How to talk about increasing government revenue?

The NDP did oppose corporate tax breaks as well they should.  Iggy I'm not sure what his stand is on corporations getting all the breaks while Canadians go without.   Tax breaks to big corporations do not amount to increased employment as the trend in bigger organizations is big profit, fewer taxes and employee reduction as measures to increase profits for investors.

In BC the largest part of employment growth was in small business and not big and this will continue to be the area where most new employment will be created.  And now devastated with the prospect of going under once Harper's hated HST takes place and will cause many to go bankrupt or close their doors.  BC will be the hardest hit with employment loses.

So why are all of Canadians tax dollars going to big corporations when tax payers don't owe them anything but a thanks for nothing and how about cleaning up your mess?  Now cleaning up after big business now thats job creation and only the right thing to do you would think.

Establish a .0001 cent per word tax on economists.

good one!

Iggy I'm not sure what his stand is on corporations getting all the breaks while Canadians go without.

The liberals supported this and historically when in power con't to cut corp taxes while in power. Actions speak louder than words.

Not necessarily; but certainly generally these things are true - and so generally your premise is false.

I think it would be a problem in a global downturn, a time when unemployment is high and government revenues are less than they would be otherwise. But Jack has said that the Bank of Canada could be put to better uses. I believe he meant at the time that some amount of debt should be financed through the Bank instead of through private banks at a premium.

Will the US refuse our oil and natural gas? Our massive amounts of hydroelectric power? What else besides energy and raw materials has Canada been world renowned for exporting?

The feds could could change dynamic. This same debate took place in the 1990's among Liberal government members. Paul Martin was pressured by advisers like Peter Nicholson who said that federal deficits would soar through the roof unless there were massive spending cuts. Nicholson maintained that his view was based purely on arithmetic and free of either ideology or assumptions. Martin accepted the advice because of that. But Nicholson later recanted and said that what he claimed was true was based partly on a "smuggled-in assumption" - namely that interest rates had to remain the same.

Linda McQuaig goes on to describe how the Liberals were taking advice from people whose advice they preferred to listen to leading up to the terrible federal budget of 1995.

Linda McQuaig a few pages before that describes how governments really had no policy autonomy under the world gold standard, a time when governments had no choice but to favour the interests of international capital and lower deflationary policies on their populations in order to maintain currency stability. Under the post war Bretton Woods agreement, governments had a new tool, which was use of capital controls. Under the new liberal financial regime, in which capital is fully mobile, governments can still have  policy autonomy, but stability of exchange rates has to be sacrificed. Iow's, we would have to challenge capital in a way in which Britain's Labour government of 1976 decided not to in the face of IMF demands(US and Germany) that Brits submit to austerity measures. The problem with market diktats is that marketeers and capitalists are not always rational. And that was true of 1976 Britain when "investors"(speculators acting with herd-like mentality) began punishing British currency for no apparent reason other than the fact they probably didnt like the Labour government and welfare state socialism.

Folks here had best begin distinguishing between "speculators" and "investors" to some extent. The bad guy speculators being somewhat held in check now are the currency traders who buy Canadian bucks when the world price of oil increases. Threaten them with printing more money and they back off at the prospect of losing money. These are the bastards who, with a free-market administration under Steve, screwed Ontario's export markets by pricing product out of competitive reach.

Investors are us (as Pogo would have put it). We want a roof over our heads, food in the belly, and seasonal changes of clothing in our old age (forget the trips to warm beaches and Cuba libres).  Right now, our pensions make us "investors", along with our RRSP's, education funds for the kids, etc. etc. etc.

It's called globalization resulting from the discovery of the autonomy of finance capital by the Chicago School.  No sense comparing with '76, Fidel. Our means of extricating ourselves from this rather pathological mess is within ourselves,and must begin with recognizing our culpability, eh?

