Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
I find this policy well thought out and well documented. I like it all, especially the treatment of capital gains. Happily, there's much more detail than I would have expected during a leadership campaign.
I've been a Brian Topp supporter for a while. I'm curious about what Duncan Cameron and others think about it.
The paper elides some context when it describes the Liberals cutting the capital gains tax inclusion rate to 50% in the early 2000's. That was the rate when capital gains tax was enacted in 1972 - the aberration was to raise it to 75% in 1988. See:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2000/10/18/capgains001018.html
And surprisingly there's also a problem with the discussion of taxation of stock options - the rules were changed in 2010, yet the paper cites 2008 as a baseline. See:
http://www.pwc.com/ca/en/tax-memo/stock-options-federal-budget-implications-employers.jhtml
So I too look forward to varying opinions on the paper.
I think the new $250,000 tax bracket could be increased a bit. While it's a lot of money a number of people making these salaies are doctors, particularly specialists and what not, probably engineers, and people in other fields that we need. I don't want to see a heart specialist choose the US over Canada because of taxes. While these people might be considered "rich" we should be taxing the super rich, those buiness people and whoever that make over $500,000 and over $1,000,000.
This is well thought through and well presented, Brian. Keep up the good work.
I wonder when other candidates will come forward with policy papers with specific initiatives?
I hadn't realized how high Topp was proposing to increase corporate taxes. I personally think increasing it by about 50% is not a great idea. I also saw an economist say that comparing us to the United States isn't a fair comparison, while there rate is 34% they have so many loop holes that the largest companies don't end up paying taxes. It also seems that many states have much lower corporate tax rates then our provinces, are our provinces going to end up having to reduce corporate taxes so that corporations have an incentive to remain there or locate there?
Yes, we musn't offend our corporate overlords lest they go John Galt on our asses.
Or, you know, seeing as how shittly the current plan has been going, we could just try taxing them for awhile and see how it goes. For kicks.
I dont think we have any fewer "loopholes" in Canada- not categorically fewer at least. These 'loopholes' [most of them are incentives, and a good many no one would want to ditch], taken together with the fact that you really can only increase corporate taxes so much without creating competitiveness problems... means that there is only so much increased revenue that can be had from them.
It sounds nice to stick to the safe NDP thing of saying that you are only going to 'close loopholes' and increase corporate taxes [taxwa on 'them'].... but it isnt remotely near enough to address the ever incresing fiscal imbalance and shredding of the old consensus on social contract.
We are not going to be able to work out all the precise details on where is the best place to draw lines on every particular tax increases; before running it up the flagpole and seeing what people think. That's a recipe and excuse for continuing to do nothing about it.
It's either that, or find some way of convincing them that it in their interest to accept less in the way of profit. As it stands now, they're nowhere near to being even on the fence with that concept.
Secondary point- but I question that it is an across the board 50% increase in corporate taxes- even in steps over an extended time. There are numerous rates- and it is implicit in Topp's paper that there could be new ones as you increase the rates on those that should pay more. [Which is one the things that contributes to the proliferation of 'loopholes'.]
ETA: if SJ and I could trade positions for posts 8 and 9, we'd all read like we were making more sense. But what kind of fun would that be?
You would have to accompany such legislation with additional laws designed to curb inflationary pressures, just for starters. Profit levels will be maintained in any event, and it has to come from somewhere. In the age of globalization, you would need to set aside the additional revenue from increased corporate taxes, and then some through increased levels of borrowing and general tax increases at all levels of government on those with jobs and consumers without jobs, in order to shore up the departments that make up the safety net. Manufacturing in this country would all but disappear, and not necessarily to overseas destinations with impoverished regions like Detroit for instance being more than willing to build our toasters.
I think the new $250,000 tax bracket could be increased a bit. While it's a lot of money a number of people making these salaies are doctors, particularly specialists and what not, probably engineers, and people in other fields that we need. I don't want to see a heart specialist choose the US over Canada because of taxes. While these people might be considered "rich" we should be taxing the super rich, those buiness people and whoever that make over $500,000 and over $1,000,000.
It's $250,000 in taxable income, as I understand the proposal.
But as to your point about a heart surgeon choosing the US over Canada over tax rates, I'd suggest to you that's only part of the consideration for them. Our country is a lot less litigious and they would be spending far less here on liability insurance. Also, the public healthcare system ensures their bills are paid.
In Canada, those folks are earning the majority of their pay packet *out* of the pockets of taxpayers. Brian seems to be saying that the tax system is the means through which we share with each other, and so that doesn't seem out of line.
You also raised a concern about the corporate tax side of things, raising the prospect that there are in fact more loopholes in the States, so 34% is not the effective tax rate down there. But if one were to raise the overall corporate tax rate in Canada, but then create incentives through targeted job creation tax credits for actual job creation, you could achieve policy objectives with public dollars and still lower the effective tax rate for good corporate citizens.
I think the new $250,000 tax bracket could be increased a bit. While it's a lot of money a number of people making these salaies are doctors, particularly specialists and what not, probably engineers, and people in other fields that we need. I don't want to see a heart specialist choose the US over Canada because of taxes. While these people might be considered "rich" we should be taxing the super rich, those buiness people and whoever that make over $500,000 and over $1,000,000.
It's $250,000 in taxable income, as I understand the proposal.
