Canada no longer leading the G7 in economic growth


mentalfloss
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Not surprising in the least. We've had more or less steady growth while other countries have foundered. When you are at or close to zero, any gains at all can translate to big percentages!

Except that we've been making steady gains in unemployment since October and we're back to where we started before the election.


 
JLM
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Except that we've been making steady gains in unemployment since October.


Comes with the season and the stats aren't really all that convincing- probably a lot to do with the numbers drawing E.I. also probably very little reflection of self-employed numbers.
 
mentalfloss
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Comes with the season and the stats aren't really all that convincing- probably a lot to do with the numbers drawing E.I. also probably very little reflection of self-employed numbers.

See updated graph.

It's not a seasonal thing.
 
Machjo
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

A subsidy is a cash infusion, end of story.

So let me get this straight. If I get a tax break that you are not entitled to, that's fair in your opinion?

Quote:

But how about I ask you the same Q that Flossy is ducking... How about the provinces and feds institute a royalty charge of up to 40% on any and every natural resource in all provinces?

You game for that?

Yup. This would push the cost of resources up, no doubt, and would likely hurt our resource industry.

However, it would also allow the government to eventually lower income taxes, which in turn to benefit our value-added industries, not to mention that such a royalty would also be more user-pay than income taxes overall.
 
captain morgan
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

So let me get this straight. If I get a tax break that you are not entitled to, that's fair in your opinion?

Let me give you the skinny on tax breaks Machjo... If you're not entitled to it, the CRA sends you a bill + fines.

Clear now?



Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Yup. This would push the cost of resources up, no doubt, and would likely hurt our resource industry.

However, it would also allow the government to eventually lower income taxes, which in turn to benefit our value-added industries, not to mention that such a royalty would also be more user-pay than income taxes overall.

Yup, it sure would increase the cost... Add on a tax at the retail level that more than doubles the producer's price and the cost drives up further.

But that's OK - it'll generate more tax revenues!
 
JLM
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

See updated graph.

It's not a seasonal thing.

Graphs only make numbers easier to compare, they don't ensure the accuracy of the numbers!
 
captain morgan
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Mississauga has a refinery of sorts. Suncor has a lubricants refinery within the city.

Just saw your post Durka.

My understanding is that the first oil discovery made in Canada was in Ontario.

To be honest, there is a strong case to be made in shipping crude oil (possibly bitumen?) to Eastern Canada. Some of the refining capacity is already in place and there are port facilities to handle the transportation/distribution.

Myself, I would be fully behind driving that p/l prior to shooting it down to Texas, however, because the cost of building/upgrading refineries is so prohibitive, I would assume that there would be few takers in developing the infrastructure and facilities.

As far as the Suncor facility is concerned, I'm not sure how I would feel about supporting a refinery within the borders of a city. I would lean towards there being real potential health concerns associated them.. Proximity to neighbourhoods, schools, etc would be a big negative for me.
 
DurkaDurka
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Just saw your post Durka.

My understanding is that the first oil discovery made in Canada was in Ontario.

To be honest, there is a strong case to be made in shipping crude oil (possibly bitumen?) to Eastern Canada. Some of the refining capacity is already in place and there are port facilities to handle the transportation/distribution.

Myself, I would be fully behind driving that p/l prior to shooting it down to Texas, however, because the cost of building/upgrading refineries is so prohibitive, I would assume that there would be few takers in developing the infrastructure and facilities.

As far as the Suncor facility is concerned, I'm not sure how I would feel about supporting a refinery within the borders of a city. I would lean towards there being real potential health concerns associated them.. Proximity to neighbourhoods, schools, etc would be a big negative for me.

Mississauaga at one point had three refineries within the city, although it wasn't nearly as populated then from what I read. Ontario in total has 4 refineries, with output around 400,000 bpd. Not sure if that's ME oil they're refining or North American?
 
