Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Corporate tax cuts – a great issue to use to defeat the Conservative government.

Briefly – I think many Liberals will be very happy to bring the Conservative government down on the Budget because of their refusal to remove 6 billion dollars in corporate tax cuts. That is a compelling reason to use to vote against the Budget – and the fact the Conservatives are sending John Baird and company around claiming it’s essential help for job-creating businesses, and avoiding the “corporate tax cuts” terminology shows how worried they are over it, so it was a good move to use that as the first Liberal TV ad. I’m sure the Liberals will continue to attack about this issue when the House resumes next week.

That issue and the billions spent on a single-sourced, stealth fighter jet are two Achilles heels the Conservatives have right now. As the Liberals say, would you rather a future Liberal government take care of families by increasing pensions and homecare – or have the Conservative government spend billions on tax cuts, stealth fighter jets, and prisons we don’t need? That’s a winning message for us, if we persist at it.

36 comments to Corporate tax cuts – a great issue to use to defeat the Conservative government.

  • Roll Tide

    “Iggy is not a media favorite/darling, here; — no one has him as the odd-on favorite;”
    You misread me again.
    I never said he is a odd on favorite.

    Cohen was the odd on favorite, which is why I said he was cut down to size.

    Be my guest, call for higher corporate taxes, its a jobs killer.
    What short term revenue you MAY gain will be lost in the long term in the form of less investment.
    The Liberals are also sending the message of unreliability,- we voted for it, now were against it.

    • Redrum

      @Roll Tide, I’m not misreading you: I’m saying there’s so many disanalogies b/w the two situations, & so many holes (but now weasel words) in your original presentation of the recent Netherlands election being a harbinger of what would happen to Ignatieff if he persists in opposing corp. tax cuts (as tho’ the party that did so in Holland was severely punished for it, & those that did not were all rewarded), that I find your warning: utterly unconvincing.

      (and btw, naturally, I meant “odds-on” favorite; I don’t spell-check these things)

      • Roll Tide

        @Redrum,

        Liberals were once for the lower corporate tax, but now against it. Canadians will find this as “utterly unconvincing” as the Dutch did with Cohen’s call for higher corporate tax.
        It never caught on Holland, and will never get caught on in Canada.
        Thank God

  • Roll Tide

    Yes, the election was triggered over Afghanistan, but once the campaign started (a lively rhetoric filled discourse), health care, tax cuts (corporate and individual), mortgage deductibility, and immigration became issues. Afghanistan was hardly discussed.
    The VVD is economically to the right of the centrist CDA. The CDA took the biggest hit, and the VVD and PVV were the big winners, both parties are to the right of the CDA. The pressure in Holland is to lower taxes even MORE. PvdA was the only major party that favored higher corporate taxes. Cohen, the left wing academic, became the media darling. Pre-election polls showed him becoming PM, but as Kinsella says, campaigns matter. The people have the last say, not the media. The left were the big ideological losers.

    In short, after a campaign dominated by taxes, health care and immigration, Holland moved from a center left with a strong center (PvdA-CDA-CU) coalition, to a center right coalition (CDA-VVD-PVV) with a weaker center (CDA). The PVV while not technically “in” the government, will support it.

    As far as CPC HQ is concerned, they don’t even know me.

    • Redrum

      @Roll Tide, Uh-huh. Well, like I said, it’s a diff., more complicated situation, there, and far from corp. taxes being the definitive, party- & leader killing issue like you first claimed, the ones advocating higher corp. taxes only lost 1.6% of the popular vote & 3 seats, & one of the parties who was advocating less corp. tax _lost_ 20 seats & half their vote. Who cares if the media misread the situation; here, it’s the opposite: almost all the media shills are all lining up behind their corporate masters in lockstep w. the CPC condemning freezing the taxes.

      • Roll Tide

        @Redrum,

        You misread it Redrum.
        The CDA lost their votes to the VVD. They are to the economic RIGHT of the centrist CDA. Mark Rutte campaigned on even LOWER corporate and income taxes then what the CDA had already wisely established.
        Last spring the left wing Dutch media hyped Job Cohen as its savior. They likened him to Obama.
        “Yes we Cohen” http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=363631074757
        The NYT even pumped him up(no surprise).
        Polls had him as the chosen one for PM. A successful, intelligent, academic, Amsterdam mayor. A very likable personality. I even like him.

        http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-majority-sees-cohen-new-pm

        Cohen campaigned on increasing corporate taxes, and higher taxes for the wealthy.
        Other issues such as health care, “the war on the car”, and immigration were in play. I am sure Ignatieff will have other issues as well, however, increasing corporate taxes is a loser issue in a competitive world.
        Cohen polled really well (above link) until people focused on issues.
        Voters cut the PvdA down to size, as taxes and immigration became a huge issue. Mark Rutte (VVD)came from the economic low tax right (notice he did not even register in the above poll) to become PM. Geert Wilders (PVV) came from the anti-jihad right (read- murder of Theo van Gogh, and Pim Fortyun) to become a indirect coalition partner.

