Why the NDP Has to Move Left... (within reason)

You know Eric, I would like to have a good debate about this - as I am in support of reducing "small business" taxes, as small and medium size businesses drive local economies - hire local Canadians, and generally live in their communities - and support sustaining their communities. I read somewhere, that small and medium size businesses account for 75% of our economy, and personally I'd rather do that than those huge corporate tax give aways so that they can contract labour overseas and avoid investing in Canadian communities.

I make a point of shopping locally. At the same time, helping small business be viable, hire locals, and pay a living wage is all a part of the package. It would also create a wedge where by default, small business supports corporate business in which those with the most get more.

Cogent, sound analysis. If popularity is the measure, then the NDP should move to the right, in order to catch up in popularity with the Conservatives and Liberals. Thanks for the wake-up call.

Erik Redburn wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily use the same arguments as Stanford, mostly quoting him to show that even economists are not all in agreement on this over its likely effects. 

Umm Erik, the article you linked was not by Stanford. It's posted by Erin Weir, who is an economist for the Steelworkers - unless I misunderstood you.

The two big money Bay Street parties are about as far to the right as they go. And neither one of them won more than 22% of registered vote last October.

The NDP has the left and political centre all covered, thank you much.  <- winky face

All we need now is a war chest to fund a decent counter-propaganda machine. 80 percent of Canadians are not tied by membership to any political party. It's wide open since the neoliberal bs started falling down around their ears.

Aristotleded24, sure weigh in. I know what you are saying about their lobby groups that they often belong to. However, I am not looking for the business lobby to support the NDP but individual owners.

Small business owners make up different groups who all do not belong to chambers or business lobby groups. Eg. someone who provides a private service would be considered a "small business owner." Ditto for small farming businesses - they are small businesses.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I was referring to both individual business owners and their lobby groups, because I have seen that kind of thing happen. I'm sorry, but I just cannot feel for the "small businessman."

Wow, do I ever agree with you. And with Keystone. I'll make an exception for small business owners that don't employ anyone. The others will be the second last group in society (and I'm being generous) to ever support anything forward-looking or selfless. The fact that they are crushed down and wiped out by their big siblings just isn't quite enough to turn them into allies. Besides their CFIB mentality, have a look at how they treat their employees.

If the NDP can manage to appeal to people who work for others, they can govern happily and then figure out how to appeal to the small employers.

janfromthebruce wrote:

So you are ok for those who work for themselves because they are small business owners.

Of course I am. Those who work for themselves must be our allies, whether they're professionals or artists or writers or owner-operator truckdrivers or (some) cab drivers...

My problem is with employers.

It's employers who tend to get their heads screwed up over issues like increasing the minimum wage or health and safety or access to unionization or the like.

I have actually read posts on babble, by "small business people" who employ others, talking about how minimum wage increases will hurt them.

I have trouble explaining my feelings when I see that. I do, however, reflect that once we've got 75% of society on our side, we can start reaching out to such folks as well.

I think Iggy and Harper are so far to the political right, they've met themselves coming on the return trip.  I see nothing remotely similar between those two rightwing nutters and the leader of the NDP. I think it's a case that if Iggy and Harper were any dumber, there'd have to be four of them, theyre that dumb.

Small businesses are some of the most reactionary, conservative elements in society (see the CFIB that Aristotleded24 referred to above). They "create" jobs, but they are the worst-paid jobs, mainly part-time, with few (if any) benefits and no unions. The employees are disproportionately women, young adults, and students - traditional pools of cheap labour. Working conditions and hours are often abominable and in many cases illegal. These employers prey on immigrant workers who don't know their rights, and cheat them out of their wages. Small businesses are enclaves of [b]underemployment[/b], hiring overqualified people to do menial work because they can't get better jobs elsewhere that they are trained for, or giving part-time work to people who are willing and able to work full time.

"Creating jobs" is a phrase often thrown around to suggest that employers are bestowing some kind of benefit on workers by employing them. In fact, employers (big or small) only create jobs in order to derive profit from the exploitation of the employee's labour power; and employees of small businesses are among the most exploited segments of the working class. The worker may feel grateful that she has a job as opposed to being unemployed and starving, but the fact is that the employer has more reason to feel grateful than the employee, even if he doesn't actually feel gratitude at all.

