Tax Cuts!

[d_rawk]

Shit, for a second I was really, really excited about being in agreement with Hux for once.

Then I found this: Conservatives would cut GST: Harper

and this:

http://jambands.ca/sanctuary/showpost.php?post/289939/

and this:

Conservatives Toy With Opposing Tax

and this:

Conservatives GST Cuts Opportunistic

and this:

Liberals Conservatives Tax Cuts Sigh.html

All of that pretty much convinced me that I am too much on the record as to my position to reverse it now, simply because I forgot myself for a moment. Huge, huge surplus. Tax cuts are so totally warranted. But which ones?

I've already apparently drawn my line in the sand, even if I just now discovered it. Fuck, Hux, we were so close to being allies there for a second!

[Hux]

Close enough for rock'n'roll bro!!

(oops...back to the Ratdog folder)

[balogna pogna]

Fuck, Hux, we were so close to being allies there for a second!

I'm mailing you some Ratdog shows when I get home.

[jonyak]

I would rather not get a tax cut and have them do things like not cut beneficial programs, put the money into health care, feed some poor people.

you know good things that will make us a better country.

[AD]

If we're all idiots, at least listen to what the economists are saying.

Stephen Harper took up post-secondary studies again at the University of Calgary, where he completed a Bachelor's degree in economics. He later returned there to earn a Master's degree in economics, completed in 1993.

It depends on what economist you listen to, obviously.

[NewRider]

We should have a politics forum, no?

[d_rawk]

Close enough for rock'n'roll bro!!

True 'dat! I actually re-read those links and realized .. I can't fucking tell *what* my position was. Maybe I do agree with you after all.

We should have a politics forum, no?

No.

[Hux]

If we're all idiots' date=' at least listen to what the economists are saying.[/quote']

Stephen Harper took up post-secondary studies again at the University of Calgary, where he completed a Bachelor's degree in economics. He later returned there to earn a Master's degree in economics, completed in 1993.

It depends on what economist you listen to, obviously.

Agreed.

The GST cut: a triumph of politics over economics

Jeffrey Simpson

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a master's degree in economics. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty attended Princeton University, an elite U.S. Ivy League school. They are both well-educated, intelligent men.

How then to explain their support for a idea so demonstrably stupid that, had they defended the idea in an undergraduate term paper, they would have flunked the course.

The idea is to cut the goods and services tax from 7 per cent to 6, and then to 5 per cent. The first one-point drop, at a cost of about $5-billion, came in the Harper government's initial budget. The Speech from the Throne proclaims that the second point drop will be forthcoming, likely in the next budget.

Just how stupid is this idea? This week, The Globe and Mail's Report on Business asked 20 economists across Canada, and from across the political spectrum, about the wisdom of cutting the GST. Sixteen of 20 said it was a bad idea, two said it was irrelevant and two thought it sensible. Eighty per cent, therefore, denounced the idea; 10 per cent supported it. They read the Harper-Flaherty GST tax cut term paper and gave it an F.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development recently rendered the same general verdict on tax policy. Said the OECD: Consumption taxes are the way to go, offset by lower personal and corporate taxes.

Why? Personal and corporate income tax cuts, as every economist knows, tend to stimulate savings and investment, which is what an economy needs to become more productive and competitive, thereby raising overall living standards. Lower consumption taxes stimulate more – wait for it – consumption, some of which leaks out of the economy in the form of purchasing imports and taking trips abroad.

If such a widespread consensus exists among economists across Canada and in the OECD, why are Messrs. Harper and Flaherty persisting with an idea they must know as economists to be stupid?

Answer? Politics, pure and simple. The GST cut is the triumph of base politics over sensible economics.

When the Harperites sat down to craft their last campaign document, they observed that the Liberals had in fact cut personal income taxes, but the public had not seen or appreciated those cuts. In fact, polls demonstrated that Canadians didn't even know their taxes had been reduced.

So the Harperites decided to give Canadians a tax cut they could see, feel and therefore appreciate at voting time; namely a reduction in the GST, whose creation by the Mulroney government had been attended with much political controversy.

A sensible government – or sensible opposition parties – would not only scrap the forthcoming reduction but reinstitute the previously cut point, and then add another. The result would be about $15-billion additional dollars for the federal government.

