Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Commons: Bow before the independent business owner

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, February 9, 2011 6:55pm - 101 Comments

The Scene. At the risk of giving away the surprise ending, let us start with this afternoon’s profound revelation. You may wish to sit down first and are advised to put on a helmet or some other kind of cranial reinforcement to prepare for the fact that what was revealed here today may well blow your precious mind. Moments of such insight into the meaning and workings of the world that surrounds us are so rare. Indeed, it is possible that some of you may not yet be prepared to process and accept what was made clear to those of us in the House this afternoon.

But let us now say and hear what needs to be said and heard. Let us be honest with ourselves and each other. And, specifically, let us know this: according to a national organization whose stated purpose is to advocate on behalf of independent business owners, most of this country’s business owners would prefer to pay less in taxes on the revenues their businesses generate. Not more, less. Surely not since the Canadian Federation of Independent Little Girls announced in 1925 that its members would not, if offered, be adverse to accepting the gift of a pony has our understanding of human behaviour been so fundamentally altered.

And let the record show that it was Pierre Poilievre—a man they call “Skippy”—who brought this reckoning upon us.

For sure, this afternoon’s exchange of shouted sentences did not begin with anything to indicate such insight to come. The first rounds between Messrs. Ignatieff and Harper were fairly rote—the former restating his objection to further corporate tax cuts, the latter restating his intention to continue cutting corporate tax rates.

Then though came Scott Brison, in his slim-cut suit and sing-song accent. “Mr. Speaker,” he sang, “the CFIB has said that cutting corporate taxes is not a priority for small business.” The CFIB, in this case, is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business—an organization that has recently taken on pronounced authority in this chamber. Policemen, firemen, nurses, teachers, mothers, children, all have been displaced on the political deference scale by the small business owner.

“Instead,” Mr. Brison continued, “small businesses want payroll taxes to be held where they are or cut, and they want help to hire more Canadians. On January 1, the Conservatives ignored small business and hiked the EI tax rate by 5%. Why are the Conservatives punishing small businesses with job-killing payroll tax hikes in order to cut taxes for the richest corporations?”

Mr. Harper now seemed to think he had one on Mr. Brison.

“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the honourable member, he has raised an issue of fact. The fact is that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the small and medium sized businesses of this country, is absolutely opposed to the tax hikes proposed by the Liberal Party that would raise taxes on over 100,000 Canadian small businesses, absolutely opposed,” he said quite absolutely, chopping his hand and wagging his finger.

The Liberals now seemed to think they had one on Mr. Harper. “Oh yeah, you’re walking right into it!” yelled Ralph Goodale with some glee before Mr. Ignatieff waved for him to be quiet (lest, one assumes, he spoil the surprise).

“He can check with Catherine Swift if he is not sure about it,” Mr. Harper finished, referring to the president of the CFIB.

Mr. Brison was indeed ready for this. “Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is misleading Canadians once again,” he declared. “CFIB’s Vice-President Corinne Pohlmann has said publicly, ‘corporate tax cuts are not in our top 11 [priorities].’”

Now Mr. Harper was quite furious, gesticulating all about and even managing to point both fingers at the same time (a move he has not felt compelled to pull since he nearly gave away his office to Stephane Dion in December 2008).

“Mr. Speaker, everybody here can do exactly what I did,” he cried. “He can talk to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its president, Catherine Swift, who is absolutely on the record saying they are opposed to the tax hikes proposed by the Liberal Party on business, absolutely opposed. There is not a single business organization, not a single credible voice in this country that supports the tax hikes proposed by the Liberal Party.”

Mr. Harper is, of course, nothing if not deferential to credible voices and interested parties when it comes to formulating national policy. But across the way, the Liberal side seemed rather pleased with all of this. However impressive Mr. Harper’s ability to point in a resolute and accusatory fashion, the official opposition appeared to feel a certain sense of success.

A short while later though, Mr. Harper got up from his seat and approached Mr. Poilievre, his parliamentary secretary. After a brief discussion, Mr. Poilievre left for the adjacent government lobby. He returned to discuss matters with Mr. Harper and House leader John Baird and then disappeared again. Finally he returned, handed pieces of paper to Mr. Baird and Minister of State Ted Menzies and then took his seat. From there he motioned for a page to fetch him a glass of water and seemingly began to prepare to say something aloud, mouthing the words to himself as practice.

Shortly after three o’clock then, with Question Period nearly through, the Conservative side sent up a dutiful backbencher to ask a planted query of Mr. Poilievre. Here Skippy stood to report on his homework.