Giving tax breaks to small business is a reactionary policy. [b]The NDP should be ashamed for trying to cosy up to this economic class and offering them tax subsidies from the public purse.[/b]

M. Spector wrote:

Giving tax breaks to small business is a reactionary policy. [b]The NDP should be ashamed for trying to cosy up to this economic class and offering them tax subsidies from the public purse.[/b]

One of my in-laws came back from overseas in 45 and started a diner. He was a cook during the war. And that restaurant employed me for a few summers while I was growing up. Everybody worked hard. There were potatoes to be peeled, dishes to to be rounded up and washed, floors to be swept and mopped. Most years he averaged about $30K net income, and I was only vaguely aware of the supplies that needed to be bought, although I fetched and unloaded plenty. I was glad when the ice cream delivery truck came, and so were all the other kids. It didnt matter if some had no money for ice cream, because my father in-law would never see a kid go without ice cream. Everbody knew my father in law, from the wealthy American touritsts who stopped by for a weekend on their boats, to the locals who enjoyed good home cooked style meals. I think everybody in town worked at the diner at some point. It's not easy running a small business. It's a lot of work to keep them coming back.

And he used to joke about being a $30 thousand dollar a year capitalist. There was sweet bugger all happening in Canada after the war as far as jobs were concerned. The country was still on its ass economically. The feds told veterans like my father to look for land to buy that they could farm. SFA for decent housing then. Northern Ontario was littered with substandard housing and drafty shacks, and eight and nine people and up to two families living in 10 by 12 shacks was typical. No running water or sewers. Ditches that overflowed in spring with runoff and filth. The poverty was amazing for such a naturally wealthy country. A few war brides who came to Canada actually thought Canada had been bombed during the war, things were so run down looking.

Small business unlike big are more part of the community and often live in the neighborhood and can play a very postive role in the neighorhoods where owners set up shop.  Small business is the back bone of the country as little shops in small towns are there to fill the needs of the towns people.  Big, is just that and cold and calculatating as motivated by greed where human life, even if its the deaths of innocent babes has no significance if there is still a profit to be made.  And that is the bottom line. 

[quote=mybabble]

"Dosen't that take cooperation and not just a eager Layton, like a puppy eager to fetch a bone from the Conservatives but only Harper has said there are no treats in it for Layton who dosen't seem to be opposed?  Anyways Harper lies like a sidewalk, the very same sidewalk he has unemployed Canadians sleep on while unemployment continues to rise.  How does Layton work with that or better yet how do Canadian people live with that?"

Hopefully my babble, you see the libs as big eager puppies because they kept the Harper agenda on track 79 times - LOL

"Who broke the economy?  America."

Wrong - greed global capitalism broke the global economy - that promoted neo-liberal ideology - calling for reduced govts, privitization of public institutions & space, taxcuts, de-regulation.

One could say that taxcuts, deregulation, and shrunken govts caused the global economy to tank - cause of more of the same is not working.

Its all nice that Jack is working it for the people but do you ever think Jack will figure out it takes TWO to work it out, if not as the opposition he just might want to be opposed.  Or do you think the people wanted Opposition not to Oppose?  Jack does.  Maybe thats it NDP dosen't need a new name just a different way of doing things as wants to just get along, for the people you know even if it means their futures and that of the country. 

I think you are missing the boat here - Layton is just saying let's see if Harper can work with the rest of parliamentarians and if not - let Harper show his "true face" and go from there.

I'm with Eric on this one. I know my father in law who was a strong NDP supporter, and a trades person, started a small construction business - steel construction.

He could not afford the WC insurance. He paid good wages - going rate for boilermakers - after about 5 years, he had to sell the building and business, actually the business was worth nothing, and used the sell to ensure all debts were paid and so on.

Please do not lump all small business people as bad. And he kept voting NDP.

That is your opinion - such as you believe. And gary doer is a red herring - that is not the federal NDP. You know where the fed party stands.

I am saying that we can do what we consider right, as you mention, and also help small business florish - it isn't one or the other - considering that large corporations have gone off, and that small and medium size businesses may need some help to help create all those jobs, than it would be better to think local and build community. And it is better for the environment.

And my father in law, con't to pay his union dues, work as a boilermaker, and run a business during the early 90s when there weren't any trades jobs in Ontario.

So yes, he could have used some help from govt. He was a guy wanting to stay true to ensuring his workers has a decent income and creating jobs.

That is the kind of ethnos you want business to operate - so create that environment rather than bash it.

And yes, you can do both.

janfromthebruce wrote:

That is your opinion - such as you believe. And gary doer is a red herring - that is not the federal NDP. You know where the fed party stands.

