainland.

Signing the TPP, he will say, will bring Canada’s trade relationships into the 21st century, accelerate our economic realignment from the Atlantic to the Pacific and offer further proof that only the Conservatives can be trusted to manage the national economy.

Ironically, Mr. Harper’s decision is likely to be good news for Thomas Mulcair. Many of Canada’s dairy farms are in Quebec, in ridings held by the NDP. If, as expected, the New Democrats oppose the accord because it fails to protect supply management, Mr. Mulcair will be able to tell rural Quebec voters that only his party truly represents their interests.

For Justin Trudeau, the situation is problematic. The Liberals place a high priority in taking francophone ridings from the NDP in Quebec, which would incline the party toward opposing the deal. But the Liberals are also determined to show middle-class voters in the rest of Canada that they can be trusted to protect the country’s economic interests. How could these interests be served by keeping Canada outside the world’s most important regional trade agreement?

This is a point the Conservatives can be expected to make – forcefully – if Mr. Trudeau decides to join Mr. Mulcair in opposing the TPP.

Politics as well as policy, then, will inform the debate over the TPP. In an election season, with economic trust a key concern, that debate will be intense.


Those who follow my ramblings here will know that I have only a few, quite clear and simple, political beliefs: in the absolute sanctity of a few quite fundamental rights (which puts me at odds with the Conservative Party), in an active, responsible foreign policy, and in sound economic management. It is my firm belief, based on what I regard as a careful reading of history, that free(er) trade always works to provide the greatest good to the greatest number.*

I am convinced that the TPP is a good deal, in the mid to long term for Canada. Of course there will be disruptions ~ and, yes, the dairy farmers will be victims: some, especially small to mid sized "family farm" producers (like the fellow in the TV ad) will be unable to withstand the competition from some of the giant, hyper-efficient, American producers. But that's part of the eternal process of creative destruction and we cannot shield ourselves from it.

So, if John Ibbitson is right: good on Prime Minister Harper for being a real leader.

_____
* You can look at Angus Maddison's "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective," published by the OECD in 2001, and draw your own conclusions.

Edited to add:

See some excellent, current data, from The Economist newspaper
 
If Harper actually goes through with this in August and then doesn't come back as PM don't you think that the NDP govt would scuttle the deal.  Or do you think it will tie the hands of those who come next.

The other thought is again isn't Harper putting the Liberals in a bind?  You don't think that this timing is perfect to sqeeze them out again.  Harper doesn't need Quebec, the Liberals do.  Rural Ontario does not vote liberal, and definitely doesn't vote NDP at least not where poultry and dairy are king.

If he pulled this off and kills the marketing boards I'm definitely voting CPC.  I despise supply side economics especially as it makes all of my food more expensive.
 
Excellent tactics and strategy.

IF the TPP gets signed, then any future government will have to weigh the economic output of being able to sell to Japan, Korea and other powerful economies, which will be a big draw for the business lobby. As noted, marketing boards and other forms of supply manipulation hurt a lot more Canadians than they help; millions of lower and middle class Canadians will certainly notice that their grocery bills have gone down, and not welcome any attempts to raise them again. Future governments will face a "sandwitch" between hordes of voters (even low information voters "get" their grocery bills) from below and business (and labour, once they figure out where the new jobs are coming from).

As an electoral ploy, I agree with Underway on how this will play in rural Ontario and Quebec. The CPC is not going to "lose" any votes in places that don't vote CPC anyway, and squeezing the LPC is always a "good" thing.
 
I plan on voting NDP for a few reasons. Firstly that I think the government needs to see that it's not going to be a liberal/conservative battle every time like it has been in the past.

Second is that I don't think the Cons or the Liberals are in any position to lead change since they've been around so long and a fresh perspective is needed. And in my mind that comes from a change in party, not just a change in PM from one party to another like the Americans do with their 2 party system.

Still plenty of time to do more research leading up to it, and for people to fuck up and lose my vot, but that's my 2 cents.
 