Then, the government should follow the lead of Canada's best finance minister, Carole Taylor of British Columbia, who intends to levy a carbon tax to slow down the increase of greenhouse gas emissions and then reverse them.

A carbon tax on emissions, coupled with a “cap-in-trade†emissions market, lower mandatory vehicle emissions standards and renewable energy portfolios are among the most important policies for getting a grip on reducing emissions. (“Intensity†emissions improvements, of the kind favoured by oil and gas executives, the Alberta government and the Harperites merely slow down the increase in emissions and are therefore useless as serious policy.) With the new revenues from an 8 per cent GST and a carbon tax, whose size would rise over time, the federal government could then dramatically slash both personal and corporate income taxes.

The net result of such a shift should be to leave the government with the same amount of money as before; that is, be revenue-neutral. But the positive effects would be twofold.

First, personal and corporate income tax reduction would stimulate savings, profits and investments. (Low-income Canadians should be at the top of the list for help, and some of the money could be used for competition-enhancing investments in infrastructure.) Second, the country would over time become greener.

Thus far, the Harper government's tax and spending policies have been deeply disappointing for the country's competitive position.

First, the government handed over billions to the provinces to solve the mythical “fiscal imbalance,†which did nothing for productivity and competitiveness, but solved a political problem in Quebec.

Second, the government will have drilled a $10-billion hole in federal revenues through the two-point GST cut that will do nothing for productivity and competitiveness when compared with every other available tax cut, as the economists interviewed by the ROB illustrated this week.

Both policies represented the triumph of politics over economics, and short-term political considerations over long-term economic thinking.

Instead of this nonsense, tax policy should involve raising the GST, introducing carbon taxes, and then offsetting these new revenues by reductions in personal and corporate taxes to make Canada more efficient, competitive, fair and green.

[phorbesie]

I would rather not get a tax cut and have them do things like not cut beneficial programs, put the money into health care, feed some poor people.

you know good things that will make us a better country.

well yes i think we all want that.

what i'm hearing from y'all is that by not cutting the GST, the programs you support will continue to receive that money and there will be no service cuts.

the GST can be reduced AND those programs continue. if the govt scraps the programs it's NOT because of that 1% gst cut.

do you feel that the 1% is absolutely essential in a direct way to the programs you support?

i just feel that's naive in light of all the wasteful spending we've seen.

as an example, i do contract environmental work for the federal govt. since harper, all the programs which my firm got millions in contracts for previously have been cut - federal house in order emissions reporting, energy innovators initiatives, energuide. but i certainly don't think that alllll those green programs being cut is the direct result of the 1% gst reduction we got last year!

Edited November 1, 2007 by Guest

[phishtaper]

screw all of you and your lousy taxes! im starting my own country! one paved with marshmallows and lined with candy cane street lights.

[Jaimoe]

I find it appalling that Harper is an admirer of Jane Jacobs and yet follows none of her theories regarding healthy cities.

[Hux]

but i certainly don't think that alllll those green programs being cut is the direct result of the 1% gst reduction we got last year!

But when you cut taxes it's money that is no longer in the Government's pockets to spend, ie. the $ for taxcuts has to come from somewhere, each percent you shave off the GST takes approx $6 billion out of Gov't purse each year - where do you think the $$ for those programs you speak of comes from?

Same place.

They cut a bunch of programs to free up cash to then cut taxes.

(there are other revenue sources, but cutting programs has been one way in which this Gov't has had record surpluses)

[Davey Boy 2.0]

elvis costume!

[bouche]

if I see anything at all, I'm investing the extra cash in Microsoft Stocks. They are now low enough to see some growth in the next 5 years.

If you bought $200 in Apple (AAPL) in 2001 at $7, you'd have about $5000 today (at $188).

[phorbesie]

i understand that the govt gets their spending money from taxes.

my posts were generally more to say that if you are so morally and vocally opposed to the tax/taxable income reductions, then are you not bound to refuse to accept those reductions (on the basis of funding programs or otherwise)? insist upon paying that 1%, insist upon paying tax on that extra 631$ income so that it goes back into the government...OR make sure you use that money to fund those programs in some way yourself. if you actually physically accept that money that will come to you, i don't feel it's justified to rail against it after the fact.

maybe it sounds pretentious to say that. just trying to make a point though. but my biggest peeve in the world is when people talk alot (whether it's complaining or bragging) but don't act...so that's just me.