Yeah I know where the federal NDP stands - they stand in [b]the ranks of the Opposition[/b], which is where the Manitoba NDP stood when the anti-scab decision was first made by convention. They stand in the land of promises which may never be kept. Let me know what they do if they ever achieve power - which they won't unless they get some backbone.

Quote:

I am saying that we can do what we consider right, as you mention, and also help small business florish - it isn't one or the other - considering that large corporations have gone off, and that small and medium size businesses may need some help to help create all those jobs, than it would be better to think local and build community. And it is better for the environment.

I disagree. We live in the era of large-scale production. Small businesses will either grow and become big rich greedy companies, or they will hang on for dear life for a while and die. No fiscal policy will change that reality. And the NDP's determination to cut small business taxes has nothing to do with any economic theory. It's shameless pandering to win some support, not just from the small business owners themselves, but from all those who think that the NDP is too "anti-business" and that it needs to move to the right.

Quote:

And my father in law, con't to pay his union dues, work as a boilermaker, and run a business during the early 90s when there weren't any trades jobs in Ontario.

So yes, he could have used some help from govt. He was a guy wanting to stay true to ensuring his workers has a decent income and creating jobs.

He's the exception that proves the rule. What would you like... a fiscal policy that applies a niceness test to the beneficiaries?

remind wrote:

The era of large scale production needs to end,...

Good luck with that, remind.

Anyway, it won't end by helping small businesses get bigger.

KeyStone wrote:

People, and parties like to talk about small business tax, as if it makes the difference between a company staying in business or closing up shop. THey seem to forget that the businesses being taxed are ones that are making money. So, after all the expenses are paid out, and after all the employees are paid, and after all the owners and their families withdraw a nice generous salary, then whatever is left is income. This isn't money going to shareholders - this is money going to the owners of these companies, often in addition to the money they have already earned through the salary they award themselves. On top of that, if they want to reinvest money, there are tons of loopholes and tax credits to enable them to do so. So, let's not pretend that taxes are hurting the growth of small business.

But, the decision to engage in a risky economic enterprise is determined before the end result is known.

Let me illustrate (I wish I knew how to insert a table on a babble post!!):

Let's say that an economic enterprise that you were considering engaging in had the following probabilities:

25% chance that you would lose $250,000

25% chance that you would lose $250,000

25% chance that you would earn $100,000

25% chance that you would earn $250,000

If you are making more than one dollar per year today, then you would avoid engaging in the risky economic activity because the "expectation value" of those probabilities would be zero (.25 x (250,000) PLUS .25 x (100,000) PLUS .25 x 100,000 PLUS .25 x 250,000 = ZERO).  In other words, the probabilities associated with engaging in the risking activity (getting $0) would be greater than what you are making today (your current $1).

Now, assume that the probabilities of the losses were the same but the probabilities of the gains were higher:

25% chance that you would lose $250,000

25% chance that you would lose $250,000

25% chance that you would earn $150,000

25% chance that you would earn $350,000

Here, the "expectation probability" is that you would earn $37,500 (.25 x (250,000) PLUS .25 x (100,000) PLUS .25 x 150,000 PLUS .25 x 350,000 = $37,500).  Here, the probable rewards exceed the probable risks, so engaging in the economic activity would be attractive.

But, let's say that you taxed the $150,000 at a 30% tax rate (leaving a net profit of $105,000) and you taxed the $350,000 at a 40% tax rate (leaving a net profit of $210,000):

25% chance that you would lose $250,000

25% chance that you would lose $250,000

25% chance that you would earn $105,000

25% chance that you would earn $210,000

Here, the "expectation probability" is that you would lose $8,750 (.25 x (250,000) PLUS .25 x (100,000) PLUS .25 x 1500,000 PLUS .25 x 350,000 = $37,500).  Here, the probable risks exceed the probable rewards, so engaging in the economic activity would not be attractive -- and a rational person would avoid engaging in that economic activity simply because of the taxes (even though, economically, nothing else has changed between the second and third scenario -- creation of other jobs, etc.).

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Unionist wrote:

Yeah I know where the federal NDP stands - they stand in [b]the ranks of the Opposition[/b], which is where the Manitoba NDP stood when the anti-scab decision was first made by convention. They stand in the land of promises which may never be kept. Let me know what they do if they ever achieve power - which they won't unless they get some backbone

The Liberals are a party founded by invertebrates. And one of Mike Harris' proudest moments was when he reversed the NDP's anti-scab legislation in Canada's largest province. Unionist cracks corn, and we don't care.