Awww It seems that the Liberals have finally found their backbones 79 confidence votes later. So who wants another election besides no one else in Canada? Opportunistic Liberals will have to wait for the nod from bank CEO's for another taxpayer funded stooge-off.
Why the NDP Has to Move Left... (within reason)
Sun, 2009-09-13 10:44
#52
Sun, 2009-09-13 10:53
#53
remind
It can do both unionist, as small business owners are working people too, ya know.
Sun, 2009-09-13 12:50
#54
Complication is that classes aren't so distinct as they were in Marx's time, sometimes reflecting cultural differences more than income levels, but upward social mobility is increasingly becoming more difficult again.
You're not using any one of Marx's definitions of class (Manifesto vs. Capital), though. Class mobility has become more difficult ever since the proliferation and proletarianization of professional work (nurses, staff accountants, teachers, engineers, etc.). Income mobility, on the other hand...
Seconded.The proliferation of small businesses is actually a result of consolidations at the top and the "shrinking middle," thus leaving a bigger labour pool for small businesses to exploit. Another side effect of capital concentration is the proliferation of unproductive labour, such as self-employment.
True enough, but please don't assume that the self employed are "unproductive". The work I do is as productive as other jobs I've had and AFAIC has more utility than most well paying management positions. Self emplyment is just another necessity for many of us in our new "service based" economy.
By "unproductive," I meant production of surplus value. This surplus value can then go into a number of things, from waste (typical capitalist overproduction) to profits pocketed by the cappies to capital reinvestment (expanding capital assets or replacing them).
Sun, 2009-09-13 13:20
#55
small business owners are working people tooBy that definition, so are corporate ceo's. They have a job. They go to work. While I think some small business owners can be, and are, allies of the NDP at times, that relationship ought to be based on the NDP's strength, not its weaknesses - i.e. the main focus should be on building & strengthening their own base before "reaching out" too far.
Sun, 2009-09-13 13:25
#56
Well said, Polunatic2.
Sun, 2009-09-13 13:57
#57
Boom Boom
Thread title: Why the NDP Has to Move Left... (within reason)
I'm curious what (within reason) means. I'd like it to be a leftist party, period.
Sun, 2009-09-13 14:32
#58
small business owners are working people tooBy that definition, so are corporate ceo's. They have a job. They go to work.
PFFFF! Are they some of the same CEO's who shipped $22.3 billion in foreign controlled profits out of Canada in 2005 and mostly to the U.S.?
The same top 100 Canadian CEO's who made between $2.87 million and $74.82 million in January of 2007?
Meanwhile, the average Canadian worker earned about $38,000 for that year. Meanwhile minimum wage earners in Canada made $15, 931 for the year.
Pssst! Those guys don't carry brown paper bags or lunchpails to work every day.
Sun, 2009-09-13 14:35
#59
No, they're not the same nor are these CEOs allies of the NDP. What's your point though? I'm saying that "working people" aren't simply people who go to work. That was my point.
ETA: I hope you're not suggesting that we define the working class by what they eat for lunch?
Sun, 2009-09-13 14:38
#60
Boom Boom
My sure-fire campaign-winning slogan for the NDP: Make The Rich Pay!
Sun, 2009-09-13 14:49
#61
No, they're not the same nor are these CEOs allies of the NDP. What's your point though? I'm saying that "working people" aren't simply people who go to work. That was my point.
ETA: I hope you're not suggesting that we define the working class by what they eat for lunch?
And I was only trying to impress upon us all that small business owners are quite a bit further down the income scale than Canada's CEO's and absentee corporate landlords is all. A little perspective never hurt anybody.
Sun, 2009-09-13 15:15
#62
"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."
Right on, Fidel. And the workers at GE appreciated and voted for a mayor after the war who had set up a hamburger stand to make a buck in the 30s.
Me old mom took under her wing a couple of immigranats from England with two young girls, who found themselves living in a (honest to jesus) chicken coop, accommodation was that tight in the late 40s. But you know what kids in our ass-out-of-the-pants neighbourhood really appreciated at war's end, was an outdoor ice surface and a concrete block change room heated with a drum wood stove in the centre. It was built by the city's B'nai Brth, largely small business people, store owners.