The Cons and Libs are not talking about "increasing gov't revenue", but just balancing books.Flaherty said the Cons would cut future growth in program spending. As the Globe reported, he said "the Tories wouldn't balancde the budget by cutting transfers to individuals or provinces. The former Chretien government slashed payments to privinces in the 1990s to eliminate the deficit.

"Liberal finance critic John McCallum brushed off Mr. Flaherty's accusations, saying his party would not raise taxes or cut transfers to balance the budget. He noted that the Tories aren't keeping all levies steady, point out they will be hiking Employment Insurance premiums in the years ahead."

They accuse each other of haing no "credible" plan to end the deficit.  And looking at their promises, one can understand that. But the REAL final solution will come after the election, of course.

And so it goes.

Funny, I only get a sentence into my speculator diatribe at work these days before I get interupted and someone carries on in the same course.   

When the shit started to hit the fan in manufacturing, management all of a sudden lost interest in their post modern metrics and started looking at real numbers.   And one of the things they looked at was who was value added and who weren't.

I was not value added in my old job in Q.A.  Meaning, I didn't do something that added value to the steel as it moved through the plant.  Mind you, in my Q.A. capacity I think I gave good return on my wages, or at least did my best to do so. 

But in the end, as they say, money talks and bullshit walks.

The economy really needs an adjustment along these lines.  Obviously, speculators that increase prices without adding value to a good or comodity have to be taxed out of existance, and told they're lucky that's all we're doing to them.

That's what this recession should have been about-- basically a reassesment on value, and adjustments made to favour those who add value to it.

But, surprise, surprise, someone whispered "recovery" and already we are reving up the practices that got us into this mess just a year and some ago.

Yee Haw.

Finance capital "got us into it", TP. The folks who move our investments around for us. We ae letting them take us back into it because we don't understand the  ways of creating safer investment alternatives. "They" are given the job. 

And, unfortunately, deciding "value" in a largely service economy, in some Marxian sense, ain't on.

My point was that currency rate manipulation is not the right lever-- and as Fidel pointed out the export market we do have is fairly imune to the rate. So we would not increase our exports but would increase the foreign debt we have.Also it is hard to devalue a currency when interest rates are so low. Normally you do this by dropping rates to discourage demand for your currency.

While there is some risk to the same thing, the upsides are better doing this on money supply levers which is using the central bank to create more supply. It would take some major changes to restore this lever as it has not been used in a long while. In fact the Canadian financial system is strong and can get away with some additional supply.

You again fail to mention "petrodollar", Sean. THAT is the central factor in Canada having not one, but TWO economies. That is recognized as THE Canadian dilemma in trying to balance the exchange rate...we were the first to float the dollar and were applauded for it as piioneers.  And that is what screwed us with a Conservative administration at the alter of non-regulated markets.

The media are sort of too embarrassed to mention this divisive little bomb, but we have yacked about it in the past, hereabouts. Always brought derisive catcalls from the West.

McQuaig also mentions Fortin's point of view that, certainly international capital markets have powerful influence on governments. And that foreign speculators might rally against the Canadian dollar for whatever reasons a Canadian government might provoke them to. The debt is still there after years of corporate tax cuts and spending cuts at the federal level. However, it appears to me from McQuaig's interviews with economists like Fortin that the feds in Ottawa could buck Bay Street and capital and pursue policies that are more popular among Canadians. But Fortin also points out that speculators would not necessarily dump their Canadian dollars and bonds in the event. There is always the opportunity for them to buy dollars at lower values and Canadian debt at lower yields. The profit is realized down the road when the Canadian begins picking up steam and dollar rises in value. It's what capitalists do and are good at. Some of it is a bluff, and it appears to me that this is what happened in 1976 Britain under Labour. British Labour faced a challenge from money speculators, even though inflation was on course for lowering and debt paying down. And Brits were finding it difficult to borrow money from other western countries in order to prop-up the pound. Apparently they did have options which were never considered, such as offer of loans from Germany's Helmut Schmidt. US officials at the time were scared silly that British Labour would mount a challenge to the new liberal financial regime, but British Labour blinked under the threat.

