Canada no longer leading the G7 in economic growth
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
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.
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. :lol:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yup... That free healthcare gets pretty expensive after a while.
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'?
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.
Whereas punishing those sectors has been a really successful to date.
Your paranoia is getting the better of you.
Fine, leave all natural resources related to energy and mining in the ground. Outlaw their use entirely... Save 'em for a rainy day.
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...
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 ass 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. 8O
Nope... once again it's all Canadian. It has nothing to do with what you are calling American semantics. Take responsibility.
Tax breaks are much different from subsidies.
You're dreaming if you really believe that Flossy will take responsibility for anything.
Don't forget, he's entitled to his entitlements
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.
Economists talk about tax breaks as subsidies all the time. Here's one example from a discussion paper:
Here's another academic example:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/iaprfiles/technicalpapers/iapr-tp-05014.pdf
Finance Canada recognizes tax incentives as subsidies:
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:
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
Or here:
Subsidy Definition | Investopedia
Or even here:
subsidies - definition of subsidies by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
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.
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:
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
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