Conservative Economics

Conservative Economics

Reverend Blair

#1Jun 29th, 2005

It strikes me that when Conservatives figure out their budgets, they skip a lot.

If their economic policies were a household budget, they wouldn't put in any for:

Upkeep for their home and property (environment)
Tipping the waitress at the bar (foreign aid)
Buying presents for family members (domestic social programs)
Books for their kids (education)
Home renovations (infrastructure)

It seems to me that they must live empty, austere lives. Either that or they just refuse to pay their bills.

Said1

Free Thinker

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 29th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

It strikes me that when Conservatives figure out their budgets, they skip a lot.

If their economic policies were a household budget, they wouldn't put in any for:

Upkeep for their home and property (environment)
Tipping the waitress at the bar (foreign aid)
Buying presents for family members (domestic social programs)
Books for their kids (education)
Home renovations (infrastructure)

It seems to me that they must live empty, austere lives. Either that or they just refuse to pay their bills.

Sounds a lot like my landlady. Remember that movie "Throw Mamma From the Train"? Well, this women is just as evil, and even looks like mamma, c'ept for the neato old lady perm. I'd like to throw her from the freekin O-Train!

Jay

RE: Conservative Economics

Jun 29th, 2005

Strange...but I see your point.

I suppose if you think that we wouldn't provide for ourselves you would be a socialist and vote accordingly.

Toro

RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 29th, 2005

There's a difference between conservative economics and Conservative Party economics. Unfortunately, there is a strain on the right that thinks all you have to do is cut taxes and everything will take care of itself. That is wrong. If you cut taxes, you should cut spending as well, at least over a cycle. Conservative political parties have opted to cut taxes and not cut spending because that is politically popular.

Reverend Blair

RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 29th, 2005

When you cut spending, what happens to those who depend on that spending, Toro? A society has an obligation to take of its most vulnerable members, but spending cuts traditionally affect those people first, precisely because they are the most vulnerable.

ol' dawg

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 29th, 2005

Reaganomics:

Wasn't Reagons economics based on the trickle down affect? And those at the bottom felt everyone was "trickling" on them?

Toro

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 29th, 2005

That's a fair comment Rev. What do you cut? The Right, or at least part of it, doesn't want to answer that question because its politically unpopular to cut spending most of the time. There's a part of the political Right that believes cutting taxes means more government income. That's true in extreme circumstances such as the UK in the 1970s when earned capital gains on real estate were taxed at a rate of 98%, but it really doesn't apply in most markets of North America. In fact, despite Bush's posturing, discretionary government spending has risen more under his term than it ever did under Clinton, even excluding military spending. In Canada, its going to become more and more difficult to cut taxes because health care spending is growing faster than the economy and the population is getting older.

But that doesn't mean you can't tailor tax policy when the times suit it. I thought Bush's tax cuts were ingenious, even though too much went to the rich, it focused at least in part on the wrong kind, i.e. estate taxes, and it was completely accidental. Much of Bush's tax cuts have a sunset clause, i.e. they expire and go back up again. That's the absolute best fiscal policy response (unless demand has collapsed) because it gives a jolt to the economy then recalibrates when the economy is humming again. He wouldn't have been able to pass the cuts without the sunset clauses because the cuts would cause the deficit to explode. (And it did.) But of course, that wasn't the intention. Bush figured that Congress would squash the sunset clause and make the cuts permanent, figuring that no American politician wanted to be known for raising taxes. But its not working quite the way he thought. Now Congress is finding compromises, i.e. lifting the estate tax cieling from $1 million to $3 million and making it permanent instead of Bush's $10 million plan, or letting the sunset clauses expire as it is doing with the accelerated depreciation. So Bush crafted the absolute right policy response with the absolute wrong intentions. Sometimes its better to be lucky than good.

Reverend Blair

RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 29th, 2005

The trickling has never stopped, Old Dawg...they just changed the wording.

Aitrus

RE: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

The best thing about Reaganomics is you just turn it upside down and say "why won't this work then?"

Trickle down - cut taxes to the rich, and it will flow to the poor.

Ok

Trickle up - cut taxes to the poor, increasing their expendable income, and it will trickle up to the rich in the form of greater consumer purchase.

Owned.

Reverend Blair

#10

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote:

That's a fair comment Rev. What do you cut?

Corporate welfare. Far more is spent on that than social programs for the poor and working class.

Our governments regularly give tax breaks, grants, loans, etc to corporations who say they are going to create jobs etc. That's fine, but they seldom create as many jobs as they claim they will and often disappear the second they find another government that offers them more.

If they don't fulfill their part of the bargain, they should have to pay back the money. If they won't, or can't, then the government should seize their assets and either auction them off or use them to set up worker operated plants.

Quote: Originally Posted by Aitrus

Trickle up - cut taxes to the poor, increasing their expendable income, and it will trickle up to the rich in the form of greater consumer purchase.

That actually does more to stimulate the economy than giving anything to the rich. If you give a tax break to somebody making less than $50 k a year, it all goes back into the economy. It pays off debt, or buys a car or clothes or a couple cases of beer...whatever. It gets spent and creates jobs here in Canada.

