"In a community like this, I think this is pretty much (sic) a pocketbook issue."
A community like what?
One that wants the truth?..
One that is getting tired of empty promises?
One that seems to get the scraps to shut us up?

Go back to where you came from , and stay there as far as I am concerned.

Bob Rae....hahahhah!...very funny man!

Yup, gotta have those corporate tax cuts that the Conservatives want. Lord knows without those that places like the CIBC, Air Canada, Canfor, Joe Blow's Flower Shop Inc. and Sally's Home Hardware Ltd. would pack up and move to China or Brazil. Boston Pizza, McDonalds and Wendy's wouldn't be able to keep the doors open either. Heck, there likely wouldn't be a single new business open in Canada if it weren't for them!

Wait a minute, if these corporations have been able to operate successfully for YEARS (including years where corporate tax rates were much higher than they are now), why does the government think that tax relief is now required in order to keep them?

Oh, I know, the line is that we have to lower corporate tax rates in order to "remain competitive". Competitive with who I say? The rest of the G8? China? South American countries? The US?

For most smaller corporations (these would be the stores you see around town) and even many large ones (retail outlets, car lots, etc.), corporate tax rates do not have a huge impact on whether they choose to start up or stay in business. Markets and their ability to sell their products does. If a guy running a shoe store can make 75K before tax, he's going to stay around and keep the same level of staff whether his after tax income is 65K or 67K. Banks, insurance companies and stuff like that are in the same boat. Does anyone HONESTLY believe that the Royal Bank is going to pull out of Canada if corporate tax rates don't get reduced?

In regards to attracting investment, I will agree that tax rates are a CONSIDERATION for some large businesses. They are only part of the picture though. They also want access to stable and free markets, a predictable political environment, a skilled workforce, etc. Canada is still an extremely attractive place to operate and truth be told, are current corporate tax rates are ALREADY competitive.

Why then the rush to lower them even more, especially when we are in a deficit position and the given the government's need to fund core services? It's extremely short sighted IMHO and I don't think it will do a thing to significantly improve the climate for investment in this country over what it currently is. It will, however, result in less money going to government coffers which means that you and I will pay more to make up the difference OR we'll have reduced services courtesy. Oh well, at least the offshore shareholders and investment portfolio managers will be happy. Yipee!!

Bob Rae, the opportunist who jumped from the NDP to the Liberals !

For some reason this guy gives me the creeps every time I hear or see him.

His buddy Ignatieff (probably the wrong spelling?).......the same story.




.*........going to bathroom....need to puke......*

The Liberals are Gods federal or provincial so you can just suck it up bud.

Bob Rae was the NDP Premier of Ontario, and didnt do so well.

I wrote him a letter a year ago advising him that there was a lot more to Canada besides the Cities of Toronto, and Ottawa, and that maybe he and some of his Torontoian buddies should get off their butts and go see the rest of the Country. I doubt if thats the reason he came West, however at least he's outside of Toronto.

This guy and his buddies are the ones who constantly vote to keep the gun registry, and are really nothing more than a bunch of slick willy City slickers, who could care less about the rest of the Country.

His next big venture (once Ignatieff leaves) will be to run (again) for the Liberal Leadership. If he wins, we will then have an NDP, Liberal leader. What will Layton do??? Will he critize one of his own, or will he and his cronies all join the Liberals??

He came and left right away! Wonder if the new hotel tax ticked him off!

Yes, that's it! Otherwise he liked Prince George just fine and would have stayed a little longer!

Ah yes I remember Bob Rae.....

isn't he the one who turned an economic downturn into a full scale recession in Ontario when he was premier.

and...NMG..When corporate taxes are low, this creates expansion, allows them to upgreade technology and become more productive, promotes more jobs, and solidifys job security. Lets remember that there is a direct link between low taxes and a bouyant economy, as there is between high taxes and a sluggish economy.

i think i'll pick low taxes.

"and...NMG..When corporate taxes are low, this creates expansion, allows them to upgreade technology and become more productive, promotes more jobs, and solidifys job security. Lets remember that there is a direct link between low taxes and a bouyant economy, as there is between high taxes and a sluggish economy"

Low corporate taxes don't "create" expansion or allow corporations to upgrade technology, become more productive or create jobs. Expansion is almost completely based on demand for a corporations products and services. The upgrade of technology is based on their desire to become more efficient and/or competitive within their operating environment and their willingness to add jobs again relates to the demand for their products and the number of people they ned to employ to meet that demand. In many cases, ironically enough, the more invested in capital, the less there is a need for employees (e.g. capital improvements in heavy industry such as a mill).