Sun, 2009-09-13 16:09
#63
There are good employers in the small business sector, some being quite pr0gressive most ways, but as a group they're probably even more resistent than larger companies to concepts like minimum wage, overtime pay or the rights of the unempl0yed, because wages usually amount to a higher percentage of their operating costs. Mega-corporations are more of a threat politically, and lower wages never stopped them from looking even further afield, but I doubt more than a minority of any business owners would ever support the NDP. During the low point of Campbell's first term when he was first driving us into deficits again and still receiving negative press, there was a poll done which reported that as many as 25% of small business owners might consider voting NDP somday. That would probably represent a high ceiling. Lowering taxes on sector to zero isn't a smart precedent to set regardless.
Reality check! There is only so much money to spread around and rents and mortgages and increased costs because of higher rents passed on to goods and services take the bulk of the money for operating costs ripping off the lowly employee. No worry says premier cheap labor 6$ and we''ll get BC immigrants, hundreds and thousands of them and we will get them to work for next to nothing and no unemployment payments or unemployment numbers because not Canadian.
Did you know it would cost business an additional $4,000 a year which is a write off for a much needed min wage increase?
Did you also know some small business owners faced increases to their rents of over $4000 a month if not a whole lot more. Do the math see who is breaking the bank and its not the guy doing all the hard work? And if you don't get what you want at least what you need and workers need more money to survive. If not everyone pays as has a ripple effect as there is something to be said to having employees that are fed, you know as to feed the brain if not you have half wits working for you. And how smart is that?
So everyone else has to get by with what is left. Now that is the reality and it will prove to be disastrous to small business and their employees as prices continue to rise and HST is introduced next year and watch small business crumble. Reality check! Can't have all those cut backs and reduced services without having many without a job in both the public and private it has a ripple affect. Small business says Harper's back door tax has to go and its fifty ways to lose a premier as 80% feel it Campbell's time to go, before he finishes small business owners off for good.
Sun, 2009-09-13 16:15
#64
Honest Ed Mirvish was also well loved. But I'm not sure he really needed a tax break.
Sun, 2009-09-13 16:25
#65
You can't win, Pol, because the elite has already blessed this idea which they didn't have "time" to raise at convention:
[url=http://devinjohnston.ca/blog/2009/08/17/ndp-introduce-bill-phase-out-sma... to introduce bill to phase out small business taxes[/color][/url]
Bruce Hyer (NDP MP for Thunder Bay-Superior North and Critic for Small Business and Tourism) has announced plans to introduce a motion in the House of Commons to phase out income tax for small businesses this fall. The proposal would be similar in principle to the one enacted by the New Democrat government in Manitoba under Premier Gary Doer which has reduced the income tax rate for small businesses to 1%.
Although Hyer's motion at this weekend's federal convention did not make it to debate, [b]New Democrats are enthusiastically in support of the idea. So too is Jack Layton.[/b] Speaking to journalists at federal convention, Hyer stated that "our leader, Jack Layton, is totally behind this, it's a high priority for him. So, one way or the other, we are going to be bringing it forward to the House of Commons anyway."
And get this:
Cutting small business taxes is not only good policy, it's also smart politics. [b]Contrary to popular belief, New Democrats are pro-business and pro-economic growth.[/b] As Bruce Hyer observed, "[b]We believe in jobs. Who creates jobs but businesses?[/b] But it's the small businesses that are creating those jobs." We are a party that believes in the value of work and the creation of wealth.
Excuse me while I stock up on more Gravol.
Sun, 2009-09-13 16:42
#66
You can't win, Pol, because the elite has already blessed this idea which they didn't have "time" to raise at convention:
[url=http://devinjohnston.ca/blog/2009/08/17/ndp-introduce-bill-phase-out-sma... to introduce bill to phase out small business taxes[/color][/url]
Bruce Hyer (NDP MP for Thunder Bay-Superior North and Critic for Small Business and Tourism) has announced plans to introduce a motion in the House of Commons to phase out income tax for small businesses this fall. The proposal would be similar in principle to the one enacted by the New Democrat government in Manitoba under Premier Gary Doer which has reduced the income tax rate for small businesses to 1%.
Although Hyer's motion at this weekend's federal convention did not make it to debate, [b]New Democrats are enthusiastically in support of the idea. So too is Jack Layton.[/b] Speaking to journalists at federal convention, Hyer stated that "our leader, Jack Layton, is totally behind this, it's a high priority for him. So, one way or the other, we are going to be bringing it forward to the House of Commons anyway."
