Canadian Economy - Buoyant

[fuji]

No No

You were very specific when you proclaimed three different subject matters
One of them:

Showed you to be an economic moron

You have yet to address this i.e., admit you were so very wrong
we are waiting
Of coarse that would require you have this thing called integrity

your behaviour is absolutely despicable

Fuji the Fool siting in his corner wearing his dunce cap

What kind of idiot are you? There is no coherent interpretation of my posts where we were discussing anything other than the impact of the tax credit.

You aren't smart enough to debate ANYTHING.

This CLEARLY refers to businesses claiming the tax credit: "Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing."

It's a conclusion following several statements about what it takes to claim the credit.

You are unable to read English at a grade five level.

 

[JohnLarue]

What kind of idiot are you? There is no coherent interpretation of my posts where we were discussing anything other than the impact of the tax credit.

Except where you say:

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

You keep on contradicting your self

You aren't smart enough to debate ANYTHING.

Smart enough to catch you lying
& smart enough to correct your inaccurate statement about Canadian small business

This CLEARLY refers to businesses claiming the tax credit: "Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing."

I just caught you in another lie
Your incorrect statement

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Originated in post 202
was in response to my statement

Not all small business owners want to grow huge companies

There was no specific reference to businesses claiming the tax credit, the only reference was to small business and you know it
you just plain did not know small business are strong job creators , as most grade 10 students do
Rather than admit you short comings in the area of economics (or any subject matter ) you prefer to try and lie your way out of your mistake

You are so despicable
You can not slither your way out of this

It's a conclusion following several statements about what it takes to claim the credit.

And it is an incorrect conclusion

You are unable to read English at a grade five level.

Lets see

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

It is really quite straight forward. It is a simple statement that
a) indicates Canadian Small Business are not drivers of employment
b) that fact they do not drive employment was the point you insisted was the only relevant at that time

I gather grades 4 through university level students would come to the same conclusion upon reading it

i.e. you were just plain wrong about job creation from Canadian Small Business
and this was what you determined / insisted was the relevant point of discussion (at that time, lord knows you switched latter)

Perhaps if you want to pull a rabbit out of a hat, you need to improve your writing skills.
Then you can hide your lies better


Explain your incorrect statement of shut your ever festering gob

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

 

[JohnLarue]

Billionaire said to exit Canada over tax plan
http://www.bnn.ca/bnn-s-daily-chase...eportId=MTA2Mzc4MzQyOAS2&spMailingID=16893844

At least one Canadian billionaire has apparently decided to pack up and leave the country because of Bill Morneau’s plan to tighten up tax rules. Business Council of Canada CEO John Manley – a former Liberal finance minister and deputy prime minister – told the Canadian Press that a successful business leader informed him he left the country with “billions of dollars” as a result of the government’s controversial tax plan. And Manley is warning more could head for the exits. "You won't know about it because they're not going to buy ads or report it — they'll just go," he told CP. Today we’ll dive deeper into the threat of capital and talent fleeing the country.

Ready , shoot , aim policy making by the liberals
Now I know some of you will say so what? What's one billionaire , Good radiance

The response to that is these tax policy changes will chase money and jobs out of the country
And they certainly will not help attracting money either

Any time when the government is taking more than 1/2 of your income smart people will look at alternatives.

 

[bver_hunter]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3758238/oecd-interim-economic-outlook-canada-economy-2017-g7/
http://business.financialpost.com/n...n-economy-this-year-maintains-global-forecast
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oecd-canada-economy-growth-outlook-1.4298030

Meanwhile, OECD raises Canada's economic growth outlook, now BEST IN THE G7.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has raised its expectations for economic growth in Canada this year compared with a June forecast. The Paris-based economic think tank says it now expects the Canadian economy to grow by 3.2 per cent this year, best in the G7. That is up from its forecast in June for growth of 2.8 per cent.Meanwhile, the organization's outlook for global economic growth was unchanged at 3.5 per cent for this year and up slightly at 3.7 per cent for 2018, compared with 3.6 per cent in its previous forecast. It also now thinks that the eurozone will grow by 2.1 per cent this year, 0.3 percentage point more than its previous prediction in June. That means the OECD is expecting eurozone growth this year to match the U.S. rate, which it left unchanged. And next year, it's forecasting growth of 1.9 per cent for the eurozone, 0.1 percentage point more than previously thought, but below its 2.4 percent projection for the U.S. The big three eurozone economies — Germany, France and Italy — all saw upward revisions. Expectations for the U.S. were unchanged at 2.1 per cent this year and 2.4 per cent next year.

