Canadian Tax Cuts Hurt all but Richest

Toro

Senate Member
But that is a frightening conclusion for the science of economics. If the outcomes of a national economy depends on so many factors, then in the words of John von Neumann, "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." Of course, engineers are used to working with way more than 4 or 5 degrees of freedom but I get the heeby geebies at about 2.

I of course come from the school of thought that sees nothing wrong per se with a company with a huge market share but I believe that they have the power to use that market share to allow it to compete in ways that have nothing to do with efficiency. Also, an inefficiently made safe product is better in some case than an efficiently made unsafe product. In any case I think any broad single sentence social reform is doomed to failure.

The problem with economics as a "science" is that there is no control group. You can't, after all, create the conditions to collapse one economy while holding another economy constant to see what happens.

Plus, the models that usually - but not always - work are based on observations that usually - but not always - hold with assumptions that are usually - but not always - relevant. The problems with the models are that at times of stress, they often do not apply as the tails of the distribution become "fat."
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
The problem with economics as a "science" is that there is no control group. You can't, after all, create the conditions to collapse one economy while holding another economy constant to see what happens.

Plus, the models that usually - but not always - work are based on observations that usually - but not always - hold with assumptions that are usually - but not always - relevant. The problems with the models are that at times of stress, they often do not apply as the tails of the distribution become "fat."
Oh theres a control group and its been proven to work many times in the US Its called central banks :lol:
 

YoungJoonKim

Electoral Member
Aug 19, 2007
690
5
18
"Rich gets richer and poor gets poorer" in First World countries.
Isn't this-too-fact?
When will we reach the age of early Industrialization where we lived like surfs? :D
 

Toro

Senate Member
"Rich gets richer and poor gets poorer" in First World countries.
Isn't this-too-fact?
When will we reach the age of early Industrialization where we lived like surfs? :D

No, it is not a fact. Its completely wrong, actually.

Instead, the rich get richer and the poor get less poor.

A legitimate criticism, however, is that the incomes of the rich have been growing faster than the incomes of the poor for the past 30-35 years. In other words, inequality has been rising, and the poor are getting a smaller share of the (ever expanding) pie.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Income inequality worst since 1920s, according to IRS data
The superrich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie, and the poor are seeing their share of earnings shrink: new IRS data shows the top 1 percent of Americans are claiming a larger share of national income than at any time since before the Great Depression.
The top percentile of wealthy Americans earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent in 2004, according to new Internal Revenue Service data published in the Wall Street Journal Friday.
Americans in the bottom 50 percent of wage earners saw their share of income shrink to 12.8 percent in 2005, down from 13.4 percent.

"Scholars attribute rising inequality to several factors," the Journal reports, "including technological change that favors those with more skills, and globalization and advances in communications that enlarge the rewards available to 'superstar' performers whether in business, sports or entertainment."
The data could cause problems to President Bush and Republican presidential candidates, who have played up low unemployment and a strong economy since 2003, crediting Bush's tax cuts for contributing to both. In an interview with the Journal, Bush downplayed the significance of the income gap, saying more education is the answer to narrowing it.
"First of all, our society has had income inequality for a long time. Secondly, skills gaps yield income gaps," Bush told the Journal. "And what needs to be done about the inequality of income is to make sure people have got good education, starting with young kids. That's why No Child Left Behind is such an important component of making sure that America is competitive in the 21st century."
The Journal notes that many Americans fear the economy is entering a recession, and the IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $30,881. Earnings for the top 1 percent grew to $364,657 -- a 3 percent uptick.
Scholarly research suggests that top earners did not have such a large share of total income since the 1920s, the Journal reported.
The Journal reports that a recent stock boom likely contributed to higher earnings among those in the top income bracket, with hedge fund managers and Wall Street attorneys seeing their incomes skyrocket in recent years.
Another prominent pool or wealthy Americans gathers regularly on Capitol Hill to write the nation's laws. The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending and politicians' wealth, says more than a third of Congress members are millionaires, with at least half the Senate falling into the millionaires club.
Forbes reported that last year's incoming class of new Senators did "little to shake the Senate's image as a millionaires club," with half of the newly elected members having seven- eight- or nine-figure personal fortunes.
Freshman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) is worth between $64 million and $236 million, and newly elected Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) fortune is between $13 million and $29 million. R
Roll Call estimates Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is the chamber's richest member with an estimated net worth of $750 million; another Democrat, Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, is among the chamber's richest with between $220 million and $234 million in personal assets.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4498
I guess there some criticism :-(
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Naomi Klein is your source?
One of them. It's easy to be critical of her analyses and conclusions, as some of those reviews are, but what happened in Chile under Pinochet and Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay under their military juntas in the early 1970s, is on the historical record.
 

