Con Game

As I predicted here the Harpocrites have only one song sheet they sing from when it comes to the economy;the old neo-con tighten your belt.

Throne Speech warns of deficit
It pledged cost-control measures in Ottawa, including a squeeze on the budgets of many government departments and a law to limit the pay raises of civil servants.
"Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on the results," Ms. Jean read, following with the government's pledge to place grants and capital spending "under the microscope."
Mr. Layton argued that the Throne Speech adopted austerity measures and a laissez-faire approach, when intervention is needed. "I don't think you want to be taking ideas from the Mike Harris-era in Ontario and applying them to today's economic crisis," he said.

SEE:
Blue Throne Speech
Pinocchio Conservatives
Deja Vu


Tags
Canada, Great Depression, market crash, free trade, recession, Harper, Conservatives, deficit, Government, politics, Flaherty, Budget, GST, politicsCanada, Surplus, Economy, Taxes, EI,

Wage Controls

Here we go again the recession of the 1970's brought in wage controls under Trudeau. Then again in the ninties with the deficit and debt hysteria public and private sector workers faced assualts on their wages and benefits by provincial NDP and Conservative, and Federal Liberal governments. Now the Harpocrites are suggesting another attack on workers wages. While bailing out the bankers.



Flaherty also said the government is looking at controlling the rate of growth in the salaries of public servants, and is continuing with a strategic review of expenditures at all government departments.



We should not be surprised that Mike Harris's Finance Minister should talk about cutting wages for public sector workers. This was the neo-con aganeda during the ninties, carried out by Harris, Klein and Paul Martin. This is not new thinking, this is reactionary thinking. Attacking workers wages during a crisis of consumer capitalism will further entrench a recession which will then whipsaw into the private sector.



Flaherty says the equalization program itself isn’t threatened but spending growth needs to be controlled. "It’s a federal program, we will limit the growth of the program … it’s not sustainable otherwise," he said, I thought rather gravely.
The problem is, if transfers grow more slowly than inflation, provinces will face shortfalls. So less risky, politically at least, is cutting the civil service.
The Conservatives know there’s a standing constituency for strict control of public spending. And cuts can be doled out in ways that minimize the pain to particular constituencies.
That said, the last round of deep cuts was in the early 1990s, when Paul Martin and Jean Chretien put the brakes on federal transfers to the provinces and hacked away at programs. They cut the civil service and conditioned people to expect public spending cuts as the tactic of choice when times are tough.



While capitalist apologists bemoan any claw back of tax cuts to big business the Harpocrites now are suggesting attacks on workers wages.The reduction in transfer payments and discussions amongst the Premiers with Harper recently shows that the message has also been sent to these levels of government; prepare to roll back wages and benefits to your public sector workers. Anything to avoid a deficit. Class war has been declared by the Harpocrites.

SEE:

Pinocchio Conservatives

Deja Vu

Business Unionism Offers No Solution To Capitalist Crisis

tags

asset-backed commercial paper ,, gold, homes, mortgages, housing, bubble, US, economy, oil prices, sub-prime mortgage, Wall Street, crash, recession,Bernanke, Inflation, Staglation, Stock-Market, US, Federal-Reserve-Chairman, Oil, gold, commoditiesSmoot-Hawley, protectionism, tariffs, Herbert Hoover, U.S., U.S. economy, Canada, Great Depression, market crash, free trade, recession, Harper, Conservatives, deficit, Government, politics, Flaherty, Budget, GST, politicsCanada, Surplus, Economy, Taxes, EI,

Whiners and Losers

This is the same line used by the provincial tories in Alberta since the days of King Klein; the government should not pick winners and lossers iin the capitalist marketplace. But of course it does, as we have seen with Alberta's support of privatiziation initiatives like K-Bro contracting outhospital laundry services, not to mention of course oil and gas development royalty and tax holidays, and dare I say investment in the mythical CO2 coal extraction process that will supposedly reduce methane gas.

Now the Feds are denying the obvious as Jim Flaherty explains about a pending bail out for the auto industry in Canada, with nary a recongition that yes he indeed just did pick winners and losers in Canada's auto industry. Canada: Government is open to selective industry support

Mr. Flaherty said most economists would consider a bailout unwise, since such a
package puts government in the dicey business of choosing winners and losers.
Rather, he said, he would be guided by which plants have the best chance of
remaining viable over the long term.
"So if General Motors is going to build a hybrid car in Oshawa, people can understand that that is a good investment for the longer term. Operating a large truck plant, pickup trucks - probably not a good investment of taxpayers' money," Mr. Flaherty said.
His top priority, however, is to ensure that banks are lending to each other, and that credit is
available to corporate and household borrowers at a decent price. A
well-functioning credit market, he said, will help the manufacturing sector as
much as any kind of direct aid.
David Paterson, vice-president of corporate and environmental affairs for
General Motors of Canada Ltd., said the largest auto maker in Canada has not
outlined specific proposals to Ottawa, but supports calls for both immediate
assistance and a longer-term Canadian program similar to an existing $25-billion
fund Washington created this year. That fund is supposed to help the industry
develop more environmentally friendly technologies.
Mr. Paterson said GM is in the midst of transforming its business in Canada
to meet the sustainability objective Mr. Flaherty has outlined.