But as to your point about a heart surgeon choosing the US over Canada over tax rates, I'd suggest to you that's only part of the consideration for them. Our country is a lot less litigious and they would be spending far less here on liability insurance. Also, the public healthcare system ensures their bills are paid.
In Canada, those folks are earning the majority of their pay packet *out* of the pockets of taxpayers. Brian seems to be saying that the tax system is the means through which we share with each other, and so that doesn't seem out of line.
You also raised a concern about the corporate tax side of things, raising the prospect that there are in fact more loopholes in the States, so 34% is not the effective tax rate down there. But if one were to raise the overall corporate tax rate in Canada, but then create incentives through targeted job creation tax credits for actual job creation, you could achieve policy objectives with public dollars and still lower the effective tax rate for good corporate citizens.
I don't really understand why he chose $250,000 though, he says it's the top 1% but it is not. Personally taxes are going to be raised for the top earners I'd like to see it on those making say $400,000+.
I never read theough Topp's paper but has he committed to tax incentives for good corporate citizens?
I honestly don't think this will be a popular policy with Canadians, I can see him winning support from NDP members but not from your average Canadian voter.
Brian seems to be selling a peculiar brand of snake oil with an acutely high alcohol proof, because people appear to be quickly getting drunk from its promise. I don't see an outline on how inflation will be avoided, nor a plan to stem the likely exodus of manufacturing jobs. We can only go by the assumption that he knows very well how these processes work, yet we're left to peer through gaping holes in logic that either haven't been filled in yet but will at some point, likely by someone when we're not looking, or the material to do so just doesn't exist and we'll wind up in the same shit creek as the Europeans when the next reactionary government assumes power, and the auctioning off of the public worth commences in favour of our debt to GDP ratio. How does anyone these days, with one example after another laid before us of how well social democracy works on behalf of the population, with globalized capitalist supervisors waiting in the wings with their 'rescue' packages, come to the table with a straight face to say here's how we're going to lick this monster?
You are making two entirely different points there.
One is about where to do the lines. Important, but still secondary to whether we go down this road.
You cannot have it both ways. If you want to draw the lines so high that no ones fetahers are going to be rustled, we are not having an honest discussion about raising enough revenue... we are literally nudgiing the deck chairs into what looks like a slightly better position.
As to ruffling feathers- there are many quite willing to pay their share for a better Canada. It is about the kind of country we want to have.
A.] Dont sell people short. B.] Do you have another plan- even in the most general terms?
Thanks, Brian, for producing that policy paper. I read it last night and was quite impressed with how succinctly you presented the case for bringing the taxes on wealthy individuals and the corporate sector to more reasonable and internationally competetive levels. What is especially interesting is that the funds that could be raised by your proposals would eliminate our structural deficit without requiring the evisceration of public services
The main reason for my loathing of the Liberal party of the last decade was not related to their cutbacks and to how they offloaded the responsibility for maintaining standards in public services to lower levels of government; rather it related to what they did with the dividend once the books were balanced. Paul Martin's massive wealth giveaway via the ridiculous and unsustainable cut to the capital gains taxes was one of the most heinous public policy moves I have seen in my lifetime. In my view, anything Stephen Harper has done since almost pales in comparison. Thank-you for bringing that point to light for everyone.
I can see him winning support from NDP members [with this plan], but not from your average Canadian voter.
You have not, but others have suggested that is all it is about- giving the membership what they want to hear.
If so, that would be an incredible turnabout for Brian Topp- to propose an agenda for the NDP, that he does not believe Canadians will buy into.
And to boot: a proposal that there wont even be the option to sweep it under the rug if he becomes Leader. He owns this for good now.
I don't really understand why he chose $250,000 though, he says it's the top 1% but it is not. Personally taxes are going to be raised for the top earners I'd like to see it on those making say $400,000+.
I never read theough Topp's paper but has he committed to tax incentives for good corporate citizens?
I honestly don't think this will be a popular policy with Canadians, I can see him winning support from NDP members but not from your average Canadian voter.
Any number you choose as a cutoff for a new tax bracket is by definition somewhat arbitrary. I've noticed that the typical Liberal Party line is to express concern about the growing income gap...and then shoot down any proposal to actually do something about it! I actually think that increasing taxes on the the less than 1% of canadians who make over $250,000/year will be wildly popular with Canadians. For 99.5% of the population they can support it out of self-interest because they don't personally make enough to pay the extra tax and will be happy to know that people making absurd amounts of money will pay more tax and that that will help support health care etc...Even among the 0.5% of Canadians who actually do make such a stratospheric wage that they would be in that highest btax bracket - there will be some Warren Buffet types who will happily support paying more because they recognize that they are currently undertaxed (which they are)
@ SJ:
Not sure what to make of your post14. The on the surface stuff is pretty easy- especially over the range of time that is relevant, none of this is inflationary. The conversation about the neo-con message that it would erode Canadian competitiveness is endeless. Suffice to say for now that it is no given, as you put it.
But even more puzzling: even if what you suggest is all true, what the fuck are you looking for?
If you don't direct the increased revenue from corporate taxes back into industrial subsidies, as they've done in Europe for so many years, and even in the the United States where corporate tax rates and loopholes are a scandal, I just don't see in this plan a way to persuade ones domestic industrial capacity from melting away. Free trade deals and other associated world economic governance agreements are designed to specifically discourage subsidies all around, where enforcement and litigation depends on ones level of compliance with the greater scheme of things, and which subsequently permits manufacturing to be accomplished anywhere with the lowest overhead.