When you give a tax break to somebody who is already rich, they invest it...often offshore or in corporations that send their profits offshore.

Aitrus

#11

RE: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

By the same right though, the impetus for tax cuts to corporations these days is globalization and the need to be internationally competitive.

Companies are highly mobile, and have plenty of options to choose from when building a new plant or factory. If your tax regime is too harsh, companies won't even look at you as an option for such new facilities.

But Canada seems to be doing alright. I heard the other day that one of the world's major auto companies decided to build their new plant in Southern Ontario. Don't know the details around it, but that's gotta indicate that our taxes aren't too awful for some companies at least.

Personally I like lower taxes and fewer programs. The government's assumption that they know better where to spend my money than me is annoying. I'm all for public programs that solve prisoner's dillema's or create insurance issues in the private sector, but sometimes you gotta wonder if you wouldn't be spending some of those tax dollars more wisely than the gov. does.

Jo Canadian

#12

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote:

but sometimes you gotta wonder if you wouldn't be spending some of those tax dollars more wisely than the gov. does.

Good point. The Gov't does have to buck up and start managing our money properly. The thing is, we'd have more problems if people in general were left to their own designs and finances. There's alot of stupid people out there, having had to work with the general public for quite awhile sometimes I shake my head wondering how people get through life being the way they are. Our hope is to elect someone to manage the money from us to better us as a whole, that's what the gov't is supposed to be for....supposed to.

Jay

#13

RE: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

"The thing is, we'd have more problems if people in general were left to their own designs and finances."

What ever happened to “we the people...or power to the people...”

Why I have to suffer because people can't wipe their own asses is beyond me. We have public education. Don't these people go? Or is it the problem...

Aitrus

#14

Re: RE: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

We have public education. Don't these people go? Or is it the problem...

They go, you just don't have to try very hard to pass. And most of it is pretty rudimentary stuff. If its anything like when I was in school, you could be a complete idiot and still get your high school diploma courtesy of "business math" and shop class.

They seriously need trade schools for people who don't give a **** about the theory of relativity or marxism or calculus. For a lot of these kids even general math is too abstract, get them into trades. We need more tradespeople anyways.

Reverend Blair

#15

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote:

By the same right though, the impetus for tax cuts to corporations these days is globalization and the need to be internationally competitive.

Governments can deal with globalization through trade deals etc though. Since the corporations have been insisting that their operations induce development for so long, it's time to hold them to it by making workers rights and environmental issues part of trade deals. That will promote real advances in developing countries while levelling he playing field.

Taxes also pay for programs that affect corporate operating costs. Part of the reason Toyota picked Canada is because of our health care system, for instance. US health care costs make operating there cost-prohibitive. GM recently blamed US health care costs for their recent lay-offs, for instance.

Aitrus

#16

RE: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Absolutely. There is more in the corporate decision making model than simply tax regime. But there is no doubt a threshold for how high taxes can be and still incite investment.

The health example is very very interesting, I hadn't heard that but wow, that is a pretty big blow to a lot of conservatives who would use the taxation vs investment argument. I know in some of the work I've done we look at infrastructure as a lure for investment. There isn't a lot of conclusive evidence, but there are anecdotes and a general trend that it's somewhat significant. Perhaps more important is that the more high tech an industry gets, the more quality of life - and by extension infrastructure, matter to business location. I.E. taxes can be high if the roads are good, there is public transit, a working airport, and broadband internet.

Toro

#17

Re: RE: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Aitrus

But Canada seems to be doing alright. I heard the other day that one of the world's major auto companies decided to build their new plant in Southern Ontario. Don't know the details around it, but that's gotta indicate that our taxes aren't too awful for some companies at least.

The governments of Ontario and Canada are spending $125 million to lure Toyota.

Story

Toro

#18

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Corporate welfare. Far more is spent on that than social programs for the poor and working class.

I generally don't think that governments should be giving specific subsidies for individual companies such as Bombardier, but governments do give incentives like they did to Toyota recently. I'd rather see government lower the general corporate tax rate rather than give government subsidies to specific corporations.

You asked earlier what to cut. If you haven't read --, do so. The Saskatchewan government cut a lot of spending but never cut social spending.

Nascar_James

#19

Re: RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

When you cut spending, what happens to those who depend on that spending, Toro? A society has an obligation to take of its most vulnerable members, but spending cuts traditionally affect those people first, precisely because they are the most vulnerable.

Good point. I am not against providing assistance to folks who are disabled and cannot work. However, paying taxes so able bodied persons can collect welfare is not good for the economy. The government in Canada needs to cut back on needless social programs so the average citizen will wind up paying less taxes. Not to mention cutting back on excessive govenrment waste. Also, providing corporations with tax incentives helps the economy as well.

Reverend Blair

#20

RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

What if there aren't enough jobs, James? What if somebody can't work for reasons other than a physical disability? What about social programs, such as continuing education, that help to get people back into the work force? What about dealing with social problems that lead to a lack of skills?

The right does not have a good record of supplying any of those things.