 

[JohnLarue]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3758238/oecd-interim-economic-outlook-canada-economy-2017-g7/
http://business.financialpost.com/n...n-economy-this-year-maintains-global-forecast
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oecd-canada-economy-growth-outlook-1.4298030

Meanwhile, OECD raises Canada's economic growth outlook, now BEST IN THE G7.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has raised its expectations for economic growth in Canada this year compared with a June forecast. The Paris-based economic think tank says it now expects the Canadian economy to grow by 3.2 per cent this year, best in the G7. That is up from its forecast in June for growth of 2.8 per cent.Meanwhile, the organization's outlook for global economic growth was unchanged at 3.5 per cent for this year and up slightly at 3.7 per cent for 2018, compared with 3.6 per cent in its previous forecast. It also now thinks that the eurozone will grow by 2.1 per cent this year, 0.3 percentage point more than its previous prediction in June. That means the OECD is expecting eurozone growth this year to match the U.S. rate, which it left unchanged. And next year, it's forecasting growth of 1.9 per cent for the eurozone, 0.1 percentage point more than previously thought, but below its 2.4 percent projection for the U.S. The big three eurozone economies — Germany, France and Italy — all saw upward revisions. Expectations for the U.S. were unchanged at 2.1 per cent this year and 2.4 per cent next year.

Solid economic growth in 2017 is not a justification for taxing our most productive citizens to the point they consider leaving.
Exodus of capital due to excess taxation will show up in muted economic growth in future quarters , years

This is a slippery slope and potentially a real mistake by Justin

 

[bver_hunter]

Solid economic growth in 2017 is not a justification for taxing our most productive citizens to the point they consider leaving.
Exodus of capital due to excess taxation will show up in muted economic growth in future quarters , years

This is a slippery slope and potentially a real mistake by Justin

It's called paying their fair share of taxes. Why did you not praise Mr Trudeau when he reduced the tax rates for the first $200,000 for all Canadians.

 

[Frankfooter]

Solid economic growth in 2017 is not a justification for taxing our most productive citizens to the point they consider leaving.
Exodus of capital due to excess taxation will show up in muted economic growth in future quarters , years

This is a slippery slope and potentially a real mistake by Justin

Sorry to hear that you're not well off enough to consider leaving with these changes, Larue.
Which does lead to the question, if you're not rich enough to want to leave Canada rather then pay a bit more taxes, why are you arguing for people with more money then you to pay less taxes?

 

[JohnLarue]

Sorry to hear that you're not well off enough to consider leaving with these changes, Larue.
Which does lead to the question, if you're not rich enough to want to leave Canada rather then pay a bit more taxes, why are you arguing for people with more money then you to pay less taxes?

For me it is not about "arguing for people with more money then you to pay less taxes?". I hope you do not base your decisions based upon what others make and pay in taxes vs what you make and pay in taxes?

For me it is about what is best for Canada in the long term

Rich people already pay a disproportionate share of taxes
Yikes its from the National Post. (disclaimer in case they are wrong again!)

First, consider the personal income taxes paid by the top 10 per cent of earners — the country’s high-skilled, educated workers including entrepreneurs, business professionals, engineers, doctors and lawyers. According to Statistics Canada data, in 2013 the top 10 per cent earned 35 per cent of Canada’s total income yet paid 54 per cent of federal and provincial income taxes.

But that of course is just income taxes. Canadians pay a wide range of other taxes — some visible, many hidden — including payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, profit taxes, “sin” taxes on liquor and tobacco, and much more. When we account for all these taxes, our calculations find that the top 10 per cent earns 32 per cent of all income in Canada but pays 40 per cent of all taxes.

1. there will always be people with more / less money than me.
2. Their tax is their business and not mine. I know enough that the top 10% earners pay a very large slice of the tax pie (thanks !)
3. How can it be good to target them. They and their money are quite mobile

It is not just the Income you have to consider it is also the risk of running a business.
there is absolute need for a balance of after tax return weighed off against the risks. You must have heard of Risk vs. Return ?
The return has to justify the risks taken when considering pouring capital into a business or taking it out
A heavier tax burden reduces the return
Less money invested in Canada.
Less jobs for the next generation

 

[Frankfooter]

For me it is not about "arguing for people with more money then you to pay less taxes?". I hope you do not base your decisions based upon what others make and pay in taxes vs what you make and pay in taxes?

For me it is about what is best for Canada in the long term

For me its also about what's best for Canada in the long term.
But the stats show that countries with a more equitable distribution of incomes do better economically and provide a better status of living for all as well as a higher happiness index.

