Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Who Pays

For all of Mr. Harpers promises?
Why you and I of course.

TANSTAAFL.

Which is why for all their rhetoric of being fiscal conservatives and just like us, the Harpocrites are nothing of the sort, they simply are another party of big business.

When they talk tax cuts it's for the corporations not you or I.

Otherwise no working class Canadian would pay taxes on their wages if they earned less than $100,000 annually. That is a real tax cut for real people like you and I. Harper has funded his promises by taking from Peter to pay Pauline.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

15 comments:

The Individualist said...

And corporations live in bubbles right? Learn some economics before you comment on economic policy. High corporate taxes discourage hiring, reducing demand for low-skill workers (the most easily replaceable), and therefore lower their overall wages. Not to mention that unionized workers, whom I suspect you support, have pensions that are made up of shares in corporations.

But corporations are evil so.. lets raise corporate taxes! Lets create more unemployment! Lets lower the wages of unskilled workers! And if you thought that wasn't enough, let's make their pensions worthless! Then social justice will be served, right?

Werner Patels said...

The whole thing about tax cuts was nothing but a scam. Everyone I know has been complaining about the additional money they have been losing as a result of Harper's "tax cuts". Even a high-ranking Alberta cabinet minister has admitted to me and others that this current Tory budget actually contains fewer tax cuts than the previous Liberal one. What a scam. But people will send him the bill at the next election. You can do a lot to voters, but if they are reminded of such blatant lies every week or every two weeks when they look at their paycheques, it's going to hurt big time.

Larry Gambone said...

I don't think Individualist read Eugene's link as increased taxation of corporations was one of a parcel of proposed economic measures. Taken in isolation, Individualists criticism would have some weight, but not when you are attempting to transform the economy into an economic democracy as Eugene proposes. With a mobilized work force, plus economic alternatives in place - a vast expansion of the cooperative economy - the weakening of the corporate sector would be a positive thing as the democratic sector could move in and replace it. The only objection I have is that he didn't include pulling the plug on the corporations, ie abolishing limited liability, corporation as corporate individual etc. Another good move would be to democratize corporations by making it one vote per shareholder, no matter how many shares they own. Worker pension funds could then end up controlling most corporations.
And corporations are evil as they are priviledged, authoritarian feudal bodies within what ought to be genuine free exchange.

The Individualist said...

I wasn't aware that we were trying to overthrow the entire system... my bad.

But as I see it, corporations are funded by voluntary investors, hire voluntary workers, and sell to consumers who volunteer their money in order to receive some good or service. If that's not free exchange than I don't know what is. Show me where corporations physically coerce individuals into making decisions and maybe I'll see what you're talking about.

Larry Gambone said...

Well, actually no. I don't see why I should have to take the time to write you a lengthy essay as to why corporations are organized in an authoritarian manner, are a perversion of free exchange and owe their existence to the state. With the Internet you can easily find that information yourself. Indeed, if you were really interested in the subject of economics you would have read about it already. However, since I am a nice guy, I will give you a URL. Since you claim to be an individualist I will spare you syndicalist or anarcho-communist critiques and send you to a free market site. See http://www.mutualist.org/ and also
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/

eugene plawiuk said...

Dear Individualist I do know economics and corporations are not shareholder owned or they would not have two forms of shares, voting and non voting. The vast majority of investors have no say in the corporation, its owners retain their power. Take Nike, the majority ownership is in Phil Knights hands. Other shareholders are along for the ride, that is they are coupon clippers.
When corporations are given tax breaks they do not reinvest in the company but in the stock market. That is they either buy more controlling shares of their own company, or they use their excess profits to buy stocks.
See my article; Capitalists Fail To Invest In Canada

As for their social responsibility gimme a break. Every time a company downsizes they gain increased share value on Wall Street or Bay Street.

See my articles on Corporations

Workers like technology are 'costs' to business, which is why companies like to loot pension funds. To gain more cash to use to buy up more shares.
See Pensions.

