National Economy

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I write off people below a certain IQ? I would never make such a ridiculous statement. You were the one stating that anyone with an IQ above 80 should be able to stand on their own two feet. My god, do I have to remind you of the flow of the conversation, one that you are clearly intent on dominating, despite having no expertise in the subject of IQ measurement and validity?

In my many years in retail management, I hired scores of people that were mentally differently abled. There are plenty of things that individuals in the lower 25% of the IQ spectrum are capable of doing.

Besides, who the hell gets their IQ measured formally, anyhow, aside from those receiving a battery of psychological tests (say, as part of a diagnosis for ADHD), a small number of applicants to certain jobs that demand it, and a few narcissists?

You replied to the IQ paragraph twice (cutting out the rest of my longish post) and responded in an argumentative tone. It appears I misunderstood.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

consumption taxes are regressive; income taxes are progressive.

The former hurts the less well off, as consumption accounts for a larger share of their net earnings, compared to the better off.

In their purest form you're quite correct, consumption taxes are very regressive taxing every one, regardless of income, at the same level.

That said, very few countries, including Canada, have a pure consumption tax. There are all kinds of exemptions especially for essentials like groceries and rent. They could expand those exemptions and/or offer rebates at the end of the year based on income.

Low income people spend the vast majority of their income on essentials like food, rent, children's clothing, hydro etc while high income people spend the majority of their income on discretionary spending ie cars, vacations, latest tach gadgets, clothing etc and especially those without a mortgage. They could create a consumption tax system where basically every essential is exempted and then send the taxes soaring for non-essentials and for housing sales especially for people with more than one residence.

This could allow for a huge drop or even total elimination of income taxes with no hit to total revenues. This would also help get rid of tax evasion by our endless loopholes and help put a stop to our widespread money laundering and companies and individuals from buying homes exclusively to flip. There is a myriad number of ways to avoid income tax but essentially none for consumption taxes.

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is a difference between tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal).

• Video Link

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Build.It

You are being intentionally dishonest. I'm not going to continue this conversation with you.

He’s not being dishonest at all, his point about in practice vs in theory is an excellent one: it’s the in practice that matters. In theory there can be tons of rigid rules, but if in practice there’s zero enforcement and no one cares about the rules, then what you’ll find over there in the real world is going to be basically the same sort of society as one with no rules.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

He’s not being dishonest at all, his point about in practice vs in theory is an excellent one: it’s the in practice that matters. In theory there can be tons of rigid rules, but if in practice there’s zero enforcement and no one cares about the rules, then what you’ll find over there in the real world is going to be basically the same sort of society as one with no rules.

The truth makes him uncomfortable.

All these libertarian fantasies in practice are just places where you can pay to get something done. But places like that inevitably lack any civic sense. Because everybody from public officials to grocery clerks expect to get paid to do what they are supposed to do.

And the places that are loved as libertarian on those business rankings? Strong rule of law and very strong social norms. A lot of which self-professed libertarians over here would disdain.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by lio45

He’s not being dishonest at all, his point about in practice vs in theory is an excellent one: it’s the in practice that matters. In theory there can be tons of rigid rules, but if in practice there’s zero enforcement and no one cares about the rules, then what you’ll find over there in the real world is going to be basically the same sort of society as one with no rules.

The dishonest part was him ignoring what I actually said and making false claims about what I'm advocating for.

Somehow in his mind pushing retirement to 70, and cutting certain social programs is the same as us turning into India.

I've also said numerous times on here that Switzerland is my favourite model.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

The dishonest part was him ignoring what I actually said and making false claims about what I'm advocating for.

Somehow in his mind pushing retirement to 70, and cutting certain social programs is the same as us turning into India.

I've also said numerous times on here that Switzerland is my favourite model.

You must have missed all my numerous posts advocating for capping and even cutting OAS.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You must have missed all my numerous posts advocating for capping and even cutting OAS.

Then why are you trying to pick a fight with me?

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by lio45

He’s not being dishonest at all, his point about in practice vs in theory is an excellent one: it’s the in practice that matters. In theory there can be tons of rigid rules, but if in practice there’s zero enforcement and no one cares about the rules, then what you’ll find over there in the real world is going to be basically the same sort of society as one with no rules.

Yep. Just like how Socialism with Chinese Characteristics was practicing a no holds barred form of capitalism that would make Ayn Rand blush.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Build.It

The dishonest part was him ignoring what I actually said and making false claims about what I'm advocating for.

Somehow in his mind pushing retirement to 70, and cutting certain social programs is the same as us turning into India.

I've also said numerous times on here that Switzerland is my favourite model.