I did not "fail to mention it" -- it was not relevant to my response. I agree it is a significant issue in relation to the value of our currency but not relevant to the issue of any benefit in devaluing our currency with respect to the deficit or debt.That was the narrow question I was answering.

In some respects the petro-dollar angle is a benefit since it might well be the one aspect of our currency value that will allow our interest rates to be lower than they otherwise might be as our economy struggles. On the other hand it is pushing up the value of the dollar hurting exports but as I said there is little export market to exploit presently since what we are selling now is not subject to currency shifts-- if the economy is doing better and there is demand for oil we will sell it regardless of the value of our currency. the big problem with the petro dollar issue is not now but if there is a global recovery that could create demand for our other exports but instead raise the price of oil pushing the dollar so much that our export market does not recover. While serious, this issue is unrelated to the answer I gave which stood on its own.

Also the fact that Canada has one, two or arguably three economies is also important but not germaine to the question I answered which was the impact of manipulating the currency to manage the volume of debt.

The Bank of Canada has been threatening to print money, suppressing speculation, for about a month now.  A loon equal to the greenback means no recovery of the economy. I think the tug of war within the country regarding the rate of exchange is germaine. And I  don't understand your "there is little export market to exploit " now. There is a helluva lot to be recovered, including in the car industry.

Jack Layton hinted at it in the 2004 election campaign. And now, according to Canada's Leo Panitch, that idea has infected the London School of Economics, a world renowned think tank for capitalist ideas. The idea is to make the financial system subserviant to society and ordinary people. The new liberal financial regime since the late 1970's has achieved the opposite. Western world citizens have become embedded in the economy and people existing to serve the economy run by financial capitalists not elected leaders. Our bought and paid for stooges are there to enforce general impotence when it comes to undermining democracy and empowering market forces.

 Jack Layton also said in 2008 that bank bailouts around the western world represent somewhere in the neighborhood of $580 dollars for every citizen. Jack said there is no real reason for it when the productive labour economy is the real economy and in dire need of real investment today after too many years of spending cuts and lower taxation. A labour induced recovery is what's needed. The western world capitalist financial system is hopelessly bankrupt, and we need to begin investing in people and green infrastructure jobs. It's why I'm voting NDP.

Spot on, Fidel.

Again you are missing my point with a parrallel argument-- I am not arguing against a devaluation nor am I saying there is no market to protect-- just not presently enough new market to exploit to make an argument about doing it to reduce the debt. I was responding to a statement that we could use devaluation to cut our debt-- it will not do that. Some how you are taking that discussion out of conext and trying to evaluate it within a discussion you want to start but have not-- why don't you just make your point and then we can look at it in that context rather than twisting points that are irrelevant to yours?

I am not arguing agains the points that you are making but you keep raising them as an argument against points it is not relevant to.

I totally support devaluing the currency I just do not think this will impact the debt in the way the poster upthread thought it would.

Slap green taxes on Canada's massive fossil fuel exports to the states. Raise per barrel oil royalties to Norwegian levels, or even Alaskan levels.

Slap massive taxes on our massive hydroelectricity exports to the US. And if they refuse to pay, then use the massive surplus power to electrify our own economy, and cancel Ontario's massive diversion of public funds into more bottomless nuclear money pits.

Buy Canadian not American.

Raise taxes on those most able to pay them.

Cancel Harper's half a trillion dollar US-style military expansion program

Create public sector jobs on a massive scale, and invest massively in Canadian R&D to Swedish levels ~ 4% of GDP.

We could make countries like China appear to be running backwards with green and bustling economies of the future. Canada's potential to become a world leader in green economies of the future is simply massive.

I don't believe the hype that the Washington consensus is dead, but there are occasional signs that the discussion of an alternative will be tolerated rather than shouted down.