“Mr. Speaker, I just got off the phone with CFIB’s Catherine Swift and, boy, did the member for Kings—Hants ever get it wrong,” he reported. “As members will recall, CFIB strongly supported our tax reductions in 2007 for job creators. The member for Kings—Hants said that they had changed their mind. In fact, just yesterday they reaffirmed that they support the tax reductions. The reason they did not feel they had to put them in their top 11 priorities is because, and I quote: ‘They were already done three years ago. We didn’t think they were threatened.’ She will be calling the member for Kings—Hants.”

Triumphant, he returned to his seat as the Conservatives leapt up to cheer. “You just got beat up by Skippy!” Mr. Baird yelled in Mr. Brison’s direction, managing to demean all parties involved simultaneously.

Afterwards, Mr. Brison stood on a point of order and requested the unanimous consent of the House to table the CFIB’s recently released list of priorities for the next federal budget. Alas, the government side denied him such consent. Which is a shame, not least because if the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is now dictating national fiscal policy, the House should know precisely what it is they want.

Mind you, perhaps the revelations contained therein are so revolutionary that they best be parcelled out slowly and deliberately.

The Stats. Taxation, eight questions. Nuclear waste, four questions. The Toronto Stock Exchange, five questions. Crime, three questions. Mortgages, child care, affordable housing, industry, government appointments, the border and the coast guard, two questions each. Oil tanker traffic, Afghanistan and aboriginal affairs, one question each.

Stephen Harper, eight answers. Ted Menzies, Christian Paradis, Diane Finley and Tony Clement, four answers each. Vic Toews and Lawrence Cannon, three answers each. Gerry Ritz, John Baird, Rob Nicholson, Gail Shea, Peter MacKay, Chuck Strahl, John Duncan and Pierre Poilievre, one answer each.

Bookmark and Share
  • Thwim

    If the argument the CPC is attempting to make is that canceling a planned tax cut is raising taxes, then surely they'll agree that in 2006, Mr. Harper raised income taxes by .5%

    • paulsstuff

      That's what the Liberals argue. And Harper denies.

      So both hypocrites??

      • Thwim

        No doubt.

    • Cats

      The opposition day motion calls for corporate tax rates to go back to 2010 levels of 18%.

      As of the first of this year they are 16.5%.

      That would indeed be a 1.5% increase in the corporate tax rate. It would be a 3% increase if you include the cuts coming into effect next year, which corporations have built their plans around and which the Liberals used to support.

      Yep, Liberals are actually RAISING taxes. BTW that income tax cut never passed the house. This reduction schedule did last year.

      Economics Cats.

      • Emily

        LOL oh now it's a HUGE tax HIKE….because you're counting in next years cut as well!

        Why not a tax cut from oh….2020 while you're at it.

        • Cats

          When the two largest parties in Canada support a policy direction (lower corporate tax cuts) for over a decade its fair to say there was an expectation that the cuts that were promised would be delivered.

          So yes, if the Liberals cancel future cuts and RAISE the current rate back up to last year it would be a HUGE tax increase.

          Corporations would respond by cancelling planned hiring and investment.

          Economics Cats.

      • Cats

        Actually I can't quite remember whether the implimentation bills passed before the election actually happened, I think they may have.

        Anyways, its a moot point since we're talking about actual tax increases being proposed by the Liberals instead of just cancelling future cuts.

        Cats.

        • Jan

          The payroll deduction changes were akready in effect. You;re running in fumes, Garfield.

  • paulsstuff

    From the link Wherry provided re-cfib priorities:

    "CFIB continues to support proceeding with the planned reductions in the corporate income tax rates and staying on target with current deficit reduction plans"

    So Brison certainly has egg on his face. And Skippy had it right, those corporate tax cuts were passed in the 2007 budget, therefore don't need to be included in the 2011 budget.

    • noob_goldberg

      For every MP with egg on their face there's a staff policy analyst who was just taken out to the woodshed for a lashing they'll not soon forget.

      I'm sure that analyst is currently huddled in the back of a small pub somewhere, nursing a pint and what's left of his or her dignity.

  • Emily

    It passed btw. 149-134 to freeze the tax rate at the 2010 level.

    Of course Harp will ignore that, as he ignores everything else the voters want.

    Just so you know.

    • Cats

      Lol you're still using terminology like "freeze".

      You mean ROLL BACK the CURRENT rate to the OLD RATE.

      ie. RAISE TAXES.

      Just can't bring yourself to admit your factual error, eh ?

      Victory Cats.

      • Cats

        Any change in tax rates in the spring budget this year would be effective jan. 1 next year.