There ya go Jim ya picked a winner. But of course this is not a real industrial policy, nor what is needed to create a Made In Canada Auto Industry. Which of course is workers control of production through 'workers cooperatives owning the factories. Now that would be worth taxpayers dollars. Anything is else is the same old same old neo-con crap; public funding of private capitalism.

SEE:

Concessions Don't Work

And Then There Was One

October Surprise Was The Market Crash

No Austrians In Foxholes

Pension Rip Off

Deja Vu

The Failure of Privatization



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
US, Auto, GM, Delphi, UAW, Pensions, layoffs, workers, bankruptcy, Chapter11,MGuinty, GM, Buzz, Hargrove, Camaro, Oshawa, Ontario, CorporateWelfare, Canada, cars, automobilie, production, taxes, taxcredit, investment, environment, hybrid, self-valorization,, self-management,, workers control,, autoworkers,, Buzz Hargrove,,CAW, Big Three Auto,, libertarian socialism, automobile, Frank Stronach, Magna, business unions, auto parts, workers, layoffs, plant-closings, workers-control, unions, labour, Canada,
Great Depression, John McCain, market crash, free trade, Republicans, recession, asset-backed commercial paper ,, goldhomes, mortgages, housing, bubble, US, economy, oil prices, sub-prime mortgage, Wall Street, crash, recession,October Surprise, Inflation, Staglation, Stock-Market, US, Federal-Reserve-Chairman, Oil, gold, commoditiesSmoot-Hawley, protectionism, tariffs, Herbert Hoover, U.S., U.S. economy, Canada, Flaherty, tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, politics, Conservativestaxes, tax-credit, budget, economy, government, Conservatives, Flaherty, HarperSalaries, Canada, wages, Economy,

Pinocchio Conservatives

Remember last election when the Harpocrites said they wouldn't tax Income Trusts? Well this election they said they wouldn't run a deficit. Yep their noses are growing again.....Canada finance minister won't rule out budget deficit



SEE:
Deja Vu

tags
asset-backed commercial paper ,, goldhomes, mortgages, housing, bubble, US, economy, oil prices, sub-prime mortgage, Wall Street, crash, recession,Bernanke, Inflation, Staglation, Stock-Market, US, Federal-Reserve-Chairman, Oil, gold, commoditiesSmoot-Hawley, protectionism, tariffs, Herbert Hoover, U.S., U.S. economy, Canada, Great Depression, market crash, free trade, recession, Harper, Conservatives, deficit, Government, politics, Flaherty, Budget, GST, politicsCanada, Surplus, Economy, Taxes, EI,

Harper Recycles

Stephen Harper, taking a page from Ralph Klein, is recycling old promises and announcements. Guess that's what he considers being Green.

PM kicks off final GST cut at electronics store

Mr. Harper wound up 2007 by holding a news conference at a Mississauga store on Monday to trumpet tax cuts his government has made and which take effect at midnight.

As the year turns, the GST will drop to 5 per cent, something that Harper's government announced months ago.

Mr. Harper said Canadians should not expect further tax cuts in 2008, adding that his government will be cautious on tax relief or new spending.

Even this is not as big a tax break as the corporations are getting thanks to Harpers generosity with our tax money. And what you save in GST you pay back in payroll taxes.

Starting Jan. 1, Canada's corporate tax rate will be trimmed to 19.5 per cent from the current 22.12 per cent. This rate is slated to come down each subsequent year until it is reduced to 15 per cent on Jan. 1, 2012.

As well, the tax rate on small businesses with incomes under $400,000 drops to 11 per cent from the scheduled 11.5 per cent rate.

Of course, what the government giveth, it often takes away and Ottawa has also brought in a slight increase in so-called payroll taxes.

The taxpayers federation estimates that employees will pay an additional $50.43 in 2008 on employment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan, while employers will pay $46.02 more per worker.

And it is the payroll taxes, EI specifically that creates the record Government Surpluses whether that government is Liberal or Conservative.