I assume capital losses would also be treated as regular income losses at 100 percent. No mention of dividends or a corresponding adjustment to the dividend tax credit for the increase in corporate tax rates. Some more details are required,
I can see him winning support from NDP members [with this plan], but not from your average Canadian voter.
You have not, but others have suggested that is all it is about- giving the membership what they want to hear.
If so, that would be an incredible turnabout for Brian Topp- to propose an agenda for the NDP, that he does not believe Canadians will buy into.
And to boot: a proposal that there wont even be the option to sweep it under the rug if he becomes Leader. He owns this for good now.
The Conservatives will hammer away at this proposal and cast the NDP as tax and spenders. They will try and make Canadians believe that a Brian Topp led government will start taxing everyone higher and not just high income earners and corporations. Topp had also mentioned increasing the GST a few weeks back, this will also be used against him and the NDP.
I think if Topp had proposed increasing corporate taxes by a few percentage points it would be fine, but I think his proposal is to high.
Was their any mention of cutting taxes for low income eaners?
NL'er, you have all the hallmarks of a Liberal strategist (not saying you're one, but you've apparently bought their philosophy hook, line and sinker). The mistakes the Liberals made were to passively follow what they thought the media consensus was, but just look cleverer about the marketing. They ran around in fear of being attacked, but never staked out a position and defended it.
Fortune favours the bold.
I don't really understand why he chose $250,000 though, he says it's the top 1% but it is not. Personally taxes are going to be raised for the top earners I'd like to see it on those making say $400,000+.
I never read theough Topp's paper but has he committed to tax incentives for good corporate citizens?
I honestly don't think this will be a popular policy with Canadians, I can see him winning support from NDP members but not from your average Canadian voter.
Any number you choose as a cutoff for a new tax bracket is by definition somewhat arbitrary. I've noticed that the typical Liberal Party line is to express concern about the growing income gap...and then shoot down any proposal to actually do something about it! I actually think that increasing taxes on the the less than 1% of canadians who make over $250,000/year will be wildly popular with Canadians. For 99.5% of the population they can support it out of self-interest because they don't personally make enough to pay the extra tax and will be happy to know that people making absurd amounts of money will pay more tax and that that will help support health care etc...Even among the 0.5% of Canadians who actually do make such a stratospheric wage that they would be in that highest btax bracket - there will be some Warren Buffet types who will happily support paying more because they recognize that they are currently undertaxed (which they are)
I saw somewhere, or heard, that the top 1% of earners several years ago made closer to $500,000. While many Canadians may not disagree with corporations and higher earners paying more, this will all come down to trust. If Brian Topp will increase taxes on those making $250,000+, those making $40,000, or $70,000, or $100,000 may fear they are going to be the taxed higher as well.
It's the endless sticking of heads in the sand which suggests that there are no inflationary costs associated with attempting to relieve corporatism of some of its profit through taxation. You really can't look around from that vantage point to see they already have the answer. They've thought of everything. Don't you know what globalization was all about, and what its subsequent entrenchment and solidification in the last decade means? There's a limit of course to recapitalizing losses through inflation. The public can only bear so much after all. This is where a fluid and globalized labour market comes in. This is where lax or non-existent environmental controls play out. This is why none of the ultra-capitalist states want to sign away this ace card with universally binding climate controls and labour standards.
Well to begin with, some honesty would be really swell, just for a change of pace you know.
The Conservatives will hammer away at this proposal and cast the NDP as tax and spenders. They will try and make Canadians believe that a Brian Topp led government will start taxing everyone higher and not just high income earners and corporations.
Tough. Conservatives all around the world have attacked any party to the left of them as having a hidden agenda of tax and spend since the beginning of time. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Right now the Tea Party crackpots keep denouncing the Democrats as being a party of tax and spend because they want to raise taxes on people making over $250,000/year - polls show that about 80% of Americans disagree with the tea party and agree that people with the highest enough are going to have to start paying their fair share.
Governments in Canada have a major revenue problem. There are deficits and there simply isn't enough money for them to do the things we want them to do. The money has to come from somewhere - if not from people earning over a quarter of a million a year - then where else???
NL'er, you have all the hallmarks of a Liberal strategist (not saying you're one, but you've apparently bought their philosophy hook, line and sinker). The mistakes the Liberals made were to passively follow what they thought the media consensus was, but just look cleverer about the marketing. They ran around in fear of being attacked, but never staked out a position and defended it.
Fortune favours the bold.
My point is that when you talk about increasing taxes of those in a certain tax bracket, people in all tax brackets get scared.
I saw somewhere, or heard, that the top 1% of earners several years ago made closer to $500,000. While many Canadians may not disagree with corporations and higher earners paying more, this will all come down to trust. If Brian Topp will increase taxes on those making $250,000+, those making $40,000, or $70,000, or $100,000 may fear they are going to be the taxed higher as well.
Not even close. In fact if you have even a HOUSEHOLD income of $200,000 - you are in the top 1% - and that could be the combvined incomes of more than one wage earner.
Its actually the other way around. UNLESS we raise taxes on the super-rich - people with low incomes will pay higher taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. If we refuse to make the super-rich pay their fair share - the only alternative is to raise taxes on those making $40,000 or $70,000. In the US a lot of the rightwing loons actually propose that - they want to actually CUT taxes on the rich (because supposedly it will "trickly down") and they complain that the very poor pay too little tax and they want to LOWER the personal exemption and make sure those pensioners and people on welfare pay more tax!!