Taxes (both personal and corporate) have been on a steady downward trend for years. The state of the economy has not. It, on the other hand, has bounced up and down like a yo-yo, with several "booms" in recent history as well as several "busts". How could this be if there is a "direct link between low taxes and a bouyant economy, as there is between high taxes and a sluggish economy"?

Quite simply, I'd suggest there is no correlation. I think it's a line that's been fed to us. There is, however, a correlation between tax rates and government revenues and government operating budgets and their ability to fund services that citizens desire. Corporations don't utilize the health care system, have kids that need educated, drive on roads or want clear air, however, people do. At the end of the day, when governments take in less money, people who rely on governments for essential services (that's us) suffer. Corporations could care less.

gimmeabreak:-"When corporate taxes are low, this creates expansion, allows them to upgrade technology and become more productive, promotes more jobs, and solidifys job security."
------------------------------------------


I am not against lowering corporate tax rates as the Conservatives propose to do, but if you are going to "upgrade technology and become more productive" how does that "promote MORE jobs"?

The very nature of increased productivity through upgraded technology involves the overall displacement of labor, and overall incomes paid to labor.

No Company invests to make any same process of manufacturing "more" labor intensive. They do so to automate as many jobs as possible out of existence. It's really one of the few ways they can lower their ongoing costs. If it couldn't, they wouldn't do it.

As for "solidifying job security" that security only exists so long as there is a continued Consumer DEMAND for the products made, and one that can be made EFFECTIVE.

And therein lies the problem that goes continually overlooked while we waste our time arguing over who should be taxed more, and who less. Without incomes, Consumer demand cannot be made EFFECTIVE demand. We cannot buy all the product of the machine. And without its sale, the profit of the business is not going to be there to tax.

Already, the shift to Consumption taxes instead of Income taxes is an indication that governments recognise the threat to their revenue flow. For a Consumption tax exacts revenues from your spending. Spending not only from 'earnings', but from 'borrowings'. It is a self-defeating tax shift, for the 'borrowings' will never be able to be fully repaid, and the incomes, overall, collectively insufficient already. BEFORE taxing them further

No one can solve an 'insufficiency' long -term by simply re-distributing it. That's what we're trying to do with taxation as it's currently constituted. The solution is just NOT there, but lies elsewhere.

Liberals are gods?? I hope you say that with tongue in cheek.

Mr Rae and his buddy iggy have attained total irrelevance. I would prefer they stay in TO; the centre of the universe.

Bob Rea is a Power Corp sock puppet... no different than Chretien, Mulroney, Martin and most of the Ottawa power circle. Power Corp is a large multinational financial services company that owns life insurance companies, hedge funds, mutual funds, and lesser corporations of all kinds totaling over $500 billion in assets in Canada alone. They are the establishment in Canada federally.

So his comment, "I think the fact the Tories have decided that they're going to continue to shovel money to, you know, the banks and the insurance companies and the oil companies and..."

I guess he thinks the information on the internet stops at the Ontario boarder? Lets be honest when we say that both the federal liberals and conservatives both work for the same special globalist corpocracy... the 'us-verses-them' dialogue is simply to create the appearance of choice, so they can claim a mandate once elected. Guys like Bob Rae are a prime example of this.

However I tend to agree that corporate tax cuts are a big issue... totally uncalled for when we have unfunded liabilities as government... and record levels of fiscal deficit... completely irresponsible and nothing conservative about it... maybe neocon, but definitely not conservative. Facts are we have among the lowest corporate tax rates already in the developed world.

Corporate tax cuts lets remember are taxes on income after expenses... taxes on profits essentially from companies that are making profits.

Some like the Harper buddies in the oil sands have among the highest profits in the Western world... more and more as they open up Canadian energy markets to the 'international market rates'. We as Canadians pay for their corporate tax cut on their profits, as well as for make up to maintain government services that this entails through taxes like the HST targeting the middle class and employed Canadians... as well as through the new 'international market rate' they set for Cnadians and our own energy needs. Its asinine that the conservative grass roots will give their party insiders the mandate to carry this type of wealth transfer policy to the light of day. All the liberals are doing though is collecting some needed political capital on a no brainer issue.. they won't offer an alternative.

IMO if the federal liberals wanted me to consider them and their vote.

First stop calling the GST the HST. It is a 'Goods and ''Services'' Tax', not VAT (Value Added Tax), and not harmonious, but more like centralizing control taking federal competitiveness and sovereignty away from the provinces in the name of centralization... with the designed aim to tax the costs of labor with a regressive flat tax... hidden from the pay stub of the voter.. so that those with the least to pay, with the most at risk in their employment, and the least educated, don't ever get on thinking to the unfairness of the design.