Spade
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Mississauaga at one point had three refineries within the city, although it wasn't nearly as populated then from what I read. Ontario in total has 4 refineries, with output around 400,000 bpd. Not sure if that's ME oil they're refining or North American?

How Oil Makes Canada Four (or Five) Different Countries « Nosey Parker (external - login to view)
 
captain morgan
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Mississauaga at one point had three refineries within the city, although it wasn't nearly as populated then from what I read. Ontario in total has 4 refineries, with output around 400,000 bpd. Not sure if that's ME oil they're refining or North American?

3 refineries within city limits... I'll bet that they were not very popular with the residents. Are you located in Mississauga?
 
DurkaDurka
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

3 refineries within city limits... I'll bet that they were not very popular with the residents. Are you located in Mississauga?

No, I'm in downtown Toronto. Mental is from Mississauga I believe though.
 
captain morgan
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

No, I'm in downtown Toronto. Mental is from Mississauga I believe though.


I'll have to ask him about the refineries.

Out here, both Edmonton and Fort Saskatchewan have refineries pretty much attached to the city(s).

A few years back, there was a fire at one of these places in Ft Sask and the town evacuated a large area around the site... Actually, there used to be a used-oil refinery in Calgary that had been here for many years. Originally, it was a safe distance outside the city limits, but over the years, the city grew around it.

The place was called Hub Oil (I think)... Anyways, it blew up one afternoon, a freak accident that killed 2 men, but the surrounding communities were bathed in a mist of oil. These communities were all residential and had young couples and the kids... It was a pretty nasty situation.

I never heard of any reports on the long-term health issues, but I think it would be naive to think there wasn't any fallout.
 
DurkaDurka
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I'll have to ask him about the refineries.

Out here, both Edmonton and Fort Saskatchewan have refineries pretty much attached to the city(s).

A few years back, there was a fire at one of these places in Ft Sask and the town evacuated a large area around the site... Actually, there used to be a used-oil refinery in Calgary that had been here for many years. Originally, it was a safe distance outside the city limits, but over the years, the city grew around it.

The place was called Hub Oil (I think)... Anyways, it blew up one afternoon, a freak accident that killed 2 men, but the surrounding communities were bathed in a mist of oil. These communities were all residential and had young couples and the kids... It was a pretty nasty situation.

I never heard of any reports on the long-term health issues, but I think it would be naive to think there wasn't any fallout.

I worked at the former Petro Canada refinery in Edmonton during a shutdown, when I was a student. Was a pretty sweet job for a student, I walked around with engineers, copying down figures from the ultrasound tests they did on the pipes.
 
JLM
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

3 refineries within city limits... I'll bet that they were not very popular with the residents. Are you located in Mississauga?

Depends on what comprises a "city". Many cities now a days have expanded to include vast areas of (so far) vacant waste land, for posterity and hoping to eventually increase the tax base. Calgary for one stretches damn near to the B.C. boundary.
 
Machjo
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Let me give you the skinny on tax breaks Machjo... If you're not entitled to it, the CRA sends you a bill + fines.

Clear now?

But what if the government decides that my car dealership is entitled to a tax break but your bicycle shop is not. Though it's not technically a subsidy, there is no doubt that I'm getting an advantage over you whatever you want to call it.

So likewise if the petrol industry gets a tax cut that the bicycle industry does not get, are you not essentially encouraging petrol consumption at the expense of the bicycle industry? Why not give the tax break to all industries equally?

Quote:

Yup, it sure would increase the cost... Add on a tax at the retail level that more than doubles the producer's price and the cost drives up further.

Why in the world would you want to keep taxes at the retail level if we were to increase royalties on gas? Would the idea not be to shift taxes from one to the other and not just add one tax to the other?

Quote:

But that's OK - it'll generate more tax revenues!

We do need tax revenue to pay off the federal debt though.

Also, I would consider royalties on resources to be more fair than GST since it's more user-pay for those who use the nation's resources.
 
mentalfloss
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

So likewise if the petrol industry gets a tax cut that the bicycle industry does not get, are you not essentially encouraging petrol consumption at the expense of the bicycle industry? Why not give the tax break to all industries equally?