The Globe and Mail's editorial today comes to a similar conclusion to Mr. Jackson's posted above: "If symptoms persist, the discussion of public finance in the probable autumn election will be notably barren."

The Vancouver Sun [44] comes to a different conclusion, but also states the challenge frankly: "Balancing a budget is really quite simple. A government can only spend as much as it collects in revenues. The message from the $164 billion shortfall Flaherty is projecting over the next six years is that at some point, whether now or later, the government will have to find more revenue, most likely by raising taxes, or cut spending."

Despite the Sun's optimism, all indications are that both the Cons and Libs will likely campaign like the Democratic Party of Japan, ignore any question of how to pay for all this over the long term. It might even be the right strategy for the NDP, if we assume that eventual economic recovery will restore budgets to balance, that this is a cyclical deficit as opposed to a structural deficit.

But, if the NDP is to differentiate from the Libs and Cons, if it is to speak frankly to the aspirations of the many Canadians who don't see their needs represented in a longer term strategy of tax cuts and smaller government, if it is to point to a broadening of programs and services, then it does have to address the question of how to pay for it.

• chronic deficits?
• increased income taxes?
• increased royalties on resources?
• increased fees/consumption taxes/corporate taxes?

My concern is that these have historically been very difficult to win an election on. Is there an opportunity to defy history, and if so, what is the message for one or many of these measures that will attract a majority of the electorate? Are there examples where campaigns are winning on such a message?

It's more than the end of a business cycle. The western world financial system is irreparably bankrupt. I think the situation now is comparable to that of 1929-32. There are leaders around the world saying there needs to be a new Bretton Woods financial agreement between countries, because there are many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of what amount to junk paper iou's floating around the world, and banks and investment houses can't pay them. The new liberal financial system needs to be put through bankruptcy proceedings. It's finished.

Canadian William Krehm reminds us of the Bank of Canada's potential to create money as it was between the years 1938 and 1974. Unlike the US Federal Reserve, which was privatized sometime after turn of the last century, Canada's Bank is still nationalised. Mulroney's conservatives screwed up with doing his part for the half-baked neoliberalisation when they rammed a bill through Parliament ending the bank's role for creating non-interest bearing money and without any debate in 1991. 

I normally would never post media releases - however this is so blatant it needs to be read in full.

How Harper Plans to not tax us by taxing us

OTTAWA - The Harper Conservatives plan to reduce the deficit by levying $19 billion in higher taxes on workers and their employers, says New Democrat Finance Critic Thomas Mulcair.

"In the fiscal update Finance Minister Flaherty released on Thursday, he showed that he plans to raise $19 billion in new revenue by increasing the Employment Insurance payroll tax. Yet he's telling Canadians the opposite, that he won't raise taxes," said Mulcair.

Two months ago, New Democrats warned that an analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and actuaries showed that workers and employers were facing huge increases in payroll taxes in 2011 because of a decision by the Harper government to invest only $2 billion in its new Employment Insurance account.

The Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals, plundered the $57 billion surplus paid by every worker and employer in Canada for EI. They then gave these $57 billion in tax cuts to the most profitable businesses. In fact, businesses in the forest and manufacturing sector, that didn't qualify for tax cuts since they weren't profitable, were therefore subsidizing the richest companies. Now, businesses, whether they were profitable or not, whether they had access to the tax cuts or not, have to pay $19 billion to correct this culpable negligence.

"The issue now is what choices should the federal government make to tackle the ballooning deficit," said Mulcair. "The Conservatives and Liberals think that it's ok to transfer billions from workers and employers to fund tax cuts to the most profitable businesses. New Democrats fundamentally disagree."

This is a promising start.  Almost been tabu for the last generation, but what we're facing now could be seen as taxation crisis as much as anything.

Has anyone ever challenged our governments in court on taking money out of worker paid programs that are supposed to be there for the protection of workers?   If that was ever upheld in court it could even be used to defend pension funds under threat from corporate raiders, as a matter of broader principles.