And note that workers still pay more than employers. Time to abolish taxes on the working class!



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Harper, Canada, Conservatives, Flaherty, Budget, GST, politics
Canada, Surplus, Economy, Taxes, EI,

Flaherty's Tax Deception

The reason the Conservatives have a surplus is because income taxes remain high. The recent Flaherty roll back was only to the level that had existed under the Liberals.

Tax Fairness? Hardly. The rich continue to get tax breaks, the working poor face claw backs and the middle class pays more in taxes.

And other than the window dressing of rolling back the Conservative created GST (not eliminating it) not much tax relief came out of all the smoke and mirrors pre-election mini-budget.

Instead all that Flaherty did was dress up for Halloween as the Wizard of Oz.

The federal government's personal income tax cuts were relatively modest, and for the most part merely a rollback of the tax increases in his first budget, according to an analysis by a think-tank that was involved in preparing projections for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's recent economic statement.

And those measures will only temporarily ease the personal income tax burden, and not by much, and won't keep that burden from rising in the future, says the analysis Wednesday Global Insight's chief economist Dale Orr, which warns that burden will rise in the years to come.

"Finance Minister Flaherty is fond of telling us that Canadians pay too much tax," it said, noting that last week's economic statement promised about $60-billion in tax relief over the next five years.

However, almost 60% of that is the goods and service tax reduction, a cut that Global Insight say will do little to boost the overall performance of the economy.

"Only 18% is in personal income tax reductions," the report said. "From almost any perspective, the personal reductions in the economic statement were very small, smaller than they could have been, and smaller than they should have been."

The economic statement, which was widely perceived as a pre-election mini-budget, reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% from 15.5%, retroactive to January 1, 2007. It also increased the amount people could earn before being taxed, providing $10.9-billion in personal income tax relief over the 2006- 2013 period, with about about half of it this year and next.

"What the Finance Minister Flaherty didn't tell us is that the lowest marginal rate was 15% in 2005, and in 2006 until the Conservative government raised it to 15.5% in budget 2006, to help finance the first GST reduction," Orr said, adding that the rollback of the earlier Tory tax hike accounted for almost 80% of the total personal income tax relief .

"Thus, this personal income tax 'relief' is relief only because the Conservative government took it away in their budget 2006, to have it restored again in the November, 2007 economic statement."

And the amount of "relief" is tiny relative to its impact on the personal income tax burden, which is measured as the proportion of personal income paid in personal income tax, and it's temporary, the analysis argues.

The rollback of the earlier tax hike reduces that burden slightly to 9.8% this year from 10.1%, but the tax burden will rise back to 10.1% next year as the projected increase in after-inflation earnings pushes more income into higher tax brackets, it said.

While tax brackets rise with inflation, any real or above-inflation increase in incomes, means more of that income is taxed at higher rates, Mr. Orr explained in an interview, adding that were it not for the re-indexing of the income tax system, which occurred under the former Liberal government, the tax burden would rise even faster.

"Roughly speaking, if personal income increases by five per cent, federal personal income tax collections will increase by about six per cent of $7-billion a year if the increase in personal incomes is evenly spread across the income distribution," it said. "Personal income tax collections ... are the proverbial 'cash cow'."

In fact, in recent years the faster growth in incomes at the upper-income level has resulted in personal income tax collections rising by closer to eight per cent for every five per cent increase in personal incomes, it said.

The analysis, for example, calculated that for every $100 increase in income an individual's income the government collects an extra $29 from an upper income tax-filer but just $15 from a low-income one.

The analysis was prepared for Global Insight clients which include governments of virtually all stripes and corporations, Mr. Orr said.

Canada's rich pay less in taxes than poor, report finds

OTTAWA — The era of tax cuts ushered in by federal and provincial governments in recent years have made Canada’s tax system so regressive that the country’s richest now pay the lowest rates of all income groups, says a report to be released Thursday.

The report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an advocacy research group that has pressed in the past for more social spending and bigger taxes on corporations and higher-income Canadians, looked at what percentage of income Canadians pay in taxes to all levels of government.

The study shows that Canada’s progressive tax system has become less so between 1990 and 2005, and for the richest Canadian families — those with annual earnings of $266,000 a year and more — the era of tax cuts since the turn of the century has been like manna from government.

Those very rich Canadians paid 30.5 % of their income in federal, provincial and municipal taxes in 2005, as opposed to the 30.7 % for those with incomes under $13,523, the lowest 10 % of family earnings.

That’s a big difference from 1990, when the top 1 % of earners paid 34.2 % of their incomes in taxes, as opposed to 25.5 % for families in the bottom 10 %.