Take the US vs European states, where the life expectancy in the US is lower and declining, the country is an economic mess and the super rich run things as a plutocracy.
In Europe, and especially the northern countries, there is less crime, people live longer and happier and the countries are doing totally fine economically.

By what metric do you think the US is better for its citizens, based on its economic/taxation model, then those northern European countries?

 

[fuji]

Except where you say:



You keep on contradicting your self


Smart enough to catch you lying
& smart enough to correct your inaccurate statement about Canadian small business


I just caught you in another lie
Your incorrect statement

Originated in post 202
was in response to my statement


There was no specific reference to businesses claiming the tax credit, the only reference was to small business and you know it
you just plain did not know small business are strong job creators , as most grade 10 students do
Rather than admit you short comings in the area of economics (or any subject matter ) you prefer to try and lie your way out of your mistake

You are so despicable
You can not slither your way out of this


And it is an incorrect conclusion



Lets see

It is really quite straight forward. It is a simple statement that
a) indicates Canadian Small Business are not drivers of employment
b) that fact they do not drive employment was the point you insisted was the only relevant at that time

I gather grades 4 through university level students would come to the same conclusion upon reading it

i.e. you were just plain wrong about job creation from Canadian Small Business
and this was what you determined / insisted was the relevant point of discussion (at that time, lord knows you switched latter)

Perhaps if you want to pull a rabbit out of a hat, you need to improve your writing skills.
Then you can hide your lies better


Explain your incorrect statement of shut your ever festering gob

"Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing."

You keep trying to claim this is a statement about all small businesses. You are either just a liar or you can't read English. It was in reply to you stating not all small businesses want to grow, so "they" clearly refers to those non growing businesses, and not to all small businesses.

Only these non growing businesses claim the tax credit, growing businesses roll income back into the business and don't report profits anyway.

Your entire debating strategy is to lie about the topic and create a straw man to debate with.

Nobody here disputes that some small businesses are important to the economy, but many are not.

We'd be better off without personal service companies pretending to be small businesses. We'd be better off shuttering businesses that don't grow and deploying their capital to businesses that do grow. Taxation is one way to do that.

At any rate you haven't made a single solitary argument against the real topic: the tax credit elimination is a good idea and will shut down abuse of the tax code by the segment of small businesses that DO NOT contribute to growing the economy while doing no harm to those that do grow.

 

[JohnLarue]

For me its also about what's best for Canada in the long term.
But the stats show that countries with a more equitable distribution of incomes do better economically and provide a better status of living for all as well as a higher happiness index.

Stats can be mis-read and they do not take into account who we primarily compete against
The USA

Take the US vs European states, where the life expectancy in the US is lower and declining, the country is an economic mess and the super rich run things as a plutocracy.
In Europe, and especially the northern countries, there is less crime, people live longer and happier and the countries are doing totally fine economically.

That is no justification to rob from the rich to give to the poor
There is such things as property rights, assumption of risk and agency theory

Redistribution of wealth will result in a small overall pie i.e. it destroys wealth

By what metric do you think the US is better for its citizens, based on its economic/taxation model, then those northern European countries?

Odd question
1. I do not use Northern European countries as a standard
2. We primarily compete against the USA

If you are looking for a metric to evaluate scenarios with it should be Risk vs. Return

We disagree on a very fundamental basis
A Governments responsibility is to protect its citizens from external threats, ensure law and order is maintained, provide basis services, police, fire department, education, health care (in Canada) as well as provide infrastructure road, hospitals, electricity, clean drinking water and an environment where economic value can be created.

Your view is a government responsibility also includes social objectives
While some social objectives such as eliminating disease, promoting higher education and training and providing some safety net for disadvantaged have merit

But there is no way a governments responsibility should include addressing inequality issues and certainly not re-distributing wealth
And certainly not via in a regressive tax on our most productive citizens.
That is getting far too close to communism for me

In addition the government has to be financially responsible
Taxing us > 50% and running massive deficits year after year is absolutely irresponsible

 

[JohnLarue]

"Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing."

You keep trying to claim this is a statement about all small businesses. You are either just a liar or you can't read English. It was in reply to you stating not all small businesses want to grow, so "they" clearly refers to those non growing businesses, and not to all small businesses.

Only these non growing businesses claim the tax credit, growing businesses roll income back into the business and don't report profits anyway.

Your entire debating strategy is to lie about the topic and create a straw man to debate with.

Nobody here disputes that some small businesses are important to the economy, but many are not.