Tax our employment costs once only... would be the greatest boast to the Canadian voters standard of living, the opening up of free enterprise ingenuity and entrepreneurial creativity in generating further employment, and creating fairness in the taxation system where taxes come from profits... and not from costs of doing business and employing Canadians.

A marginal small enterprise business employing people over profits should not be subsidizing through direct taxation of 'before profits costs' to pay for the increased profits of multinational corporations through lower corporate taxes... profits which more and more are going to overseas 'investors' and not to Canadian families.

A simple solution IMO... take the 'S' out of GST. Simply mandate at the federal level that hourly wages paid will be considered an input credit cost to deduct from the level of revenue used to calculate GST owing... no different than supplies and equipment... I guess salaries for administration can continue to be subject to this surplus flat tax on their employment, but why punish revenues generated to pay low income and middle class hourly wage Canadians that only want to have jobs?

As a percentage of the low income Canadians employment costs to their disposable income... the GST flat tax is borderline criminal if people truly understood its design.

All business could continue to collect the full GST at the till... only difference would be hourly employee costs would be a deduction for the employer allowing them to keep the GST collected to subsidize paying their employees or making their small business enterprise profitable by capturing this value gap as caught in the tax for business profits.

A GST input tax credit for hourly employee costs would get my vote. If a party was committed to that I could over look a lot of other things, and vote for them who ever they were. I think we can all agree that taxes need to be paid, just not on the backs of working poor and the viability of middle class productivity.

No political party in Canada will support only taxing the revenue for Canadian hourly wage earners income once though... because no political party insider in Canada works for working class employed Canadians. If it ever came to where Canadian business got a GST input credit for the cost of their hourly employees, then I think we would see independent employment would blossom, and the diverse free enterprise system would be on the comeback, and the globalists that want a monopolist corpocracy funded by the working class Canadians would be dealt a severe setback... which is why it will never happen, and why all politicians are hypocrites... and why most with power are nothing more than sock puppets for the likes of Power Corp.

AIMHO

The idea that we are being taxed to death, because of the demands of the people for various things such as roads, schools, clean air, etc; etc; etc; is bogus.

We have been taxed for years for these purposes, and have pretty well all that we need, especially in the Northern part of British Columbia.

The fact of the matter is, our tax dollars are being wasted on a huge scale, by Governments, and Government entitys. If you use Prince George as an example you will get some idea of what I mean.

1. Who the hell in Prince George has been asking for a Performing Arts Centre. I suggest that you would be hard pressed to find 500 people who support such a waste of money, however it will probably be built, and we will be taxed over and over to pay for it and to run it.

2. The same thing applies to the Community Energy System. What taxpayers of Prince George asked the City to spend millions on this BS project.

3. The Boundry Road Connection will cost us millions of dollars, however there will be no benefit to taxpayers, while some developers and contractors stand to make some money.

4. I am not aware of any taxpayers in Prince George that specifically asked for the establishment of the Airport Autority, or for the expansion of the Airport Runway, however we managed to spend $36 Million dollars on this project, and we get nothing in return.

5. The building of the Northern Sports Centre was decided by a local group of Prince George residents, (The same group that is pushing for the PAC) and the Provincial Government. Local taxpayers have the honour of paying maintenance costs for this monolith for the next 50 years.

6. The building of the so called Wood Innovation Building downtown, is the dream of a few politicians, and some local contractors, and developers, however very few if any (average) taxpayers asked for this building, and in fact they dont know what the hell it is all about, however once again they will pay for it through taxes.

There are many other projects that cost huge dollars, and are decided by a few politicians in conjunction with vested interest groups, however certainly not taxpayers.

There are 50,000 eligible voters in Prince George, and I would suggest that 90 percent of them did not support any of the above projects.

Once we add the huge cost of staffing and running these projects, and the huge cost of Government overall, plus the obscene salaries of those in Government and Government entitys like BCLC, BCTC, BC Hydro, ICBC, Worksafe BC, BC Liquor Control Board, etc; etc; etc. it then becomes pretty obvious where our tax dollars are going.

To suggest that the cause of our problems are Health Care, Education, and Clean Air, is pure unadulterated BS.

The cause of our problem is simplistic terms in too many people feeding at the public trough.

Thats how those Europoean Countries went broke, and thats how we are going to go broke if we dont smarten up.

NMG:-"Why then the rush to lower them even more, especially when we are in a deficit position and given the government's need to fund core services?"