Its a zero sum game - governments need revenue - the only question is where does it come from. The NDP says it should come from the super ricj and corporations. The Liberals and tories won't say where the money will come from - but by process of elimination, if they refuse to tax the super-rich - they must be planning to tax the middle class.
My point is that when you talk about increasing taxes of those in a certain tax bracket, people in all tax brackets get scared.
Tell that the President McCain and Vice-President Palin.
My point is that when you talk about increasing taxes of those in a certain tax bracket, people in all tax brackets get scared.
Tell that the President McCain and Vice-President Palin.
And look at Obama's approval ratings now.
I'm not saying I completly disagree with what Topp is saying, I'm just saying that it might not be the most winnable policies.
I'll be interested to see what some of the other leadership candidates have to say about Topp's ideas.
Particularly Mulcair who is a "fiscal moderate".
Brian seems to be taking the novel position that if you don't insult people's intelligence, you might win over at least their attention. And you don't need to use that condescending phrase "an adult conversation about ... [usually something that actually screws yourself to my benefit]" in order to do it.
As far as revenue production goes, the NDP refuses to say what needs to be said, which is that natural resources have to be nationalized...wholesale. In today's world all this talk about increasing taxation on the rich or the moderately rich, who have no barriers against investing just about anywhere else to make their profit, and this talk about the levying of more taxes all around upon a population already expected to adjust to lower overall standards of living, the short to long term result of global economic adjustments applied to cover the gambling losses of the past few years, where lower expectations are factored in as being available with the right sort of leadership and enforced sacrifices to help in avoiding economic collapse altogether, is delusional at best.
Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?
Or a notwithstanding decree.
My point is that when you talk about increasing taxes of those in a certain tax bracket, people in all tax brackets get scared.
That has hertofore been the right wing game. And since the NDP has always lost when it is played, we've stayed completely away.
But does that mean nothing has changed?
Like I put to you before:
A.] Dont sell people short. B.] Do you have another plan- even in the most general terms?
Enough with the maybes and seems to and so forth. You are in or you are out?
I think I know the answer to that one, at least right now. Fair enough.
But we do have a problem here. Nobody is claiming we can get anywhere with little marginal ticks at massaging tax collection. Do you really think everything has stayed the same- we'll be massacred? If so, when are we going to know its better?
What is the plan man?
And dont be looking to Mulcair for the alternative chart. You can take this to the bank: there will not be anything remotely like Topp's detailed suggestions to argue with.
I believe the notwithstanding clause only applies to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In either case it would be a difficult proposition to campaign on.
I'll be interested to see what some of the other leadership candidates have to say about Topp's ideas.
Particularly Mulcair who is a "fiscal moderate".
In contrast to that well known radical Brian Topp.
If you think about, my questions put to you about the alternative are VERY challenging indeed. If you can come up with an answer of how we deal with fiscal realities without talking about raising some taxes, the candidates will all beat a path to your door.
Barring the production of this silver bullet, I can tell you what the 'fiscal moderate' will do.
1. Make some dismissive comments that Topps plan wont wor, done on the back of an envelope, whatver.
2. Remind people that I am going to bring the centre to the NDP, not vice versa.
The check is waiting for your signature.
Nothing wrong with Topp's policy papers. But I see it as very general and quite frankly, political NDP pablum. In a leadership race, don't have a problem with that per se but why it's being greeted as "great stuff!" surprises me. Nothing really new.
Compare it to Martin Singh's healthcare proposals. Little more meat to it's bones.
My point is that when you talk about increasing taxes of those in a certain tax bracket, people in all tax brackets get scared.
Tell that the President McCain and Vice-President Palin.
And look at Obama's approval ratings now.
I'm not saying I completly disagree with what Topp is saying, I'm just saying that it might not be the most winnable policies.
To the extent that Obama's approval ratings are down right now - a lot of it is because he FAILED to raise taxes oin the wealthy and is getting pushed around too much by the rightwing crackpots in the GOP. Right now under Obama thanks to the filibuster and the GOP control of the House of Representatives - taxes on the rich are as rock bottom low as ever in the US - and it sure isn't helping their economy!
Clinton on the other hand actually succeeded in raising taxes on the rich in 1994 - and he was re-elected in a landslide in 1996! so go figure.
Right now the battle at hand is to win the NDP leadership and the people voting in that process are NDP members - so it makes sense to tell those people what they will want to hear. I hope Mulcair also realizes whose votes he needs to get to become leader on march 24.
They employ armies of analysts and lawyers to uncover every imaginable loophole in the existing tax regime, let alone a new one asking them to ante up with more of a fair share. Eventually it's either tough propositions of that nature, compared against tough austerity measures not too far down the road it seems if the trends continue the way they have.
Oh yeah- comprehensive proposals for raising are a number of taxes, and the need to raise revenues in general. And not coming from policy shops or factions that hardly anyone hears. Old hat.
Care to compare to Mulcair? Doesnt have to even be on the same issue. Pick anything and make a comparison.
V
Oh yeah- comprehensive proposals for raising are a number of taxes, and the need to raise revenues in general. And not coming from policy shops or factions that hardly anyone hears. Old hat.
Care to compare to Mulcair? Doesnt have to even be on the same issue. Pick anything and make a comparison.