We'd be better off without personal service companies pretending to be small businesses. We'd be better off shuttering businesses that don't grow and deploying their capital to businesses that do grow. Taxation is one way to do that.

At any rate you haven't made a single solitary argument against the real topic: the tax credit elimination is a good idea and will shut down abuse of the tax code by the segment of small businesses that DO NOT contribute to growing the economy while doing no harm to those that do grow.

You got caught in another of your lies
You are despicable

 

[fuji]

You got caught in another of your lies
You are despicable

Nope. You lost. You had NO ANSWER to points that businesses that don't grow don't drive growth. NO ANSWER.

You had NO ANSWER to the point that businesses making passive investments believe their own growth rate is less than the publicly traded markets.

You had NO ANSWER to the point that growing businesses fold their earnings back into their business and don't report profits.

Those are the substantive points and you failed to reply to any of those points.

Instead you tried to create the illusion of debate by idiotically trying to tell me what I meant by my words which everyone can see were a discussion of the subset is small businesses that are not growing (since it was a reply to you saying that they do not all want to grow).

You simply lose. Again. And in a pretty humiliating way. Once again you've been shown not to know the topic. Once again you're unable to debate with the big boys.

 

[JohnLarue]

Nope. You lost. You had NO ANSWER to points that businesses that don't grow don't drive growth. NO ANSWER.

You had NO ANSWER to the point that businesses making passive investments believe their own growth rate is less than the publicly traded markets.

You had NO ANSWER to the point that growing businesses fold their earnings back into their business and don't report profits.

Those are the substantive points and you failed to reply to any of those points.

Instead you tried to create the illusion of debate by idiotically trying to tell me what I meant by my words which everyone can see were a discussion of the subset is small businesses that are not growing (since it was a reply to you saying that they do not all want to grow).

You simply lose. Again. And in a pretty humiliating way. Once again you've been shown not to know the topic. Once again you're unable to debate with the big boys.

Lie and deny is always your plan

 

[Frankfooter]

We disagree on a very fundamental basis
A Governments responsibility is to protect its citizens from external threats, ensure law and order is maintained, provide basis services, police, fire department, education, health care (in Canada) as well as provide infrastructure road, hospitals, electricity, clean drinking water and an environment where economic value can be created.

Your view is a government responsibility also includes social objectives
While some social objectives such as eliminating disease, promoting higher education and training and providing some safety net for disadvantaged have merit

You call it risk vs return as your primary goal.
Me, I call the risk gaming the system.

When you let people buy access to politicians and buy rule changes, as they do more often in the states, you end up with a plutocracy.

Down there, and up here to a lesser extent, the playing field is tilted to favour those who have more cash. So even with lower taxes your entrepreneur will still not have a chance against larger business/corporations that have put rules in place to favour them. Even small businesses need protection from monopolies, rule breaking corporations and those who will just buy you out if have moderate success.

So while you have to ignore all the social metrics, like lifespan, health and happiness, even for business your economic model isn't what you think it is. The 'American Dream', where anyone can get rich, hasn't been true for a few decades. The rich are rich and will give their kids their money, and the chances that anyone else will get into Trump's golf club to get some cushy contracts without paying out are very low.

 

[JohnLarue]

For me its also about what's best for Canada in the long term.

If so then what the relevance of comparing your taxes paid vs his taxes paid?
Is it only to justify increasing their tax burden?

 

[JohnLarue]

You call it risk vs return as your primary goal.
Me, I call the risk gaming the system.

That's not objective
It's a very syndical view of an ecommerce evaluation tool that has likely been used since coins were invented

No the need to make a return on the capital invested in a business is what keeps the business running. And our economy growing
Otherwise the owner moves his money to where it will make the required return commensurate with the risks to that business

When you let people buy access to politicians and buy rule changes, as they do more often in the states, you end up with a plutocracy.

corruption has also been around as long as coins as well
What's the relevance to demanding a higher tax burden on sucessfuky wealthy job creators (the rich) ?

Down there, and up here to a lesser extent, the playing field is tilted to favour those who have more cash. So even with lower taxes your entrepreneur will still not have a chance against larger business/corporations that have put rules in place to favour them. Even small businesses need protection from monopolies, rule breaking corporations and those who will just buy you out if have moderate success.

All the more reason not to not to layer any extra tax burdens on them
Most entrepreneurs have to compete, they are actually innovative, creative and more nimble than big corps.