--------------------------------------------

The "rush" can be traced back to the ongoing need of Firms for an increase in their retained earnings. With advancing technology and automation most Firms require the retention of larger 'working capital' account balances to continue to operate.

Additionally, if too many Firms do not re-invest at least as much as their fixed Assets depreciate annually, they are in a sense "living off their depreciation." Their plant is literally wearing out under them, and ongoing inflation might make its eventual replacement prohibitively costly.

And there is a need for Firms, particularly large, widely held Firms, to be able to offer shareholders a return on investment in the form of dividends at least equal to what other investments in securities with less risk and greater liquidity offer.

High corporate income tax rates reduce Firms' ability to do these three things that are necessary if they are to continue in business. If they DON'T continue in business, there are no incomes from anyone to tax.

Socred, I think the answer you look for in the dichotomy between the upper loop of financial sector monitization where they create the money... and the lower loop of the actual commercial and industrial workers economy where we borrow in loans and are subject to the rules of accounting and economic regulation... and thus will always be at the mercy of the upper loop masters as they use the power of supply of money to monopolize wealth... I think the answer you look for is in the bankruptcy laws.

Fix the injustice of bankruptcy laws, and I think you through market forces then fix the NWO dichotomy of private bankster wealth in money creation... taking away from their ability to harvest the lower loop and the governments of the people. Its through the bankruptcy laws that the fix is made, answering your missing data, and the assets are harvested, and the accounts are balanced always in the upper loops favor.

Something to think about anyways....

The corporations are already being subsidized by the taxpayer through the cost of medical premiums for their employees compared to what they are paying in the U.S.

This was one of the "unfair advantages" that the U.S. manufacturers claimed when they were negotiating NAFTA

I disagree, Palopu. Not totally, for as you say, there is indeed much blatant waste and overspending in our bloated governments.

But large a problem as that is, it pales completely beside a much larger one.

Which is that our financial system, as it is presently constituted, is becoming increasingly less fully "self-liquidating". What's DISTRIBUTED to Consumers as CURRENT Incomes, in total, will NOT equate to the total Costs of Production that have to be recovered in Prices.

Under this scenario, the private sector cannot fully repay its "floating" debt, and periodic pile-ups of it have to be converted into the "fixed" debt of the public sector. Which can NEVER be fully repaid either, but governments have the singular ability to TAX to service it, (pay the interest). So far. But THAT is getting more difficult, even with interest rates still near historic lows.

The latest example of this is the recent large scale 'stimulus' spending engaged in by the Federal government. For businesses that would've otherwise failed to be kept going. The alternative? A complete meltdown of the whole economy. Instead the government 'deficit' spent enough money for them to carry on.

Unfortunately, while the alternative would've been much worse, the problem has only been deferred. Not solved. It would remained with us even if an alternative course had been followed, only compounded, no doubt, by a full scale Depression.

It cannot be rectified to any degree by even the most cost conscious government. As we'd soon find out if we tried, (again, it's been tried before), And this is not to say that we should not try to force our governments to be more 'cost conscious'~ we should, BUT ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEEDED CHANGES TO RESTORE OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM TO BEING FULLY "SELF-LIQUIDATING" AGAIN. Anything less will be doomed to failure, and what comes out of that failure will likely be worse than what we've got now.

The problem is with the "ownership" of financial credit, Eagle. We allow the private Banks to "administer" credit, which, in my opinion at least, is as it should be. But they definitely do NOT "own" it. WE DO.

Of course, their "administration" is, or should be, subject to the same kind of public oversight and regulation that would apply to any other 'monopoly'. For banking is what we call a 'natural monopoly'.

Not in that there is only ONE Bank, but in that we want the credit that ANY one Bank creates to be fully fungible at any OTHER Bank, and in the community at large.

This takes a considerable amount of close co-ordination between and amongst the Banks themselves. And in that here, the Bank of Canada acts in a manner somewhat akin to that of a conductor to the orchestra.

While Banks arguably do a passable job of "administering" public credit, there is a fundamental, but correctable, "flaw" in the accounting, or financial, system itself. One by which they are often caused to act as if they OWNED financial credit, and it existed for the primacy of THEIR, not our, benefit.

Whether this "flaw" has been purposefully utilized by bankers to use their purported ownership of public credit for private gain, both of wealth and of power, or whether that's something that "just happens" has been the subject of great controversy ever since the advent of modern banking in conjunction with the Industrial Revolution.

There is considerable evidence to support both points of view. And it cannot be denied that, like in any other field of endeavour, if an opportunity to be exploited is there, somebody in a position to exploit it will take it.