The alternatives to taxation, when balancing budgets, are growth of economic activity and the cutting of social seervices and government activity generally.

Be certain of where you want to go on tax-cutting, folks...in this climate of growing awareness about ...climate.

I think it's incorrect to say that increasing tax rates will "generally" result in lower tax revenues or to say increasing taxes will "generally" result in higher tax revenues.

Instead, I suspect that there is a tipping-point tax rate above which tax revenues would decrease because the incentives would become negative.  In other words, there is likely a range of tax rates (0% to ???%) over which tax revenues would "generally" increase as tax rates increase and an upper range of tax rates (???% to 100%) over which tax revenues would "generally" decrease as tax rates increase.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

I'd say that's still mostly bullshit, actually.

There may be a trend where tax avoidance will increase as rates increase; but there are people who try to avoid paying their fair share at the lowest rates, and people who are honest at the highest, most punitive rates. I've yet to see anyone anywhere provide an example where a legitimately recognised government-in-control raised taxes and received less revenue.

So, are you saying that if a government were to raise the average tax rate from, say, 40% to 100% (or to 99% or to 98% or...) that tax revenues would increase?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

We all know that is not realistic.

Couldn't supply the example I requested, eh?

The Mulclair release is arguing against increasing government revenue from one source. In BC, the NDP took a position against the carbon tax that, if elected, would have seen an overall decrease in government revenue. The BC NDP are now campaigning against the HST, which is essentially a tax shift with potential for a modest increase in government revenue. In several provinces, the NDP has favoured decreased small business taxes.

But what are the measures for increasing revenue that the NDP should champion? What is the fairest means of doing so, and what will inspire the voter to mark their ballots for the NDP rather than give the Cons and Libs a club to beat the NDP with?

I recall the 2004 inheritance tax proposal, which was very narrowly targetted so should have been safe with a vast majority of Canadians [after all, a tax should be fine as long as I never have to pay it]. Yet that proposal attracted a lot of negative interest and the NDP backtracked.

That's "not realistic"?

Look, the question is: Is there tax rate above which further increases in the tax rate will result in less government revenue?  If an increase in a tax rate from 0% to 1% will not reduce revenue but an increase in a tax rate from X% to 100% would result in a reduction in tax revenue, then, by definition there is some tax rate between 0% and 100% at which further tax rate increases would result in a reduction in revenue.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

This is talking about increasing gov't revenue? In Canada or the U.S.? Under Obama or Steve? Going completely hypothetical, Sven, will not be particularly helpful.  Think of other ways of increasing gov't revenue rather than the tax bogeyman. Unless you can come up with a "top tolerance" figure across a broad range of taxpayers and an infinite variety of justifications.

I was simply responding to LTJ's post #26.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

It wasn't really a direct response, it was simply as close as Sven could come to an honest admission that there was no real-world example he could provide.

So thanks Sven, I know how hard that was for you.

Look, you were the one claiming that tax revenues generally rise when tax rates increase.  I'm simply asking you: Is that true for any tax rate increase regardless of how high the tax rates may be?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

They pay their taxes in other countries. It's not an impossibility.

Here's the acid-test of LTJ's assertion: Would a 100% tax rate result in the maximum possible tax revenue to the government?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Not any test, but reductio ad absurdum.  Counter example, would lowering taxes (to zero) result in increased tax revenue through increased growth?  

It all depends. I think that if enough Canadians(or Americans) thought they were getting good value in return for their 100% taxes, the billionaires would still be out numbered by the working class either way.

European and Nordic countries are home to the largest concentration of millionaires in the world, and taxes are highest in those countries. There are no obvious tax rebellions or tea parties in the works in those countries. 