Again a very syndical view of how our economy functions

anyways. The last thing they need is additional tax burden

So while you have to ignore all the social metrics, like lifespan, health and happiness, even for business your economic model isn't what you think it is.

lifespan, health and happiness ? ???
These objectives are largely achieved by personal choices in life.
and certainly not by tax policy???

The 'American Dream', where anyone can get rich, hasn't been true for a few decades.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-r...ans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html
A record number of Americans are now millionaires, new study shows

The rich are rich and will give their kids their money,

Its called property rights and also has been around as long as coins.
And giving your coins to your kids when you pass as "inheritance" has also been around as long as coins

Your not to change human nature

and the chances that anyone else will get into Trump's golf club to get some cushy contracts without paying out are very low.

Relevance to tax targeting the rich?

 

[Frankfooter]

corruption has also been around as long as coins as well
What's the relevance to demanding a higher tax burden on sucessfuky wealthy job creators (the rich) ?

Its not demanding a higher burden, its demanding that they pay their fair share. When the rich can buy lobbyists and politicians who will change the tax rules on their behalf, like they do in the US, then they will change the rules to make those rich even richer. This leads to a larger divide between rich and poor and a less successful country. Its about returning the tax burden to levels and ratios that support the whole country, not just the super rich. Its not about demanding new taxes, but demanding that the new tax breaks for the super rich be ended.

lifespan, health and happiness ? ???
These objectives are largely achieved by personal choices in life.
and certainly not by tax policy???

On the contrary, the situation of the country you are in plays a major role in lifespan, health and happiness. Compare stats with African countries vs Europe, for instance.
Similarly, taxation funds the social services that make countries livable, from health care to schools to roads and police, as you know. When you lower taxes and cut social services the country becomes less safe and the divide between rich and poor larger, which creates an angry underclass. If you let the people with most of the money make all the rules about taxes, then they will make themselves richer and cut the social services that they can pay for themselves, which makes the country less successful.

The most obvious example of the effects on a country are the decline in life expectancy in the US.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/12/why-are-so-many-americans-dying-young/510455/

While Canada and Europe continue to live longer, right wing fiscal policy is leading to Americans dying younger.

 

[JohnLarue]

It's called paying their fair share of taxes. Why did you not praise Mr Trudeau when he reduced the tax rates for the first $200,000 for all Canadians.

the top 10 per cent earns 32 per cent of all income in Canada but pays 40 per cent of all taxes.
That certainly sounds like more than their fair share

 

[JohnLarue]

Its not demanding a higher burden, its demanding that they pay their fair share.

If you want more tax dollars from a targeted group it is a higher burden
You just putting a different spin on it

the top 10 per cent earns 32 per cent of all income in Canada but pays 40 per cent of all taxes.
That certainly sounds like more than their fair share

When the rich can buy lobbyists and politicians who will change the tax rules on their behalf, like they do in the US, then they will change the rules to make those rich even richer.

So you want to change the game of competitive free markets via taxation?
Not going work

This leads to a larger divide between rich and poor and a less successful country.

Absolutely not
What drives this is some are willing to drive innovation and progress by taking on risk and require a return in compensation for the assumption of that risk

Those that are unwilling to obtain the skills or lack the ambition / drive to success are left behind
That is not the fault of successful people

Its about returning the tax burden to levels and ratios that support the whole country, not just the super rich.

That is ridiculous
the top 10 per cent earns 32 per cent of all income in Canada but pays 40 per cent of all taxes.
That certainly sounds like more than their fair share

In addition they receive a smaller proportion of benefits (if you can call them that ) provided by government

Its not about demanding new taxes, but demanding that the new tax breaks for the super rich be ended.

Again they pay 40% of all taxes
if you force them to leave , who will pay that 40% ?

On the contrary, the situation of the country you are in plays a major role in lifespan, health and happiness. Compare stats with African countries vs Europe, for instance.

Those differences are due to a lack of economic development in Africa.

Taxation policies are moot

Similarly, taxation funds the social services that make countries livable, from health care to schools to roads and police, as you know. When you lower taxes and cut social services the country becomes less safe and the divide between rich and poor larger, which creates an angry underclass. If you let the people with most of the money make all the rules about taxes, then they will make themselves richer and cut the social services that they can pay for themselves, which makes the country less successful.

Left wing propaganda

The most obvious example of the effects on a country are the decline in life expectancy in the US.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/12/why-are-so-many-americans-dying-young/510455/

That is more likely due to obesity, diet and lifestyle
Again higher taxes will not fix that issue

While Canada and Europe continue to live longer, right wing fiscal policy is leading to Americans dying younger.

I hope you can say that with a straight face as that is absolutely ridiculous