        So it would be a 3% swing in the opposite direction of what they were expecting.
        Pretty big shock eh ? Considering most corporations plan 5 years out.

        Planned hiring will no doubt be trashed, lay-offs may be required. Payments to pensioners slashed. Equipment orders from Ontario factories cancelled.

        Bad days Cats.

        • noob_goldberg

          Thanks. I deleted my comment because I misunderstood what the point of contention was (i.e. I was engaging in a bit of revisionist history to hide my ignorance and shame).

          So you're saying that the 16.5% rate, which would be implemented for any company's 2011 fiscal year, would come into effect currently, and the 15% rate will impact the 2012 fiscal year, and the earliest a change could be made would be impacting the 2012 fiscal year.

          I think I'm straight here.

        • baretta

          Well these big Corporations have one year to get used to it now don't they? Where are all those jobs they are supposedly making and where are those jobs on the last tax drop. Out of country and in the shareholders pockets likely. And hefty bonus for the CEO's. Where? out of this country while the Crappers sit back and clap their heads like typical puppets and nod their fool heads off.

      • Jan

        Harper's – 2007 pre-recession fiscal policy – tax cuts and over spending is now set in amber. Just great.

  • madeyoulook

    And, specifically, let us know this: according to a national organization whose stated purpose is to advocate on behalf of independent business owners, most of this country’s business owners would prefer to pay less in taxes on the revenues their businesses generate.

    And know this, Aaron: Scott Brison was, either through incompetent ignorance or through a wilful desire to misrepresent the truth, positively clueless about that preference, that he embarrassed himself, his leader, his constituents and his mom with that pathetic performance.

    • David_M.

      through incompetent ignorance or through a wilful desire to misrepresent the truth
      the truth
      what is the the truth here myl?

      • madeyoulook

        Did you read the full text above? The truth is there.

        The CFIB supports the CPC-LPC-approved corporate tax cut measures already in place, and is so happy that that they have moved on to other priorities.

        • David_M.

          I've read plenty

  • Placentia Bay Ex-Pat

    The basic fact is, liberals will lie and cheat,do or say anything that may get someone to vote for them and if they were to get power turn around and do the exact oppsite.We have seen them do it again and again,oh and did i mention they steal money as well.Its hard to know which liberals are the worst, but i would have to say the yanky leader pretending to be Canadian has to be the biggest joke of the bunch.How any Canadian can take a single thing that comes from any liberals mouth seriously is trully beyound me,then to actually consider voting liberal or to actually vote for one, leaves me very confused as to how they could, knowing all we know about liberal DNA=dishonesty.

  • Tokalosh

    As a business owner, this country seems so rude about small business and the media has little idea of the strain of meeting payroll, never mind going out and getting paying customers even when it's a snow day for all the employee types. I have seen 2 bankruptcies this week as the banks tighten up more. These are two $30M revenue companies.
    When I read about the money that the Canadians give to the IMF and aid around the world, what the heck are we thinking?
    This is the first decent article I have read on taxes and at least the conservatives get it. Catherine Swift has been a life saver for business onwers. Her organization has given hope and help.
    Why be a business owner in Canada?

    • McC_

      Small business has a separate income tax rate of 11% at the federal level, which is not being debated here. Your comment also makes it seem like you don't understand how corporate income taxes work, since you are raising issues for companies that are having trouble making payroll and promoting their business (i.e. making their expenses/investments) and citing the example of two companies that are loosing money as a justification for reducing corporate income tax cuts. If these companies don't make a profit, they won't pay corporate income taxes at any rate, the old one or the new one, all of their business expenses (which in your examples exceed their revenue) can be deducted from their revenue until their revenue reaches zero, at which point their taxes payable equal zero.

  • chet

    The contempt for the entrepaneur in this piece is palpable.

    That which gives statists and leftists alike nightmares:

    the reality that the business owner is the driver of our economy – the nanny state and all her glorios programs but a parasitically feeding off the resources of those willing to take risks to generate wealth and create employment.

    Mock away.

    In the meantime, let us sit back and dream of a paradise without "small businesses" and only the precious state. Pristine places of beauty such as North Korea, the former Soviet Block and thriving Cuba.

    • Judge Roy Bean

      Agreed. Such is the need for Foxnews North. Can't remember the last time I felt there was a balanced media outlet in Canuckistan. C'mon Foxnews North.

      • McC_

        Yes please, because Pierre Karl Peladeau is all about entrepreneurship, he never has his hand in your pocket looking for public subsidies… give me a break.

