Canadian Economy - Buoyant

[Frankfooter]

And in fact, Harper was congradulated world wide for his handling of the crisis.

Banking regulations in Canada kept Canada from the worst of 2008.
Harper was pushing deregulation.

 

[JohnLarue]

Can you tell me how financial crisis impacted Canada's deficit please

I will assume you just plain do not know and that is a legitimate question

The financial crisis froze up interbanking lending, severely reduced economic activity and drove up the unemployment levels
Reduced economic activity and lower employment reduces the government revenues below expectations and in 2009 well below the governments proposed budget
Therefore the government had to borrow $ to make up for the lost revenue.
In addition they increased gov't spending in order to soften the economic blow, bailed out the auto industry and paid out more in EI payments so more borrowing was needed, hence government deficits and higher government debt.

While I believe our governments should be running balanced budgets all the time, if ever there was a time to borrow it was 2008-2009

There will be an another economic shock in the future and there will be another event which will necessitate large increases in government borrowing

Sadly Justin is spending that debt capacity now ..... because that's what he does.
His father spent irresponsibly as well and in the late 70s & early 80s , 25 cents of every tax dollar received was being used to service the interest costs on Federal government debt
I also believe close to one in three Canadian employee worked for a government. (it might have been on in four)
That scenario was unsustainable.

It took the GST and downloading of cost responsibilities onto the provinces to clean up the Federal debt
Now the provinces are financial basket cases with massive debt especially Ontario

I hope that adds some clarity for you

 

[JohnLarue]

I've weighed the downsides, which you claim is that the rich would flee. Of course the corollary to that is why don't they move all the time to places with the least taxes.

Again that does not answer the question

"Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"
you avoid it because you know your answer is yes and is not aligned with the majority

And I've posted stats, studies, reports from the IMF, statements from Goldman Sachs backing up my claims.

But you refused to answer a simple Ye or No question

What I have been suggested is not redoing 'Russia from 100 years ago',

The second you start talking about taxing assets , you are taking a page from the Karl Marx playbook and that is totally unacceptable
He did not respect property rights and obviously neither do you

better dead than red

just redoing tax rates on the 1% like it was 20-30 years ago

They did not tax assets 20-30 years ago, yet this is what you want

And taxing bonds? Where did you get that from?

Post # 369

If you are trying to claim that the 1% own the banks where government debt is held, then nothing would be smarter then to tax a bit of that to pay off the debt. That's just stranded money that you and I are paying, while the 1% let it sit and make money off it.

Government debt = Bonds
if you did not know this, then what are doing proclaiming what should or should not be taxed?

 

[Frankfooter]

Again that does not answer the question

"Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"
you avoid it because you know your answer is yes and is not aligned with the majority

Wealth redistribution, far from damaging the economy, would lead to greater growth.
That's what the studies, reports, stats and everything else I've said have found.
From the IMF to Goldman Sachs, you're pushing a dead horse.

And we are not talking about taxing assets, despite what you think, we are talking income.

 

[guelph]

I will assume you just plain do not know and that is a legitimate question

The financial crisis froze up interbanking lending, severely reduced economic activity and drove up the unemployment levels
Reduced economic activity and lower employment reduces the government revenues below expectations and in 2009 well below the governments proposed budget
Therefore the government had to borrow $ to make up for the lost revenue.
In addition they increased gov't spending in order to soften the economic blow, bailed out the auto industry and paid out more in EI payments so more borrowing was needed, hence government deficits and higher government debt.

While I believe our governments should be running balanced budgets all the time, if ever there was a time to borrow it was 2008-2009

There will be an another economic shock in the future and there will be another event which will necessitate large increases in government borrowing

Sadly Justin is spending that debt capacity now ..... because that's what he does.
His father spent irresponsibly as well and in the late 70s & early 80s , 25 cents of every tax dollar received was being used to service the interest costs on Federal government debt
I also believe close to one in three Canadian employee worked for a government. (it might have been on in four)
That scenario was unsustainable.

It took the GST and downloading of cost responsibilities onto the provinces to clean up the Federal debt
Now the provinces are financial basket cases with massive debt especially Ontario

I hope that adds some clarity for you

1. US had the problems Canada has a solid banking system with strong regulations that Harper opposed.

2. Harper cut GST by 2% and reduced corporate income taxes reducing government revenues when all economists were warning of recession and dangers of reducing government revenues at that time.

