Canadian Election: It's On

[notyoueither]

According to Tingkai, you can have a much lower tax rate, like Hong Kong. 10% was it?

[Tingkai]

I don't think I have ever said that Hong Kong has a good social net. It doesn't.

Personal income tax rate is max 16% which is too low. Singapore's is something like 22% and Mainland China is 33%.

Canada could switch to a simpler tax system (eliminate tax breaks while also reducing tax rates) and still keep a good social system.

[notyoueither]

From what I recalled you were speaking generally positively about it, but the discussion was on taxes and other things more than social safety net.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by joncha
1. the taxes are, for the most part, just rolling back the tax-breaks the very wealthy have been handed over the past couple decades.

I'm waiting for the economists to rip into it, but it basically goes like this.

Businesses create jobs. Discourage business, kill jobs.

And our taxes were too high in comparison with our competition (the US) over the past 2 decades.

2. Martin, as finance minister, cut funding to social housing and social transfers to the provinces. That put a lot of people out into the street. You live on the street in a city like Toronto (especially if you're old or you're not in perfect health), there's a good chance you'll die. The amount of money needed to solve the homeless problem is such a small proportion of the budget, it is criminal that it's allowed to continue.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/news/2004/05/27/newelexlay040527.html

Cuts to Ottawa's affordable housing program were slashed by the Progressive Conservative government in its 1993 budget, and implemented by the Liberal government when it came to power that fall in an effort to reduce the deficit.

Under pressure from cities, in 2001 the federal government committed $680 million for the affordable rental program. To date, less than half has been spent.

Toronto's homeless problem became acute under Ontario's Progressive Conservative government, which slashed welfare rates and shut down the province's housing program in the mid-1990s, effectively killing the construction of 17,000 housing units.

We've had a huge transfer of wealth from poor to rich over the last few decades, it's about time it started to go back the other way.

Good plan, until more people start taking their funds and moving to the States or the Caribbean.

[Tingkai]

On the revenue side it is good. But there's lots of room [edit for Hong Kong] to increase the tax rate yet still stay competitive within the region.

I've argued that Canada should adopt this system with a goal of a neutral revenue effect where tax breaks are eliminated and tax rates are increased so that in the end people pay the same amount. Tax breaks are a great way of hiding corporate welfare.

In terms of Hong Kong, the civil servants are overpaid (top salaries are something like Cdn$500,000 a year) and they spend money like there's no tomorrow on completely useless things.

Those problems have to be addressed first before we pump more money into the system.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm waiting for the economists to rip into it, but it basically goes like this.

Businesses create jobs. Discourage business, kill jobs.

Higher taxes will not necessarily discourage businesses because:
a) Canadian business taxes are now lower than the US on average; and
b) The additional costs of doing business in Canada are lower (eg health insurance premiums for employees, security costs, etc).

We also have to look at the marginal effect. Some businesses might leave, but the overal benefits might still increase. It's just like if a business increases the price for its products. The number of products sold might drop, but the profit might increase.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
On the revenue side it is good. But there's lots of room [edit for Hong Kong] to increase the tax rate yet still stay competitive within the region.

I've argued that Canada should adopt this system with a goal of a neutral revenue effect where tax breaks are eliminated and tax rates are increased so that in the end people pay the same amount. Tax breaks are a great way of hiding corporate welfare.

Geez, people love whacking the whacko righties when they propose just such measures.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Geez, people love whacking the whacko righties when they propose just such measures.

Whacko righties? You're being redundant.

Who has proposed this in Canada? And remember, I'm not talking about a system where everyone pays the same tax rate. A simple tax system can still use a progressive tax rate system.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Higher taxes will not necessarily discourage businesses because:
a) Canadian business taxes are now lower than the US on average; and
b) The additional costs of doing business in Canada are lower (eg health insurance premiums for employees, security costs, etc).

a) According to whom?

b) Hmmm. They have health, we have EI and CPP premiums among other things (like extra Health). Not sure where that all would come out.