      • D.D.S

        yeah….because I want to be lied to……. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/televisi…

  • john g

    Am I on some alternate-universe blog where Wherry's critics all get thumbs up?

    Weird. I'm going to bed. Sure the world will make sense again tomorrow.

    • tobyornotoby

      To the Cloud!

    • Cats

      Its been the BEST DAY EVER in terms of a positive response to CATS!!

      And wow Emily has sure been trashed by the ratings systems.

      I guess that's what happens when you make errors and then pretend they didn't happens.

      Economics Cats!

    • Crit_Reasoning

      Not to worry. Tomorrow, Cats will be thumbed down for having the temerity to point out Emily's egregious errors. Order will thus be restored to the universe of thumb clicks, and yin will be balanced with yang.

      • McC_

        Today Cats was the one making egregious errors about the first Harper government's increase to the tax rate for lowest personal tax bracket in Budget 2006.

        • MostlyCivil

          Also, Cats learned about proxy servers.

        • Crit_Reasoning

          I must have missed that, McC. How was Cats wrong? Harper increased the lowest personal tax bracket from 15% to 15.5% in Budget 2006, then it was lowered back down to 15% in 2007.

          • McC_

            Exactly Harper went back and raised the personal income tax, and argued at the time that it was just postponing a planned cut, "not raising taxes"; the same thing the Liberals are arguing now about the corporate tax cuts ('we won't raise them, just postpone the planned cut'). Cats was arguing above that the situations somehow aren't comparable.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Cats was arguing above that the situations somehow aren't comparable.

            The situations really aren't comparable. The Liberals aren't arguing that they're postponing a planned cut. They have announced no future plans to cut corporate taxes. They want to rescind tax cuts that have already happened, and to cancel future cuts that were announced years ago. Unlike Harper's brief 0.5% income tax increase in 2006, the Liberals aren't just raising taxes temporarily.

            Hate to break it to you, McC, but Cats was right, so you were wrong that he made an "egregious error".

        • McC_

          unfortunately my quotes of the actual text from Budget 2006 are languishing in Comment Purgatory (seems to happen whenever I link to a Government website like parl.gc.ca or fin.gc.ca — I guess it helps make sure our debates don't get distorted by such hearsay).

          • Crit_Reasoning

            This is probably what you were looking for:

            Effective July 1, 2006 the lowest tax rate will be set at 15.5%, which is a 0.5% increase from the 15% rate set by the Liberals in their last budget. The budget also confirms that the lowest tax rate will be 15 per cent from January 1, 2005 until June 30, 2006.

            In the 2007 Economic Update, the tax rate was reduced to 15% again retroactive to January 1, 2007.

          • McC_

            the actual Budget text (without the link this time) "The lowest personal income tax rate will be reduced to 15 per cent from 16 per cent effective January 1, 2005. The rate will be 15.5 per cent effective July 1, 2006. Accordingly, the full-year rate for 2005 will be 15 per cent, for 2006, 15.25 per cent and, for the 2007 and subsequent taxation years, 15.5 per cent."

  • tonobungay

    I think a lot of the commenters are missing the point. The issue is not whether small businesses want lower taxes or not, the issue is that one tax is being lowered while another is being increased – the corporate tax rate for large businesses are being reduced from 18% to 15% (not the one for small businesses, the key job creators, their tax rate is NOT going down), while the payroll tax rate is going up. Neither party is lying. The question is not who wants tax rates to go down, the question is which combination of tax increases and decreases is best for Canada right now. With employment and public finances not yet recovered, these tax changes mean if a company lays people off it will pay less taxes than before and if it hires people its taxes will be higher. The CFIB's priorities are to roll back the increase in payroll taxes, and to cut small business taxes, while they are silent on the large business tax rate that the government talks about. It's on their web site.

    When a large business declares a profit and pays taxes on it, it is because they are not re-investing it in the business this year. And in fact, the annual drops in equipment and machinery investments and in labour productivity in Canada started in 2006, long before the recession. Immediate tax cuts on profits don't have a positive short-term effect on a recovering economy, the companies that are investing and hiring aren't the ones paying taxes.

    • Gabby in QC

      Tonobungay said: "the corporate tax rate for large businesses are being reduced from 18% to 15%"

      Once again, may I correct an inaccuracy? http://www.canadabusinesstax.com/corporate-income…
      Please notice that effective Jan. 1, 2011 the federal corporate rate went down to 16.5%
      In Jan. 2012, it will go down to 15%

      Also, the tax rate & measures for small businesses can be found here: http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageI…

      • baretta

        Do record bank profits sound like small bussiness//Thats the sort of corporates who are making money on less corporate taxes. Not the small business owners.