Perhaps the only way that will ever be determined for sure will be when the "flaw" is more widely understood, and enough people call for its correction. Then we can observe just 'who' is opposed, and 'why'.

So far as the 'Bankruptcy Laws' are concerned, I have no real problem with them, per se. Many bankruptcies are caused by mismanagement, inexperience, poor choice of product to offer, etc. Things that are peculiar to the individual business. People try, sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail ~ many are just not cut out to be in business. Bankruptcy gives them a way out.

But many more bankruptcies have very little to do with the abilities of the individual businessman. Who often may be exceptionally competent in his field of endeavour, but still ends up going titters because of a general credit contraction. Where the source of 'money' suddenly dries up, and he has debt obligations to pay he cannot meet.

His product may be in demand, his plant or store, excellent. He may have a long established clientele, a good track record as a competent businessman, but suddenly he finds himself, often unexpectedly, facing a "financial crises", not of his making, but ruinous to him and his business if he cannot get the funds he requires.

The Bank that extended him the loan, the one he's now delinquent on, has, in conjunction with its fellow Banks, just denied him the "means of repayment." He fails. He's foreclosed upon, and his business is often sold off for a fraction of what it should've been worth, had there been no "credit crunch".

The problem we have to deal with is WHY was there a "credit crunch" in the first place? And to do that we have to examine, understand and correct that "flaw" that I mentioned. It is doable. The means have been known since the early 1920's, and once were widely considered throughout the English speaking world, and elsewhere. They were 'short circuited' by the first attempts at 'stimulus spending' back in the 1930's. And then by the War, and the post-War boom. Now we're back to square one. Do we repeat what's been tried and failed before, at great human cost? Or take another look at something else?

Socred, I read your assessments and opinions regularly and there are certainly some great and verifiable facts to be found there, most of the concerns (too much borrowing, spending, debt, etc.) are shared by me and most of the people I know.

The question is when are these international, national, provincial and municipal methods (financial and otherwise) going to be addressed collectively (as one) and how.

Every country is clamouring for trade and investment, jobs and profits. Countries are competing with each other, as are states and provinces in each country (Canada included) and there is competition for investment, tax dollars, stimulus funds and businesses even between cities and towns in each province.

Which brings me to the comments about Prince George and the opinion that Prince George should not have any of the infrastructure investments and future expansions/projects which were made in the last few years and which are being contemplated now.

Many of these were/are being done with funding contributions from three levels of government tax money, two of these being federal and provincial.

That tax money is our tax money which we have already paid or which is being borrowed and paid for in the future with our taxes.

If WE (Prince George) refuse to participate and apply for federal and provincial funding which are being made available to those who apply - does anybody actually and seriously believe that the funds that we refuse will be stricken from the budgets and the money NOT spent?

Those who think so are dreaming in technicolor!

So, it is a Catch 22 situation. If we don't get it, other cities will gladly take it!
It will be put to use.

The WHOLE system must be changed simultaneously before it would make any sense for one city (Prince George) to actively refuse getting federal and provincial cost sharing!

Why should Prince George not have any of the amenities and facilities which other cities in B.C. acquired under the cost sharing arrangements which were available to all of them?

If they improve the economy and business climate of other cities through new tourism, business, healthcare, educational, recreational opportunities, why would we deny ourselves the same?

Unless the whole system is changed FIRST I have little sympathy for the argument that we should do with little or nothing while everybody else is going for the whole enchilada all the time.

Wow, lots of different opinions here.

You know I got curious about what's changed Federally in the last 10 years. Specifically, where does the money come from 10 years ago for the Feds and where do they get their money from now. People or Corporations?

2000 it was like this:

14% of the money came from Corporate Income Tax.
48% of the money came from Personal Income Tax.

Fast forward to 2010 it's like this:

13.9% of the money comes from Corporate Income Tax.
47.6% of the money comes from Personal Income Tax.

In other words, in the past 10 years we have had 5 years of the Federal Liberals and 5 years of the Federal Conservatives........NOTHING has changed.

If you ask me what we can gain from this is GST went from 7% to 5% and personal income tax has seen a similar decrease.

Are we a better country because we have lower taxes. Yes, as a country you never want to have one of the highest tax rates because new investment won't come. But to be the lowest, doesn't benefit us as Canadians either. We need the services that the Governements provide. Paying a fair amount for these services is key.

"We need the services that the Governements provide. Paying a fair amount for these services is key."

True enough. We also need to take advantage of the stimulus funds and cost sharing funds that the governments provide - they are a part of these services.

Eagleone wrote:

"A GST input tax credit for hourly employee costs would get my vote."