“The tax system as gotten less progressive,” said the group’s senior economist Marc Lee.

“There’s something in the overall tax system now that most people would find offensive. The idea that someone who is in the upper middle class is paying a higher tax rate than someone much wealthier is not fair.”

In last week’s mini-budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty cut the GST as well as personal, corporate and other taxes by $60 billion over five years, declaring that “Canadians pay too much tax.”

In recent years, several provincial government have also cut taxes, but in many cities, property taxes and users fees have been rising as local governments try to cope with rising costs and service demands.

The highest taxed Canadian families are those earning between $120,000 and $151,000, who pay 36.9 % of their income in taxes. This group is followed closely both those earning $57,460 and $72,299 — whose tax bill represents 36.5 % of their total income.

Lee said his report is different from other such analyses in that he included all sources of income, including salaries, inheritances, employer provided benefits and capital gains. As well, the report calculates all taxes, including property and corporate taxes and user fees charged by governments.

He said he chose the 1990 to 2005 timeline because the last time a similar methodology was used to analyze the Canadian tax system was in 1988, and because the 15 years covers a time of government deficit cutting and tax hikes, followed by several years of tax cuts.

The main finding is that on average, tax rates dropped by 2 % between 1990 and 2005 as both federal and provincial governments undid the tax increases of the 1990s with deeper and broader reductions.

But the relief wasn’t spread equally. Those in the top 1% of earners actually saw their tax bill drop by about 4%, whereas those at the very bottom saw the take rise by 5%.

Lee said although the lowest income earners generally pay no or very little income tax, they do pay a disproportionately high amount in relation to their income in sales taxes, property taxes and other government revenue generators, such as gaming and liquor sales.

Tax cuts by provinces was the main impetus behind the flattening of the system, says Lee, although federal cuts, such as the elimination of the 5% high income surcharge after 2001 also reduced progressivity.

Provincial taxes are less progressive than federal levies because of their greater reliance on sales tax and fees for such things as driver’s licences. As well, provinces generally have flatter provincial income tax rates.

“Provincial income tax cuts are the major culprit behind Canada’s eroding tax fairness, an important consideration given allegations by the provinces of a fiscal imbalance in Canadian federalism,” the report finds.

Upper-income earners benefited from a 2001 federal decision to eliminate the 5 per cent "high-income surtax" and from preferential treatment of capital gains from the sale of stock market shares and real estate.

The affluent were also better able to take advantage of increased allowable tax deductions for RRSPs, Lee said.

At the other end of the scale, low-income earners saw their tax rates accelerate as a result of increases in payroll, consumption and property taxes, as well as user fees.

The analysis concludes that there is scope for raising income taxes at the top of the income ladder to make the system fairer.

"Such changes would help to ensure those who can afford to contribute more for public goods and services valued by all Canadians can do so," the study says.

Tax cuts won't buy a cup of coffee
Analyst says savings for low-income earners are, at most, 39¢ a day

Unveiling tax goodies on mini-budget night, a beaming Finance Minister Jim Flaherty declared to a national audience that "these tax cuts will move some 385,000 people off the income tax rolls altogether."

Sound good?

It should. This kind of thing has been a staple of federal budgets for many a year.

But analysts scoff at this supposed manifestation of a government's goodwill toward Canadians at the bottom of the financial scale.

In fact, there's widespread agreement the tax changes introduced by Flaherty do little to improve the lot of low-income earners.

"Don't get sucked in by that," says TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond when asked about Flaherty's claim 385,000 people won't pay federal tax as a result of the Oct. 30 mini-budget. "Most of those people were paying $5 or $10."

He said he completely agrees with the idea that someone earning under about $14,000 should not be taxable. "But just bear in mind the amount of taxes they are paying. It's not a very meaningful statistic."

The main lever used in Flaherty's mini-budget to ease the tax burden on low-income Canadians was raising the basic personal amount that can be earned without paying federal taxes to $9,600 – an increase of $671.

The people supposedly removed from the tax rolls, then, are those whose taxable earnings would have been slightly higher than the old threshold of $8,929.

"There are people who would be just barely above the amount of the non-refundable credit, so, in effect, you put them in a zero tax position," says Hugh Mackenzie, a research associate with the Ottawa-based Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. "They're not eliminated from the tax rolls. The position that they find themselves in is that when they go through the tax calculation, they find at the end of it they don't owe anything.

"It's not as if these people are exempted forever from paying tax," Mackenzie added. "As inflation goes on and economic circumstances change, you could have a very similar income and find yourself taxable again."

