[tamtam10]

This is a great article about why these so called "great" tax cuts really end up costing Canadians money in the long run.

http://informedvote.ca/2009/01/more-des ... riend-jim/

Enjoy!

[ridenrain]

But it can't be wrong because St. Obma is doing it also

Quote:

Obama, who said the economy was "bad and getting worse," spoke before meeting with congressional leaders in Washington, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

"The economy is very sick. The situation is getting worse … We have to act and act now to break the momentum of this recession."

He said he expects to sign the rescue bill by the end of January or the first of February.

The tax cuts for individuals and businesses would account for about 40 per cent of the stimulus package, which is expected to be between $675 billion and $775 billion, according to a number of published reports.

The reported tax cuts, bigger than expected, could be a way to garner support from Republicans who have been critical of the amount of spending in the package.

The package would include tax cuts of $500 to $1,000 for middle-class individuals and couples, and a total of more than $100 billion for businesses, officials said.

The plan would also provide one-year tax credits amounting to $40 billion to $50 billion for companies that hire new workers.

Obama also met with a bipartisan group of key legislators to discuss the package, which he has named the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.

"The reason we are here today is because the people's business cannot wait," Obama said as he arrived on Capitol Hill. "The Speaker and her staff have been extraordinarily helpful in working with our team so we can shape an economic recovery plan and start putting people back to work."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/0 ... mulus.html

Seriously, I don't like this either. It's another example of looking like their doing something instead of actually doing something effective.

[GordieCanuk]

All this stimulation I fear is going to end up stimulating run away inflation.

[Sapio]

GordieCanuk wrote:

All this stimulation I fear is going to end up stimulating run away inflation.

You are right sir. I can not understand why people do not get this. "Planning" by the government only hurt our economy. I think Hayek showed that well. STOP ALL government involvement in the economy and watch it go.

[GordieCanuk]

Sapio wrote:

You are right sir. I can not understand why people do not get this. "Planning" by the government only hurt our economy. I think Hayek showed that well. STOP ALL government involvement in the economy and watch it go.

Whoa whoa...and whoa. I'm not a big fan of ultimate solutions...Too much intervention is not a good thing, but ZERO intervention would be equally bad...at least in my opinion. Unfettered laissez fair capitalism isn't the answer...lack of government oversight got us into a lot of this mess.

[Sapio]

GordieCanuk wrote:

Sapio wrote:

You are right sir. I can not understand why people do not get this. "Planning" by the government only hurt our economy. I think Hayek showed that well. STOP ALL government involvement in the economy and watch it go.

Whoa whoa...and whoa. I'm not a big fan of ultimate solutions...Too much intervention is not a good thing, but ZERO intervention would be equally bad...at least in my opinion. Unfettered laissez fair capitalism isn't the answer...lack of government oversight got us into a lot of this mess.

We have never had "Unfettered laissez fair capitalism" there has always been some type of government involvement.Government involvement creates a lack of personnel freedom which is key for economic growth. The government should defend and protect the individuals right to freedom of personal and economic chose.

I would be interested in know how the lack of government oversight got us into this?

[Bruce_the_vii]

Well, infrastructure projects. The problem is they take time to start. They involve lengthy processes. The economy will have improved by the time they get rolling. The Economics 101 text states that governments are not good at creating jobs and certainly not timely jobs in a downturn. There is no known way of how to do it. However union hacks that get paid to write such articles will ignor this basic problem and carry on.

[Smacle]

tamtam10 wrote:

This is a great article about why these so called "great" tax cuts really end up costing Canadians money in the long run.

http://informedvote.ca/2009/01/more-des ... riend-jim/

(Smacles edit from the article)
For example, the people who need economic relief the most are those who are very poor or who are out of a job. How will a tax cut benefit someone who doesn’t have enough money in the first place to even pay taxes?

Furthermore, lower and middle income earners will only receive a couple hundred dollars at most as a result of this tax cut.

When Canadians get tax cuts, the only way that it can stimulate the economy is if people choose to spend their extra money on Canadian products.

The bottom line is that the government needs to take the money and pour it into the economy by creating jobs, not cutting taxes.
(End Smacles edit from the article)

Enjoy!

Tax cuts effect everyone, from the rich to the poor. The rich businesses will save more money from a tax cut than the poor people, this is true. However, where middle class people will only save a few hundreds of dollars(comparable to tax returns? we could just remove tax returns to counter act, I mean it isn't enough to make a difference anyways), people who are more wealthy(including businesses) will save more but the percentage is the same. Also, with lower tax costs on the buisnesses they will have an incentive to stay in Canada instead of moving their factories and what not to china, keeping jobs in Canada for the poor, middle, and rich classes.