Mulcair hasn't announced his policy papers yet. We'll have to wait and see. Maybe they'll be just as general as Topp's.
Not sure why you have to keep coming back to Mulcair though when that isn't the topic.
Here's Topp's tax policy... raise the top bracket, raise capital gains, rollback corporate taxes.
You call that comprehensive? As I said, if that came from Mulcair, you'd have your knickers in a knot.
That said, I don't have an issue with any of it. But comprehensive and some great policy?
Compare it to Martin Singh's healthcare proposals. Little more meat to it's bones.
Right on. It's the only kind of "economic policy" that New Democrats are comfortable with, apparently. And some are "uncomfortable" with...like Newfoundlander's concerns, which might spring from Danny Williams, Newfoundland's wealthiest individual, flying out for the best available open heart surgery at the nads of happy, well-paid surgeons. :)
The really significant news on the economic front today is that Americans are buying Canadian bonds which, with 10-year bonds paying only a fraction more than their own, are expected to be more profitable at term because the value of the Canadian dollar is expected to REMAIN HIGH. Which means our manufacturing export industries are pooched. And the automakers are making noises that Canadian autoworkers are going to have to expect far, far less to make up for it.
Be really nice to see Brian catch up with policy ideas at that level, something not quite so 1960-ish. Mulcair has spoken to this, and probably will again on the 4th.
Mulcair hasn't announced his policy papers yet. We'll have to wait and see. Maybe they'll be just as general as Topp's. Not sure why you have to keep coming back to Mulcair though when that isn't the topic. Here's Topp's tax policy... raise the top bracket, raise capital gains, rollback corporate taxes. You call that comprehensive? As I said, if that came from Mulcair, you'd have your knickers in a knot. That said, I don't have an issue with any of it. But comprehensive and some great policy?
In the first place, I didnt ask you for Mulcair's policy papers [but by the way, do you have some reason to be certain they will eventually come?].
Topp's papers are not shopping lists to cover the items on the waterfront. They are political agendas. You can call that 'general' if you like. But tell us anything- general or otherwise that Mulcair has put out there about where he sees the NDP going.
"I want to bring the centre to the NDP" goes beyond being general. It could mean anything and everything. What more than that is there- no matter how 'general'- about where he sees the NDP going.
And if Mulcair came out with this- or anything even close, I could not sign up for the campaign fast enough. I ignored your line the first time because I was being charitable. Everyone is entitled to have toss-offs not taken seriously. But if you mean it, there is your answer.
Seriously?
I've been waiting and hoping for quite some time for the NDP to make this strategic move, or an equivalent one. I didnt expect it to be introduced in a leadership race. But with the benefit of hindisght, it's hardly a surprise. When else to we systematically talk about the future direction of the party except out on the margins?
The deal breaker with me on Mulcair is based on his positioning I think he would never do anything like this. [And I mean 'anything'- any substantantive political agenda, it wouldnt have to include what I think is the most central.]
I would still have reservations about Mulcair, and they are not small. But neither are the different but equally weighty reservations I have about every single candidate- Topp included.
You apparently aren't excited by Mulcair's position on the most serious question for workers in eastern manufacturing, preferring to fall back on that exciting new formula - Tax the Rich!
Ah well.
Explain that position of Mulcair's George.
From what I've seen, you are pretty easy to please. Very tough exterior to say the least, but scratch the beast in the sweet spot and he's mush. All you expect is that a prospective leader talk about the same subjects you see as primary- put the right questions out on the table so to speak.
No demands at all about what is going to be done or how we are going to get there.
Relevancy is always a good start, Ken. You will recall (or maybe not) that from the beginning, he has said the imbalance of the Canadian economy, western commodities raising the loonie to a non-competitive exchange level for eastern exporters and tourist operators. And now that is being built on by the bond speculators:
"The really significant news on the economic front today is that Americans are buying Canadian bonds which, with 10-year bonds paying only a fraction more than their own, are expected to be more profitable at term because the value of the Canadian dollar is expected to REMAIN HIGH. Which means our manufacturing export industries are pooched. And the automakers are making noises that Canadian autoworkers are going to have to expect far, far less to make up for it."
And if I could go to Toronto on Monday I would hear his program for overcoming that, in depth. But I will look for an abbreviated rendition in the debates on Sunday.
And if you don't understand that, you'd better stick with Brian. :)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Could we please separate out a few different questions from one another:
(i) is a policy good
(ii) is the overall policy programme comprehensive
(iii) what, if anything, should we deduce about the candidate's ability to conduct a political strategy based on the timing of their policy announcements
Mulcair has not released any policy papers as yet. Ken doesn't believe he will. That's debatable, but not prove-able until the end of the campaign. To keep arguing about what might or might not be, is to create grief out of nothing.
Does any one of either of Brian's papers thus far constitute a comprehensive policy programme? He himself says no. Some believe that once they're all released they won't. Again, not proveable.
Is anything in any of the current policy papers bad or wrong? If you can tell without seeing the rest of the papers, then say so. If you can't until you see them all, say so as well, and point out why not.
The rest is just sympathizers for one candidate or another carping or talking past each other on different questions.
Guilty as charged.
But I still find it amusing- even if it is predictable spin- to hear people saying 'not much there'.
I mean, if it was coming from the left of the party, I could understand.
I'm not looking for bloody "policy announcements," but to repeat, "if I could go to Toronto on Monday I would hear his program for overcoming that, in depth. But I will look for an abbreviated rendition in the debates on Sunday."