In his mini-budget, Flaherty also said he is helping taxpayers by dropping the lowest personal income tax rate to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent. This helps all taxpayers but is proportionately more helpful to those with low incomes.

But Flaherty's budget measures still aren't great news.

Cutting the lowest tax rate will return about $1.3 billion a year to taxpayers, notes Drummond. "When you've got 20 million paying taxes, $1.3 billion doesn't go very far."

However, he says, the Harper government decided to spend the money it had for tax cuts on reducing the GST another percentage point to 5 per cent.

With a GST cut, "there's no incentive to work, save and invest. In fact, if it gives any incentive, the incentive is only to spend more and consumption is not one thing the Canadian economy is short of by any means," Drummond said.

As a result, Flaherty's income tax moves do little for Canadians with the smallest earnings packets, economic analysts say.

First of all, it's universally noted the reduction in the lowest income tax rate to 15 per cent only reverses a tax increase brought in by Flaherty in his 2006 budget. Taxpayers are getting a benefit they would have received anyway had he not raised income taxes last year.

It's a similar situation with the increase in the basic personal amount to $9,600. Flaherty is only moving forward increases in that tax break put in place by the Liberals in 2005.

Taken together, the Oct. 30 measures will provide only very modest help for low-income earners.

The CCPA's Mackenzie estimates the mini-budget changes will result in a maximum income tax reduction for individuals of $242 in 2007, $187 in 2008 and $144 in 2009.

For a single parent, the maximum reduction is $298 in 2007, $184 in 2008 and $94 in 2009, he said.

And those savings will be less for anyone with an income below about $38,000 a year, Mackenzie said. So, as a result of the way taxes are calculated, Flaherty's income tax changes will amount to a gain of at most 39 cents a day for a single individual and 25 cents a day for a single parent, he estimates.

It marginally helps people with very small incomes, says Rob Rainer, executive director of the National Anti-Poverty Organization.

"But we're not going to see any major, substantive visual evidence on the streets, so to speak, of people really having their financial fortunes reversed by this," Rainer said.

Analysts and anti-poverty advocates agree that Canadians must go way beyond tax cuts if they are going to use government fiscal measures to effectively reduce poverty.

Reducing taxes for those at the low end of the income ladder only helps if governments refrain from cancelling out any benefits by clawing back income supports and social assistance as taxpayers' incomes begin to rise above the subsistence level, economists stress.

These clawbacks, designed to keep support programs from becoming too expensive, act as a disincentive for low-income workers to extend their hours or upgrade skills because the reduction in social benefits, combined with rising tax rates, leave them with less money. As a result, what economists call their marginal effective tax rate can reach the same level or higher than top income earners.

"You really have to get the effective rates on low-income people down," says Dale Orr, an economist with Global Insight. "Some of these people are subject to very high effective marginal rates because they lose tax credits and subsidies and things. So we really have to do something better for them."

The federal Conservatives have taken a step in this direction, introducing the Working Income Tax Benefit, a $550-million-a-year program designed to help eliminate some disincentives for low-income earners. However, critics say it needs to be expanded to be of maximum value to working families.

Federal government shows no interest in making Canada better
Lana Payne
The Telegram

Before kids even go to school, we expect them to connect the dots.
My daughter has been doing it for years and she’s only 6. When she’s finished connecting the dots, she is left with a clear picture that she then colours a multitude of shades and hues.
You soon learn, though, that children are very good at connecting other kinds of dots. At Thanksgiving, like most kids in the city, she was asked to bring items to school for the food bank. We talked to her about food banks and explained that not everyone had enough money to buy food, pay bills and buy clothes for their kids. And that food banks help, but they are not the answer.
This must have stayed on her mind, as a few days later she asked, out of the blue, if we had food banks because “rich people didn’t share enough.”
Canada’s not-so-new prime minister and his blustery finance minister are counting on us having forgotten to connect the dots.
They certainly don’t want us questioning their tax-cut agenda and the damage it is causing and will continue to have on the country’s social fabric.
They most certainly do not want Canadians contemplating this failed and flawed public policy.
Because if Canadians start connecting the dots, they may discover that despite tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts, they are still not feeling that financially secure.
Despite a 30-year unemployment low, despite more than a decade of government surpluses and despite unprecedented economic growth, Canadians are a worried lot — at least according to polling by the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives.
It may have something to do with all the debt families are carrying and a lack of household savings. Or it may be because real wages, excluding inflation, have not increased since the recession year of 1981-82.