3. I think Governments should run a surplus in good years to build up a fund to draw on when economy has down turn

4. Don't forget Federal Government was making very large transfer payments to provinces, brilliant provincial premiers (Harris) criticized the feds for running a deficit so Chrétien said glad you mentioned this, your share of the deficit is _________ and he cut the transfers now Provinces had deficit too.

5. Did we not have good times in period of large infrastructure projects were built in the past?

6. Trudeau was trying to fight high inflation by spending out of the inflation unfortunately it didn't work. How did Mulroney do in dealing with the national debt and deficit

 

[JohnLarue]

1. US had the problems Canada has a solid banking system with strong regulations that Harper opposed.

Oh boy
That does not mean the regulations Steven opposed would have made the issue worse,
You can only speculate on that
What is factual is the crisis occurred in PM Harpers watch and he steered us through it relatively unscathed

2. Harper cut GST by 2% and reduced corporate income taxes reducing government revenues when all economists were warning of recession and dangers of reducing government revenues at that time.

Good for him !!!
we are taxed way too much
And to be clear most economists were calling for a soft landing, so your attempt to change history is not going to pass

3. I think Governments should run a surplus in good years to build up a fund to draw on when economy has down turn

Absolutely
Sadly Justin and that idiot Kathleen Wynne are spending way beyond our means because........ They are irresponsible

4. Don't forget Federal Government was making very large transfer payments to provinces, brilliant provincial premiers (Harris) criticized the feds for running a deficit so Chrétien said glad you mentioned this, your share of the deficit is _________ and he cut the transfers now Provinces had deficit too.

Strange how you blame Harris for the slight of hand trick jean pulled
nice spin job
I suspect Mr. Harris wanted the feds to control their spending, he did not want transfer payments cut

5. Did we not have good times in period of large infrastructure projects were built in the past?

Let me be clear
Our economy will grow and prosper if and only if the US economy is doing well
Infrastructure spending should be under taken
a) if it is required
b) to soften the blow of an external event ie 2009
There is a valid argument that our infrastructure is old and needs replacing, however Justin plans deficts going forward without a plan to get back to balance. That is irresponsible

6. Trudeau was trying to fight high inflation by spending out of the inflation unfortunately it didn't work.

So this justifies Justin's irresponsible spending how?
One Trudeau makes a mess, which took a generation & the GST to fix, so we elect another Trudeau to create an newer and bigger mess?

How did Mulroney do in dealing with the national debt and deficit

considering he inherited ************'s mess, he did reasonable well.
Once Ottawa is infested with union backed civil servants , it is tough to trim that back
I would have preferred if he had cut costs more
Mulroney also took the heat for introducing the GST, which enabled Paul martin to slay the Federal debt (that and the slight of hand offloading onto the provinces)

What will the next generation have to do to clean up Justin's mess ?
Double the GST to 26%

 

[JohnLarue]

Wealth redistribution, far from damaging the economy, would lead to greater growth.
That's what the studies, reports, stats and everything else I've said have found.
From the IMF to Goldman Sachs, you're pushing a dead horse.

Again you refuse to answer the question
"Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"

all your stats, reports, studies and everything else you have found mean nothing, zip, nada if you can not truthfully answer the question with a no
Sorry comrade, your commie colors are showing

And we are not talking about taxing assets, despite what you think, we are talking income.

No you specifically stated you want to tax other peoples assets

If you are trying to claim that the 1% own the banks where government debt is held, then nothing would be smarter then to tax a bit of that to pay off the debt. That's just stranded money that you and I are paying, while the 1% let it sit and make money off it.

Karl Marx could not have stated it clearer.

FYI

then to tax a bit of that

Is a slippery slope that would lead to more, after all income taxes were originally intended to be a temporary measure to pay for the cost of the first world war

FYI
Stop thinking you can have a claim on other peoples money, income or assets. That's is stealing
Stop that

 

[Frankfooter]

Again you refuse to answer the question
"Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"

all your stats, reports, studies and everything else you have found mean nothing, zip, nada if you can not truthfully answer the question with a no
Sorry comrade, your commie colors are showing

Your question is based on a false claim.
Wealth distribution doesn't lead to economic damage.