        • Gabby in QC

          Baretta,maybe your trench coat needs adjustment.

          I prefer to have some credible documentation for statements like yours. Can you provide any? Thanks.

          Should we somehow ensure banks do NOT make profits, so that they can lay off individual workers?

          When are you critics of lower taxes going to get it into their heads that corporations employ INDIVIDUALS who have families to feed?

          Sort of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, isn't it?

    • Cats

      A small company might one day grow into a large company.

      In fact its their goal. So why would they not support these tax cuts ?

      Kind of a no brainer actually. Stop trying to pit small companies against large companies. Its a false division.

      Cats away!

      • TimesArrow

        That's a really convincing argument. Perhaps small businesses would like to share in those tax cuts now;might'n it not help them to become bigger businesses. False division – did you just invent that?

  • JamesHalifax

    baretta asked:
    "Do record bank profits sound like small bussiness"

    I'm guessing that the critics to this lowering of tax rates for corporations are only seeing fat bonuses for CEO's. What they fail to realize is that many of these big businesses, such as the banks mentioned by noted economist "Baretta" actually provide a pretty good return to their Mutual Fund/RRSP customers.

    Anyone who holds RRSP/ Mutual Funds is actually going to benefit from these cuts. And that includes granny who may have much of her life savings invested in bank stock or mutual funds. Dividends, increased values of stocks…etc…etc…

    It's not about the FAT CATS the LIberals are trying to have you believe.

    People with a basic knowledge of economics already knows this; including Scott Brison. Of course, Scott is a Liberal now…..so he has apparently concluded that a return on investment for Canadian grannies…isn't as important to him as a return to power.

    • Jan

      Ah yes, the old 'trickle down' chestnut. j would love to see Harper have to fight an election on this.

  • John D

    “You just got beat up by Skippy!”
    -Macleans Parliamentarian of the Year

  • JamesHalifax

    Jan wrote:
    “Ah yes, the old ‘trickle down’ chestnut. j would love to see Harper have to fight an election on this”

    Tell you what Jan…..go do some studying on the subject, and once you have an inkling of how the stock market works…come back and tell me what you find.

    • noob_goldberg

      If Harper is basing policy on the actions of the stock market, we're all doomed.

      I get angry enough just watching Bernanke make the same mistake across the border.

    • Jan

      WHAT? What on earth are you talking about? Oh, I get it – we throw mud in the water to divert attention away from the issue at hand. That gets a fail, just too clumsy, even for you. I demand you serve up better crap.

      • JamesHalifax

        Jan asked:
        "WHAT? What on earth are you talking about? "

        Thereby, confirming my belief that she knows NOTHING about the stock market, how it works, or how tax cuts to corporations benefit everyone, not just the CEO's.

        Jan. Word of advice. That little pink porcine figurine you use to hold your retirement fund….isn't the most efficient means to guarantee a comfortable retirement.

  • David Otago

    Small business already enjoys a reduced tax rate. Why the need to reduce it further? This tax decrease is intended for big business. Catherine Swift will be appointed as Senator soon.

  • David Smith

    Conference Board says that corporate profits is going to be higher this year. Why the conservatives want to bump corporate profits even higher with this tax cuts defies economic logic.

    • Chris

      Corporations pay taxes only on profits. Any losses are written off against previous profits, lowering the amount of tax they pay. If corporations make more profit, they pay more corporate tax. With our current deficit, we need all the tax revenue we can find.

  • JamesHalifax

    Chris wisely noted: (someone who clearly knows economics)

    Give it up Chris……it won't get through to many on this board. They clearly have little use for facts, and even less use for actual economics.

  • wilson

    The Liberals now seemed to think they had one on Mr. Harper. “Oh yeah, you’re walking right into it!” yelled Ralph Goodale with some glee before Mr. Ignatieff waved for him to be quiet (lest, one assumes, he spoil the surprise).

    My gawd, these guys can't even properly prepare for a 15 minute meeting,

    Note to the Liberal front bench, Brison Goodale Ignatieff,
    next time you set what you think is a trap for Harper,
    get one of those pointy shoes in the OLO to actually check with the source FIRST before you beak off,
    Ms Catherine Swift in this case.
    She could have prevented you from proving the LPC is not ready for prime time.

    .

    • noob_goldberg

      Maybe she screened the call because she thought they were asking for money.

  • Emily

    SHOCKED! I'm SHOCKED I tell you!

    Thanx for the warning about the head gear!

    LOL Actually I am shocked…obviously the CFIB isn't even paying attention if they thought the 'tax cuts' were 3 years ago.