Not shared
It’s no wonder Canadians are feeling a little shaky. After all, the country is generating more wealth than ever before, they see politicians giving away billions, but it isn’t filtering down to them.
And despite this failed and unimaginative economic policy of tax cutting, the federal Conservatives persist with the finance minister announcing at the end of October another $60 billion in tax cuts — almost 25 per cent going to corporations.
This is what Canadians do know and what Stephen Harper ought to fear.
They know how expensive it is to send their big kids to university or college because taxes haven’t been used to reduce the cost of post-secondary education.
They know that only the lucky and the fortunate can access affordable child care and early learning programs for their smaller kids. They know that tax cuts won’t repair mould-infested schools. They know tax cuts won’t build bridges or pave roads. Nor will they build hospitals, buy cancer-treatment equipment or pay home-care workers a decent wage. Tax cuts do nothing for homeless people, except keep them homeless.
And tax cuts for corporations do even less, except feather a few already cushy nests.
Canadians know that the last thing hugely profitable corporations need is more of their hard-earned cash. Yet the Harper Conservatives have done just that, handing over another $14.8 billion in corporate tax cuts, including to obscenely rich oil and gas multinationals.
It’s no wonder a study last week by the Centre for Policy Alternatives discovered that Canada’s tax system is becoming less and less progressive. According to the report, by economist Marc Lee, the richest one per cent of families pay a lower percentage of their income to governments than the poorest.
Lee’s conclusion was that Canada’s tax system, after years of cuts, now fails a basic test of fairness.
And this was before the Conservatives’ latest round of tax cuts, which had many economists warning that Harper had slammed the door on any new major programs.
What a waste. This money could have made a real difference in the everyday lives of Canadians. An average $200-a-year individual tax cut won’t buy a coffee a day. But collectively, it could have done a lot of good.
That’s, of course, if you are interested in making that difference in the first place.

Government doesn’t care
What is becoming increasingly clear is that Canada’s slightly used Conservative government has no interest in that. They are much too busy managing the public relations of a war, shutting out the media and playing politics.
And while they play politics — fencing with each other over who is the sharpest politician in the lot — another child’s sense of wonder is dimmed by poverty because government chose tax cuts over action.
And that is the whole problem. We have a federal government that doesn’t believe in government, and so most days are spent dismantling and diminishing government as a force of change.

The message to Canadians is: don’t look to Ottawa to be part of the solution.

Unfair burden on poor

EDITORIAL
TheStar.com

Whether taxes are high or low, they ought to be fair, with those with the greatest ability to pay contributing a larger percentage of their income than those with less ability to pay. Such a progressive tax structure has long been a core Canadian value – at least in principle.

But the reality of our current tax system tells a far different story.

In 2005, the richest Canadians actually paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than those who earned the least. In a country that prides itself on fairness, all levels of government took a combined 30.7 per cent of income in taxes and fees from those with incomes under roughly $13,500, but only 30.5 per cent from the top 1 per cent of Canadians, those with incomes of more than $265,800 a year.

In the broad middle between the poorest and the richest, the tax system was mildly progressive, which means that the very richest Canadians paid a lower overall tax rate than any other group.

These findings come from a new study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which looked at changing taxes from 1990 to 2005, a period when the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer. Astonishingly, it found tax cuts had exacerbated that trend.

During this period of big tax cuts, the overall tax rate for most Canadians fell 2 percentage points. For the wealthiest, the drop was 4 percentage points. But while others were getting tax breaks, the poorest Canadians saw their tax rate rise more than 5 percentage points.

By their very nature, some taxes are regressive, hitting the poor harder than the middle class and the rich. Property taxes are one such tax and while they took a diminishing share of everyone else's income over the period, for the very poor they took a rising share, increasing to 5.9 per cent in 2005 from 5.1 per cent in 1990.

Sales taxes, which are also regressive, had the same effect. Rising more slowly than income for most Canadians, they increased significantly relative to income for the two lowest-income groups.

But if that wasn't bad enough, cuts in progressive federal and provincial personal income taxes favoured those with higher incomes, particularly the rich, at the expense of the poor. To create greater fairness, Marc Lee, the study's author, suggests hiking taxes on the rich.

But taxing the rich would do nothing for the poor. It is far more important to tackle poverty head on, and raising incomes of the 10 per cent of Canadians who live on less than $13,500 a year.

See:

Flaherty's Smoke and Mirrors

Tax Cuts For All

Tax Cuts For The Rich Burden You and Me

Tax Fairness For The Rich

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Flaherty, tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, politics, Conservatives
taxes, tax-credit, budget, economy, government, Conservatives, Flaherty, Harper
Salaries, Canada, wages, Economy,

Still Waiting and waiting and.....

For all their talk about how the Harper government takes action it is just that talk.