Corporations are monopolies, they need to monopolize their niche in the marketplace, its the war of all against all. They are not evil, that is a moralist position, they are inherently monopolists and thus authoritarian reflections of the age of aristrocacy, fiefdoms of their owners who enslave their workers.

My point is the right wing never speaks to workers when it talks about tax cuts, a tax cut for the boss is not a tax cut for you or me. And a tax cut that hurts public services hurts corporate bottom lines, since they do not live in a bubble but rely on the State for tax breaks, for healthcare for their workers, for state funded pensions and unemployment, for education etc. etc. All those public sector services are value added, if the corporations had to pay for it, then it would cost them more. Thus they are parasites, who come cap in hand asking for more and more, while giving back nothing.

Donald said...

It is impossible to exempt that much income without a massive reduction in revenues. There is no way that any tax increases on the rest would make up the difference, even assuming spending cuts on security. There is no math that would support this, and I say that as a sympathetic libertarian communist. The vast majority of revenues raised come from the first tax bracket and the GST. Shifting it all to the rich would be impossible, however desirable it may be in theory.

The Individualist said...

Now I'm seeing the libertarian view here... I agree that these corporations (like every other special interest group) use political power (provided by the existence of a government) to manipulate their environment to the detriment of others. But isn't the existence of an impressionable political entity with coercive powers the problem here? I wouldn't blame the corporation who simply does its best to maximize profits within the framework of modern democracy.

And even in light of government legislation that may favour corporations; workers, non-voting shareholders, consumers, etc. all have the option of abstaining from participation. If we choose to participate in these activities, they must not be that bad. And I know the counter-argument is that we have no other options and that desperation limits our bargaining power. But it should be pointed out that corporate employment and production only represent a portion of total economic activity. Many options are available in the form of private firms, entrepreneurship, etc.

Also, with regards to monopoly, we can never expect there to be such thing as perfect competition, so why come after the corporation for it? We could say the same thing of a mom and pop grocery store in a small town who keep their prices high because of a lack of competition.

The Individualist said...

One more thing... Under feudalism, one could be hung for leaving his master's land. Last time I checked, corporate employees had the freedom to leave their company whenever they wished.

The Individualist said...

make that "hanged," lol

Larry Gambone said...

My reference to feudalism should not be taken literally, lets just say that the corporation is "feudal-like". In the first place it grew out of the decay of feudalism - corporate charters being granted by kings. Secondly, the way they are organized is feudal. They are not democracies where each share holder has one vote. Rather, the more shares you have the more votes. This is analagous to the landowner who votes but the peasants don't. Also the structure is an authoritarian hierarchy. Managers are not elected but appointed from on high and power flows from the top to the bottom, not more or less horizontally as it would if the structure were democratic.

Larry Gambone said...

For answers to your other comments, I really suggest you look at the web site I gave you as it deals with these questions in great depth. I am not saying this to be snarky, but the site does far more than I can do in a simple reply, and explains how the only genuine free market position is one that opposes corporate capitalism. A consistant Rothbardian has to be opposed to corporatism... As someone who claims to be an individualist, I think you should be interested in taking a bit of time and exploring this possibility.

eugene plawiuk said...

Donald;
Until the Mulroney government Canadian Corporations were the source of 60% of federal revenues, after Mulroney you and I ended up being the source of federal tax revenues. With tax roll backs, Income Trusts, corporate write offs, etc. eliminated, my tax cut for the working class would work.

eugene plawiuk said...

Individualist:
The government/State was created by capitalism to meet its needs. It is not a being seperate from the politcal economy but a creature of the political economy.

eugene plawiuk said...

Individualist;
You said; "Under feudalism, one could be hung for leaving his master's land. Last time I checked, corporate employees had the freedom to leave their company whenever they wished."

Our Labour laws originated in England, under Elizabeth the First, they were created to limit the freedom of workers/artisans to set their wages and working conditions. Following on that modern labour laws are based on the Master Servant Act. Today the Corporations are the Master and we their servants, there is no freedom in labour relations, I do not bargain my wages, time, skills etc. The boss sets the price he will pay and I have to take it or leave it. That is not freedom that is servitude.