    And secondly, the Libs aren't proposing to RAISE taxes, they simply said they wouldn't cut them any further.

    Plus, any grown man named after a kangaroo is suspect.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    So the voices of independent groups only matter when they converge with Mr. Wherry's ideology, do they?

  • Cats

    Sigh. Emils when are you going to learn to STOP speaking about economics ? You make yourself look foolish beyond measure.

    The corporate tax cut schedule that was re-introduced in '06 with a target of 19% by 2010 (it was a Liberal budget measure in '05 before the NDP made them kill it) was deepened in '07 to 18.5% by 2011.

    Hence the perfectly valid reference to 2007.

    And secondly, the current rate is 16.5% as of Jan. 1 this year. Its scheduled to go to 15% on jan. 1 of next year.

    The Liberals do indeed plan to RAISE the rate BACK UP to 18%, as per their motion in the house today.

    Busy Cats! Busy correcting Emily on economic matters ALL THE TIME Cats!

  • paulsstuff

    "The Conservatives are referring to the corporate rate cuts as "tax relief for job creators," while the Liberals are calling for rates to be restored to the 2010 level of 18.5 per cent, up from the 16.5 per cent rate that came into effect this month."

    Uh, if the rate now in effect is 16.5%, and Ignatieff puts it back to 18.5%, is that not a tax increase?

    And the tax cuts were in the 2007 budget, therefore don't even need to be included in this years budget. Of course Ignatieff wouldn't remember that as he and close to 100 other Liberals were absent for the vote.

  • paulsstuff
  • Emily

    I make my living in economics, cats….which is more than you do.

    Not my problem the CFIB isn't paying attention to the news about tax cuts.

    The Libs planned to end the tax cuts. Including the one from ….gee, a month ago.

    Now go chase your tail again.

  • Realistic

    “You just got beat up by Skippy!”

    lol

  • Emily

    They've been fighting to keep the tax rate as it was for some time….kindly don't claim a month is any sudden tax increase. LOL

  • Cats

    You mean the census ?

    When Aaron Wherry would helpfully provide us with the list of every expert and independent group who oposed the government's move ??

    Its really weird he's not doing the same for the corporate tax cut issue. Here i'll do it for him:

    Supportive:

    John Manley and every other Liberal who isn't Michael Ignatieff. Almost all economists.

    Against:

    Autoworkers union, Michael Ignatieff and his NDP/BQ buddies.

    Cats!

  • sourstud

    They only matter if they're talking about the census.

  • Cats

    Emily i'm going to post two contradictory claims both made by you within the last half hour.

    "the Libs aren't proposing to RAISE taxes, they simply said they wouldn't cut them any further"
    "The Libs planned to end the tax cuts. Including the one from ….gee, a month ago"

    This is just getting sad.

    Mice away.

  • JamesHalifax

    EMily wrote:
    "I make my living in economics, cats"

    sigh…..I guess now we all know where the recession came from

  • Cats

    A month ?

    Actually it would be a full year.
    You can't retroactively raise taxes when the year has already started.

    This is beyond sad.

    Emily gets caught making a huge factual error. Then she pretends she really know the truth all along and is just using her own special definitions of words that she gets to make up.

    LOL Cats.

  • Emily

    Libs have said all along they want to keep the tax levels at the 2010 mark.

    Long before Jan 1…a whole month ago

    But even had they been lowered at noon today, you'd have claimed this is a tax hike.

    When you have to lie to make your point….you've already lost.

  • Emily

    the current rate is 16.5% as of Jan. 1 this year

    Don't lie

  • Cats

    When did I lie ? Oh right, the hypothetical lie I would have made in your imaginary scenario.

    Must be fun inventing your own reality in which you determine what people will do, eh ?

    You made a mistake. Now grow up and admit it.

    Sad for you Cats.

  • Cats

    And the Liberals want to raise it back up to what it was last year.

    You claimed they weren't planning to raise taxes, just cancel future cuts. Not true. They are indeed planning to raise taxes.

    They you said that since its only been a month the current tax rates aren't really current. LOL.

    When exactly do current tax rates become current ?? LOL.

    And its not ONLY a month since any change in policy will be for the NEXT tax year.

    Beyond Sad Emily Cats.

  • noob_goldberg

    That was, indeed, the point in which I actually laughed out loud.

    “You just got beat up by Skippy!” Mr. Baird yelled in Mr. Brison’s direction, managing to demean all parties involved simultaneously.

    Pure comedy gold.