Jim Flaherty's timelines on national securities regulator, international tax

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has repeatedly talked about plans to strike two panels: One to create draft legislation for a national securities regulator, and the other to identify ways to improve the fairness and competitiveness of Canada’s system of international taxation.

The latter panel was even suppose to produce an interim report by the end of 2007 and a final report in 2008. But the panels don’t exist yet. When will they be created?

“Soon,” Mr. Flaherty told reporters after speaking at a Rotary Club of Toronto event. Asked to clarify how soon, he said the international tax panel will show up within the next ten days. He did not elaborate on the national securities regulator panel.

Canada's health care rated poorly

Canada has the worst rating in a new study of health care in seven countries when it comes to wait times for seeing doctors and getting elective surgery.

And the Commonwealth Fund says Canadians are most likely to report going to an emergency room as an alternative to a visit to a doctor's office or clinic.

Only 22 per cent of Canadians surveyed say they could get a same-day appointment when they're sick. Thirty per cent -- by far the highest among the countries -- say they had to wait six days or more.

And 15 per cent reported waits of six months or more for non-emergency surgery.

Meantime, two-thirds reported having a lot of difficulty getting care at night, on weekends or holidays.

"The report indicates that Canadians are saying the same thing to politicians that they're saying to the Commonwealth Fund: access to physicians and access to medical services has to improve," said Health Minister Tony Clement.

"We share that concern."

SEE

Finally Some Common Sense

Still Waiting On Wait Time 2

Still Waiting On Wait Time 1

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
health care, medicare, Canada, Conservatives, Harper, Tony Clement, waittimes, politics, health, government, CMA, doctors, failing grade
Stock-Eschanges, Canda, economy, capitalism, Flaherty, Conservatives, Regulation, Stock-Regulation, SEC, TSX,

Can't or Won't

Actually lets be honest here Jim, you won't help, it's not that you can't help.

Ottawa urged to act on auto jobs

Can't help auto sector, Flaherty says of job cuts

After all the conservatives only believe in helping those who help themselves. A hand up not a hand out...unless it's another tax cut for business.


See:

Time For A Made In Canada Auto Industry

Unions=Competitiveness



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Buzz Hargrove,
Liberals, unionization,
CAW, Canada, auto, automobile, Frank Stronach, Magna, business unions, auto parts
Chrysler, CAW, Canada, auto, automobile, Flaherty, Magna, Ontario, environment

Flaherty's Smoke and Mirrors

More evidence of the Harpocrites Tax Unfairness. Business got the biggest tax cut while you and I got crumbs.

And even though many in booming Alberta are better off now than they were a decade ago, the taxation on working families earning median incomes; $40-$60,000, are paying for the tax cuts to business.

Simply put it is our taxes paying for Flaherty's corporate welfare while the Conservatives fail to invest the remainder of our money in much needed social programs.

Economists say the personal income tax relief in the Harper government's Tuesday mini-budget is paltry and does little to improve incentives to work, save and invest in a country already suffering from weak productivity growth.

The overall tax breaks that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty doled out this week will ramp up to $14.7-billion annually within five years, but less than 11 per cent of that went toward personal income tax rate cuts. Only about $1.5-billion is directed at lowering personal income tax rates, in this case cutting the lowest bracket rate to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent.

Global Insight (Canada) chief economist Dale Orr calculates that the personal tax burden on Canadians keeps rising despite the Conservatives' fall mini-budget.

"This puts the small magnitude of that [mini-budget] relief into perspective," he says.

As a result of the relief Mr. Flaherty offered, personal income taxes collected by Ottawa as a share of all personal income fall to 9.8 per cent this fiscal year from 10.11 per cent. But then they rise to 10.12 per cent and soar to 10.94 per cent by 2012-13, only slightly less than where they would have been without the mini-budget.

The marginal effective tax rate on personal income - the tax paid on the next dollar of income someone earns - remains extremely high for most earners in Canada.

Typical marginal effective tax rates for families with children climb above 50 per cent for incomes in the $20,000 to $30,000 range and exceed 60 per cent for those earning $30,000 to $40,000, according to calculations by C.D. Howe Institute research director Finn Poschmann.

For most families, the rate doesn't drop below 50 per cent until incomes hit $45,000.

Edmonton's economic boom is making the rich richer, but most households are barely better off than in 1981, says the Edmonton Social Planning Council.

In making the comparison today, the council reached back to the peak year of the last big oil boom, rather than to the leaner intervening years.

It makes sense to compare "apples-to-apples" boom years, council researcher John Kolkman said as the non-profit agency called for more than $1 billion in tax breaks and increased spending for low-income Albertans.