        Cohen came from a PM favorite, to a opposition leader.
        He choose loser job killing issues, such as increasing corporate taxes.

        • Redrum

          @Roll Tide, again, your attempt to force some sort of ominous parallel for Ignatieff here falls completely flat (like the Netherlands itself):

          — Iggy is not a media favorite/darling, here; — no one has him as the odd-on favorite;
          — you still haven’t made the case that corp. taxes were the definitive or even a game-changing issue in the campaign, as opposed to personal income taxes, eg., or immigration, or the war, or the leaders personalities…
          — it’s hyperbole to say the Dutch voters “cut the PvdA down to size,” since they only dropped by 10% of their vote / seats
          — and the latest intel. from Canada is that the unfairness & folly of corp. tax cuts during a recession DOES resonate with the electorate: witness not only the LPC’s huge new internal poll by Pollara on a variety of subject that they talked about in their caucus meeting the other day, but also the new ABACUS poll:

          http + ://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Corporate-Taxes-January-2011-FINAL.pdf

          Sorry, you’ll have to put a lot more fingers in the leaking corp. tax cuts dyke than this.

  • Roll Tide

    Canada having a 25% corporate tax rate (Prov. + Federal) keeps us competitive.
    The Dutch Government lowered its corporate tax rate this past decade to 25.5 %., an essential move after years of socialist stagnation. Voters in Holland cut Job Cohen’s Labour party (PvdA)down to size last fall for suggesting a increase in corporate tax. The CDA, VVD and PVV all supported keeping corporate tax rates low. They became the election winners. Intelligent Dutch voters know sustainable jobs come from business, both large and small. Canadians are no different.
    Micheal Ignatieff= Job Cohen

    • Redrum

      @Roll Tide, this reeks of B.S. The Dutch situation is complicated, with the 2010 election being triggered by their coaltion falling apart over whether to stay in Afghanistan. Was corporate taxes even much of an issue? I won’t take your word for it: esp. since this 2nd place party you mention was hardly ‘cut down to size’ over it — they only dropped from 21.2% of the votes in the last election to 19.6%% (big whoop), even tho’ that translated to 3 fewer seats (30 instead of 33). And one of the parties you mention as supposedly benefitting from being on the right side of the corporate tax cuts — CDA — actually LOST 20 seats (to the PVV, which picked up 24), and power. So, no, it doesn’t look like that was the seminal issue at all, so this is just more conbot misinformation that failing to endorse corporate tax cuts is political poison. Nice try, tho: you’ll get a kewpie doll from CPC HQ.

  • Trickle Down Economics one big sham.

    There was always skepticism about claims that, as the rich became richer, income would “trickle down” to others.

    What wasn’t perhaps foreseen was that the trickling would actually be in the other direction, and that it would be more of a torrent than a trickle.

    But the evidence is now clear. Over the last three decades, the tables of the rich have overflowed, with barely any scraps falling off. On the contrary, there’s been a massive transfer of income and wealth from Canada’s middle and lower class to the rich.

    The result is that Canada has become a highly unequal society.

    This is bad news, since a growing body of empirical evidence shows that extreme inequality has a clearly negative effect on a wide range of health, social and economic problems, as well as undermining democracy.

    http://www.thestar.com/opinion/columns/article/911829–canada-discovers-trickle-up-economics
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

  • Why Are Governments Still Debating Tax Cuts Instead of How to Create Jobs?

    Throughout the meltdown, the emphasis has been on keeping corporations fed, but we have since learned, that the corporations did not keep up their end of the bargain. They kept all the largess for themselves.

    And there are even more promised tax cuts in the U.S. and Canada, despite the fact that big business continues to focus research on how to eliminate jobs to increase their profit margin, including outsourcing and automated check outs.