And get this:
Cutting small business taxes is not only good policy, it's also smart politics. [b]Contrary to popular belief, New Democrats are pro-business and pro-economic growth.[/b] As Bruce Hyer observed, "[b]We believe in jobs. Who creates jobs but businesses?[/b] But it's the small businesses that are creating those jobs." We are a party that believes in the value of work and the creation of wealth.Excuse me while I stock up on more Gravol.
Fuck fuck fuck. So the dimbulbs in charge of the party are going ahead with it anyhow, without so much as second thought -or time for members to resist it. Time for strategy B and C.
Sun, 2009-09-13 16:42
#67
remind
You know, a good many union members make more money per yesr than many small business people do. I do not know what this nonsense is about not branching out beyond the base to small business owners. My parents were signatories to the freaking party in its formation, and they were small business owners.
Lawyers, are basically business owners (we have a couple of MPs who are ones ya know), farmers are business owners, ranchers are business owners. For that matter unions themselves operate like a business with their own employees too. hell rabble is a business, goiing to stop participating here cause it is too far to the right?
Moreover, professors are hardly "workers", and yet we have some of those in the party too, as well as those who participate here.
Give us a freakin break on the phoney "not branch too far from it's base" rhetoric, it makes absoluely no sense.
Sun, 2009-09-13 16:44
#68
Complication is that classes aren't so distinct as they were in Marx's time, sometimes reflecting cultural differences more than income levels, but upward social mobility is increasingly becoming more difficult again.You're not using any one of Marx's definitions of class (Manifesto vs. Capital), though. Class mobility has become more difficult ever since the proliferation and proletarianization of professional work (nurses, staff accountants, teachers, engineers, etc.). Income mobility, on the other hand...
I'm not using Marx in my description of modern class distinctions, he didn't invent the concept of class and the world he saw no longer exists -although the extreme class differences are starting to reassert themselves thankas to our abandoment of Keynes, the weakening of organized labour and shrinking of the public sector. I don't think you could describe professionals as being proletarianized though, even by his own measures, I believe he saw them as petit bourguois.
[/quote]The proliferation of small businesses is actually a result of consolidations at the top and the "shrinking middle," thus leaving a bigger labour pool for small businesses to exploit. Another side effect of capital concentration is the proliferation of unproductive labour, such as self-employment.
True enough, but please don't assume that the self employed are "unproductive". The work I do is as productive as other jobs I've had and AFAIC has more utility than most well paying management positions. Self emplyment is just another necessity for many of us in our new "service based" economy.By "unproductive," I meant production of surplus value. This surplus value can then go into a number of things, from waste (typical capitalist overproduction) to profits pocketed by the cappies to capital reinvestment (expanding capital assets or replacing them).
I produce value added and therefore a surplus of sorts, although the 'utility' of it may only be apparent to myself and my clients and wouldn't fit into the usual industrial model very well. Service sector perhaps but some things I do could lead to added value or efficiency for my customers, further down the line.
To me, economic "surplus" in general is necessary for any reinvestment in the means of production to take place -something even a socialist economic would have to take into account-- or to maintain any sort of commonwealth over-time (commonwealth being what everyone can access and benefit from, even if they don't need to as frequently as others might) but post-industrial capitalism (or post-Fordist if you prefer) does tend to squander it on luxury, garbage, excess profit taking and speculation, and much of our present surplus may be described as wasteful in itself. Or pure inflation. Early industrial capitalism wasted it in similar ways and was probably even more openly sociopathic about it, some ways, but it did build industries and develop infrastructure that our generation of management/shareholders is neglecting or liquidating in their ideological blindness. Anyhow, this is all minor quibbling over definitions really, we could pprobably agree on some common essentials.
Sun, 2009-09-13 16:53
#69
The era of large scale production needs to end, and I disagree with your other observations in this respect, unionist.
There is some truth to that too, but the industrial sector is still essential to all modern economies. The corporate CEOs and their trained ideologues just remain caught in the old models of producing more for cheaper, without considering its inherent contradictions or unsustainable nature, and simply decided that the best route "forward" was to pit third world labour against our own in an "global" arena which traditional government regulation couldn't touch. That may be ways to challenge that too but obviously our leadership isn't receiving wisdom from their own membership anymore.