News Flash: There wouldn't be any billionaires -- or millionaires -- or one-hundred-thousandaires with a 100% tax rate.  And tax revenues would be a tiny fraction of what they are today.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Oh I'd personally sacrifice every living billionaire to Kali, Baal or Huitchlipochtli -any diety that would take them- and feel no qualms about it all in the morning.  Work would still need to be done and money would still be made, maybe even more for ourselves.  But please read my post again.  Wrong question, wrong answers.

Shelve the Latin and just read what I wrote in English in my posts above.

I said that an increase from a 0% tax rate to a single digit tax rate would certainly result in an increase in tax revenues.  But, if you read what I wrote, I said that there is almost certainly a "tipping-point" tax rate above which additional increases in the tax rate will result in a reduction in overall tax revenues.  The only way that wouldn't be true would be if a 100% (confiscatory) tax rate would result in the maximum possible amount of tax revenue -- and that's clearly not the case.  How many people do you know who would go to work on Monday morning if the government took everything people earned?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Again, read My post.  Of course there are points of diminishing returns -unless perhaps we eliminate the middle men altogether- but that argument has long been used by the right to reduce functional taxation to well below diminishing returns for government from a point that was Already below diminishing returns for business.  Business started escaping effective taxation again in the sixties, the rich in the seventies, where the public "deficit" problem really began.  True lost history.

What does that even mean in the context of tax rates?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Means the possibility of eliminating the need to go hat in hand to guys living off our labour and land in the first place.  Socialism I believe its called.  Just one other possibility. 

Look, Sven - I didn't say that a tax increase will necessarily under any and all circumstance provide more revenue, as you've attempted to pretend. I said that in the real world generally increasing taxes brings in more. And I asked for one example to the contrary.

Which you haven't provided, seven posts later.

Ah, so you do agree, after all, that a 100% tax rate will not result in the maximum possible government revenue?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

~ yawn ~

Sounds like a "yes" to me.

Finally, we agree on something.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

That's nine.

~ yawn ~

"How to talk about increasing government revenue" - but not to arrive at anything even remotely conclusive regarding  increasing government revenue. 

Yes, sorry for my part in the disruption. I shouldn't be helping Sven to sidetrack intelligent conversation with his misrepresentations.

What "misrepresentations"?

All that I've said is that there is almost certainly a tax rate above which further increases to the tax rate will result in a reduction in tax revenue.  If that was wrong, then a 100% tax rate would necessarily provide the maximum possibble tax revenue.

So, again, what am I "misrepresenting"??

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Here's an empirical example on tax rates. During the Carter era the top marginal U.S. federal income tax rate was about 70%. During the Clinton era it was around 40%. It's clear that dropping the top marginal rate didn't lead to a collapse of the economy. I do know that people spent a lot of time and money on tax shelter-type investments at the end of the Carter era (I used to work in a financial services job), very likely more than during the Clinton era.

So it's clear that there are a large range of tax rates that people are willing to tolerate. It's especially easy to tolerate it if it doesn't apply to you personally. At some point raising taxes is counterproductive (remember rock stars leaving the U.K. as tax exiles when they realized exactly what a 95% top marginal rate meant to them, a la Beatles "Taxman") but it's not clear whether the scream point is 50%, 60%, or 70%. It's very likely below 95%.

Michael Caine surmised, in his autobiography, that some lacked the proper British spirit - but he did go into the restaurant business, and didn't complain about falling tax rates. He did think that too many were ready to sacrifice their fellow citizens in the time of the Iron Lady. It's all about what the haves are willing to do without, eh?

Actually, there has been consistent pressure to reduce top marginal rates in many of these countries, with the result that over the past five years France cut from 48.1% to 40%, Germany cut from 48.5% to 45% and even Sweden has cut from 57% to 55%.

The poor bastards could starve on that. But yes, they will take their little red wagonload of $ and play elsewhere unless this happens. Look forward to the renewal of postwar exchange controls, beginning with Tobin tax.

And the pressure is coming from low-tax countries (Ireland, Switzerland, eastern European countries, etc.).  Businesses are moving from high-tax jurisdictions to low-tax jurisdictions and that puts enormous pressure on the high-tax countries to lower their taxes.