    Tax breaks should be tied directly to job creation, not just on some abstract promise of job creation, that never materializes. The only new jobs are low wage, with no, or few benefits. Good union jobs that have proven to create a strong economy, are disappearing, much to our peril.

    We need to put an emphasis on creating good jobs, with a decent wage, reasonable working hours and benefits. There must be a time out from corporatism, that has not produced the promised “trickle down”, only a splurge up.

    http://pushedleft.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-are-governments-still-debating-tax.html

  • In part one of Mel Hurtig’s lecture series, Who Killed Canada? based on his book The Truth about Canada, he gives an introduction to the infrastructure of the extreme right-wing movement; beginning with the hi-jacking of our media, to the many so-called think-tanks, that provide the ‘facts’ to that hi-jacked media.

    In part two he discusses the reduction in federal revenue that weakened spending in important areas. We learned that we are 25th of the 30 OECD countries, in terms of spending on social programs.

    Part three deals with our increasing poverty, that coincides with the increase in corporate profits. And though these ‘free market’ gurus try to convince us that we should throw in our lot with corporate Canada, they have done nothing to advance Canadian interests or protect this country’s citizens.

    Patriotism should be about more than war, but should also be about national identity. Sadly, our national identity is being erased. I don’t even know who we are now, and as journalist Colin Horgan wrote recently; “With Barack Obama, anything seems like it might be possible. With Canada’s Stephen Harper, barely anything does.”

    In his book Pay the Rent or Feed the Kids, Mr. Hurtig describes how many Canadian families must choose between the two. And yet successive governments have ignored this growing problem, listening to special interest groups like the National Citizens Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Association, who are funded by corporate Canada to keep their taxes low.

    And while there are many advocacy groups that speak up for the most vulnerable Canadians, they are all but ignored. And how could we possibly expect Stephen Harper to do anything when he once boasted about the fact that he was often asked to speak on things like child poverty, because he didn’t believe government should be putting money into eradicating it.

    Under the Harper government these groups are now just deemed ‘special interest’ and have no voice.

    http://pushedleft.blogspot.com/2009/11/pay-rent-or-feed-kids-how-did-we-let.html

    .
    .
    .
    .

  • In his column lampooning the executive-compensation study, Kelly McParland insists “the money doesn’t come from your pocket or mine.”

    It most certainly does if we are shareholders. More importantly, thanks to the vagaries of Canadian tax laws, when executives exercise their generous stock options, taxpayers are on the hook.

    The average lost tax revenue for each of the 100 top paid CEOs in Canada amounted to $467,000. That’s a heck of a lot more galling than the sundry restaurant receipts of some scandal-plagued assistant deputy minister, but it seems the fans of big business can’t get worked up about it.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/05/counterpoint-rewarding-failure-at-the-top/#ixzz1ABaSJiS9

    .
    .
    .

  • KILL CORPORATE WELFARE NOW




  • Breaking down the neoconservative philosophy quite succinctly.

    “The public is being sold a big lie, that our problems are due to unions and the size of government and not to deregulation and the vast concentration of wealth.”

    ~ American economist Robert Reich

    p.s. The neoconservative is code for “Corporate Interest Party.”

    Steve Harper is not your dad’s old Conservative.

    Steve Harper is a Neoconservative, and Neoconservatism is a form of fascism, where the country is run by corporations and religious zealots, and the only real power belongs to the unelected goons in the backroom.

    And this is the most important weapon in the neoconconservative ‘Reform’ arsenal. If they told us what they really wanted to do, which is to hand government over to the corporate world, they’d never stand a chance.

    Harper’s Neoconservatism: This entire movement is a crock.

    It is not a religious movement or a moral movement.

    It is a corporate movement.

    http://pushedleft.blogspot.com/2010/11/democracy-for-sale-and-my-epiphany.html

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

  • foottothefire

    The lowest corporate tax in the free world needs further reduction so the folks carrying lunch to work can pay higher personal taxes (oh! You didn’t notice? Yes, Harper’s stuck in a few already.) for Harper’s private afghan war, redeploying the primary supply base for that private war, a multi-billion deficit that was once a surplus, hockey arena’s in Quebec….

