Something you wouldnt expect in America

[danyboy27]

In the fear of a catastrophic upcoming election, the canadian conservative party is looking for a new budget. The options on the table are, listen up folks, taxing the rich to finance the safety net and perhaps cancelling the f-35 deal. the think tank they consulted also recommand that they trash their whole prison investement. Possibility of a Legacy tax on the super rich have also been mentionned.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/03/15/pol-budget-alternate.html

[Agnapostate]

I wouldn't expect Canada to be called part of America in America. :p

(JK)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Wait......You mean in order to balance the budget, Canadian conservatives are calling for pushing for higher taxes on the very wealthy and are cutting back on unneeded defense spending?

Hopefully Canada will follow the advice, as well as contact conservatives to the south immediately. Some like myself think this think tank's findings would be common sense, but conservatives in the us don't get it.

[¿Que?]

Uh hu, and we can expect all that capital being taxed to stay in Canada? Um, there's a reason reformism doesn't work.

[danyboy27]

Uh hu, and we can expect all that capital being taxed to stay in Canada? Um, there's a reason reformism doesn't work.
Well, the objective is to balence the budget, giving it away to folks rather than using it to pay for the deficit would be actually pretty dumb.

I am not saying reformism ''work'', all i am saying is that when the elites have a ''gun'' (the elections in that case) pointed to their head, they will make ''progressive'' moves.

Personally i want the conservatives to screw this one up so bad that they will never come back from this one.

[¿Que?]

Well, the objective is to balence the budget, giving it away to folks rather than using it to pay for the deficit would be actually pretty dumb.

I am not saying reformism ''work'', all i am saying is that when the elites have a ''gun'' (the elections in that case) pointed to their head, they will make ''progressive'' moves.

Personally i want the conservatives to screw this one up so bad that they will never come back from this one.
Well I'm totally for taxing the rich too, but there's always the risk of capital flight. It's mostly what conservatives say anyway.

[danyboy27]

Well I'm totally for taxing the rich too, but there's always the risk of capital flight. It's mostly what conservatives say anyway.

Well when Clinton raised taxes in the U.S back then, there was indeed capital that was diverted, but the bulk of it created a surplus in the us governement budget.

Personally, i just find the whole thing really amusing, beccause not so long ago those conservatives where all cocky and wanted to be ''tough on crime'' rebuild the military and giving a tax break for the rich.

now that they been exposed for the fraud that they are for obstruction, hidding public informations from congressman and running a bigger deficit, and playing with the people money for political gain, they are litteraly running for the hills.

I am really enjoying what is going on right now.

[RGacky3]

Uh hu, and we can expect all that capital being taxed to stay in Canada? Um, there's a reason reformism doesn't work.


Yeah, because places with really really low taxes on capital (the united states) have a MUCH lower outsourcing rate.

Also its not a tax on capital, its a tax on the super rich (through income I presume), its a tax on personal wealth. That personal wealth is not national capital that benefits the country.

Also even if it WAS capital tax, with enough protections in place you can avoid capital flight.

You have a strong domestic market, along with tarrifs and a strong union force, where is capital gonna go?

[¿Que?]

Yeah, because places with really really low taxes on capital (the united states) have a MUCH lower outsourcing rate.

Also its not a tax on capital, its a tax on the super rich (through income I presume), its a tax on personal wealth. That personal wealth is not national capital that benefits the country.

Also even if it WAS capital tax, with enough protections in place you can avoid capital flight.

You have a strong domestic market, along with tarrifs and a strong union force, where is capital gonna go?
Well, the article says they are increasing corporate tax as well as taxes on rich people. In any case, doesn't protectionism violate trade agreements we may have?

[danyboy27]

Well, the article says they are increasing corporate tax as well as taxes on rich people. In any case, doesn't protectionism violate trade agreements we may have?

the us have been doing protectionism for ages and it dosnt seem to violate any trade agreement, and even if it does they where always able to get away with murder.

Take the corn and cotton farmer subsidies for exemple, this is flat out protectionism, and they are doing it anyway.

Even today after canada solved ''disputes'' over exported timber, they still subsidize their lumber industries and that is also a blatant exemple of protectionism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Not only does the usa have huge agriculture subsidies, we're also at the forefront of penalizing third world countries that give agriculture subsidies via free trade agreements and imf loans etc

[danyboy27]

or in other words;
Protectionism is evil only when the chinese are doing it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well it's the same way with public benefits. They're only bad when someone else is taking them. When it's the conservative's turn, they will guffaw for hours trying to justify why they deserve welfare.