Today's evidence.
The shutdown in Sears is now being blamed partly on the move to internet sales but mostly on the decline of the middle class.
That is yet more examples of the policies you support, which lead to more income disparity, leading to economic damage.

Here's the legit question:
Do you support giving the rich more money through tax breaks knowing that it is hurting the economy?

 

[JohnLarue]

Your question is based on a false claim.
Wealth distribution doesn't lead to economic damage.

We have ben through this once already
You can not say with 100% certainty that wealth re-distribution will not damage the economy
Therefore it is a valid question

"Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"

Your refusal to answer one way or another , just proves my assumption that your answer would be "Yes"

Today's evidence.
The shutdown in Sears is now being blamed partly on the move to internet sales but mostly on the decline of the middle class.

you Lonnie's will blame everything on inequality
Well just like you apparently did not know government debt = bonds, you are also quite confused about the retail sector.
Internet sales are growing. Is it not the middle class who are now buying on line?
Other brick and mortar retailers are doing just fine Canadian Tire, Dollar stores, Home Depot, Couche Tard.
gee who shops at hose places??
The middle class

Sears failed because they failed to adapt to changing consumers tastes and because their parent company were bad operators.

So you are dead wrong
Do you think blaming every issue on inequality will fool everyone?
First you try to link obesity with the poor being forced to super-size their colas when they order the double cheese burger with fries and gravy. And you say this is fault of inequality?
Now a you try to blame the failure of an outdated retailer with operational and governance issue on Inequality ?

Exactly who did you think you would fool with such nonsense?

That is yet more examples of the policies you support, which lead to more income disparity, leading to economic damage.

Examples of propaganda perhaps, but not real world economic proof

Here's the legit question:
Do you support giving the rich more money through tax breaks knowing that it is hurting the economy?

Yes.
Absolutely, we Canadians are taxed too much
I also know that the multiplier effect is much greater in the private sector vs government so in the long run the economy will benefit

See how easy it is to answer a simple yes or no question?

Now Please answer the simple yes or no question
Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"

 

[Frankfooter]

We have ben through this once already
You can not say with 100% certainty that wealth re-distribution will not damage the economy
Therefore it is a valid question

"Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"

Your question presupposes 100% certainty that it would damage the economy. Had you asked 'if' it could damage it instead of saying it 'would' damage the economy, the question would have been answerable.

And why is every answer of yours hyperbole mixed with insults and never a serious answer with any sources to back it up?

Meanwhile, I'll continue as if this were a real debate, one in which you asked reasonable questions and answered them thoughtfully, instead of dogmatic insults.
Today's examples.

1) Toronto is the 4th safest city. This is based partly on gun laws but mostly on wealth distribution. We don't have really dangerous ghettos full of armed and desperate poor people.
http://www.blogto.com/city/2017/10/toronto-ranked-4th-safest-city-world/

Is that worth paying for?

 

[JohnLarue]

Your question presupposes 100% certainty that it would damage the economy. Had you asked 'if' it could damage it instead of saying it 'would' damage the economy, the question would have been answerable.

And why is every answer of yours hyperbole mixed with insults and never a serious answer with any sources to back it up?

Meanwhile, I'll continue as if this were a real debate, one in which you asked reasonable questions and answered them thoughtfully, instead of dogmatic insults.
Today's examples.

Refusal to answer a legitimate question in a debate results in the loss of the debate

However that is a secondary concern
What is more troubling is knowing why you refuse to answer the question
You want wealth redistribution and do not care about the economic costs
You would be willing to tax and tax anything (including assets) in order to try and achieve your communist utopian world

Let me be clear, There is no way in hell this will happen
somethings are worth fighting for and preservation of property rights is one of them


again Please answer the question

Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"

1) Toronto is the 4th safest city. This is based partly on gun laws but mostly on wealth distribution. We don't have really dangerous ghettos full of armed and desperate poor people.
http://www.blogto.com/city/2017/10/toronto-ranked-4th-safest-city-world/

Is that worth paying for?

whats that prove?
That the status quo is good ?
You ae the one who wants change

This is another bullshit issue you are trying to incorrectly link to inequality.
Toronto is safer than US cities because we do not permit hand gins. Plain and simple

You say I do not provide links sources, well yours sources are becoming more and more a source of amusement than persuasive arguments
Obesity is due to inequality- Disproven
Sears going under because of inequality- disproven
Toronto is safer because of inequality- Disproven

We have a racoon problem in Toronto is that because of inequality?

armed and desperate poor people

Lets see they are poor and they are desperate , yet they somehow they choose to spend their money to obtain a hand gun, rather than paying for the necessities of life

And these are the people you want to enrich?
That way they can trade in the .22 for a .44 ?