Sun, 2009-09-13 17:07
#70
The NDP has a historic opportunity to go back to the future. Small businesses measures are small fry in getting people to either switch their vote or come out and vote if they haven't before. What I think will ignite people is for just one of the parties to run against the corporate control of our society.
The NDP could begin by going to parliament and introducing a bill to claw back the governments gifts to the banks given the obscene profits they are registering. Lets remind Canadians that if those same banks had had their way with parliament they would have been as unregulated as American banks and would be in the same financial woes. Being forced to engage in good governance has saved their asses and it is time they gave back to the country if they want to claim to be good corporate citizens.
They could also introduce tax reforms that would see our tax rates for corporations go back to their former levels before the decade of the zeros when we were told if we allow corporations to do business with very few taxes they will give us prosperity for ever. That has been proven to be a lie and it is time that at least one party had the audacity to stand up and speak about it. I think that if both the Lib and Cons come out with attacks against this anti-corporate theme it can only help the NDP attract new voters.
Sun, 2009-09-13 17:22
#71
Remind, labour has to pay taxes up front, regardless of yearly "profit" levels, and with few of the tax shelters or writeoffs that businesses can employ, and even less chance to advance much beyond their status as labour-for-hire. Small businesses are necessary to our economy, including organized labour, but to allow them to avoid paying any taxes on their businesses, regardless of actual income, could well mean another major loss in government revenue and would be highly unlikey to attract support from more than a minority of business owners while potentially alienating a much larger part of its base --thats what this thread is about. Its a lose-lose situation for the NDP, and I doubt that small businesses current problems are really rooted in paying too many taxes anymore.
If the NDp truly wants to create a meaningful "wedge" between small and large business, look at the excess rents charged to small businesses in certain urban centres by other larger businesses (and the artificial realestate bubbles which increase them) then raise taxes on the wealthy proprty owners instead --with rent controls if needed. I noticed that Harper has lowered the income tax ceiling again from the already low two hundred thousand per year to something around one hundred and forty, with not a lot of difference remaining between existing tax brackets. Property taxes could be assessed more fairly too -the old NDP line about fair taxation, not just more or less. Most Canadians would be unaffected and services charges and other more recent "flat" taxes could also be reduced somewhat in return --for the average voter who might just consider voting NDP. That extra income could help small business more directly by helping them get more business again from paying customers, rather than taking it from other services their customers may need. The truly wealthy could easily afford it still, however much they might bitch and moan, and the relative margins in other areas aren't so much lower that they could all just pick up and leave.
Sun, 2009-09-13 17:37
#72
They could also introduce tax reforms that would see our tax rates for corporations go back to their former levels before the decade of the zeros when we were told if we allow corporations to do business with very few taxes they will give us prosperity for ever. That has been proven to be a lie and it is time that at least one party had the audacity to stand up and speak about it. I think that if both the Lib and Cons come out with attacks against this anti-corporate theme it can only help the NDP attract new voters.
Yep, from every somewhat objective source I've found so far, those who would actually consider voting NDP would be more attracted to the party, not less, and that number is far higher than the guys advising Layton can admit. Much more potential support in fact that the NDP has ever been able to tap before, federally.
Sun, 2009-09-13 17:43
#73
I'm not using Marx in my description of modern class distinctions, he didn't invent the concept of class and the world he saw no longer exists -although the extreme class differences are starting to reassert themselves thankas to our abandonment of Keynes, the weakening of organized labour and shrinking of the public sector. I don't think you could describe professionals as being proletarianized though, even by his own measures, I believe he saw them as petit bourgeois.
If we go by the Manifesto's definition of class, perhaps. 
I've read a couple of books about the proletarianization / professionalization of "intellectual" work, a phenomenon that arose after WWII.
To me, economic "surplus" in general is necessary for any reinvestment in the means of production to take place -something even a socialist economic would have to take into account-- or to maintain any sort of commonwealth over-time (commonwealth being what everyone can access and benefit from, even if they don't need to as frequently as others might) but post-industrial capitalism (or post-Fordist if you prefer) does tend to squander it on luxury, garbage, excess profit taking and speculation, and much of our present surplus may be described as wasteful in itself. Or pure inflation. Early industrial capitalism wasted it in similar ways and was probably even more openly sociopathic about it, some ways, but it did build industries and develop infrastructure that our generation of management/shareholders is neglecting or liquidating in their ideological blindness. Anyhow, this is all minor quibbling over definitions really, we could probably agree on some common essentials.