  • fribance

    After reading this article, I would say it is the Liberals who should be embarrassed. It is true that the tax cuts were approved 3 years ago with the support of the Liberals. They are the ones trying to make it look as if it will be NEW tax cuts in the coming budget. There will be no additional tax cuts, just what was approved 3 years ago. So Mr. Brison, Goodale, Ignatieff, et al, you are being deceitful and will fully misleading. And Mr. Wherry, you are just as bad.

  • Dave

    OMG. If Pierre Poilievre ever canvasses my door, I'm going to say "No thanks, SKIPPY!" to his face!

  • noob_goldberg

    Of course they're all supportive, it's a question asked out of context.

    If I ask you if you want a thousand dollars, no questions asked, you'd probably say "sure, why not, free money".

  • Cats

    The context being the deficit ?

    Why were corporate tax cuts part of the coalition plan to deal with the deficit/economic meltdown ? Why did the Liberals vote for the budget in '09 ?

    On tv today Bob Fife said it best. Liberals are going after NDP voters. Conservatives can now go after John Manley Liberals.

    Hey where is bay street located again ? Wouldn't be in the GTA would it ?

    Mice day.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Same could be said of the census, can't it? You want coerced information easily available without having to pay for your own polling firm? Of course we want it.

    Right?

  • noob_goldberg

    I don't care about the coalition, or who Ignatieff might be targeting, and I'm at a loss to explain quite a few of the actions of the Liberals, if you're asking me to do such a thing.

    But yes, the context is the deficit. I'm curious what the government intends to do to address the deficit. While corporate tax cuts are a nice gift, they're costly and it seems we could do with fewer costs.

  • noob_goldberg

    I'm not making myself clear, my apologies.

    I'm not opposed to corporate tax cuts on their own. While I think they're frequently over-hyped as a mechanism for stimulating business investment, there are far worse things a government can do than reduce the tax burden on businesses. I think we're in agreement on that.

    My point was that taxes, be it personal, corporate, or consumption, all add to a government's revenue stream, and we're in an unenviable position of possessing a significant deficit at the current moment. I just can't accept a flat tax cut unless I know what corresponding cuts, additional taxes, or government services are going to be impacted by that decision. I just need to see a plan here.

  • JamesHalifax

    Cats noted:
    "On tv today Bob Fife said it best. Liberals are going after NDP voters"

    I agree Cats, and most people have been saying if far longer than Bob Fife. Layton knows it…..let's see if he simply comes out and says it.

  • noob_goldberg

    I don't think that's the same thing at all. Do you force your employees to fill out specific items, such as performance reviews, etc, as a condition of employment? Certainly. Can we, the people, as a government require citizens to provide information as a condition of inhabiting this country? Absolutely.

    What you're suggesting is akin to hiring an external polling firm to ask your employees information you could simply receive by requiring them to fill out a form. It's unnecessarily expensive and not nearly as reliable.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Of course it's the same. In each case, the independent groups are pursuing their self-interest, at least in part. But when they do it in a way that's against Wherry and the left, all hell breaks loose, doesn't it.

  • Jan

    Didn't the Cons raise personal taxes when they first got in? Only to cut them so they got to say they were tax cutters. And a lot of small business are in a different tax rate and won't be getting a tax cut and are paying higher payroll taxes. Harper – moving the pea around, since 2006.

  • noob_goldberg

    Well, I certainly feel coerced when I get a summons for jury duty, but I willingly comply because I recognize that it's an important component of our judicial system. I feel the same way about the census, because it's an important component of the decision-making ability of government.

    I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. It's possible we simply place different values on personal liberty as it pertains to government information requirements. I really wish the long-form census discussion had focused on the elements of the census that made people uncomfortable, instead of being presented as a binary yes/no decision. That would have been a more productive use of time and energy, in my mind.

  • jade_lee

    tax cuts create jobs……..yeah so where are they????????
    Tax breaks put more profit in the pockets of big business, big business needs to pay like the rest of us do.
    Harper needs to continue his give away so that big business will not feel the extra EI tax payout like the rest of us will feel.

  • Jan

    Harper seems to like creating public sector jobs. Seems counter productive to me, but I'm not a Cat.

  • Orson Bean

    Then the NDP should be ecstatic.

  • baretta

    Hes adding more postions in the PMO and stacking the senate with more CRAP senators. For a man who campaigned on smaller governments, hes as fake as a 3 dollar bill. Probably added more black SUVs for his entourage to keep him safe?

  • Cats

    Well these tax cuts are already in the fiscal framework that both Conservatives and Liberals are using which will bring us to balance mid-decade.