Using Statistics Canada figures, Kolkman said the median earnings level - the point where half of income earners make more and half earn less - stood at slightly more than $32,000 in 1981, and only $300 above that in 2005. He adjusted 1981 earnings to equate them to the dollar's 2005 buying power.

Even so, in inflation-adjusted terms an increasing proportion of Edmonton-area families are making $100,000 or more, the Statistics Canada numbers show. Back in 1981, about 27 per cent of families were making at least that amount, in 2005 dollars. As of 2005, more than 30 per cent were in that earnings range.

About 55 per cent of families in 1981 were earning between $40,000 and $100,000 in inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars. The middle-income range accounted for just 43 per cent of families by 2005.

About 18 per cent of families earned less than $40,000 in 1981, using the same inflation-adjusted dollars. Families in that lower-income range peaked at about 38 per cent in 1995. As of 2005, they accounted for 27 per cent.

"A greater percentage of families are doing better," Kolkman said. Even so, he said some families that were once middle income have since lost ground.

SEE:

Tax Cuts For All

Tax Cuts For The Rich Burden You and Me

Tax Fairness For The Rich

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Flaherty, tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, politics, Conservatives
taxes, tax-credit, budget, economy, government, Conservatives, Flaherty, Harper
Salaries, Canada, wages, Economy,

Income Trusts; Predatory Capitalism

Predatory capitalism comes to the oil patch through this Income Trust merger. Another consequence of the Harpocrites Halloween surprise last year. And clearly farmer Ed's Royalty compromise has not impacted these guys.

Merger creates oil patch giant
Canada's newest energy powerhouse, forged yesterday by the proposed merger of Penn West Energy Trust and Canetic Resources Trust, is poised to challenge the oil patch's biggest players as it seeks even more aggressive expansion through acquisitions and new projects.

The new entity will be comfortably the country's largest oil and gas trust, with market value of around $15-billion and production of more than 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. It will have the size to compete with some of the oil patch's biggest names, said executives of both companies.

The new company will not only be a leader in Canadian conventional light oil production, but its larger size will make it easier to access debt markets to fund significant developments in unconventional gas, enhanced oil recovery and even Alberta's oil sands, a region in which major projects have been the preserve of only the largest and most well-financed firms.

In addition, the company - which will operate under the Penn West banner for now, but may be rebranded in the future - is now buttressed against any potential foreign takeover and positioned to expand aggressively by taking over other trusts in Canada as well as assets in the U.S., said Penn West chief executive officer Bill Andrew. Last year's federal decision to make income trusts pay corporate tax from 2011 is perceived as having left such firms as more susceptible to domestic or foreign buyouts.

The friendly $3.6-billion cash and paper deal, which came together in a series of confidential meetings held in motels outside of Calgary over a three-week period, was facilitated in part by Calgary-based lawyer John Brussa, one of the original architects of Canada's income tax structure.

Income Trusts generate vast pools of capital which they can use to buy up other companies while retaining their ability to pay out dividends to coupon cutters.Income Trusts began in the oil patch in Alberta before becoming popular across Canada.

They are a product of the Alberta stock exchange lack of regulation and the Klein governments deregulation revolution. They avoid paying taxes thus allowing for higher returns to investors. They are a tax avoidance scheme for owners. And they still will generate value for their owners despite Flaherty's tax scheme which only comes into effect in 2011.

That will impact the coupon cutters far more than the companies real owners, the Class A shareholders and company investment managers. And by then the majority of Flaherty's corporate tax cuts will be in place enabling this trust to transform itself into a corporation again if it is a fiscal advantage.

In practical life we find not only competition, monopoly and the antagonism between them, but also the synthesis of the two, which is not a formula, but a movement. Monopoly produces competition, competition produces monopoly. Monopolists are made from competition; competitors become monopolists. If the monopolists restrict their mutual competition by means of partial associations, competition increases among the workers; and the more the mass of the proletarians grows as against the monopolists of one nation, the more desperate competition becomes between the monopolists of different nations. The synthesis is of such a character that monopoly can only maintain itself by continually entering into the struggle of competition.

Karl Marx
The Poverty of Philosophy
Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Stelmach, Alberta, tarsands, oilsands, Canada, state capitalism, royalties, oil, profits, Province, Bill Hunter, Alberta Royalty Review,
Alberta Cabinet, CAPP, Ed Stelmach, Big Oil,oil royalties, Calgary, politics, NEP, Conservatives,Fort McMurray,
Flaherty,Harper, Government, Conservatives,tax-cuts, Penn West, business-tax, taxes, Income Trusts, Energy Trusts, oil trusts,