Why do people get tighto-assed and their knickers knotted over the minutae. The point I'm trying to make is that "Tax the Rich" is not original and won't cut it with the public, whereas putting forward concern and ideas for a contemporary question involving the work/lives of hundreds of thousands hereabouts just might.
Come down off the dias.
And try reading the business pages. Union leadership sure as shit are, these days.
What's a "dias"?
A place where you make pronouncements from on high, often starting with "whoa." :)
And for "dias" read "dais"....close :)
By the way- even from someone who predicts that Mulcair will never 'explain his program'- not seeing it Sunday or Monday does not mean it is not coming.
Another by the way George- you are not the only one who reads the business pages thoroughly. If you werent such an intellectual snob, you could even pick up plenty of evidence of that around here.
There is never any shortage of politicians showing concern, and framing the problem.
This is the best policy position on taxation I've heard from any NDP leadership candidate to date, or from any Canadian politician in a long time.
And Newfoundlander, less than 1% of Canadian taxfilers earn $250,000 a year. About 2% earn $150,000+.
A lot of people seem to mix up individual and household income. In Canada, unlike the US, we don't have joint tax filing or "income-splitting."
By the way- even from someone who predicts that Mulcair will never 'explain his program'- not seeing it Sunday or Monday does not mean it is not coming.
Another by the way George- you are not the only one who reads the business pages thoroughly. If you werent such an intellectual snob, you could even pick up plenty of evidence of that around here.
Demonstrate your thorough reading of the business pages sometime Ken. In a world where the employed working class in the private sector is almost universally buying the Conservative message of austerity and the need to protect their employers and themselves from higher taxes, the end of pensions, etc. You know, Wee Jimmie's message for a few years now? The message that has won elections for the right since the California tax revolts of the late 70s. Since the Chicago School taught capitalists to take those pension dollars and create jobs where folks play ball with capital. Anywhere else in the world?
I'm supposed to stay silent in the face of Tax the Rich to avoid the charge of "snobbery?" Just like in the old classroom? Naw, let the epithets flow. Too old for that shit to hurt any more.
@Newfoundlander and Slumberjack:
I have to admit, I am confused about your reservations regarding taxation. There is nothing new in the NDP being for fair taxation. THey were during the last election, and always have been. I am sorry to say it, but your arguments sound a lot like ones a Paul Martin Liberal would make.
The issue for the NDP going forward isn't how much more do we have to move to the center (i don't know, become more like the Libs?). The issue for the NDP is how are we going to make our case? This is what this leadership debate is about. It is about what kind of vision do potential leaders have for the NDP, and how capable, and how ready are they to make their case to Canadians. I want a leader who is ready to make our case, not find ways to co-opt the Liberals.
Unemployment hovers between 7 and 8 percent. Just over 20 years ago, these kind of numbers would lead to the fall of governmets. Add to it the continuosly growing gap between the haves and have nots, and you have to ask, how much do we want to adopt some kind of hybrid, Martin Liberal approach to governance.
I simply don't understand the arguments that each of you guys are trying to make. I don't want to be a Liberal, and people in voting for us chose us looking for something new. If we are simply going to co-opt ourselves, we will throw the real chance we have to make permanent the realignment in Canadian politics which took place the last election. If that is what you guys see as a desireable goal, then maybe you need to ask if you shouldn't be looking for some where else to park your support.
If I am misreading you, then I would welcome clarification and correction. But based on what you have written thus far, I stand where I stand.
Since I can only demonstrate that by bowing to the world as George sees it, guess its not going to happen.
Does any one of either of Brian's papers thus far constitute a comprehensive policy programme? He himself says no.
I dont know where I used the word 'comprehensive'. But I know I did, and its at least not advisable.
But I know where it comes from. 'Comprehensive' to me because it includes very smart strategy for getting it. Admittedly, that does not read off the page. Its no wish list. Which is why its not comprehensive: stick to what you know you can get done. Considering where we have been for years, decades, achieving that would be anything but trivial.
It is not meant as a grand economic starategy. But I expect Brian will talk about where it fits into that.
One of the backhanded 'compliments' to Topp was that the policy paper was smart strategy with the membership. [Read, pandering to them.]
One of the biggest appeals is that many of us think that it is not only what we want to hear, but also smart strategy for going to the voters.
quote: "If that is what you guys see as a desireable goal, then maybe you need to ask if you shouldn't be looking for some where else to park your support."
Ah, if only it were so easy, given the mobility of investment capital today. Somehow, it doesn't stand around waiting for your pension returns to be taxed heavily. It's a damnable situation, but there you go, nothing's easy anymore, like in the good old days of Tax the Rich. Maybe we could start with convincing enough political jurisdictions to go along with a "Tobin tax" on each transaction undertaken? Slow them down a bit in the finance capital world first.
Or one is left wondering why the simple plan of taxing the rich hasn't worked worth a fiddler's fart for some time now. Why finance capital rules the roost, even after their criminal actions.
What are you talking about? When was the last time anyone really tried to "tax the rich". What kind of rhetoric is that? I am asking why would anyone think that having not tried to progressively and fairly, and see the outcome thus far, not realizing that who and how we tax is an important issue at which to again look. I say again, the NDP will have problems with this if we accept and try to make our argument from with "the tax the rich" frame. Topp is at least talking about what we are going to do about the current Paul Martin, Liberal induced, fiscal and monetary status quo. Regan is dead, and so should be his ideas. The NDP needs to figure out how to deal with this issue, and how to communicate this to Canadias. Polls suggest majorities know the wealthy aren't paying their share and want this changed. This is a golden opportunity for the NDP, and we need to figure out how to approach this.