Toro

Senate Member
One of them. It's easy to be critical of her analyses and conclusions, as some of those reviews are, but what happened in Chile under Pinochet and Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay under their military juntas in the early 1970s, is on the historical record.

They sure are.

But what happened to the Chile in terms of economic development bears virtually no resemblance to the latter three.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Depends on the time frame you're looking at. "The last 30 years" window you referred to isn't it, the Chicago School disasters go back before that, to the early 1970s. One of the things that saved Chile was that Pinochet did not sell off the major national copper company as his economic advisors would have recommended, so the nation retained a source of income it wouldn't otherwise have had under the doctrines of the Chicago School.
 

Toro

Senate Member
No, the economic experiences of the four countries were all unique. Argentina especially, but also Brazil and Uruguay instituted insular, autarkic and disastorous monetary policies. Or should I say "continued" such policies. These are policies of popularism, and were popular on both the left and the right. The one best associated with the disastorous policies of Latin America is probably Peron. But they are about as "free market" as communism. Today, despite the rhetoric, the one closest to the popularist policies is Chavez.

Friedman et al did not go down to Chile right after the coup, but did so afterwards. Originally, Pinochet continued the policies of the tin-pot dictators only to find Chile sinking deeper into the morass. Oh, and somewhere I read the speech of Allende's finance minister who said something along the lines that sound money was a bourgeious notion.

The source of income retained would have been a massive drain in the 1980s and 1990s as copper went below $0.60 a pound. The reason why most government owned corporations around the world were privatized in the 1980s and 1990s was simply because they did not meet their cost of capital and were destroying wealth in the name of "the people."

If you want to see the closest example of what was occurring in the economies of Latin America 30 years ago, google "Mugabe" and "inflation" and you'll get the idea.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Well Toro, I'm immediately prepared to concede you know more about this stuff than I do. I'm neither an economist nor a historian, I'm an electrical engineer, these subjects are sort of like a hobby with me, things I try to learn about in order to be a well-informed citizen and a thoughtful voter. I will follow your links with interest and try to understand the arguments, as I've been doing all my adult life, but there's a long way to go to change my basic mind set: the far right's political agenda is corporatist, corrupt, and sterile. It doesn't care about people except as producers and consumers, and to my mind that makes it fundamentally shallow and wrong.
 
Last edited:

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
56
Calgary
I don't understand why the political far right keeps pushing the same agenda: tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, reduced social services, yadda yadda....

I don't see it being "FAR RIGHT", that pushes this agenda....it might "seems" far right to you Dexter, as you are "SO FAR LEFt" that you'd fall off the edge of the world, were it flat! I also don't see the right trying to "reduce" social services....maybe they are just trying to put people into jobs or giving all of us parents choices about childcare?
 

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
56
Calgary
I don't understand why the political far right keeps pushing the same agenda: tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, reduced social services, yadda yadda... That stuff all comes out of Milton Friedman's so-called Chicago School in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there's currently a significant group of believers at the University of Calgary advising the current government of this country. In the few places it's actually been tried to any significant degree, it demonstrably doesn't work. Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil, all tried it in varying degrees in the 1970s, with the detailed involvement of the Chicago School, after assorted CIA-backed military coups. What seems to happen is repression, corruption, violence, massive inflation, falling real incomes, the rich get richer and fewer, the poor get poorer and more numerous, and the middle class pretty much disappears. They'll all make the same claim the Marxists do about their program: it's never really been properly implemented so there haven't been any fair tests of it. BS. The program is morally bankrupt and intellectually sterile, and doesn't work in anybody's favour except large corporate interests.

I may be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time!), but if I read your statement about "tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, reduced social services, yadda yadda..."it sounds to me that you believe in regulation, state ownership, large government/social services which sounds very like "communism". you list several countries where you believe right wing economic policies failed, but just how many "successful" communist countries can you list?

You should also remember that when you mention tax cuts you have to put it in the true context, as your comments are missleading. These tax cuts are what the government want to do, because we are being "Over taxed" and this is obvious by the sizes of the budget surplusses (although one could also argue the budget has more money left over because the Liberals aren't stealing any of it at the moment!). It may be a true arguement if we were not making ends meet with the budget and still want to cut taxes, but not in this case.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
No, it is not a fact. Its completely wrong, actually.

Instead, the rich get richer and the poor get less poor.