I didn't express disagreement with reinvestment, explicitly mentioned in Marx's 1875 Gothakritik as a rebuttal of "full proceeds of labour." The saying "under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's the other way around" is right for all the wrong reasons.
Surplus value is three parts good, two parts bad: replacement, expansion, social goods and services (retirees, disabled, etc.), overproduction, and capitalist profits.
Sun, 2009-09-13 17:44
#74
remind
"to advance beyond labour for hire"?
Advance where? And from where?
Avoid taxes?
Alienating their base? What base? The base that elects and/or votes for lawyers, professors and small business people as their representatives?
Sun, 2009-09-13 17:45
#75
"The saying "under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's the other way around" is right for all the wrong reasons."
I got to remember that one...if I can ever find a time and place to use it. 
Sun, 2009-09-13 17:52
#76
"to advance beyond labour for hire"?
Advance where? And from where?
Avoid taxes?
Alienating their base? What base? The base that elects and/or votes for lawyers, professors and small business people as their representatives?
Only mean 'labour for hire' as in only being able to rent their time for wages, rather than able to reinvest in a business that could become more profitable with less personal labour in future -if lucky enough. And avoiding taxes as in not having many or any tax writeoffs as businesses or corprations do -although small business have far fewer than the big guys, which just goes back to the idea of creatying somethig of a wedge between the smaller guys and larger ones. And the NDp base being mostly workers and to a large extent renters rather than owners. I'm not arguing that small businesses should be treated the same as large ones necessarily, only that I don't believe any business should be entirely free of taxation -not if theyre profitable- or that the NDp will ever attract much support from business owners as voters. The NDp should do more to encourage others to run for them too, thats a good idea.
Sun, 2009-09-13 18:08
#77
"The saying "under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's the other way around" is right for all the wrong reasons."
I got to remember that one...if I can ever find a time and place to use it.
I should say that it's partially right. I don't think anyone of any political stripe considers taking care of the elderly and disabled to be "exploitation."
Sun, 2009-09-13 19:19
#78
Where do you find people "of any political stripe", adequately "taking care of the elderly and disabled"?
Sun, 2009-09-13 19:31
#79
It's a matter of defining principles, of course there's rightwingers and crooks willing to exploit the elderly and infirm as well but not the point. And of course I was only thinking of 'capitalism' and 'communism' in the usual sense used, Jacob. Onto my next installement plan then, even if it's a hopeless cause.
Sun, 2009-09-13 20:08
#80
It's a matter of defining principles, of course there's rightwingers and crooks willing to exploit the elderly and infirm as well but not the point. And of course I was only thinking of 'capitalism' and 'communism' in the usual sense used, Jacob. Onto my next installement plan then, even if it's a hopeless cause.
There a slew of crooks and con men who want to horn in on Canadian health care services. Health care fraud in the US was said to be worth $30 billion a year a few years ago. That's big business.
The writing was on the wall for industrial capitalism decades ago. And they have coveted our public services for a long time. Their intentions to takeover education, health care and daycare around the world are there in NAFTA, WTO rules, and GATS. There is no specific time table as something called democracy stands in their way. And that's where our stooges come in to play with defunding services, slipping user fees by us here, and a little privatization there. They think Canadians are stupid, although they rely fairly heavily on the democracy gap in this Northern Puerto Rico to implement their plan for creeping privatization.
Sun, 2009-09-13 20:58
#81
I'm not advocating this personally, I think more far reaching measures could be offered, but this is another example of dissent on this idea within the party.
"Alternative Policies
There are other policy options that would help small business at far less cost and without creating massive opportunities for tax avoidance.
If the objective is to provide a tax break to Canadians who eke out modest incomes running small personal or family businesses, then the US corporate tax system provides a reasonable model. Reduced corporate tax rates should be available for no more than first $100,000 of profit. The principle of progressive taxation does not justify giving tax breaks to proprietors making hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, based on ownership of millions of dollars of assets.
Before the 2003 federal budget, Canada’s corporate tax threshold for the small-business rate was $200,000 of profit. The NDP rightly criticized recent elevations of this threshold. It should now advocate reducing this threshold to a sensible level, rather than doubling it.