It isn't simply a case of "tax the rich or don't tax the rich". Especially not now.
quote: "When was the last time anyone really tried to "tax the rich"."
Exactly. Any suspicion - in a Globalized world - why that condition exists?
And you think that invested capital is just going to stay there and let you tax to the point of its loss of appeal on The Market? Where is your pension fund (funds) invested? Even government funds today are exposed to the market.
Our economy is called capitalist. It stinks, but there you go. Too many people and institutions have bought into it and its had us by the short one since finance capital took the reins. Your average Swede understands he has to pay more - and not tax the corporation more. Their corporate tax rate is not high.
No, I'm afraid Brian's tax gem is aimed at the folks who do not follow the market, is wishful thinking, and will not fly in the real world where a great many workers DO follow the market. They've bought into the idea of being able to eat AND heat after retirement.
"And you think that invested capital is just going to stay there and let you tax to the point of its loss of appeal on The Market? Where is your pension fund (funds) invested? Even government funds today are exposed to the market"
And where is it going to go exactly? And what exactly is it doing with itself now. The CCPA put out a study a couple of months ago stating that the investment class is sitting on almost 2 trillion dollars in cash. I guess this proves that not taxing corporations and the wealthy has worked right? I guess I just am not smart enough to get your obvious truth, right?
I said it above, and I'll say it again, we aren't Libs. People like Krugman, Stiglitz, and Stafford have explained the fallacy in assuming that taxation will drive away captial. Given how much unproductive capital there is, I would hardly say we can do nothing. Again, doing nothing sounds like something a Paul Martin Lib would do, and I guess if you wait long enough, the weather will always change.
I hear you, and I read Krugman, religiously. But you have to convince those people engaged with the market.
Corporations are not spending because they don't want to endanger their standing in the Market. They want people to invest.
It's a crazy game, and people like the Bank of Canada governor are NOT comfortable with it. Neither is Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of management at U of T. He says it all came unglued in 1976. New Democrats can use what they say to reform the bloody system and bring change while keeping too many folks from starving. But we have to get elected to power. Overcome the propaganda machine, the media's enmity...they need advertisers from the business community.
I think that a guy bright enough, with all the right credentials - including damn good environmental ones - can make it possible to assume the Cat Bird seat in Ottawa. But at moments like this, I'm not really hopeful.
As to your question about the direction investment capital is heading "And where is it going to go exactly" psst, the developing economies where there is growth. And the developed economies where the Cons are building the opportunity for investment in toll bridges over the St.Lawrence, utilities in Timbuktu where a private corporation can demand payment for water, etc. Stuff folks really need. Great "income" investments in that old portfolio, you know?
Well I think you make a very reasonable argument. I just get so tired of having to deal with all the convential wisdom outlets out there that keep real change from happening, not that I am in any way saying that you are a part of that group. I guess I am just so frutstrated by all of this. I am also a little frustrated by Trumel as leader. She is not a very good communicator, and she is letting Rae get more attention then he desrves. I am not convinced being the kind of leader who thinks it is their job to "hold things together" untill we have a new leader who can bring things together is what we need or deserve. I posted a CP article example of what is happening on another thread I started. It is really aggravating to watch such ineffectual perfromances from our MPs and leaders. It worries the hell out of me.
Join the worried club. I don't know why the party doesn't just release some of the really competent MPs to speak on their areas of competency.
Are you not just sick and tired of being spoonfed tasty looking morsels from the political class? This plan just tells you what you'd like to hear, without bothering to get into any further details about how it will be successfully accomplished, in an era where the corporate politicans are falling all over themselves in a rush to remove barriers to the flow of capital and goods between us and other countries and regions. Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so, would you kindly point out in this plan where he accompanies these red meat tax hikes that has got everyone drooling it seems, with points on how to address the problem of liquid capital and manufacturing flowing across borders which no longer serve to impede anything related to trade.
It's performed astonishing feats of aerial acrobatics here. A real barnstormer.
Agreed on the Swedes: their corporate tax rate is far lower than ours. I think what Brian recognized in his paper is that it is not Sweden with whom we conduct 90% of our trade, but the U.S. Our corporate tax rates need to be competetive with theirs. I think he also made a good point of observing that having a significantly different corporate tax rate than theirs does nothing for multinationals but decrease the amount of Canadian tax they can deduct from their U.S. returns.
The basic Nordic taxation paradigm has entirely different premises. Heavy reliance on consumption taxes- precisely because the wealthy cannot avoid or minimize them. Then you redistribute income/benefits through a variety of mechanisms so that the overall effect of the tax regime is progressive rather than the regressive effect of sales tax increases we get hear.
The main thing is the commitment to restore balance in the taxation system- kick more of paying the piper back upstream where they belong. As far as income taxes go- the right would have us think that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between increasing income taxes and capital flight. There isn't.
The amount of revenue and tax increase that Topp has suggested is simply not enough to engender any significant capital flight.
That isnt the strategic obstacle. The obstacle has historically been that the ensuing howls of disaster will frighten the voters, including our supporters.