I am not sure how far we are from the Swiss model. They are much richer than us so it can confuse things. Yes they have lower tax rates. But they also have public transit to every village, generous pensions. A minimum wage close to $40 an hour. All healthcare funded. A generous welfare system though low usage for cultural reasons.

I think we say you want to live like India or Russia or something is when you talk about 10% tax rates. That in the Canadian context wouldn't even cover defence, transport and other necessary regulation and would eliminate all public supports and even make education basically private.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I am not sure how far we are from the Swiss model. They are much richer than us so it can confuse things. Yes they have lower tax rates. But they also have public transit to every village, generous pensions. A minimum wage close to $40 an hour. All healthcare funded. A generous welfare system though low usage for cultural reasons.

I think we say you want to live like India or Russia or something is when you talk about 10% tax rates. That in the Canadian context wouldn't even cover defence, transport and other necessary regulation and would eliminate all public supports and even make education basically private.

The problem with all these discussions is that fantasists always resort to pick your own adventure trips where they pick the rosiest scenarios from each of their favoured examples. That's of course, not how reality works. You can't build Switzerland just by choosing their tax rate. By the way, India and Switzerland are fairly close on tax as percent of GDP.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The problem with all these discussions is that fantasists always resort to pick your own adventure trips where they pick the rosiest scenarios from each of their favoured examples. That's of course, not how reality works. You can't build Switzerland just by choosing their tax rate. By the way, India and Switzerland are fairly close on tax as percent of GDP.

Well there are rational discussion and fantasyland discussion. The Trudeau destroyed our economy crowd needs to believe we need lower taxes, lower regulations, probably less industrial policy, If not then I don't know what Trudeau did to destroy the economy. Mostly he moved us slightly to the left which causes less growth but more support for poorer people. That is a conscious choice. Blaming the repercussions of Covid and slightly more fairer Covid policies doesn't make sense and confuses our current political choice. I hope PP has a clear election platform that proposes massive cuts decreased regulation in order to jump start growth and eventually lower taxes. The idea this is going to help those who can't afford bacon despite getting 5 figure government support 2020-2024 and sitting in the first or second tax bracket is laughable.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well there are rational discussion and fantasyland discussion. The Trudeau destroyed our economy crowd needs to believe we need lower taxes, lower regulations, probably less industrial policy, If not then I don't know what Trudeau did to destroy the economy. Mostly he moved us slightly to the left which causes less growth but more support for poorer people. That is a conscious choice. Blaming the repercussions of Covid and slightly more fairer Covid policies doesn't make sense and confuses our current political choice. I hope PP has a clear election platform that proposes massive cuts decreased regulation in order to jump start growth and eventually lower taxes. The idea this is going to help those who can't afford bacon despite getting 5 figure government support 2020-2024 and sitting in the first or second tax bracket is laughable.

Things Trudeau did to destroy the economy:

Massive deficit financing, including doubling the national debt, (without any corresponding improvement in infrastructure or other capital) which has crowded out private sector financing.
Massive increase in the size of the state (including 100k new bureaucrats) without any corresponding increase in services provided by the state. Again crowding the private sector.
Massive increase in immigration without any corresponding plan to house or integrate that many people.
Creating (or significantly contributing to a housing bubble which has skewed (and skewered) the entire urban economy.

None of these were forced errors. These were all decisions the government took against prevailing expert advice.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Things Trudeau did to destroy the economy:

Massive deficit financing, including doubling the national debt, (without any corresponding improvement in infrastructure or other capital) which has crowded out private sector financing.
Massive increase in the size of the state (including 100k new bureaucrats) without any corresponding increase in services provided by the state. Again crowding the private sector.
Massive increase in immigration without any corresponding plan to house or integrate that many people.
Creating (or significantly contributing to a housing bubble which has skewed (and skewered) the entire urban economy.

None of these were forced errors. These were all decisions the government took against prevailing expert advice.

The deficit financing was in part choices made by the current government and in part the limitations on what they could do. COVID was a major part of the buildup. The fact they don't have a majority and needed to implement part of the NDP agenda to stay in power was also a factor.

I am also surprised at the head count of the public service. With Corporate Canada embracing "digital transformation" as a way of automating white collar and front line positions it is just weird the federal government has gone the other way.

Housing is a weird one. You would have expected the private sector to be building at an accelerated rate. Only around 3% of housing in Canada is social housing, the vast majority is supplied through free market mechanisms. But, the market did not respond. There were some fundamental issues at play. Zoning and permitting being a major blocker. Only now are those being fixed.