Another worthy goal is to promote investment and employment. If so, the appropriate mechanism is targeted tax measures tied to investment and employment rather than across-the-board tax cuts on profit. The NDP has correctly put forward this logic regarding large corporations. Targeted tax measures could be made even more generous for small corporations."
http://newdemocratsonline.ca/fr/node/22248
Sun, 2009-09-13 21:05
#82
remind
The NDP already do have professors, lawyers, and small business people running for them. Obviously they were ineterested and enough of a base to run.
Really. this anti-small business stuff creeps me out, big time.
Sun, 2009-09-13 21:46
#83
The NDP already do have professors, lawyers, and small business people running for them. Obviously they were ineterested and enough of a base to run.
Really. this anti-small business stuff creeps me out, big time.
Not anti-small business remind. Anti-zero taxation. Zero taxation can't possibly be recouped except by hoping the recipient's incomes will increase so much that it'll make up the difference, and quickly. I'd say the same if Marxist professors wanted the same.
Sun, 2009-09-13 21:46
#84
You know, a good many union members make more money per yesr than many small business people do.
At least they make it through their own labour, rather than someone else's.
My parents were signatories to the freaking party in its formation, and they were small business owners.So what? The party owes their entire class something for that?
Lawyers, are basically business owners (we have a couple of MPs who are ones ya know), farmers are business owners, ranchers are business owners. For that matter unions themselves operate like a business with their own employees too. hell rabble is a business, goiing to stop participating here cause it is too far to the right?
You don't get it - not even a little. I have nothing against small business people. I have [b]everything[/b] against a party whose base is working people [b]pandering[/b] to employers, no matter how "small" they are, by telling them they don't need to pay so much in taxes to the evil state.
Really. this anti-small business stuff creeps me out, big time.
Yeah, well pandering to employers creeps me out. I guess we're even on the "how I feel" non-argument. So let's get back to why you think the NDP should help small employers succeed in business.
Sun, 2009-09-13 21:48
#85
Well at least the right has given up on zero inflation. There would be no one working today if zany neolibs had done it their way.
Sun, 2009-09-13 22:00
#86
remind
No one is proposing that small business pay NO taxes.
Small business owners, pay taxes through the ying yang, in fact double that of what workers do, in most cases. Talk about short sighted thinking.
Most small business owners work way more than 8 hrs a day at their business. And BTW, workers do have to work for someone or they do not work.
Sun, 2009-09-13 22:02
#87
You think the NDP should cut workers' taxes too, remind?
Sun, 2009-09-13 22:04
#88
Galldarn small business capitalists are taking over the country!! And the NDP wants to help them do it, too!!
Sun, 2009-09-13 22:11
#89
Small business owners, pay taxes through the ying yang, in fact double that of what workers do, in most cases. Talk about short sighted thinking.
Got a link for that? I got [url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/08/21/ndp-small-business-tax/][... link that says you're wrong[/color][/url]:
Despite paying a combination of corporate and personal tax, proprietors of small corporations pay less tax (in total) than employees on a given amount of income. Eliminating corporate tax on small-business profits would aggravate this inequity. Indeed, small-business owners would pay only about half the tax rate faced by workers.To tax profits from small corporations as much as employment income (or profits from unincorporated businesses), [b]one would need to raise the small-business corporate tax rate to 18%[/b].
Sun, 2009-09-13 22:15
#90
Are you talking income taxes, licensing fees and sales tax, or taxes paid on profits? Licensing fees could be made more affordable I think, if the losses in revenues could be recouped in other areas.
I don't like flat taxes much anywhere, outside of tariffs perhaps, but successive Conservative and Liberal governments have done a great job of raising those on small businesses and labour alike without suffering much politically. That too could be factored into a more progressive economic platform.
Sun, 2009-09-13 22:22
#91
The main point of my previous line of argument BTW is that the NDp is abandoning even social democratic ideals, not necessarily socialist ones. Higher progressive taxation, willingness to borrow money like private enterprises when needed, and stricter public regulation of businesses are just three standard social democratic concepts which have a far stronger track record of success (from a progressive view point) than any of the neo-liberal strategies taken during the last generation. (lets not even talk about nationalizing anything anymore...) If, that is, any neo-liberal measure can still be seen as intended towards any egalitarian goal -ever.