    (Liberals just plan to spend this money on goodies!! Yay!)

    But i'm not asking you to explain Liberal behaviour (the whole deficit thing makes no sense, if its a problem then why not use the savings to PAY DOWN THE DEBT ?)

    Anyways, I think its worth it in terms of long term growth, expanding the tax base, bringing in new jobs.

    It might not "cost" all that much actually. We are a high tax jurisdiction moving towards the OECD average.

    Mice day.

  • Cats

    They delayed a .5% cut by a year.

    (Simple facts. No spin.)

    Cats away!

  • Gabby in QC

    Mr. Brison is a fibber. I’m pretty sure I heard him say on Power & Politics and in QP that corporate tax cuts were only #11 on the CFIB’s list of priorities.

    But in the CFIB link provided here by Aaron Wherry http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/cfib-documents/5486.pdf “CFIB’s Top Eleven for Budget 2011” one can read the following:
    “11. Stop forcing firms to file taxes electronically. Electronic filing is increasing significantly, but businesses should have the option to file otherwise.”

    The references to corporate tax cuts are here:
    • “5. Plan for future reductions in the small business corporate tax rate …”
    • “CFIB continues to support proceeding with the planned reductions in the corporate income tax rate and staying on track with current deficit reduction plans. “ That is found at the very end of the document, right after #11, which Mr. Brison erroneously and untruthfully said referred to corporate tax cuts.

  • Jan

    The 'small business tax rate' is not the same as the corporate tax rate up for discussion. Small business have a lower tax rate. They want the ceiling lifted from I think $500,000 to $600,000.

  • tonobungay

    Just to be clear, the CFIB priority #5 is not the tax cuts the government is talking about, which just applies to large businesses. The CFIB wants the SMALL business tax rates to be reduced, which the government doesn't plan to do. As the rest of that sentence says, they want "to limit eroding the differential between the small business rate and the general corporate tax rate", unlike what the government is proposing.

  • Gabby in QC

    In reply to both Jan & Tonobungay:

    Scott Brison and other critics have been framing the issue of corporate tax cuts around big corporations like banks. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I heard Mr. Brison refer to the CFIB list of priorities as having "corporate tax cuts" only at #11, implying it was an unimportant issue for the CFIB. That is clearly untrue, if one bothers to peruse the CFIB list of priorities.

    Anyway, whether big or small, businesses can be incorporated. Even individuals who work as consultants can incorporate.

    My main point is that Mr. Brison was inaccurate, since item 5 on the list does refer to **corporate** tax rate, albeit for small businesses, which BTW is covered here: http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageI… (under Supporting Small Businesses)

    “… Since 2006, the Government has introduced a large number of tax measures to support investment, innovation and growth by small businesses, including:

    • To help small businesses retain more of their earnings for investment, expansion and job creation, **the lower small business tax rate was reduced to 11 per cent from 12 per cent in 2008.**”

    Another point seldom mentioned in the discussion around corporate tax cuts is that the corporate tax rate being discussed does not include **provincial** corporate taxes.
    See some info. here: http://www.canadabusinesstax.com/corporate-income…

    That is important to mention, because using the argument that the corporate tax rate is now at 16.5% makes it sound like the tax rate here is as low as it can go. Our rate — 16.5% — is often compared to the US (35% ?), but the provincial rates must be added to the federal rate in order to have a true comparison, I would think.

  • Cats

    We all have different levels of comfort.

    Some people object very much to be seen on a full body scanner. Others don't.

    The question is that in a free society when do you over-ride people's objections. For something like security there is a good case.

    For something like the census where you can get OK but not great info without it, well that's the big argument.

    I know Aaron Wherry likes to pretend that not a single person in our country of 30+ million is creeped out by the census.

    But that's just a silly and baseless claim.

    Cats away.

  • McC_

    true story, provincial corporate income tax rates are mostly in the range of 10% for non-small-businesses. Flaherty's goal was to have all the provinces adjust their rate to 10% by the time the federal rate was/is scheduled to reach 15% so we could have a brand-25 for our corporate tax rates (here it must be noted that 26.5 is not nearly so round a number, but is still much much less than the 35% you mention as the possible rate in the U.S.)

  • JamesHalifax

    paulsstuff asked:
    "Uh, if the rate now in effect is 16.5%, and Ignatieff puts it back to 18.5%, is that not a tax increase?"

    Paul, you may as well bang your head against a wall when speaking with Emily……she never lets fact or reality get in the way of her story.

    As for Emily making her living in economics….um, I would imagine the preface to her job description would be "Home" (economics)

    In case she missed it.

From Macleans