Again you can not solve all of the worlds issues by stealing from one group via taxation

You really need to spend some time working in the private sector as your cushy protected government job has really clouded your judgement

 

[Frankfooter]

Refusal to answer a legitimate question in a debate results in the loss of the debate

However that is a secondary concern
What is more troubling is knowing why you refuse to answer the question
You want wealth redistribution and do not care about the economic costs
You would be willing to tax and tax anything (including assets) in order to try and achieve your communist utopian world

Let me be clear, There is no way in hell this will happen
somethings are worth fighting for and preservation of property rights is one of them


again Please answer the question

Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"



whats that prove?
That the status quo is good ?
You ae the one who wants change

This is another bullshit issue you are trying to incorrectly link to inequality.
Toronto is safer than US cities because we do not permit hand gins. Plain and simple

You say I do not provide links sources, well yours sources are becoming more and more a source of amusement than persuasive arguments
Obesity is due to inequality- Disproven
Sears going under because of inequality- disproven
Toronto is safer because of inequality- Disproven

We have a racoon problem in Toronto is that because of inequality?



Lets see they are poor and they are desperate , yet they somehow they choose to spend their money to obtain a hand gun, rather than paying for the necessities of life

And these are the people you want to enrich?
That way they can trade in the .22 for a .44 ?

Again you can not solve all of the worlds issues by stealing from one group via taxation

You really need to spend some time working in the private sector as your cushy protected government job has really clouded your judgement

Larue, your posts are getting boring.
I enjoy a good argument, but you aren't arguing, you're contradicting and that's not worth my 5 pounds.

Your economic model is based on tired old Reaganomics, its failed for the last 40 years and yet you think it will work this time.
And you can't defend a single point or understand counter arguments.
Its like talking to a 70 year old barber on his views on combs.

I'm taking a break.

 

[JohnLarue]

Larue, your posts are getting boring.

I am not here to entertain you

I enjoy a good argument, but you aren't arguing, you're contradicting and that's not worth my 5 pounds.

Please explicitly indicate where I have contradicted myself
BTW your 5 pounds is of limited value if you conclude Sears went down because of inequality
In fact your 5 pounds is quite damaging and misleading, so save it for the union heads

Your economic model is based on tired old Reaganomics, its failed for the last 40 years and yet you think it will work this time.

Lets see, my economic model is tried and tested and has resulted in Canadians enjoying one of the best standards of living in the world
It also fosters innovation and progress

your model on the other hand has also been tested in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela with disaster and hardship for the peoples of those countries

And you can't defend a single point or understand counter arguments.

I defend all positions I state and have pointed out the flaws in your bullshit
inequality is the cause of obesity ????
Come on get real

Its like talking to a 70 year old barber on his views on combs.

Well on the other hand trying to convince you is like trying to convince a commie.
No amount of common sense is going to get you to see why you are so blatantly wrong

I'm taking a break.

Well since I refuted all your garbage claims , I can only assume this is your white flag

I have you pegged for what you stand for and you know it

Suit your self, take a break, perhaps that is best as you obviously are conflicted
You believe in the commie model, yet you refuse to answer the simple yes or no question

"Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?"

So I can only conclude you know what the real outcome of your flawed commie model is and are unwilling to come out of the commie closest

I suggest you reflect and decide if you are willing to have your flawed principals subjected to scrutiny
if you are not you should really avoid trying to determine who and what should be taxed

Finally I will repeat, you have zero right to make a claim on others property or income and taxation will not ever solve inequality
the sooner you accept these absolute truisms, the better you will be able to deal with issues such as inequality, some people are rich and some people are not and life is not always fair