My next installment:
"the NDP has to moderate its image to gain power before it can hope to do anything progressive." Meaning, the party has to bow to the received wisdom of the mainstream media monoply in hopes that they/it will give us/you/them a chance -ever. Unfortunately there is even less evidence that that will work either:
This is about as good as it got, during the last convention when the party was consciously and openly trying to "moderate" its' public image:
Maclean's:
"I’m going to let you in on a little journalistic secret here, NDP organizers: We — we-the-media, that is — expect — nay, demand — at least one zany resolution from every party policy convention. If you’re not going to give us a leadership review — or, better yet, a multi-ballot leadership vote, complete with delegates, drama and intrigue, and — of course — thundersticks — then you’d better darned well give us something to get us out of bed in time for that three hour plenary session at the crack of nine on Saturday morning. In recent years, for the Conservatives, it’s usually something about abortion or same sex marriage; for the Liberals, it’s Quebec nationhood and — thank you, youth wing — legalized prostitution, and for the NDP, it’s nationalizing the banks and decriminalizing soft drugs. It happens every time: One of your riding associations comes up with a crowd-pleasingly controversial proposal, we write about, it either passes and goes nowhere, or it fails, and we all go home, satisfied by having taken part in a proud Canadian political tradition.
Instead, you boot the guy out, thus giving us something even better to cover: a banned delegate with an axe to grind! And a twitter account! It’s like you planned the whole thing just to give us a good hook for this weekend’s coverage. Since the delegate in question is on the ground in Halifax, and even under an NDP government, you can’t have the province put him on the next plane back to BC, he can scrum with reporters, maybe round up a few dozen supporters to picket the opening session — really, he’ll wind up with far more media coverage than he would have gotten if he’d managed to pass his pro-pot resolution in the first place. It’s just the silliest thing ever, although while we’re on the subject of silliness, ITQ would suggest that keeping the full list of policy resolutions under wraps is a close second, since they always end up leaking out anyway, and really, see above re: proud Canadian traditions."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/13/what-happened-to-you-ndp-you-used-to-...
The Globe:
"NDP trumpets new policy – in the same socialist vein"
But: "The NDP Leader told reporters at a closing press conference Sunday afternoon he is extremely excited that the party has approved policies that would bridge the gap between the environment and the economy.
“And also that we want to help out small business,” he said, “because that's where so many of the jobs get created these days.”
But the proposal to phase out income tax for small business never made it to the convention floor.
Nor did the delegates get the chance to debate a controversial proposal to drop the word “New” from the party's name. Like the small-business-tax resolution, a motion to begin consultations on a name change was not high enough on the priority list of resolutions to make the cut."
But:
" “The old thinking of the old parties hasn't worked,” he said. “Now I think people are coming increasingly to that conclusion after this economic crisis and they are saying ‘What's the new direction?' We've laid it out.”
He and the party's small-business critic, Bruce Hyer, said the issue of phasing out small-business income tax would not be allowed to die.
Mr. Layton said it would be put to the party's federal council, and Mr. Hyer said he would find a way to introduce it in the House of Commons when Parliament resumes in the fall."
But...but...but... "
"But Liberal MP Geoff Regan, an observer at the convention, said he didn't see much of a shift toward the centre on the part of the New Democrats.
“As far as the delegates are concerned,” he said, “they seem more keen on sticking to the same old 1970s ideology that we've heard from them for years.”
But Alexa McDonough, a former NDP leader, doesn't see the need for a dramatic twist."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ndp-trumpets-new-policy-in-...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Same old same old, from the same old two faced sources. The "mass" media owned by billionaires will never give you a break, not when they already have liberals and tories -same old stories- to give us all the democratic choice we need in America North. (with apologies to Fidel) Or white cats and black cats to paraphrase a guy named Tommy.
Sun, 2009-09-13 22:30
#92
Most small business owners work way more than 8 hrs a day at their business. And BTW, workers do have to work for someone or they do not work.
That's true. In the 1990's when economic recovery in Canada was lagging that of the majority of other countries, Canada's big banks weren't lending to small businesses, which represented a large percentage of all new private sector job creation in Canada. But they loaned money same as usual to large corporations. And according to Mel Hurtig, Canada's big time banksters financed somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations, crowns and assets, and using Canadians savings to do it, too.