So you're willing to let the dippers likely destroy what little stability we have in the economy by raising taxes on anyone who they think has money, and spend like drunken sailors to prove a point? Thomas Muclair doesn't even know what the current corporate tax rate is, but he's gonna raise it. He's also misused millions of dollars of HoC money for partisan offices in ridings, and won't get off his high horse about how they were right, despite numerous reports saying the opposite. He's still better than Trudeau, but no where close to being capable of leading the country. His cabinet would be full of party hacks and 20-something parachute candidates from Quebec, who are literally the only reason Muclair is in 2nd place.

The Tories are old and tired, but the best we can hope for is a Tory minority. Anything without them in power is going to send us rapidly into the poorhouse, especially the CAF.
 
PuckChaser said:
So you're willing to let the dippers likely destroy what little stability we have in the economy by raising taxes on anyone who they think has money, and spend like drunken sailors to prove a point? Thomas Muclair doesn't even know what the current corporate tax rate is, but he's gonna raise it. He's also misused millions of dollars of HoC money for partisan offices in ridings, and won't get off his high horse about how they were right, despite numerous reports saying the opposite. He's still better than Trudeau, but no where close to being capable of leading the country. His cabinet would be full of party hacks and 20-something parachute candidates from Quebec, who are literally the only reason Muclair is in 2nd place.

The Tories are old and tired, but the best we can hope for is a Tory minority. Anything without them in power is going to send us rapidly into the poorhouse, especially the CAF.

[/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/d...een considered centrist just 15 years ago.
 
I could fill an entire thread page of Liberal crooks and liars, take a look at the Senate auditor general's report.

We need more revenue from people having good paying jobs. Taxing the crap out of the companies that provide those jobs means they're just going to pass those costs onto the consumer, or hire one less person. Or they'll just pack up and move because they can afford to do it. Do you have any sources for your information? I think you're confusing wealthiest of Canadians contributing 80% of the tax revenue and the tax rate for the highest bracket at 80%. If you're seriously advocating an 80% tax rate for the top 1% as a way to infuse cash, I've got a bridge to sell you.
 
PuckChaser said:
I could fill an entire thread page of Liberal crooks and liars, take a look at the Senate auditor general's report.

We need more revenue from people having good paying jobs. Taxing the crap out of the companies that provide those jobs means they're just going to pass those costs onto the consumer, or hire one less person. Or they'll just pack up and move because they can afford to do it. Do you have any sources for your information? I think you're confusing wealthiest of Canadians contributing 80% of the tax revenue and the tax rate for the highest bracket at 80%. If you're seriously advocating an 80% tax rate for the top 1% as a way to infuse cash, I've got a bridge to sell you.

If you think I'm a Liberal supporter, you're mistaken. I agree 100% with you that they are crooks too.

I'm not confusing anything, we used to have far higher income tax rates. The Canadian Income Tax Act of 1948 had brackets from from 15% to 84%. You can easily find a history of income tax rates online.

I am not advocating an return to 80% income tax rates, the point is that revenue and growth are closely linked, as are austerity and economic stagnation. Companies are not being overtaxed, they are being under-taxed. Everything in your last two posts are based on economic theories that simply don't pan out. The "trickle down" theory has been disproven over and over again, it's a wonder that politicians still bring it up and aren't laughed out of the room.

The American report below concluded  cutting taxes has “little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth".



Here's a handy visual graph:

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-02/correlations-high-corporate-taxes-economic-growth-can-coexist][/http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Updated%20CRS%20Report%2012%3A13%3A12.pdfurl]

Here's a handy visual graph:

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-02/correlations-high-corporate-taxes-economic-growth-can-coexist



 
Kilo_302 said:
If you think I'm a Liberal supporter, you're mistaken. I agree 100% with you that they are crooks too.

I'm not confusing anything, we used to have far higher income tax rates. The Canadian Income Tax Act of 1948 had brackets from from 15% to 84%. You can easily find a history of income tax rates online.