To their credit, they have doubled down on social housing, however in the Canadian context that will always be a small percentage of the mix. They have also put in place attractive financing to get the private sector to build more purpose built rentals.

The housing bubble was a problem before this government and it will likely be around after the conservatives get their turn (assuming they win). The solutions is slowly build more housing and let market pressures gradually drive down prices.

We do need immigration. We have a demographics problem.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

The deficit financing was in part choices made by the current government and in part the limitations on what they could do. COVID was a major part of the buildup. The fact they don't have a majority and needed to implement part of the NDP agenda to stay in power was also a factor.

I am also surprised at the head count of the public service. With Corporate Canada embracing "digital transformation" as a way of automating white collar and front line positions it is just weird the federal government has gone the other way.

Housing is a weird one. You would have expected the private sector to be building at an accelerated rate. Only around 3% of housing in Canada is social housing, the vast majority is supplied through free market mechanisms. But, the market did not respond. There were some fundamental issues at play. Zoning and permitting being a major blocker. Only now are those being fixed.

To their credit, they have doubled down on social housing, however in the Canadian context that will always be a small percentage of the mix. They have also put in place attractive financing to get the private sector to build more purpose built rentals.

The housing bubble was a problem before this government and it will likely be around after the conservatives get their turn (assuming they win). The solutions is slowly build more housing and let market pressures gradually drive down prices.

We do need immigration. We have a demographics problem.

Some of the COVID spending was plausibly necessary (such as acquiring vaccines, providing support for industries that could not function during the pandemic and individuals who could not work), but a lot of it was pointless (ArriveCan, money for seniors who didn't need it, money for students that didn't need it) or just plain stupid (paying people way more than their lost wages to encourage them to get out of the workforce). In most cases it was Trudeau's decision to undertake the most overspending path.

They didn't have to deal with the NDP. That was a political choice. They could have made individual deals for individual bills (like Martin or Harper did).

At least in Ottawa, housing projects are a 10 year pipeline. If Trudeau had given the private sector and provinces warning he wanted to massively increase immigration in the 2020s (and maybe some funding to go with it) then there might have more adjustment in housing.

The demographic challenge faced by Canada (and most other countries) has been well known for decades. The solution was not to suddenly and without warning massively increase immigration in 1-2 years. It was more or less a knee jerk reaction to the labour shortage created by Trudeau's pandemic policies of chasing people out of the labour force.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by casper

We do need immigration. We have a demographics problem.

First, we have a productivity problem. Let's work on that then we will be able to better evaluate our true needs in immigration. The goals set by the Liberal Government are unsustainable.

[casper]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

First, we have a productivity problem. Let's work on that then we will be able to better evaluate our true needs in immigration. The goals set by the Liberal Government are unsustainable.

I will give you the bad news, our "Productivity problem" is going to get worse.

If your measure of productivity is GDP/capita, then with an aging population and the number of people not working going up that is going to make it work.

As we grow, we are going to have more people working in the service sector vrs natural resources. Those are lower margin labour intensive businesses that contribute less per capita to GDP that say oil exports.

I am all for increasing the number of people working in manufacturing and limiting the exports of unprocessed raw materials, however that is not the direction we are going in.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

I will give you the bad news, our "Productivity problem" is going to get worse.

If your measure of productivity is GDP/capita, then with an aging population and the number of people not working going up that is going to make it work.

As we grow, we are going to have more people working in the service sector vrs natural resources. Those are lower margin labour intensive businesses that contribute less per capita to GDP that say oil exports.

I am all for increasing the number of people working in manufacturing and limiting the exports of unprocessed raw materials, however that is not the direction we are going in.

Productivity is output per worker. The aging population should have a minimal effect on productivity. Actually it should be going up as the workforce shrinks and companies have to invest in technology or reduce marginal activities.

Trudeau's immigration policies have a lot to do with the productivity problem, the easy access to strip mall students and TFLs discourages companies from becoming more productive by investing in technology, etc.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by casper

I am all for [...] limiting the exports of unprocessed raw materials

Why?

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by casper

I will give you the bad news, our "Productivity problem" is going to get worse.

If your measure of productivity is GDP/capita, then with an aging population and the number of people not working going up that is going to make it work.

As we grow, we are going to have more people working in the service sector vrs natural resources. Those are lower margin labour intensive businesses that contribute less per capita to GDP that say oil exports.

I am all for increasing the number of people working in manufacturing and limiting the exports of unprocessed raw materials, however that is not the direction we are going in.

The solution to low productivity is not more people (except maybe in few targeted areas) but more technology and streamlined processes. AI will also help.