In Briain's estimation- and independently that of a lot of us- our suppporter and potential supporter universe is ready for a turn around. And thats the point. This isnt advocated as a panacea. It is a necessary start for not going over the cliff.
A start that we all know is necessary, but have balked at. Whether we are ready or not to get rewarded rather than punished by the voters we need for going down this path- that is all very arguable.
But the business about capital flight is a red herring.
And fine, some people think there are more central issues to be raised. Does that mean there is something wrong with this one?
And since no one yet has argued that we will NOT some day soon face the reality of tax increases or a more serious collapse of government services than we have seen already.... when is it, and/or how are we going to address this? As I've asked before- even in the most general political-strategic terms.
Because we right now are facing further deep cuts in Nova Scotia, that make anything going on in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, or BC look like a tame tea party. The Nova Scotia government does not refuse to consider or discuss income tax increases because of the danger of capital flight. There is no such danger. They are afraid of not being re-elected.
And so they should be- that's what happens when you have no mandate. Lou has had the honesty to say what many others are thinking- 'well, we have to be careful in our first mandate.' Sure. But that necessity for caution was guaranteed by not preparing voters before the election. And do any of you think that they will suggest during the next election the possibility that taxes might have to be increased. Not on your life. They set themselves on this track, and thats it.
Harper is making sure that within a few years the federal treasury will be in the same shape as Nova Scotia's. If you dont want to be handmaidens to the same fate as Nova Scotia's governing, whats the plan?
Not even a plan- what's the other general idea if you dont want to take chances with how are voters will handle talk of ANY tax increases?
[Not to mention: who says nothing has changed and that voters are not ready for this?]
KenS:
Bang on as always!
The amount of revenue and tax increase that Topp has suggested is simply not enough to engender any significant capital flight.
That isnt the strategic obstacle. The obstacle has historically been that the ensuing howls of disaster will frighten the voters, including our supporters.
In Briain's estimation- and independently that of a lot of us- our suppporter and potential supporter universe is ready for a turn around. And thats the point. This isnt advocated as a panacea. It is a necessary start for not going over the cliff.
A start that we all know is necessary, but have balked at. Whether we are ready or not to get rewarded rather than punished by the voters we need for going down this path- that is all very arguable.
I agree, and think this has been Brian's biggest strategic contribution to the leadership race and the party, whether he wins this race or not: to open up the opportunity for discussing taxes without automatically committing political hari-kari, in order that something could actually be achieved.
Once more into the breach, my friends.
You folks continue to talk about a "Canadian" need and response, while the corrective to the loss of eastern Canadian export manufacturing jobs is geographically specific.
quote: "The amount of revenue and tax increase that Topp has suggested is simply not enough to engender any significant capital flight."
For sure. In fact, the incoming capital investment in commodity production and now bonds is furthering the problem by raising the loonie's exchange value so that EASTERN industry is non-competitive. It's not "capital" but entire bloody industries that are leaving. And your taxing them is going to entice them to stay? Come down off the chandelier, chaps.
quote: "In Briain's estimation- and independently that of a lot of us- our suppporter and potential supporter universe is ready for a turn around. And thats the point. This isnt advocated as a panacea. It is a necessary start for not going over the cliff.
A start that we all know is necessary, but have balked at. Whether we are ready or not to get rewarded rather than punished by the voters we need for going down this path- that is all very arguable."
What nonsense.Of course voters will weigh whether what the Conservatives tell them is true. It's called instilling fear.It's what they always do. WE would not be talking to them in some effing vacuum. They have a budget several times larger than ours - and all the media onside. You make it look like some fireside chat over tea:"... to open up the opportunity for discussing taxes without automatically committing political hari-kari, in order that something could actually be achieved." Discussing taxes?
BUT we're not talking about a crapshoot with voter opinion here. Corporations stay or move depending on their profitability, their attractiveness to investors on something called the MARKET. You are talking about "voters", not the goddam corporation. And that is just naive nonsense on the tax question.
There is much to like in this paper, but I find it wanting. I believe the goal should be a more sustainable Canada, part of which is a more equal Canada, not a more equal Canada with lip service paid to sustainability. A more equal Canada with a deteriorating environment is not particularly useful to anyone except perhaps to certain interests in the short term. Any tax system that can be devised will have positive and negative social, economic and environmental impacts (actually there should be no economic impacts that are not also social and environmental). Therefore the idea should be as much as possible to enhance positive social, economic and environmental impacts and minimize negative social, economic and environmental impacts. Increasing equality is obviously a positive. Which is not to say the tax system can do everything.
Does anyone know what Mr Topp's position is on tax rates for small Canadian corporations?
Just to inject a little background: before the Mulroney/Wilson tax deform of 1986, total taxes were flat or mildly progressive, with 10 marginal rates ranging from 6% to 34% pushing them in the progressive direction. If we increase the cut-off rates by the CPI, in early 2011 the updated equivalents(rounded a little) would be:
taxable marginal rate(%) base tax
0 6 0
2460 16 150
4930 17 540
9850 18 1380
14780 19 2270
24630 20 4140
34480 23 6110
44330 25 8370
68960 30 14530
118220 34 29310
bearing in mind that this was pre-GST, so the resulting base tax covers some of this. Remember also that the base is on taxable income, so someone with an income of $12000 and deductions of $10000 would end up paying $120(6% on $2000), which now would be nibbled away in HST over the year.
Tom Tomorrow's take on taxing the rich.