I am not advocating an return to 80% income tax rates, the point is that revenue and growth are closely linked, as are austerity and economic stagnation. Companies are not being overtaxed, they are being under-taxed. Everything in your last two posts are based on economic theories that simply don't pan out. The "trickle down" theory has been disproven over and over again, it's a wonder that politicians still bring it up and aren't laughed out of the room.

The American report below concluded  cutting taxes has “little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth".



Here's a handy visual graph:

[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-02/correlations-high-corporate-taxes-economic-growth-can-coexist][/http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Updated%20CRS%20Report%2012%3A13%3A12.pdfurl]

Here's a handy visual graph:

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-02/correlations-high-corporate-taxes-economic-growth-can-coexist]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-02/correlations-high-corporate-taxes-economic-growth-can-coexist][/http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Updated%20CRS%20Report%2012%3A13%3A12.pdfurl]

Here's a handy visual graph:

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-02/correlations-high-corporate-taxes-economic-growth-can-coexist


All taxes, every last penny of every tax ever levied by anyone on anyone else since time began is paid, ultimately, by someone like you and me.

There are some "bad" taxes and some "not so bad" taxes, but, if we want to live in any sort of organized society, there will be taxes ~ terrible, bad, indifferent and not so bad.

The only thing we should ask about a tax is: is it being collected efficiently and effectively?

Corporate taxes are nothing more, and can never be anything more, than a business expense which, ultimately must be paid by the consumer ~ you and me. The corporation has one and only one duty: to pay a fair return to its owners. If a corporation says it is doing anything else then it is lying to you or, worse, to itself. Corporate taxes are just a "business/licence fee" but collected in a round about, inefficient, expensive and ineffective manner (because the corporation's accountants will be busy finding ways to avoid taxes). The corporation's hydro bill is passed, 100%, on to you through prices, ditto the gas bill and the wage bill and the bill for consumables ... and the tax bill, too.

The only sane corporate tax is 0%. But the incredibly f'ing stupid people who we allow to vote love 'em and want 'em raised even more. Sorry if I'm being offensive, but ...

                                       
orwell-liberty-620.png
 
Clerk Wannabe said:
I plan on voting NDP for a few reasons. Firstly that I think the government needs to see that it's not going to be a liberal/conservative battle every time like it has been in the past.

Second is that I don't think the Cons or the Liberals are in any position to lead change since they've been around so long and a fresh perspective is needed. And in my mind that comes from a change in party, not just a change in PM from one party to another like the Americans do with their 2 party system.

Still plenty of time to do more research leading up to it, and for people to frig up and lose my vot, but that's my 2 cents.

No offence, but that is a terrible reason to vote NDP. Vote for the party that you agree with the most and that's policies meet your personal belief system. Voting for a party to "prove something" is just a waste of a vote as you're not voting FOR something but AGAINST something.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
All taxes, every last penny of every tax ever levied by anyone on anyone else since time began is paid, ultimately, by someone like you and me.

There are some "bad" taxes and some "not so bad" taxes, but, if we want to live in any sort of organized society, there will be taxes ~ terrible, bad, indifferent and not so bad.

The only thing we should ask about a tax is: is it being collected efficiently and effectively?

Corporate taxes are nothing more, and can never be anything more, than a business expense which, ultimately must be paid by the consumer ~ you and me. The corporation has one and only one duty: to pay a fair return to its owners. If a corporation says it is doing anything else then it is lying to you or, worse, to itself. Corporate taxes are just a "business/licence fee" but collected in a round about, inefficient, expensive and ineffective manner (because the corporation's accountants will be busy finding ways to avoid taxes). The corporation's hydro bill is passed, 100%, on to you through prices, ditto the gas bill and the wage bill and the bill for consumables ... and the tax bill, too.

The only sane corporate tax is 0%. But the incredibly f'ing stupid people who we allow to vote love 'em and want 'em raised even more. Sorry if I'm being offensive, but ...

                                       
orwell-liberty-620.png

Your argument is ridiculous. Corporations use public infrastructure and rely on a stable society operating under the rule of law. These realities require taxes which we should all be paying. As for incredibly stupid people, you're lumping in very well respected economists into that group for not sharing your somewhat radical views.