The bike industry is definitely a much lower priority than our energy sector.

The hope is that giving tax breaks to sectors that fuel the economy will actually create economic growth.

We're quickly realizing that CEOs are laughing all the way to their own piggy banks instead.
 
Machjo
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The bike industry is definitely a much lower priority than our energy sector.

The hope is that giving tax breaks to sectors that fuel the economy will actually create economic growth.

We're quickly realizing that CEOs are laughing all the way to their own piggy banks instead.

The problem though is that resources are more finite, so one would think we would want to encourage a more responsible use of them.
 
mentalfloss
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The problem though is that resources are more finite, so one would think we would want to encourage a more responsible use of them.

Business owners don't speak for the interest of the state or even the industry they belong to. They only speak for their own profitability and bank account, so you won't find any responsible use of resources unless it's brought to the government's attention.

And that's precisely why a completely free market likely ends up with a monopoly - which is antithesis of the competitive nature which was its intention.
 
Machjo
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The bike industry is definitely a much lower priority than our energy sector.

The hope is that giving tax breaks to sectors that fuel the economy will actually create economic growth.

We're quickly realizing that CEOs are laughing all the way to their own piggy banks instead.

Industries that "fuel" the economy. All industries "fuel" the economy, so let's drop the cliches. The difference is that some industries are more finite such as resources, and so they ought to be somewhat discouraged if anything.
 
captain morgan
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But what if the government decides that my car dealership is entitled to a tax break but your bicycle shop is not. Though it's not technically a subsidy, there is no doubt that I'm getting an advantage over you whatever you want to call it.

So, what you're saying is that no industry should get any kind of differential tax treatment at all?

Fine by me, but you probably won't like the fallout from that decision.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

So likewise if the petrol industry gets a tax cut that the bicycle industry does not get, are you not essentially encouraging petrol consumption at the expense of the bicycle industry? Why not give the tax break to all industries equally?

What you're not taking into consideration is the cost of doing business in each industry.

Using your bike example, it would be preferable to be the bike retailer, but you'd be silly to be a manufacturer because you're taking on more risk in manufacturing than you are just distributing.

That said, everyone will strive to distribute (some kind of product) and no one will want to manufacture, unless there are only a few mfgrs in which case they have a virtual monopoly.


Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Why in the world would you want to keep taxes at the retail level if we were to increase royalties on gas? Would the idea not be to shift taxes from one to the other and not just add one tax to the other?

That's the way it is right now Machjo, they aren't 'shifting' taxes, they pile them on top of each other..... Look into it.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

We do need tax revenue to pay off the federal debt though.

Yup... That free healthcare gets pretty expensive after a while.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Also, I would consider royalties on resources to be more fair than GST since it's more user-pay for those who use the nation's resources.

Everyone uses the 'Nation's resources' Machjo. But in the end, why does oil/gas pay a provincial royalty of up 40% (which then becomes a basis for equalization btw) and mining, forestry, agri or even finance or the services sector don't pay at all (or a much smaller amount)?

I mean, the agri sector uses the 'Nation's land' to grow wheat, which in turns consumes the 'Nation's fertilizers and minerals' let alone the 'Nation's water'... Can't we consider that wheat to be the 'Nation's food'?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The bike industry is definitely a much lower priority than our energy sector.

Yes, and that's reflected in not only the demand and necessity for bikes as compared to oil/gas, but also in the number of people employed by the bike industry as compared to the energy sector.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The hope is that giving tax breaks to sectors that fuel the economy will actually create economic growth.

Whereas punishing those sectors has been a really successful to date.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

We're quickly realizing that CEOs are laughing all the way to their own piggy banks instead.

Your paranoia is getting the better of you.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The problem though is that resources are more finite, so one would think we would want to encourage a more responsible use of them.

Fine, leave all natural resources related to energy and mining in the ground. Outlaw their use entirely... Save 'em for a rainy day.
 