Catherine Swift, President and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:
The highly concentrated and ultra-conservative nature of the Canadian banking system has for many years constrained the ability of small and medium-sized-businesses to readily access financing on fair and flexible terms. During the recession of the 1990's, for instance, lending to large corporations dropped very little while loans to the small business sector fell precipitously, and unnecesarily delayed the economic recovery of small firms. As small businesses now represent about half of the Canadian economy and about 80 percent of net new job creation, this lack of adequate financing options for small firms represents a significant drag on overall Canadian economic potential. Hurtig, The Vanishing Country, 2002, p,356.
Canada's big six banking oligarchy have maintained financing for Can-Am monopoly capitalists still running Canada through their bought and paid-for stoogeocracies in Ottawa. Theyve effectively insulated monopoly capitalists from competition through starving small and medium-sized business of access to financing.
Mon, 2009-09-14 00:56
#93
Sounds like a good argument for nationalizing the banks.
Mon, 2009-09-14 02:12
#94
M. Spector
Catherine Swift, President and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:
Now you're adopting the words and arguments of CFIB?
That really creeps me out.
Mon, 2009-09-14 02:37
#95
Catherine Swift, President and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:
Now you're adopting the words and arguments of CFIB?
That really creeps me out.
I'd prefer that Canada was not run by six big banks controlling our stoogeocratic old line parties in power and sharing power since 1867, and influenced by a few energy conglomerates and billionaire families. The small businesses which created the bulk of the jobs in this Northern Puerto Rico before this neoliberalized meltdown began need encouraging with access to credit and loans. Hopefully the recent taxpayer handouts to Canada's banks to the tune of $75 billion will free up some money for loaning to the real economy and not just financing more US takeovers of Canada.
Apparently some of us are comfortable with increasing ownership and control of the means of production and resources by the superrich and powerful and of that which rightfully belongs to Canadians. But I couldnt be more disagreeable with that laissez-faire attitude.
Mon, 2009-09-14 10:13
#96
remind
Small business owners pay, property taxes on 2 spaces, they pay income tax on their earnings and their profits, they pay personal PST and GST, as well as for their business, they pay business license fees, plus their share of the payroll deductions.
The favouring of corporations, by some, over small businesses is very weird and IMV signifies support of global hegemony by the few.
Mon, 2009-09-14 10:25
#97
But the corporations must succeed or our pensions, workers and small business owners, academics and speculators, are kaput, remember, remind.
What a helluva situation for we who would bring about social change, eh?
Mon, 2009-09-14 10:27
#98
Apparently some of us are comfortable with increasing ownership and control of the means of production and resources by the superrich and powerful and of that which rightfully belongs to Canadians. But I couldnt be more disagreeable with that laissez-faire attitude.
Apparently some of us would like to reverse that trend - not by public ownership - but by subsidizing "small" business owners.
Have fun trying to turn the wheel of history back to feudalism.
And some of us believe that a worker can't work unless some business owner "gives" her a job.
I hope Catherine Swift and Tom D'Aquino aren't reading this thread. They'll be shaking hands and gloating - "Mission Accomplished!"
Mon, 2009-09-14 10:32
#99
I understand that argument George, so the public dollar is used to con't prop large corporations at the expense of small & medium business because "private pension plans" which owners have raided and used for their own purposes and do not fund them sufficiently and we con't with this co-dependent relationship. How do we get out of this logger jam?
Public pensions perhaps.
I don't know enough about pension stuff to be able to put forth comment for debate or contemplation here. But it would appear that we ensure large corporations get corporate welfare because workers' pension $ is tied in there. If we cut that string perhaps this would change but I am out of my depth here.
Mon, 2009-09-14 10:42
#100
Hopefully, jan, we are about to hear how workers and small business owners alike can break free of the iron law of pensions - no investments, no pensions.
Mon, 2009-09-14 10:43
#101
But it would appear that we ensure large corporations get corporate welfare because workers' pension $ is tied in there.
What utter nonsense.
ETA: Excuse me, I've recovered sufficiently to elaborate:
What utter anti-worker, anti-union stereotypical crap. I expect to read crap like that in a "comment" attached to some MSM article. You should be ashamed of yourself. Harper and Flaherty are protecting rich workers' pensions, right? Next we'll hear similar comments about funding of... which other group of society?
It's always amazing to me that classism isn't treated with the same hostility on this board as other forms of contempt for the marginalized of this society.