  • wilson

    It’s a double ooooh Iggy, those ‘experts’ are at it again:

    Corporate tax cuts to create 100,000 jobs: study

    OTTAWA — Fully implementing the Conservative government’s corporate tax cut scheme will have “little” impact on budget revenue, and in the medium-term generate an estimated $30-billion in additional business investment and 100,000 new jobs, says one of the country’s leading tax and fiscal policy experts in an analysis released Tuesday.

    http://www.financialpost.com/news/economy/Corporate+cuts+create+100000+jobs+study/4163689/story.html#ixzz1C5Hobt3C

    • Redrum

      @wilson, uh-huh: big surprise, a U of Calgary makes some key assumptions, ignores other factors, plugs in some bogus equations, waves his hands, and Presto! — If we just keep cutting taxes some magic foreign corporate princes will come & make us all healthy, wealthy & wise.

      Maybe the loss of $6-B in annual revenues is “relatively small” to Minsk; but when they get a little time to read it, we’ll see what other econonmists who aren’t shills for the CEOs have to say about Mintz’ voodoo economics cheerleading.

      www + .progressive-economics.ca/2011/01/25/mintz-misleads-on-corporate-taxes/

      and look how meagre the job creation would be for that $6 B a year: just 102,500 new jobs over 7 years!!

      • Redrum

        so, the price of that job creation is: about $410,000 per job (per year!).

        Now that’s some smart economics, there, conbots!

        (oh, yeah, I know, supposedly with these new corp’s here eventually making more profits that’ll mean more taxes being paid to help offset the money we’ve lost from the lowered taxes for all those other existing corporations to try to lure these new ones in, but, really, if only about 15,000 new jobs a year are theoretically being generated by these hypothetical new corp’s that’d only come if we cut the corp. tax rate, do we really believe there’ll be enuff of these new corps to generate $6-B a year (less the income tax those new workers pay, pretending for the sake of arg. that they weren’t already paying income tax from a diff job before), esp. when the tax rate’s only 18%? Poppycock.

        • Redrum

          oops.. that last bit should be, esp. when the fed. corp. tax rate’s only 15% (as of 2012).

        • Redrum

          Ok, so my calc’s were going on the basis of the reported $6-B a year the corp. tax cut would cost;

          another commenter there went with the $3-B a year the tax cut boosters are claiming, but it still works out to:

          $210,000 per job created (per year!).

          http + ://rppe.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/can-you-create-a-job-for-less-than-210000/

          Geez, for about one tenth of that, we could spend it on part-time early childhood & home care jobs to help employ young people AND take care of our kids and our parents, and use the rest to pay down the debt, e.g.

  • Kring

    Obama to Propose Corporate Tax Cut in State of the Union

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6257458/mitch_mcconnell_obama_to_propose_corporate.html

    Hmmmm, how about that?

    Igggggggyyyyyyyy……ohhhhh Iggggggggyyyyyyyy…….. 🙂

    • Redrum

      @Kring, can’t you read past the headline? They want it to move from the highest in the industrialized world: 35%; their commission rec’d lowering it to b/w 26 and 28 percent.

      After already dropping it by about 10 points over the past decade, we were at 18% by the end of 2010 — which is where the Libs want to keep it. At about the middle of the industrialized nations, which is very attractive, considering our other draws like publicly funded health care (a big savings to major employer), a well-educated, healthy, skilled workforce, a good infrastructure, and plentiful resources & (in some places) cheap power.

      But a a race to the bottom — to just keep slashing taxes & let corp’s operate for free, put a lot of wear & tear on our infrastructurs, & just suck the profits out to their execs & shareholders — would lead to the govt’s bankruptcy, like in California.

      • wilson

        Oh my gawd , no wonder Liberals think this is such a winner,
        you only know half the story. Corporations pay BOTH fed and prov corp taxes.

        AFTER Canada drops the fed rate to 15% and AFTER the provinces drop to 10% as legislated,
        Canada will have a 25% corporate tax rate.
        The USA is at 35% right now.
        The OECD average corporate tax rate is now 26.2%

        ex: Ontario corporate taxes have been legislated to drop
        •11.5% effective July 1, 2011;
        •11% effective July 1, 2012; and
        •10% effective July 1, 2013.

        New Brunswick corporate income tax rate will be reduced 10% effective July 1, 2011

        BC corporate income tax rate was reduced from 10.5 per cent to 10 per cent, effective January 1, 2011

        • Redrum

          @wilson, that’s not news, and it was entailed (but not stated) in my remark above about us being in the middle of the pack, and anybody who pays income tax knows there’s both fed. & provincial tax. (Well, d’uh). But we’re only talking about the fed. portion, which is worth $6B to the FInance Dep’t for each 1.5 pts. And in comparing the other countries, it’s misleading & short-sighted to JUST look at the even the combined corp. tax rates (which not all those comparisons do, BTW), while ignoring the bounty of gov’t subsidized health care, infrastructure, power & resources, & educated work force that make Canada such a very conducive environment for corps. to biz in. There’s not going to be a max exodus if we hold the line on the 2010 levels; nor will it make much of a diff. to attracting new ones: you’re just being spun, to make way for more profits for the bankers & oil co. execs & major shareholders.