Tonington
+1
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

Time you got some real facts, idiot!!

The Oil Industry is not getting subsidies!!

They get all kinds. The oil sands operators get even more because they qualify for tax breaks given to mining companies. An industry specific subsidy, the Canadian Exploration Expense...federal tax break for oil and gas companies. They qualify for other subsidies like any other corporation does through the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance too.

You really shouldn't call anyone an idiot...
 
Nuggler
+1
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

If we cared about sustainable growth, we would build refineries instead of pipelines.


not too sure about this, but I thought we had a few in Ontario, Que., and the Maritimes which have all been shut down.

We hoped the West would build a few, but all they seem to want to do is kiss the US/Chinese *** and diss the Eastern part of their own country. Trudeau must have scared the bejazus outa them. Most of em think he's still around.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's frightening how this kind of American semantics on liberty is deluding a lot of people here.

Nope... once again it's all Canadian. It has nothing to do with what you are calling American semantics. Take responsibility.
 
captain morgan
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

They get all kinds. The oil sands operators get even more because they qualify for tax breaks given to mining companies. An industry specific subsidy, the Canadian Exploration Expense...federal tax break for oil and gas companies. They qualify for other subsidies like any other corporation does through the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance too.


Tax breaks are much different from subsidies.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Nope... once again it's all Canadian. It has nothing to do with what you are calling American semantics. Take responsibility.


You're dreaming if you really believe that Flossy will take responsibility for anything.

Don't forget, he's entitled to his entitlements
 
Tonington
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Comes with the season and the stats aren't really all that convincing- probably a lot to do with the numbers drawing E.I. also probably very little reflection of self-employed numbers.

Stats Can unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted. That rise has nothing to do with the time of year.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Tax breaks are much different from subsidies.

Forgiving a percentage of taxes for a qualifying activity which otherwise would have contributed a larger portion in taxes, or giving sums of money for the same qualifying activity amounts to the same thing.

Try any economic source for definitions you like, you'll find tax allowances and breaks listed as types of subsidy. Or try searching economics journals, where they also treat tax breaks as subsidies.
 
captain morgan
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Stats Can unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted. That rise has nothing to do with the time of year.



Forgiving a percentage of taxes for a qualifying activity which otherwise would have contributed a larger portion in taxes, or giving sums of money for the same qualifying activity amounts to the same thing.

Try any economic source for definitions you like, you'll find tax allowances and breaks listed as types of subsidy. Or try searching economics journals, where they also treat tax breaks as subsidies.

They fall into a similar (highly) generalized category, but they are significantly different.

Using oilsands as an example, the tax break requires that the company invest capital and also get to a point where their revenues exceed expenses. That should occur, but the question is 'when'... That tax break has a shelf-life and can expire prior to it being applied.

Subsidies are direct cash infusions. They may be conditional to something like capital invested, but it is still a cash injection from the on set.
 
Tonington
+1
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

They fall into a similar (highly) generalized category, but they are significantly different.

Economists talk about tax breaks as subsidies all the time. Here's one example (external - login to view) from a discussion paper:
Quote:

When firms are mobile, regional subsidies that take the form of tax breaks or subsidies to the fixed cost lead to higher profits for all firms, even those not located in the region that gives the subsidy.

Here's another academic example:
www.ucalgary.ca/iaprfiles/tec...r-tp-05014.pdf (external - login to view)

Finance Canada recognizes tax incentives as subsidies:
Quote:

Spending on research and development (R&D) is widely acknowledged as providing benefits not only to the firm undertaking the activity but also to the economy at large in the form of lower prices, improved products and access to new production technologies.1 In recognition of these spillover effects, it is common practice for governments to provide assistance to firms undertaking investment in R&D. This paper provides estimates of tax assistance for R&D investment by large and small firms, as measured by marginal effective tax rates (METRs), for the 30 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and for 6 key emerging and transition economies. In order to provide a clear indication of how tax incentives affect the overall cost of R&D, this paper also presents estimates of the subsidy rate, defined as the percentage decline in the cost of R&D arising from tax incentives. The subsidy rates are developed through a straightforward transformation of the METRs. International rankings of tax support for R&D based on subsidy rates are therefore not substantially different from those based on METRs.