Competition is good.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Ignatieff and the LPC are for Corporate Tax Cuts. It has been embedded in their philosophy.  The LPC want to cut corporate taxes and implement a broader HST across Canada. Its the same policy that the CPC are doing, but taking political cover for doing, by blaming the Provinces. The LPC also believe in raising the GST portion in order to bring larger income tax cuts to the wealthy.  The CPC tries a populist approach of lowering the GST and then going for the broader catchment area of the HST. If implemented, the LPC would do nothing to change the tax structure.

OECD tax database

If the feds in Ottawa were to raise overall tax revenues as a percentage of GDP to just the OECD average, Ottawa would be raking in roughly $33 billion more in tax revenues every year.

And if Canada was to raise tax revs to the EU-15 average, again as a percentage of GDP, roughly $70 billion more.

As of 2005, Canada's economy reverted back to being one of hewer and drawer status. In this time of dangerous climate change, Canada has a responsibility to the rest of the world to help curb corporate America of its voraceous appetite for cheap Canadian fossil fuels at the root cause of global warming. And Canada is the number one supplier of cheap fossil fuels and total energy to the most wasteful and most fossil fuel dependent economy in the world. Now would be an excellent time to change the tax regime for Canada's massive, simply massive energy exports to the U.S. Iow's, the feds would have to grow spines and renegotiate the previous Liberals' NAFTA trade deal in the interests of Canadians as well as the rest of the world.

You are absolutely right that increasing Canada's top marginal rate to be in line with OECD average would mean a dramatic increase in total government revenue, though the exact number might be up for dispute given the various diversions discussed above. KPMG's most recent report on individual income tax rates by country provides a good reference to where we fit globally.

I think it is a bit of a leap from having that knowledge to developing a message for a party that aspires to be government. Again, I recall the inheritance tax example. But there may be some thoughts here that could help the NDP position on this issue. Or there may be examples from other jurisdictions?

As I mentioned above, Stelmach did try to address the royalties paid for Alberta's oil but was evenutally beaten back, having since implemented several royalty reductions. And Stelmach did so from a position of overwhelming political dominance. Can the NDP campaign on increased royalties?

I think that if Nordic countries' tax regimes are considered the most efficient in the world, Canada's must be one of the least efficient among developed countries. We're paying supranationals to rob us blind of our natural wealth, and it's contributing to dangerous climate change. Our old line party crooks should be arraigned on charges of crimes against the environment and future humanity.

Thanks for the link. It's worth noting that the income tax figure quoted for Canada does not include provincial income tax, so it may be that there's not quite as much of a gap between us and Denmark (which appears to be out front at 59%) or Sweden (at 55%) as you might think. France and Germany show rates of 40% and 45% respectively - does anyone know whether they have regional income taxes corresponding to our provincial income tax?

Thanks for pointing out the inefficiency and duplication of government in Canada. We have more government per capita than the majority of rich countries including the USA. And if the tax gap is non-existent, which isnt true, then Canadians are rrreally being ripped off. Canadians don't have well-funded public services, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark or even France. In France, kids can afford to go to university and find a family doctor. Those countries are veritable workers paradises compared to the Northern Puerto Rico(Canada). They pay more in taxation, but they receive something in return for their higher taxes. Here in Canada we feed banks and corporations, and a few billionaire families and their companies who control most every aspect of our daily lives, from the grocery stores paying exorbitant rents in malls owned by the oligarchs to the price of gasoline and home heating fuel. Here in Canada, we have socialism for bankers, rich people and foreign-owned corporations.

@ygtbk: Yes, it is always difficult to compare the variously complex national/sub-national rates as one. The KPMG report notes that they make no effort to include sub-national, "With the exception of Switzerland where the figure quoted includes the Zurich cantonal and communal rate. For Canada, the United States, and other countries with similar structures; the tax rates for provinces, cantons, states, etc. are not included." But the KPMG is a good snapshot of trends in national top marginal rates over last 6 years globally.