As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.
 
Kilo_302 said:
...
As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.


That's ALL the corporation is supposed to do .. in fact, in law, that exactly what the corporation MUST do. It's not your money unless and until you invest it ... then you own part of the corporation and it is duty bound to reward YOU.
 
Kilo_302 said:
Most mainstream economists would agree

Most mainstream economists failed to see the 2008 recession coming despite the fact that it was painfully obvious that it was coming.

One who did, Peter Schiff, was laughed out of the room by all of them (much like you said some politicians should be).

He disagrees with everything you say WRT tax rates and the government "investing" money on my behalf. And so do I.
 
Kilo_302 said:
Your argument is ridiculous. Corporations use public infrastructure and rely on a stable society operating under the rule of law. These realities require taxes which we should all be paying. As for incredibly stupid people, you're lumping in very well respected economists into that group for not sharing your somewhat radical views.

As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.

We do all pay them. As in investor in RESPs, RRSPs, stock, etc the entire portfolio I have invested in is literally based on corporate profits. If the government taxes more than I just suffer on my investments and/or my paying more for the same product to maintain the same level of return I had before. That's why corporate income tax and higher minimum wages make no sense. If you pay someone $25/hr to do a job the prices of the produce will just reflect what the costs of labour is. So we can all say we mae $40K/year but no one is really wealthier
 
Kilo_302 said:
As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it.

Would you not be willing to give the extra money to charities / causes / projects you believe in without the government doing it for you?

Kilo_302 said:
We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.

Wow, a corporations profit is yours before it is even taxed away from them, is it? They are just chaperones of it I guess.
 
>If Harper actually goes through with this in August and then doesn't come back as PM don't you think that the NDP govt would scuttle the deal.  Or do you think it will tie the hands of those who come next.

Chretien didn't axe the FTA or the GST.  The thing about incoming governments - aside from the fact that much of what passes all politicians' lips during a campaign is ill-informed blackguardly bluster - is that they learn things they didn't know which prompt them to re-evaluate their positions.
 
I like corporations.  They allow employees to specialize, which raises productivity, which is a gain for everyone.  I don't think I'd be able to make near as much money (and pay near as much taxes) if I had to write software, package it, write my own ad copy, buy my own advertising space, go door-to-door selling my product or flogging it on some e-trade site, do my own accounting, etc, etc.  Nor would anyone else.

Irrespective of income taxes on profits, most corporations pay local taxes and fees.  Those are what really cover infrastructure.  If the thought of untaxed dividends makes your butt itch, agitate for dividends to be taxed as regular income and for all dividends payed out on profits earned in Canada to be taxed in Canada (if they are not already - I have no idea).

The idea that corporations don't pay "a fair share" or must be compelled to pay "a more fair share" is devoid of sensibility - assuming the person uttering the grievance can even articulate what exactly is "a fair share".
 
Canadian income tax provides preferential treatment of dividends from Canadian corporations.  That said, due to the excessive complexity of the current income tax system, Canadian dividend income can result in disproportionate reductions to means-tested benefits (such as OAS) because of the calculations applied to provide the preferred tax treatment.

Overly complex systems, such as the current tax codes, permit gaming of the system and can produce undesired results.  Simplification is always good (even if it does result in unemployed accountants).
 
Kilo_302 said:
Your argument is ridiculous. Corporations use public infrastructure and rely on a stable society operating under the rule of law. These realities require taxes which we should all be paying. As for incredibly stupid people, you're lumping in very well respected economists into that group for not sharing your somewhat radical views.

As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.

Like the way the liebrals invested a billion dollars in gas plants that never happened. (Your liquor tax money)

How about how they gave a ferry contract worth $40 million to a Chilean firm and froze out Canadian shipbuilders in SW Ontario, where the ferry is going to be used.(Your liquor tax money)

Finally, what about the golden parachutes they give to their cronies of the PanAm games, Ornge and Ontario Hydro, just to mention a few. (Your liquor tax money)

Doesn't seem all that different to me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top