Said1

Free Thinker

#21

Re: RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair
When you cut spending, what happens to those who depend on that spending, Toro? A society has an obligation to take of its most vulnerable members, but spending cuts traditionally affect those people first, precisely because they are the most vulnerable.
Good point. I am not against providing assistance to folks who are disabled and cannot work. However, paying taxes so able bodied persons can collect welfare is not good for the economy. The government in Canada needs to cut back on needless social programs so the average citizen will wind up paying less taxes. Not to mention cutting back on excessive govenrment waste. Also, providing corporations with tax incentives helps the economy as well.

For example, what social programs would you suggest the government cut, aside from general welfare or industry subsidies?

Nascar_James

#22

Re: RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair
When you cut spending, what happens to those who depend on that spending, Toro? A society has an obligation to take of its most vulnerable members, but spending cuts traditionally affect those people first, precisely because they are the most vulnerable.
Good point. I am not against providing assistance to folks who are disabled and cannot work. However, paying taxes so able bodied persons can collect welfare is not good for the economy. The government in Canada needs to cut back on needless social programs so the average citizen will wind up paying less taxes. Not to mention cutting back on excessive govenrment waste. Also, providing corporations with tax incentives helps the economy as well.
For example, what social programs would you suggest the government cut, aside from general welfare or industry subsidies?

An example: The city of Montreal is roughly the size of Phoenix (over 3 million pop.). The last time I checked, Montreal had 66 city councillors, Phoenix only 10. How do you explain the huge discrepancy for cities with almost the same population count?

Reverend Blair

#23

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote:

The governments of Ontario and Canada are spending $125 million to lure Toyota.

That $125 million is creating jobs though, Toro. I would like to see caveats saying that if the jobs go away or the project gets downsized, that the money has to be repaid proportionately, but I don't have a problem with incentives that have a concrete goal.

Consider the situation with Buhler here a few years ago. They took the government's money, then decided to bust the union by moving to North Dakota. There was nothing that said they had to pay the money back, although they were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith.

Worse yet were some of the meat packing deals that the Filmon government signed. We paid millions for plants that never even came close to fulfilling their promises. We still export live hogs to the US (and whether the factory farms should be allowed is a whole other issue) instead of slaughtering them here, yet the meat is all destined for Asia.

I don't mind incentives, as long as they are reasonable, because they really are investments. What I don't like is when a company takes the money and runs, or comes back making threats and looking for more every few years.

Reverend Blair

#24

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote:

The city of Montreal is roughly the size of Phoenix (over 3 million pop.). The last time I checked, Montreal had 66 city councillors, Phoenix only 10. How do you explain the huge discrepancy for cities with almost the same population count?

Montreal is a complicated, diverse, and interesting city. Phoenix is...well...Phoenix.

Said1

Free Thinker

#25

Re: RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

An example: The city of Montreal is roughly the size of Phoenix (over 3 million pop.). The last time I checked, Montreal had 66 city councillors, Phoenix only 10. How do you explain the huge discrepancy for cities with almost the same population count?

City councillors are not paid by the federal government, they are paid by the city. Each councillor represents a ward within the city and at this point, I have no idea how many there are in Montreal.

Nascar_James

#26

Re: RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James
An example: The city of Montreal is roughly the size of Phoenix (over 3 million pop.). The last time I checked, Montreal had 66 city councillors, Phoenix only 10. How do you explain the huge discrepancy for cities with almost the same population count?
City councillors are not paid by the federal government, they are paid by the city. Each councillor represents a ward within the city and at this point, I have no idea how many there are in Montreal.

Same thing, it all amounts to gov'nt waste.

Said1

Free Thinker

#27

Re: RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Same thing, it all amounts to gov'nt waste.

What's the same thing?

Is a City counsillors salary considered a social program?

Any more examples of social programs that need to be cut?

Nascar_James

#28

Re: RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James
Same thing, it all amounts to gov'nt waste.
What's the same thing?

Is a City counsillors salary considered a social program?

Any more examples of social programs that need to be cut?

Well, one example of a big waste of government spenging is big unions, particularly in Quebec. They are a no good waste of taxpayers money.

Said1

Free Thinker

#29

Re: RE: Conservative Economic

Jun 30th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Said1
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James
Same thing, it all amounts to gov'nt waste.
What's the same thing?

Is a City counsillors salary considered a social program?

Any more examples of social programs that need to be cut?
Well, one example of a big waste of government spenging is big unions, particularly in Quebec. They are a no good waste of taxpayers money.

Is provincial spending on unions considered a social program? And why are they giving money to unions, I really have no idea.

Quebec spends their money a lot differently than the rest of Canada, at all levels. It's reflected in their taxes.

I think not

#30

Re: Conservative Economics

Jun 30th, 2005

There is nothing wrong with having social programs to help people with education, unemployment etc...

You just need to control costs.

Similar Threads

On the economics of criminal justice.
by Machjo | Mar 30th, 2010

Tapeworm Economics
by darkbeaver | Feb 19th, 2007

ECONOMICS 101 REVISITED
by jimmoyer | Oct 27th, 2006

Economics: Quo Vadis: Playing For Keeps
by Paranoid Dot Calm | Dec 6th, 2004