  • wilson

    The only one who agrees with the Liberal position is the NDP,
    and that’s because it was their #1 policy in the 2008 election.

    Mitch McConnell:
    Obama to Propose Corporate Tax Cut in State of the Union (tonight)
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6257458/mitch_mcconnell_obama_to_propose_corporate.html?cat=3

    Corporate tax cuts to create 100,000 jobs: study

    OTTAWA — Fully implementing the Conservative government’s corporate tax cut scheme will have “little” impact on budget revenue, and in the medium-term generate an estimated $30-billion in additional business investment and 100,000 new jobs, says one of the country’s leading tax and fiscal policy experts in an analysis released Tuesday.

    http://www.financialpost.com/news/economy/Corporate+cuts+create+100000+jobs+study/4163689/story.html#ixzz1C52V7dN1

  • Darlene

    I don’t think this is an issue that is going to sway the average Joe. I read and researched this alot. I understand there must be balance. Corporate taxes are now at a level where Canada can be competitive. We are gradually getting to the point where corporations are paying a lower percentage then the average taxpayer when you look at total tax revenues for the previous 20 years. We are now in a deficit position and it makes perfect sense to me that this cut doesn’t need to go through, as there are a lot of other things that should have priority right now. But with stating that, this issue doesn’t play out well for the average Joe. They aren’t likely to spend any time researching. The Conservatives have come out with a better spin to their economic stance as being consistent. The Liberals not so much and that gives the Conservatives a huge advantage. Sound bites rule with the average Joe and the Conservatives will win on this issue.

    • Redrum

      @Darlene, ok, so here’s, if not a soundbites, at least a 30 sec. commercial to get the msg across, then:

      Jim Flaherty & the Bank of Canada don’t want Canadians to be over-extending themselves and borrowing and spending beyond their means, any more. Sound advice. So let’s not reduce Canada’s means of paying off its huge new debt. Let’s hold the line on corporate taxes until the federal budget gets balanced again.

      • Darlene

        Redrum, unfortunately the Libs don’t have the money to compete with the Cons messaging. There would be many options if there was. I personally would like to see more compare and contrast ads. I would love one with Harper talking about how we’ve regained all the jobs from the recession. I would love for the Libs to point out that the full time jobs were not recovered only replaced with part time or self employment followed by “the are you better off five years later”. I think it would take about 20 different ads disecting there soundbites and contrasting them repeatedly playing on every station hourly. But that takes money, and lets face it how many of us are better off now then five years ago. I don’t have the spare cash to donate, do you?

      • wilson

        ‘Let’s hold the line on corporate taxes until the federal budget gets balanced again.’

        Gee, I could vote for that, except that isn’t the Liberal line.
        The Libs are selling ‘INSTEAD of corp tax cuts, the LPC would use that same ‘borrowed money’ to create long term social programs’.

  • JMR

    I wish that last night that Mr Apps had turned to Ms Nash and said ” Unlike your party we the liberal party do have a chance to form government so have to take into consideration when it is prudent to call an election” That would put an end to the NPD’s “You voted for it before you were against it”

  • They are frightened out of their pants these trolls. I think the Liberals may have voted for tax cut but if they didn’t,… there would be an election which was not feasible at the time.

  • Kring

    In an interview with CBC Radio’s The House, the Liberal leader dismissed the idea that tax revenues could grow, despite rate cuts. “We heard this under Ronald Reagan. We’ve heard this time and time again,” he said.

    Ignatieff invokes Ronald Reagan. Awesome. I wonder what else Reagan has said that Ignatieff agrees with.

  • Kring

    Corporate tax cuts – a great issue to use to defeat the Conservative government.

    The Liberals were for it before they were against it? Man, I hope the Liberals try.

    But maybe the NDP or the Bloc will pull out the Liberal bacon and save them from having their bluff called. After that and down the road, if or when you gusy form a government again, you’ll have your chance to raise taxes again on corporations. But I’m betting you guys won’t do that. Liberals like to talk, but their prior actiosn and words speak for themselves.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.