Quote has been trimmed
In fact, my salary is partially subsidized by the Federal Government. At the end of each month I account for my hours spent working on various R&D projects, and the corporation receives tax credits for my hours worked. They're called SRED credits:
Quote:

In 2007, the Department of Finance conducted a thorough benefit–cost analysis of the SR&ED program (Parsons and Phillips 2007). It concluded that the public benefit of the program — the part due to the incremental R&D investment stimulated by the SR&ED subsidy and the estimated social return on that incremental investment (i.e., extra output generated in the economy as a whole) — exceeded its full costs.

PEI offers favourable taxation schemes which has encouraged the growth of the biotech industry in this province. More subsidy.

There's plenty of non-academic sources as well that list tax breaks under subsidies. Try here:
What is subsidy? definition and meaning (external - login to view)

Or here:
Subsidy Definition | Investopedia (external - login to view)

Or even here:
subsidies - definition of subsidies by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (external - login to view)

Monetary assistance...paying less taxes certainly qualifies as a subsidy.

I think the hesitation amongst some is purely euphemistic. Subsidy is a dirty word in some circles, while tax breaks are not.
 
mentalfloss
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Whereas punishing those sectors has been a really successful to date.

Again, using a strawman fallacy and emotionally charged words to justify your position. I'm merely talking about getting a reasonable number for a corporate tax percentage which allows businesses to maintain a workable profit, but also allows for a sustainable tax revenue to pay for very real things like the deficit, debt, healthcare, etc.

I would rather have a plan that balances the two systems, and respectfully raising the corporate tax rate hardly punishes businesses.
Last edited by mentalfloss; Feb 8th, 2012 at 08:09 AM..
 
Walter
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I would rather have a plan that balances the two systems, and respectfully raising the corporate tax rate hardly punishes businesses.

Youth is wasted on the young.
 
mentalfloss
#60
Jobs are true indicator of a strong economy

The true indication of an economy's strength comes down to one factor: jobs.

Since the 2008 recession, the stock markets have recovered, various sectors of the economy have rebounded -automotive, for example -and there has been some growth, although it's not been substantial.

That many businesses have strengthened their market position as the recession has eased is good news; it would be much better if they were re-hiring the employees shed when times were bad, or creating new employment.

The most recent jobless numbers show that's not happening, however.

Statistics Canada says the unemployment rate climbed to 7.6% in January; our economy continues its struggle to produce jobs in numbers large enough to absorb the increase in Canadians looking for work.

Only 2,300 jobs were created in 2012's first month and the nation's unemployment rate increased due to more people looking for work. Economists had expected much more, 25,000 new jobs for the month, partly because of the unseasonably warm temperatures that could have encouraged more hiring in some industries.

But it just didn't happen, and was compounded by 23,700 more Canadians who joined the labour force, accounting for the climb in the unemployment rate.

There was reason for optimism last summer/fall with the jobless number; it hit 7.2% in September, a post-recession low. But now January marks the third month in the last four the unemployment rate has risen.

The job news isn't all bad, however. Canada's economy has produced 129,000 new jobs during the last 12 months, or a 0.7 per cent gain in employment; but that's one of the weakest records in a non-recessionary period in many years. And only 20,000 or so jobs have been added in the last six months

This drop-off in job creation has coincided with generally weaker economic conditions and declining business confidence, due to uncertainty in the global market situation.

Jobs are true indicator of a strong economy
(external - login to view)
 

Similar Threads

21
The Folly of Endless Economic Growth
by s_lone | Apr 7th, 2013
16
0
Leaders in Economic Growth
by I think not | Feb 20th, 2006
no new posts