That makes no sense. If you gave businesses an input tax credit for their payroll then that would mean that employees would have to collect GST on their wages and remit this to the government. You can't get an input tax credit where no GST was collected.

Plus, don't forget. GST accounts for 14% of what the Federal government takes in for revenues. If you gave businesses an input tax credit for their payroll then the take from GST would likely drop in half if not more. That would be a shortfall of about $14 Billion dollars.

Where do you find another $14 Billion dollars? That is about 7% of their spending. Good luck with that.

I am going to go back to the statement that BCRacer was not enamoured with.

"In a community like this, I think this is pretty much (sic) a pocketbook issue."
A community like what?"

I would say he was refering to the community profile information from Census Canada which compares the federal ridings.

There is a difference among ridings such as Vancouver Quadra which has the sixth highest average family income Oakville Ontario which leads that category in Canada. Toronto has more than half of the top ten ridings by that measure in Canada.

The Canadian average riding, average family income is $82,325

Oakville = $147,905
Quadra = $145,241
North Vancouver = $101,570
PG-Peace = $85,446
Cariboo-PG = $75,713

Thus PG is straddling the Canadian average.

We are a comunity dominated by workers, not owners of mid to large businesses. Those who will benefit directly from corporate tax cuts live in regions surrounding large urban centres - Toronto primarily with some in the Canuck hinterlands such as Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary.

You can see that people on here generaly do not like the taxes the average worker is paying.

You might not like the sender of the message, but the message is dead on. In this community the issue is a pocketbook issue. I doubt that in the Quadra and Oakvilles of the country it is the same kind of pocketbook issue.

If you think it isn't BCRacer, then tell us what the issue is.

The way I see it, Prince George, is that we are continually "led down the garden path" by our quest for 'stimulus funds' when a Federal, or even Provincial, government announces they are available.

You are undoubtedly correct that if any community refused them, they would only be spent elsewhere. And overall, as Canadian taxpayers, we'd still find ourselves paying anyways. For something constructed elsewhere that was of no particular benefit to us here. So in that sense it makes sense to "get while the getting's good."

But really, aside from any real benefits that might accrue to us, or anyone else from their provision, these funds are just another clever version of "divide and conquer" politics. With the ultimate "conqueror" being the financial system itself, in tightening the hold IT has over us through "our" government.

There is very little difference between the 'stimulus' version and the more familiar alternate one, where one section of taxpayers are set off against another through a tax policy that makes it seem as if it's "robbing Peter to pay Paul." A policy that can't help but be popular with 'Paul'.

At the moment, it seems as if 'Peter' is the long suffering Consumer, and 'Paul' the Firms who are supposedly receiving great tax benefits at his expense.

Through HST, cuts to the corporate Income Tax rate, etc. Those Firms, those who CLOSELY examine their own books, would say it is not so. And they're right.

Right that their rate of profit HASN'T really been greatly changed by such government largesse. Profit that in general, over time, as a PERCENTAGE of Sales is still DECLINING.

This is not to say the dollar figure of both Sales and Profit for many individual Firms never increases, for often it does. But in general most Firms still have to sell MORE to make as much, or less, Profit than they were previously booking from a lower volume of Sales in times past.

There are numerous corporate histories available that detail this very phenomenon. Ones on the former premiere Canadian multi-national forest giant, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., recount it very well. They don't however, ever ask "Why?"

Oftentimes the larger a Firm gets, in an effort to try to reverse this trend, it only succeeds in deferring the inevitable ~ that they are heading straight for eventual bankruptcy.

It is why many seemingly well managed, profitable, independent producers often seek to merge with, or sell out to, larger producers. With the large eventually swallowing the large, and getting still larger again. Really to no avail, except deferment of what's inevitable.

It's apparent this is happening, just look at the forest industry here, or, getting away from that particularly troubled field, the way many local community Credit Unions have now been merged into larger ones. It exists in all business sectors, from fast food, to agriculture, to retailing.

Even the Banks themselves are not immune ~ just wait until there's a solid 'majority' government in Ottawa again, and watch merger mania revive amongst the big Banks, too. For there are "Banks as banks", and "Banks as businesses" ~ and as the latter they're subject to the much same circumstances as every other Firm.

Those who promise to reverse the situation for the benefit of "the people", by "taxing the big Corporations" MORE, (but not, at the same time, you and I any LESS!), would have us believe that such a prescription will be the cure for everything.

It won't be. It's been tried, here and elsewhere, and all it's ever led to anywhere is stagnation and a greater universalization of poverty. It is the philosophy of "misery likes company" ~ all will be 'equal'. Equally poor, that is.