:confused:

[Booche]

Kinda like this guy, eh Phorbs?

[Hux]

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

Hey - I'm an economist. I've got a Ph.D. in economics fwiw. The column by Jeffrey Simpson posted above is quite correct. The best thing for the economy would be to lower income taxes and increase consumption taxes - particularly with green taxes. that would create the incentives for people to consume those items that cause the least harm to the environment. The Green party has proposed such a system. Even the Fraser Institute has come out against the GST cut. (I don't think that I've EVER agreed with anything that they've had to say. They are as right wing as you can get.)

And being an economist doesn't mean that you're gonna propose the "right" thing. unfortunately many economists misuse the tools of the science (including just about all of the work done by the Fraser Institute).

[allison]

There is an interesting article in Adbusters this month about the changing theories of economics(the article directly relates to how it is taught,the materials(textbooks) to do so).Like any theoretical discipline, the systems change with time- as they are proven wrong.World economics are starting to shift their bearings(somewhat unwillingly)...so "depending on which economist" you talk to is extremely valid.

my posts were generally more to say that if you are so morally and vocally opposed to the tax/taxable income reductions, then are you not bound to refuse to accept those reductions (on the basis of funding programs or otherwise)? insist upon paying that 1%, insist upon paying tax on that extra 631$ income so that it goes back into the government...OR make sure you use that money to fund those programs in some way yourself.

I didn't read moral outrage anywhere in this thread...until the above post.

I don't think people expressing wariness about the taxcut is moral outrage..it's justified caution that perhaps the move isn't financially sound(which covers both the economics and cuts to other programs issues) or is a policy move to kiss up to the electorate.

If a person does express that hesitation then the moral imperative is to give it back? That's simplistic bullshit.

[Ol'Hickster]

What are the New tax Brackets?? anyone know the ranges yet so I can figure out where I sit?

[d_rawk]

* An increase in the basic personal amount exemption to $9,600 from $8,929, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007;

* Two years later, on Jan. 1, 2009, the basic personal amount exemption will be increased to $10,100;

* Reducing small business income tax to 11 per cent by 2008;

* $10 billion in federal debt relief; and

* The lowest personal income tax rate moves to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent, effective Jan. 1 2007, undoing a change made in the first Conservative budget.

[phorbesie]

yeah, i do live my life based on simple principles and i don't think i should take money under those circumstances. maybe i'm the only one here who thinks that though. by all means you are free to complain and then accept the money anyway. so i'm bullshit to you, but as i said, that's just me. wariness and caution of the govt is good, but i think people complain wayyy too much about this country and it riles me up because we have it so easy here.

[Ol'Hickster]

I really dont care too much cause I get taxed a good amount anyways so I always have a nice reture I was just wondering if my return would be bigger than normal :D:D

[allison]

so i'm bullshit to you

Not at all what I said, nor even close to what I intended.I wouldn't bother questioning what you said if the above was true.

Simple principles and simplistic arguments are not at all the same thing.

i think people complain wayyy too much about this country and it riles me up because we have it so easy here.

True d'at.

" ...we have become a powerful country.This is the sting in the tail of our whole complacency problem.If we were complacent and impotent, well, I could excuse everyone.But to be complacent and potentially powerful at a time when humanity is facing so many massive problems,it's worse than complacency, it's morally irresponsible.To not actually try to exercise that power to do good is a moral problem.It's a moral problem most people on this planet don't find themselves in.We do, and our denial is contributing to the fact that we are morally delinquent as a country."

Micheal Byers

author of

Intent for a Nation:What is Canada For?

Edited November 2, 2007 by Guest

[Hux]

yeah, i do live my life based on simple principles and i don't think i should take money under those circumstances. maybe i'm the only one here who thinks that though. by all means you are free to complain and then accept the money anyway. so i'm bullshit to you, but as i said, that's just me. wariness and caution of the govt is good, but i think people complain wayyy too much about this country and it riles me up because we have it so easy here.

Overblown cynicism in my view is also a cancer on public perception of and to participation in our political system, but that’s a totally different issue…

It’s your right to have that opinion phorbesie, but moral outrage on a music message board is one thing – has your moral outrage manifested itself in other “deep†if you will - ways, like volunteering on a political campaign? hitting the streets handing out literature? hammering in signs? ...just curious…