So, no, there are more ways this will stimulate the economy than just counting on people to buy Canadian products. This is helping to ensure that everyone keeps their jobs and to ease financial pressure on everyone from the guy who bags your groceries to the guy who employs him. Not just the few big industries either(ref: pumping more money into Auto and Forestry) but all of them right down to the ma and pa corner store.

[GordieCanuk]

Sapio wrote:

We have never had "Unfettered laissez fair capitalism" there has always been some type of government involvement.Government involvement creates a lack of personnel freedom which is key for economic growth. The government should defend and protect the individuals right to freedom of personal and economic chose.

I would be interested in know how the lack of government oversight got us into this?

That's a fair comment, with respect to zero government interference...but as a reference point I would suggest looking at the time around the industrial revolution. Certainly there was some government interference...but not enough for many people. The Ebeneezer Scrooges of the world were quite happy I'm sure (pre-reformation of course) free to exploit child labour and no social safety net, just work houses and debtor prisons.

As for a lack of government oversight...just look at sub-prime lending practices and other toxic debt instruments.

[Ripcat]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Well, infrastructure projects. The problem is they take time to start. They involve lengthy processes. The economy will have improved by the time they get rolling. The Economics 101 text states that governments are not good at creating jobs and certainly not timely jobs in a downturn. There is no known way of how to do it. However union hacks that get paid to write such articles will ignor this basic problem and carry on.

So am I to believe that we have been funding infrastructure projects so well that there aren't hundreds of fully planned projects just waiting on the money to start them?......

[bootlegga]

I don't have a problem with tax cuts, but I'd prefer income tax cuts to consumption tax cuts (like the GST), as these affect everyone, not just the top 20%.

What we need now is an investment package that creates jobs, which is why infrastructure investment is a good start. It also has the added bonus of increasing commerce when the economy does recover, as new roads, airports, and rail lines make moving people and cargo around the cheaper and quicker. Repairing other non-commercial infrastructure, like leaky water pipes, would also help us save millions of litres of water every year too.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Ripcat wrote:

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Well, infrastructure projects. The problem is they take time to start. They involve lengthy processes. The economy will have improved by the time they get rolling. The Economics 101 text states that governments are not good at creating jobs and certainly not timely jobs in a downturn. There is no known way of how to do it. However union hacks that get paid to write such articles will ignor this basic problem and carry on.

So am I to believe that we have been funding infrastructure projects so well that there aren't hundreds of fully planned projects just waiting on the money to start them?......

I see your point, maybe there is projects ready to go. I don't really know.

[Sapio]

GordieCanuk wrote:

Sapio wrote:

We have never had "Unfettered laissez fair capitalism" there has always been some type of government involvement.Government involvement creates a lack of personnel freedom which is key for economic growth. The government should defend and protect the individuals right to freedom of personal and economic chose.

I would be interested in know how the lack of government oversight got us into this?

That's a fair comment, with respect to zero government interference...but as a reference point I would suggest looking at the time around the industrial revolution. Certainly there was some government interference...but not enough for many people. The Ebeneezer Scrooges of the world were quite happy I'm sure (pre-reformation of course) free to exploit child labour and no social safety net, just work houses and debtor prisons.

As for a lack of government oversight...just look at sub-prime lending practices and other toxic debt instruments.

Who created the sub-prime rate in States? The fed was keeping the rate low and print the money. Making it to easy for the baks to get money and thus leding it. As for the industrial revolution there was tons of government regulation. Take "free trade" there was still ton of government involvement. I'm not saying that Child labor is a good thing. I'm say that government should not control people economic chose. The government is here to protect our most basic of rights. If that is what they did we would have a much more economy.

[Zipperfish]

Sapio wrote:

The government is here to protect our most basic of rights. If that is what they did we would have a much more economy.

From my brief foray in economics I was introduced to the concept of economic efficiency. From my understanding of that concept the closer we get to economic efficiency, the richer we'll be but the harder we'll have to work to hang on to what we have. It would be an uber-competitve environment, where no one could be better off without making someone else worse off.

Is that the desired end? More economy? Should we be here to service the economy, or should the economy be here to serve us?

[ziggy]

I thought inflation was at an all time low now.