It is the policy of leveling down, never up. It is the fundamental difference between 'socialism', and 'social credit' ~ not of the "nostalgic-most-electable-label-of-convenience" brand that the BC Social Credit Party descended into in its final incarnation, but the real thing.

How do we do it here without affecting our current dependence on factors elsewhere, ones beyond our control? We pick up what they once started out to do, right where they "lost the thread of the story", and go from there. It need not affect international 'trade', but it would reveal some interesting things about this 'trade' ~ ones that might cause us to question what we've been doing, and why. For it corrects the "flaw" that causes our economy to under-perform so often, wasting so much while so many are still wanting.

"Those who promise to reverse the situation for the benefit of "the people", by "taxing the big Corporations" MORE, (but not, at the same time, you and I any LESS!), would have us believe that such a prescription will be the cure for everything. It won't be. It's been tried, here and elsewhere, and all it's ever led to anywhere is stagnation and a greater universalization of poverty. It is the philosophy of "misery likes company" ~ all will be 'equal'. Equally poor, that is."

Thanks for this! It describes precisely what is wrong with the NDP in Canada, both federal and provincial.

If you are sometimes quoting from a book or a platform please let me know what it is.

As for the matter of turning up our noses at available government funding - it's good to know that there are some more people around who actually understand that it's no use to gripe and whine: The money will be spent elsewhere.

Facts of life.

The money very well may be spent elsewhere, and therin lies the problem.

If we want this Government money then we have to do the **matching fund** thing, and build stupid projects that we dont need.

So, we do this so that we get our fair share of the available (short term) money, even though over the long haul, it means an increase in taxes. This is really brilliant. To continue to do this over an extended period of time, gaurantees that we will go broke, because of the increase in taxes, and maintenance costs for these ill conceived projects.

At the very least we should have the option to access the money from the different levels of Government with no **strings attached**. This would allow us to build projects that provide some sort of service to the community, like low cost housing, water, sewer, garbage, etc;

To get Government funding to build tunnels under roads, re-do perfectly good cenotaphs, upgrade roads that dont need upgrading, build community energy systems, that at best are totally useless, build a downtown wood innovation building, that would be better built at the University, expand our airport runway on the pretense that we will attract cargo jets, etc; etc; does not solve any problems, nor does it create any long term employment.

Perhaps if we reduced taxes, and allowed individuals to spend their money on what they wanted, we would be better off. Constantly pulling money out of consumers pockets to fund BS projects overtime can only cause us some serious problems.

As Henry Ford once said. If the people do make make any money, who will buy my cars.

Since some believe that we are going to do the PAC (no matter what!) wouldn't it be better to get matching funding for it?

For sure.

Maybe we should try that rather than contemplate paying the whole thing out of our own pocket?

How come nobody squawks when we spend 16 billion dollars on new jet fighters when the present ones are more than adequate?

What benefit will I as a taxpayer derive from supersonic fighter jets or 2 billion dollars worth of second hand Leopard tanks to chase elusive shadows in Afghanistan?

Spending tax money in P.G. makes more sense to me.

"The money very well may be spent elsewhere, and therin lies the problem."

Exactly!!!! In my opinion, the problem points very much to the fact that the senior governments do not do much integrated planning on a national and provincial basis.

Their planning work is primarily associated with "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" school of planning.

------------------------------------
"Perhaps if we reduced taxes, and allowed individuals to spend their money on what they wanted, we would be better off"

Not if half of them take off to Mexico and Cuba and export our money to help the underpriviledged countries.

Can the Jets be built in PG? We could use the new runway. Parts from other countries can be shipped by containers.

The final products are a small number, so no mass delivery logistics to the rest of the world.

On top of that, the finished products simply fly off on their own. :-)

We have wide open spaces, the same as Manitoba, to do test flights.

No, I'm not quoting from a book or a platform, Prince George, though there have been several of both in times past that voiced the same sentiments, and quite probably far better, too.

The NDP is really its own worst enemy. It is wedded to failed ideology, and those few within its midst who have encouraged a re-examination of that ideology have been marginalised.

The stalwarts are determined to see the world as they think it ought to be, and won't accept the reality of the world as it is.

They often have the best of intentions, sometimes they are even very forward thinking in identifying future problems. But they invariably prescribe a remedy that creates a larger problem than the one they hoped to solve.

Their worse sin is that they have never understood "finance". And so they become an unwitting tool of those who control it.

They talk about "re-distribution", to make all "equal". But if you asked them why they've never proposed to "re-distribute" the greatest cause of inequality of them all ~ the National Debt ~ you draw a complete blank.