The OECD [Thanks to Fidel for posting above] report is more thorough, though doesn't make it any simpler, in exploring sub-national as well. Interestingly, the OECD appears to report [90] the top marginal central rate in Denmark is 26.48 and the sub-central average rate is 25.55 - illustrating again how difficult it is to rely upon one analysis when it comes to complex tax structures.

Are we suggesting here that a winning campaign strategy is to compare Canada's tax rates to other countries and argue for higher rates on that basis?

I can imagine the tax-increase publicity campaign now: You should pay more to the government than you are already paying because the people in Country X are paying more taxes than you are paying now!!

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

The way to get people to want to raise taxes is to be able to convince them that (1) the taxes that are currently being raised are being spent in the most efficient way possible (i.e., people are getting the maximum benefit -- or nearly so -- on the taxes already being raised and (2) the additional money being taken from taxpayers will result in an equal or greater benefit to themselves, to society generally, or some combination of both.

But, I think there is so much distrust among many in society (principally those actually paying taxes) regarding item (1) that it's difficult to even get to item (2).

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Our colonial administrators arent real good with spending money in general, so Sven's number one  is already tainted as far as some phony majority of Canadians are concerned.

The U.S. is a particular case, Sven. Fortunately, we don't have to deal with such a rabid, libertarian mob (outside of Alberta), for whom taxation is an affront to personal liberty. And the level of  political consciousness in Europe brings an understanding and appreciation of the benefits to be had for society as a whole. Although your political party machine people, imported here at election time, certainly know how to play social elements against each other.  You live in a particularly nasty, grasping society.

All I can say to that is read my tag line!!

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Could we ignore the ugly american interloper and continue our conversation?

In terms of where to increase the tax base, I would start with natural resource companies, profiting by exploiting the heritage of all Canadians. Particularly those which are foreign controlled.

Usually, you're above name-calling, Lard.  It doesn't become you.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Normally, you're less than a good fit here, but lately you're no more than a persistent troll. I'm fed up with you dominating thread after thread simply to disrupt them.

ETA: However, I note that you started several of the other related threads. Why don't you stick to them for a while, and I'll avoid them like the plague.

That (dominating "thread after thread") is an interesting characterization.

Other than the two threads I started, of the 50 threads in the TAT, I think I've only participated in one of them.

Here's a valuable, but free, tip for you: If you don't like my ideas or what I post, how about if you do something incredibly novel and just...ignore them?

Yes, I know.  That would no doubt require you to muster an almost herculean amount of self-control.  But give 'er a try.  Your blood pressure will probably drop a few healthy notches to boot.  And that wouldn't be all bad, now would it?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Because they hang in the air like a fart, waiting for someone to open the windows and blow them away.

And you're just the man to do it, right?

What a heavy burden for you to bear.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

You've managed once again to disrupt an entire thread to its very end with your obnoxious behaviour. Congratulations.

You're not doing very well with the "ignore Sven" thing, are you?

You've got to dig down deeper.  You've got to muster all that you've got.  Just give 110%.

Seriously, you would do yourself a world of good if you just ignored my posts.  There are a couple of babblers who I just ignore for that very reason.  It's refreshing and I sleep better at night.

You would, too.

So, com'on, giver 'er a try, okay?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Just tell them their taxes will be used by fat-cats to fight terrierism, right, Sven?  Capitalism just has a case of the swine flu.

Well, I'm not so sure that the terrorism line is going to continue to sell here for much longer.  I think it may be well beyond its sell-by date.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

And now that we have passed the 100-post mark, this subject, like your offerings Sven, is "well beyond its sell-by date", to repeat  that most fundamental and common of all Americanisms,  above motherhood and apple pie,  a commercial fact.

Maybe I'll try somewhere else. Cheers,