A legitimate criticism, however, is that the incomes of the rich have been growing faster than the incomes of the poor for the past 30-35 years. In other words, inequality has been rising, and the poor are getting a smaller share of the (ever expanding) pie.
You overlooked the part where costs of living increase to match what they with greater wealth can afford, driving necessities farther and farther from the mouths of the poor - thus it is very true "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

Wolf
 

Toro

Senate Member
You overlooked the part where costs of living increase to match what they with greater wealth can afford, driving necessities farther and farther from the mouths of the poor - thus it is very true "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

Wolf

No, I'm speaking in real, i.e. after inflation terms. After inflation, incomes for all have risen in the industrialized world and for most in the developing world. That may not be the case from year to year, but it has been true over the past 3+ decades.

I calculated the growth from the US census data a few years back. I can't find my spreadsheet now, but since 1970, the average real growth in income for the poorest decile has been 1%-1.5% per year whereas for the richest decile, it has been ~2.5%-3% per year.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
No, I'm speaking in real, i.e. after inflation terms. After inflation, incomes for all have risen in the industrialized world and for most in the developing world. That may not be the case from year to year, but it has been true over the past 3+ decades.

I calculated the growth from the US census data a few years back. I can't find my spreadsheet now, but since 1970, the average real growth in income for the poorest decile has been 1%-1.5% per year whereas for the richest decile, it has been ~2.5%-3% per year.

You go ahead and eat your statistics. I have to buy bread - at it's ever increasing price on a never-increasing disability pension. Live real....

Wolf
 

Northboy

Electoral Member
"Trickle-up economics - The rich are getting richer — and we're all helping" http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=508

K - Tax cuts might sound good, but actually they are putting the poorer Canadians further behind: The richest Canadians taxes dropped by 11%, but for the rest of us taxes dropped by only 1%, while government health and other program spending was slashed.


------article [from link above]:

by Hugh Mackenzie

On September 25, Statistics Canada released a new study looking at how the distribution of income in Canada has changed over the past 20 years and found the lion's share of income growth has been going to the richest of the rich — not to the rest of us.

Two days later, the Minister of Finance revealed the federal government surplus for 2006-07 was substantially higher than originally projected, and hinted broadly that his number one priority for the extra money was tax cuts.

What do these two things have to do with each other?

The Stats Can study confirmed what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found last spring: there is a large and growing income gap between the rich and the rest of us.

But by zeroing in on those at the top of the income scale, Statistics Canada also provided some eye-popping new detail.

It turns out that the growth in the share of income among the richest of Canadians is actually concentrated right at the top — among Canada's richest.

The share of personal income for the richest 5 percent of Canadians was stable from 1982 to 1992 — they took about 21 percent of Canada's total income pie.

But between 1992 and 2004, their share grew to 25.3 percent of the income pie.

That doesn't sound like much, but that's a 4.3 percentage point increase in the share of all income earned in Canada, in a statistic that usually doesn't change much.

And it turns out the higher the income scale you go, the more money the richest of Canadians made: More than 90 percent of the gain in income share among the richest 5 percent went to the richest 1 percent of Canadians. Half of that gain went to the richest 0.1 percent. And remarkably, 20 percent of the gain went to the richest of the rich, the millionaires sitting in the top 0.01 percent of Canada's income scale.

Now here's where the dots line up. The Statistics Canada study also looked at the effective tax rates paid by individual Canadians in each income group.

It found that the average effective tax rate declined by about one percentage point for 95 percent of Canadians between 1992 and 2004.

The average effective tax rate for the top 5 percent declined by about two percentage points.

But the effective tax rate for the richest of the rich dropped dramatically.

The top 0.01 percent, the millionaires sitting at the top of the heap, enjoyed an average effective tax rate drop of 11 percentage points.

What the Statistics Canada study tells us is that between 1992 and 2004, Canada's income tax system ceased to be progressive for the richest 5 percent of tax filers.

And what about the rest of us? For almost a decade, our provincial and federal governments have been talking tax cuts, but those cuts went into the pockets of the richest of the rich. And that tax break only bolstered the unprecedented growth in the share of income going to Canada's richest.

Canadians have paid dearly for the tax cut agenda of the past decade — with cuts in services like health care and education; with persistent poverty and homelessness despite economic prosperity; with deteriorating environmental quality; with cash-starved cities; with crumbling public infrastructure.

For what? For only the select few — the richest of the rich — to enjoy the winning combination of rising personal income and falling taxes while our public services suffer?

Soon, our federal government will return to Parliament with a Throne Speech expected to trumpet the benefits of tax cuts — 'putting more money in your pockets'. The problem with that statement is the evidence proves quite the opposite is at play.