For surely if the country is said to be 'poorer' by all those growing hundreds of billions written up as our National Debt, then the holders of that debt must be that much 'richer' by the same amount, wouldn't you say? Just WHO would that be, pray tell? WHO holds the vast majority of our National Debt, and just where did they get the 'money'? You won't hear the NDP ever ask that.

Palopu:-"Perhaps if we reduced taxes, and allowed individuals to spend their money on what they wanted, we would be better off. Constantly pulling money out of consumers pockets to fund BS projects over time can only cause us some serious problems."
-----------------------------------------

EXACTLY! "Consumer demand is the origin of all (sane) economic activity." But Consumer demand is expressed in our modern times through 'money', and has to also be EFFECTIVE demand.

And if we keep removing 'money' in taxes, to SUPPOSEDLY pay for "BS projects", we inhibit our ability to make Consumer demand fully effective FROM MONEY ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC for products the public actually needs and wants as they continually come onto the market.

So we don't really pay for "BS projects", or even ones that are better planned and really needed from taxes directly. We pay for them through an expansion of credit. Loans. Ones which we will not ever be able to repay. They will be continually "rolled over", as one Bond or Treasury bill issue matures and is replaced by another one. Our taxes will pay the interest. For ever and ever.

gus:-"Not if half of them take off to Mexico and Cuba and export our money to help the underpriviledged countries."
-------------------------------------------

You don't spend Canadian money in Cuba or Mexico. You spend Cuban or Mexican money. Which you "buy" with your Canadian money. Theoretically, this gives those countries Canadian money that they can spend the only place it really can be spent ~ in Canada. On the purchase of CANADIAN goods and services, for export to Cuba or Mexico. Theoretically.

Prince George:-"How come nobody squawks when we spend 16 billion dollars on new jet fighters when the present ones are more than adequate?

What benefit will I as a taxpayer derive from supersonic fighter jets or 2 billion dollars worth of second hand Leopard tanks to chase elusive shadows in Afghanistan?"
------------------------------------------

It creates "employment", Prince George. Which distributes "incomes" that can be spent on goods and services already in existence but otherwise unsaleable due to lack of incomes. But even better, unlike spending on possibly more sensible public works projects, military hardware represents costs that are expected to be written off. In a war the planes might be shot down, or the tanks destroyed.

The cost of more sensible public works projects would have to be justified over time, or any government constructing them would be criticised for mismanaging public funds.

Likely if the tanks are sent to Afghanistan, at the time of our leaving they'll be left there. A gift from us to them, courtesy of our tax dollars, (sort of). Then we get to work some more, making some more. Or some parts for them, anyways. or something else we can trade someone for them.

There were literally billions of dollars worth of US military hardware left in Viet Nam when the Commies took over. When Saigon fell, and the US was evacuating everyone by helicopter, the decks of their aircraft carriers got so congested with helicopters they shoved them off the end of the flight deck and into the sea, after they landed and the passengers got off.

When it comes to war, there literally is no end of money. In the early 1930's a British government was hounded from office after they'd overspent the Budget that year by seven million pounds paying relief to the unemployed. Ten years later the British government's Budget was being overspent by seven million pounds a DAY, and nobody batted an eye.

We were said to be "broke" all through the 'dirty Thirties'. No money to fix roads, keep school teachers, do anything. In 1939 we declared war on Germany. The same Minister of Finance who'd be crying poor every time there was a request for funding from anyone, DIDN'T rise in the Commons and tell us all that even though we'd like to go to war, that Hitler was evil incarnate and needed to be stopped, we just couldn't do it. We just didn't have the money. What was "missing" for ten long years was suddenly "found". And by the end of the war we were far richer materially than we'd ever been at its beginning.

"When it comes to war, there literally is no end of money."

Limited money for peaceful endeavors but limitless money for wars. Mankind has not advanced much since the days when cavemen caved each others skulls in with clubs...

Since the spat with the UAE Harper is spending 400 million on a new military air base for our Afghanistan contingent elsewhere.

It makes no sense, as we are supposedly going to be assuming a NON military role there.

Unfortunately politicians (as usual) get away with the silliest things. It's not their money they are spending, so they just don't give a hoot.

Socredible, you worte: "You don't spend Canadian money in Cuba or Mexico. You spend Cuban or Mexican money."

I am so happy about that. Now I can feel relieved about Csnadians buying all those Chinese made goods. :-)

Boob Rae find it easier to chat about socialism to a bunch of ivory tower denizens than a large room full of older 30 year taxpaying oldsters? No wonder George Bush was reading to a bunch of Grade Twos. These politicians are smart. Avoid the tough people with real questions.