The real problem isn't businesses uprooting and going south though. The real problem is capital picking up and going south. There is a large difference, but the effect on Canada is the same: fewer employed Canadians than there would have been.

We also have to look at the marginal effect. Some businesses might leave, but the overal benefits might still increase. It's just like if a business increases the price for its products. The number of products sold might drop, but the profit might increase.

Only the NDP could see fewer new businesses and fewer jobs as a net plus.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Whacko righties? You're being redundant.

Who has proposed this in Canada? And remember, I'm not talking about a system where everyone pays the same tax rate. A simple tax system can still use a progressive tax rate system.

Klein. And it isn't one tax rate for all. It is 0 for the first bit of income and then 10, or 15 if you wish, for everyone else. It would be a tax cut for most middle income people and an increase for the really rich with the $250 per hour accountants (since they would actually have to pay some).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
a) According to whom?

Them commies in the Alberta government.
Federal corporate tax rate
In Canada: 24.1%
In the US: 32.7%
See:

http://www.alberta-canada.com/economy/taxes.cfm

Originally posted by notyoueither
The real problem isn't businesses uprooting and going south though. The real problem is capital picking up and going south. There is a large difference, but the effect on Canada is the same: fewer employed Canadians than there would have been.

Not necessarily. You're simply assuming that a tax increase would drive capital south and then you go ah ha, it's bad.

Where's your proof that it will drive capital out.

Remember also that the exchange rates compensates to some degree for differences in business costs

Originally posted by notyoueither
Only the NDP could see fewer new businesses and fewer jobs as a net plus.

Come on, if we got rid of the minimum wage, salaries would fall and more low-paying jobs would be created. By why would Canadians want $1/hour jobs.

[notyoueither]

Have to resume tomorrow. G'night.

[Flinx]

Reality Check

Originally posted by notyoueither
Has Layton blown it already?
60 billion in increased-tax fueled spending? The Libs want 9 billion in spending, the NDP can go twice that and then tax for a further multiple of 3?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Taxes are too high in Canada, given the massive surpluses the Liberals have been running for the last few years.
That's the sport. If it moves, tax it!
NYE, are you trying to sew up my sig?
60 billion is insane... what are the NDP thinking?

The NDP platform calls for 79 billion in increased spending over 5 years. 61 Billion will come from increased revenue, 9.5 billion in increased taxes, and 8.5 billion from better enforcement of existing tax laws. The Liberals have outlined 40 billion in new spending over 5 years 9 billion of which is allocated to health. The Conservative's platform is 89 billion over 5 years in new spending and tax cuts. In 2002/2003 (source) the federal government spent 133.3 billion on programs and 37.3 billion for interest payments on the national debt, for total spending of 170.6 billion. So 12 billion in new program spending (40% allocated to healthcare) represents a 9% increase (or 7% of total). The tax cuts introduced by the Liberals in 1999/2000 reduced tax revenue by 100 billion over 5 years. Did you notice your increased income? I doubt you will notice the NDP's 9.5 billion over 5 years tax increase either.

The Liberals have only run one massive surplus (1999/2000), all the others have been around 3 billion. They underestimate revenue at the beginning of the year and then near the end of the year when they have a good idea of what the final numbers will be they spend all but 3 billion.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Klein. And it isn't one tax rate for all. It is 0 for the first bit of income and then 10, or 15 if you wish, for everyone else. It would be a tax cut for most middle income people and an increase for the really rich with the $250 per hour accountants (since they would actually have to pay some).

If Ralphie was serious about this, I'd even vote for him.

[Method]

this is my riding. I don't like Martin, but Harper and the conservatives, now that's even worse. The thing is, the liberals are more of the lesser of two evils. I don't see the NDP as having even a slim chance here.

Judging by 2000's results and what's been going on as of late, I'd say this place could end up being a good contest.