The evidence should make all Canadians wonder whether it's truly in our best interests to vote for tax cuts at the expense of investments that could benefit everyone.

Tax cuts come at the expense of affordable university tuition, housing and childcare — three things Canadians tell Environics Research they'd like their governments to invest in.

The good news is that we have options. We can demand our governments invest our surplus in the things that benefit the majority of Canadians, rather than rewarding the few at the top. Because the rich are getting richer — and we're all helping.

Hugh Mackenzie is a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.


A verse form a song that I performed on Canada Day..

"Northern People trying to live in Justice,
A Hand to ease the sufferring of a neighbour's health
Seeing the fruits of our labours
In the strength of our Commonwealth....
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
What a great thread.

As usual, Toro, our resident economist, retains his title.

Especially noteworthy is his view of the right's failing.

Usually the Left has it all wrong about the Right.

But Toro's observation of it is probably the most telling and informed criticism of the right anywhere
you'll see.

Example 1:
A legitimate criticism, however, is that the incomes of the rich have been growing faster than the incomes of the poor for the past 30-35 years. In other words, inequality has been rising, and the poor are getting a smaller share of the (ever expanding) pie.

Example 2:
The problem with "The Right" is that they often believe that all you need to do is cut taxes, de-regulate, lower trade barriers, etc. and BANG! you have growth for all. That is not always the case. Development and growth and far more complicated, and require many other factors having nothing to do with economic policy, i.e. stable institutions, rule of law, cultural issues, levels of education, etc.

----------------end of quotes----------

Like I say, the Left would become more powerful if it didn't get a lot of things wrong about the Right. They should learn what the conservatives' criticisms are of conservative policies.
 

Northboy

Electoral Member
What a great thread.

As usual, Toro, our resident economist, retains his title.

Especially noteworthy is his view of the right's failing.

Usually the Left has it all wrong about the Right.

But Toro's observation of it is probably the most telling and informed criticism of the right anywhere
you'll see.

Example 1:
A legitimate criticism, however, is that the incomes of the rich have been growing faster than the incomes of the poor for the past 30-35 years. In other words, inequality has been rising, and the poor are getting a smaller share of the (ever expanding) pie.

Example 2:
The problem with "The Right" is that they often believe that all you need to do is cut taxes, de-regulate, lower trade barriers, etc. and BANG! you have growth for all. That is not always the case. Development and growth and far more complicated, and require many other factors having nothing to do with economic policy, i.e. stable institutions, rule of law, cultural issues, levels of education, etc.

----------------end of quotes----------

Like I say, the Left would become more powerful if it didn't get a lot of things wrong about the Right. They should learn what the conservatives' criticisms are of conservative policies.

To me the farther right/ left of centre an economy runs it becomes corrupted...

To the right is "use" on steroids

To the left is "Love" on steroids

What we need to adjust our views to is an expression of "purpose"....
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
The problem with economics as a "science" is that there is no control group. You can't, after all, create the conditions to collapse one economy while holding another economy constant to see what happens.

Plus, the models that usually - but not always - work are based on observations that usually - but not always - hold with assumptions that are usually - but not always - relevant. The problems with the models are that at times of stress, they often do not apply as the tails of the distribution become "fat."

Statistical sciences do not need control groups, they make the analysis much cleaner and the errors much smaller but are not necessary. Astronomy is an example of a science with no control groups and yet has made profound impacts in our understanding of nature and technology. This is the basic difference between observational science and experimental science which make use of bayesian statistics and frequentist statistics respectively.

What one does need is strong definitions on observables and variables, and economics does not have this(in my opinion). This has come up before in our discussions although we rarely discuss it. It is always hard to have some economic policy indicator to properly compare to economic outcome indicators.

To do some real analysis (har har) I need some variable X(nation) which measures some policy practice of a nation and an indicator of wealth like GDP, mean savings or modal income, call it Y(nation). Then the assumption of true economic science would be that there are constants M1 and M2 such that:

M1|Y(nation_1) - Y(nation_2)| <= |X(nation_1) - X(nation_2)| <= M2|Y(nation_1) - Y(nation_2)|

for all possible nations (even hypothetical). The idea of free market economies then is that one attempts to approach the perfect competition model which can be shown to be pareto optimal and so one argues that

|X("Free market") - X(Perfect market)| << 1.

Most of my arguments revolve around the fact that I don't believe the above inequality and policy therefore creates price inefficiency which widens the real gap between rich and poor. In particular there is nothing about regulation or taxation a priori that affects the perfect market conditions.
 
Last edited: